Should the Philippines Change its Constitution?

Should the Philippines Change its Constitution?

2010 National Elections is fast approaching. Unavoidably, issues of Constitutional Change usually comes up. During the time of the former President Fidel V. Ramos, attempt of Constitutional Change has been made. But due to objections of various sectors of the society it obviously failed. Now, at the height of the coming end of the seat of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said issues are now revived. It makes me wonder and somehow ask “What could possibly be the motive of the administration in proposing this change especially when their term is coming to an end?
It is said that “Nothing is constant in this world except change”. Various methods has to be adopted to cope up with the changing needs of our societies today. The government on the other hand has to continually improve to provide the public with their basic needs and meet its demands.
At the height of recession where most countries in the world are greatly affected, is constitutional change necessary in order to improve the condition of our economy? I definitely think not. At this point, what we really need are economic programs that would help us sustain the tough times. Instead of getting busy on proposing for Constitutional Change, why not prioritize first on various government programs that would enhance the delivery of public service, boast employment, increase productivity and profitability?
One cannot help but question the real motive of the administration in proposing Change in the Constitution especially when 2010 Elections is already on its way. With all the issues pointed to the current administration, the Filipino people are already tired and have become numb already. Years ago, People Power Revolution has successfully ousted two Philippine Presidents. But now, I don’t see it is going to work. The Filipino people have already awakened. No matter how noble the intention may be still things end adversely. Emotions are being used to arouse the public by these public personalities to their own material interest. It is now common nowadays to hear people saying “There is nothing we can do in our situation already because they are all just the same, the same corruption and abuse of position”. It all boils down to self interest and satisfaction. However, we should not lose HOPE. Maybe with the coming of new bloods, things might change.
The way I see it, the emergence of Constitutional Change as of the moment is primarily intended to extend the term of those officials currently enjoying their position. I am not entirely against Constitutional Change. Yes, there are things that are to be changed in our Constitution In order to cater and address varying needs of the society, to improve our Government and its constituents. But the Key Element is TIME.
As of the moment we have many good laws and government programs that were not implemented. What we need is already provided for in our Constitution. Only, we do not have adequate laws or programs that would implement or support it. So instead of wasting time and money for the Constitutional Change at this moment, why not focus first on providing measures to combat the current economic crisis, poverty, unemployment and deflation.
Word Count= 534

RESEARCH ON DEBATE and the 3rd Presidential debate of Mccain & Obama

skip to main skip to sidebar
Oregon-Oxford Debating
What is debate?
Debate is basically a response to a problem. It is a competition using words and logic. It is to change people’s minds and actions through our words and power of conviction.Objectives of DebateMain Objective- To resolve the issue intelligently at the end of the debate
Specific Objectives- To have a comprehensive grasp of issues, to be able to prepare a case which tackles the Practicability, Necessity and Beneficiality.
Practicability – feasibility of a proposition which includes matter of law , clamor, financeNecessity – need for the proposition, discusses the presence or absence of an inherent flaw in the status quo.Beneficiality – advantages or disadvantages of adopting or rejecting the resolution which includes specific beneficiaries and specific benefitsParts of the Debate1.) Constructive Speech-The presentation of each team member’s arguments and evidence for each aspect of the case (5 minutes each)2.) Interpellation- The opportunity for each debater to ask and answer questions regarding their speeches - 3 minutes3.) Rebuttal- The summary and defense of each team’s arguments and evidence, to be delivered by either the scribe or the team captain – 6 minutesDistinctions between argumentation and debate
1.) As to the medium use: argumentation uses either language in a verbal manner or through writing; whereas, debate is verbal only.
2.) As to the presence the contending parties: argumentation may or may not with the presence of its adversary; whereas, debate is made with the presence of the contending parties.
3.) As to formality: Argumentation generally has no formal rules being followed; whereas, debate being a contest has a formal rules and regulations.
4.) Finally, as to the appeal: Argumentation is an appeal to the emotions: whereas, debate is depicting the more practical and logic way.

Debate Formats

Academic debate is the carrying out of argumentation in a formal setting. Within the context of academic debate there exists rules and procedures which govern how the argumentative process is to be conducted. Some of these rules concern the format and sequence of speeches. Others concern the responsibilities of each debater. The following details the format, sequence and time allotments for two standard American team debates- Oxford debate and Cross Examination (Oregon Style) Debate.

