Should Rich Pay More in Taxes?

Should Rich Pay More in Taxes?








http://video.foxnews.com/v/4431339/should-rich-pay-more-in-taxes/



On November 23, 2010, Fox News ” The O’Reilly Factor”, aired Bill O’Reilly and John Stossel debating whether the rich should pay more money toward taxes. After viewing the clip several times, it was clear to me that both of the men had a completely different view point on this topic but I was not sure if they agreed on what they were actually arguing about. This debate started after “The O’Reilly Show” aired a short clip of the very successful investor, Warren Buffett saying,


I think that people of the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more taxes, we’ve had it better than we’ve ever had it.”


Due to the ambiguity of Warren Buffett’s statement, each man argued a different topic. Buffett’s ambiguous quote could have been interpreted in several different ways because it was not clear exactly what he meant. Stossel approached the argument by interpreting that Warren was saying the rich should pay more taxes than the rest. O’Reilly approached the argument by interpreting Warren was saying the rich should pay more taxes than they do now. Each man had a good argument as to what they were arguing. As they both cross talked and supported the other mans opinion at one point, it was obvious that they each interpreted Warren Buffett’s statement differently. John Stossel argued at the belief that Buffett meant the rich should pay more taxes in general. He gave premises to support his argument and conclusion.


1. It doesn't help for the rich to pay more taxes
2. “Wisely, people know giving it to charity is a better use of the money”
3. “Money in private hands does far more good for the world and for Americans than money in

government hands”
4. Stossel added we’re better off now, then back then- the money has made people better off,

people are living longer
5. Stossel told O’Reilly it was selfish of him not to want to give more money to the government if it would really help
C. The rich should pay more money in taxes if the government would use the money wisely




Bill O’Reilly on the other hand interpreted Buffett’s quote as the rich should pay more taxes than they do now. Below are the premises he gave to support his conclusion,


1. “I don't want to be paying 50 percent to the federal government because I believe they waste

an enormous amount of money”
2. “…the more money and the more spending you give them, the more they control people's

lives.”
3. "So, people get dependent -- it's like heroin -- on the federal government for their livelihood,

and I don't want to be into that”
4. “I think 40% is fine, If Warren wants to kick more money, then kick it in Warren”
5. The taxes go on and on and on, this is a con and rouse
C. The rich should not pay more taxes than they do now



This argument was a great example O’Reilly committing the fallacy of red herring if it were true that Warren Buffett actually only meant and would have stated the rich should pay more taxes than the others. If Buffett would have been completely clear saying that the rich should pay more taxes than the others, then O’Reilly’s argument would have committed a fallacy. The fallacy in this case would have been called red herring because O’Reilly would have been convicted of changing the subject different from the rich should pay more taxes than the others but still related to the topic. He committed the fallacy because he changed the subject from should the rich pay more taxes than the others to the rich shouldn’t pay more taxes than they do now. Each man interpreted Warrens quote and went in two different directions because of the vagueness of Warren Buffett’s statement. Stossel approached the statement believing that Buffett meant the rich should pay more taxes than others and O’Reilly approached the statement as Buffett was saying the rich should pay more taxes in percentage wise than they do now. I would definitely rate this argument as moderate conditional because of the uncertainty of Warrens quote lead the men to give arguments in two different directions. Each man gave a great argument on the basis of how they interpreted the quote, if Warrens quote would have been explained more in-depth and precisely, each would be able to argue one topic!

Bishop Eddie Long: Will case force open talk in black church about sexuality?

