The Backgroud

           I agree with what everyone has said on the basis of the need for facts and not so much an emotional appeal. The rhetorical process needs to be done with tact and with a measure of care.
           For me, the argument needs to come from someone I trust. I need to have either heard them before or to have researched their arguments in the past. Along with Matt, I can't be persuaded as easily by someone who, in the past, has biased opinions or made morally incorrect choices. The credibility of that person for me has greatly deteriorated when I hear of such circumstances. Although someone may be thinking that I'm not showing my belief in the Atonement, that people can change their very natures, all I am saying is that without a display of such change, my mind will be less likely to be convinced.
            Let me give an example, Egypt's President, Mohamed Morsi, since the beginning of his campaign has promised to help maintain the peace in Israel. A seemingly good stance, but as we search his background we find something else: A 2010 video of him calling the Jews "blood suckers" and "warmongers." He also said that they are "...the descendants from apes and pigs," and that Egyptians should "nurse [their] children and [their] grandchildren on hatred" toward the Jews. Later, a spokesperson for President Morsi stated that the comments were "taken out of context."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.html?hpw

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/world/middleeast/egypts-morsi-says-slurs-of-jews-were-taken-out-of-context.html

             I believe that people can change, but I am not about to trust this man with the protection of peace towards the Jewish nation of Israel when comments like that have been made and the explanation is that they have been "taken out of context." I need to know what the author has said or done, and his or her explanation of such acts and statements, and then will I be convinced of his or her argument.