who's winning

1. What does it take to win an argument? Is this/should this be the same criteria we use to select a president?
- to know the correct information. to be convincing

-

1. Prepare. Prepare until we have become the argument. Prepare until you know every scale on the hide of the fish. Having prepared, next understand that good preparation is like writing a script for a screenplay. Proper preparation requires one to tell the story and to assign roles to the parties. Cast your side as the good guys, as the side chat is unjustly accused, wrongly despised, gravely misunderstood. Cast your side as the underdog. And, when those for whom we argue cannot wear the white hat, argue their case from inside their hides.
2. Open the Other to receive your argument. You have already learned how: empower the other to receive or reject your argument.
3. Give the argument in the form of story. As we have seen, we are genetic storytellers and listeners to stories. Remember, fables, allegories, and parables are the traditional tools of successful argument. Every movie, every soap, every sitcom, most lyrics in popular songs, all operas and plays, most successful television commercials are in story form. So do not forget what you have learned already: jurors, the boss, the family, the Other are conditioned to listen to stories.
4. Tell the truth. With ordinary words you have learned the incredible power of credibility. Being who you are is powerful. Saying how you feel is powerful. To be open and real and afraid, if you are afraid, is powerful. The power argument begins and ends by telling the truth. Truth is power.
5. Tell the Other what you want. If you are arguing before a jury for money, ask for money. If you leave the Other to guess what you want, their guessing may be wrong, and guessing spoils your credibility. Remember the power of justice. Jurors will circumvent the law to mete out justice. People will break the law to obtain justice. People will die in wars to win it. People can live without food or shelter or love. This is a species that can bear every kind and character of pain except one pain--the pain of injustice. Discover the natural justice of your argument and ask for it--demand it.
6. Avoid sarcasm, scorn, and ridicule. Use humor cautiously. Hold back insult. No one admires the cynic, the scoffer, the mocker, the small, and the petty. Giving respect to one’s opponent elevates us. Those who insult and slight do so from low places. Remember: Respect is reciprocal. The employment of humor can be the most devastating of all weapons in an argument. Humor is omnipotent when it reveals the truth. But beware: attempting to be funny and failing is one of the most dangerous of all strategies.
7. Logic is power. If logic is on your side, ride it--ride it all the way. If logic is not on your side, if logic leads to an unjust result, it will have no power. As Samuel Butler said, "Logic is like the sword--those who appeal to it shall perish by it." Logic does not always lead to truth or justice. Logic defeats spontaneity. Logic is often dull and is more comfortable with the dead, for it is often without spirit. Do not give up creativity for logic. However, the creative mind will soon see that creativity is often served by logic.
8. Action and winning are brothers. The worst of head-on attacks is often better than the most sophisticated defense. Never permit your opponent to take control. Do not defend when you can attack. Counterpunching is for boxers, and counterpunchers most often lose. The great champions of the world take control. The great generals attack first, and attack again. Take the initiative. Do something. But with those we love, the best attack is often to attack with love, and, as we shall see, winning is often accomplished by the art of losing.
9. Admit at the outset the weak points in your argument. You can expose your weaknesses in a better light than your opponent, who will expose them in the darkest possible way. An honest admission, having come from you, not only endows you with credibility, it also leaves your opponent with nothing to say except what you have already admitted.
10. Understand your power. Give yourself permission--only to win. But remember, arrogance, insolence, and stupidity are close relatives.

source: http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Books/Argue.htm
-most definatley, sometimes they just ramble on and not answer straight forward. and worry about saying the other candinate is wrong, but not why.

2. Who do you think won tonight's debate? Describe in detail three reasons for your answer.
-
Obama won Tuesday night’s debate. His performance was far stronger second time around, more aggressive, more personal, and he commanded the floor. By contrast, some of the bad old Mitt from the primaries was back. The Republican shuffled around the stage and seem to tire halfway through. As he often does under pressure, Romney talked in innuendoes. Asked a question about achieving gender balance in the workplace, he replied, “Thankyou, that's an important topic” – which longtime Mitt followers know is code for “I never thought about that before.” He then told the audience that, as Governor of Massachusetts, in his search for potential female appointees he had been shown “binders full of women.” Ahem. What he learned from this experience was that “If you’re gonna have women in the workforce, they need to be more flexible.” O my. I know what he meant: you know what he meant. But the slutty minded on Twitter were in stiches.
Obama exploited Romney’s flaws. He reminded the audience that the Republican pays just over 14 per cent in federal taxes (although he tops that up with generous charitable donations) and that he u-turned on assault weapons. And at the end of the night, Romney set himself up for a painful reminder of his remarks about the 47 per cent by pledging to represent “the 100 per cent of Americans.” Predictably, Obama replied by trotting out Romney’s infamous closed-door statement about welfare recipients. In this manner, almost every Romney attack was blunted. And, as the evening wore on, the President's smile grew and he interjected more often. In fact it started to feel like he was getting more time and more generous questions. But that might have been a testament to his performance rather than a conspiracy by the organisers.
However, there are two factors that might even out Obama’s win. First, Romney was on form when talking about the economic issues – where the numbers speak for themselves. Mitt consistently won points when he was able to cite high unemployment, high debt or spiralling prices. When Obama told the audience that the rising price of gas was a sign of economic improvement, a few folks at home had to choke on their root beers. Romney synchronised those themes nicely in his closing message, when he was personal, idealistic and dignified. Recall that what won Romney the first debate wasn’t just his combativeness but also his centrism – the projection of a statesmanlike image that goes down well with swing voters desperately looking for an alternative to Obama. It’s noteworthy that undecideds in Frank Luntz’s televised focus group seemed to think that Romney won. His brand as a competent moderate isn’t diminished.
Second, Obama’s numbers might flag after a bit of fact checking is done. There were all sorts of examples of the President winging it on facts (oil drilling, gas prices etc), but the biggest snafu was on Libya. The most tense moment of the debate came when Romney accused Obama of bungling his response to the assault on the US embassy in Benghazi and falsely reporting it as a popular demonstration rather than a terrorist attack. The President asserted that he called it a terror attack all along and – remarkably – the moderator interrupted to support Obama’s claim, citing the text of a speech he gave shortly after the events unfolded. In fact, in that speech Obama did not call Benghazi a terrorist attack but instead referred vaguely and in general terms to the US being susceptible to “acts of terror.” In a follow up statement, he did not mention terror attacks at all. That’s probably because his administration continued to deny that it was a terrorist attack for many days after – whether for reasons of incompetence or political expediency.
On live TV, it appeared that Romney lost the exchange by being corrected by the President, then the moderator and then by the audience who applauded Obama’s staunch self-defence. It was great TV. But not only was it misleading, but Romney’s central point was actually rather more pertinent. In the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack on a US embassy, the President of the United States flew to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser. It begs the question, what would it take to get Obama to cancel a fundraiser? World War III?
Be in no doubt, this was a much needed shot in the arm for Obama’s campaign. But how it will play out is less obvious. It’s hard to imagine that independents worried about college tuition, gas prices, jobs or debt will change their vote based on one debate. That said, Obama has run and won on rheotric before.

by:Tim Stanely.