關於今天的課程，課程的重點如下：
辯論是一種思辯過程，其中隱含著不同意見、共同規則、當面說出、說服對方與交叉質詢等關鍵概念。
辯論過程的基本要項
- 展現辯論的氣勢：說話的速度（過快過慢都不好）、語調（隨著強調的重點與吸引人的情緒而變化，切勿過度誇張有如演戲）、音量（宏亮而適中，音色要清晰）、手勢（多用適當的手勢語言，儘量不要帶任何道具或筆尺上去）、肢體語言（坐姿、立姿、面對評審與對方辯友的角度）、道具（道具的使用需先說明，不可臨時拿出來，多半以圖表海報為主）等演說台風，都是自己要訓練的。
- 釐清辯論的企圖：不可以有情緒化與對人不對事的習性，要以追求趨近真理與圓滿人生的問題解決為道理做一場辯論的念頭。
辯論題目的重點：
- 注意可辯性：題目是有辯論的價值，最好是較富有兩難爭議性的問題。
- 注意公平性：題目不可以有偏袒一方的情況，造成未辯先贏的傾斜。
問題一：請你說出你自己對「辯論」一詞的看法嗎？
問題二：請找出古今中外一件名人的重要辯論對話？（注意標明出處）
記得讓老師知道你是誰？不然你回答的問題就無效了。請在前9/21回答！逾期無效。
問題一：請你說出你自己對「辯論」一詞的看法嗎？
第一次聽到辯論時，感覺好像是兩人在鬥爭，但是上了辯論課後，就覺得應該是兩人很禮貌的在交換意見，談一個問題的是或否，並希望對方認同。
把「辯論」命名為「辯論」的人真厲害，他形容的很貼切，因為辯論的辯就是一邊為這件事禮貌的爭辯，論就是彼此交換意見，互相討論。
本人正在找第二題的資料，過一陣子就會回答了！
問題二：請找出古今中外一件名人的重要辯論對話？（注意標明出處）
據《梁書·范縝傳》記載，《神滅論》只有 1885 字，但卻生動明快地闡明瞭“神滅”的道理。它是用當時流行的“ 自設賓主”的問答體寫成的，因而雙方論點鮮明，相互指責，層層展開，步步深入，讀起來很引人入勝。《神滅論》講了不少樸素的道理，它的發表，真有所向披靡之勢，范縝自豪地聲稱：《神滅論》“辯摧眾口，日服千人”。法雲的反駁無濟於事。善於詭辯的曹思文也只好說自己才思淺陋、“ 無以折其鋒銳”，駁斥不倒《神滅論》。於是梁武帝蕭衍下詔書，給范縝扣了“ 背經”、“乖理”、“滅聖”三頂帽子，這場辯論就算結束了。這場戰後不久，范縝被調任國子博士。
不知道這樣回答對不對
出處：http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/www.ha.xinhuanet.com/gfwh/2003-11/17/content_7644445.htm
7月6日晚，在日本東京外國記者俱樂部，日本國內正反兩派人士就日本侵略歷史等問題舉行了一場水火不容的辯論。100多名駐東京的外國記者目睹了這場辯論，南韓SBS電視臺、南韓聯合通訊社等發回相關報道，譴責日本右翼倡狂無理，在復活日本軍國主義的老路上越走越遠。
辯論是在當地時間晚6時開始的，在長達3個多小時的辯論中，反對日本歪曲歷史的民眾團體代表與日本右翼勢力團體代表主要圍繞“四大歷史問題”進行了激烈的辯論。
談到關於東京審判問題時，日本右翼勢力代表、秀明大學校長西部邁大放厥詞說，“東京審判沒有法律依據，是戰勝者單方面的非法審判。”針對這一謬論，主持正義的日本宮崎公立大學華人教授王智新指出，東京審判是翻不了案的，它是戰後世界和亞洲秩序的基礎，接受東京審判以後，亞洲才出現了和平。
關於日本為何發動侵略戰爭，右翼勢力代表、評論家潮匡人市、自由撰稿人西村幸佑等認為，日本當時之所以發動戰爭，是為了抵抗歐洲和美國等帝國主義企圖將亞洲變成其殖民地。日本發動戰爭是自救。為什麼總譴責日本？日本“兒童與教科書全國網路21世紀”事務局長俵義文、日本大韓民國青年會宣傳部代表金武貴批駁說，無論怎麼為侵略行徑貼金，也改變不了日本侵害別國的事實。王智新強調指出，扶桑社在教科書中把發動侵略戰爭的日本說成是受害者，這是對歷史的最大歪曲，日本究竟要給後代留下什麼？
俵義文在談到南京大屠殺和慰安婦問題時指出：“日本軍人的日記無可辯駁地證明了南京大屠殺的存在。南京大屠殺是國際社會公認的事實。一些揭露南京大屠殺的書籍，詳細地記載了日軍的罪行。你們否認南京大屠殺是癡心妄想，請你們最好先看看書。”當右翼勢力代表西村幸佑宣稱，雖然日本軍隊建立了慰安所，但那不過是一些妓女時，俵義文堅定地說，“事實證明，日本軍隊參與了慰安婦制度的建設。遺憾的是，東京審判沒有追究天皇的戰爭責任。”
雙方還就日本教科書是否歪曲歷史問題展開辯論。潮匡人市認為，教科書是妥當的，沒有歪曲歷史。俵義文則尖銳地指出，正是由於日本右翼的教科書不介紹侵害鄰國的歷史，才造成日本人在歷史認知上的缺陷。他強調說，正是這些教科書把日本人教唆成熱衷戰爭的國民。日本右翼勢力在編寫教科書過程中，不僅歪曲歷史，而且為提高採用率還動用了其下屬組織和一批政治人士，向各地的教育委員會施壓。關於“中韓批判日本歪曲歷史的教科書是干涉內政”的說法，俵義文指出，日本政府多次表示過要反省歷史，這不僅是國際承諾，也是對本國國民的承諾。日本政府違背了自己做出的承諾，必然會遭到鄰國的抗議。
