Logos/Pathos/Ethos

In every argumentative essay; there are three common points established. The principals of Logos; facts, data, and analytical reasoning, Pathos; the emotional aspect and appeal of an argument, and Ethos; the ethics, morality, and character credibility of the presenter.
I regularly partake in writing documents to argue for or against particular points; one of the most recent and prominent examples was regarding the American Slave Trade, in which the discussion called for defending, opposing, or qualifying slavery itself during the American Slave Trade
My style of argumentative essays follows a basic format; utilize four paragraphs to introduce, explain, argue, and conclude the following argument. Within the essay itself, the elements of Logos are most prevalent (such as going over the economic effects of slavery with the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish building their economies and empires off it), while Pathos and Ethos are used on the sidelines in the form of rhetorical questions.
Since debating, arguing, and comparing papers with other peers, I found that many use similar arguments focusing on Pathos and Ethos, with the human element of slavery (such as slave conditions on the ships and treatment of slaves in the deep south) having the most sway and influence in their essays and regularly putting logical or factual statements off to the side.
With this in mind; I have some questions for the people browsing Sup Forums,
>Do you focus on Logos, Pathos, or Ethos most in an argument?
>Does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
>If so, how does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
>If your ideology switched from one to the other after formal education, how did your formatting of the arguments change?
>In your opinion, does an essay that focuses on Logos as a mainpoint have more swaying power compared to one that appeals to Pathos or Ethos or vice versa?

I am interested in your answers.

Holy shit write me a book

Okay then.
>Do you focus on Logos, Pathos, or Ethos most in an argument?
I primarily focus on the Logos side of the argument, and place Ethos and Pathos on the sidelines through the form of rhetorical questions and other literary and rhetorical terms. In my mind's eye, the logic behind an argument overpowers the emotional or ethical side of the argument by itself; however, it is best used in conjunction with the subject argument matter if the opposing side utilizes Pathos/Ethos with Logos on the sideline.
>Does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
To a fair extent; but not too much.
>If so, how does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
One of the social ideologies that I follow through is to follow the logical elements of all subject matter. It is not mutally exclusive to the left or right, rather it is a mixture of both to criticize elements from modern and ancient history from an objective viewpoint.
>If your ideology switched from one to the other after formal education, how did your formatting of the arguments change?
It did not.
>In your opinion, does an essay that focuses on Logos as a mainpoint have more swaying power compared to one that appeals to Pathos or Ethos or vice versa?
The Logos argument has the most convincing power in terms of my own ideals, reasoning, and standpoints. The emotional and ethical side of an argument is an important one, but in terms of what I believe has the most influence and power over a reasoning and decision, the Logos side of the argument always wins out over the emotional or ethical side of it.
Okay It is your turn.

>>Do you focus on Logos, Pathos, or Ethos most in an argument?
Ethos, then Logos. Pathos is the low-hanging fruit of argument, but you do need all three.
>>Does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
How in the fuck do you expect an honest answer to that? Anyways, yes, of course that applies to everyone.
>>If so, how does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
Society has been indoctrinated to have kneejerk, automatic responses to Pathos. It is the crutch that allows so many to refuse to confront reality. So any argument that hinges on Pathos goes right into the trash, as far as I'm concerned.
>>If your ideology switched from one to the other after formal education, how did your formatting of the arguments change?
What a leading, pretentious question. Hush with that shit. 90% of everything I know about non-technical pursuits is in spite of my "formal education." And nothing I learned in HS or the fancy private college I went to had much impact on my views.
>>In your opinion, does an essay that focuses on Logos as a mainpoint have more swaying power compared to one that appeals to Pathos or Ethos or vice versa?
Compared to Pathos? Often. Compared to Ethos? Not really. Again, the best arguments are going to use all three.

Good luck with your finals assignment, kiddo.

>>Do you focus on Logos, Pathos, or Ethos most in an argument?
Logos, Pathos if I'm feeling more poetic.
>>Does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
Yes. I prefer a more direct and pragmatic approach.
>>If so, how does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
Read above.
>>If your ideology switched from one to the other after formal education, how did your formatting of the arguments change?
I used to give way more into Pathos. Once I started reading and learning about reason and science I decided to focus primarily on the facts and let reason speak for itself with me as its vessel.
>>In your opinion, does an essay that focuses on Logos as a mainpoint have more swaying power compared to one that appeals to Pathos or Ethos or vice versa?
Only with rational people.

