Youtube introduction
A neighbor of mine, Mary, is a devout Republican conservative who admires Bush and Cheyney.

She would like to find a place to learn and practice the art of debate, so that she may better defend her views in arguments with liberal Democrats.

I have offered to help find debating resources.

Here is what she writes to me:

I would like to defend Bush on the War! Why he is blamed by the left wing and hated so much. This man is sincere and his only concern was to protect his country regardless of the polls. He inherited Clinton's recession and 9/11 same along....After all it was with the vote of both houses that we went into Irag...so why do they blame him and Cheney, etc. - and of course, they automatically connect Cheney with Haliburton and Bush with oil?

If any of you have ideas for arguments which defend her position, or arguments against her views, please let me know.


Here is one resource for debating societies that I have found so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Parliamentary_Debate_Association

APDA members stage weekly debating tournaments, each at a different university and occurring throughout the academic year. Some weekends have two debating tournaments, one north of New York City and one south of New York City, in order to shorten transport time. However, centrally located tournaments or particularly prestigious tournaments, such as those at Columbia, Fordham, NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, will frequently be "unopposed", meaning that they will be the only tournament on that particular weekend. While APDA does play a role in creating a tournament schedule, the tournaments themselves are only loosely coordinated by the APDA body. Individual schools must ensure that their tournaments meet a broad set of APDA guidelines, but are free to tinker with their tournament formats.
...
Debates at APDA tournaments follow a debating style known as American Parliamentary Debate, which is modeled loosely on the procedure and decorum of the UK Parliament. This style emphasizes argumentation and rhetoric, rather than research and detailed factual knowledge.




Mary has presented some arguments to me in support of Pres. Bush. She makes the good point that Bush is sincere in his beliefs, and has persevered even at the cost of popularity in public opinion.

She is reading books about Obama, and books by Obama, in order to build her arguments against Obama.

She loves McCain and Palin.

Mary is very pro-life. She admires McCain for immediately stating that the beginning of personhood is the moment of conception. She feels that Obama gave more vague and evasive answers regarding the status of the embryo.

It is quite true that my personal views lean in favor of people like Obama and the Democrats. But I do value the opportunity to explore the arguments of the opposition, and exercise my own judgment and understanding.

Mary's difficulty arises when she becomes so emotional during arguments that she loses focus and concentration and focus, and forget which points she want to make and how she wants to make them. She feels that practice in the art of debate will remedy this weakness.

I do think one is strengthened by the exercise of arguing both sides of an issue, pro and con.

Flow of the round

A round of debate features two teams of two debaters each: the Government team, including the Prime Minister and the Member of Government, and the Opposition team, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Member of the Opposition.

Six speeches in all are delivered, varying in length:

* Prime Minister's Constructive: 7 minutes
* Leader of the Opposition's Constructive: 8 minutes
* Member of Government: 8 minutes
* Member of the Opposition: 8 minutes
* Leader of the Opposition's Rebuttal: 4 minutes
* Prime Minister's Rebuttal: 5 minutes

Points of information

A debater may rise to ask a point of information (POI) of an opponent during the opponent's speech. POIs are only permitted during the first four speeches, except in the first and final minutes of the speech. The speaking debater can choose to hear the POI or to dismiss it politely. Traditionally when standing on a point of information some debaters extend one hand palm up, holding the back of the head with the other. This pose originated in old British Parliamentary etiquette: an MP would adopt the position to secure his wig and show that he was not carrying a weapon.[1] It is generally considered good form to accept at least two POIs during a speech.

The resolution

In most rounds, the resolution is squirrelable, meaning that the Government team can propose any topic it wants for debate. (Certain tournaments provide both teams with the topic of debate 15 minutes before the round.)

Since the Opposition team arrives at the round with no prior knowledge of the case, some kinds of resolutions are not permitted to ensure a fair debate. If Opposition feels that the round fits any one of these categories, they may point this out during the Leader's speech. If the judge agrees, Opposition wins. There are five kinds of disallowed resolutions:

* tight resolutions, which are deemed too one-sided ("racism is bad", for example);
* truisms ("Bill Clinton is the greatest Democratic president of the U.S. since Jimmy Carter");
* tautologies ("Good citizens should help the poor," with goodness defined as "a willingness to do charitable acts");
* status quo resolutions ("The United States should have jury trials");
* specific-knowledge cases, i.e., cases which are unfair toward the Opposition team because they require highly obscure knowledge to oppose effectively ("NASA should replace the current sealant used on the space shuttle with hypoxynucleotide-C4598")

Aside from these five limitations, virtually any topic for debate is fair game, as long as there are two coherent and debatable sides. Debaters may also present opp-choice cases, in which the government team offers the opposition team the chance to choose which side of a topic the government team will defend in the round.

