Groups B and E went at each other in their second debate about whether or not Euphiletus was a guilty man or not for killing Eratosthenes, the man who was sleeping with his wife. Group B’s job was to defend Euphiletus, while Group E on the other hand found him guilty in their arguments. Both logos and pathos were used heavily by both sides of the debate; however, when ethos was used, it was very effective.
Group B, the first to debate, started out with Elatos (Elicia). Elatos was a lower middle class man who did not have much ethos. His strongest debate point was that of logos, because he argued that Euphiletus had no reasons to kill Eratosthenes for money. He stated, “once your wife has been corrupted, you lose the respect from your fellow citizens, and no amount of money will fix it.” While Elatos is just a lower middle class man, he does have a good point.
The third debator in Group B, Marandus (Maranda) had great diction as well as poise. He was one of the few people in the debate to use strong ethos. He was an Athenian man who, like Euphiletus, was as a victim to Eratosthenes’ corruption. He stated, “Eratosthenes has repeatedly stalked and ruined marriages.” His own wife was shamed by Eratosthenes and is the worst example for the young men of Athens. This was a good use of logos to
…show more content…
The second debater in their group did have some good points, however. Laurentos (Chacyn) the second debater, started his speech by simply stating, “It was murder.” This is was a grabbing and effective line for the audience because of its direct implications. Laurentos was just a farmer; however, he was also a witness to the scene. This gave his words credibility and drew the audience in. He retold the whole story; however, represented Euphiletus is a very bad light stating how he had tortured the slave girl and would only believe one story. Laurentos was by far Group E’s best debater, simply because of his ethos and arguments