"Abstinence-Only Education Doesn't Work"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Xy-RQgLFI

The name of this argument is “Abstinence-Only Education Doesn’t Work”. The argument is between Dan Abrams (MSNBC), Valerie Huber (Executive Director of National Abstinence Education Association), and Rachel Maddow (Air America). This argument can be found on YouTube. Dan and Rachel are arguing against Valerie that there is not proof that abstinence-only education works. This argument points out that the government is spending over 20 million on education that has not been proven effective.

There are a few fallacies noted in this argument. There are two fallacies noted in the sections of 1:32 and 2:38. It reads as follows:



Dan: Why do you think then that fourteen states are refusing federal funding for abstinence-only education?

Valerie: Well we know that that’s a part of a coordinated plan by historic opponents of abstinence education. That through misinformation and misguided, selective science regarding abstinence education they are convincing governors that this is not a good plan.



Dan: So the Congressional study wasn’t true?



Valerie: We know that there are a number of reports that show that abstinence education is effective.



Dan:(Interrupts Valerie) But the Congressional......let’s talk about the Congressional study. That one isn’t true? I mean it says that really there was no evidence that it works.



Valerie: Well actually what the study does reveal is that abstinence education we need to have more of it than less. What it really....



Dan: Wait because it doesn’t work we got to have more of it so that it can not work even more?



Valerie: Actually if you look at the study what it reveals is that you can not present abstinence-only education one time to teens and expect it to have a stick factor. It has to be continued and reinforced throughout their difficult adolescent years.



The fallacy of the red herring is committed near the beginning of this section of the argument. Dan begins by asking Valerie why she thinks fourteen states are refusing funds for abstinence-only programs. Valerie attempts to answer however Dan interrupts her. Dan then draws the listener’s attention to the credibility of the Congressional studies. The Congressional studies are relevant to the abstinence-only education programs yet the original dispute was over the reasons why states are refusing funding for the programs.



The fallacy of complex question is committed near the end of this section of the argument. Dan states “Wait because it doesn’t work we got to have more of it so that it can not work even more?” The tone of the question gives the listener reason to assume that Dan has already drawn his own conclusion. His conclusion is that abstinence-only education does not work, and that conclusion is buried within the question.



The argument can be defined as follows:



(1) Fourteen states are refusing federal funding for abstinence-only education.



(2) The Congressional study says that there is no evidence the abstinence-only education works.

(C) Abstinence-only education does not work.





This argument is in moderate condition.There were a few more fallacies committed in this argument. I think if Valerie could have provided more evidence on the topic. However, she really was not given the chance to. This made it very easy for Dan to commit the above mentioned fallacies.