read and respond to each peer initial post with 3-4 sentence long response

Peer # 1

The debate processes in congress usually consist of ethical biases conflicting with each other. It is either arguments that stretch equity to assist outlires and lowers the efficiency of programs or policies. The most harmful thing to any policy to me is the inability to make tough decisions. I cannot stand people who are in the position to make tough decisions, but challenge their peer’s ideas constantly. People who cannot “break eggs” should not lead. That is my own opinion.

Reaching a consensus is hard when the political dichotomy is so vague and convers the majority of people in a partisanship. Peer pressure or attacks during the election process create a blockade on providing adequate service to the public. Hierarchy, political prominence, and peer pressure take some to vote for things that they do not believe in, in order to stay in the political dichotomy structure.   

“Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business. Often, fewer than 51 senators are present on the floor, but the Senate presumes a quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggests otherwise.” (U.S. Senate. 2016)

It seems that the majority of the rules on debating have been the same. They are constitutional rules that help them in giving a fair legislation process. There is a parliamentarian in the house and senate to provide guidance on policies, rules, conduct, etc. It seems like the rules have become more of guidelines. Democrats have illegal sit-ins and republicans filibuster bills at the speaker level. The rules are in place as checks and balances, with no real consequences on breaking them. The worst that can happen is a congressman gets voted out, but they need both sides of partisanship to get a majority vote. 20 members in history were expelled from service; that is ever since we have had a congress.

The rules of the senate have not changed really. Minor additions through time have been added. The only thing that has changed dramatically is the way they are broken.

If we are debating in class, I would like to eliminate circumstantial evidence and replace it with statistics. Lightning strikes on people happen a lot. A lot is subjective. In comparison to the United States or the world, it is insignificant in value. This is the biggest obstacle in truth seeking and rational thinking. It happens every time that I have class on campus. An example is when I explain that .25 percent of police officers are bad, I get 15 stories of officer malfeasance. Online, I do not have that much of an issue, because writing “this one time” stories looks crazy against stats. If I were to work with those people in congress, they would stretch equity to support the minority, who can but won’t help themselves or the few that fell through the cracks in the Land of Opportunity, even if that meant making things harder for the rest of us.

Communication in the debates are good online, just not in class. The debate is effective online, because I can challenge confirmation biases or strengthen them, by being resourceful. To strengthen idea sharing, I think that there should be a different drop box that has sustains and obstacles to policies or whatever we are debating. Debates are meaningless, unless there is a viable solution presented for idea challenges. I would hate to Michael Moore it, by crying about things and not presenting a fix. That should be another ground; we should have problem with the policy and suggestions for the fix have to be presented.

Peer # 2

House and Senate Debates
The legislative process can be very complex, but is very important in order for laws to be passed. During the legislative process, a representative promote a bill and then it is assigned to a team for evaluation. If the bill is passed by the committee, it is then placed on a calendar to be debated on. In order for a bill to become law, it has to be voted on and passed by legislature. Members of congress and other parts of the judicial system debate on rather the bill is worth becoming law and how it will affect the public if it is passed.

Many debate procedures have changed in the House and Senate. The speaker has the power to force any member to give up the floor if he or she strays away from the topic at hand. Likewise, the member cannot speak for more than an hour unless a vote is taken and members unanimously want the member to continue.

The last formal debate I was in was a class debate on whether you were for against the death penalty. Although this is always a touchy subject to most people, the debate remained respectful and took many unexpected turns. The most difficult part was providing factual information and trying not to be one sided about the topic. The outcome of the debate was interesting because more than half of the class was against the death penalty. Most of the students were in favor of life without parole instead of capital punishment.

The debate was a great way to communicate and get to know the different opinions in the classroom. The only thing that could have made it better was if we were able to take time to prepare for the debate. Because it was a part of the lesson for that day we didn’t have time to prepare. Most of the information was either already known or found right then at the moment.