Response to Debates – Ancient Rhetoric

Response to Debates – Ancient Rhetoric
Rome has one of the richest histories of the world due to her important conquests and subsequent expansion of the empire. The Roman Empire was the world superpower regarding economically. The empire comprised more than 20 of the world population and occupied a land area that is currently hosting 48 nations. However, debates on the Roman Empire continue to take part. The paper is a response to a debate on whether Rome conquered it neighboring cities through defensive or offensive techniques. The debate takes place in the Roman parliament with the debaters comprising the Roman president and the senators. Evidently, from the debate, Roman Empire used offensive tactics to defeat rival troops and acquire their land. The Roman army was strong but also faced strong neighbors, which necessitated her army to attack first to deter the enemies from doing so.
The debaters make good use of the three modes of persuasion. President Lucius uses Pathos to gain his listeners credibility and show good intention. He introduces himself as the Roman two-term president. It is a good thing that a president is addressing the audience since he would sound more authentic than the senators in the house. In opposition, Senator Paris uses logos to appeal to the audience. She documents how the state of affairs was and how the Roman government had to defend themselves from the enemies otherwise the country would have been acquired by them. She also uses Pathos to eliminate the audience’s judgmental tendencies.

She introduces herself to the audience by calling them her fellow Romans and expresses her joy in serving a great nation. However, the president can mix both pathos and logos in his speech thereby convincing the audience that indeed, the Romans were offensive to their enemies and not defensive as argued by some of the senators.
The six parts of speech in the ancient rhetoric are also well-expressed in the debate. The president has an appealing exordium, which makes the audience more attentive. He remarks that he is a two-time president and only 35 years old, which is an achievement. He then progresses to the narratio by stating the course of the debate, which is the Wars waged by the Roman on their enemies. He also touches on the oppositions and downplays their arguments thereby introducing the divisio. The confirmatio section of his argument is the part where he gives an example of a war started by the Romans and how it led to the defeat of the enemy and acquisition of land and slaves. Evidently, such a move is offensive and not defensive as stated by the opponents. On top of giving the example, he states the importance of the offensive tactics of the Roman and the positive outcome of the now formidable Roman state. It amounts to his refutatio that if it were otherwise, then the Roman would not have achieved such success. Finally, he extends his conclusio by describing the current Rome and how it is a product of the Roman army offensive tactics. Following the presence of all components of speech in the argument, made it a winning one.
Rhetoric devices are also extensively used in the debate. The president uses dubitatio immediately after the exordium. He says that he does not know much about wars apart from what he has led in the book and what the scholars have discussed. However, such a statement appeals to the audience as it knows that the president knows what he wants to talk about. He also uses interrogatia, which is paramount in enabling reflection of the listeners. The senator, on the other hand, uses Polyptoton for emphasis when she says that the ‘some of these people are citizens and some of them are slaves.’ She also uses isocolon appropriately, which aids in the understandability of her arguments. However, despite the use of the rhetoric devices by the senator, her argument does not provide sufficient proof that the Roman army was defensive.
The performance of the two presentations is varied albeit in a good way. However, the performance of the president is more composed, which represents vocal cultivation. When the voice is composed, so is the individual hence the ability to argue out his point effectively. The speaker knows the right words to use and how they should be disseminated to the audience. The arrangement of argument is right, emotional appeal is sufficient and sticks within the topic. The transformation of language as the argument progresses also enables him to front the winning debate that the Romans took an offensive tactic in their expansion wars.
In conclusion, the ancient rhetoric is expertly used in the debate on the tactics employed by the Roman army during wars and her subsequent conquests. The debates fronted by both the parts follow the parts of speech and rhetoric devices. The debate determines that the Roman army used offensive tactics to win over the enemies armies and acquire the land. The president uses the modes of persuasion effectively to show that indeed the Roman army was offensive. If the army had waited for the enemies to attack for them to defend, most likely, they would have lost in the battles.