I suppose such debate, and parliamentary procedure is at the fabric of a constitutional democratic republic.

Time-space

One type of case, common on APDA but rare on other circuits, is the time-space case. This places the speaker in the position of some real-life, fictional, or historical figure. Only information accessible to a person in that position is legal in this type of round. For instance, "You are Socrates. Don't commit suicide" could not reference events that took place after Socrates' death. The speaker can be a fictional character ("You are Homer Simpson. Do not sell your soul"), a historical character ("You are Abraham Lincoln. Do not sign the emancipation proclamation") or virtually any other sentient individual.

One notable type of time-space case is the historical hypothetical case, in which decisions made by particular historical figures are debated from their historical context. Debates surrounding, for instance, Civil War strategy or World War I alliances are commonplace. These types of debates often require a detailed knowledge of history.

Time-space cases are a particularly sensitive type of case for the government, because their setting must leave room for the opposition to defeat the case even if that would go against the historical outcome already known to everyone in the room.
...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT8t4liEHwU
++++++


++++++++

Yale University BP debate 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34IXnyEUk3U







++++++++++++++

333333

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWh7PATwAvA

..


Yale debate Debate university University tournament BP british parliamentary





++++++

44444

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcZMh__AvOY



Charlie Rose show is a good source of debates as reasoned discussions.

Lyndon B. Johnson often quoted the Old Testament verse "Come, let us reason together."


+++++

555

Follow the link to see my ustream broadcast! Thanks!

The transition at "You can say that you're leading me on" was very difficult for me to figure out.

Look at me,
I'm as helpless as a kitten up a tree
And I feel like I'm clinging to a cloud
I can't understand,
I get misty, holding your hand.

Walk my way,
And a thousand violins begin to play
Or it might be the sound of your hello
That music I hear,
I get misty the moment you're near

You can say that you're leading me on
But it's just what I want you to do
Don't you realize how hopelessly I'm lost
That's why I'm following you.

On my own,
Would I wander through this wonderland alone
Never knowing my right foot from my left,
My hat from my glove,
I get misty, and too much in love.

I'm too misty, and too much in love

NO GAL MADE HAS GOT A SHADE
ON SWEET GEORGIA BROWN,
TWO LEFT FEET, OH, SO NEAT,
HAS SWEET GEORGIA BROWN!
THEY ALL SIGH, AND WANT TO DIE,
FOR SWEET GEORGIA BROWN!
I'LL TELL YOU JUST WHY,
YOU KNOW I DON'T LIE, NOT MUCH:
IT'S BEEN SAID SHE KNOCKS 'EM DEAD,
WHEN SHE LANDS IN TOWN!
SINCE SHE CAME, WHY IT'S A SHAME,
HOW SHE COOLS THEM DOWN!
FELLAS SHE CAN'T GET
MUST BE FELLAS SHE AIN'T MET!
GEORGIA CLAIMED HER, GEORGIA NAMED HER,
SWEET GEORGIA BROWN!
NO GAL MADE HAS GOT A SHADE
ON SWEET GEORGIA BROWN,
TWO LEFT FEET, OH, SO NEAT,
HAS SWEET GEORGIA BROWN!
THEY ALL SIGH, AND WANT TO DIE,
FOR SWEET GEORGIA BROWN!
I'LL TELL YOU JUST WHY,
YOU KNOW I DON'T LIE; NOT MUCH:
ALL THOSE GIFTS THOSE COURTERS GIVE,
TO SWEET GEORGIA BROWN,
THEY BUY CLOTHES AT FASHION SHOWS,
WITH ONE DOLLAR DOWN,
OH, BOY! TIP YOUR HAT!
OH, JOY! SHE'S THE CAT!
WHO'S THAT, MISTER? 'TAIN'T A SISTER!
SWEET GEORGIA BROWN!