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.