Arguments happen everyday in history and now a days. Weather the arguments come from speeches, debates, body language, or even a paper; they contribute to everyday life. These arguments can happen by audio or visual rhetorics which help to strengthen the argument and its purpose. Both Daniel H. Cohen and FDR use great rhetorics in their speeches, ethos and pathos, while keeping in mind the audiences they are speaking to. These two men both had a purpose in their speeches, weather it to argue the importance and ways of argument winning, or the future of the country. All are important in their own mind and by the end the audience to believe it. As a matter of fact, Danial H. Cohen’s argument pulled the audience in with his constant moving around. The constant moving around helped in the rhetorics because it made the audience focus more on him and what he was doing or saying. In his …show more content…
Considering in the time when he gave the speech, 1933, there were no real actually live feeds. His speech was recorded by someone and now listened to while looking at the one picture of FDR talking. He based his whole speech about America as a county and invoking trust and courage into the American people. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” FDR said this, invoking the ethos or character of a person and how they will react in the time of need. The language in FDR’s speech is a form of rhetoric that was only in its beginning stages, starting with a man who could persuade anyone to follow him as inspiration as he was. Circumstances felt in FDR’s speech are still relevant seeing as how one of the only things we have to fear is ourselves and what we can do. If everyone would just work together life would be easier. It also pertains to today because the rhetorics he used are used on a daily bases of life. The only difference would be now a days we have bigger, stronger weapons that can destroy