This Debate Watch review summarizes a discussion between debate-watchers following the completion of the final presidential debate in the year 2016. During this conversation, participants expressed their observations regarding each of the four debates hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Holistically, the participants voiced similar concerns. The debates – and especially the town hall format – were perceived as unproductive.
Summary of Discussion
The sample group expressed collective irritation with the discord occurring during each of the three debates between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Frequent interruptions between the candidates – especially interjections by Trump – were broadly considered unacceptable. Prompted by a question about possible format changes by the CPD, the assembly of debate-watchers advocated the forceful silencing of misbehaving candidates:
Foreign Student [Female]: “Turning off the microphones.”
Civilian 1 [Male]: “That is really good advice.”
Civilian 2 [Male]: “If you do not have people who are going to follow the rules, then you have to treat them in the appropriate way. If [the moderators] tell you to be quiet, then that’s it. There’s no argument. That’s it.”
The participants conveyed mixed reviews regarding the debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence. The
…show more content…
Uniquely, the fourth debate allowed the candidates to address follow-up questions and permitted both nominees to make closing statements. A male listener commented: “we want to hear what they actually think, not [what they are] trying to say to get at the other guy.” Giving the candidates the opportunity to support their policies allowed both Clinton and Trump to present their complete arguments. The group additionally agreed that the closing statements permitted during the final debate allowed viewers to achieve a sense of
Golden, A. L. (2001). Disputed ballots, partisan conflict, and constitutional uncertainty: The election of 2000 in historical context. The American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2252-2268. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214769221?accountid=45049
Finally, Leo makes the case that arguing is beneficial and can rescue us from “our own half-formed opinions.” John Leo has provided an excellent, if not equally sarcastic essay, on why he firmly believes debating is an important aspect of our daily lives. We use debating to help gain knowledge on new ideas, challenge existing ideas, engage with friends and fellow peers, and work out our half formed opinions. Throughout the essay, Leo uses a myriad of helpful quotes and examples to drive his point home. One of the most notable was a quote regarding President Ronald Reagan and then Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill. “Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan fought sharply during the day, but enjoyed having the occasional drink or two after
This book has not changed my views on ethics in combat nor in garrison. In the many years I have been in the military and the over seven combat deployments, I must disagree with Mr. Couch. Instances of unethical behavior are not encouraged to the degree he thinks nor as widespread. Of course, as with any organization where people are present, there will always be outliers
In his final words, he said that how the winner of the election would be remembered as President would be the way that they represented the ideals of the American people. The. The moderator then ended the debate and said goodbye. Kennedy went on to win the election, but only by a slim margin. The debates of the 1960 Presidential election were written as a new precedent for political candidates, and the candidates involved showed courage and character to give their words in front of a national audience.
After this thorough analysis of broadcasts from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party televised during the 2008 presidential election campaign, we can identify the most popular types of argumentative informal fallacies and how they can serve to appeal or attack the ethos, pathos and logos of an argument or the arguer himself or herself. It is important for the American electorate to be able to recognize them and dismiss them promptly, to abstain from making a decision as important as selecting the new president of the United States based on false or illogical arguments. Unfortunately, political parties and interest groups will continue to take advantage of these fallacies, it is up to the public to think critically in order to avoid being wrongly influenced or misguided by them. Works Cited BarackObamadotcom. James Taylor for Obama.
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates are considered among “the most significant statements in American political history” (Johannsen). The debates derived from the senatorial campaign in 1858 between Stephen Douglas, the Democratic senator, and Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate. The two politicians debated publicly throughout seven of Illinois’ nine congressional districts. By Election Day on November 2nd, Illinois citizens were aware of the primary issues of each man’s political stance (Schulmeister).
In theory, political campaigns are the most important culmination of the democratic debate in American politics. In practice, however, the media shrouds society’s ability to engage in a democratic debate with unenlightening campaign coverage. Because of this, it is difficult—if not impossible—to have educated political discourse in which the whole, factual truth is on display. After years of only seeing the drama of presidential campaigns, the American public has become a misinformed people.
