the third presidential debate

The third presidential debate was indeed the talk of the town and was watched my millions of peoples from all over the world. It was one of the historical events of America and who would want to miss such event in one of the powerful country in the world..right? The 2008 United States Presidential Election was very controversial, that for the record an African-American ran for the presidential office.

The 2008 Presidential Debate was between Senator Jhon McCain and Senator Barrack Obama who, both of them were after the Presidency for the Unied States of America. Both tried and had done their best to convince people to take side on them after hearing each Economic Plans and opinions in the recent America's crises.

The debate was in fact an opportunity for them to question each others' propaganda and to persuade for votes.

The environment of the debate was good and no doubt about it. They show respect to each other as they needed to. Both shows professionalism and in talking. The argument goes well although certain interruptions was made by both parties while the other was talking. Base to what I have seen and watched, the debate followed and reached the academic standards of the debate after persuading and presenting arguments and profs.

ARGUMENTATION

Argumentation soughts to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge as define in Wikipedia. Philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin has said that an argument is a claim on our attention and belief, a view that would seem to authorize treating.
Truly, argumentation is define as the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is used in communication by most scholars and they term it as " informal logic".

Just like other ways of communication, argumentation also has its rules and internal structures. Wikipedia had presented some:

Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising of the following

1. a set of assumptions or premises
2. a method of reasoning or deduction and
3. a conclusion or point.

An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.

Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore it is common to insist that the set of assumptions is consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.

In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences known as the premises along with another declarative sentence known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequences of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises.

Each premise and the conclusion are only either true or false, not ambiguous. The sentences composing an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; arguments are referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false. Some authors refer to the premises and conclusion using the terms declarative sentence, statement, proposition, sentence, or even indicative utterance. The reason for the variety is concern about the ontological significance of the terms, proposition in particular. Whichever term is used, each premise and the conclusion must be capable of being true or false and nothing else: they are truthbearers.