'Informed Citizen' Software for Analyzing Candidate Debates
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ 'Public Square' Suite of Software Programs ] [ 'Informed Citizen' Software for Political Parties ] [ 'Informed Citizen' Software for Understanding Political Parties ] [ 'Informed Citizen' Software for Understanding Candidates ] [ 'Informed Citizen' Software for Analyzing Candidate Debates ] [ 'Informed Citizen' Software for Analyzing Political Addresses ] [ 'Informed Citizen' Software for Understanding Public Policies ] [ 'Informed Citizen' Software for Understanding International Treaties and Agreements ] [ 'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Political Parties ] [ 'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Candidates ] [ 'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Candidate Debates ] [ 'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Political Addresses ] [ 'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Public Policies ] [ 'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating International Treaties and Agreements ] [ Policy Guides ]

'Informed Citizen'™ Software
for Analyzing Candidate Debates

Features:  This application will help users to describe candidates' political philosophy and proposed policies as these are articulated in debates.  The application has the same sections and subsections as our "Framework for Analysis and Evaluation."  In each section, we first provide a set of "Assumptions" taken directly from the General Framework.  Users can then respond to sets of questions related to the entities described in that section of Assumptions.  For example, the Assumptions in a particular section may describe the three types of social sectors.  The questions in that section ask the user to describe how each debater proposes to regulate relationships between these sectors.

As a whole, these questions will explore how each debater has stated that he or she plans to promote the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment.  There are also questions that ask users to assess debaters' personal qualities -- their moral integrity, professional competence, and psychological fitness -- based on their performance in the debate.

Users would enter responses to questions in scrolling response boxes.  Under each question we will provide separate response boxes for each debater.  The format for this software would thus be very similar to that of the software for understanding candidate platforms.  It would simply be structured to accommodate two or more sets of responses to each question instead of just one.

One of our staff members will use this software to create an objective analysis of the debate.  This 'Debate Profile' would then be posted on our web site where it can be reviewed by the general public.  Also, any member of the general public can download the software to conduct their own analysis of a debate.  

Since the format for all of these applications is similar, this 'Debate Profile' could be used by citizens as they try to pick the winner of a debate using our "'Citizen Choice'™ Software for Judging Candidate Debates."

CURRICULUM NOTE:  In the 'Dialogue in the Public Square' Curriculum, students may use this application to summarize and analyze debates between candidates for local, state, or national office.  They may also use it to analyze debates between students who have composed their own candidate platforms for a mock election.

Part I:  Debate Summary by Area of Policy - Domestic Focus

What positions and initiatives related to the following areas of policy were offered by each debater?  For congressional and presidential candidates, clarify the level of organization to which the initiative was most relevant (local, national, international).

Agricultural Policy

Education Policy (teacher training, vouchers, student performance)

Taxation Policy

Banking and Finance

Energy Policy (sources of energy, conservation)

Industrial/Manufacturing Policy

Transportation Policy

Waste Management

Air and Water Pollution

Health Care (costs and accessibility) and Public Health (general fitness, nutrition, public health and the environment)

Environmental Issues not covered in other policy areas above (wilderness areas, endangered species)

Bioethics (issues such as abortion, stem cell research, and genetic engineering)

Poverty Reduction

Entitlements (social security, medicare)

Volunteerism and Service

Criminal Justice (crime prevention, firearm regulation, sentencing, recidivism, rehabilitation, issues surrounding the death penalty, etc.)

Issues Related to Discrimination (on the basis of race, creed, gender, sexual preference, age, disability)

Military Budget and Preparedness

Policies Promoting the Arts

Government Ethics (campaign finance, conflicts of interest, size and scope of government)

Business Ethics

Debate Summary by Area of Policy - Focus on Foreign Relations

What general principles does each debater for guiding foreign policies regarding international trade and development, security alliances, military deployment and use, and environmental stewardship?

What specific policies does each debater advocate regarding trade and development, security alliances, and environmental stewardships in the following regions:

Africa
South Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.)
East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, etc.)
Southeast Asia (includes Australia)
Eastern Europe
Western Europe
The Middle East
North America
Central and South America

Part II:  The Influences that Shape the Views of Each Debater

Part III:  Analyzing Debates: Focus on Domestic Issues

I.  

