Persuasion: Kroll vs. Mencken

I personally was not affected, nor was I persuaded by either Kroll or Mencken's article. While Mencken appealed more to logos, Kroll appealed to pathos. I am more of a pathos person, but I also had to look at the other side. Kroll completely avoids the fact of what Harris did. He never mentions what Harris did to put him the position that he was in. After research, I found that what Harris did was completely unforgivable and he deserved to be executed. While Kroll did a good job appealing to pathos and persuasion, he was not logical, nor was he rational at all. Avoiding a complete side of the story ruins the whole appeal. For me, this almost counteracted his initial view and point, and made me argue against him. He also came from the viewpoint of Harris's friend, which automatically creates bias. One must overlook bias to see what is fact. Mencken's article then appealed to logos; however, his argument was not very strong. While I respected his viewpoint, he did not seem to have any impact on what I believe (although I am for the death penalty, anyways). Were I against the death penalty though, Mencken's article would certainly not have persuaded me to be for the death penalty. His arguments were weak and he did not support his arguments completely. Therefore, neither Kroll's article, nor Mencken's article persuaded me in either direction.