Leo vs Jones

 If you read both arguments, you can tell the differences when it comes to credibility. Jones's argument was based on how violent media is good for kids, and Leo's argument was based on how violent video games and violent social media can harmfully affect real life. Both were great arguments, however, Jones's argument was not as credible than Leo's argument.

 Jones's essay was based off of mainly his first person point of view and opinion. the only factual point in his case was mentioning "Melanie Moore, Ph.D., a psychologist who works with urban teens". Even though he used a woman with a Ph.D it does not provide enough credibility the reader would need to be persuaded by him.

Leo's argument provided more factual evidence such as ""With Each Kill" the Los Angeles Time" (para. 1, p.69). He also listed statics in his argument when he mentions " A widely cited survey of 900 fourth- through eighth-grade students found that almost half of the children said their favorite electronic games involve violence" (para. 4, p.69). 

In conclusion, both opinions and point of views were understandable, however, an argument must be grounded with facts and credibility in order to persuade the reader in order to have others agree or believe you.