My arguement was about the case of Bishop Eddie Long, and will the it force open talk in the black church about sexuality.? This article was written by Patrik Jonsson , because Bishop Eddie Long the owner of a well know megachurch in Atlanta, was accused of being a homosexual. For many years the black churches have had an anti-homosexual stance, you never hear churches speak about being open with their sexuality and black churches at that; especially since Atlanta is known to have the largest gay population in the US.
"I am not a perfect man," Atlanta pastor Bishop Eddie Long told his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church flock Sunday, after saying he would fight like David against Goliath the civil claims that he used his pulpit power to coerce four young male parishioners into having sex.The charges are uncomfortable for Mr. Long and his sprawling, internationally-known megachurch in Lithonia, Ga., which he built from 300 to 25,000 members with a unique brand of "muscular spirituality."
But more critically, black theologians say, the megachurch leader's decision both to deny the charges and claim fallibility in the eyes of God is part of a pervasive "don't ask, don't tell" reflex in the black church, where outwardly stated condemnations inhibit frank discussions about sexuality of any sort.
It's a situation that leads many blacks, by force of culture, religion and tradition, to live double lives: one in the church, and one at home.
"The true tragedy is the black church and its persistent inability to deal openly and frankly with matters of sexuality before [a scandal] where what comes to the surface is that which is underneath," says Kelly Brown Douglas, The case isn't just of interest because of Long's alleged hypocrisy, with a large and influential church empire hanging in the balance, but because it's taking place in Atlanta, home to a number of conservative black megachurches as well as the largest population of gay blacks in the US.
You're not going to convince black Christians to be more open to accepting homosexuality; it's always going to be 'don't ask, don't tell,'" says Shayne Lee, a Tulane University sociologist and author in 2009 of "Holy Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the Spiritual Marketplace." "Even when it's visible, like the rumors about choir directors, the view is, 'Hey, you're not going to come out, we'll accept you. We'll pretend that you're hetero and you love women, and we're not going to confront you.'
"The unspoken agreement is that gay men get to act as Seraphim, so long as they are willing to shout in agreement as they are being flagellated from the pulpit. It’s an indignity some gay men subject themselves to each and every Sunday. Why should they have to live this way?" Joshua Alston, a self-described member of Atlanta's black gay community, writes in Newsweek.
To many of his supporters, claims that Long quoted scripture to entice the four men into sexual acts is simply part of a longer-term campaign to falsely "out" Long in retaliation for his strident views against homosexuality. In 2005, Long was included on an internet "outing" campaign where bloggers pointed out the alleged hypocrisy of major black church figures condemning gays for their lifestyles.

1) Many people in the black churches play a part in the "don't ask, don't tell" reflex.

2) Talking about sexuality is a situation that leads many black to live doubled lives, one in the church and one at home.

3) The true tragedy in the black chuurch is it's inablity to talk openly and frank about sexuality.

4) It's going to be hard to convince the black community to be open to accepting homosexuality.

5)Black gays are more likely to stay in their home church, than other members of the gay community.

C) Black churches are more likely to avoid the talk about being open with sexuality than most other cultures. Being homosexual in the black community is harder to accept than other cultures, which is why there is always going to be an issue in the black churches.

I would consider this arguement to be in critical condition, because there is some parts of this arguement that is reasonable. I do belive that most homosexual in the black community would not admit that they're gay unless you ask them. And you never really hear churches speaking about sexuality, especially since Atlanta has the largest community of black gays. I think people should be open with their sexuality no matter who they are, or what it may be. I honestly don't think that the case of Bishop Eddie long will force the black church to talk about sexuality and homo-sexuality at best. They will continue to avoid the situation like they have been doing.

The link to my arguement can be found here:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0927/Bishop-Eddie-Long-Will-case-force-open-talk-in-black-church-about-sexuality/(page)/2

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

This argument is about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule that the military has. The rule bans "openly" gay or lesbian men and women from serving in the military. In 2004, Maj Margaret Witt was discharged from the Air Force under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule when her superiors learned about her relationship with a civilian women. Maj Witt sued to get her job back. The Federal Court ruled Maj's discharge to be unconstitional and that it violates her rights. The government lawyers asked judge Philips to grant them resonable time to consider her intent. The Justice Department wrote to judge Philips, "A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's option, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations around the globe".

This argument by the government is valid where Witt was discharged from the military on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The policy has been in place for 17 years where it hasnt been a problem before. It could be that the gays and lesbian followed the policy or that there has never been any gays and lesbians serving in the military. What ever the case is, the policy has stood strong for 17 years which allows the military to discharge "openly" gays and lesbians.
The judge has a invalid arguument becuase he believes Witt should get her job back but the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy says openly gays and lesbians cant serve in the military and Witt was having an open relationship with a civilian women. The Judge based his descion on constitutional rights rather the the policy of the military. The policy must be constitutional if it has stood for 17 years. I believe the argument of the Judge is a Accident because the judge is trying to use constitutional right in a case that has a standing policy.

premise 1: Maj Margaret Witt was discharged from the Miltary in 2004 under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Premise 2: Maj's superiors learned of her relationship with a civilian.

Premise 3: Maj Witt was legally discharged from the military under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy after her superiors learned about he open relationship with a civilian woman.

Conclusion: Allowing openly gay and lesbian men and women serve in the military violates the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, Therefor Maj Witt was discharged from the Air Force.

