The Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera debate addressed the Virginia Beach tragedy regarding

Alfredo Ramos, an undocumented immigrant, who pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated
involuntary manslaughter as a result of causing a crash that killed two teenage girls while driving
intoxicated. Ramos had three prior criminal convictions involving alcohol. Bill O'Reilly felt
that this was an immigration issue; meanwhile, Geraldo Rivera argued that it is solely a drinking
and driving issue.

O'Reilly made an argument that the Ramos incident is a result of sanctioned cities and
immigration. Rivera disagreed with O’Reilly claiming the Virginia Beach tragedy should not be
made into a cheap political point about immigration; it is solely a drinking and driving issue.
As evidence, Rivera presented that Ramos being an immigrant is irrelevant, his name could be
Bobby, and he could be Jewish or Italian; Ramos was drunk and should not have been driving.
Rivera also used statistics as evidence stating that “there were 347 drunk driving fatalities in the
Commonwealth of Virginia in the year 2005 I think this may be the first drunk driving story
we've done from Virginia” (O’Reilly Factor). He continued to ask do we care about the 347
other drunken auto fatalities. He stated that 17,000 other families suffered from the loss of loved
ones due to drinking and driving. Highlighting this tragedy as an immigration issue demeans the
importance of the issues of driving while intoxicated and the victims. I feel as though Rivera
was able to back up his point with evidence that was effective in supporting his claims within the
limited time restraint and the multiple interruptions by O’Reilly.

For an argument to be accepted as valid, it must pass all four conditions of the argument test.
The four argument contents are truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. To
pass the truthfulness test the reasons must be true and suggest that the claim is true. Rivera’s
reason that Ramos is an immigrant is irrelevant; Ramos was drunk and should not have been
driving is true. The other reason highlighting this tragedy as an immigration problem degrades
the other 347 drunk driving fatalities in Virginia passes the truthfulness test with the presented
statistics. In Rivera’s argument, the Virginia Beach tragedy should not be made into a cheap
political point about immigration; it is solely a drinking and driving issue. With both presented
reasons being true, this suggests the claim as true. To pass the logical strength test, the logic of
the claim is assessed and the reasons; if the provided reasons are true, then the claim is expected
to be true. It was determined in the truthfulness test that the reasons were true, therefore it would
be reasonable for Rivera’s claim to also be true. For the argument to pass the relevance test, the
reasons must directly support and back up the claim. Both reasons support and back up the claim
passing the relevance test. Rivera claimed the Virginia Beach tragedy should not be made into a
cheap political point about immigration; it is solely a drinking and driving issue. Rivera
presented the fact that Ramos’ immigration status is irrelevant, his name could be Bobby, he
could be Jewish or Italian; he was drunk and should not have been driving. Supports the concept
in the claim that the tragedy is in direct relation to drunk driving. The other reason Rivera
provided declaring the other 347 drunk driving fatalities in Virginia not making national
headlines backups the idea of the tragedy transpiring into a political point about immigration
without regard to the 17,000 other families suffered from the loss of loved ones due to drinking
and driving. To pass the test of non-circularity the truth of the reason must be independent of the
truth of the claim. The reasons presented by Rivera do not depend on the truth of the claim; both
reasons are independent of the claim, passing the test on non-circularity.

Two fallacies identified in the video clip was the hasty generalization fallacy and the slippery
slope fallacy. The hasty generalization fallacy is when assumptions are made based on little
evidence instead of facts that are based on the typical condition resulting in overgeneralizing the
situation. In the clip, O’Reilly stated, “He should have been deported … if he breaks the law, he
gets deported” (O’Reilly Factor) referring to Ramos’ other convictions. This is a hasty
generalization fallacy because not all laws should result in deportation. There are several
categories of laws requiring different levels of consequences. Deportation should not be a result
of a simple parking ticket nor would it be cost-effective. A slippery slope fallacy is making a
claim that proclaims that if an allowable incident happens, then a successive occurrence will
follow, therefore the incident should not be allowed. During the end of the argument, Rivera
inserted a slippery slope fallacy when he said, “the Minutemen are wearing guns now on the
border. What, they're going to start shooting illegal aliens?” (O’Reilly Factor) indicating that the
minutemen were going to start shooting at the border because they can wear guns.

Reference:
The O’Reilly Factor. “The Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera Bust Up.” Bill O’Reilly and
Geraldo Rivera. Fox News. 5 April 2007. Transcript.
Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhwwbNA3hjg