Commentary on Controversial topic 09/10/15

Commentary on Controversial topic

Both blogs are discussing the topic of capital punishment (more commonly known as 'the death penalty') which is a highly controversial topic so the target audience of these blogs are people who have strong opinions of this subject or are interested in learning more. Furthermore, the audience might be people who are following the blog so regularly read the posts no matter the subject. Both bloggers are adults and have been educated to quite a high standard and I have portrayed his by the fact that each blogger uses Standard English and sophisticated language. The high quality of English would surprise the receiver as they would expect blogs to be very informal but as they are not, their opinions seem more credible. However, the bloggers are young adults and I depicted this by the way the bloggers are arguing with each other and appear to dislike the fact that their opinions are going unheard which implies an air of immaturity. Despite this, Blogger 2 can be seen as more informal than Blogger 1 as they use contractions such as "couldn't". Blogger 2 could be doing this purposefully to make their blog seem more approachable and friendly as some audience could find too formal tests to be daunting or a possible source of humiliation if they cannot understand all the words.

Blogger 1's first publishment has a title "Crazy, Cuckoo Capital Punishment

The primary purpose of the blogs is to persuade their audience to agree with their point of view. Blogger 1 uses triplets such as "far, far, far" when describing their opinion. The repetition of "far" emphasises the preposition and ensures the sentence is memorable to the reader by making it stand out which implies that the sentence is important. I have made the text producer very passionate about the subject so they could be seen as admirable to the audience and they may repsect the text producer's views more. On the other hand, Blogger 2 uses cliche phrases such as "an eye for an eye" when describing their opinion. I did this because it makes the text seem more relatable to its receiver and ensures they will be able to understand Blogger 2's point of view clearly. Furthermore, the use of terminology the reader will be familiar and comfortable with will make the audience more likely to take Blogger 2's side as they seem more like a friend.

Even though the primary purpose of the blogs is to persuade the reader, the secondary purpose is to win the argument between the two blogs. Blogger 1 even quotes Blogger 2 "would you like to be responsible" and turns the phrase round to support their point. I did this because the use of the personal pronoun "you" indicates that the argument is much more personal and even though Blogger 1 is still trying to persuade the text receiver, they are also trying to persuade Blogger 2. The personal pronoun gives the text a more aggressive tone as Blogger 1 is purposefully singling out Blogger 2 and quoting their argument in a condescending manner. This aggressiveness starts a tonal shift in the way Blogger 2 writes; instead of using facts to back up their argument, Blogger 2 talks about their personal opinion in a rather aggrieved manner. For example, Blogger 2 talks about how "Losing a loved one is an awful event" and I wrote this because the text producer has had a personal experience with someone close to them being murdered. This means that Blogger 2 wrote about this topic because of lack of closure and want of revenge to their lost one because they are still grieving.

I used alliteration in both blogs to help make their points more effective. Blogger 1 uses the alliteration of "immoral, ignorant and inhumane". The repetition of sounds draws the reader's attention to the sentence which is also greater emphasised by the fact that it is also a triplet. The alliteration of the first letters of the words means that the only emphasis is on the first syllable of the words which shortens them and makes them sound crisp and snappy. Similarly, Blogger 2 uses the alliteration of "malicious, malevolent monsters" which is also a triplet. The alliteration of "malicious" and "malevolent" means the emphasis draws out the firsts syllable and makes it seem playful. However, "monsters" does not fit the pattern of sounds so the last word is emphasises because Blogger 2 has such a strong and negative opinion about murderers than they do no believe them to be huan anymore.

Additionally,in both blogs I also use rhetorical questions. Blogger 1 uses rhetorical questions such as "is this not the definition of the death penalty?" which is short and direct. The question is specifically about the topic the text producer is taking about and the rhetorical question appears to be directed at the target audience and ensures they question their opinion. It is a subjective question and therefore the text producer as purposefully made the tone expectant that the target audience agrees so the question is subtly persuading the audience to take their side. In comparison, Blogger 2 uses rhetorical questions when talking about why "innocent people have to pay to look after evil murderers" as the text producer believes they should be using the money, that they believe is wasted, on "themselves and their family". This rhetorical question is also attempting to make the audience question their own opinions on the subject; however, the sentence is very prolonged so loses the commanding tone and therefore it is less persuasive. This implies that the text producer is less experienced than Blogger 1 and could have allowed their personal feelings to influence their work. This is suggested by the fact that Blogger 2 is replying to Blogger 1's opinion so their answer could have been written in the heat of the moment and affected by emotions such as anger.