- Tags:
- Show more
- Pages:
- 3
- Words:
- 825
This paper is a response to the debate between group 3 and group 6 on the moral role of the gladiators in Roman arena sports. It is an analysis of how the participants argued and how well they brought out their ideas. Group 3 was in support of the opinion that there is no moral problem in gladiatorial games, group 6 on the other side argued that gladiator fights should be discontinued. According to them, these gladiator fights are morally irreprehensible. Several attributes (of ancient rhetoric) of public speaking were common while others were not well brought out throughout the debate. In terms of persuading the audience, all members of group 6 did quite well in applying modes of persuasion. These modes are ethos, pathos, and logos. Group 6 started by trying to convince the audience how they value good morals and thus against the gladiator fights. They argued that the fights somehow contribute to moral decay to the society. The group argued that there are so much nudity and violent fights and killings which the society is warming up to and if not stopped they could reach uncontrollable levels. By doing this, the group created credibility for itself on why the audience should listen to them. This is ethos mode of persuasion. Group 6 tried to convince the audience by engaging it in logical reasoning. Group 3 applied questions such as; what would happen if the gladiators use their skills and numbers to turn against us? Are they not a threat to our security? Well, this definitely got the persons in the audience thinking of the consequences if this was the case. This is logos mode of persuasion which was well depicted here. The group also did well in eliciting anger feelings
Leave feedback