The argument i’ve chosen for the Truth,Validity and sound assignment is the video attached regarding Barack Obama’s opinion of the death penalty and the morality behind it. During the clip, a question asked directly to Alan Keys from a reporter in the audience brought up the topic of Christianity and how could a christian, ( Alan keys) Support the idea of death penalty and abortion. In the clip there are two arguments mentioned; Abortion and Capital punishment. For this assignment id like to highlight the argument for the death penalty.
“I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are extraordinarily heinous crimes, terrorism, the harm of children, in which it may be appropriate. Obviously we’ve had some problems in this state, in the application of the death penalty and that’s why a moratorium was put in place and that’s why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in making sure that we overhauled it, death penalty system that was broken. For example, passing the first in the nation videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. We have to have this ultimate sanction for certain circumstances in which the entire community says this is beyond the pale.”
– Barack Obama, 2004
Barack Obama’s argument of the death penalty is factually correct and valid. Barack Obama’s argument is factually correct due to the facts he use to support his argument. During the argument Obama states how in the past the process of applying the death penalty has been broken and unfair, therefore he mentioned of when interrogations for capital cases used to videotaped and how it affected the cases. Obama recognizes that the death penalty is an extreme punishment and reasons that the application of the death penalty needs to be fair which too is a fact. Obama goes forward to mention (1) The death penalty is acceptable under extreme circumstances, (2) in The past , the application of the death penalty hasn’t always been fair, therefor (3) We need to be collectively certain as a society that its the right decision.
“Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.”
The following statement can be made into a syllogism with three premises and a conclusion:
Premise 1: Your religious choices should not be subject to interference or limitation
Premise 2: You have the right to follow or to not follow a religion
Premise 3: Your religious choices should not affect others
Conclusion: Therefore, religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.
After evaluating this argument, I came up with the following 3 premises and conclusion:
Premise 1: Is practiced by most but not accepted by all. I believe the majority of people would agree that our religious choices should not be subject to any sort of interference or limitation, though it can not be argued that this is a premise accepted by everyone.
Premise 2: Is again practiced by most but not accepted by all. I believe that the majority of people would agree that everyone should have the right to follow or to now follow a religion, though again it can not be argued that this is a premise accepted by all.
Premise 3: Is again practiced by the majority of people but not accepted by all. Most people would agree that your religious choices should not affect others though this premise is not true for all.
This argument can be accepted as valid as the conclusion follows the premises though it can not be accepted as sound as the premises are not accepted by all. This argument is not a sound argument in everyones eyes but the majority of people would agree that everyone has the right to choose and practice their own religion without limitation or interference. Those who have strong beliefs about the rights and wrongs of religious/non-religious beliefs may not agree with this statement making it an unsound argument.
After further research on the origin of this statement I have come to find that this is an entirely fictitious statement most likely formed by someone other than Barack Obama.
In Obama’s speech to the United States during the Navy Yard shooting he mentioned that several people have been shoot and that some have been killed
12 people had already been killed during the Navy Yard shooting which was more than Obama mentioned
Therefore Obama is tasteless and has no decency or shame
This argument has no form as its conclusion does not follow its premises and is not factual as Obama’s speech to the United States does not prove that he is tasteless and has no decency or shame.
The author of this article, Michael Goodwin, is very cynical towards Obama. He has written and published a number of rant articles about him. It should come as no surprise that he criticized Obama during his speech. This article will not have many effects as it will be read by the people who read fox news and has not been published or viewed on many different sites, but it will affect nothing political.