A.  Analyzing Debaters' Philosophies and Policies for Promoting Individual Development
The "Assumptions" from section I.B of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What are general philosophy and specific policies of each debater for promoting the following dimensions of personal development?

Physical

Artistic

How did each debater recognize the developmental nature of liberty and fulfillment?
The "Assumptions" from section I.C "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here.


How did each debater acknowledge the roles of individual initiative and social support in the process of personal development?
The "Assumptions" from section I.D "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here.

How did each debater recognize a full range of human rights as well as relationships between different human rights?
The "Assumptions" from section I.E "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here.



II. Analyzing Debates on the Social Level of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section II "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here.

A.  Institutions
The Assumptions from section II.A of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What are the general philosophy and specific policies of each debater for promoting the effective and ethical functioning of the following institutions?  I.e.  How does each debater plan to encourage the following groups to promote the welfare of individuals, social groups, and the environment?  How does each debater plan to promote transparent decision-making processes within the following organizations?

Families

Churches

Civic organizations

Advocacy groups that represent the interests of specific populations: the elderly, supporters of gun rights, consumers, etc.

Nongovernmental organizations that promote political justice, economic justice, human rights, and/or ecological stewardship

Media organizations: TV networks, radio stations; newspaper and magazine publishers

Business Firms

Labor unions

Schools: primary, secondary, vocational, and higher education

Charitable organizations that serve the needs of especially vulnerable populations: the poor, elderly, etc.

Institutions that support the arts

Political parties


1)  Special Institutional Focus on Governments
How does each debater propose to establish more democratic structures of government in your nation?

How does each propose to encourage governments to adopt decision-making processes that are more transparent -- more open to public input, review, and evaluation?

How does each propose to help local and state governments to resist corruption and thus be more responsive to the needs and interests of citizens?

How do the debaters' policy proposals affect the ability of your national government to resist corruption and thus be more responsive to the needs and interests of citizens?

How do the debaters' policy proposals affect the ability of local and state governments to enact and enforce legislation that is just and environmentally sound?

How do the debaters' policy proposals affect the ability of your national government to enact and enforce legislation that is just and environmentally sound?

How do the debaters' policy proposals impact the ability of your national government to efficiently maintain a military force that is capable of defending the nation's interests and values?

How do the debaters' policy proposals affect the ability of your government to strike a balance between spending on military programs and on those programs that promote human development and environmental protection?


2)  Special Focus on the Institutional Level: The Parties to Which Debaters Belong
The "Assumptions" from section II.A.1 of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here.  The following questions will help users to gain information that will enable them to identify the influences that shape the domestic platform of each debater's political party.

Who belongs to the party of each debater?  What characteristics do they share: philosophical, ethnic, economic, etc.?

Who provides financial support for the party?

How does each debater reflect the interests of members and supporters of his or her party?

Are the interests of donors and members compatible with the long-term well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment?  I.e., are the debaters' parties able to resist efforts by groups to ‘buy influence’ over policies in a way that is damaging to individuals, social groups, and the environment? 


B.  Social Sectors
The Assumptions from section II.B of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What are the general philosophy and specific policies of each debater for promoting constructive relationships

within the market sector?

within the government sector?

within civil society?

between the market and the state?

between the market and civil society?

between civil society and the state?


C.  Different Levels of Social Organization
The Assumptions from section II.C of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What are the general philosophy and specific policies of each debater for promoting constructive relationships between different levels of social organization?  Does each debater adhere to the principle of subsidiarity, which states that all human endeavors (economic ventures, public policies, etc.) should be pursued and administered at a level that is as local as possible but as centralized as necessary?


D.  Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The Assumptions from section II.D of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What were the general philosophy and specific policies of each debater for securing equal opportunities for the persons of different: 

Sexual orientations?




III.  Analyzing Debates on the Ecological  Level of Organization
The Assumptions from section III of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What philosophy and policies does each debater propose for protecting

individual species?

ecosystems?

the biosphere as a whole?

How does each debater strive to integrate the goals of economic growth and ecological stewardship?




IV.  Analyzing Debaters' Views Regarding the Cosmic Level of Organization

A.  Exploring the Cosmic Views of Debaters
The "Assumptions" from section IV.A of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

How does each debater integrate cosmic perspectives into their political philosophy and proposed policies?  (Some, of course, may maintain that it is inappropriate to integrate cosmic beliefs into their political views.)

