Civil but Keen Debate

It seems to me that many of us are noticing a parallel between Erasmus and Martin Luther and modern day politics.  While there is a healthy debate between the two, I notice a bit more cordiality and respect than in our modern political debates.  That increased respect of the other’s free will seems to me a lot more in tune with the humanistic respect of other’s will.  I would say that they were much more humanistic than our modern politicians in that regard.  With such lines like, “My reading of Martin Luther’s Assertion was quite unprejudiced, except that I felt towards him a favor such as a lawyer feels towards a hard pressed defendant,” it's hard to feel that they are ‘mud-slinging’ their opponent.  Perhaps I idealize their debate with old fashioned chivalry, but I sincerely do not feel that they had a burning hatred of one another, rather a civilized yet keen disagreement. 

Don't get me wrong, I will say that they do let loose with both barrels in their rhetorical debate and systematic dismantling of the other’s argument.  Luther begins his refutations by presenting Erasmus’ points and then very meticulously pulls them apart.  While I still say they were cordial in their disagreement, they were very passionate and determined in their own viewpoint.  The very ordered manner in which they counter and counter again their opponent shows the Renaissance’s mark of rhetorical debate.  In the end however, it appears the Luther has the upper hand, because he is more aggressive and direct in his arguments for his own vision of free will.  Luther’s argument is also a voice for the common people and thereby gains much more support than Erasmus’ more exclusionary view.  In difference with Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony, Luther gains the opinion of the people with ethical rhetorical debate than inciting them up as a mob.