Oxford Debate Format (and corresponding time limits)

**********************************Host***** College Academic*****
1st AC Speech------------------------ 7 mins--------- 10mins----------
1St NC Speech --------------------------7 mins----------10mins----------
2nd AC Speech -------------------------7 mins----------10mins----------
2nd NC Speech----------------------- --7 mins----------10mins----------
Preparation Time----------------------- 6 mins---------10 mins----------
1st NR Speech --------------------------4 mins----------5 mins----------
1st AR Speech --------------------------4 mins----------5 mins----------
2nd NR Speech -------------------------4 mins--------- 5 mins-----------
2nd AR Speech------- ------------------4 mins--------- 5 mins-----------
Total Time -----------------------------50 mins-------- 70 mins---------

Cross Examination(Oregon Style) Debate Format
1st AC Speech ---------------------------6 mins---------8 mins---------
Cross Examination of 1st AC by 2nd NC--2 mins----------3 mins--------
1st NC Speech ---------------------------6 mins--------- 8 mins--------
Cross Examination of 1st NC by 1st AC-- 2 mins----------3 mins--------
2nd AC Speech-------------------------- 6 mins--------- 8 mins--------
Cross Examination of 2nd AC by 1st NC--2 mins--------- 3 mins--------
2nd NC Speech --------------------------6 mins----------8 mins-------
Cross Examination of 2nd NC by 2nd AC- 2 mins--------- 3 mins--------
Preparation Time------------------------ 6 mins-------- 10 mins-------
1st NR Speech--------------------------- 3 mins--------- 5 mins-------
1st AR Speech ---------------------------3 mins--------- 5 mins-------
2nd NR Speech-------------------------- 3 mins--------- 5 mins-------
2nd AR Speech-------------------------- 3 mins--------- 5 mins-------
Total Speech---------------------------- 50 mins-------- 74 mins------
*AC-Affirmative Constructive NR-Negative Rebuttal
NC-Negative Constructive AR-Affirmative Rebuttal


United States Presidential Election Debate
(Source: Wikipedia)
During presidential elections in the United States, it has become customary for the main candidates (almost always the candidates of the two largest parties, currently the Democratic Party and the Republican Party) to engage in a debate. The topics discussed in the debate are often the most controversial issues of the time, and arguably elections have been nearly decided by these debates (e.g., Nixon vs. Kennedy).
Presidential debates are held late in the election cycle, after the political parties have nominated their candidates. The candidates meet in a large hall, often at a university, before an audience of citizens. The formats of the debates have varied, with questions sometimes posed from one or more journalist moderators and in other cases members of the audience. Between 1988 and 2000, the formats have been governed in detail by secret memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the two major candidates; an MOU for 2004 was also negotiated, but unlike the earlier agreements it was jointly released by the two candidates.
Debates are broadcast live on television and radio. The first debate for the 1960 election drew over 66 million viewers out of a population of 179 million, making it one of the most-watched broadcasts in U.S. television history. The 1980 debates drew 80 million viewers out of a 226 million. By 2000, about 46 million viewers out of a population of 280 million watched the first debate, with ten million fewer watching the subsequent debates that year. In 2004, 62.5 million people watched the first debate, while 43.6 million watched the vice-presidential debate.[1] Rules & Format

Some of the debates can feature the candidates standing behind their podiums, or in conference tables with the moderator on the other side. Depending on the agreed format, either the moderator or an audience member can be the one to ask questions. Typically there are no opening statements, just closing statements.
A coin toss determines who gets to answer the first question and each candidate will get alternate turns. Once a question is asked, the candidate has 2 minutes to answer the question. After this, the opposing candidate has around 1 minute to respond and rebut his arguments. At the moderator's discretion, the discussion of the question may be extended by 30 seconds per candidate.
In recent debates, colored lights resembling traffic lights have been installed to aide the candidate as to the time left with green indicating 30 seconds, yellow indicating 15 seconds and red indicating only 5 seconds are left. If necessary, a buzzer may be used or a flag.

Did the 3rd and final Presidential debate of Mc Cain and Obama conform with the Academic Standard of Argumentation?

