Do you agree that Philippines should amend or revise the 1987 Constitution?

Confucius, China’s most famous teacher, philosopher and political theorist in 551-479 BC quotes that “It is only the wisest and the stupidest that cannot change.” Hence, “the only thing that is constant is change”.

The change of the Constitution may not be the wisest option to spur progress, a treadmill to the nation seeking to liberate itself from the shackles of obsolete rules no longer conformable to the country’s needs and aspiration, yet resistance from it would be the stupidest thing one can do to his country.

However, some Filipinos viewed instinctively that changing of the Philippine Constitution is a threat or a predicament rather than a challenge to be embraced. Undeniably, laymen and antagonists presumed, that its necessity is dictated merely from the whims, caprices, passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the people with ideas or personalities and purposely to suit political expediency, personal ambitions or ill-advised agitation thus, heedlessly precluding without thorough evaluation of its beneficiality and practicability and whether or not if favors only to selected members of the society and deliberately its effects to the nation as a whole.

Noticeably, the 1987 Constitution had been in effect for 20 years and no amendments or changes had been introduced to improve it. Therefore, it is just about time to amend or revise the charter. Though, it’s true that the people’s traumatic experience of Martial Law and the fear of Marcos’ ghost casting doubts on the proposal to change the constitution, yet this can be eradicated if and only if the Filipino people will be educated on the pros and cons of every proposed amendment or provision. To ensure further the authenticity of the intention of the change, there should be fair, honest and objective information dissemination. On the other hand, amendments and revision of the charter should be done in a most appropriate manner which is in accordance with Art. XV11 of the 1987 Constitution.

Scrutinizing the strengths and the weaknesses of each proposal shall be useful in defeating the evils of the said proposal while promoting the good side of it. Let’s take into account, the most controversial shift from bicameral – presidential form of government to unicameral – parliamentary form of government. One of its advantages is the decentralization of power of which the local government units shall be given the powers to ensure efficient delivery of basic services. However, some feared that if this will have happen, there will be a possibility of the rebirth of private armies since those politicians has the tendency to stay in power by all means. (This was experienced before in some regions.)

By properly laying down its advantages we can more likely aimed to impede its disadvantages through implementing prohibiting laws or statutes or strengthening existing statutes to prevent the occurrence of such weaknesses. Since, we are being pre-empted on the possible outcome, then we can probably formulate solutions to it. Oftentimes, we stare our problem for too long lest we forget to think of the solutions

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

Definitely, the 3^rd U.S. Presidential Debate is dissimilar from academic debates since the latter essentially requires speed. The key is to make as many arguments and present as much evidence to back them up as possible, before the clock runs out. Then you go down, point by point, and try to refute as many of your opponent’s arguments as you can. A judge assigns points to each side on that basis. According to Adrienne Christiansen, it is really an assessment of the kinds of evidence and arguments that are brought forward. ¹

Whereas academic debates are a battle of ideas, presidential debates are a battle between two individuals. “They’re not trying to convince their opponent,” said Christiansen, “They’re not trying to disprove their opponent. They’re simply trying to take their position, and make it look interesting and clever and insightful to the moderator and to the television audience.” ²

However, in reference to the question --- technically, the essential requisites of arguments and academic standards for arguments were undoubtedly met despite of negligible violations made by the participants at the focal point of the debate (such as ignoring the time allocation for each participant per question as John McCain did most of the time), likewise, taking into account that all debates are forms of argumentation. ³

The folowing are the reasons and instances affirming my above-contention: Firstly, at the outset of the 3^rd Presidential debate the host-moderator laid down rules in presenting their arguments and evidences thus making it a formal controversy not a mere verbal wrangling and evidently making it an art, of which argumentation is being referred.⁴ Secondly, in most instances, the candidates publicized their propositions by directing their words to the reasoning faculty and through appealing to emotions, to the feelings, to the will of American people, which are precisely the methods of approach in the work of argumentation. Lastly, though the issues or propositions were in a form a question raised by the moderator at certain point of time, the participants were able to manifest their claims duly supported with data or grounds and by presenting or citing concrete evidence, such as when Barak Obama cited his associates to warrant his claim against the alleged dishonorable, disrespectful campaign towards John McCain. Therefore, the key components of an argument were completely present in this debate thus making this debate in conformity with the academic standards for arguments.

