Do the 3^rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain meet the academic standards for arguments? Why or why not?

Certainly the 3^rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain meet the academic standards for arguments, since the basic elements of argument were undoubtedly present. Each candidate presented clearly his claims duly supported with grounds in order to give light their respective ideologies or platform. Thus, in reference to the debate, the ideologies were broken into various claims while the grounds were fundamentally based on the recent predicaments that America is encountering, of which each candidate must logically and practically address to.

Unlike with academic debate, the presidential debate was purposely aid the voters in selecting the best and deserving candidate in the election to come. While academic debates, are only aimed on educating the students on the matter being proposed, hence, it requires that the grounds must be supported with concrete evidence such as statutes, statistics, laws, rules and regulations, researches of reputable authority and other relevant sources. Further, this debate follows stricter rules and procedures, inter alia, the time limitation and the manner of interpellation, as compared with the presidential debate.

Are you in favor of charter change?

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its members. The second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through people’s initiative. My first question is does the issue constitute an amendment or revision of the constitution? Likewise, what part of the constitution needs amendment or revision? A shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. My second question is does our constitution need to adjust for change? Does it justifiable by new conditions and circumstances? I believe it is not yet time to change. Our Constitution today is not the impediment spur to progress but the people behind who suit political expediency, personal ambitions or ill-advised agitation for change. If change bound to happen due to capricious or whimsical change dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or infatuations of the people, I have a preference to implement the third mode of changing the constitution, which is through people’s initiative. Our legislature has ample cavalcade record of corrupt practices and no longer candid to his people. If legislatures propose the change, their primary concern is there vested individual interest not the public in general. The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiatives upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. Thus, people author and sign the entire proposal embodied in the petition. The proposed amendment is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such proposal in a petition. The full text of the proposed amendment may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendment before signing. Moreover, an initiatives signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed. The people must be afforded opportunity to mull over the original provision, which is subject for amendment, and compare them with the proposed amendments, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free from possible insidious influence. There must be a fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection. An initiative that gather signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendment is most likely a deception and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. Proposal should be voted upon at a time when the interest in them is still rife and the electorate is still knowledgeable on the pros and cons of the issues submitted to them. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s fundamental law cannot be hidden from the people to those selfish, greedy power individual.

Word count: 529

What is argumentation?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary define

: the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion

Wikipedia:

Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying 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 eristic dialog, 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