Whether the 3rd presiential debate between Obama and Mccain met the academic standard for argumentation and debate?
My answer is in the negative. The first to third questions perhaps it met the academic standard for debating and arguing. This is because the elements and contents of the issues being post were answered and elucidated by both the contending Presidentiables with data's and claim's.
Withal, the totality of it transpired as a mere politicking and impugning each other not on the issues but more on personal attacks and the way the bandwagon maneuvering of their political advertisement. John McCain commenced the same by proffering and accusing his adversary of resorting to strategy of maligning his reputation publicly. McCain wants the younger Obama to yield in and advise the staff of the latter from ceasing the attacks.
I think the debate between them went into circus rather than facing the issues that need to be answered thoroughly and intelligently by the next commander in-chief of the most powelful nation of the world. Furthermore, the usual argumentation and debate are being done within which the speaker who is being given a time to answer the issue being raised by a facilitator. Nonetheless, in my observation between the debates of Obama and McCain those were violated by both. This is so because of the usual interruption of the other party, without the other being finished with his arguments.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Oregon-Oxford Debating
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
l 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 Practicability, Necessity and Beneficiality.
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
l Research first before case-building
The team should research before building their case if the issue is new and is still developing.
l 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
l 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
l 3 Speakers
Practicability speaker
Necessity Speaker
Beneficiality
1 Scribe
l 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
l 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)
l 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
What is Argumentation?
Argumentation is the art and science of persuading others thru the use of language, intellect and emotion.
Contents
Key components of argumentation
Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
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
l 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 Practicability, Necessity and Beneficiality.
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
l Research first before case-building
The team should research before building their case if the issue is new and is still developing.
l 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
l 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
l 3 Speakers
Practicability speaker
Necessity Speaker
Beneficiality
1 Scribe
l 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
l 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)
l 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
What is Argumentation?
Argumentation is the art and science of persuading others thru the use of language, intellect and emotion.
Distinctions between argumentation and debate.
1. As to the medium use: argumentation uses either language in a verbal manner or through writing; whereas, debate is verbal only.
2. As to the presence the contending parties: argumentation may or may not with the presence of its adversary; whereas, debate is made with the presence of the contending parties.
3. As to formality: Argumentation generally has no formal rules being followed; whereas, debate being a contest has a formal rules and regulations.
4. Finally, as to the appeal: Argumentation is an appeal to the emotions: whereas, debate is depicting the more practical and logic way.
Contents
Key components of argumentation
Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)