Scribd
Upload
59 views2 pages

Debate Evaluation

The document summarizes the first presidential debate of the 2016 Philippine elections held in Cagayan de Oro City. It discusses the candidates - Binay, Roxas, Santiago, Poe, and Duterte - and their arguments for why they should be president. Santiago and Duterte were seen as having the most valid arguments as they stayed on topic and directly answered questions, while the other candidates' answers were less clear. The document also analyzes some logical fallacies used in the debate, such as appeals to pity, ignorance, and the people. It concludes by recapping some of the main topics discussed, including plans to address issues in Mindanao like agriculture, poverty, and crime.

Uploaded by

anonynoni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views2 pages

Debate Evaluation

The document summarizes the first presidential debate of the 2016 Philippine elections held in Cagayan de Oro City. It discusses the candidates - Binay, Roxas, Santiago, Poe, and Duterte - and their arguments for why they should be president. Santiago and Duterte were seen as having the most valid arguments as they stayed on topic and directly answered questions, while the other candidates' answers were less clear. The document also analyzes some logical fallacies used in the debate, such as appeals to pity, ignorance, and the people. It concludes by recapping some of the main topics discussed, including plans to address issues in Mindanao like agriculture, poverty, and crime.

Uploaded by

anonynoni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ASSIGNMENT #3 MARIA MARISOL D.

DIMAANO ABM-8

- First Presidential Debate of 2016 elections in Cagayan de Oro City

EVALUATE ARGUMENTS OF THE SPEAKERS:

Binay, Roxas, Santiago, Poe, and Duterte is the candidates to run for president. They're laying out their
intentions for this country. Both Miriam and Duterte dominated the debate, demonstrating that they
are both competent of leading the Philippines. Poe also proved that she has great plans for the country.
Roxas and Binay, on the other hand, exploited the argument to elevate their own chairs—"decisive,"
"effective," and "daang matuwid,". All of them were asked one by one and fought for their opinion on
how they could make Philippines to have a better future.

ARE THE ARGUMENTS SOUND AND VALID?

-although part of it isn't. The valid ones in this debate, on the other hand, are Santiago and Duterte.
They were on top of the topic and did not veer off into other topics; Direct to the point kung sumagot at
nasa pinag uusapan ang sinasabi, hindi umiikot o napupunta kung saan saan ang kanilang opinion. they
were direct and based on the questions that were thrown at them. While Binay, Roxas, and Poe segue to
another dimension, their conclusion is hazy; Ang mga opinion nila o mga sagot sa tanong ay nakakalito
at paulit ulit ang sinasabi.

WHY OR WHY NOT? SPECIFY FALLACIES DETECTED:

There were committed errors detected these are:

APPEAL TO PITY-This was observed when a concern was raised regarding how Duterte uses curse words
and whether this has a negative impact on children; Tinanong si Duterte kung may impact ba sa mga
kabataan o dapat bas yang gayahin sa kanyang pagmumura at pagiging babaero. Sumagot naman si
Duterte ng naayon sa tanong at itinanggi ang ilang paratang.

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE- I detected this when Senator Miriam Santiago pointed out that their promises
had never been fulfilled and that no one had shown that the Philippines could reduce poverty rates.
Sinabi rin ni Santiago na paulit ulit na pangako nalang ang nangyayare ngunit wala pang nakakagawa ng
pagbabago.

AGAINST THE PERSON-This is something we can always observe in a debate. Normally, they are all
opposed to each other's viewpoints, causing their remarks to be contradicted by the other party. Sa
round 3 ng debate nagkaroon sila ng pagkakataon I-critic ang opinion ng bawat magsasalita.

APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE-This was mentioned during the argument. The speakers did their best to
persuade the audience to believe in their plans and activities in order to be elected for president.
Nagsabi ng mga pangako at nagbitiw ng mga salita upang makuha ang loob ng mga taong tagapakinig.

HASTY GENERELIZATION-The crowd's attention has been drawn to the argument because it is about the
presidency. Example of this is when Roxas uses his experience in various parts of the debate to
recognize that he has more experience running for president and that he has the right to be president.
Na siya ang karapat dapat maging president sapagkat mas marami siyang experience sa malacanang at
sa senado.

BEGGING THE QUESTION-Each speaker had a different point of view. In the debate, there was a round
where you may rebut what the other speaker had said. Binay, Roxas, Poe, Santos, and Duterte had been
through. Bawat isa ay nagkaroon ng pagkakataong rumebat sa mga opinion ng bawat isa sa round 2 at 3

THE FOLLOWING TOPIC WAS DISCUSSED: PLANS TO BE MADE. In Mindanao, the issues that needs to be
solve about agriculture. Poverty, corruption, and a high crime rate. Intentions of their party for the
Philippines.

DATE: February 21,2016

NAME OF SPEAKER: Binay, Roxas, Poe, Duterte, Santiago.

CHANNEL: GMA news tv, inquirer.net, Comelec.

Debate link: https://youtu.be/0haQhDsfP-s

You might also like