讓在場日本進步人士和不少記者氣憤的是，西部邁甚至在辯論中無恥地說，中國和北韓遭受日本侵略是因為自己不爭氣，活該如此，日本並無道德上的責任。對此，王智新憤怒地指出，日本派軍隊到別人的國土上殺人放火，這是無可爭辯的侵略行為。
先回答第二題，出處：http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/world/2005-07/11/content_3203089.htm
問題一：
辯論就是兩方因為立場的不同為了自己在「爭吵」，但不是真正的爭吵，而是雙方使用靜態的方式來達成共識，畢竟每個人的想法都不一樣，總之辯論是為了讓我們達成共識。
問題二：
這兩偈法句，是佛陀住在祇樹給孤獨園的時候，對昆得利給喜尊者所說 的。
在王舍城，有一個富翁的女兒，她的名字叫做昆得利給喜，過的日子非 常舒適。
在她十六歲的時候，已經長得美麗動人。有一天，她瞥見一個即將被帶 去行刑的小偷，她立刻愛上他。於是她的父母就付錢為小偷贖身，讓他們結 婚。
雖然她深愛她的丈夫，但是因為他當過小偷，他只是喜歡她的財產和珠 寶。
有一天，他叫她穿上最漂亮的衣服，戴上最貴的珠寶，他要帶她去拜山 神。因為山神曾經在他將要被殺時救他的命。 於是她穿戴好，跟著他去。當他們到達山頂時，小偷露出邪惡的笑，說 ：「我要殺了妳，並且要妳的珠寶。」
她願意讓他奪她的珠寶，只請求他不要傷害她的生命。可是，一點兒也 沒有用，他不肯聽，堅持一定要殺她。
她醒悟過來，如果沒有辦法離開她的丈夫，就一定會被殺。所以她就溫 柔地告訴他說：「我們結婚相處過一段時間，如果一定要殺我，請讓我再最 後一次禮拜你。」他高傲地站著，任由她恭敬地繞行，走到第三圈時，她在 他背後停下來，然將他推向懸崖。她心裡想著：他應該死的，這不是我的錯 誤。
她的丈夫死了以後，她不想回家。於是，脫下她所有的珠寶，掛在一棵 樹上，決定走她自己的路。
她不知道何去何從，漫無目標地走著。她來到了一個外道女眾苦行者的 地方，就跟著苦行者出家。
她們指導她一千個辯論必勝的技巧。由於她聰穎過人，不久就學成了。
然後她的老師們告訴她說，可以出去外面，找人辯論，如果辯輸的話， 就當對方的學生，繼續跟他學。
昆得利給喜到過許多地方，跟很多人辯論過，每次辯論，她都得勝，因此 名聲大噪。
有一天，她到了舍衛國，進城托缽之前，她堆起一些砂，用樹枝豎立一 個告示牌，上面寫著如果有人要與我辯論，就請推倒這個樹枝。
很多小朋友圍繞在那邊玩，舍利弗看到了，就問他們發生了什麼事。小 朋友說有人要辯論……。
舍利弗說：「你們不要害怕，我來辯論就可以了。那個人回來的時候， 你們告訴她：我住的地方。」
她回來時，看到砂堆上倒下的樹枝，就罵小朋友們：「為什麼推倒樹枝 ﹖你們太小，我不想跟你們辯論。」
小朋友說：「不是我們做的，是一個出家人的意思。妳可以去他那兒找 他。」
昆得利給喜去到舍利弗那裡，問道：「是不是你推倒樹枝﹖」
舍利弗說：「我叫小朋友推倒的，是我要跟妳辯論。請妳先提出問題， 由我來回答。」
於是，昆得利給喜問了一千個問題。舍利弗毫不遲疑地回答了這一千個 問題。
輪到舍利弗提問題了。
舍利弗第一個問題問說：「第一個是什麼﹖」
她不知道如何回答，只好說：「這個問題，從來未曾聽過，好像是咒語 一般。」
舍利弗說：「這正是佛陀的咒語。」
昆得利給喜說：「請告訴我，這是什麼意思﹖」
舍利弗說：「如果妳也像我們這樣出家，我就可以告訴妳。」
舍利弗就請比丘尼們讓她出家，她出家以後，舍利弗就告訴她答案── 一切眾生食為主。
不久以後，她就成了阿羅漢。
之後，比丘們問佛陀：「比丘尼昆得利給喜只聽了少許的法，就證得阿 羅漢，可能嗎﹖」
比丘們並且說：昆得利給喜在變成苦行者之前，還曾經贏過她的小偷丈 夫。
佛陀說：「我們如果聽了一千句沒有意義的話，倒不如一句有益的話。 贏過外面的小偷，不如贏過內心的雜染。」
於是佛陀說出這兩偈法句：
「彼誦百句偈，若無義理者，不如一法句，聞已得寂靜。」
「彼於戰場上，雖勝百萬人；未若克己者，戰士之最上！」
這教說令許多人深獲利益。
出處：http://myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lausinan/Tipitaka/Sutta/Khuddaka/Dhammapada/DhP_Story102_3.htm
1.請你說出「辯論」一詞的看法?
我認為「辯論」是指用言語說動他人，使他聽從自己的主張。
