Last time I wrote about two different OP ED writers. Ria Mar whose writings found her way into the New York Times and an unnamed gentleman who wrote for the Washington Examiner. Lets take another look at these two arguments and delve a bit deeper. Sadly, last time we took a look at them through a very shallow way and just looked at what they were using and not the perspective they were taking and how they were persuading their audiences. Lets start by diving into Ria's article once more.
Ria takes her argument from the point of view that the government is discriminating against transgender students. Students that, until recently, were protected by the government and made to feel as normal students for once, and now without the support and protection from the government now feel confused and as if the government views them as different. By taking this approach she manages to belittle the argument that its not the governments job to decide on laws like that and instead relies on making sure that the readers are emotionally effected by her statistics and the way she describes how transgender students feel. By making her perspective one of emotions she makes it so that the arguments against her must be made through emotions as well or they wont hold up well if not at all. By appealing to her audience of the left with emotions she can make them upset but at the same time make them angry with Trump and the right and instead of being the argument herself she makes her audience the argument, or rather the force to go against any argument made against her claims.
The Washington Examiner gentleman on the other hand takes the perspective not of emotion but of where government has its power and whether or not the federal government has the power to make such laws or whether the local governments should instead have the power. By taking this perspective and argument tone of legal possibilities he can dismiss any claims made by emotion, or rather can ignore or try to belittle claims of emotion by instead using laws that were made hundreds of years ago and logic as well backing those laws. Both people argue from a very specific perspective where they know that their side would have the upper hand. If the right fought in the field of emotions they would lose and vice versa, so instead of trying to fight on another sides ground they stick to the argument that works best and sounds best for their side and once they strengthen their side they can attack the opposition with that same perspective where their opposition has little to no grounds. It is essentially a battle that takes place in emotions, pathos, or an argument that takes place in laws, logos.
Both sides appeal only to their side already, but in doing so they "rally the troops" to make sure that they have support whenever an argument is made against them.
