“The problem with the kids of today is simple: ever since the Great Depression, the cost of living has skyrocketed.”

This is an example of a Non Sequitur (from Latin, meaning “does not follow”) argument, one of nine logical fallacies that my Eleventh Grade AP English class memorized when studying the power of a solid argument. We were told to read them, memorize them, apply them, then spit them back out for an exam, but I – being the exceptional student that I am – decided that mere studying would not be enough. I had to put them to the test; apply them in my everyday life. Most would find this a difficult situation, but it turned out to be all too easy for me. The next day I was called into the office.

“Your jacket,” as I was told by one of the five assistant principals at our school, “is very dangerous, and needs to be removed promptly, or your immediate suspension will result.”

“It’s hardly dangerous,” I told him.

“No, it is dangerous,” He then justified, “because you could injure someone with it.”

Here is where I first noted a logical fallacy. This particular one is known as Begging the Question, or assuming from the beginning that which one intends to prove. In other words, he took for granted that the jacket could inflict injury to prove that it was dangerous, when in fact, it was whether or not it could inflict injury that was the problem.

So I asked him, “How exactly could I hurt someone with it?”

“Well, these spikes could easily pierce skin.”

Webster defines “spike” as: 1. A very large nail. Now, did my jacket have very large nails protruding from it? No. It did, however, have about twenty studs on the back of the collar, each a half inch wide and a half inch tall, gratuitously rounded. These are far from dangerous (especially fastened to the back of my neck: A bruise to my adversary would cost me the feeling in my legs), I have yet to successfully pierce a banana, much less skin. So his Oversimplification (the expressing of a complicated phenomenon in an overly simplified manner which does not explore its important nooks and crannies) was the next thing that I noticed.

“Are you sure about that?” I inquired.

“Everyone agrees with me,” He answered.

This is an example of an Argument from Doubtful or Unidentified Authority, because he failed to specify who exactly “everyone” was. In fact, when I had been talked to before about it, it was with a different assistant principal, who actually understood that the word “danger” implies something dangerous.

“What if I hit you with it right now?” He menaced, “Would you like that?”

“No, I wouldn’t,” I told him, “but do you honestly think that I could injure someone with it?”

He paused. He gave me good you-aren’t-allowed-to-argue-with-me-because-I-win-no-matter-what-you-say glaring for about ten seconds, made a move as though he really was going to hit me, then declared “It doesn’t matter. You aren’t allowed to wear it.”

I don’t even have an actual fallacy name for that one, but I think that it would be called Ignoramus Rebuttaless, from the Latin, “Ignoring the Rebuttal.” My teacher probably considered this term unnecessary, as it is hardly arguing at all, just a person stating and restating their right-ness.

So I lose, and aside from practical English terms, I’ve discovered that I am, in reality, unable to defend myself in an argument, a right that I believed to belong to all of mankind. Instead, I am forced to submit to those able to enforce their ideas. This doesn’t so much remind me of an equal society.

Of course, this isn’t to say that our assistant principal was wrong. That’s completely irrelevant. The point is that, regardless of who was right, I was unable to defend myself to any logical end; win or lose.

Last year, during a dress rehearsal for a talent show, the lead singer from our ska band accidentally said the word “gun.” Gun was the original word in the song that we were performing, and having sung the original song hundreds of times before we changed it to “rose,” it was a simple mistake to make.

Naturally, the school’s censor, Ms. Atencio (another assistant principal), was very upset, and the next day I volunteered to go in to see her and explain to her that it was an accident, never to happen again. I introduced myself, stuck out my hand in expectance of hers, and was met instead with an immediate tongue-lashing.

“If you think that you can just do whatever you want, you’ve got another thing coming. We attend Columbine High School and the word ‘gun’ is absolutely, positively not allowed ever for any reason. I can’t believe that you would even have the nerve to try and attempt something like this,” and it goes on and on and on.

Five minutes later I successfully interjected and explained that 1. It was only an accident, 2. I was not the one singing, and 3. I had actually volunteered to come and explain this to her. That didn’t even faze her.

“I don’t care who you are or what you did, if anybody as blah blah blah ‘gun’ blah blah expelled blah blah” whatever.

I don’t tolerate that kind of disrespect.

She did have a legitimate point, though. They both did, people almost always do, and I believe that they have the complete and total right to express those points. What I want is this same right secured for myself, and this right secured for all. Everyone has the right to question “the system” and all people have a right to fix it. Don’t believe me? Ask Joan of Arc, Plato, Shakespeare, Copernicus, or Washington. They thought so.

But time and time again, we lose this right to rebuttal. A friend of mine is told that she must wear shoes in the school to protect everyone from disease; the only person who could possibly get a disease would have to voluntarily not be wearing shoes in the first place. It’s a moot point, but she is unable to even assert it. Actually, this phenomenon is visible even outside of school: The War in Iraq, the President’s Income, the constant “cleanup” that companies do to keep their profit margins high.

Why is this really important? Because nobody is always right. In fact, our school’s principal came and talked to me in the hall the other day.

“Are you wearing that jacket that we told you was dangerous? The one that you aren’t allowed to wear anymore?”

“Yes.”

“Hmmm... Well, it looks OK to me. Have a good day.”