「辯論」也是一種靜態運動，就如邱老課堂上說的「讓腦筋快速轉動」
最後轉到打結的一個活動==
2.請找出古今中外一件名人的重要辯論對話?
節錄自
莊子與惠子游於濠梁之上。莊子曰：「鯈魚出游從容，是魚之樂也。」
惠子曰︰「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」
莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」
惠子曰「我非子，固不知子矣；子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂，全矣！」
莊子曰：「請循其本。子曰『汝安知魚樂』云者，既已知吾知之而問我。我知之濠上也。」
問題一：請你說出你自己對「辯論」一詞的看法嗎？
「辯論」給我的第一印象是兩個人在台上爭吵誰是對的誰是錯的，後來，開始上辯論課後，我才知道辯論是有禮貌的在台上說服對方和自己的想法一致，而且是三人對三人的公平競爭。
問題二：請找出古今中外一件名人的重要辯論對話？（注意標明出處）
>>等書籍中，有很多思想家與君王對答辯論，
一方面在不激怒君王的條件下，能夠伸張思想家所表達的意見
不論文字措詞或是假借譬喻都為很經典的對話
我個人倒是喜歡以下這個純抬槓式的對話
莊子與惠子游於濠梁之上。莊子曰：「鯈魚出游從容，是魚之樂也。」
惠子曰︰「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」
莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」
惠子曰「我非子，固不知子矣；子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂，全矣！」
莊子曰：「請循其本。子曰『汝安知魚樂』云者，既已知吾知之而問我。我知之濠上也。」
摘自：http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1005011104966
問題１
我一開始覺得辯論這種遊戲很像雙方在吵架，我心想邱老幹麻叫我們來學吵架呀！？可是上過課後，我覺得是雙方提出自己的意見，並希望對方認同自己的意見．
甘迺迪與尼克森的辯論
Courtesy of ABC News, © 1960
HOWARD K. SMITH, MODERATOR: Good evening. The television and radio stations of the United States and their affiliated stations are proud to provide facilities for a discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the two major candidates for the presidency. The candidates need no introduction. The Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon, and the Democratic candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy. According to rules set by the candidates themselves, each man shall make an opening statement of approximately eight minutes’ duration and a closing statement of approximately three minutes’ duration. In between the candidates will answer, or comment upon answers to questions put by a panel of correspondents. In this, the first discussion in a series of four uh – joint appearances, the subject-matter has been agreed, will be restricted to internal or domestic American matters. And now for the first opening statement by Senator John F. Kennedy.
