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.