The debate between Mc Cain and Obama turned out initially to be a good one. Basically, the topic was about Domestic Policy. A lot of issues relevant to the topic has been discussed which includes economic plans, taxation, heath care, energy & climate control and a lot more. It started very well. Each of the parties were able to present their views fairly and issues were properly addressed. The essential elements of argumentation which consists of claims, data and warrants were present during the debate.
However, there was a twist on the later part of the debate. It turned out to be a political combat wherein each party attacks the other. It became mostly political. Instead of giving more emphasis on the topic or questions being asked, they have become more focused on discussing personal issues and self advertisement. The debate has turned into a political advertisement whereby one party (specifically Mccain) took chance of selling himself to the viewing public by questioning the reputation of the other (Obama) or by pointing out the differences of their political standing on certain legislative issues and what he has done during his seat on the Senate as against what have the other did.

Another thing to take note on the debate were the violations made by the debaters especially on the time limits and certain interruptions done during the other party’s turn to speak. I find it improper considering the fact that the rules were clearly stated. Simple courtesy were neglected. On the other hand, the discussion has become highly personal, instead of stating logical reasons they were emotionally driven thus certain issues were addressed differently and out of bounds.

Research About Argumentation

ARGUMENTATION

Argumentation is generally defined as the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act. It is the process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader, through spoken or written speech, by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings. (Source: The Art of Argumentation and Debate by F.M. Africa, p. 1)

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 (Source: Argumentation Theory, Wikipedia)

Key components of argumentation
(Source: Argumentation Theory, Wikipedia)

Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.

In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises 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/her argument.

Processes of Argumentation
(Source: The Art of Argumentation and Debate by F.M. Africa, p. 6)

1.) Invention. This refers to the determination of those ideas in the truth of which one would like others to believe, or that course of action which one would like others to adopt. This process is chiefly concerned with the formulation of the proposition to be discussed. It covers the consideration of the burden of proof and of the issues.2.) Selection. This refers to the choosing from all sources of information of facts, data, statistics, inferences, etc. that will help the arguer to establish the ideas in the truth of which he would like others to believe, or that course of action which he would like others to adopt. This involves the study of how to conduct investigation and research, the nature of evidence, the forms of arguments and the fallacies.3.) Arrangement. This pertains to the organization of the materials that have been selected in such a way as to secure maximum effect upon the belief and behavior of the reader or hearer. This process involves the application of the three great rhetorical principles-unity, coherence and emphasis and the study of the mechanism of the brief and the outline.4.) Presentation. The pertains to the putting of the materials that have been selected and organized into such effective language as to convey the ideas to the reader or hearer with maximum force. This process involves the study of persuasion as the method of approach and the technique of the introduction, of the discussion, of the conclusion and of delivery. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate by F.M. Africa, p. 6)

Components of Argument
(Source: Argumentation Theory, Wikipedia)

1.) Claim - Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)

2.) Data - The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)

3.) Warrant - The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

4.) Backing - Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

5.) Rebuttal - Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”

6.) Qualifier - Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”

The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.

Internal structure of arguments
(Source: Argumentation Theory, Wikipedia)

Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising of the following
a set of assumptions or premises
a method of reasoning or deduction and
a conclusion or point.

An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.

Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.

In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.

VIII Kinds of argumentation
(Source: Argumentation Theory, Wikipedia)

1.) Conversational argumentation
Main articles: Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis

The study of naturally-occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversational analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.[13] It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech.

Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.

2.) Mathematical argumentation
Main article: Philosophy of mathematics

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.

3.) Scientific argumentation

Main article: Philosophy of Science

Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross "The Rhetoric of Science." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder," meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.

4.) Legal argumentation
Main articles: Oral argument and Closing argument

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.

5.) Political argumentation
Main article: Political argument

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. [14]. The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. A robust political science research tradition seems to prove that the American public is largely irrational and ignorant of even the most basic knowledge of national or world affairs. Political scientist S. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.
Some theorists have inferred from this that only comprehensively trained elites can debate public issues. They point as additional proof to the practice of academic debate in the United States, an activity almost exclusively involving children of the upper middle classes, future lawyers and graduate students, and not ordinary citizens.