SENATOR KENNEDY: Mr. Smith, Mr. Nixon. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said the question was whether this nation could exist half-slave or half-free. In the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question is whether the world will exist half-slave or half-free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking, or whether it will move in the direction of slavery. I think it will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the United States, on the kind of society that we build, on the kind of strength that we maintain. We discuss tonight domestic issues, but I would not want that to be any implication to be given that this does not involve directly our struggle with Mr. Khrushchev for survival. Mr. Khrushchev is in New York, and he maintains the Communist offensive throughout the world because of the productive power of the Soviet Union itself. The Chinese Communists have always had a large population. But they are important and dangerous now because they are mounting a major effort within their own country. The kind of country we have here, the kind of society we have, the kind of strength we build in the United States will be the defense of freedom. If we do well here, if we meet our obligations, if we’re moving ahead, then I think freedom will be secure around the world. If we fail, then freedom fails. Therefore, I think the question before the American people is: Are we doing as much as we can do? Are we as strong as we should be? Are we as strong as we must be if we’re going to maintain our independence, and if we’re going to maintain and hold out the hand of friendship to those who look to us for assistance, to those who look to us for survival? I should make it very clear that I do not think we’re doing enough, that I am not satisfied as an American with the progress that we’re making. This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and this is a powerful country, but I think it could be a more powerful country. I’m not satisfied to have fifty percent of our steel-mill capacity unused. I’m not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in the world. Because economic growth means strength and vitality; it means we’re able to sustain our defenses; it means we’re able to meet our commitments abroad. I’m not satisfied when we have over nine billion dollars worth of food – some of it rotting – even though there is a hungry world, and even though four million Americans wait every month for a food package from the government, which averages five cents a day per individual. I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families because I don’t think we’re meeting our obligations toward these Americans. I’m not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are. I’m not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children go to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none. I’m not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa – in charge of the largest union in the United States – still free. I’m not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States at the present rate of hydropower production – and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society – the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are. These are all the things, I think, in this country that can make our society strong, or can mean that it stands still. I’m not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born – and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities – he has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as much chance to be a professional man, about half as much chance to own a house. He has about uh – four times as much chance that he’ll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don’t want the talents of any American to go to waste. I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the government. I don’t at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so. Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they’re not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security system. I don’t believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action. And I think that’s the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom. It’s the only way that we’re going to move ahead. I think we can do a better job. I think we’re going to have to do a better job if we are going to meet the responsibilities which time and events have placed upon us. We cannot turn the job over to anyone else. If the United States fails, then the whole cause of freedom fails. And I think it depends in great measure on what we do here in this country. The reason Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a good neighbor in the United States. Because they felt that the American society was moving again. I want us to recapture that image. I want people in Latin America and Africa and Asia to start to look to America; to see how we’re doing things; to wonder what the resident of the United States is doing; and not to look at Khrushchev, or look at the Chinese Communists. That is the obligation upon our generation. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt said in his inaugural that this generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny. I think our generation of Americans has the same rendezvous. The question now is: Can freedom be maintained under the most severe tack – attack it has ever known? I think it can be. And I think in the final analysis it depends upon what we do here. I think it’s time America started moving again.
MR. SMITH: And now the opening statement by Vice President Richard M. Nixon.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Smith, Senator Kennedy. The things that Senator Kennedy has said many of us can agree with. There is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. There is no question but that this nation cannot stand still; because we are in a deadly competition, a competition not only with the men in the Kremlin, but the men in Peking. We’re ahead in this competition, as Senator Kennedy, I think, has implied. But when you’re in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead. And I subscribe completely to the spirit that Senator Kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit that the United States should move ahead. Where, then, do we disagree? I think we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made on many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the United States has been standing still. We heard tonight, for example, the statement made that our growth in national product last year was the lowest of any industrial nation in the world. Now last year, of course, was 1958. That happened to be a recession year. But when we look at the growth of G.N.P. this year, a year of recovery, we find that it’s six and nine-tenths per cent and one of the highest in the world today. More about that later. Looking then to this problem of how the United States should move ahead and where the United States is moving, I think it is well that we take the advice of a very famous campaigner: Let’s look at the record. Is the United States standing still? Is it true that this Administration, as Senator Kennedy has charged, has been an Administration of retreat, of defeat, of stagnation? Is it true that, as far as this country is concerned, in the field of electric