The Nominees Debate, Propositions and Framework

For the nominee debates, the two parties must collaborate to frame the propositions.

(Please add some well phrased propositions for the debates between the nominees.)

Why am I doing this? Simple: I, and I am sure millions more, DEMAND that this procedure be used in this manner NOT to waste our time with what has passed for debate in the primary season. I (WE?) WANT QUALITY DIRECT CLASH ON THE ISSUES!!!

POLICY DEBATES

These debates will be limited to issues in public policy, health care, preservation or development of wilderness areas and other public lands, economy, Iraq War, global warming, energy, education, immigration, infrastructure, judicial appointments, NAFTA, United Nations issues, etc.

EXAMPLES

#1 - RESOLVED, that the U.S. Congressional health-care system (or, alternatively, the Medicare health-care program for the elderly) be extended to everyone living in the U.S who has paid a portion of their income into Social Security.

#2 - RESOLVED, that the 80% of U. S. military forces in Iraq be withdrawn from Iraq within six months after January 20th, 2009.

CONSTRUCTIVE ROUND OF ARGUMENTS

FOR: The constructive arguments of the first nominee must define the terms of the proposition, show the problems with the status quo and set up a case with the advantages and evidence in favor of the new plan stated in the proposition:

1. the health-care system of Congress
2. extended
3. everyone living in the U.S.
4. who has paid into the Social Security system

AGAINST: The constructive arguments by the second nominee must define the terms of the proposition and set up a case of disadvantages and evidence against the plan proposed and offer an alternative plan or support the status quo with some minor changes.

REBUTTAL ROUND OF ARGUMENTS

The nominees must clash directly on the points made in the constructive round. New arguments are generally not permitted in this phase of the debate. The debaters must stick to the arguments already on the table.

The first nominee rebuts the second.
The second nominee rebuts the first.

ADDITIONAL PROPOSITIONS (Your submissions?)

VALUES DEBATES

Resolved, that diplomatic talks with the “enemy” (state or beings) is better than not having discussions with such antagonists.

Resolved, that marriage between two gay people is a human right.

Resolved, that human rights begins at birth.

Besides public policy issues, there might be some programs debating value issues, gay marriage, the beginning of human life and the choice of abortion, separation of church and state, gun control, faith-based initiatives, religious displays on public lands, death penalty, and others. Values issues must be kept separate from public policy problems because the intermixing of the value and policy issues causes the strong, more personal involvement and emotional content of values argumentation to carry over into discussions of the more technical and intellectual content of problems of policy. The solution of health-care problems affects nearly everyone. The problems of gay marriage do not have that general consequence of health care.

It is very important to have a debate, which is a series of speeches. It is extremely important to have speeches of a certain length IN ORDER TO AVOID RUDE INTERRUPTIONS BY FAST-TALKING OBFUSCATORS OF THE ISSUE. ALL TALK SHOWS THRIVE ON THE LATTER CONFUSORS, BECLOUDORS WHOSE SOUND-BYTE TALK GOES FAST INTO BICKER-BICKER. Those who “moderate” such gibble-gabble must somehow think that that mess of talk without respectful listening is drama demanded by the medium of TV. Case in point: The Mclaughlin Group, worst offenders. They allow a reporter to string together only two or three sentences before the over-talking begins. The deliberative mind does not benefit. We are given “conversation”, which goes a very short while before the subject changes.