Debate 3rd speaker affirmative defenses
RULE 1. Amended Bills. If the House does not concur, a conference committee may be appointed to confer with a similar committee from the Senate, pursuant to the Joint Rule on Conference Committees. RULE 2. Amendments must be Germane.
We are searching data for your request:
Debate 3rd speaker affirmative defenses
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
2 — The Format of Public Forum Debate
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. Raucous audience applause—cheering, laughter, and even booing by a passionately involved electorate marked the presidential debates from the start of the primary season. While the presence and intensity of these observable audience responses OARs can be expected from partisan primary debates, the amount of not just laughter, but also applause—cheering and booing during the first general election debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was unprecedented.
Such norm-violating audience behavior raises questions concerning not just the presence, strength, and timing of these OAR, but also their influence on those watching on television, streaming video, or listening to radio. This report presents findings from three interconnected studies.
Study 1 provides a baseline for analysis by systematically coding the studio audience response in terms of utterance type laughter, applause—cheering, booing, and mixtures , when and how intensely it occurred, and in response to which candidate. Study 2 considered co-occurrence of OAR in the studio audience and in the field study rooms, finding laughter predominated and was more likely to co-occur than other OAR types.
When standardized cumulative strength of room OAR was compared, findings suggest co-occurring OAR was stronger than that occurring solely in the field study rooms.
Analysis of truncated data allowing for consideration of studio audience OAR intensity found that OAR intensity was not related to OAR type occurring in the field study rooms, but had a small effect on standardized cumulative strength.
Study 3 considers the results of a continuous response measure CRM dial study in which 34 West Texas community members watched and rated the candidates during the first debate. Findings suggest that applause—cheering significantly influenced liking of the speaking candidate, whereas laughter did not. Further, response to applause—cheering was mediated by party identity, although not for laughter.
Conclusions from these studies suggest laughter as being more stereotypic and likely to be mimicked whereas applause—cheering may be more socially contagious. The election can be seen as one in which a passionately involved electorate was key for its unexpected outcome as novice political outsider Donald Trump became president of the United States.
Beyond their populist overtones, these observable audience responses OARs can thus be seen as valid and reliable audible indicators of the intensity of shared individual and emergent group attitudes toward political candidates more generally Stewart, , ; Stewart et al.
Existing debate-focused research has documented the role of these salient media events in reinforcing existing preferences, producing issue knowledge, and influencing perceptions of candidate character, thus affecting undecided voter choices McKinney and Warner, However, most existing research treats debates as monolithic events and examines overall debate effects rather than communication dynamics occurring during the debates themselves.
While providing useful insights concerning the impact of mediated events on electoral dynamics, these approaches do not take into consideration the unpredictable events that occur during debates and how they affect perceptions. Candidate rhetorical approach Benoit, , non-verbal behavior Bucy and Stewart , Forthcoming , and media presentation style Cavari et al.
Recent research addresses this oversight through continuous response measures CRMs and dial testing of debates, eye tracking of candidate exchanges, and focus group analysis of memorable debate moments Gong and Bucy, Analysis of social media such as Twitter also suggests that candidate non-verbal behavior, even more so than their verbal acclaims, attacks and defenses Shah et al.
Still, these approaches may not capture the contemporaneous, in-person emotional response of viewers, instead representing more considered appraisals Nagel et al. Furthermore, by focusing on individual response such measures might be missing the highly important attribute of implicit sociality embedded with audible responses by the audience, especially during emotionally charged political events.
Research considering OAR to political candidates at events such as debates tends not to focus on the audience itself, and its social influence on other audience members. Specifically, the studies by Wiegman and Fein et al. For instance, Wiegman carried out a field experiment with a well-known Dutch political figure that involved a studio audience either reacting positively, negatively, or neutrally through a range of audible utterances and variety of gestures and facial displays.
Fein et al. While not dealing with political figures, Axsom et al. The existing research that does differentiate between the types of OAR tends to consider these utterances as a means by which large groups of followers provide feedback to their leaders. Specifically, audience responses such as applause—cheering, laughter, and booing provide audible signals indicating the type of response while indexing level of follower support or opposition.