power, in all of the fields that he has mentioned, we have not been moving ahead. Well, we have a comparison that we can make. We have the record of the Truman Administration of seven and a half years and the seven and a half years of the Eisenhower Administration. When we compare these two records in the areas that Senator Kennedy has – has discussed tonight, I think we find that America has been moving ahead. Let’s take schools. We have built more schools in these last seven and a half years than we built in the previous seven and a half, for that matter in the previous twenty years. Let’s take hydroelectric power. We have developed more hydroelectric power in these seven and a half years than was developed in any previous administration in history. Let us take hospitals. We find that more have been built in this Administration than in the previous Administration. The same is true of highways. Let’s put it in terms that all of us can understand. We often hear gross national product discussed and in that respect may I say that when we compare the growth in this Administration with that of the previous Administration that then there was a total growth of eleven percent over seven years; in this Administration there has been a total growth of nineteen per cent over seven years. That shows that there’s been more growth in this Administration than in its predecessor. But let’s not put it there; let’s put it in terms of the average family. What has happened to you? We find that your wages have gone up five times as much in the Eisenhower Administration as they did in the Truman Administration. What about the prices you pay? We find that the prices you pay went up five times as much in the Truman Administration as they did in the Eisenhower Administration. What’s the net result of this? This means that the average family income went up fifteen per cent in the Eisenhower years as against two per cent in the Truman years. Now, this is not standing still. But, good as this record is, may I emphasize it isn’t enough. A record is never something to stand on. It’s something to build on. And in building on this record, I believe that we have the secret for progress, we know the way to progress. And I think, first of all, our own record proves that we know the way. Senator Kennedy has suggested that he believes he knows the way. I respect the sincerity which he m- which he makes that suggestion. But on the other hand, when we look at the various programs that he offers, they do not seem to be new. They seem to be simply retreads of the programs of the Truman Administration which preceded it. And I would suggest that during the course of the evening he might indicate those areas in which his programs are new, where they will mean more progress than we had then. What kind of programs are we for? We are for programs that will expand educational opportunities, that will give to all Americans their equal chance for education, for all of the things which are necessary and dear to the hearts of our people. We are for programs, in addition, which will see that our medical care for the aged are – is – are much – is much better handled than it is at the present time. Here again, may I indicate that Senator Kennedy and I are not in disagreement as to the aims. We both want to help the old people. We want to see that they do have adequate medical care. The question is the means. I think that the means that I advocate will reach that goal better than the means that he advocates. I could give better examples, but for – for whatever it is, whether it’s in the field of housing, or health, or medical care, or schools, or the eh- development of electric power, we have programs which we believe will move America, move her forward and build on the wonderful record that we have made over these past seven and a half years. Now, when we look at these programs, might I suggest that in evaluating them we often have a tendency to say that the test of a program is how much you’re spending. I will concede that in all the areas to which I have referred Senator Kennedy would have the spe- federal government spend more than I would have it spend. I costed out the cost of the Democratic platform. It runs a minimum of thirteen and two-tenths billions dollars a year more than we are presently spending to a maximum of eighteen billion dollars a year more than we’re presently spending. Now the Republican platform will cost more too. It will cost a minimum of four billion dollars a year more, a maximum of four and nine-tenths billion dollar a year more than we’re presently spending. Now, does this mean that his program is better than ours? Not at all. Because it isn’t a question of how much the federal government spends; it isn’t a question of which government does the most. It is a question of which administration does the right thing. And in our case, I do believe that our programs will stimulate the creative energies of a hundred and eighty million free Americans. I believe the programs that Senator Kennedy advocates will have a tendency to stifle those creative energies, I believe in other words, that his program would lead to the stagnation of the motive power that we need in this country to get progress. The final point that I would like to make is this: Senator Kennedy has suggested in his speeches that we lack compassion for the poor, for the old, and for others that are unfortunate. Let us understand throughout this campaign that his motives and mine are sincere. I know what it means to be poor. I know what it means to see people who are unemployed. I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Nixon. That completes the opening statements, and now the candidates will answer questions or comment upon one another’s answers to questions, put by correspondents of the networks. The correspondents: [introducing themselves: “I’m Sander Vanocur, NBC News;” “I’m Charles Warren, Mutual News;” “I’m Stuart Novins, CBS News;” “Bob Fleming, ABC News.”] The first question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Fleming.
MR. FLEMING: Senator, the Vice President in his campaign has said that you were naive and at times immature. He has raised the question of leadership. On this issue, why do you think people should vote for you rather than the Vice President?
MR. KENNEDY: Well, the Vice President and I came to the Congress together 1946; we both served in the Labor Committee. I’ve been there now for fourteen years, the same period of time that he has, so that our experience in uh – government is comparable. Secondly, I think the question is uh – what are the programs that we advocate, what is the party record that we lead? I come out of the Democratic party, which in this century has produced Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and which supported and sustained these programs which I’ve discussed tonight. Mr. Nixon comes out of the Republican party. He was nominated by it. And it is a fact that through most of these last twenty-five years the Republican leadership has opposed federal aid for education, medical care for the aged, development of the Tennessee Valley, development of our natural resources. I think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader of his party. I hope he would grant me the same. The question before us is: which point of view and which party do we want to lead the United States?
MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, would you like to comment on that statement?
Mr. NIXON: I have no comment.
Mr. SMITH: The next question: Mr. Novins.
MR. NOVINS: Mr. Vice President, your campaign stresses the value of your eight year experience, and the question arises as to whether that experience was as an observer or as a participant or as an initiator of policy-making. Would you tell us please specifically what major proposals you have made in the last eight years that have been adopted by the Administration?
MR. NIXON: It would be rather difficult to cover them in eight and- in two and a half minutes. I would suggest that these proposals could be mentioned. First, after each of my foreign trips I have made recommendations that have been adopted. For example, after my first trip abroad – abroad, I strongly recommended that we increase our exchange programs particularly as they related to exchange of persons of leaders in the labor field and in the information field. After my trip to South America, I made recommendations that a separate inter-American lending agency be set up which the South American nations would like much better than a lend- than to participate in the lending agencies which treated all the countries of the world the same. Uh – I have made other recommendations after each of the other trips; for example, after my trip abroad to Hungary I made some recommendations with regard to the Hungarian refugee situation which were adopted, not only by the President but some of them were enacted into law by the Congress. Within the Administration, as a chairman of the President’s Committee on Price Stability and Economic Growth, I have had the opportunity to make recommendations which have been adopted within the Administration and which I think have been reasonably effective. I know Senator Kennedy suggested in his speech at Cleveland yesterday that that committee had not been particularly effective. I would only suggest that while we do not take the credit for it – I would not presume to – that since that committee has been formed the price line has been held very well within the United States.
MR. KENNEDY: Well, I would say in the latter that the – and that’s what I found uh – somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures uh – Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech, when you talked about the Truman Administration. You – Mr. Truman came to office in nineteen uh – forty-four and at the end of the war, and uh – difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition – 1946 when price controls were lifted – so it’s rather difficult to use an overall figure taking those seven and a half years and comparing them to the last eight years. I prefer to take the overall percentage record of the last twenty years of the Democrats and the eight years of the Republicans to show an overall period of growth. In regard to uh – price stability uh – I’m not aware that that committee did produce recommendations that ever were certainly before the Congress from the point of view of legislation in regard to controlling prices. In regard to the exchange of students and labor unions, I am chairman of the subcommittee on Africa and I think that one of the most unfortunate phases of our policy towards that country was the very minute number of exchanges that we had. I think it’s true of Latin America also. We did come forward with a program of students for the Congo of over three hundred which was more than the federal government had for all of Africa the previous year, so that I don’t think that uh – we have moved at least in those two areas with sufficient vigor.
MR. SMITH: The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Warren.
MR. WARREN: Uh – Senator Kennedy, during your brief speech a few minutes ago you mentioned farm surpluses.
MR. KENNEDY: That’s correct.
MR. WARREN: I’d like to ask this: It’s a fact, I think, that presidential candidates traditionally make promises to farmers. Lots of people, I think, don’t understand why the government pays farmers for not producing certain crops or paying farmers if they overproduce for that matter. Now, let me ask, sir, why can’t the farmer operate like the business man who operates a factory? If an auto company overproduces a certain model car Uncle Sam doesn’t step in and buy up the surplus. Why this constant courting of the farmer?
MR. KENNEDY: Well, because I think that if the federal government moved out of the program and withdrew its supports uh – then I think you would have complete uh – economic chaos. The farmer plants in the spring and harvests in the fall. There are hundreds of thousands of them. They really don’t – they’re not able to control their market very well. They bring their crops in or their livestock in, many of them about the same time. They have only a few purchasers that buy their milk or their hogs – a few large companies in many cases – and therefore the farmer is not in a position to bargain very effectively in the market place. I think the experience of the twenties has shown what a free market could do to agriculture. And if the agricultural economy collapses, then the economy of the rest of the United States sooner or later will collapse. The farmers are the number one market for the automobile industry of the United States. The automobile industry is the number one market for steel. So if the farmers’ economy continues to decline as sharply as it has in recent years, then I think you would have a recession in the rest of the country. So I think the case for the government intervention is a good one. Secondly, my objection to present farm policy is that there are no effective controls to bring supply and demand into better balance. The dropping of the support price in order to limit production does not work, and we now have the highest uh – surpluses – nine billion dollars worth. We’ve had a uh – higher tax load from the Treasury for the farmer in the last few years with the lowest farm income in many years. I think that this farm policy has failed. In my judgment the only policy that will work will be for effective supply and demand to be in balance. And that can only be done through governmental action. I therefore suggest that in those basic commodities which are supported, that the federal government, after endorsement by the farmers in that commodity, attempt to bring supply and demand into balance – attempt effective production controls – so that we won’t have that five or six per cent surplus which breaks the price fifteen or twenty per cent. I think Mr. Benson’s program has failed. And I must say, after reading the Vice President’s speech before the farmers, as he read mine, I don’t believe that it’s very much different from Mr. Benson’s. I don’t think it provides effective governmental controls. I think the support prices are tied to the average market price of the last three years, which was Mr. Benson’s theory. I therefore do not believe that this is a sharp enough breach with the past to give us any hope of success for the future.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?
