James Van Fleet once said, “Always think in terms of what the other person wants.”
During my nearly 10 years of marriage, I’ve discovered that one of the keys to a successful relationship is thinking in terms of what my wife wants. For instance, there are times when my wife wants to watch a romantic movie when I’d prefer to watch an action movie. You might be saying,”Great! Let her watch her romantic movie and you go watch an action movie on another television.” Good idea, my rational thinking friend. However, if I were to act on that type of thinking my wife wouldn’t get what she really wanted it from the experience. Connectedness. Guess what? I want to feel that too.
Click here to continue.
[from immediateinfluenceblog.com]
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Effective argument: Key to debate success
Debate success is predicated on effective argument. To be effective, one must be fair, honest and accepting. Using these simple rules, debaters can walk away from the table as friends every single time.
Click here to continue.
[from helium.com]
Click here to continue.
[from helium.com]
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Adjudication Tips for Beginners
Learn to Adjudicate
Judigng a debate well is not an easy skill to learn, and requires you to work as hard than the students during the debate. You must be able to provide a substantiated and well-founded Reason For your Decision (RFD) to explain to the students who won and why.Click here to continue.
[from debates.org]
Monday, August 20, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Propaganda and Debating Techniques
As you read the following pages, you will be exposed to quite a variety of
deceptive propaganda techniques, logical fallacies, and lies (hopefully, none of
them mine). You might as well learn a little about how the art and science of
propaganda works, so that you can recognize the techniques as people try to fool
your mind with them.
You probably already know a lot about this, whether you realize it or not, because politicians pull many of these standard stunts on you every election year, and you have grown immune to some of them. And modern advertising uses a lot of them, too, and you just tune them out. Nevertheless, let's just do a quick over-view of propaganda techniques. Bear in mind that "propaganda" is not inherently a dirty word — it just usually is. Any time you are trying to convince anyone of something, you are using some kind of persuasion, debating, or propaganda technique. Just telling the whole truth about something is one simple propaganda technique, and a highly effective one. But lying often works better, at least with some audiences... Master these propaganda techniques, and you too will be able to proselytize and promote cult religion and radical politics just like a battle-hardened old-timer.
Click here to continue. This link provides a wealth of information.
[from orange-papers.org]
You probably already know a lot about this, whether you realize it or not, because politicians pull many of these standard stunts on you every election year, and you have grown immune to some of them. And modern advertising uses a lot of them, too, and you just tune them out. Nevertheless, let's just do a quick over-view of propaganda techniques. Bear in mind that "propaganda" is not inherently a dirty word — it just usually is. Any time you are trying to convince anyone of something, you are using some kind of persuasion, debating, or propaganda technique. Just telling the whole truth about something is one simple propaganda technique, and a highly effective one. But lying often works better, at least with some audiences... Master these propaganda techniques, and you too will be able to proselytize and promote cult religion and radical politics just like a battle-hardened old-timer.
Click here to continue. This link provides a wealth of information.
[from orange-papers.org]
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Debate Dos and Don'ts: From Bush and Kerry Debate
Here is a article from Fox News in 2004 for dos and donts for then Presidential candidates George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.
Aside from these dos and donts being for them, there are some tips that all can learn from.
Click here to read.
Aside from these dos and donts being for them, there are some tips that all can learn from.
Click here to read.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Online Debates - Share Views, Opinions and Knowledge
By Si Anderson
Online debating platforms have emerged as the preferred destination for people wanting to have their say on issues affecting their daily lives. Whether it is to question current trends or share one's opinion on a burning national issue online debating platforms provide with the best debating stage.
Everyone sees life in their own way. People gather knowledge, experience and opinions as they move forward in their lives. When they come across a counter view, they want to question it, put their view forward, and in some cases are even curious enough to explore the others' side. A debate gives people the opportunity to do all this in the right manner. And when the World changed to the World Wide Web, the debate floor was transformed into an online debating platform.
Debating is a healthy way of expressing your thoughts while getting a glimpse of the bigger story too. For instance, the rising fuel prices concerns all of us. People would want to blame the ruling authorities, but on an online debate site, they may come across people giving them the other side of the story- the international pressures dictating fuel prices or the pressures on government to increase the prices. This way, people not only get to hear what others have to say about a situation affecting them, but can also put forward their side of the story in the best manner possible.
It is worth a mention here, that there are some prestigious debating websites out there which are frequented by option formers and thinkers. People that are instrumental in policy making and influencing government decisions also use the platform to express their views. If you get the opportunity to get on one such platform and have your say or get view across to the leading thinkers, then the purpose of debating is more than fulfilled. Your view/experience and opinion has reached people who have the power to do something about it.
Leaders, opinion formers and thinkers value public opinion. They are always interested in knowing the impact of their policies, decisions on the people. That is why when you comment on a view point expressed by an influencer, they make a note of it. They document how you feel about an issue and this is their way of gathering public opinion. You can never know if what you have to say on an issue can really help make things better. You have the knowledge and experience backing your views, and maybe the opinion formers may see the loophole you want to draw their attention too.
