My first comment on someone’s post. Looking back at this argument not only did I avoid what they were actually talking about, my argument doesn’t have include anything to back it up, so it’s really quite lacking.

My second comment. This argument was more successful. His post is about morality, and my comment back was also about morality, which is an ethical appeal of an argument.

The response back to my response. His argument is true, and upon reading this comment it seemed to me as though this is not someone who was really going to be able to have his view changed. I think that posts such as this one are really hard to deal with from the point of view as someone who is trying to change their mind, because when is it every right to kill someone or something? Of course this subject is very complex. Note that in between the time of my first comment and my response back to him I earned a ∆. (I’m super proud of it).

This was someone’s argument about minimum wage for athletes.

This is my response. Using fact based knowledge I argued that if athletes deserved minimum wage, so did all other students because as students we all put in enormous efforts for a specific purpose. I also used a personal example of why I didn’t think this would make sense. So in this response I used the logos argumentative technique, and probably some ethos.

This is documentation of my first and only awarded delta so far. He liked my argument about minimum wage.

My response back.

These are my two posts. Notice that the one on top, my second post that I spent more time on in order to really make a good argument, is highly up-voted (89%) and has over 200 comments. My first post with an awful argument has only 10 up-votes (76%) and less than 100 comments.

First post.

Some of my first comments received.

More comments.

So this argument didn’t really end up going anywhere. Those are only a few of the 76 comments though.

This was my second post. My argument is much more clear, and I have included well supported evidence.