MR. NIXON; I of course disagree with Senator Kennedy insofar as his suggestions as to what should be done uh – with re- on the farm program. He has made the suggestion that what we need is to move in the direction of more government controls, a suggestion that would also mean raising prices uh – that the consumers pay for products and im- and imposing upon the farmers uh – controls on acreage even far more than they have today. I think this is the wrong direction. I don’t think this has worked in the past; I do not think it will work in the future. The program that I have advocated is one which departs from the present program that we have in this respect. It recognizes that the government has a responsibility to get the farmer out of the trouble he presently is in because the government got him into it. And that’s the fundamental reason why we can’t let the farmer go by himself at the present time. The farmer produced these surpluses because the government asked him to through legislation during the war. Now that we have these surpluses, it’s our responsibility to indemnify the farmer during that period that we get rid of the farmer uh – the surpluses. Until we get the surpluses off the farmer’s back, however, we should have a program such as I announced, which will see that farm income holds up. But I would propose holding that income up not through a type of program that Senator Kennedy has suggested that would raise prices, but one that would indemnify the farmer, pay the farmer in kind uh – from the products which are in surplus.
Mr. SMITH: The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Vanocur.
MR. VANOCUR: Uh – Mr. Vice President, since the question of executive leadership is a very important campaign issue, I’d like to follow Mr. Novins’ question. Now, Republican campaign slogans – you’ll see them on signs around the country as you did last week – say it’s experience that counts – that’s over a picture of yourself; sir uh – implying that you’ve had more governmental executive decision-making uh – experience than uh – your opponent. Now, in his news conference on August twenty-fourth, President Eisenhower was asked to give one example of a major idea of yours that he adopted. His reply was, and I’m quoting; “If you give me a week I might think of one. I don’t remember.” Now that was a month ago, sir, and the President hasn’t brought it up since, and I’m wondering, sir, if you can clarify which version is correct – the one put out by Republican campaign leaders or the one put out by President Eisenhower?
MR. NIXON: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Vanocur, that uh – if you know the President, that was probably a facetious remark. Uh – I would also suggest that insofar as his statement is concerned, that I think it would be improper for the President of the United States to disclose uh – the instances in which members of his official family had made recommendations, as I have made them through the years to him, which he has accepted or rejected. The President has always maintained and very properly so that he is entitled to get what advice he wants from his cabinet and from his other advisers without disclosing that to anybody – including as a matter of fact the Congress. Now, I can only say this. Through the years I have sat in the National Security Council. I have been in the cabinet. I have met with the legislative leaders. I have met with the President when he made the great decisions with regard to Lebanon, Quemoy and Matsu, other matters. The President has asked for my advice. I have given it. Sometimes my advice has been taken. Sometimes it has not. I do not say that I have made the decisions. And I would say that no president should ever allow anybody else to make the major decisions, The president only makes the decisions. All that his advisers do is to give counsel when he asks for it. As far as what experience counts and whether that is experience that counts, that isn’t for me to say. Uh – I can only say that my experience is there for the people to consider; Senator Kennedy’s is there for the people to consider. As he pointed out, we came to the Congress in the same year. His experience has been different from mine. Mine has been in the executive branch. His has been in the legislative branch. I would say that the people now have the opportunity to evaluate his as against mine and I think both he and I are going to abide by whatever the people decide.
MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY: Well, I’ll just say that the question is of experience and the question also is uh – what our judgment is of the future, and what our goals are for the United States, and what ability we have to implement those goals. Abraham Lincoln came to the presidency in 1860 after a rather little known uh – session in the House of Representatives and after being defeated for the Senate in fifty-eight and was a distinguished president. There’s no certain road to the presidency. There are no guarantees that uh – if you take uh – one road or another that you will be a successful president. I have been in the Congress for fourteen years. I have voted in the last uh – eight years uh – and the Vice President was uh – presiding over the Senate and meeting his other responsibilities. I have met met uh – decisions over eight hundred times on matters which affect not only the domestic security of the United States, but as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The question really is: which candidate and which party can meet the problems that the United States is going to face in the sixties?
MR. SMITH: The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Novins.
