Earlier this year at the Wisconsin legislature, Ron Johnson spoke on behalf of the Wisconsin Catholic Diocese. The Topic of debate would seem to be over pedophile priests and the church that employs them. Ron Johnson is arguing that while the persecutor of the crime should be punished, the church that is responsible for them should not be in harm’s way. Thus, the church cannot be sued by the victim for any reason, unless the church knowingly ignores a complaint. This debate comes from their local Church whom had been transferring a pedophile priest several times but never questioning why he was needed to relocate 14 times in the past 14 years. Johnson’s testimony was video recorded and acknowledged by a few national newspapers, and online articles.

Johnson’s reasons/premises for his conclusion are as followed:

1.) Lawsuits would create more economic havoc

2.) People who own private organizations servicing children would be at risk

3.) The long, emotionally draining, and costly lawsuits don’t guarantee compensation for the victims.

4.) Other Children from the organization would no longer benefit

5.) Volunteers and those who give charity for these programs would be less likely to contribute.

6.) Organizations that realize they are at risk are less likely to report crimes.

C: Victims should not be allowed to sue the “employer” of the perpetrator of the crime.

I believe, after reviewing the entire argument that his argument is in moderate condition. Johnson’s premises support his conclusion. And while his argument is well worded, He commits the fallacy of hasty generalization at the end when he uses the small subset of people in such organizations that he knows personally to be good-natured people; however, this is not representative of all people involved in organizations over the US. Johnson adds this comment to try appeal to pity. He makes them seem like every-day people, who if sued under this law, would say they had no idea what was going on, but are now out of a job and being sued. Without that last comment at the end, Johnson has a very good and valid argument. While his argument is unpopular because it goes against popular demands, he presents it well and sticks to the facts rather than emotions. With Johnson’s facts, the audience can clearly see that most church’s or organizations are victims. He illustrates this for us by pointing out all the added victims that would suffer along with the child and the parents. Organizations shouldn’t need to fail unless they commit a crime. More bad would result than good. His premises do a good job of showing that. His argument also does a good job of not pointing out the church or organization’s responsibility in hiring and employing people, and especially how the church protects them. There are few that do knowingly transfer a pedophile priest like the Wisconsin case. In those cases, legal action should be dealt. However, Johnson cleverly doesn’t describe such cases. He sticks with the idea that all organizations are victims. While it's seen as a bad point-of-view, it is a good argument.

are people born gay

/Critical+Banner_33fdf.png">On May 13, 2010 Bill Maher interview pastor John Westcott, on the very controversially issue of homosexuality. During this interview Pastor Westcott states that no human being is gay. Bill Maher disagrees. This opens up the argument for the two men. Westcott fights for his opinion that people are not born gay. This interview can b e found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdZR4FQXiBQ

This argument can be formally paraphrased approximately as follows:

1. There is no scientific data that proves that anyone is born gay.

2. There is no gay gene.

3. Being gay is just sin.

4. People are only gay because of their insecurities within themselves.

5.Gay people are not complete with who they are as men and women .

Individual parts of this argument commit a variety of fallacies, for example the claim that:

“There is no gay gene”

Commits the fallacy The Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantiam). The fact that there this proposition has not yet been proven false, we are not entitled to conclude that it is true. The same point can be made, that since it has not been proven that there is a gay gene, we cannot conclude that there is not a gay gene. Another important fallacy Westcott committed when he says “Gay people are not complete with who they are as men and women “is that of missing the point (ignoratio Elenchi) . This comment has nothing to with whether or not gay people were born that way or not.

By committing these fallacies the argument could be considered dead on arrival as a refutation; however it does provide some support for its conclusion as a standalone argument so I will give it a rating of Critical.

Teachers: No merit to merit pay arguments

The argument is located in the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s opinion section. Legislators propose a bill , which will pay teachers based on student performance. That is to say, both students and teachers will be evaluated solely on test scores. As a result, Jordan Kohanim and Ashley Ulrich discuss their opposition to merit pay. They are Northview High colleagues who share similar beliefs.

"What is the problem with using testing data to determine teacher effectiveness? It hurts students. First, most educational research argues that testing does not measure student achievement, progress, or even potential. In fact, these numbers are so easily manipulated that they can be skewed for political agenda and end up demoralizing children that do not deserve such labels as “failed.” For decades, research has also argued that standardized tests disadvantage large populations of students. By measuring teacher effectiveness partly on this testing, schools that work with these student populations are already set behind, as well. The reverse is also true: schools (and students) at the top of the testing range have difficulty showing substantial gains. How do we quantify a gain when students are already earning “exceeds standards” marks on the CRCT or the EOCT?

Tests also do not measure skills that will be essential in an evolving global marketplace. If schools are to emphasize 21st century skills like innovation, creativity, technical skills, and critical thinking—standardized testing actually discourages them.

Another cause for concern is that curriculum, in response to increased accountability to testing, will pare itself down to test-prep. This has been proven by other states, like New York, who have seen this detrimental shift because of the emphasis on testing. How are students going to compete nationally, let alone globally, if they can only think inside the box (or in this case—inside the bubble)?

Beyond this testing issue, merit pay also presents other drawbacks. The role of educators is multi-faceted and it includes objectives that are immeasurable. For example, one colleague said, “If a student enters my ninth grade classroom at a fourth grade reading level, I may not be able to get him to gain substantially in test scores, but I’m definitely going to keep him from dropping out.” Isn’t that an important goal too?

Merit pay also attempts to reward or punish teachers for factors far out their control. Teachers cannot control student homelessness, transferring into the school late in the year, or the lack of academic culture in which a student is raised.

At the same time, merit pay will ignore those few factors that are within a teacher’s control: pursuit of upper-level degrees and continuing education. By leaving out raises based at least partly on degrees earned, it will create a void of teachers earning their Masters, Specialist, or Doctoral degree."

Conclusion: Testing data should not be used to determine teacher effectiveness.

Premise 1) It hurts students because educational research proves against testing data

Premise 2) Attempts to award or punish teachers for factors far out their control such as: student homelessness, transfer students, and uneducated environments

Premise 3) It ignores a teacher’s decision to obtain an advanced degree

The argument is in Serious Condition because it contains some fallacies. Appeal to emotion and Appeal to Authority are apparent in this argument. The authors evoke emotion when homeless children and helpless students are discussed. In addition, the authors state, “testing does not measure student achievement, progress, or even potential.” However, the authors fail to provide evidence. You can find the argument here.