Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry had very different styles of delivering their arguments against the control that the British had over America. Both were persuasive and strongly worded, however, I believe that Thomas Paine's speech was much more influential on the people's decisions on going to war.
Thomas Paine's debate had a much greater fire and spiritedness that wasn't as evident in Patrick Henry's. He seems to have more of a drive and sureness, whereas Henry seems to be more reserved and polite. For example, when Paine is explaining his anger with Britain, he says, "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right...[to bind]... and if being bound in that manner, is nor slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon earth." This is a very brisk and to-the-point way of going about his argument.
Another aspect that makes Patrick Henry's argument not as persuasive as Paine's is the fact that he asks lots of questions to his listeners. This can be confusing for the audience, and it could inspire alternate ideas that conflict with his original debate. His politeness can also be confused with insecurity when he says things such as, "[Men] often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs." Henry is very courteous to those around him, but I feel that Thomas Paine would have made a greater impression with a dive headfirst into his speech.
Overall, Thomas Paine just made a huge delivery in his speech that Henry couldn't compare to. He utilized his persuading skills in all ways possible.
Word count: 289