You have seen life at close quarters. You know about things and the ways of people. Do not hesitate to express your views. Get on an online debating platform and share your view on the issues being discussed their. Tell people your beliefs and show them the other side of things. You never know when an opinion former might convey your views/ideas to the policy makers who consult him.
You can make a change happen. All you have to do is be out there and open to sharing your views. Keep an eye out for interesting debate news where you can comment on an issue directly affecting you or your loved ones.
The writer recommends Leicester Exchanges, one of the leading online debate websites in the UK. The debating topics explored by the site are current, topical and have an impact on most people's existence.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Si_Anderson
http://EzineArticles.com/?Online-Debates---Share-Views,-Opinions-and-Knowledge&id=6885146
Monday, August 6, 2012
How to Debate a Point
Even if you are in an office job, debate skills are vital elements to climbing up any job market (corporate, medical, or educational). Some people are better debaters than others. Consequently, they go into fields such as law or sales. Still, debating points is integral to improving your professional situation. You will need to know how to debate a point to increase your salary, you will need to debate a point to get the best position you deserve, the best desk, the best hours, the best clients, and so on. Even if your work takes you to places that argumentative skills are extraneous, they will always help you in your job pursuits. Perhaps you will need to debate a point just to get the job. You must convince an employer that you are the best candidate for the job in order to secure it and move up in the corporation (or school or hospital).
Click here to read the rest.
[from bookrags.com]
Click here to read the rest.
[from bookrags.com]
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Sample Debate Outline
Sample Debate Outline
Parenthetical references cite a works cited which is NOT provided here
Proposal: We propose a constitutional amendment overturning the Miranda
decision. Police are no longer required to read the Miranda warning, although
suspects retain the constitutional rights specified in the warning.
I. There is no constitutional basis for the Miranda warning.
a. There are many amendments involving the rights of criminal
suspects. These include:
1. The right against illegal searches and seizures
2. The right to remain silent
3. The right to life, liberty and property
4. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (7)
b. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to be informed of your
rights before you make a decision to confess. It is assumed that by
accepting the responsibility of being a citizen of the United States
that people will take it upon themselves to learn the rights and
freedoms granted to them.
c. The Miranda warning is similar to being told you have the right to
free speech every time that you open your mouth or set a pen to
paper.
d. The duty of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality
of laws and court decisions, not to make new codes of conduct
with no constitutional basis. The job of creating new legislation
lies in the hands of Congress. (Constitution, Article I)
1. In 1968, Congress passed the Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act, which attempted to overrule Miranda. It
established that for federal cases a suspect need not be
Mirandized before interrogation. This law was ruled
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but under what
basis? Nowhere is the “Miranda” right stated in the
Constitution. (6)
2. Even Justice William Rehnquist conceded in his majority
decision of Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) that “it is judicial
overreaching for this court to hold Section 3501
unconstitutional unless we hold that Miranda warnings are
required by the Constitution.” (4)
II. As many as 28,000 felons go free each year as a result of not being properly
“Mirandized.” These technical violations are making the United States a
more dangerous place to live. (5)
a. In 1997, police interrogated arson-murder suspect Patrice Seibert
who confessed to covering up the death of her son by starting a
fire. After this first confession, she was read her Miranda rights
and the police obtained a second confession. The Missouri
Supreme Court threw out the second confession because they felt it
was coerced, and Seibert’s murder conviction was overturned. A
woman who murdered her own child now walks the streets a free
woman due to a technical error made by the police. (4)
b. In 2001 in Colorado, police did not read a full Miranda warning to
Samuel Patane when he was arrested on the suspicion of violating
a restraining order. Patane confessed to having a gun in his house,
which the police found with the aid of his confession. The gun was
used as evidence to convict Patane of a firearms violation. The
conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals because the gun
was discovered due to a violation of Patane’s Miranda rights. (4)
c. The most famous post-Miranda ruling was the case of Dickerson v.
United States (2000). In 1997, a suspected bank robber, Charles
Dickerson, voluntarily confessed to driving the getaway car in
recent bank robberies. The confession was disallowed as evidence
because Dickerson had not been given the Miranda warning before
he confessed.
As a result of these three similar technicalities made by police, a
murderer, a man with illegal firearms, and a bank robber were allowed
to go free. Due to the Constitutional right against double jeopardy, these
people will not be charged again for these crimes.
