>> Intro/Context/Steps of Argument Analysis

This argument entitled "Dealing With Online Bullies Outside the Classroom", was found in
the New York Times, Room for Debate online. This originally October post is full of debaters
comments based on a Facebook post created by Room for Debate and includes regulated
responses by Kevin Noble Maillard. The Facebook post was created for the purpose of
addressing the online bullying of students outside of schools and to take public thoughts and
comments on the regulation of such online behavior of students by schools. The audience
directed in this post could be considerably general, but I feel it is mostly veered toward the
parents (or guardians) of school-aged children. I also think that the editors on Room for Debate
were reaching out to education employees such as teachers, administrators, and school board
personnel. The issue requires the input of various backgrounds, genders, ages, professions, and
authorities of people in order to obtain a legitimate response. This conversation is actually
designed along some of their personal comments and feelings, specifically about the way they
think schools/society should handle increasing off-campus online bullying.
The issue of this debate is 'Should schools regulate the off-campus, online behavior of
their students?' There is truly no general consensus concluded in this article, however the
most-often given answer is to better educate our children. This idea seems to be a reasonable
enough answer, however even the direction of the education seems to be a hot debate in itself.
Ideas range from Internet safety and decorum courses to teaching social skills that empower
students when they are caught in a bullying situation. Among the various given solutions to the
issue, only one user felt that schools should not be involved in any way.
All of these users are examples of people who hold the burden of proof. Though the New
York Times employees, specifically the Room for Debate editors, posed the question, they are
not required to substantiate their position on the matter. In fact, they are in no way related to

the interpretation or consciousness of the matter beyond their debate column. The parents,
administrators, teachers, school board personnel, and even students who claim a position on
the matter are the ones who hold the burden of proof. There are no prevailing presumptions on
any of the conclusions of this issue. It doesn't follow a pattern or history, as the digital age is up
and coming. It also is not being presented to an assumed audience with a general and specific
mindset, such as if it were being presented in a conference room full of parents who lost their
children to bullying. Because there is no general consensus or history, I believe that each
individual who proclaims a position holds their own burden of proof.

>> Responding with Fallacies

Khalilah, your name is so unique and you have such good ideas, but you are a fool if you
believe that signing a paper will stop bullying. My cousin got shot in her High School English
class by a bullied kid that once signed a paper saying he would not bring weapons to school. Do
you think that is because the consequences were not meaningful enough or age-appropriate?
Franklin would probably agree with you. Well let me tell you two, if consequences are ageappropriate then they are not meaningful. Being removed from band is obviously not
meaningful, so it must be age-appropriate. You think that being taken off the football team will
stop a bully? What about his possible scholarships through football? You will take his whole
future away from him? You and Peter with all the harsh consequences! You better believe that
more than my fist will make you bleed if you think you can punish me!
David, you are naive! You along with Stina who thinks that because Sweden has it right,
we here in America should do it their way! The Swedish people are much more calm and
passive than Americans, so we couldn't accurately apply all those things here anyway! We
could however listen to Ruth who thinks that not adding random people on Facebook will
decrease bullying. Hey Ruth, I know you arent from the hip new generation, but just for your
information, people can message you and comment on your wall without being your friend. Do
you expect students to personally block every user who tries to add them as a friend? You are
on your Southern Australia high horse, thinking you have all the answers just by encouraging
tattle tails and sending sarcastic kids to jail. You dont even know how Facebook works! You
know, I bet your parents bullied you as a child!
Allison, we all know that your salary will rise if they start requiring students to take your
Social Conflicts course. Fortunately you can't prove that doing what is best for children creates
well-adjusted, productive citizens, so obviously it doesn't. Maybe we should take time to

consider the expert principal's argument where we as society should consider bullying our
issue as a whole and work to stop the epidemic. But Joy, what about the rioters bullying our
police officers? Who will stop their behavior? Obviously not Mia because she thinks we should
just empower the officers and give them more guns and allow them to shoot at the bullying
rioters. What is next Mia? We give officers permission to kill, then they start murdering their
disobedient wives, then bullied students start mass genocides on their classmates. We certainly
hit the jackpot with all of these overly opinionated, undereducated folks.

>> Responding for real

The argument my article is based off of was created for the purpose of addressing the
online bullying of students outside of schools and to take public thoughts and comments on the
regulation of such online behavior of students by schools. The entire conversation is designed
along their personal comments and feelings, specifically about the way they think that
schools/society should handle increasing off-campus online bullying. Out of the ten debaters
included in this article, only one user took the opposing side. The remaining nine users
compiled responses that explained how they think schools should be involved in the matter,
but not necessarily in ways that specifically regulate it. I most appreciated the comments that
included students being appropriately held responsible for their actions. I also felt persuaded
by those debaters who acknowledged that online bullying, no matter where it is taking place,
has an impact on academics and the school environment. I do agree with both of those ideas.
However, I was very pleased with the single debater who, though not very intelligently,
opposed schools monitoring Internet activity outside of school walls and activities. I think that
trying to make students understand that it is wrong is a completely useless tactic. Sure, let us
understand why students bully and even how we can help their mental state but we must also
keep in mind how severe these problems are and deal with the situation appropriately. That
responsibility should rely on therapists and psychiatrists, not school administrators. If we
allow the psychological professionals to handle the situation, they are more able to find the
initial source of the feelings and emotions of the bully. They will be able to consider home life
and other adults in an outside environment and that is the purpose for the profession they
hold. Schools are unable to get involved on such levels, so what is wise in asking them to?
Some of the responses in this article give solutions that include students spying on each
other online and producing tattle tails. I do not see the win in this situation. In middle/high

