Socrates, a famous ancient Greek philosopher, is described as ridiculous in Aristophanes' Clouds but also thoughtful in Plato's Republic. In the first case, he directs a thought that educates students, and when Pheidippides signs up, the just and unjust discourses bicker over how best to teach him. In the latter, a young man named Thrasymachus debates with Socrates. Both are arguments about justice versus injustice; however, in The Clouds, Unjust Speech, who advocates injustice, wins, while in The Republic, Socrates, who advocates justice, comes out on top. The main similarities between the two arguments are rhetoric and conviction; winning teams employ similar techniques, while losing teams both fail to demonstrate strong conviction in their arguments. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Through anecdotal arguments, the winning parties in both conflicts refute each argument put forward by their opponent. In The Clouds, Unjust Speech uses argumentation by anecdote to prove its points. He argues that Heracles, the man Just Speech claims "no man is better than" (Clouds 1050), is associated with natural hot springs and therefore cold baths, which Just Speech claims "are the worse and make man cowardly” ( Clouds 1046), cannot be truly unjust. Unjust Speech then states that spending time in the market is not a mistake, because "if he were a villain, Homer would never have made Nestor an orator" (Clouds 1056-1057), referring to The Iliad. Unjust Speech then demands anecdotal evidence from Just Speech by asking, "Who have you ever seen something good happen to because you're a moderate?" Speak and refute me, saying to whom” (Clouds 1061 – 1062). Just Speech takes up the challenge and nominates Peleus, who received a sword from the god Hephaestus for being fair. However, Unjust Speech points out that Peleus was ultimately unhappy, as his wife subsequently abandoned him (Clouds 1064-1069). Similarly, in The Republic, Socrates refutes Thrasymachus' arguments by presenting anecdotal arguments. When Thrasymachus accuses Socrates of being willfully illogical, Socrates responds: “If we were looking for gold, we would never willingly give way to one another in the search and ruin our chances of finding it; so do not think that when we seek justice, something more precious than a large quantity of gold, we would foolishly give in to one another and not be as serious as possible in bringing it to light. » (Republic 336th). He also recounts a hypothesis in which Thrasymachus asks someone how much twelve is, but refuses any answer containing an arithmetic expression equivalent to twelve (Republic 337b), in order to prove that Thrasymachus's standards for a "correct" answer make all the ineligible possibilities. . Through these anecdotes, Unjust Speech and Socrates effectively ground their arguments in concise, accessible, and engaging stories. Additionally, as it is the prosecutor's job to prove guilt in our legal system, it is the job of Just Speech and Thrasymachus. burden of demonstrating their righteousness. Right speech must prove that hot baths and markets are unfair, and that being “fucked” (Clouds 1084) is terrible. If he doesn't succeed, he loses. Thrasymachus must prove that justice is simply “the advantage of the strongest” (Republic 339a). In fact, it is suggested that these characters are somewhat aware of their burdens, as both arevisibly angrier and seemingly emotionally invested in the arguments. In The Clouds, Just Speech begins by passionately expounding all the virtues of justice in long blocks of verse. His responses diminish in length and frequency as the debate continues and the unfair discourse begins to refute each attack. Finally, when Just Speech realizes that everyone is "buggered", he reacts by throwing away his cape and running away, visibly upset by his new revelation (Clouds 1102 - 1104). On the other hand, Unjust Speech remains calm and level-headed. Similarly, in The Republic, when Thrasymachus enters the debate, he is described as "cowering like a wild beast" who "[throws himself]... as if to tear [Socrates] to pieces" (Republic 336b). Furthermore, instead of logically refuting Socrates' arguments, Thrasymachus resorts to ad hominem to prove his point, calling Socrates a "sycophant" (Republic 340d) and suggesting that he is "ironic" (Republic 337a) for posing questions but never give answers. Thrasymachus looks like an angry child and cannot be taken seriously. Once again, on the other hand, Socrates remains calm and rational, and he therefore clearly emerges victorious. While both Just Speech and Thrasymachus have more arduous tasks of proving their opponents wrong, rather than simply refuting criticism, their tense reactions lead to the collapse of their arguments. Finally, Just Speech and Thrasymachus fail to win their arguments as they themselves do. I don’t even really believe in it wholeheartedly. In The Clouds, Just Speech insists that injustice will lead to being "fucked", to which Unjust Speech responds: "And if he is fucked, what harm will he suffer?" (Clouds 1085). Just Speech cannot provide a satisfactory answer; rather, he insists that being a "motherfucker" is the greatest evil, but has difficulty explaining why. If he really believed that being a 'bugger' was such a terrible thing, he should be able to explain the reasons why he thought so. Unjust Speech then introduces different groups of people, such as public defenders and tragedians, and shows them being fucked up. As Just Speech realizes, the majority of people are fucked up, and yet they don't seem to be in any visible pain. So, he adopts a follow-the-herd mentality and throws away his coat, shouting “I’m deserting to [the debauched]!” » (Clouds 1104). Thus, right speech has never really been against injustice from a moral point of view; rather, he refrained from committing injustices because he was afraid of the consequences, so once the consequences turned out to be milder than expected, he changed his mind. Similarly, in The Republic we see that Thrasymachus also focuses on the consequences of injustice rather than intrinsic moral values. He insists that “injustice is profitable” (Republic 348c) and that individuals should logically fight for injustice because it will benefit them more. Socrates pushes him to recognize that “the unjust man [is] ignorant and bad” (Republic 350c). He does so, but blushes as he agrees, implying that while he believes in injustice on an intellectual level, he is not completely behind it emotionally. Another example is when Thrasymachus refuses to oppose Socrates, “so as not to irritate these men here” (Republic 352b). If Thrasymachus fully believed in the necessity of committing injustice, he would not care about harming others or the opinions of others; these cases reveal that he still has some obligation to justice. Therefore, Just Speech and Thrasymachus both lose their arguments because they cannot defend.