10-5-16 I've got a novel idea...

Good Evening, All!

I am not a political person. I really don't like to say things about candidates and I really don't think any Facebook posts about candidates do a bit of good...

I have noticed that this presidential election seems to be different than past elections--at least to my untrained eye. It seems that no one is happy. Lots of people are saying they are just choosing the "lesser of two evils." Others are threatening to move to Canada or other points outside the US. It's become the national joke that out of 324,729,000 (approximately) people in the US, THESE are the best two we could come up with?? Facebook memes and snarky comments abound. 

I neither like nor trust either candidate. I don't think anyone really does. 

Sad. Really sad. 

I tried to watch the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. Couldn't do it. After 5 minutes of each I was so bothered I actually had a blanket over my face!! No class by either candidate. Interrupting, not answering the question, talking over the other, making wild accusations about each other. Statements made without any proof or backup (thus the need for fact checkers.) Accusations of tampering with microphones and hacking by Russians...where is the courtesy and protocol and "presidential-ness?" I mean, gee, we all learned about this sort of stuff in kindergarten!

I have an idea. I researched (mildly researched) high school debate rules and I propose that the next debate be run like a high school debate. Topics to be announced, then the candidates get 30 minutes to work with their teams, then...showtime. There is the first volley (both sides get six minutes), the second volley (another six minutes), then the rebuttals (five minutes each). Talking about the actual question and what they would do or why they feel the way they do. Each candidate would get the same questions, so no accusations of bias in the questions. Forget hiring these anchors as moderators--get some 70-year-old high school debate coach, a real tough guy. 

If someone interrupted inappropriately, their turn would be immediately forfeited. OK, maybe I'm being too harsh--give them one warning, then forfeit their turn. 

What would that be like?? 

I would love it!!! 

I copied these rules from highschooldebate.org/rules. 

SPEAKER ORDER AND RESPONSIBILITIES

There are three debaters per side. Each debater gives one speech. This is the order of the speeches:

First proposition constructive – 6 minutes

This speaker makes a case for the motion for debate, providing a proof of the topic with three or four major points.

First opposition constructive – 6 minutes

This speaker makes several arguments against the proposition team’s case and refutes the proposition’s major points.

Second proposition constructive – 6 minutes

This speaker should rebuild and extend upon the proposition’s case. This means that this speaker must defend and amplify the original proposition points and refute the opposition’s major arguments.

Second opposition constructive – 6 minutes

This speaker amplifies the opposition arguments against the case, providing new information about why the opposition team should win the debate. This speaker should answer the proposition’s answers to the opposition team’s original arguments. This speaker may split summarization of the debate with the opposition rebuttalist.

Opposition rebuttal – 5 minutes

This speaker must put the debate together and explain why, given one or more arguments in the debate, the opposition team should win the debate. This speaker accounts for or refutes the proposition’s major points.

Proposition rebuttal – 5 minutes

This speaker should summarize the issues in the debate and explain why, even with the opposition’s arguments, the proposition teams should win the debate. This speaker accounts for all remaining major points of the opposition team.

POINTS OF INFORMATION

A Point of Information is a request that the speaker holding the floor yield time to an opponent for a statement (argument) or a question. A person applies for a point of information by standing or standing and saying “Information.” No other words may be used in applying for a Point of Information. A speaker may reject a point by gently waving a hand in the down position, indicating that the opponent should sit. A speaker may also reject the point verbally by saying “No, thank you.” Either method of rejecting a point attempt may be used, although the former is preferred as it is less disruptive for the speaker. If the speaker accepts a point (2 or more points ought to be accepted during any given speech), the speaker simply replies to an attempt by saying “Yes” or “I’ll take your point.” It is possible for more than one person on a team to request a point at any one time. A rejection by the speaker (by a nonverbal wave of the hand or negative verbal reply) is understood to apply to all opponents attempting a point at that time.

A Point of Information, also known as a POI, may only be attempted during the middle four minutes of each constructive speech – the 6 minutes speeches of the debate (after the first and before the last minute; the opening and closing minutes of a speech are identified as ‘protected time’ for the speaker and may not be interrupted by POIs). An accepted POI may not be more than 15 seconds.

HECKLING

Strategically directed heckling (supportive and argumentative) is permitted. Heckling is a single word or brief phrase (almost always no more than 2 words) and directed to the judge of the debate. A heckle is a reminder to the judge to pay close attention to the information immediately expressed by the speaker. Some heckles are non-verbal and supportive of teammates (e.g., applause during a speech by teammates rapping their knuckles or the palm of their hands on a desktop to encourage the judge to heed a particularly strong point being made by the speaker.) Other heckles are verbal and alert the judge to a problem in the opposing side’s argument. For example, if a member of an opposing team offers a major point without including evidence to verify her or his reasoning (i.e., the speakers does not make a complete argument, which must include ‘A-R-E,’ Assertion-Reasoning-Evidence) a person on the listening team may heckle by calling out, “Evidence.” This lets the judge know that the point is not yet an argument and should not receive the same standing as well-supported issues that are presented in the debate.

Only argumentative heckling is permitted. Barracking, attempts to disrupt a speech through constant and boorish commentary (often referred to as ‘the heckler’s veto’) is not permitted.

NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL SPEECHES

Students may present new arguments in any speech in the debate except the final speech for each side, the third speech or rebuttal speech. No new arguments may be offered in these speeches. What is a new argument? It is an issue that does not have a foundation in the debate up to the point of its introduction. it is an entirely new issue, unrelated to earlier arguments. In other words, the rebuttal speakers are able to present new information in their speeches, just so the material is a continuation of a line of argument from the earlier constructive speeches in the debate. Rebuttal speakers are not expected to to simply copy and repeat the arguments raised by their partners. New assessment of previously established positions, new argument analysis and examples for continued arguments are acceptable in the rebuttal speeches.

So, I'm frustrated and scared and embarrassed by our president possibilities right now. But, I need to remember that God gives the authority to people for reasons I just don't know. After all, He is God. I am not. 

"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God." --Romans 13:1

"Jesus said, 'You would have no power over me at all unless it were given to you from above.'" --John 19:11

AND...I can pray that God will turn the victor's heart just as easily as you can divert a stream of water. It's not too hard. Because, after all, He is God. I am not. 

"The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the Lord, he guides it wherever he pleases." --Proverbs 21:1

There you have it. My political diatribe. 

Let's just all be nice, OK?

Love, Kitt.