Furthermore, the timing of OAR indicates their level of synchrony with the speaker, as well as that with fellow audience members Bull and Wells, Thus, the type and magnitude of the OAR supplies audible information indicating coalition size and strength Dunbar, providing the speaker with immediate and unobtrusive feedback that may be continuously monitored and allow for enhanced speechmaking West, At the same time, media audiences, whether streaming the debates, watching on television, or listening through other broadcast media, as well as journalists reporting on the event, may be affected by this information.
Indeed, OAR can lead to change regarding how the speaker is evaluated, indeed, even more so than the eliciting comments themselves Fein et al. In other words, social influence asserted through OAR affects resultant viewer and listener perceptions, attitudes, and behavior; however, the specific influence of different OAR such as applause—cheering, laughter, and booing remains to be studied in depth. Observable audience response such as applause—cheering, laughter, and booing may be seen as belonging to a class of behavior that is almost automatic and highly contagious, which in turn might lead to affective, cognitive, and behavioral response with political implications Fein et al.
This audible response may in turn influence individual emotional response, and with it the evaluation of the candidate eliciting the response as well as those sharing in the response through emotional contagion Hatfield et al. These group vocalizations can thus provide evidence of the type and intensity of connection the audience members have with the candidates, and perhaps as important, the members have with each other in the room.
Because of the social nature of group vocalizations, these utterances should be stereotyped and contagious; in other words, such behaviors as laughing and yawning have coherent and identifiable vocalic, facial and even postural display behavior associated with them.
As defined by Hatfield et al. Despite the rather sparse nature of existing research on location of debate viewing and audience composition, we expect differences in the in-person studio audiences and those having a mediated experience. In other words, the studio audience likely reacts differently from those watching a video of the event. Differences in response may further be affected by whether individuals are watching independently or amongst other individuals, whether known acquaintances or strangers, with increased laughter, if not the other OAR types, occurring with greater sociality.
Furthermore, social norms likewise play a role in what is acceptable behavior or not, although this may be determined by audience member assumptions and relationships with each other Devereux and Ginsburg, ; Platow et al. Thus, in addition to the type of OAR e. This intensity may in turn affect onlookers, whether in the studio audience — yet not affiliated with any social group or faction — or watching on television, live streaming over the internet, or listening on the radio and thus experiencing intra-audience mediated effects from the OAR Cummins and Gong, Generally speaking, one can identify three general types of audible OAR as applause—cheering 1 , laughter, and booing each serve to signal shared audience response to political candidates Atkinson, ; West, ; Heritage and Greatbatch, ; Clayman, , ; Bull and Miskinis, These OAR types, in addition to their effects being characterized by length and strength, may be accentuated or attenuated depending on audience member characteristics and the intensity of their response.
Each OAR type serves distinct communicative ends allowing for audiences to communicate their support or disapproval for statements by leaders and putative leaders, with concomitant intensity and mixtures providing insight concerning passion and unanimity regarding these positions. Laughter is the most studied of all vocalizations discussed here; however, the focus tends not to be on the group. Individual laughter is focused on due to it serving as a pervasive social signal in interpersonal interactions by punctuating speech and indicating speaking turn taking and transition Provine, ; Gilmartin et al.
Individual laughter can indicate social intent through it being voiced and unvoiced Bachorowski and Owren, ; Owren and Bachorowski, as well as communicating the different emotions of amusement, contempt, schadenfreude, and tickle Szameitat et al. As a result, laughter may be seen as a costly signal by virtue of it either being evoked in a manner that is difficult to control whereas even emitted laughter that is initially faked leads to physiological change Provine, ; Bachorowski and Owren, ; Devereux and Ginsburg, ; Ruch and Ekman, ; McGettigan et al.
Individual laughter likewise serves as a social lubricant by affecting subject mood states by decreasing negative affect, increasing positive affect and enhancing pain tolerance while increasing social cooperation and group identity Van Vugt et al.
It thus serves as a highly reliable social signal regarding behavioral intent van Hooff and Preushoft, ; Panksepp, ; Pellis et al. When considering group level behavior, research regarding laughter tends to focus on the target and intent of the verbal utterances leading to this type of response Wells and Bull, ; Stewart, ; Choi et al. Thus, research concerning group laughter tends to reflect findings regarding response to individual speakers. The group vocalic utterances of laughter is limited in length of time to a much greater extent than those created through rhythmic mechanical noisemaking such as applause tending to last from 1 to 3 s in comparison with 2 to 8 s for applause—cheering Stewart, , as well as likely booing although these types of rare OAR makes strong assertions untenable.