Does each debater integrate cosmic perspectives into their views in a way that honors the principles enshrined in your nation's Constitution?

Do the debaters' cosmic beliefs influence their policies in a way that promotes the welfare of individuals, groups, and the environment?

B.  Understanding Debater's Responses from the Perspective of One's Own Cosmic Views
The "Assumptions" from section IV.B of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

Do you believe that universal principles or laws govern human affairs, such as the principles of yin-yang or the law of karma?  Do you believe in some divine plan for the universe that guides human history (such as the coming of the Kingdom of God)?  Do you believe in some system of divine justice that operates in human affairs?  If so, how do the debaters' responses relate to your cosmic views?  If you believe in a divine plan, how do these responses relate to this divine plan?  Do debaters' ideas and proposals further or hinder this plan?  If you believe in a cosmic system of divine justice, how do their ideas and proposals relate to this system?  If you espouse universal laws or principles, how do their responses relate to these laws and principles?  Are their views and proposals consistent with or in conflict with these laws or principles? 





V.  Analyzing Debaters' Recognition of the Implications of Policies for All Levels of Organization
The Assumptions from section V of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question below.

Does each debater recognize the implications of policies on all levels of organization?  Does he or she recognize the impact on individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if a cosmic perspective is held by them)?



VI.  Analyzing Debaters' Recognition of Relationships between Different Levels of Organization

How does each debater acknowledge and understand relationships between different levels of organization?



VII.  Analyzing Debaters' Recognition of the Hierarchy of Values that Exists among the Different Levels of Organization
The Assumptions from section VI of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question below.

How does each debater acknowledge and understand the hierarchy of values that exists among the different levels of organization?



VIII.  Analyzing Debaters' Understanding of Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits of Different Policy Options
The "Assumptions" from section VII of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What principles and guidelines does each debater propose for dealing with trade-offs regarding the effects of policies on

different individuals (i.e. do they describe whether and how they will justify burdens placed on some individuals for the benefit of other individuals)?

different social groups (i.e. do they describe whether and how they will justify burdens placed on some social groups for the benefit of other social groups)?

entities within different levels of organization (i.e. do they describe whether and how they will justify burdens placed on entities within one level of organization for the benefit of entities on other levels of organization)?



IX.  Analyzing Debaters' Commitment to an 'Experimental Approach' to Policy-Making
The Assumptions from section VII of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question below.

How does each debater express a commitment to an ‘experimental approach’ to public policy-making?

Analyzing Debates:
Focus on Foreign Relations

I.  The Impact of Foreign Relations on Individuals
The " Assumptions" from section I of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here.

A.  Physical, Relational, Economic, Political, Cultural, Moral, Spiritual,  and Artistic Dimensions of Development
The " Assumptions" from section I.A of the "Foreign Relations" section General Framework will be provided here, followed by the questions below.

What are the philosophy and policies of each debater for promoting the following dimensions of individual development through foreign relations?

Physical

Relational

Vocational/Economic

Political

Cultural

Artistic

Moral

Spiritual


B.  The Developmental Nature of Liberty and Fulfillment
The " Assumptions" from section I.B of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question below.

How did each debater recognize the developmental nature of liberty and fulfillment in the realm of foreign relations?


C.  Integrating Individual Initiative and Social Support
The " Assumptions" from section I.C of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question below.

In the realm of foreign relations, how did each debater acknowledge the roles of individual initiative and social support in the process of personal development?


D.  A Full Range of Human Rights and the Relationships between Them
The " Assumptions" from section I.D of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question below.

How did each debater recognize a full range of human rights as well as relationships between different human rights in his or her foreign policy proposals?



II.  Foreign Relations and the Social Level of Organization
The " Assumptions" from section II of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here.


A.  Social Institutions
The " Assumptions" from section II.A of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below:

1.  Institutions within Nations
What are the philosophy and policies of each debater for promoting the effective and ethical functioning of the following institutions within nations affected by their foreign policy proposals?  I.e.  How does each debater propose to encourage the following groups to promote the welfare of individuals, social groups, and the environment?  How does each debater plan to promote transparent decision-making processes within the following organizations?

