Moral Role Of the Gladiators in Roman Arena Sports

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 from the audience. They explained how the emperors are using these fights to keep the poor placated so that they do not notice the sickening conditions they are living in. This depicted how the emperors are using these fights as means to continue oppressing the poor. The group in a way had an influence on the emotions of the audience. This is pathos mode of persuasion.
Both groups did well in the arrangement of their presentation. They both started by introducing the group members after which they explained whether they are for or against these gladiator fights. This is exordium or the introductory part. Both groups did well in this part.
After the introductory part group, 6 gave a narrative of what the gladiator games are about and how they do not meet the moral credentials required for a modern society. This is narratio which is the second part in classical oration. However, group 3 did not do well in explaining their case in this part of classical oration. Each group, however, explained the consequences (bad or good accordingly) of these gladiator fights based on what they had explained (group 6) or what they believed in (group 3). This is partitio in classical oration. Both groups did well at this stage.
On confirmation, group 6 did well. They were able to explain their ideas logically on why they think these gladiator fights should be discounted. Their argument came out clearly and logically. They had strong points for their arguments. For example, they exemplified how the emperors are using these gladiator fights to keep the poor in the society placated so that they do not see the deplorable conditions they are living in and the case of gladiators seducing our wives. They also argued that the gladiators could use their skills to turn against and overthrow the empire and this is not good for our security. I can certainly state that group 6 did well at this stage of classical oration than group 3 whose points on supporting the continuation of the gladiator fights were not that strong and convincing.
Then the two groups engaged in counter arguments where each group tried to answer the questions of their opponent. This is the refutation stage of classical oration. In my opinion group, 6 outshone group 3 at this stage. Group 3 were unable to answer the key questions by group 6 while their questions were handled quite satisfactorily. After this stage, each group gave a concluding statement based on their arguments and beliefs. This is the conclusion stage of the classical oration.
Group 3 argued that the society has become bloody and consists of warlike people, so the society should embrace the gladiator fights and should not criticize them. This is hyperbole. It is an overstatement. I do not think our society is bloody and that we like war. Group 6 applied enumeration. They made points and gave details to support it. For instance, they argued that the deplorable conditions the poor are living in is a result of these fights. They stated that the conditions would continue as long as these gladiator fights are conducted. They view them as a way of the emperors to oppress the poor.
On performance, both groups used clear language which was compelling. Both groups also had a clear vocal presentation. The pronunciation and voice quality was good.