Furthermore, when an audience shows their appreciation for a humorous comment, applause—cheering prolongs the laughing utterance Stewart, ; Stewart et al. This suggests high levels of social mimicry in the immediate OAR and then likely social contagiousness through its continuation. Of all the forms of OAR, applause—cheering is perhaps most likely to be observed in group settings such as political speeches and intra-party debates.
This is likely due to the ease with which candidates are able to evoke it among supporters in partisan settings. On the other hand, due to applause—cheering likely not being as costly to produce physiologically and easier for audience members to inhibit than laughter Stewart, , it might not be as reliable a social signal.
That does not mean that this activity is not stereotyped and thus easy to identify while also being contagious. Research concerning applause bouts in small groups 13—20 found that most involve only 9—15 claps per person, although some last over 30 claps Mann et al. Thus, while the initial applause is louder, the synchronicity of OAR afterward suggests social contagion between audience members.
Much rarer than supportive in-person audience response through laughter and applause—cheering at political events are boos and jeers Clayman, , ; Bull and Miskinis, Existing research on booing finds it rarely occurring. However, the key factor is that the booing occurred during speeches in front of relatively coherent partisan audiences. In summary, laughter, applause—cheering, and booing provide means by which the audience physically present with a politician can communicate as a group in distinctive and easily identifiable ways.
While pre-verbal, these OAR can successfully be used to strategically communicate factional preferences to not just the speaker, but also to other potential group members.
As a result, there are social benefits and costs from participating or not participating in OAR; audience members must consider if engaging in different OAR types will be socially costly to them or if joining in with other audience members when candidates break norms of politeness and civility will pay off socially Dailey et al.
To the point, the social norms of politeness by audience members instructed to not influence the proceedings through their laughter, applause—cheering, and booing can be contravened if their preferred candidate welcomes, even incites it, and there is no effective sanction laid upon them. While we expect the candidates to successfully evoke OAR through punchlines, claptrap, and all manner of rhetorical tools at their disposal, the type of OAR will likely vary systematically.
This report presents the findings of distinct, yet interconnected studies to explore the nature of OAR and their potential influence on evaluation of presidential candidates during a general election debate. As a result, this report is by necessity correlational and exploratory.
We focus on the first general election debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a multipart approach. Study 1 uses ANVIL content coding software to characterize and analyze studio audience response in terms of when the OAR occurred, what type they were laughter, applause—cheering, booing, and mixtures , their duration and perceived strength, and in response to which candidate.
Study 2 builds off of Study 1 by collecting and analyzing a unique dataset in which undergraduate students took part in a field experiment watching or listening to the first presidential general election debate in seven different rooms. This allows us to compare relatively unfettered field study audiences to the studio audience, where moderator instructions and politeness expectations presumably played a role in constraining an elite partisan audience, to the less inhibited university student-occupied rooms.
We draw conclusions regarding both laughter and applause—cheering by considering four research questions concerning the co-occurrence of the OAR of laughter and applause—cheering i. With Study 3, we evaluate the effect of studio audience laughter and applause—cheering on mediated viewer moment-to-moment MTM response of liking the speaking candidate. We finish this report by discussing the implications of our findings for future research.
With an estimated 84 million viewers, the highly anticipated first head-to-head confrontation between Trump and Clinton became the most watched debate in United States history Cavari et al. A total of 34 OAR were identified during the debate proper we did not code for the welcoming or concluding applause. Due to the lack of variance, the two booing and two mixed responses are omitted from statistical analyses, but considered in the descriptive analysis. Throughout this manuscript we report t- and p- values to allow for standard statistical consideration, but note that analysis of the population of studio audience and field study OAR means that such statistical standards are not strictly appropriate.
In comparison with previous general election debates Rhea, ; Stewart, the first meeting between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was a raucous affair just in terms of the 21 laughter events. This finding aligns with expectations and findings suggesting that while both OAR types involve levels of social contagion, laughter likely is more reliable due to the relative absence of control over it Stewart, However, it is the amount of voluntary audience involvement that sets this debate apart.
Nine The norms of civility respected in previous presidential debates by the audience through their OAR were not followed in the first general election presidential debate. Arguably, the norm-bending behavior of Trump through his many interruptions and perhaps more importantly, his use of laughter-inducing rhetoric led to the studio audience departing from customary expectations concerning their collective behavior Dailey et al.