Families

Churches

Civic organizations

Advocacy groups that represent the interests of specific populations: the elderly, supporters of gun rights, consumers, etc.

Nongovernmental organizations  that promote political justice, economic justice, human rights, and/or ecological stewardship

Media organizations: TV networks, radio stations; newspaper and magazine publishers

Business Firms

Labor unions

Schools: primary, secondary, vocational, and higher education

Charitable organizations that serve the needs of especially vulnerable populations: the poor, elderly, etc.

Institutions that support the arts

Political parties


1a)  Special Focus on Local and National Governments
How does each debater propose to establish more democratic structures of government in all nations affected by their foreign policies?  How does each propose to help governments to resist corruption and thus be more responsive to the needs and interests of citizens?

How does each propose to encourage more transparent decision-making processes within government bodies?

How will the foreign policy proposals of each debater affect the ability of governments to enact and enforce legislation that is just and environmentally sound?

How will the foreign policy proposals of each debater impact the ability of national governments to efficiently maintain adequate military capabilities?

How will the foreign policy proposals of each debater affect the ability of governments to strike a balance between spending on military programs and on those programs that promote human development and environmental protection?

If your nation distributes foreign aid, what principles does each debater advocate for determining how this aid will be distributed to other nations?

Does each debater articulate a broader, more enlightened view of national security that focuses on environmental protection and improving of the lives of citizens both within and beyond the borders of your nation?


1.a.1)  The Use of Force for the National Defense:  A Special Issue for National Governments
How does each debater justify the use of military force in foreign relations?

Do the debaters address long-term strategies for cultivating peace and prosperity, particularly in troubled regions of the world?


2.  International Institutions
In the realm of foreign relations, what are the philosophy and policies of each debater for promoting the effective and ethical functioning of the following international social institutions?  I.e.  How does each debater plan to encourage the following groups to promote the welfare of individuals, social groups, and the environment?  How does each debater plan to promote transparent decision-making processes within the following organizations?

international governing organizations such as the United Nations

international alliances or blocs (such as NATO)

international religious bodies

international media organizations

international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank

other institutions that finance international development programs

organizations that regulate international trade, such as the World Trade Organization

international groups that serve needy or vulnerable -- the poor, the sick, the elderly, victims of disasters, etc.

international nongovernmental organizations that advocate economic justice, political justice, and environmental stewardship

international labor unions

international organizations that coordinate cultural projects, including sporting events

transnational corporations that have operations in more than one nation


3.  Special Focus on the Institutional Level: The Parties to Which Debaters Belong
The "Assumptions" from section II.A.3 of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" for Foreign Relations will be provided here.  The following questions will help users to gain information that will enable them to identify the influences that shape the foreign policy platform of each debater's political party.

Who belongs to the party of each debater?  What characteristics do they share: philosophical, ethnic, economic, etc.?

Who provides financial support for the party?

How do the foreign policies advocated by each debater reflect the interests of members and supporters of his or her party?

Are these interests compatible with the long-term well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment in all nations affected by the foreign policies of each debater?  I.e., are the debaters' parties able to resist efforts by groups to ‘buy influence’ over foreign policies in a way that is damaging to individuals, social groups, and the environment? 



B.  National and International Social Sectors
The "Assumptions" from section II.B of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the following questions:

In the realm of foreign relations, what are the philosophy and policies of each debater for promoting constructive relationships

within national governments and international governing bodies?

within the dynamics of international trade?

within the national and international levels of civil society?


between governing bodies and markets on the local, national, and international levels?

between governing bodies and civil society on the local, national, and international levels?

between civil society and markets on the local, national, and international levels?


C.  Different Levels of Social Organization
The "Assumptions" from section II.C of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the following questions:

In the realm of foreign relations, what are the philosophy and policies of each debater for promoting constructive relationships between different levels of social organization (local, state, national, international)?  Does each debater adhere to the principle of subsidiarity, which states that all human endeavors (economic ventures, public policies, etc.) should be pursued and administered at a level that is as local as possible but as centralized as necessary?


D.  Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The "Assumptions" from section II.D of the "Foreign Relations" section of "The Framework for Analysis and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the following questions:

In the realm of foreign relations, how did each debater propose to promote equal opportunities for the persons of different: (Response boxes for each debater will be provided for each group.)