The pro side consisted of Magdiel who was the Roman Senator, Valeria who was Livia wife of Augustus, Brooke the Roman poet, Chelsea the Roman equestrian businessman, Yanisse a veteran of Augustus’ army, and finally Emmanuel who was Gaius Maecenas. This side argued that censorship of the arts is warranted. Most of their points were believable, however some were controversial. Each speech tied together a full understanding of why this group believed this. A main point included that Augustus has been a great ruler and the citizens of Rome should agree with his plans. Their organization of how each person went was good since it started with the Roman Senator and facts, then as the speeches went on there was more emotion involved. Brooke decided to rebuttal after the con side went. She made a good point on how the censors have been in public office they have been modeling how we should act. Her rebuttal had other respectable points that allowed for more discussion in the debate. Overall, I thought the …show more content…
Using logos, ethos, and pathos her speech comes to life. Logos is used in this speech a good amount. She talks about how Augustus has allowed for a golden age of literature through his ruling. Augustus has introduced more reforms that have allowed Rome to become a greater Empire since he has become ruler. Ethos is used throughout the whole speech. She is a Roman poet, an artist. This is her career. Many artists are against the censorships of the arts; however, she isn’t. She wouldn’t be saying these things unless she truly meant it. Finally, there is pathos. As a writer, her duty is to preserve the arts, but she is for censorship of the arts. It couldn’t have been an easy decision to make. She portrayed her emotion through her voice and facial expressions. The emotion in her voice pulled the audience