schools, nothing is truly confidential. What one person knows today, everyone will know
tomorrow. The perpetrator will only have more reason to retaliate. This retaliation may be
directed toward the same student, or may create a whole new situation in addition to the lack
of resolution of the first.
I am also convinced that schools taking away extracurricular activities and slapping two
week detentions on students who are bullying will not have any sort of lasting effect on the
number of dead teenage bully victims. I believe that taking away the bullying students prom
is a weak punishment, as would be most any so called age-appropriate punishments.
Especially in the case of students old enough to have a prom! If you are a high school student
bullying online, you should be taken up with charges by the police. That is a meaningful
punishment that I would find appropriate for a high school aged bully. However, schools would
not create that as a policy. Online threats, intimidation, humiliation, coercion, and abuse are
very serious matters. So serious in fact that those things account for over half of teenage
suicides in the United States. Activity online, specifically online bullying in all forms, should be
regulated by the police or another specified official.
There are professions and degrees built around handling these sorts of issues in adults,
and I do not see why, if students are creating adult-like serious situations, those same
professionals should not be the ones to handle and regulate those situations as well.

>>Reflecting on your own Argument

If students were to dissect my argument, I would have to say that it would probably not be
easy for them. After reviewing my final argument I found that my premises are not distinctly
laid out, and the subpremises to support those premises are jumbled within the same
paragraphs. I personally know my main points, but it is hard to say whether or not a reader
would receive the same message with the organization that my counter argument has. With
more time I could physically diagram my own argument and create a more organized flow to
help ensure that my readers understand my point of view in the way I intended. I think that the
strength of my argument would increase substantially if I were to rearrange my thoughts for a
better logical flow. I think that my premises are fairly strong, however I can see how they
would be difficult to determine as a reader, which would indeed cause my argument to falter. I
do however think that my subpremises are strong enough to allow my premises to hold in
support of my opposition of schools regulating online behavior of students. I think that my
subpremises refute the original argument considerably well because they acknowledged many
specific thoughts from the debate. I tried diligently not to use any horribly irresponsible logical
fallacies to persuade readers of my position, which is surprisingly more difficult than one might
think. They are so often used in everyday life that we except them as arguments, and allow
them to become our own arguments. Creating an argument with good logical flow and strong
premises supported by strong subpremises is much harder than it seems! Overall, I think that
considering this is my first class regarding fallacies and my first assignment acknowledging my
use of them, my counter argument is quite fair.

>> Identification/Explanation of Fallacies Used

Red Herring A comment that is intended to be misleading or distracting from the topic
of the argument.
o

But Joy, what about the rioters bullying our police officers? Who will stop their
behavior?

Appeal to Pride Persuading someone to agree with your opinion by flattery in a way
that is irrelevant to the argument.
o

Khalilah, your name is so unique and you have such good ideas.

Appeal to Fear Persuading someone to agree with your opinion by threat or terror in a
way that is irrelevant to the argument.
o

You better believe that more than my fist will make you bleed if you think you can
punish me!

Appeal to Pity Persuading someone to agree with your opinion by guilt or sympathy in
a way that is irrelevant to the argument.
o

What about his possible scholarships through football? You will take his whole
future away from him?

Ad Hominem Psychology Dismissing an argument by attacking the mental state of the

arguer.
o

I bet your parents bullied you as a child!

Ad Hominem Bias Dismissing an argument by attacking the circumstantial intentions of

the arguer.
o

Allison we all know that your salary will raise if they start requiring students to take
your Social Conflicts course.

False Appeal to Authority Fails 2nd The expertise of the person does not actually
determine whether the claim is true or false, in this case the expert is not speaking for a
general agreement of the field.
o

Maybe we should take time to consider the expert principal's argument where we as
society should consider bullying our issue as a whole and work to stop the epidemic.

Fallacy of Misleading Vividness A rare counter example to refute a claim.

o

My cousin got shot in her High School English class by a bullied kid that once signed
a paper saying he would not bring weapons to school.

Appeal to Ignorance Because we cannot prove something is true, it is obviously false.

o

Fortunately she can't prove that doing what is best for children creates welladjusted, productive citizens, so obviously it doesn't.

Affirming the Consequent A logical fallacy that confuses the directionality of if-then
arguments, recognized by its form.
o

if consequences are age-appropriate then they are not meaningful. Being removed
from band is obviously not meaningful, so it must be age-appropriate.

Strawman Fallacy Ignoring someones position and substituting a weaker or

exaggerated argument to more easily refute it.
o

empower the officers and give them more guns and allow them to shoot at the
bullying rioters.

Slippery Slope Fallacy A domino effect where a series of causal effects lead to a final
extreme conclusion.
o

We give officers permission to kill, then they start murdering their disobedient
wives, then bullied students start mass genocides on their classmates.