Whether the Philippines need to Change its Constitution?
Yes, the Philippines need to change its Constitution. Change is inevitable and circumstances vary, that is why our present Constitution is a continuing evolution in its pursuit to have an almost perfect one suitable for the needs and best for and by the people erecting it. A lot of the present Constitution provisions need to be revised; from the form of government and its policies, Bill of Rights and Economic policies.
As a citizen of this country, allow me to stress out my humble observations and changes to be implemented in our Constitution.
We have been through a lot of revolutions, and in fact, the Philippines have made a history of a bloodless and peaceful one. And both of us know that such revolution was a result of peoples cry for change, change of leadership in our country. So, how would we addressed such premise that every time people wants change of leadership arising controversies, propaganda, ‘’graft and corruption” and etc.? Every time we have such revolution, our economic, tourism sector and etc are affected because of these countless clamor for change, and in fact maybe the international community may have lost their confidence in our government because of these.
Why don’t we have a kind of government that suitable to the minds and wants of our people, a more pragmatic one! That every time the people lost confidence in our President, the Congress will decide to ask for his resignation and let somebody from the Congress take his position.
I must say, the reason of these countless propaganda against the incumbent government and why our nation is relatively delayed in its progress compared to its neighboring countries because we our governed mostly of selfish brat officials, holding office for their own protection, for their own selfish gratification and worst we have officials today who even doesn’t know the purpose of being there. The essence of true public service is nowhere to be found. We need a drastic and extreme move to have strong and well deserving public officials in this country. By changing the Constitution, we can raise the bar as to the qualifications of public officials as to their educational background and have new provisions that will effectively eliminate graft and corruption practices. For me, a mandatory educational requirement is that they should have finished at least a master’s degree, doctorate or law perhaps. Even the qualification of voters must be amended; at least they should have finished a college degree. I strongly believe raising the bar of qualifications will give us a strong, stable government.
Another point of view, equality between the Church and the State; I say, the State should be more powerful than the church. The State may imposed laws even it is immoral to the teachings of the Church and the Church should be barred in interfering the States activities, provided that such law will do practically good to the majority and help stabilize the government.
Economic Policies, presently millions of Filipino people don’t have work and trillions are working outside the country because of higher wages. Presently, our country cannot provide jobs locally to everyone to our people and admittedly other countries provide higher wages. How can we address these concerns? Let our economist do the computation, let as amend the economic policies of our Constitution that hopefully will help our country be more productive in helping the people and same way the people helping the government through paying taxes.
I am not a political scientist nor an economist, but I believe that with the observations and proposals made, I strongly believe the our great nation will rise again and regain its name in the international community as a strong developing country with a well stabilized government.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Does the 3rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain meet the academic standards for arguments?
Does the 3rd Presidential Debate of Obama and McCain meet the academic standards for arguments?
For us to decide whether said debate is in accordance with the academic standards, it is imperative to know first the general rules for debate.
The following rules are taken from Competitive Debate—Rules and Techniques by George McCoy Musgrave (1957), from some of Chapter 1.
Keep in mind that some of these rules MAY NOT APPLY to modern debate.
Debate, like many competitive activities, has rules and customs with which participants and judges should be thoroughly familiar. Until 1945, the rules were largely unwritten; they passed by word of mouth from debater to debater and from school to school. It is not surprising, then, to find some disagreement as to what they actually are.
In the last few years considerable progress has been made in the development of standards and procedures generally acceptable on a national basis. Widespread intersectional competition and national debate publications have accelerated this trend...
The Teams
The rules governing participants are these:
Rule 1. There are two teams. Each team consists of two or three speakers.
The Speeches
Rule 2a. The speeches and speaking time are divided equally between the two teams.
Rule 2b. Each team has two or three constructive speeches.
Rule 2c. Each team has from one to three rebuttal speeches.
Rule 2d. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and the constructive speeches alternate: affirmative, negative, affirmative, negative.
Rule 2e. The negative gives the first rebuttal speech, and the rebuttals alternate; negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative.
Rule 2f. In Oregon type debate, each team has one or more questioning periods, in addition to the constructive speeches and rebuttals.
The Topic
Rule 3a. When worded as a proposition of policy, the topic requires the affirmative to support some specified action by some particular individual or group.
Rule 3b. The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition.
Rule 3c. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term.
Rule 3d. Once the negative has accepted the affirmative's definitions, it may not later object to them, even though it later develops that they are unreasonable. Failure of the negative to object to the affirmative's definitions in the first constructive speech following the definitions is equivalent to acceptance of them by the negative.
