🗣️ Here are some direct statements from the parties involved in the Oklahoma University grading dispute:

1. University of Oklahoma: “The graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.”
2. Mel Curth (TA): “I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs… but because the paper did not answer the questions, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence, and is at times offensive.”
3. Curth on science: “Every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association … acknowledges that … sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.”
4. Samantha Fulnecky (student): “I definitely think that I was being punished for what I believe… I very clearly stated my beliefs and what the Bible says about gender and those roles.”
5. University statement: “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.”

🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?
Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding truth blocks. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Content Type & Quality:
Strong Reasoning - Clear logic & evidence
Moderate - Some structure, could improve
Weak Reasoning - Fallacies or poor logic
ℹ️ Not Evaluable - Questions, personal statements (not poor quality)
Note: Gray highlights with dashed borders (ℹ️) indicate content like questions or personal experiences that aren't meant to present logical arguments. Low scores on these don't mean poor quality!
Source