In A Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann explains the misnomer and danger in calling the community center “The Ground Zero Mosque.” Olbermann clarifies the misconceptions around the community center. It appeared on MSNBC’s tv show “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Link to the Video

In the link above, Keith Olbermann makes the argument that the community center that is being built in New York shouldn’t be called “The Ground Zero Mosque." He stated a conclusion by saying that this is a country of freedom, but forces have blown out of proportion the construction of a community center and transformed it into a training ground for terrorists and have tried to portray it as an insult to the victims of 911. Furthermore, he gives a definition of a mosque by saying a mosque is a holy place where only worship can be conducted, the site that is being constructed is a community center which is suppose to have a basketball court and a culinary school. However, this premise doesn't support his conclusion. Defining a mosque has nothing to do with US being a country of freedom and how this idea of constructing a community center has been blown out of proportion and turned it into a training ground for terrorists. He says it's suppose to be thirteen stories tall and the top two floors are suppose to be designated as a Muslim prayer place. Again, this doesn't relate to how constructing a community center in New York has been "blown out of proportion." He further supported his argument by saying that people who use this center will have more to fear from us then us from them. There is no explanation as to how Muslim people will be scared from Americans instead of Americans being scared of the Muslims.

In addition to the false premises above, he is also committing a Red Herring fallacy in the argument. His conclusion is that people have blown this out of proportion, it has transformed into a training ground for terrorists and it portrays as an insult to 911 victims. However, the premises don’t talk about any of the issues that he is suggesting. Premise 1 covers the definition of the mosque which is not relevant. Premise 2 consists of a description of the site, again, no relation to the original conclusion and in the third premise, he’s talking about a totally separate issue. This is Red Herring fallacy because, an irrelevant topic is being presented to divert the attention from the original issue.

-Akber

Marriage aisle alone is no way out of Poverty

Marriage aisle alone is no path out of poverty-Roland Hamilton

My argument is about if an unhealthy marriage leads to poverty. There have been statistics that show that poverty rate increases because of single-parent families and financial instability in relationships. The author is making this argument because people tend to think the way out of poverty is to get married but what people tend not to recognize is that a healthy relationship comes about that both partners are financially stable and can support themselves and their family. This argument was made on the Atlanta Journal Constitution website.

“ Poverty is caused by economic instability, not by a lack of marriage. Improving people’s economic status increases the likelihood they will marry, not necessarily the other way around. Better pay and economic opportunity and greater educational attainment also tend to decrease the number of children women bear.  A staggering 43.6 million Americans, more than 14 percent of the population, were poor in 2009, according to the new figures. Nearly 4 million more Americans sank into poverty in 2009. This is the third year the numbers have risen, with the largest number of Americans in poverty since the government began tracking poverty in 1959.

For the nation’s most vulnerable — children — the poverty rate has reached 20.7 percent. (In reality, it may be higher now, given that the data are for 2009.) And more than half of the 15.4 million poor children live with single mothers.

 Marriage is a good thing. Children with married parents do benefit — if the marriage is emotionally healthy, and free from domestic violence, addictions and emotional trauma. Children of married couples tend to have higher standards of living than children of single-parent households. But, regardless of what think tanks or columnists say on the matter, moms and dads don’t need anybody to tell them that money troubles can undercut their relationship.

There is nothing wrong with promoting marriage, but there is danger in promoting the belief that merely hitching people up in matrimony will solve this country’s poverty problem. It can be just another pretext for gutting social programs aimed at relieving the poor.

We’ve been down this route before. As an outgrowth of welfare reform, the Bush administration poured money into such programs. An assessment released earlier this year of one aimed at unwed new mothers and their children’s fathers found that it failed to increase their marriage rates or help their relationships.

President Barack Obama has his own take, also backing plans that promote responsible fatherhood, but only in addition to focusing on jobs for underemployed men (making them more marriage-ready in a woman’s eyes) and education for women.

Men have suffered the majority of job losses in the recession, meaning that increasing women’s earning ability is essential to stabilizing families in ways not seen in past generations.

People tend not to marry if they are financially unstable. They tend to break up due to poor relationship skills. Work on both these factors, and we might just see our poverty rate move in the right direction.”

This argument can be formally paraphrased as follows:

1.    The collapse of marriage is the major cause of poverty

2.    Poor women are much less likely to have a pool of employable men to choose from

3.    The impact of economic stress on marriage has increased in the past 30 years

4.    Poverty is caused by economic instability, not by a lack of marriage

5.    Children with married parents benefits only if the relationship is healthy.

Conclusion: If both partners in marriage has a healthy relationship and are both financially stable, there is absolutely no need for them to be in poverty.