Rule 3e. The phrase "should adopt" or its equivalent means that the affirmative must show that the plan, if adopted, would be desirable. It does not in any way obligate the affirmative to show that the necessary approvals could be obtained.
Rule 3f. The phrase "should adopt" or its equivalent obligates the affirmative to recommend that action be taken in the reasonably near future.
Positions of the Teams
Rule 4a. The affirmative must advocate everything required by the topic itself.
Rule 4b. The affirmative may work out the details of its plan as it sees fit. It may take on the burden of proving anything else it desires.
Rule 4c. The negative may offer any counterplan that would be in order in a legislative assembly discussing the proposition.
Rule 4d. The affirmative must explain, upon demand by the negative, the major features and policies under which the proposed plan is to operate. If the negative recommends a counterplan, it has the same duty.
Rule 4e. No revision of position of a team is permitted during the debate.
Proof
Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.
Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.
Rule 5c. Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.
Rule 5d. Any restatement or quotation of an opponent's argument must be accurate.
Rule 5e. Visual aids are permissible in debate. Once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
Rule 5f. One-sided visual aids must not be exhibited while an opponent is speaking, unless the opponent specifically requests that this be done.
Refutation and Rebuttal
Rule 8a. No new constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period.
Rule 8b. New constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period if the rebuttal is the first opportunity to answer a direct question and if these new arguments answer the question.
Rule 8c. Refutation may take place in any part of the debate and is not limited to the rebuttal period.
Rule 8d. Either team, when advocating a plan of action, must explain that plan early enough in the debate so that the opposing team has a constructive speech in which to reply.
Rule 8e. The affirmative must, if possible, reply to the major negative arguments before the last rebuttal.
Rule 8f. If the negative believes that the affirmative is making unfair use of the last rebuttal, it may ask for the floor to point out the situation. The affirmative may then defend the statements in question or correct them and apologize.
Judging
Rule 9a. The team doing the better debating is the winner.
Rule 9b. The team doing what the proposition requires is the winner.
Rule 9c. The decision is given to the affirmative if it succeeds in showing that the proposed plan should be adopted. The decision is given to the negative if the affirmative fails to show that the proposal should be adopted.
Rule 9d. The judge must base his decision entirely on the material presented, without regard for other material which he may happen to possess.
Rule 9e. The judge is required to accept as true all arguments backed by reasonable proof (as defined above) until such arguments are overthrown by the opposing team.
Rule 9f. The judge must not accept ideas which are not backed by reasonable proof.
Violations
Rule 10. Any gains made outside of the established procedure are disallowed.
With the given general rules, the 3rd Presidential debate of Obama and McCain clearly did not meet the academic standards. Although a lot of rules were violated, from the composition of a Team, Speeches, Topic, Position of the team, and judging however both debaters able to establish what they asserted of which I will elaborate in seriatim.
1. TEAM, there were two opposing one man team; a team should be composed of at least two to three individuals, with the said debate, it was only between Obama and McCain.
2. SPEECHES/TOPIC/POSITIONS OF THE TEAM/REBUTTAL, yes, the speeches and speaking time were divided equally,there were constructive speeches and rebuttal speeches during the said debate as expected, there were several topics given by the moderator, each debater was asked to have their speeches alternately in each topic but the debate was more focused of who’s program is better, there should have been two opposing stands; the affirmative and negative in every topic.
3. PROOF, I must say both debaters made their assignments, both of them proved, established, provided support of what they asserted by providing evidence , statistics and logic and of course both are persuasive.
4. JUDGING, nobody rise as a winner of the said debate.
Indeed there was a debate, there were rules being followed but said debate as a whole did not meet the academic standards. Clearly it was organized purposely to let the voters know of who among the candidates provide better plans and more deserving to be the President of their nation.
For us to decide whether said debate is in accordance with the academic standards, it is imperative to know first the general rules for debate.
The following rules are taken from Competitive Debate—Rules and Techniques by George McCoy Musgrave (1957), from some of Chapter 1.
Keep in mind that some of these rules MAY NOT APPLY to modern debate.
Debate, like many competitive activities, has rules and customs with which participants and judges should be thoroughly familiar. Until 1945, the rules were largely unwritten; they passed by word of mouth from debater to debater and from school to school. It is not surprising, then, to find some disagreement as to what they actually are.
In the last few years considerable progress has been made in the development of standards and procedures generally acceptable on a national basis. Widespread intersectional competition and national debate publications have accelerated this trend...
The Teams
The rules governing participants are these:
Rule 1. There are two teams. Each team consists of two or three speakers.
The Speeches
Rule 2a. The speeches and speaking time are divided equally between the two teams.
Rule 2b. Each team has two or three constructive speeches.
Rule 2c. Each team has from one to three rebuttal speeches.
Rule 2d. The affirmative gives the first constructive speech, and the constructive speeches alternate: affirmative, negative, affirmative, negative.
Rule 2e. The negative gives the first rebuttal speech, and the rebuttals alternate; negative, affirmative, negative, affirmative.
Rule 2f. In Oregon type debate, each team has one or more questioning periods, in addition to the constructive speeches and rebuttals.
The Topic
Rule 3a. When worded as a proposition of policy, the topic requires the affirmative to support some specified action by some particular individual or group.
Rule 3b. The affirmative has the right to make any reasonable definition of each of the terms of the proposition.
Rule 3c. If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term.
Rule 3d. Once the negative has accepted the affirmative's definitions, it may not later object to them, even though it later develops that they are unreasonable. Failure of the negative to object to the affirmative's definitions in the first constructive speech following the definitions is equivalent to acceptance of them by the negative.
Rule 3e. The phrase "should adopt" or its equivalent means that the affirmative must show that the plan, if adopted, would be desirable. It does not in any way obligate the affirmative to show that the necessary approvals could be obtained.
Rule 3f. The phrase "should adopt" or its equivalent obligates the affirmative to recommend that action be taken in the reasonably near future.
Positions of the Teams
Rule 4a. The affirmative must advocate everything required by the topic itself.
Rule 4b. The affirmative may work out the details of its plan as it sees fit. It may take on the burden of proving anything else it desires.
Rule 4c. The negative may offer any counterplan that would be in order in a legislative assembly discussing the proposition.
Rule 4d. The affirmative must explain, upon demand by the negative, the major features and policies under which the proposed plan is to operate. If the negative recommends a counterplan, it has the same duty.
Rule 4e. No revision of position of a team is permitted during the debate.
Proof
Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.
Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.
Rule 5c. Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.
Rule 5d. Any restatement or quotation of an opponent's argument must be accurate.
Rule 5e. Visual aids are permissible in debate. Once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
Rule 5f. One-sided visual aids must not be exhibited while an opponent is speaking, unless the opponent specifically requests that this be done.
Refutation and Rebuttal
Rule 8a. No new constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period.
Rule 8b. New constructive arguments may be introduced in the rebuttal period if the rebuttal is the first opportunity to answer a direct question and if these new arguments answer the question.
Rule 8c. Refutation may take place in any part of the debate and is not limited to the rebuttal period.
Rule 8d. Either team, when advocating a plan of action, must explain that plan early enough in the debate so that the opposing team has a constructive speech in which to reply.
Rule 8e. The affirmative must, if possible, reply to the major negative arguments before the last rebuttal.
Rule 8f. If the negative believes that the affirmative is making unfair use of the last rebuttal, it may ask for the floor to point out the situation. The affirmative may then defend the statements in question or correct them and apologize.
Judging
Rule 9a. The team doing the better debating is the winner.
Rule 9b. The team doing what the proposition requires is the winner.
Rule 9c. The decision is given to the affirmative if it succeeds in showing that the proposed plan should be adopted. The decision is given to the negative if the affirmative fails to show that the proposal should be adopted.
Rule 9d. The judge must base his decision entirely on the material presented, without regard for other material which he may happen to possess.
Rule 9e. The judge is required to accept as true all arguments backed by reasonable proof (as defined above) until such arguments are overthrown by the opposing team.
Rule 9f. The judge must not accept ideas which are not backed by reasonable proof.
Violations
Rule 10. Any gains made outside of the established procedure are disallowed.
With the given general rules, the 3rd Presidential debate of Obama and McCain clearly did not meet the academic standards. Although a lot of rules were violated, from the composition of a Team, Speeches, Topic, Position of the team, and judging however both debaters able to establish what they asserted of which I will elaborate in seriatim.
1. TEAM, there were two opposing one man team; a team should be composed of at least two to three individuals, with the said debate, it was only between Obama and McCain.
2. SPEECHES/TOPIC/POSITIONS OF THE TEAM/REBUTTAL, yes, the speeches and speaking time were divided equally,there were constructive speeches and rebuttal speeches during the said debate as expected, there were several topics given by the moderator, each debater was asked to have their speeches alternately in each topic but the debate was more focused of who’s program is better, there should have been two opposing stands; the affirmative and negative in every topic.
3. PROOF, I must say both debaters made their assignments, both of them proved, established, provided support of what they asserted by providing evidence , statistics and logic and of course both are persuasive.
4. JUDGING, nobody rise as a winner of the said debate.
Indeed there was a debate, there were rules being followed but said debate as a whole did not meet the academic standards. Clearly it was organized purposely to let the voters know of who among the candidates provide better plans and more deserving to be the President of their nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)