III. Precedent established by post-Miranda cases has weakened the efficiency
and power of the Miranda warning.
a. In the case of Illinois v. Perkins (1990), undercover police informants
obtained incriminating evidence from Perkins. This information was used
at trial. Perkins was no read his Miranda rights before the statements were
obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that because the conversations were
not held in a “police-dominated atmosphere,” Miranda warnings were not
necessary. (3)
a. This ruling leaves a lot of gray area. What is considered a policedominated
environment? Does a plainclothes detective have to
read the warning to someone before questioning them?
b. The effect of this ruling is to leave the warning unclear. It is less
protective toward suspects and leaves police officers uncertain of
the rules.
b. Michigan v. Tucker (1974) established that the Miranda warning does not
need to be read in its entiretyl. In this case, the suspect was informed only
of his right against self-incrimination before giving his statement. This
statement gave the police a new potential witness. The suspect’s law
claimed the witness could not be used in court because the name was
found through a Miranda violation, but the court ruled that because the
suspect had been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights, his statements
could be used to gain information but could not be used in court. (3)
c. The biggest downfall in the Miranda warning was established by the
Miranda decision itself. If a person has not been arrested, the police can
use any answers obtained in questioning in court without first providing
the Miranda warning. The Miranda warning is only necessary if the person
being questioned has been arrested prior to the questioning. This gives the
police an obvious loophole.
Parenthetical references cite a works cited which is NOT provided here
Proposal: We propose a constitutional amendment overturning the Miranda
decision. Police are no longer required to read the Miranda warning, although
suspects retain the constitutional rights specified in the warning.
I. There is no constitutional basis for the Miranda warning.
a. There are many amendments involving the rights of criminal
suspects. These include:
1. The right against illegal searches and seizures
2. The right to remain silent
3. The right to life, liberty and property
4. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (7)
b. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to be informed of your
rights before you make a decision to confess. It is assumed that by
accepting the responsibility of being a citizen of the United States
that people will take it upon themselves to learn the rights and
freedoms granted to them.
c. The Miranda warning is similar to being told you have the right to
free speech every time that you open your mouth or set a pen to
paper.
d. The duty of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality
of laws and court decisions, not to make new codes of conduct
with no constitutional basis. The job of creating new legislation
lies in the hands of Congress. (Constitution, Article I)
1. In 1968, Congress passed the Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act, which attempted to overrule Miranda. It
established that for federal cases a suspect need not be
Mirandized before interrogation. This law was ruled
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but under what
basis? Nowhere is the “Miranda” right stated in the
Constitution. (6)
2. Even Justice William Rehnquist conceded in his majority
decision of Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) that “it is judicial
overreaching for this court to hold Section 3501
unconstitutional unless we hold that Miranda warnings are
required by the Constitution.” (4)
II. As many as 28,000 felons go free each year as a result of not being properly
“Mirandized.” These technical violations are making the United States a
more dangerous place to live. (5)
a. In 1997, police interrogated arson-murder suspect Patrice Seibert
who confessed to covering up the death of her son by starting a
fire. After this first confession, she was read her Miranda rights
and the police obtained a second confession. The Missouri
Supreme Court threw out the second confession because they felt it
was coerced, and Seibert’s murder conviction was overturned. A
woman who murdered her own child now walks the streets a free
woman due to a technical error made by the police. (4)
b. In 2001 in Colorado, police did not read a full Miranda warning to
Samuel Patane when he was arrested on the suspicion of violating
a restraining order. Patane confessed to having a gun in his house,
which the police found with the aid of his confession. The gun was
used as evidence to convict Patane of a firearms violation. The
conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals because the gun
was discovered due to a violation of Patane’s Miranda rights. (4)
c. The most famous post-Miranda ruling was the case of Dickerson v.
United States (2000). In 1997, a suspected bank robber, Charles
Dickerson, voluntarily confessed to driving the getaway car in
recent bank robberies. The confession was disallowed as evidence
because Dickerson had not been given the Miranda warning before
he confessed.
As a result of these three similar technicalities made by police, a
murderer, a man with illegal firearms, and a bank robber were allowed
to go free. Due to the Constitutional right against double jeopardy, these
people will not be charged again for these crimes.
III. Precedent established by post-Miranda cases has weakened the efficiency
and power of the Miranda warning.
a. In the case of Illinois v. Perkins (1990), undercover police informants
obtained incriminating evidence from Perkins. This information was used
at trial. Perkins was no read his Miranda rights before the statements were
obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that because the conversations were
not held in a “police-dominated atmosphere,” Miranda warnings were not
necessary. (3)
a. This ruling leaves a lot of gray area. What is considered a policedominated
environment? Does a plainclothes detective have to
read the warning to someone before questioning them?
b. The effect of this ruling is to leave the warning unclear. It is less
protective toward suspects and leaves police officers uncertain of
the rules.
b. Michigan v. Tucker (1974) established that the Miranda warning does not
need to be read in its entiretyl. In this case, the suspect was informed only
of his right against self-incrimination before giving his statement. This
statement gave the police a new potential witness. The suspect’s law
claimed the witness could not be used in court because the name was
found through a Miranda violation, but the court ruled that because the
suspect had been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights, his statements
could be used to gain information but could not be used in court. (3)
c. The biggest downfall in the Miranda warning was established by the
Miranda decision itself. If a person has not been arrested, the police can
use any answers obtained in questioning in court without first providing
the Miranda warning. The Miranda warning is only necessary if the person
being questioned has been arrested prior to the questioning. This gives the
police an obvious loophole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)