Most importantly, even though presidential debates lack the logical rigor of an academic debate, they’re still extremely valuable part of the election season – one of the few times voters can evaluate the two candidates side-by-side.

Moreover, presidential debates aimed at helping people to decide who they want to vote for in the presidential election. Debating helps people choose which candidate to vote for by giving information on what candidates with logical facts, rather than physical appearance. This is extremely structured so that the candidates get equal representation. With this in mind, voters will base their vote on how well candidate represents their point of view. This does not necessarily lead to the best candidate being elected, but it does provide information.

References:

1] Adrienne Christiansen , was the head debate coach at the University of Minnesota. Professor at St. Paul’s Macalester College, and studies political rhetoric.

2] –ditto-

3]A. Craig Baird, Pub. Discussion and Debate p. 8

4] Africa, The Art of Argumentation and Debate p. 6

RESEARCH ABOUT ARGUMENTATION





What is an argument?

In philosophy, by 'argument' we mean 'something which attempts to prove from starting premises the truth of a conclusion'. Let us define the terms in the above definition.

'To Prove' means to compel belief rationally. If something is proved, then I have no choice, as a reasonable person, but to believe it - otherwise I am not rational. For our purposes, 'rationally' here means 'logical'. It does not mean to persuade by violence, trickery, bribery, rhetoric, emotion, etc. Thus, if I use rhetorical tricks of language to persuade my reader - for example, if I use flowery or showy language to make something sound good - then this is not proof. Again, if I merely appeal to the emotions of my reader, then this too is not proof; for example, describing the pain and suffering inflicted upon one group of people by the act of another may elicit sympathy, but does not necessarily mean that the act was morally wrong.

The premises are any statements that we have to make which are not themselves proven at the moment. (At the moment - they may in fact be the conclusions of previous arguments!) Premises may be incontrovertible pieces of knowledge; or they may be hypotheses that we make 'for the sake of argument...' For the argument to be considered successful, all these premises must be (although they may not be initially) clearly stated. No verbal trickery; no rhetorical persuasion; no appeals to that which is outside of reason.

The conclusion is whatever proposition the argument is attempting to prove. The conclusion may then be used as a premise in a later argument.

Formal and informal arguments

Informal arguments are studied in informal logic, are presented in ordinary language and are intended for everyday discourse. Conversely, formal arguments are studied in formal logic (historically called symbolic logic, more commonly referred to as mathematical logic today) and are expressed in a formal language. Informal logic may be said to emphasize the study of argumentation, whereas formal logic emphasizes implication and inference. Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the logical structure – the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion – is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must sometimes be made explicit by analysis.

Deductive arguments

A deductive argument is one which, if valid, has a conclusion that is entailed by its premises. In other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises--if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises.

Validity

Arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, and its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusions, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form. The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises and a false conclusion.

Logic seeks to discover the valid forms, the forms that make arguments valid arguments. An argument form is valid if and only if all arguments of that form are valid. Since the validity of an argument depends on its form, an argument can be shown to be invalid by showing that its form is invalid, and this can be done by giving another argument of the same form that has true premises but a false conclusion. In informal logic this is called a counter argument.

The form of argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional, and an argument form is valid if and only its corresponding conditional is a logical truth. A statement form which is logically true is also said to be a valid statement form. A statement form is a logical truth if it is true under all interpretations. A statement form can be shown to be a logical truth by either (a) showing that it is a tautology or (b) by means of a proof procedure.

The corresponding conditional, of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all possible worlds) and so we might say that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. The conclusion of a valid argument need not be a necessary truth: if it were so, it would be so independently of the premises.

For example: Some Greeks are logicians, therefore some logicians are Greeks: Valid argument; it would be self-contradictory to admit that some Greeks are logicians but deny that some (any) logicans are Greeks.

All Greeks are human and All humans are mortal therefore All Greeks are mortal. : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.

Some Greeks are logicians and some logician are tiresome therefore some Greeks are tiresome. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be Romans!

