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