I would an equal focus on Logos or Ethos. From my experiences Pathos is only useful at invigorating people that already agree with you, and when Logos is used exclusively, people that disagree with you will shut you out.

Yes. I was vaguely right wing surrounded by fervent leftists my whole life, in order to keep myself from getting dog piled instantaneously I had to present myself as agreeing with them or feigning disinterest in the topic at hand.


My ideology shifted around in college, I never was a hardcore lefty. I just sort of shifted between soft libertarian and paleoconservative. I used to focus more on pathos, then I realized the fundamental basis of my beliefs and the beliefs of those I was arguing against were vastly different.

You need all three friendo. I consider my lack of pathos a weak point, but in general if you can only have one, Logos. Logos>Ethos>Pathos

You think to be' slick but...

>Ethos, then Logos. Pathos is the low-hanging fruit of argument, but you do need all three.
Interesting, you put the ethics of the argument first ahead of the logistics or emotional element of it. Is there a particular reason you follow that formatting?
>How in the fuck do you expect an honest answer to that? Anyways, yes, of course that applies to everyone.
Depending on how a person structures their argument and what they focus on, it can change whether or not a personal bias would be a major standing point within the essay. A person who focuses on Logos for example would probably have ideology less prevalent than one who focuses on Pathos or Ethos.
>Compared to Pathos? Often. Compared to Ethos? Not really. Again, the best arguments are going to use all three.
I would like to know your reasoning behind focusing on Ethos primarily; does your argument structure change depending on the subject matter being covered or does it remain mostly consistent?

Non-decentralized thinktank mining Sup Forums users for what makes them tick senses are tingling. Do not advise engaging. Do not advise capitulation. Do not advise participating. That is all.

I don't get it.
That does not really contribute, I am always up for discussion regarding Logos, Pathos, and Ethos though.

Because I don't care how solid the information you present me is, I don't care how good of an emotional appeal you have on your side- in terms of persuasive speaking and debate, your argument is dead the minute I don't think I can trust what you say (ie I think you're legitimately a liar, I think you're hiding information from me, basically anything being less than truthful and transparent about the information more than petty ad hom) for any given reason because your argument in its entirety needs to shift to repairing that persuasive trust, so to speak, instead of actually proving your original point. It's unfortunately not optional to do so, either, because not repairing your ethos in a debate only silently confirms the accusations being leveled against your credibility.

>Interesting, you put the ethics of the argument first ahead of the logistics or emotional element of it. Is there a particular reason you follow that formatting?
Arguments are not ideas floating in the ether. Something is actively trying to convince you of something. Ignoring whatever motivations of that something is the best way of letting yourself be manipulated.
>Depending on how a person structures their argument and what they focus on, it can change whether or not a personal bias would be a major standing point within the essay. A person who focuses on Logos for example would probably have ideology less prevalent than one who focuses on Pathos or Ethos.
If you say so. That sounds like wishful thinking, though. Across the spectrum, I've met probably equal amounts of people who favor each.
>I would like to know your reasoning behind focusing on Ethos primarily; does your argument structure change depending on the subject matter being covered or does it remain mostly consistent?
Of course it changes. The audience dictates that. As for ethos, remember it is not just the ethics of the argument, it's the nature of the speaker. Selection bias can make Logos irrelevant. Pathos is the manipulation of our capacity for emotion. Ethos takes diligence and integrity to construct, and it's not as easily distorted to a thinking audience.

>Non-decentralized thinktank mining Sup Forums users for what makes them tick senses are tingling. Do not advise engaging. Do not advise capitulation. Do not advise participating. That is all.
It's probably a college student writing a paper, newfriend.

To be honest; I rarely focus on the Pathos in regards to historical analysis outside of occasional rhetorical questions. There is often times too much intersection between modern ethics and emotions and the historical times for Pathos to have that much merit outside of rhetorical questions. I agree with focus on Logos and Ethos though; that argument structure is often time stronger and more credible than a Logos-Pathos or Ethos-Pathos structure.

