Rubio's Argument Analysis

Gabriel does not support banning support. But he does support getting background checks for people getting guns.The two again sparred on gun control. Gomez said "a lot of people in my party are wrong on gun control," and that he was "ashamed" only 4 Republicans voted for a Senate bill that called for wider gun background checks. Markey said the background checks were only a start. He criticized Gomez for not supporting a federal assault weapons ban.In one of the evening's sharper exchanges Gomez said it was "beyond disgusting" that Markey raised the Newtown, Conn., school shooting in a television ad that faulted Gomez for not supporting a ban on high capacity magazine clips. "To think that you are the only political candidate to actually invoke the Newtown massacre for political gain is beyond disgusting.

“If we cut down on the number of legacy admissions, what would happen to the college budget? We might not even be able to keep things running!” Slippery Slope

I agree with this because it shows that even though he sees how guns have killed people, he is still pushing for people to purchase them and supporting them fully.

emphasized that the U. S. should control the guns more strictly and make each effort

Giving help to the mentally ill is not only a major factor for his health care plan, it is also is a main component in his gun control battle. Once again Kasich’s stance is one of more moderate than his GOP competitors, but still is not a liberal view. All the way back in 1994, Kasich voted to ban assault weapons for the population’s purchase, this federal ban ended in 2004 and is still yet to be renewed. Following the tragic 1999 Columbine shootings, Kasich stated he believed a cool-off period for new laws, citing the missteps that were taken during the prohibition period of the 1920s. He also is quick to point out that these students broke 19 existing Colorado and Federal laws in their act saying, “The kids didn’t pay attention to the laws.

He said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. Disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Criminals would continue finding ways to illegally acquire guns while robbing and attacking law-abiding citizens who suddenly have no means of self-defense. The cause of mass shootings isn’t guns; it is mental health. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” at first seems like a stupid pro-gun argument. It sounds immature, and it is much too easy for liberals to counter with, “Well, people need the guns to kill people,” which is true.

My initial reaction to Limbaugh’s claim that “feminism was established so that unattractive women could have easier access to the mainstream of society" was mixed when I first read it. Limbaugh’s opinion of feminism is based on what is termed as popularized or degraded. These two terms are really umbrella terms used for various movements and theories which support equality for women. Not all of the theories about feminism are acceptable in our society today. Limbaugh’s comments make a generalization about feminism. The comments made by Limbaugh, to me, are offensive and without consideration.

Philo does not mind that the argument is a posteriori; his only complaint is that it is a bad argument. Philo brings up several ways in which the argument from design fails as an inductive inference. To begin with, he claims that the analogy is no good. He asserts that the universe and a machine are not comparable in the way that the red and blue flames are comparative, and hence, a contention by similarity is not substantial. Philo's second objection is that the analogy does not work since it is between an entire and a part of that entirety. A machine is a part of the universe, and it looks bad to accept that one part of the universe is comparable to the entire of the universe since we have no experience of alternate parts. Philo's third objection is that not all order is the result of design. Therefore, it is conceivable that the universe is not undifferentiated from a machine despite the fact that it is requested; it may be practically equivalent to some other type of request and not to a man-made structure. For instance, some highly ordered systems that we know of are the result of reproduction instead of intelligent design. Just because there is order, therefore, it does not mean

To begin with, Donald Trump states that the American government gun control is a total failure. Imagine a place where they restrict your freedom of owning a weapon to protect yourself. This horrible place is real and it’s called the United States. The United States has argued the subject of gun control for years because their current system is obviously not working. Not only do they restrict law abiding citizens from gaining weapons, The United States does little to stop criminals and the mentally ill from using these weapons to hurt the innocent. Donald Trump knows how to solve these problems in America. Donald Trump states that The United States needs to fix our broken mental health system, defend the rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners and create harsher programs to punish violent criminals.

Appealing to someone’s prejudices, emotions and other interests rather than to someone’s intellect or reason. Ad hominem also means attacking an opponent’s character instead of answering his argument

Donald Trump is against gun control and thinks is does not reduce crime. He believes that someone should be able to buy a gun without needing a permit and not having a background check. Trump revealed he has a concealed carry permit and that when it comes to gun and magazine bans, “the government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own”. He would also oppose an expansion of background checks. With anyone allowed a gun in America

Socrates’ decision to disregard his friends and disciples help was justifiable. Although initially Crito’s argument is compelling, Socrates paints a far stronger picture of the moral rightness that Crito draws on for his argument. Crito attempts to sway Socrates by conjuring a sense of guilt within him. By saying “you are betraying your sons” and “I feel ashamed on your behalf” (Plato, Crito 45d-45e) Crito is trying to make Socrates virtuous side flare up. However, this approach pushes Socrates to make an argument that embodies the law as a person and thus allows Socrates to treat mans relationship with the law the same as with other men.

Prior to the debate I thought that Donald was going to change hs tone and pace for the debate. Instead of representing an aggressive off the wall entrepenuer who lacks the presidential flair, I thought he was going to calm himself down. Expecting him to come out and attempt to be more presidential in nature, I was surprised to see complete congruence. He remained the same trump who attacks and deflects without having logical statements to back up his views. The use of fear and smoke screens is very similar to that of another leader in history...Hitler. He knew what the public wanted to hear and use that to his advantage. Just after the great depression and first World War, the German people had endured immense struggle ranging from massive

In political races in the United States logical fallacies are a staple in political ads. The 2012 election was no exception to this convention, especially being true in an advertisement with ex-steel plant worker Joe Soptic, speaking in Obama-affiliated Political Action Committee Priorities. The advertisement included many logical fallacies to argue against the Romney campaign. Those include post hoc reasoning, ad hominem, and slippery slope.

Gun rights is the individual right to own and carry guns. Johnny Isakson believes that people’s privacy should not be violated if they want to buy a gun. If a person is permitted to buy a gun, but after the purchase, it should not be the gun sellers fault if someone gets hurt. My understanding of Isakson’s thoughts is that he wants citizens to have their privacy. I believe that people should have their background checked to see if they have a criminal record or anything against them. If their background isn’t checked they may wound or kill someone. I believe these ideas should compromise and their should be a bill where their background is checked to a certain point. As Johnny Isakson disagrees with the gun rights bill he does agree with health care.