3rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain

Does their debate meet the academic standards for arguments? Why or why not?

Yes it did show that they are both trying to convince the American people with what their plan for them. Eventhough most of the time the two candidates will interfere on each other, especially on topics or issues that they disagree.Through out the debate it is evident that John McCain is more emotional than Obama.The way that Obama and McCain conduct their campaigns using negative attacks against each other, is the same scenario that we have in our country. There are even times that the candidate himself doesn’t have the full knowledge of the ads that were used to promote his campaign. But the main message of their debate is not how they raise those issues and talk about it. But it was on how they will fulfil such issues or problems that deeply concers the American people.

The two candidates agree on most issues that need to be given attention, like the need to have good education and health insurance to all Americans.What they do not agree, is on how these issues and concerns can be best solved or addressed. And even in questions/issues they agree, the two would often forget the rules of arguing set by the host.

But McCain made a mistake in taking Obama head on with the debate. He just showed the American people that Obama is more promising than him.

Toulmin Method

Toulmin Method

The Toulmin Method is an informal method of reasoning. Created by the British philospher Stephen Toulmin, It involves the data, claim, and warrant of an argument. These three parts of the argument are all necessary to support a good argument. The "Data" is the evidence used to prove something. The "Claim" is what you are proving with the data. The "Warrant" is the assumption or principle that connects the data to the claim. All three parts are necessary.

For an example: Harry was born in Bermuda, so Harry must be a British subject.

In the above sentence, the phrase "Harry was born in Bermuda" is the data. This is evidence to support the claim. The claim in sentence above is "Harry must be a British subject." The warrant is not explicitly stated in this sentence; it is implied. The warrant is something like this, "A man born in Bermuda will be a British subject." It is not necessary to state the warrant in a sentence. Usually, one explains the warrant in following sentences. Other times, like in the sentence above, the speaker of the sentence assumes the listener already knows the fact that all people born in Bermuda are British subjects.

Another example: Steve bought apple juice for himself, so he must like apple juice."

This argument provides the data, claim, and warrant. The data would be the fact that Steve bought apple juice for himself. The claim is that Steve must like apple juice. The warrant is that people who buy apple juice, drink it, which means that they must like it, or else they wouldn't drink it. Again, the warrant is considered background knowledge and unnecessary to repeat in the argument. If one were to expound this argument, however, it would be helpful to explain the warrant.

An author usually won't bother to explain the warrant because it is too obvious. It is usually an assumption or a generalization. However, the author must make sure the warrant is clear because the reader must understand the author's assumptions and why the author assumes these opinions. An example of an argument with an unclear warrant is like this: "Drug abuse is a serious problem in the United States. Therefore, the United States must help destroy drug production in Latin America." This may leave the reader confused. By inserting the warrant in between the data and the claim, though, would make the argument clearer. Something like, "As long drugs are manufactured in Latin America, they will be smuggled into the United States, and drug abuse will continue." This phrase makes clear why the evidence relates to the claim. One must be cautious as to deciding whether or not to include the warrant in the argument because flaws in the argument could be obvious.

The Toulmin method is also helpful in identifying and creating persuasive arguments. When a writer lays out the Data, Claim, and Warrant of an argument, it can make writing an argument much easier.

Reference: "Reasoning." The Bedford Reader. By X.J. Kennedy, Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron. Ed. Denise B. Wydra and Karen S. Henry. 9th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. p.519-522.

oregon-oxford debate

oregon-oxford debate

Cross-Examination/Oregon-Oxford/Forensic Debate
- traditional debate format used in elementary, high schools and colleges all over the country.
- There are 2 sides in this format : the Affirmative and the Negative. The Affirmative proves the validity of the issue or topic called the Proposition while the Negative disproves it. Each team has two speakers and one scribe. A Debate Moderator enforces the rules to ensure the debate's smooth conduct.
- Each speaker delivers one Constructive speech, one Rebuttal-Summation speech and gets to cross-examine his opponent.
- This is the format of choice for topics requiring more than superficial research. This format involves the use of specific information in the form of evidence to support arguments
- During interpellation, the debate takes the appearance of a courtroom trial where the advocate is subjected by his opponent to a series of questions with the aim of exposing fallacious arguments and clarifying issues.

Propositions
- The topics or issues used in Cross-Examination debate are called PROPOSITIONS.
- A proposition is a statement of the issue under consideration which the debater must establish or overthrow, depending on his side.
- Propositions start with the phrase "Resolved…" which is short for "Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved…". This is the reason why the topics are sometimes called resolutions.
- Propositions are classified under (1) policy or (2) fact. Propositions of policy deal with the question "Why should this be done?". Propositions of fact deal with the question "Is this true?"

Phrasing the Proposition
The proposition must be debatable.
The proposition must be stated in the affirmative.
The proposition should be concise and simple.
The proposition must state the proposed policy, not defend the status quo.
The proposition should embody only one act of judgment or central idea.
The proposition must not be too wordy and must be impartial.

Team Burdens and Rights
Affirmative
Negative
Burden of Proof ( prove validity of the proposition)

Burden of Rebuttal (to oppose or disprove the proposition; to effect a clash on all affirmative arguments)
Right to Definition (to define the proposition and set the parameters of the debate)
Right to Presumption of Validity (that the status quo is presumed to be working and valid if not properly refuted)
Interpellation is the phase in a debate when the actual clash between you and your opponent occurs

Objectives of Interpellation
To clarify points in the opposing team's position
To expose factual errors or unscrupulous assertions by the opposition
To obtain damaging admissions from the opposition themselves
To set up arguments for use in subsequent speeches by you and your team-mate.

Do's and Don'ts in Interpellation
Don't simply state that the opponent's argument is fallacious.
Do not make statements in interpellation.
Don't ask irrelevant questions or questions that might require a lengthy explanation.
Ask categorical questions (answerable by a simple yes or no).
Observe courtesy. Rudeness will not win debates.

Checklist for Debaters
Examine the proposition closely.
Formulate a clear theme.
Prepare for both sides.
Never write the actual speech in advance.
State the burden of both sides.
Always support arguments with evidence.
Never use distorted of fabricated evidence.
Debaters are expected to be in possession of the forms of documentation at the time they used any evidence which was challenged.
Don't overemphasize an argument.
Be on the look-out for fallacious arguments.
Don't underestimate the power of the last emotional appeal.

ARGUMENTATION

ARGUMENTATION

This article is about the word argument as it is used in logic. For other uses, see Argument (disambiguation).

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises.

Each premise and the conclusion are only either true or false, not ambiguous. The sentences composing an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; arguments are referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false. Some authors refer to the premises and conclusion using the terms declarative sentence, statement, proposition, sentence, or even indicative utterance. The reason for the variety is concern about the ontological significance of the terms, proposition in particular. Whichever term is used, each premise and the conclusion must be capable of being true or false and nothing else: they are truthbearers.

Legal arguments

Main articles: Oral argument and closing argument

Legal arguments (or oral arguments) are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument (or summation) is the concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.

Political arguments

Main article: Political argument

A political argument is an instance of a logical argument applied to politics. Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events.