3rd Presidential Debate

The 90-minute event at Hofstra University of Barack Obama & John Mc Cain did not meets the academic standard of argument. There were plenty of issues raised by bob Schieffer to the two presidentiables. In each given question, the candidate gave his answer to the issue. The other would be free to argue his opponent’s answer to the extent that they go beyond what is being asked and diverts more on personal attacks. There are so many interruptions during the debate, without waiting the other opponent to finish his answers. No proper assignment to each candidates who will be on the affirmative side and in the negative side, both are free to give their views. Mc Cain displayed his aggressive manner in answering the questions Obama was so calm in delivering his answer over the issue.

Near the end of the 90-minute event, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, asked the candidates to respond to trends that show that the United States spends more per capita on education than other countries yet trails many nations on measures such as students’ abilities to compete in mathematics and science. Mr. Schieffer asked whether that posed a national-security threat. This near end debate meets the academic standard. This is because the elements and contents of the issues being raised were answered intelligently by both contending Presidentiables with data's and claim's to support. Obama touted the importance of early-childhood education, said the United States needed to recruit a new generation of teachers, especially in math and science, and argued that the government should provide teachers with more professional development and better pay in exchange for being required to meet higher standards.

constitutional change

As of now, i'm not in favor of changing the constitution. There is nothing wrong with our constitution. We have so many laws that are not even properly implemented. Even if we change it a hundred times, if the people in the administration will always have personal interest of their own that often neglect the citizens, still nothing will happen. What we need is a character change. A truly honest and devoted people is what we need for the government to progress. Do we still have those kind of people? Maybe yes, maybe no more.

There were so many attempts to change the 1987 Constitutions:

The first Charter Change attempt on the 1987 Constitution was under former President Fidel V. Ramos. Among the proposed changes in the constitution included a shift to a parliamentary system and the lifting of term limits of public officials. Ramos argued that the changes will bring more accountability, continuity and responsibility to the "gridlock" prone Philippine version of presidential bicameral system.

Second is under President Joseph Estrada, there was a similar attempt to change the 1987 constitution. The process is termed as CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for Development. Unlike Charter change under Ramos and Arroyo the CONCORD proposal, according to its proponents, would only amend the 'restrictive' economic provisions of the constitution that is considered as impeding the entry of more foreign investments in the Philippines.

Under the Arroyo administration, there were more solid attempts to change the 1987 Constitution. The proposals included: a shift to a unicameral parliamentary form of government; economic liberalization; further decentralization of national government and more empowerment of local governments via transition to a parliamentary-federal government system.

All these proposal will only benifits the incumbent admistration. So why change?

argumentation

Argumentation Defined

Argumentation is generally 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. (F. M. Africa, The Art of Argumentation and Debate, p. 1)

It embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally. (Wikipedia, Argumentation Theory)

Four Processes of Argumentation

1. Invention. This refers to the determination of those ideas in the truth of which one would like others to believe, or that course of action which one would like others to adopt. This process is chiefly concerned with the formulation of the proposition to be discussed. It covers the consideration of the burden of proof and of the issues.

2. Selection. This refers to the choosing from all sources of information of facts, data, statistics, inferences, etc. that will help the arguer to establish the ideas in the truth of which he would like others to believe, or that course of action which he would like others to adopt. This involves the study of how to conduct investigation and research, the nature of evidence, the forms of arguments and the fallacies.

3. Arrangement. This pertains to the organization of the materials that have been selected in such a way as to secure maximum effect upon the belief and behavior of the reader or hearer. This process involves the application of the three great rhetorical principles-unity, coherence and emphasis and the study of the mechanism of the brief and the outline.

4. Presentation. The pertains to the putting of the materials that have been selected and organized into such effective language as to convey the ideas to the reader or hearer with maximum force. This process involves the study of persuasion as the method of approach and the technique of the introduction, of the discussion, of the conclusion and of delivery. (F. M. Africa, The Art of Argumentation and Debate, p. 6)

Components of Argument

1. Claim. Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)

2. Data. The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)

3. Warrant. The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.” (3)

4. Backing. Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

5. Rebuttal. Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”

6. Qualifier. Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”

The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments. (Wikipedia, Argumentation Theory)

Kinds of argumentation

Conversational argumentation
The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech.
Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.

Mathematical argumentation
The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithemetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid just in case it can be shown to be of a form such that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

Scientific argumentation
Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.

Legal argumentation
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 argumentation
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.. The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens.