Written by
Robert Donovan and John Rosenkranz for the Wall Street Journal, this article
takes a direct stance on the current format of the presidential debates. The
authors do this by first identifying and exploring the cons surrounding the
style of debate used now. This includes not only personal opinions on the
matter, but also numerous data points to explore regarding the topic. This, in
fact, is where the true strength of their argument lies -- in the facts. The
authors of this article are meticulous with the examples they provide to
support their case. They argue that the current method of debating -- which
they describe as being nothing more than a "ploy" to ask catch the
presidential hopefuls off guard -- is ineffective at its job andpresnts an ill representation
of their true ideals. Instead they suggest hosting these debates in an Oxford
debating style. This style is unique from the present method in that is more
structured and formulaic. Oxford Style
debates follow a formal structure which begins with audience members casting a
pre-debate vote on the motion that is either for, against or undecided. Each
panelist presents a seven-minute opening statement, after which the moderator
takes questions from the audience with inter-panel challenges. Finally, each
panelist delivers a two-minute closing argument, and the audience delivers
their second (and final) vote for comparison against the first.
The
evidence provided from these two co-authors is quite impressive. To prove their
argument, they provide many examples of their point -- a strong appeal to
logos. This brings a lot strength to their argument. By including references to
numerous debates that have followed the same debate structure and how they too
would work for the presidential debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment