Here's my comment on the Debate

Critic on the 3rd Presidential debate between Obama and Mc Cain

Progress- the promise we expect from every politician. We call them “platforms”. Ideally, the outcome of each election goes to the politico with the better platforms. To aid the electorate in determining which candidate offers the better platform, a debate is organized. And so the Americans had the third presidential debate of 2008 between presidentiables, Obama and Mc Cain.

My point is, a presidential debate, like this one, should have issues or propositions based on each of the candidates’ platforms and not on their personal lives. The success of this kind of debate depends on how it helps the people, the electorate, in deciding which is which.

Now comes the question: Does their debate meet the academic standards for arguments? Rating from 1- 10, I would give a seven (7). It was, in my own view, above average. It clearly transcended from a mere verbal wrangling.

On the Positive Aspect

First, the rules were properly set during the start of the show by the host-moderator and it was properly communicated to the contenders and to the audience as well. At the outset, these were most likely followed and observed.

Second, the questions raised by Bob (the moderator) tilted more on the platforms of the two. This is really important, because as what I said, the issues to be tackled in a presidential debate should be in relation to the platforms.

Third, both the contenders were prepared for the debate. It is evident for both candidates were equipped with the definite numbers, specific names and concrete facts. They did not speculate when they presented their opinions; no averaging of numbers like in budget issues; and names of persons involved were specifically cited.

Fourth, each knows their history quite well- especially Mc Cain who is fond of citing prominent events like the “Watergates” scandal, the previous administration of Bush and Clinton, and etc.

Lastly, which is of utmost important, the platforms of the two are definite and specific. “Senator McCain, proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things. Senator Obama, proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle- income and lower-income people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works projects to create jobs.”[1]


On the otherhand

For the negative parts of the said debate, I’ll focus more on the debaters or contenders- their mannerisms, fallacies, arguments and the like. Here are my comments:

First, Senator Mc Cain seemed too disregard the moderator. He continues to speak even if it was supposedly cut. Since it is not an academic debate, wherein one gets deduction of points if he doesn’t follow instructions, Mc Cain does it for quite a number of times and goes away with it.

Second, the issue about Joe, the plumber, is a fallacy. Mc Cain’s contended this way: Obama’s plan is to have additional taxes to businesses, now since Joe, the plumber, wants to open his own business, he’ll have the burden of paying the additional taxes. Well the real contention of Obama was: the centerpiece of his economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Xxx xxx. What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. Xxx if you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime.” It’s evident, Mc Cain tried to deceive the public in creating that statement which was clearly not what the latter meant.

Furthermore, Mc Cain used another fallacy. The author Africa calls it Argumentum ad envidiam, it is committed when a debater ignores the real question and inflames his audience with hatred and rancor.[2] To quote, his statement goes like this “In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around.” With this, it is clear that the speaker wanted to cloud the audience’s mind with hate and prejudice.

At the outset, the debate was very much informative and substantial. It is evident that Mc Cain was so aggressive; mudslinging- that’s how we call it. On the otherhand, the would-be president managed to answer any allegations thrown at him.

After a keen study of the concluded debate, I would rule that Obama won if it was an academic-contest debate; and of course, if I was the judge. Obama was, is and always will be a good speaker. He is well composed, he makes the rapport with the audience, and he expounds his thoughts straight to the point- these are his great assets when he nailed the 2008 elections.









[1] Excerpts from the 2008 third presidential debate.
[2] Africa, The art of argumentation and debate, p 104