Argumentative essay generation (AEG) is a complex task that requires advanced semantic understanding, logical reasoning, and organized integration of perspectives. Despite showing a promising performance, current efforts often overlook the dynamical and hierarchical nature of structural argumentative planning, and struggle with flexible rhetorical expression, leading to limited argument divergence and rhetorical optimization. Inspired by human debate behavior and Bitzer’s rhetorical situation theory, we propose a debate-driven rhetorical framework for argumentative writing. The uniqueness lies in three aspects: (1) dynamic assesses the divergence of viewpoints and progressively reveals the hierarchical outline of arguments based on a depth-then-breadth paradigm, improving the perspective divergence within argumentation; (2) simulates human debate through iterative defender-attacker interactions, improving the logical coherence of arguments; (3) incorporates Bitzer’s rhetorical situation theory to flexibly select appropriate rhetorical techniques, enabling the rhetorical expression. Experiments on four benchmarks validate that our approach significantly improves logical depth, argumentative diversity, and rhetorical persuasiveness over existing state-of-the-art models.