3rd Presidential Debate

I am sure that the 3rd Presidential Debate between Senator Barrack Obama and Senator Jhon McCain were watch not only by the citizens of the United States but also by the whole world. In a Presidential Debate it is expected that both sides wants to convince and persuade their constituents that they are fitting of becoming the President in their country. It is also likely to happen that the both parties would throw negative views on each other in order to make influences. But what is important in a debate is on how the parties deliver their proposition in an ethical way, which means that standards must be observed and applied.

Talking about the setting of the Debate, it had a debate moderator, two speakers representing their respective parties, the republican and the democrat, and lastly the presence of the audience. So the fundamental components of a debate are present. Now moving on how the speakers had delivered their propositions and their response to the questions asked by the moderator. In making a response to the question, neither of the speakers interrupts while the other was explaining his stand. Each speaker took turns in making a statement on the query. They showed great respect to each other.

Notwithstanding that it was a Presidential debate and as always it is expected of the speakers to bring their propositions in a manner that is convincing to the people, clearly the academic standards in a debate was shown.

ARGUMENTATION!

As sited from wikipedia, 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.

We also have to observe the key components of argumentation which are the following:

First we need to understand and identify the arguments and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue; second, identify the premises form which conclusions are derived; third, determine who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evident why his position merits acceptance; lastly one must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attcj the reasons of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his arguments.