How to defeat your opponent

One of the more interesting aspects of this debate in terms of Renaissance rhetoric is how Erasmus and Martin Luther each address his opponent. Obviously different types of debates and different subjects of debate require different approaches, but at least present-day debates seem to have a basic set of rules to control the atmosphere and allow reason to dominate. Analyzing the two debaters from this earlier time period makes me think that either a couple of these seemingly apparent rules were either nonexistent or ignored.

For example, Martin Luther just seems plain rude. He gives out backhanded compliments at every opportunity and basically calls Erasmus ignorant more than once. At times I wondered if he was opposing Erasmus himself rather than Erasmus's arguments. Erasmus, on the other hand, had a much more mellow tone of voice and even appeared to acknowledge his own lack of understanding. He also seemed to be concerned for the implications of misunderstanding doctrine by appealing to reason, whereas Luther seemed to be appealing more to emotion.

The audience choice was another striking difference between the two. Again Luther was very focused on Erasmus. Every comment was directed at Erasmus with the motive of trying to convince Erasmus of his viewpoints. Erasmus addressed the general public with Luther in mind. He seemed to be interested in converting followers rather than converting the opposing side's leader. There may have been a practical reason for this. Luther apparently was more popular and had no need to obtain more followers. The next step up would be to bring down the opposing side completely. Erasmus recognized this, so he was focused on drawing more support from the people. These decisions show how rhetoric had to be properly used for a given circumstance to gain the upper hand.