Either we are all doomed or we are all saved; we are not all saved therefore we are all doomed. Valid argument; the premises entail the conclusion. (Remember that does not mean the conclusion has to be true, only if the premisses are true, and perhaps they are not, perhaps some people are saved and some people are doomed, and perhaps some neither saved nor doomed!)

Arguments can be invalid for a variety of reasons. There are well-established patterns of reasoning that render arguments that follow them invalid; these patterns are known as logical fallacies.

Soundness

A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. A sound argument, being both valid and having true premises, must have a true conclusion. Some authors (especially in earlier literature) use the term sound as synonymous with valid.

Inductive arguments

Inductive logic is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail it. Induction is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.

Mathematical induction should not be misconstrued as a form of inductive reasoning, which is considered non-rigorous in mathematics.In spite of the name, mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning and is fully rigorous.

Cogent arguments

An argument is cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true. Cogency can be considered inductive logic's analogue to deductive logic's "soundness."

Fallacies and non arguments

A fallacy is an invalid argument that appears valid, or a valid argument with disguised assumptions. First the premises and the conclusion must be statements, capable of being true and false. Secondly it must be asserted that the conclusion follows from the premises. In English the words therefore, so, because and hence typically separate the premises from the conclusion of an argument, but this is not necessarily so. Thus: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal is clearly an argument (a valid one at that), because it is clear it is asserted that that Socrates is mortal follows from the preceding statements. However I was thirsty and therefore I drank is NOT an argument, despite its appearance. It is not being claimed that I drank is logically entailed by I was thirsty. The therefore in this sentence indicates for that reason not it follows that.

Elliptical arguments

Often an argument is invalid because there is a missing premise the supply of which would make it valid. Speakers and writers will often leave out a strictly necessary premise in their reasonings if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: Iron is a metal therefore it will expand when heated. (Missing premise: all metals expand when heated). On the other hand a seemingly valid argument may be found to lack a premise – a ‘hidden assumption’ – which if highlighted can show a fault in reasoning. Example: A witness reasoned: Nobody came out the front door except the milkman therefore the murderer must have left by the back door. (Hidden assumption- the milkman was not the murderer).

Rhetoric, dialectic, and argumentative dialogue

Whereas formal arguments are static, such as one might find in a textbook or research article, argumentative dialogue is dynamic. It serves as a published record of justification for an assertion. Arguments can also be interactive, with the proposer and the interlocutor having a symmetrical relationship. The premises are discussed, as well the validity of the intermediate inferences.

Dialectic is controversy, that is, the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments respectively advocating propositions. The outcome of the exercise might not simply be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, but a synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.

Argumentation theory

Argumentation theory, (or argumentation) 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.

Arguments in various disciplines

Statements are put forward as arguments in all disciplines and all walks of life. Logic is concerned with what constitutes an argument and what are the forms of valid arguments in all interpretations and hence in all disciplines, the subject matter being irrelevant. There are not different valid forms of argument in different subjects.
Arguments as they appear in science and mathematics (and other subjects) do not usually follow strict proof procedures; typically they are elliptical arguments (q.v.) and the rules of inference are implicit rather than explicit. An argument can be loosely said to be valid if it can be shown that, with the supply of the missing premises it has a valid argument form and demonstrateable by an accepted proof procedure.

Mathematical arguments

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.

Legal arguments

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

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.

References

^ Ayer, A. J., & O'Grady, J. (1992). A dictionary of philosophical quotations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Page 484.
^ McTaggart, J. M. E. (1964). A commentary on Hegel's logic. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 11
Robert Audi, Epistemology, Routledge, 1998. Particularly relevant is Chapter 6, which explores the relationship between knowledge, inference and argument.
J. L. Austin How to Do Things With Words, Oxford University Press, 1976.
H. P. Grice, Logic and Conversation in The Logic of Grammar, Dickenson, 1975.
Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8
R. A. DeMillo, R. J. Lipton and A. J. Perlis, Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programs, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1979. A classic article on the social process of acceptance of proofs in mathematics.
Yu. Manin, A Course in Mathematical Logic, Springer Verlag, 1977. A mathematical view of logic. This book is different from most books on mathematical logic in that it emphasizes the mathematics of logic, as opposed to the formal structure of logic.
Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, 1970. This classic was originally published in French in 1958.
Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, Dover Publications, 1952
Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris Publications, 1984. K. R. Popper Objective Knowledge; An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972

