3rd Presidential Debate of Obama vs. Mc Cain : Whether or not it has followed the rules on debate?

The 3rd Presidential Debate of Obama vs. Mc Cain has followed some rules on debate. In the first part, the presider has duly introduced the two debating parties with specific point of arguments. Before its start, he has given the simple rule to follow. He clearly stated to limit the discussion on democratic policy by asking questions to parties with maximum time allotted for Mc Cain and Obama to respond.

The debate went on smoothly. However, on the later part, I believe, the parties have gone beyond the rules. Although, they have presented the problem areas, they have not directly presented valid evidence to prove their stand and persuade each one. The ideas are roving around the bush which makes it more of political publicity than straightly addressing the issues. The candidates are inserting promises on their future administration if they will be elected rather than proving their points to be deserving and effective.

To be more valuable, they could have thoroughly analyzed the expected argument of their opponent. The ideas should be verbally articulated rather than just having a mental conception of ideas like that of tax cuts for different classes of citizens. Proofs for arguments must be factual rather based on heresies. Evidences must be based on studies, statistics or actual data.

Thus, whether or not Obama vs. Mc Cain’s presidential debate has followed the rules is quite on the negative.

Charter Change: Shall We Dance To Cha-Cha?

The ultimate question would be will there be more sunshine than rain? Will our country move forward? Does it really make a difference?

Definitely, we need change. Without saying it, everybody wants some form of change that will end the socio-political and economic turmoil that our country is experiencing nowadays. But, shall we dance to cha-cha? Shall we adopt the parliamentary or remain bonded with the presidential form of government?

The two forms of government have its share of good and bad points. To state a few, the parliamentary form has no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances compared to those found in a presidential system. Thus, it is easier to pass legislation in the parliamentary form.

However, one of the main criticisms of parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all cases not directly elected. Unlike in a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature.

In a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party's candidate for the head of government is usually known before the election. This makes the election more about the party behind the person for the position.

Shall we then dance to cha-cha? Will there be more sunshine than rain in dancing?

I believe, although the form of government is of importance, the controlling factor in order to make it effective should be the mind of the leaders. Even we change our charter or choose to remain with the presidential one, if we are continuously attached to the bandage of unintellectual and corrupt officials who serve to satisfy their personal interest, the form of government, no matter how well-founded, will surely not prosper.

For us to move economically, we must polish the deficiencies particularly with those who are entrusted with our public trust and confidence. It is however an extensive process. But we can start by painstakingly choosing and scrutinizing the candidates to vote. We must not allow our rights of suffrage to be tainted.

Though, we cannot fully assure, we must hope and pray that the candidates we voted will remain with their oath of honesty and integrity, and will forever be guided with their conscience.

Indeed, change is constant. We can change for the better. But, we must first deal with the issues that really matter in the development of our nation and improving the lives of the people.

There is no doubt we can. For this thing to happen, we should take a firm stand against political agendas. Instead of changing our charter, perhaps, we must first change the management.

Oregon-Oxford Debating

What is an Oregon-Oxford Debating?

HISTORY

It was in 5th Century B.C. in Syracuse a city from Ancient Greece has gone through war and revolution. People struggled for peace and order. A particular concern for them was land ownership for lands were claimed through memory

What is Debate?

Debate is basically a response to a problem. It is a competition using words and logic. It is to change people’s minds and actions through our words and power of conviction.
Objectives of Debate


Main Objective
* To resolve the issue intelligently at the end of the debate
Specific Objectives
* To have a comprehensive grasp of issues
* To be able to prepare a case which tackles the P, N and B.



The Resolution


• Stated as: Let it be resolved that (LIBRT):______________.
• Characteristics:
* Usually about a policy.
* Stated in a way that alters the status quo.
* Positively-stated.


Research

Research first before case-building
* The team should research before building their case if the issue is new and is still developing.
Case-building before research
* The team should build their case first before undergoing research when the issue has already been widely discussed and debated.


Case-building

BURDEN OF EACH TEAM
Affirmative – Burden of Proof
Must establish a prima facie case
Must prove all aspects of their case to win
Can not win based on the inability of the negative to prove its case.


Negative – Burden of Rebuttal
Must destroy either the P, N, or b of the affirmative’s case
Can not discuss anything that the affirmative did not bring up

ASPECTS OF THE CASE
Practicability – feasibility of a proposition, includes matter of:
*law *clamor *finance
Necessity – need for the proposition, discusses the presence or absence of an inherent flaw in the status quo.
Beneficiality – advantages or disadvantages of adopting or rejecting the resolution, includes;
* specific beneficiaries *specific benefits


Parts of the Debate

Constructive Speech
The presentation of each team member’s arguments and evidence for each aspect of the case – 5 minutes each
Interpellation
The opportunity for each debater to ask and answer questions regarding their speeches - 3 minutes
Rebuttal
The summary and defense of each team’s arguments and evidence, to be delivered by either the scribe or the team captain – 6 minutes



Speaker Roles
3 Speakers
Practicability speaker
Necessity Speaker
Beneficiality
Scribe

1st Speaker (Affirmative Side)
I. Introduction
II. State the proposition
A. Define the terms
B. Give the status quo
1. What is the status quo?
2. What is wrong with it?
C. State your stand
Team Split
Caseline
A. State all your arguments first
B. Go back, then strengthen each one
C. Always give transition. You could repeat the argument after your explanation.
VI. Conclusion

1st Speaker (Negative Side)
I. Introduction
II. State the proposition of the affirmative
A. Negate/show the clash with the given proposition
III. Rebut the 1st speaker of the affirm.’s arguments
IV. Caseline (same as the 1st spkr-aff)
V. Conclusion (same as the 1st spkr-aff)


Rebuttal Speaker (Affirmative and Negative)
I. Introduction
II. State the proposition
A. What has happened in this debate?
B. Where was the clash?
Rebuttal of the Opposing team
A. What have they said?
B. Why is it wrong?
C. Fallacies committed


Summary
A. Restate all the arguments of each speaker
1. What have they said?
2. Why is it right?
Strengthen arguments by giving more examples or elaboration.
Conclusion