Disadvantages Of Policy Debate

I have had debates in previous classes, but just with partners, not a large group debate like in this tutorial activity. Our group was pro two tier healthcare and the other group was opposing it. For

Throughout high school, I harbored a deep admiration for debate and dreamed of joining the team. Its quintessence of ideals in rational argument, tolerance for conflicting points of view, and rigorous self-examination appealed strongly to me. Yet simple things, like pronouncing a word wrong or having an accent, were enough to hold me back. Thus, I passed through my high school years unnoticed.

debate. Politics are not the same as they use to be. We as a people now live in an era, which

One debate lasted three hours while another in 1858 went seven. Postman guarrateeds that Douglas and Lincoln who wrote speeches in advance are pure print and they have the power of typography to get the audience attention because their language was clear. The audiences who attended the debate “must have had an equally extraordinary capacity to comprehend lengthy and complex sentences aurally” (45). Much of it seemed either blindingly obvious, or like the moanings of a killjoy who can’t bear that television is entertaining and that people are unable “to process it through the ear”, therefore

U. Webster-Haynes Debate (1830) – This was a famous debate in the United States between the Senator Daniel Webster and the Senator Robert Y. Haynes. The general topic of their powerful debate was the topic of protectionist tariffs. Webster’s second attack directed to Haynes was the most powerful, and was even paraphrased by future president Lincoln in his Gettysburg address.

How does The Constitution allow for enduring debate? In what ways are the early visions of Hamilton and Jefferson reflect in contemporary politics?

First we see the causes of the debates. Both Lincoln and Douglas were running for a place in the United States Senate

They are often asked the same questions and their responses typically draw in or push away voters. Debates can show voters what the candidate will be like as their representative and foreshadow the major decisions that the candidate would make in office. While the Lincoln-Douglas debates are remembered as the first major political debates in the United States, most elections occurred with some sort of discussion between

The debates between Lincoln and Douglas were conducted over several months at seven different locations throughout the state of Illinois and they attracted large crowds at every location and, eventually, drew interest from newspapers throughout the country. Although there were a variety of issues discussed during these debates, the primary issue revolved around the issue of

While both sides did exceedingly well, the con side did just slightly better and therefore won the debate. The pro side did do a better job creating thoughtful responses and quoting from sources, but the con side did a few other things better. The con side had the better opening

There were intense arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists concerning the merits of the new proposed Constitution. These arguments or debate were engaged on the streets at times in meeting halls lastly printed on paper. Argument topics for both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had questions as to what would be the best form of government for the new Constitution. This new government was to protect what rights? Then finally the states should accept which government power ("Constitution of the United

The outcomes of this legislation had many pros and cons many of which more serious than others for their own reasons. Some of the cons of this legislation are for one the immigrants had no right to a hearing in the court and had no right of evidence. Also, it was considered as unconstitutional according to the Republicans. Finally, another big part of this legislation is that it hindered freedom of speech and freedom of the press because some people were arrested when they spoke out against these acts or made journal articles bashing the Federalists. Some of the pros of this legislation passing somewhat came from the cons, for example, all the people who were arrested under this act were pardoned by the new president which was Thomas Jefferson.

In the excerpt by Deborah Tannen entitled, The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue Tannen speaks about the oppositional nature of public discourse. She expressed her thoughts on how we are determined to seek certainty by using arguments from two different standpoints, as if there are no additional angles that can be examined. Oftentimes, there are more than two sides of an issue, but due to the way society has taught us, we only look at issues from two extreme perspectives. I find Dr. Tannen to be extremely intelligent in her observations of how people communicate using debates and opposition as a means to express what we believe to be true. Although Americans habitually view issues from only two extreme points of view, dialogue solves more problems than debates because it does not cause division among people as frequently as debates does.

9. Debate: When a bill reaches the floor of the chamber, there are rules and procedures governing the debate on legislation. Amendments may be added to the bill at this time. Debates could last hours or weeks, but usually not in the house due to the rules set in place.

Americans have embraced debate since before we were a country. The idea that we would provide reasoned support for any position that we took is what made us different from the English king. Our love of debate came from the old country, and embedded itself in our culture as a defining value. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the affinity for debate is still strong, and finds itself as a regular feature of the mainstream media. However, if Deborah Tannen of the New York Times is correct, our understanding of what it means to argue may be very different from what it once was; a “culture of critique” has developed within our media, and it relies on the exclusive opposition of two conflicting positions (Tannen). In her 1994 editorial,