Rules on an Oxford-Oregon Debate:

Format of Debate - Oxford-Oregon Type



Three Speakers from each side

First Affirmative - Constructive Speech
First Negative - Interpellation of the first affirmative Speaker
First Negative - Constructive Speech
First Affirmative - Interpellation of the first negative speaker
Second Affirmative - Constructive Speech
Second Negative - Interpellation of the second affirmative
Second Negative - Constructive
Second Affirmative - Interpellation of the second negative
Third Affirmative - Constructive Speech
Third Negative - Interpellation of the third affirmative
Third Negative - Constructive Speech
Third Affirmative - Interpellation of the third negative

Rebuttal of the Team Captain of the Negative Side
Rebuttal of the Team Captain of the Affirmative Side


Duration

Constructive Speech: Minimum of five (5) and maximum of seven (7) minutes
Interpellation: Five (5) minutes
Rebuttal Speech: Three (3) minutes


Issues for Debate

A. Whether or not it is Necessary? (Necessity)
B. Whether or not it is Beneficial? (Beneficiality)
C. Whether or not it is practical? (Practicability)


Criteria for Judging

A. Evidence - 25%
B. Delivery - 30%
C. Interpellation - 30%
D. Rebuttal - 15%


The judges, based on their discretion, shall have the authority to determine who will be the Best Speaker and Best Debater. The winning team shall be determined by the majority decision of the Board of Judges.


Guides for Constructive Speech

Speech types of Constructive Speech may be:

1. Reading Method
2. Memory Method
3. Extemporaneous
4. Mix method of memory and conversational or dramatic

Poise, gestures, audience contact and voice projection are highly recommended.


Rules on Interpellation

1. Questions should primarily focused on arguments developed in the speech of your opponent. However, matters relevant and material to the proposition are admissible.
2. Questioner and opponent should treat each other with courtesy.
3. Both speakers stand and face the audience during the question or Interpellation period.
4. Once the questioning has begun, neither the questioner nor his opponent may consult a colleague. Consultation should be done before but as quietly as possible.
5. Questioners should ask brief and easily understandable question. Answers should equally be brief. Categorical questions answerable by yes or no is allowed, however, opponent if he choose, may qualify his answer why yes or why no.
6. Questioner may not cut off a reasonable and qualifying answer, but he may cut off a vervous response with a statement such as a “thank you” “that is enough information” or “your point is quite clear” or “I’m satisfied.”
7. A questioner should not comment on the response of his opponent.
8. Your opponent may refuse to answer ambiguous, irrelevant or loaded questions by asking the questioner to rephrase or reform his question.

Rules on Rebuttal Speech

A. Rebuttal speaker should point out clearly the fallacies committed by his opponent stating clearly what particularly statement or argument constitute said fallacy.
B. If not familiar with the fallacies of logic, the debater may counter arguments directly by stating what arguments or statement is incorrect or false.

Role of the Moderator

The moderator of the debate has the following duties:

1. To reveal the issue involve the debate;
2. To rule on points of clarification about the issues or questions and answers made during the Interpellation; and
3. To see to it that the debate is orderly and follows the rules of parliamentary procedures.


Role of the Timer

1. To time the speakers and debaters accurately;
2. To give the speakers a one-minute warning with the ringing of the bell once before his/her time is up.
3. To prevent the debaters from exceeding the time allotted to them by ringing the bell twice.


Tips on Interpellation and Rebuttal

CROSS EXAMINATION

The cross-examination period of a debate is a time when the person who is not going to speak next in the constructives questions the person who has just finished speaking. Consider cross examination an information exchange period - it is not the time to role play lawyer.

Cross examination may serve six objectives:

1. To clarify points
2. To expose errors
3. To obtain admissions
4. To setup arguments
5. To save prep time
6. To show the judge how cool you are so they WANT to vote for you.

