The Presidential Debate On Politics Essay

Another four years another presidential debate. Before I go on to the current debates let me state a few facts about past ones. The Lincoln and Douglas debate was in important because it started Lincoln presidential career. The Debates lasted from August 21 -- October 15. There where seven of them, with two days to two weeks in between. Each debate lasted three hours; first candidate spoke for one hour; the second for one and a half hours; the first replying for a half hour. Candidates alternated going first. The topics involved where primarily slavery and the Union. Other important debates were the '48 and '57. They were the only debates before 1960; there were no presidential debates between 1960 and 1976. In

Rhetoric is found virtually everywhere, from billboards to commercial ads on television, it is a part of the 21st century’s daily routine. Communication thrives on rhetoric because it is the foundation of opinion. Without discussion or opinions, life will become dull and uninteresting. Political debates towards the end of presidential elections are predominately a few of the greatest examples of this. By the end of elections, a majority of people have lost interest in the repetition of each candidate, with rhetoric, people become more inclined to tune into their television to listen to two candidates debate.

There is no way you have been able to watch these debates without responding to the TV as if the candidates could hear your opinion. The candidates represent two polar opposite views on issues like women's rights, immigration, healthcare, education and taxes, and you undoubtedly have some opinion on it. As a voter, you will be sharing your opinion on questions like: Who should be getting tax breaks? Should the government help fund education? Should illegal immigrants be allowed to stay in the United States to continue their education? Your opinion must be heard. As a minor, I can advocate for

I have noticed from my friends that even though the election is over, the dialogue has not stopped. Instead, people are more vocal about their options and thoughts. I agreed when Professor Gillespie stated that she does not look to the government to have all the answers, because they too are human, and are flawed. I enjoyed how both sides had good arguments and were able to back up their positions. When students posed questions, they answered them with thought. Listening to two different perspectives allowed me to see how people think differently that I do, but in the end just want the best for their

We hold debates between the Republican and Democrats before the primaries, and then we hold debates between the two remaining presidential candidates. Upon first glance it may appear that the presidential debates are held to get to know the candidate’s positions on the various issues that are important to the American people; however, the format of the debates make it difficult to accomplish that task. Instead, it is more plausible that these debates are held in order to discover what the candidates are like personally because the debates provide ample opportunities for us to discover the candidate’s values. Ultimately, we want to find out the values that these potential presidents have because we want someone we trust to lead the

In order to have a government that is run by people; specifically, people that must choose a candidate to vote for, its seems fit that it would be important that there be adequate means of illustrating each candidate’s positions on all of the issues that the constituents care about. Presidential debates are the means of showcasing a candidates’ policies to the nation and at the same time they allow the citizens in the democratic society to make a more informed decision about their vote than they otherwise would have without a debate.

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

American presidential election of 2016 was a few weeks ago, many are scratching their heads following the outcome result. Many, including myself are, asking the question who voted to bring Trump into office? No the better question is who did not vote to keep Trump out of the office. This must have been the same feelings and questions people had in the election of 1968 with Nixon, as the options they were left with to choose was not one of which many were enthused about. Richard Milhous Nixon born on January 9, 1913 in Yorba Linda, California. (Biography.com Editors, paragraph 2) Donald John Trump, born in June 14, 1946, in Queens, New York. Both were one of five Children of their families. (Biography.com Editors, paragraph 2). In both of their of biographies, Nixon attended Duke University and earned a degree in law but Trump attended Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania, and graduated with a degree in economics. What lead these two in to politic and clinching the title of the presidency as “Law and Order candidates.

Because truth contains the power to bring our nation together, prosperity to our citizens, and purpose to our role as a nation, I seek to let it be my guide in policy. As I compete in Congressional Debate, I draft legislation that knows no party, with policy that adjusts to the current geopolitical landscape. True conservatism is not exhaustive conservative policy. True conservatism responds to the voice of the nation at that time. One day after debate, one of my opponents commended me for flexibility and thoughtfulness in debate. That commendation means more to me than any first place award. Participating in Congressional Debate is one of the most fulfilling parts of my life. In the debate chamber, I speak not for points or awards, but to guide people to truth. I speak not always to persuade or convince, but to share perspectives that create the kind of dynamic existence President Coolidge achieved in his life, constant examination of policy for his constituents. My desire is that my speeches do not fool others into supporting one policy over another. My desire is to share policy options, only for the most effective to be chosen at the end of the round. This is not always the policy on which behalf I spoke – dynamic

The political infrastructure of America has remained consistent with the ideology of a representative republic, essentially the masses choosing representatives who then decide whom they want as a leader of the fine country under the notion of said candidates ideologies, religion, and promises upon election. Every four years, America holds an election to determine the Commander in Chief, an honor of prestige and status. The duty of a President is to obey the best interests of the country, utilizing their power in order to handle the issues that plague the nation. Planetary issues such as gay marriage, immigration, and marijuana particularly, same-sex marriage, the construction of a wall near the southern border, and medical marijuana.This essay aims to display the arguments/stance that each presidential candidate has towards such issues, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and serves as an analysis of their determined stance.

Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush are running for the Presidency. The two candidates are in Presidential Debate to allow the voters to get an understanding of where they each stand on certain positions and policies. Bush and Gore have some similarities and differences on certain positions and policies discussed in the Presidential Debates.

The 2016 primary election has been the most intriguing in modern history, mainly due to one candidate; Donald J. Trump. Before he won the general election, President-elect Donald J. Trump won the Republican primary. Since the day he announced his candidacy by riding down an escalator in Trump Tower, pundits and politicians didn’t seriously believe he had a chance. As the debates were held and the primaries went on, it became apparent that he had an actual chance of winning the nomination. The Republican primary showed that there was an anger toward traditional politicians, an anger which Donald Trump tapped into. The rise of Trump also showed that the old rules of what was acceptable to say do not apply any more. These and other factors lead me to the conclusion that the Republican party lost control of the 2016 primary election and failed to choose its eventual nominee.

The lack of substantive discussion in televised presidential debates largely contributes to the negative effect television has had on presidential elections. Many

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.

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,