Commentary on controversial issue

I chose the death penalty as my controversial issue, which I myself have a view on.
The character of the first blogger, Jonathan, comes across as a more sophisticated man with strong moral views, against the death penalty. He starts off in a formal manner with 'firstly', showing he knows how to begin a piece of writing, compared to the second character Brodus who starts off seemingly in an angry manner with a rhetorical sentence. Furthermore, the use of the shock statistics that Jonathan instantly uses is a feature that would grip the reader almost immediately, possibly then favouring his side of the argument. A man who isn't religious but was brought up by a sophisticated family and private school, it is clear to see as Jonathan uses a formal language and way of writing, and includes good vocabulary and ways of putting his ideas across to the reader in a persuasive, informative manner, such as the use of rhetoric questions and vocabulary such as the death penalty being hailed as 'absurd', furtherly emphasising his clear thoughts on the issue. It is clear to identify the primary purpose of the text as Jon is really trying to persuade and inform the readers, who I would believe to be people of the same social class or age as he is, to take his side of the argument and make them understand the stupidity and cruelty that Jon thinks the death penalty carries.

Alongside talking of the preposterousness of the death penalty, he includes the effects it has on the people designated to the killing of the criminals, which scientifically does have effects such as PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), which again could influence the reader to take his side of the argument. From this, the reader gains an understanding that he is a man who puts as much effort and passion into his posts due to the fact he thoroughly researches into the issue. Ending with a slight conclusion adds to the already established points that he is a sophisticated and formal writer. He also uses educated facts to help convey his point of view, 'Or the killing is against the Hippocratic Oath to preserve a life?' This suggests that he is well educated and has made sure he gets enough facts to help prove his point. 
This is a very different approach to the one Brodus took on trying to convey his message, by using direct address when addressing the fact that offenders can not re-offend when they are on death row, 'this could help stop them attacking people in your life.' This is effective as it makes people think of the possible dangers of when a convicted murderer is out of prison and how easily they could re-offend, pushing them to think that the death penalty effectively protects their family. The use of direct address here 'attacking people in your life' acts as a point of threat to the reader, in such a way that the reader's loved ones are possibly at risk of an attack as a direct result of the criminals release from prison. 

The second blogger, Brodus, is a young proud American who takes pride in the fact that their country is one of few who still use the death penalty in this modern era. He is a well known blogger in America for the strong points of view he expresses. The views in this blog are a slight similarity of my views of the death penalty, the view that proven murderers should not have the right to live if they have taken away someone else's life, but my views are not as strong and abrupt as his. Using the phrase 'It is in everyone's right mind to believe that the person guilty should pay the price and consequently lose his or her life' From saying this it makes readers feel they are idiots if they don't feel the same due to the phrase 'everyone's right mind'. His primary purpose of the blog is to, like Jonathan, persuade his readers to concur with his reasons. 

Although the blog is written in continuous prose, this piece of writing doesn't include the level of grammar and vocabulary of which Jonathan uses, showing the difference of academic writing ability of the two men. Compared to the formal and moral stance that Jonathan has, Brodus comes across as a man who doesn't care what others think of his views, as he puts his points across in a seemingly angered manner, constantly stating that murderers on death row deserve what is coming to them and do not deserve to live any more. Different readers may take this in different ways; similar men and women like him (especially Americans) may feel passionate about the controversial views he displays in the blog, whereas people in the same category of people as Jonathan -  more sophisticated, possibly higher class - may feel that his points are totally deplorable, and do not take into account Human Rights.