These op-ed pieces are very strong one-sided arguments. The authors of the op-ed pieces seem like the kind of people you do not want to have an argument with. You might even want to walk the other direction when you see them approaching you on the street. The authors of the JSTOR Daily pieces base their articles on research and often reference their opinions to the opinions of other articles; for example, the stranger things article discussed “The Five Signs of Death”. You could bring in some evidence to be able to debunk a JSTOR Daily but an op-ed piece could not be proven or unproven. The JSTOR Daily article would be more acceptable to use to reference in an academic research paper. Op-ed pieces are about current life events nut they base their current opinions on past events. The viral Black Death article brings to lights the lynching of African Americans and compared it to the current injustice African Americans face now. The op-ed piece reinforces emotional appeals. The JSTOR Daily uses more logos while the op-ed pieces utilize pathos, however both kind of genres try to use ethos. In the “liberal are the sort of people who…” article uses loaded language in an attempt to appeal to their extremely conservative audience. Their audience will read this article and think it is humorous and will probably squeal “ahhhh so true” but their untargeted audience, aka the liberals, this article will be extremely insulting and frustrating. There isn’t much logic behind their argument. Op-ed pieces only try to appeal to one kind of audience, while JSTOR Daily can appeal to any general audience. The JSTOR Daily appeals more to younger (lazier) generations who don’t want to read long articles of extensive research. The JSTOR Daily reinforces western ideas of thinking, the idea that an opinion should be backed up by facts and research. Op-ed pieces are for more individualistic cultures rather than collective cultures.