Burke and Paine have completely opposite views on the French Revolution. Burke sees the Revolution as a "strange chaos... of all sorts of crimes jumbled together..." whereas Paine sees it as not a revolution against the King "but against the despotic principles of the government." Burke thinks the Revolution is unnecessary and violent. Paine thinks it is a just and due cause.
As Burke quoted himself "Non satis est pulchra esse peomata, dulcia sunto" or "It is not enough that poems be beautiful, they must also be sweet Horace)." He gave an elaborate prediction of the violence the Revolution could bring about. People want to listen to intriguing stories over cold hard reasoning. Paine stuck to his "Nu-uh's" for all that Burke had to say rather than proposing topics independently. Mind you, Paine had some good come backs.
It is common sense in modern time that all men (and women) are equal and united. However it used to be quite the opposite. Through Paine's writing he brought out the reasoning we take for granted. There is no distinction between the rights of men and women in "God created he him; male and female created he them." There is "a unity of man." The people had the right to rebel against an illogical government.
Personally, I believe Burke's argument is more persuasively appealing regarding the French Revolution, however Paine's argument is more logical and reasonable. Burke independently formed all of his points of argument, whereas Paine spent most of his writing simply opposing all that Burke had proposed. Both presented their cases as they saw fit and both cases were heard.