Most debaters tend to ignore the value of good cross-examination. Remember, 30% of the entire debate is spent in cross-examination -- it should be a meaningful and essential part of the debate. If nothing else, debaters tend to underestimate the importance that cross-examination may have on the judge. Cross-examination will indicate to the judge just how sharp and spontaneous the debaters are. Invisible bias will always occur in a debate round and judges would always like the sharpest team to win. Good, effective cross-examination of the opponents can play an important psychological role in winning the ballot of the judge.

Be dynamic. Have questions and be ready to go, answer questions actively and with confidence whenever you can. The image you project will be very important to the audience/judge. This is the one opportunity the audience/judge has to compare you with opponents side-by-side.

GUIDELINES FOR ASKING QUESTIONS:

1. Ask a short Q designed to get a short A
2. Indicate the object of your Q
3. Don't telegraph your argument, don't make it too obvious.
4. Don't ask Q they won't answer properly."So, we win, right?"
5. Make Q seem important, even if it is just an attempt to clarify.
6. Politeness is a must -- emphasize the difference if they are rude.
7. Approach things from a non-obvious direction. Then trap them.
8. Mark your flow/notes as to what you want to question them about.
9. Avoid open ended Qs unless you are sure they are clueless.
10. Face the judge/audience, not your opponent.
11. CX answers must be integrated into your arguments made during a speech.

GUIDELINES FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS:

1. Concise A.
2. Refer to something you have already said whenever possible. This is safe.
3. Answer based on your position in the debate so far. Keep options open.
4. Don't make promises of what you or your partner will do later.
5. Qualify your answers.
6. Be willing to exchange documents read into the debate.
7. Answer only relevant questions.
8. Address the judge.
9. Try and not answer hypothetical Q. If they demand, say you will give a hypothetical A.
10. Signal each other, don't tag-team.
11. Don't say"I don't know,"say"I am not sure at this time...."

REBUTTALS

Most debaters, coaches, and judges would agree that rebuttals are the most difficult and yet the most important parts of the debate. Not only is there less time within each speech, but each debater has to sort through all of the issues to determine which ones are the most important ones! What a debater does or does not do in rebuttals will decide who wins the debate. Very few debaters (especially beginners) can hope to extend everything that happened in the constructive speeches. Debaters don't have to do that and just because a team may have dropped a point or an argument is not an automatic reason to vote against that team. What matters is the type of argument that is extended or dropped in rebuttals-this will determine the winner of the round.

Think about these four issues when rebuttals happen:

1. Which arguments have more weight at the end of the round?
2. Which outcomes (disads, counterplans) are more likely given lots of internal links?
3. What about time frame-what happens first?
4. What about the quality of evidence?

Here are some other helpful hints:

1. Avoid repetition. Don't just repeat your constructive arguments. Beat the other team's arguments and tell the judge why your arguments are better.

2. Avoid passing ships. Don't avoid what the other team said. You must clash directly with their responses.

3. Avoid reading evidence only. You must be explaining and telling the judge why these issues win the debate.

4. Avoid rereading evidence that has already been read in constructives. You can make reference to it by referring to it, but don't re-read it.

5. Avoid"lumping and dumping."Don't try to go for everything. You can't make 12 responses to each argument in a few minutes.

6. Be organized. Don't jump from issue to issue at random. Be specific and logical about winning issues.

7. Don't be a blabbering motormouth. Speak quickly but not beyond your ability. If you speak too fast, you will stumble and not get through as much.

8. Don't whine to the judge about fairness or what the other team might have done that you think is unethical. Make responses and beat them.

9. Don't make new arguments. You can read new evidence but you can't run new disadvantages or topicality responses. You are limiting to extending the positions laid out in the constructive speeches.

10. Use signposting . Make sure the judge knows where you are on the flowsheet. This is not the time to lose the judge on the flow.

11. Use issue packages. Organize your arguments into issue packages. Choose arguments which you want to win. Don't go for everything. Extend those arguments that you need to win.

12. Cross-apply arguments. If you dropped an argument in a prior speech that you think was important don't act like your losing. Cross-apply arguments you made somewhere else in the debate to answer it.