BritLit2

I find Thomas paine's arguement to be by far the most persuasive. He takes a very rational approach,the outcome of which is that Burke's arguement seems overwrought and too dramatic. Paine disposes of the idea that any governing body might beneficiently have all power for all time by pointing out the potential for abuse when power is concentrated in the hands of a ruler who answers to none. It also speaks to the absurdity of a static, unchangable system being effective for an as yet unborn posterity living in an unimagined future world. He also notes the problem of the death of a single ruler throwing a country into a nightmare of governance by committee, with none having the welfare of the populace at heart.

While Burke relies on very descriptive language and specific cases of horrors that quickly begin to reek of cheap sensationalism, Paine's rhetoric, though in complex sentence structure, yet reads more clearly in laying out the writer's intent. When Paine accuses Burke of being theatrical in his pamphlet, he doesn't miss by much. However, throughout most of his essay his tone comes across as fair, if not exactly neutral, which keeps it from sounding like sour grapes. Instead Paine points out instances of faulty reasoning and poor logic. He adds to this triumph of intellect over emotion by pointing out historical examples that support his assertions and discuss outcomes from both points of view. This not only gives him an air of being in tune with the events of the day and the feeling of the populace, it also serves as a sort of educational marker that Burke can't seem to meet.

This rhetorical techniques used in these arguments are still quite relevant today, with each side in any given dabate striving to show the flaws of the other. The idea of people preferring a better spoken leader who seems to be the better educated canidateis also a very current trend.