The debate team of Wiley College faced many colleges to be recognized and finally in the end winning a debate against the reigning debating champions, Harvard University. One of the debaters who caught my attention was James Farmer Jr., the youngest on the team that started out as an alternative. James Farmer sought recognition from adults and wanted to show everyone he was capable of debating. James Farmer incorporates a lot of Ethos and Pathos into his speech making, allowing him to leave his audience filled with emotions and in awe. Although James Farmer interested me, especially the way he presented his final speech, James Farmer and I are very different in the way we deliver our speeches.
Sergeant Gary Stein received an “other than honorable” discharge in 2012 for making negative comments about the President. Stein posed a status on Facebook that said "Screw Obama. I will not follow all orders from him" (qtd in “Marine Sgt. Gary Stein Gets 'Other Than Honorable ' Discharge Over Anti-Obama Facebook Comment” abc News). Sergeant Stein’s comments go against the Marine Corps values of Honor and Commitment. By posting negative comments about his Commander in Chief he is not maintaining the “personal integrity” required by the Marines; although he made a second status taking responsibility for his actions, his personal integrity was already destroyed. The Commitment clause of the Marine Corps values says that a Marine must have “total dedication to Corps and Country” (Corps Values); speaking out against the leader of the country blatantly goes against this clause. Sergeant Stein argued that his Facebook posts were protected by his First Amendment rights, which states that individuals are entitled to freedom of speech (Cornell Law); but the Marine Corps upheld their previous decision. Sergeant Stein’s supervisors made a statement that they “found the comments showed a lack of personal and professional discipline expected of an active duty Marine and were prejudicial to the good order and discipline of his unit as a whole”
The current military system is based on obedience and respect for authority. From entering boot camp where personnel are mentally reconditioned to be a soldier, airman, or sailor in the United States Armed Forces, they’re taught that following orders comes before personal feelings or beliefs. Following orders is paramount to accomplishing a mission and ensuring that the job is done correctly, and that what you think or feel isn’t worth shari...
Conflict is inevitable in any personal relationship or among members of any group. While we encounter many types of conflict in our lifetime, we often look for ways to avoid conflict. So, why do we run away from dealing with our conflict? It is often because many of us fear the conflict will escalate into a situation we will not be able to sustain. “As conflicts escalate, they go through certain incremental transformations. Although these transformations occur separately on each side, they affect the conflict as a whole because they are usually mirrored by the other side. As a result of these transformations, the conflict is intensified in ways that are sometimes exceedingly difficult to undo” (Pruitt, and Kim 89). We see many of these intense moments of escalating conflict throughout the story of The Great Debaters. The Great Debaters is based on a true story of three African-American students faced with the escalating conflict of racism in the 1930’s, with their English College Professor, Melvin B. Tolson bringing them together to create the first African-American debate team.
Rhetorical Analysis Presidential Debate Clinton and Trump The presidential debate was an event where most of the population not only of United Stated of America but the whole world was waiting anxiously for. The first of the three presidential debates was developed in Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. The first debate drew a record of the audience being one of the most watched debated in the history of United States of America.
As our forefathers before us stated, ‘‘No one is more professional than I. I am a Noncommissioned Officer, a leader of soldiers. As a Noncommissioned Officer, I realize that I am a member of a time honored corps, which is known as “The Backbone of the Army (“The NCO Creed written by SFC Earle Brigham and Jimmie Jakes Sr”). These words to the Noncommissioned Officer should inspire us to the fullest with pride, honor, and integrity. The NCO creed should mean much more than just words whenever we attend an NCO’s school.
The airing of presidential debates on television is another very crucial part of the election process today. They are a chance for the public to see the candidates speak about vital current issues and their stance on political subjects. They are also a major deciding factor for voters. For example we can contrast the election between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 and the election between Gore and Bus...
After delivering the body of her speech, Clinton signaled the conclusion to her audience by saying, “Now it is the time to act on behalf of women everywhere.” Next, she made a reference to her introduction by mentioning the ways that women affect families. Clinton also summarized her main points before making the final memorable declaration, “The time is now.” Clinton’s conclusion was effective because it reminded her audience