Mary Sanchez, the author of this article states, "argument can be classified as healthy". The premise of this argument basically states that the best way to avoid poverty in a marriage is that both partners have a health relationship and are both financially stable. In all honesty, fallacies were difficult to find because the author gave reliable statistics that shows how money can affect marriage. One fallacy that I spotted is how the author claims that more men have suffered a majority of job losses in the recession than women, meaning that increasing women’s earning ability is essential to stabilizing families in ways not seen in past generations. I find that hard to believe because there are lots of women out there that are unemployed and I personally think there are more women than men in today’s society.

Click THIS LINK for my argument on Marraige and Poverty 

Click THIS LINK for a video of my argument 

Bill O'Reilly on The View

On an October appearance on ABC’s The View, Bill O’ Reilly made the argument that a mosque shouldn’t be built near ground zero. He stated to the cast of the talk show that “It is inappropriate”. When cast member Whoopi Goldberg questioned why it was inappropriate, he responded that “Muslims killed us on 9/11”. His conclusion was there should be no mosque at ground zero. His premises were because it is anappropriate, and because muslims killed us on 9/11. O’ Reilly basically said that Muslims are responsible for 9/11, so it is inappropriate for them to exercise their constitutional rights. His statements were fallacious because he just said “Muslims” instead for “extremists”, putting all Muslims into the category of terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and all people have the right to express religious freedom, regardless of circumstances. Many things are "inappropriate" but that is clearly subjective and notg up to one person to decide what is inappropriate. This argument is unhealthy for this reason. There is no direct connection between an entire religion and one event carried out by a few individuals that could make O'Reilly's argument begin to make any sense. The reactions from the audience at his comments as well as two of the cast members walking off stage during this debate show how inapproprite O'Reilly's comments were.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4799261

Skip Bayless argument starts approximately 1min 15secs into the video

Willie Grady
Dr. Thibodeau
Georgia Perimeter College
11-24-2010
Skip Bayless Romo or McNabb
My argument was based on a group of analysts’ opinions pertaining to who they thought was the better quarterback and gave their respective team the best chance to win an upcoming football game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Dallas Cowboys. Their argument focused in on the quarterback position and pitched Donovan McNabb against an up and coming player Tony Romo. Although the argument was opinionated from both angles by three different analysts, I chose to focus in on the views of Skip Bayless. Skip Bayless is a sports writer and an analyst for ESPN and co-stars on a segment called 1st and Ten that airs everyday Monday thru Friday. He argues daily against other critics, players, and sometimes even entertainers like Nelly and Lil Wayne.
Skip starts his argument by stating that Tony Romo has grown up.
“Twice I have watched him out play Donovan McNabb this year. He seems far more confident against Philly’s defense than Donovan seems against Wade Phillips defense (which is the Dallas Cowboys head coach and defensive coordinator). And finally, if the last five games haven’t given you any evidence in the maturation of Tony Romo look at these numbers. He’s completing 72.4 percent of his passes over the last five games. He has nine touchdowns to just two interceptions which both came on tip balls.”
He goes on to speak about Tony Romo passing his visual assessment and how he thinks Tony Romo and the Dallas Cowboys will beat the Philadelphia Eagles.
Skip’s argument for Tony Romo was concise and to the point. He basically had four premises that supported the conclusion of his argument with his first premise implying his second premise. His argument could be paraphrased as follows.
1. Skip’s first premise was that he felt that Romo had grown up and matured as a NFL quarterback.
2. He argues for Tony Romo’s stats being an indicator of this maturation stating that Romo only had two interception and nine touchdowns with the two interceptions coming on tipped passes. Also, Romo was completing 72.4 percent of his passes over that time period which was his last five games.
3. Skip says after watching Romo play against Donovan McNabb and the Philadelphia Eagles, he thought Romo outplayed McNabb at the quarterback position.
4. Mr. Bayless believed Romo looked more confident against the Philadelphia Eagles defense than Donovan McNabb appeared against Wade Phillips Dallas Cowboy defense.
C. Bayless was picking Tony Romo and the Cowboys to win the wild card playoff game versus McNabb and the Eagles established basically on the trust factor and who was playing better at the moment.
I found Skip’s argument to be a Serious Condition. At first appearance it seems to be a healthy argument because all of his premises support his conclusion. Upon further review one could make a case that he committed the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. In my opinion I think Donovan McNabb is a better quarterback than Tony Romo based on their careers and body of work to that point in their careers. Skip’s argument was basically him comparing who was playing better over the previous month or so. At that point in time Romo had never won a playoff game and his counterpart Donovan McNabb had been to four NFC Championship games and led his team to a Super Bowl appearance. So for Mr. Bayless to base his entire argument over such a small percentage of time and games I found it to be quite a drastic approach.