All great orators have one thing in common: the perfect ability to use persuasive techniques to make a point. In William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, after Caesar's assassination, the nobleman and conspirator Brutus makes a speech announcing to the crowd the reasons for his betrayal and the defense of his actions. He is quickly followed by Caesar's unchanging ally, Mark Antony, who skillfully exposes the errors of Brutus' rationalization and inevitably convinces the crowd to rise up and attack the conspirators. Antony's speech was much more effective in persuading the masses thanks to the use of some persuasive techniques that were much more valuable than those of his opponent. While both Brutus and Mark Antony made sufficient use of techniques such as loaded words and repetition, Antony's advanced use of verbal irony and rhetorical questions helps make the audience understand his point much more than Brutus could ever have hoped to achieve. Both speakers make good use of loaded words and repetition, albeit for different purposes. Brutus and Mark Antony both commonly use loaded words like nobility and honor to support their claims. Brutus does this when he says, "believe me for my honor and have respect for my honor" (Act III. Scene 2. Line 4). Brutus is attempting to appeal to the masses by appearing genuine and righteous. Antony makes use of it when he mocks Brutus by saying, "who, as you all know, are men of honour" (Act III. Scene 2. Line 53). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe two speeches both repeat these loaded words over and over to reinforce their points. Brutus and Antony, by repeating these words, both manage to increase and lower their meaning and validity respectively. Although Brutus and Antony are on opposite sides of an argument, they both use the same techniques as a testament to the quality and effectiveness of these persuasive strategies. While both speeches share some similarities, there are some key differences that ultimately determine the winner. While Brutus was serious and arrogant, Antony used a lot of sarcasm and irony. Brutus expresses his seriousness by saying that Caesar deserved to die, “nor were his injuries enforced, for which he suffered death” (Act III. Scene 2. Lines 30-31). By speaking this way, Brutus distances himself from the people he is trying to bring to his side. Antony also used a much softer approach in recruiting his followers. This is shown when Antonio apologizes to the audience: “Be patient; my heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must stay until he returns to me” (Act III. Scene 2. Lines 32-34). By speaking in a much softer tone than Brutus, Antony makes himself much more attractive to his people. These differences are inevitably the reason why the validity of one discourse is questioned over that of another. Antonio presented the best argument based on the use of verbal irony and rhetorical questions. Antony made extremely better use of rhetorical questions in his argument. One such example is when he asks the fickle nature of the crowd, “what reason holds thee then, to weep for him” (Act III. Scene 2. Line 30). The use of rhetorical questions forces the audience to think and provokes them to join in your opinion. Antony also uses verbal irony numerous times in his argument, it being the vital point of his success. It falsifies Brutus' credibility as an attack on his character: “And, to be sure, he is an honorable man. I speak so as not to contradict what Brutus said. But here I am to tell you what I know.".