Third Party Presidential Debates The Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary defines debate as; To engage in argument by discussing opposing points (American Heritage,369). Another definition is as follows; a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition (American Heritage,369). The Random House College Dictionary offers this definition; To engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.) (Random House,342). So which definition is correct? We know a debate is a discussion or an argument. What has to be decided is whether or not it is between two groups or several groups. That same question has arisen in the Presidential debates of the 1996 presidential election campaigns. That question being whether or not Ross Perot and his running mate should have been included in the debates with President Clinton, Bob Dole and their running mates. In order to answer this question we have to know more about the debates history. The presidential debates are in place for the public to see and hear what the candidates have to say about issues facing the nation. While debating between presidential candidates has been occurring throughout America's history they were limited to a small audience (Leone,_). However with the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon a whole new world was opened as millions of viewers watched the debates on television (Leone,_). Those first televised debates are generally credited with giving John F. Kennedy the winning margin in a very close presidential race (Leone,_). Following the 1960 election there were no publicly televised debates until 1976, and since then the debates ... ... middle of paper ... ...ilable http:// www.elibrary.com/id/60/127/getdoc.cgi Debenport, Ellen. "Dole Camp Seeking Two Extra Debates." St. Petersburg Times. 13 Sept. 1996: 8B. Neustadt, Richard. "Advisory Committee Report." Advisory Board to Commission on Presidential Debates. 1996. Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1996. Available http:/www.debates96.org/advisory.html Stall, Bill. "Perot Takes Debate Fight to Court." Los Angeles Times. 1 Oct. 1996: 13A Jackson, Robert. "Perot Loses Bid to Block Clinton-Dole Debate." Los Angeles Times. 2 Oct. 1996: 16A ---. "Court Turns Down Perot's Appeal on Debate." Xinhua News Agency. 1996. Online. Internet . 10 Oct. 1996. Available http://www.elibrary.com/ 60/127/getdoc.cgi Pool, Bob. "Readers Debate Perot's Inclusion in Debates." Los Angeles Times. 29 Sept. 1996: 2B
Traditional argument is when one takes a side of an argument and tries to persuade the opposite side to take their side of the argument.
Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial, titled “The Triumph of the Yell”, Tannen claims that journalists, politicians and academics treat public discourse as an argument. Furthermore, she attempts to persuade her readers that this posturing of argument as a conflict leads to a battle, not a debate, and that we would be able to communicate the truth if this culture were not interfering. This paper will discuss the rhetorical strategies that Tannen utilizes, outline the support given in her editorial, and why her argument is less convincing than it should be.
The word debate brings strong expression of opinions and argumentative discussions in the legislative assembly. A facilitator normally presides over the debate, due to the fact that some individuals may take the debate more personally.
Whalen, Charles and Barbara, The Longest Debate, Seven Locks Press, Washington D.C.:1985. Web. 3 July 2015.
v[vii] “The Green Papers: Election 2000 Presidential Primary Season.” The Green Papers: Election 2000. 18 Mar. 2000. Online. Internet. 18 Mar. 2000. Available: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/.
"Fighting for Our Lives" offers great insight into the current state of public dialogue. Deborah Tannen describes how our public interactions have increasingly become "warlike", in the way we discuss ideas, the way we cover the news, and the way we settle disputes. She observes that an adversarial approach has become the standard as much in public dialogue as it has in "just about anything we need to accomplish". Although she concedes that "conflict and opposition are as necessary as cooperation and agreement", she believes that the balance has been tipped in recent years. An "argument culture" has pervaded American culture, and the consequences are real.
Before the start of this school year, I was not clueless as to how to craft an argument, but, to say the least, I was unexperienced. I thought that “argumentative” was simply a fancy name for “persuasive”—needless to say, I was mistaken. Blinded by this fallacy, I avoided acknowledging any opposing views in my essays (such as in my TV argumentative impromptu), which only made it seem as if I did not have sufficient information to defend my arguments. I thought I had to induce my audience to agree with me and that if I mentioned any alternatives, I would lose them.
Arguments can be made out of just about anything. An argument has two sides, and conveying an opinion is one of those two sides. Arguments sort out the views of others and the support of those arguments represented by those people from past events. These events let others show their argument about what will happen in the future, and of how the future carries on today. Newspaper articles can be arguments, and laws being passed in Congress have a form of argument associated with them. There are many types of arguments that are presented in many ways. In Everything’s an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, information is given about three specific types of argument: forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Forensic arguments deal with the past, deliberative talks about the future, and ceremonial is all about the present. I have identified each of these arguments in the form of newspaper articles.
Deborah Tannen, the author of “The Argument Culture”, is good at persuading persons. She persuades readers, pointing problems of tradition debate that most people following without thinki...
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
Tannen states, “In the argument culture, criticism, attack, or opposition are the predominant if not the only ways of responding to people or ideas. I use the phrase “culture of critique,” to capture this aspect. “Critique in the sense is not a general term for analysis or interpretation but rather a synonym for criticism.” Tannen states that she is calling attention to and calling into question the inherent dangers of the argument culture, however her article does not discuss an approachable strategy that would solve this social
* The Aims of Argument. 4th ed Ed.Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. New York:McGraw Hill,2003, 352-355.
Brief Guide to Argument. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 8 ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2014. 125-128. Print.
The purpose of the review assignment for the movie “The Great Debaters” was to allow students to learn how to discuss a point intelligently. When research and facts are presented calmly and logically, it is more easily understood. Changing another person’s opinion on an idea is more likely to happen when there is no conflict or disagreement. The instructor wanted the students to view the difference between aggressive and non-aggressive behavior.
...rivial just to attract viewers. They have digressed from debating about pressing issues in today’s world to speaking about subjects that are relatively unimportant. At points the debates have even become an arena for the candidates to criticize each other rather than the positions the other candidates hold. The ratings for the presidential debates have decreased significantly from 1960 to 1996.