The debate that I watched was defiantly something that could touch on an ethical issue. They were proposing a research strategy to make a laser that would be able to shoot missals out of the air if we were to go to war anytime soon. The thing is, is war even ethical? I cannot answer that question, but instead, I would like to look at the ethical values that can be placed in the situation of the rhetor.
First I would like to define ethics. What are they and how were they ever formed? Ethics as defined by the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary are; the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation, a set of moral principles or values, and a theory or system of moral values. When applied to the use of human subjects in research, good ethics requires that each subject be fully informed as to the purpose of the research before they consent to participate. The second definition I would like to disclose is Rhetoric. By definition Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Rhetoric as defined by the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is; the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion, a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language, and verbal communication. Through the use of well-crafted language, students learned about the techniques of oral expression and strategies of debate. Historically, the study of Rhetoric emphasized the arrangement of words and phrases, the techniques of delivery, the importance of style and invention, and the cultivation of memory. In Ancient Greece, Rhetoric was a discipline that was stressed by the early philosophers including Plato.The rhetor of the debate made it clear of what the team (team one, the Government) was going to talk about.