My three primary sources in response to the fold of
WUSA where each of a different medium. The first was a news article, constructed with objectivity, the second was an editorial, flourishing-no-practically drowning in opinion and figurative language, and the third argument was a cartoon,
tightroping the line of humor and offense. Each of these primary arguments tie in the argument that it is true women's soccer as a professional league failed, as well as other women's team sports leagues, due to low fan bases and poor financial planning. However, the differences come in when the editorial, for instance, speaks of these facts offhand and in not as much detail as the news article. The editorial focuses almost entirely on the sad little girls all over America who are crushed by the end of their beloved players and league, as well as the end of their opportunity to play there. However, that editorial does not fully address conditions of rebuttal either, especially the rebuttal of why the league folded if these professedly enthusiastic and crushed girls were not present enough to even keep the league going? The cartoon also displays heavy differences, not only in obvious medium, but in content. It is more broad, with teasing women's sports in general, and brings up a question of sexist elements in our society.
There are two main unstated assumptions that fuel these primary arguments. One, is our societal assumption that women's sports suck, no one watches them, and it is funny when they fold. The other is, women deserve an opportunity to play professionally if they so desire and it is sad when that opportunity
disintergrates or disappears. These are obviously assumptions that lie on ethos and sexism, as well as logos (the fact that all women's team sports leagues have folded at one time except for the
WNBA), and also a strong hinge of pathos. All of these appeals can be strong on their own as persuasive arguments in whatever case, however they are not strong enough in relevance to a culture of assertion. All three need to be involved to be a solid and trustworthy argument, otherwise we are being duped, and that works a lot in America.
So the question is, do we live in a culture of assertion? I say yes, and also no. As a working system of humans we are diverse, and therefore what we produce is also diverse, especially in the individualistic-driven American society we live and work in. A lot of arguments, politically and domestically, are made from emotional standpoints (without much real evidence or portrayal of another viewpoint) in order to persuade an audience to think or act one way, and unfortunately the audience usually reacts highly to this form because without active logical analysis of an argument, emotion takes quite a strong hold. However, there are also many arguments in our society that employ all three appeals and include copious and trustworthy amounts of evidence with the goal of simply
informing, like the news article.
As a nation and people we should watch out for the
heartstring tugs and look for the real backing evidence in any argument. Who stands to benefit? It should always be you, don't be duped!