>that argument structure is often time stronger and more credible than a Logos-Pathos or Ethos-Pathos structure.
Ethos-Pathos is just structured imo to be as manipulative as possible by its very nature.

Logos-Pathos for debates when you intend on gaining support
Ethos-Logos for when you genuinely wish to convince someone of something
Pathos-Ethos for when you are talking to someone you pretty much already agree with and want to get them invigorated

In historical analysis, logos should pretty much be the end all, be all of argumentation.

Sort of, but you forget the whole point of pathos is to excite people and the whole point of ethos is to convince people you can be trusted. I don't consider it to be malevolently manipulative to give an impassioned speech at a rally of supporters. I mean in theory, all forms of persuasion is just a way to manipulate people

Rarest of merchant

It all depends on the target audience. An example: females care significantly less about logos than pathos.

Fuck off nigger you're on Sup Forums, the one who wins the argument is the first one to call the other a virgin or a soyboy because stormfronters are fucking retarded

Go to /trash/ or /m/ if you want a real discussion

That is an understandable viewpoint, I can see where your reasoning comes from and why you follow it. I will try and integrate some of those policies into my future arguments.

Bump. I uses Logos and ethos

Best of luck. I'm glad to have offered a different perspective.

A combination of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos seems to be the general concensus for how arguments are structured, with more emphasis on Logos and Ethos than Pathos.
gave his reasoning on focusing more on Ethos and multiple users have stated that all three terms should be used to give the most merit and support an argument. This is great to know, but how do you personally utilize Pathos in your arguments? I utilize Pathos in the form of rhetorical questions as occasional points for the reader or listener to think about the previous point and prepare for the next one with comprehensive perspective, but how and what literary tools do you utilize Pathos in your arguments?

A combination of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos seems to be the general concensus for how arguments are structured, with more emphasis on Logos and Ethos than Pathos.
gave his reasoning on focusing more on Ethos and multiple users have stated that all three terms should be used to give the most merit and support to an argument. This is great to know, but how do you personally utilize Pathos in your arguments? I utilize Pathos in the form of rhetorical questions as occasional points for the reader or listener to think about the previous point and prepare for the next one with comprehensive perspective, but how and what literary tools do you use to utilize Pathos in your arguments?

>>Do you focus on Logos, Pathos, or Ethos most in an argument?

I used to focus exclusively on logos, but I found that far too combersome and unwieldy... I don't really use logos, pathos, or ethos in my arguments nowadays...

I just construct phrases and images that destructively short-circuit cognitive dissonance.

It's not really an argument technique, but more of a targeted destruction of the listeners incorrect perspectives and beliefs, due to the constant propagandizing of individuals in this world.

This cognitive dissonance is basically everywhere in this world, and since many of the things that people believe are true, simply aren't, but have been force fed to them since they were young through various instinctual/emotional zero-day exploits... it is possible to find the inherent contradictions in their beliefs, and make them fight against eachother.

>>Does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?
>If so, how does your social or political ideology influence how you structure your argument?

No, I tailor my "Arguments" for the particular audience, I have had to develop very quick and accurate psychological analysis capacities.

>>If your ideology switched from one to the other after formal education, how did your formatting of the arguments change?

As explained above, I don't really use arguments anymore, I just attack cognitive dissonance directly.

That, and I teach about various related subjects here on Sup Forums. (Counter-Propaganda, Shill identification, tactics, counter-psyops, social engineering, etc)

>>In your opinion, does an essay that focuses on Logos as a mainpoint have more swaying power compared to one that appeals to Pathos or Ethos or vice versa?

It depends entirely on your intended audience and the subject matter.

Some argument tactics work well against some people, but not well against other people.

The same is true for the topic...

(continued)

continued...

Some topics are best argued using logos, while other topics are best argued using pathos or ethos... and even that can depend entirely upon the individual listener.

This. Style is a prison. Your form should be like water - stronger than steel, can change shape to fit any container, and slip from grasp.