DOES THE 3RD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BETWEEN McCAIN AND OBAMA MEET THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS OF ARGUMENT?

The 3^rd Presidential debate between McCain and Obama was 90 minutes long with Bob Schieffer as moderator. It was divided into 9 minute segments with the subject of domestic policy. Each segment had a question thrown by Mr. Schieffer and each candidate was given 2 minutes to respond then a discussion ensued. Candidates were given the opportunity to ask each other follow up questions and if they didn’t then Mr. Schieffer would be the one to ask. Although the main proposition was Domestic Policy, every segment had questions about taxes, budget allocation and deficit, the negativity and effect of each other’s campaigns and the qualifications of each other’s running mate to become president. The candidates defended their plan of action and asked questions to each other. Each candidate presented points in his proposals on why his were better than the other one. The World Rules on Debate gave standards to be followed in a debate and also used these standards to judge a debate.

Introduction

a) The format- with two teams and a moderator

b) The motion- should not be ambiguously worded

c) Preparation

d) Timing of the Speeches- there’s a length of time required to deliver the speeches

e) Points of Information- debaters ask questions to each other for clarification

f) The adjudication

How the Debate will be judged:

DEFINITIONS

a) The definition should state the issue or issues for debate arising out of the motion which require interpretation

b) Challenging the definition

c) Assessing the definitional challenge

MATTER

a) Matter is the content of the speech. It is the argument the debater uses to further his or her case or persuade the audience. It includes arguments, reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other materials that attempt to further his or her case. It should be relevant, logical and consistent.

b) Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style or structure a member uses to further his case or persuade his audience.

c) Elements of style includes eye contact, voice modulation, hand gestures, language.

Basing on the criterion mentioned above, the 3^rd debate between Obama and McCain followed the academic standards for arguments. It is inescapable that the candidates will be judged and not the debate per se. The future of a wounded nation depended on the discourse between two opposing gentlemen, one, a young and dynamic lad holding a lot of promise and the other, a war hero with political experience as his advantage but is relatively old compared to the other one. America is in its trying times and it is knee deep in problems and controversies with its distress felt by the rest of the world. Americans needed a Chief Executive to deliver them out of the troublesome economy they are in. That was the main content of the debate. Economic policies of both McCain and Obama were of paramount concern of the entire debate. Although the debate also touched on different other aspects like their running mates and their ability to lead if by some circumstance either one could not push through with the presidency. In the end, if I had to chose, in my opinion, Senator Obama’s proposals and policies where the ones easily understandable to me who’s a non American and who cannot relate to issues like tax credits to individuals (that certainly doesn’t happen here). He was calmer more dignified and was more eloquent.

SHOULD THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION BE CHANGED OR NOT?

In recent times, there have been many talks of changing the constitution. These talks have been widely heard especially now that key officials of the country are ending their terms in a couple of years including the highest official of the land, the President. It is in this regard that many people believe is the main reason why a clamor for charter change is all over the news again. For me, the 1987 Constitution should not be changed. Our present Constitution is about 20 years old. If we study the history and the historical implications of our Constitution, we will learn that our Constitution had undergone modifications over time purposely in sync with a significant milestone and event in our nation’s history. It started with the declaration of our independence from the 300 plus years of Spanish authoritarian rule. Emilio Aguinaldo became president and the Malolos Constitution was born, the first democratic Constitution in Asia. This was a result of a bloody Philippine Revolution that came about because of the uproar the Filipinos made struggling to free themselves in an abusive, corrupt and totalitarian Spanish regime. However, this was short lived. The Americans came. We were under a new sovereign again and inevitably, the Americans overhauled our government. They ruled our country for a period of time and then handed the reigns over to the Filipinos establishing the Commonwealth government with Manuel L. Quezon as the President. Around this time in 1935, a new Philippine Constitution was ratified and came into effect. We gained our independence from the Americans in 1946 after World War II ended. The 1935 Constitution remained untouched until 1973 following widespread unrest nationwide under the leadership of President Ferdinand Marcos who declared martial law a year earlier. This marked another turning point in our nation’s history. Under his dictatorship, there was massive violence, exploitation, human rights violations and taking over of public utility companies. President Marcos controlled the legislation and the judiciary and some of the provisions in the 1973 Constitution made sure that he did. The Filipinos again revolted and a new government was established. President Corazon Aquino became the leader and the Freedom Constitution was ratified overwhelmingly by the people in 1987. This is now our present Constitution. It is a result of a transformation of the kind of government under a new leadership, the beginning of peace and stability in our society and economy. Therefore, modifications to our Constitution are consequences of a major shift of our government, social reforms and a new page in the Philippine history. There is no need for us to change the 1987 Constitution as we are not currently experiencing major turning points that will affect greatly the social and political make up of our government and society. Our 1987 Constitution was drafted by the framers having in their minds the needs of the Filipino people to be rightfully included in the Constitution for the improvement of our lives whether they would be political, social, economical and even environmental. The Constitution therefore encompasses almost everything important to the lives of the people living in the Philippines. What we actually need right now is a new administration that will uphold the integrity of the Constitution and its ideals and not a new Constitution.

ARGUMENTATION

Definitions

• It is defined as the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act. It is the process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader through spoken or written speech by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings.
• Argumentation is a verbal or written, social and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable judge of the acceptability or inacceptability of a standpoint by advancing a certain constellation of propositions which is designed to justify or refute the standpoint.
• Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.

Methods and Approaches

• Conviction- appeals to reason, to create belief or intellectual agreement. It is that phase of argumentation whereby the arguer directs his words to the reasoning faculty of man.
• Persuasion- appeals to the emotion, feelings and to the will. It is the phase of argumentation whereby the disputant directs his words to the heart, to the feelings, to the sentiments, to the emotions.

Aims/Objectives/Components

• The study of argumentation concentrates on the analysis, evaluation and presentation of the 'point of departure' and the 'organization' of argumentation. The point of departure consists of all explicit and implicit premises and assumptions that are taken as the starting point in argumentation. The organization of the argumentation comprises the way in which the various reasons are connected with each other and the standpoint at issue to justify or refute this standpoint. Both in the study of the point of departure and in that of the organization of argumentation logical and pragmatic considerations play a part.

• The philosophical component of the study of argumentation involves reflection on the ideal of reasonableness underlying the theorizing about argumentation; the outcome of this reflection is pertinent to the question of when argumentation may be considered sound or not sound.
• Toulmin’s Model:

Ø The Claim-Most general statement, the umbrella statement that all other parts have to fall under. The main point of the argument which can be express or implied.

Ø Data- provides the evidence, opinions, reasoning, examples, and factual information about a claim

Ø Warrants - are assumptions, general principles, conventions of specific disciplines, widely held values, commonly accepted beliefs, and appeals to human motives. Most warrants are not stated in an argument.

Ø Backing - is audience specific and it bridges the gap between the author's warrant and the audience's opinion.

Ø Rebuttals - establish what is wrong, invalid, or unacceptable about an argument and they may present counter arguments or new arguments that represent different points of view.

Ø Qualifiers - are words throughout the argument that quantify the argument. Some examples include: always, never, is, are, all, none, and absolutely, always and never change to sometimes, is and are change to may be or might, all changes to many or some, none changes to a few, and absolutely changes to probably or possibly.

References:

• The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Africa
• http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/toul.html
• Definition of Argumentation, Interpretation, Rhetoric
• Wikipedia