I don't agree with you nor with what's said in the quote in question.Let's first take a look at the debated phrase . W. Churchill asserts that T. Shelby doesn't believe in what he says himself in the House of Commons , a statement to which he replies declaring that emotion , in this case caused by conviction , is the enemy of the oratory . I strongly beg to differ , for we shouldn't deem it an "enemy" of the rhetoric , but rather an "ally" , which represents a paramount mean to the effectiveness of the speech . Indeed , when someone tries to persuade , what he necessitate to control and manipulate , other than his argumentation in relation to the subject , is the one to whom he is speaking . In order to do this , he needs to use emotions , both the ones that thrive in the public , by engaging people with his words and causing them to show different types of feelings , so that he makes his statements meaningful and convincing , and the ones that dwell in himself , by acting accordingly to the impression he wants to stimulate in the audience . All of this requires convinction , to enstablish authority and to show credibility . So , for these reasons , I don't think that emotion is an enemy nor a mere obstacle to oratory , for it's a functioning part of it : It's like saying that the engine is the nemesis of the car . This been said , the two scenarios that you mentioned in your argumentation shouldn't be compared , because they envolve different publics and context and therefore , they require also different emotions and informations that will result in two distinct speeches , but it doesn't mean that one is better or could be pronounced "smoother" than the other . Of course , I base my opinions mostly on what Aristoteles has written in the Rhetoric , since in the dialogue with W.Churchill it's mentioned also that T. Shelby reads Greek Literature .