The ability of both candidates to instigate OAR suggests similarities; however, there are revealing differences. Specifically, while both Trump and Clinton invited equal numbers of studio audience applause—cheering with four apiece, Trump was able to elicit five more studio audience OAR than Clinton. This was mainly through his laughter-eliciting attacks; he was also arguably more polarizing by eliciting boos-jeering in one case and a combination of laughter and boos in another instance.
For her part, Clinton produced laughter followed by cheers in two cases, suggesting unconstrained support by her followers, especially in response to her attacks on Trump. Questions remain concerning the nature of the relationship between OAR by those in the studio audience and those watching the presidential debate on television, streaming on the internet, or listening on radio.
Idaho Legislature
Click here for audio of Episode Today, up for debate. The University of Houston presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them. I t was , three years before the outbreak of the Civil War. At issue was the future of slavery.
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I
Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details. The SlideShare family just got bigger. Home Explore Login Signup. Successfully reported this slideshow. We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime. Upcoming SlideShare.
1. What Judges Should Always Keep in Mind
Am I to understand, Sir, that that document we discussed at the Private Session is to be withheld from the Irish people? But I don't want to have the debate interfered with, the direct debate on the Treaty, by a discussion on a secondary document put forward for a certain purpose in Private Session. That document will be put forward in its proper place. I want to know is the document we discussed as an alternative to be withheld from the Irish people, or is it to be published in the Press for the people to see?
Houses of Parliament Schedule by Type
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. Raucous audience applause—cheering, laughter, and even booing by a passionately involved electorate marked the presidential debates from the start of the primary season. While the presence and intensity of these observable audience responses OARs can be expected from partisan primary debates, the amount of not just laughter, but also applause—cheering and booing during the first general election debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was unprecedented. Such norm-violating audience behavior raises questions concerning not just the presence, strength, and timing of these OAR, but also their influence on those watching on television, streaming video, or listening to radio.
Tips and Tricks to Master MUN Conference Debates
During debate, Members do not refer to one another by their names [] but rather by title, position or constituency name in order to guard against the tendency to personalize debate. Parliamentary Secretaries, House Leaders and Party Whips are typically designated by the posts they hold. The Speaker will not allow a Member to refer to another Member by name even if the Member speaking is quoting from a document such as a newspaper article. Allusions to the presence or absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber are unacceptable. Disrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House and the Senate individually are not permitted. Reflections must not be cast in debate on the conduct of the Speaker or other Presiding Officers. Members are prohibited from speaking disrespectfully of the Sovereign, the Royal Family, the Governor General or the Administrator of the Government of Canada in the absence of the Governor General.
Yale Daily News
If you wish to view scheduled events by day, the offical Parliamentary Calendar can be viewed here. An adjournment debate is a half hour debate, on a topic tabled by a backbench MP, that occurs at the conclusion of the Parliamentary Day on Monday through Thursday. No vote is taken at the conclusion of the debate.
First Debate: Ottawa, Illinois
Chapter 2 Basic Elements in Academic Debate In this chapter, we will look at an overview of academic debate by reviewing basic elements in academic debate. First we will look at people who participate in debate. Second, we will discuss the nature of the topic in debate. Third, we will definitions of important concepts in academic debate.
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. Speakers called for renewed international commitment devoid of politicisation and double standards for the realization of the important mandates of the Council. Stating that a safe, clean and sustainable environment was integral to the enjoyment of the full range of human rights, some speakers announced that they had initiated consultations towards developing binding international legislation in that sphere. As States were asked to respond to questionnaires prepared by Special Procedure mandate holders, the answers provided should be included in the related reports. The lack of transparency surrounding the death penalty had negative consequences on the right to a fair trial and other human rights ; transparency was fundamental to the administration of justice. Human rights issues must be addressed through a constructive, non-confrontational manner that was based on dialogue and avoided interfering in the internal affairs of countries.
Lincoln took the stand at a quarter before three, and was greeted with vociferous and protracted applause; after which, he said:. While I was at the hotel to—day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
Exactly you are right
It is competent and accessible, but it seems to me that you missed quite a lot of details, try to reveal them in future posts
The authoritative point of view