MR. NOVINS: Senator Kennedy, in connection with these problems of the future that you speak of, and the program that you enunciated earlier in your direct talk, you call for expanding some of the welfare programs for schools, for teacher salaries, medical care, and so forth; but you also call for reducing the federal debt. And I’m wondering how you, if you’re president in January, would go about paying the bill for all this. Does this mean that you?
MR. KENNEDY: I didn’t indicate. I did not advocate reducing the federal debt because I don’t believe that you’re going to be able to reduce the federal debt very much in nineteen sixty-one, two, or three. I think you have heavy obligations which affect our security, which we’re going to have to meet. And therefore I’ve never suggested we should uh – be able to retire the debt substantially, or even at all in nineteen sixty-one or two.
MR. NOVINS: Senator, I believe in – in one of your speeches –
MR. KENNEDY: No, never.
MR. NOVINS: – you suggested that reducing the interest rate would help toward –
MR. KENNEDY: No. No. Not reducing the interest –
MR. NOVINS: – a reduction of the Federal debt.
MR. KENNEDY: – reducing the interest rate. In my judgment, the hard money, tight money policy, fiscal policy of this Administration has contributed to the slow-down in our economy, which helped bring the recession of fifty-four; which made the recession of fifty-eight rather intense, and which has slowed, somewhat, our economic activity in 1960. What I have talked about, however, the kind of programs that I’ve talked about, in my judgment, are uh – fiscally sound. Medical care for the aged, I would put under social security. The Vice President and I disagree on this. The program – the Javits-Nixon or the Nixon-Javits program – would have cost, if fully used uh – six hundred million dollars by the government per year, and six hundred million dollars by the state. The program which I advocated, which failed by five votes in the United States Senate, would have put medical care for the aged in Social Security, and would have been paid for through the Social Security System and the Social Security tax. Secondly, I support federal aid to education and federal aid for teachers’ salaries. I think that’s a good investment. I think we’re going to have to do it. And I think to heap the burden further on the property tax, which is already strained in many of our communities, will provide, will make sh- insure, in my opinion, that many of our children will not be adequately educated, and many of our teachers not adequately compensated. There is no greater return to an economy or to a society than an educational system second to none. On the question of the development of natural resources, I would pay as you go in the sense that they would be balanced and the power revenues would bring back sufficient money to finance the projects, in the same way as the Tennessee Valley. I believe in the balanced budget. And the only conditions under which I would unbalance the budget would be if there was a grave national emergency or a serious recession. Otherwise, with a steady rate of economic growth – and Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rockefeller, in their meeting, said a five per cent economic growth would bring by 1962 ten billion dollars extra in tax revenues. Whatever is brought in, I think that we can finance essential programs within a balanced budget, if business remains orderly.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, your comment?
MR. NIXON: Yes. I think what Mr. Novins was referring to was not one of Senator Kennedy’s speeches, but the Democratic platform, which did mention cutting the national debt. I think, too, that it should be pointed out that of course it is not possible, particularly under the proposals that Senator Kennedy has advocated, either to cut the national debt or to reduce taxes. As a matter of fact it will be necessary to raise taxes. As Senator Kennedy points out that as far as his one proposal is concerned – the one for medical care for the aged – that that would be financed out of Social Security. That, however, is raising taxes for those who pay Social Security. He points out that he would make pay-as-you-go be the basis for our natural resources development. Where our natural resources development – which I also support, incidentally, however – whenever you uh – uh – in – in – uh – appropriates money for one of these projects, you have to pay now and appropriate the money and the eh- while they eventually do pay out, it doesn’t mean that you – the government doesn’t have to put out the money this year. And so I would say that in all of these proposals Senator Kennedy has made, they will result in one of two things: either he has to raise taxes or he has to unbalance the budget. If he unbalances the budget, that means you have inflation, and that will be, of course, a very cruel blow to the very people – the older people – that we’ve been talking about. As far as aid for school construction is concerned, I favor that, as Senator Kennedy did, in January of this year, when he said he favored that rather than aid to s- teacher salaries. I favor that because I believe that’s the best way to aid our schools without running any risk whatever of the federal government telling our teachers what to teach.
MR. SMITH: The next question to Vice President Nixon from Mr. Warren.
MR. WARREN: Mr. Vice President you mentioned schools and it was just yesterday I think you asked for a crash program to raise education standards, and this evening you talked about advances in education. Mr. Vice President, you said – it was back in 1957 – that salaries paid to school teachers were nothing short of a national disgrace. Higher salaries for teachers, you added, were important and if the situation wasn’t corrected it could lead to a national disaster. And yet, you refused to vote in the Senate in order to break a tie vote when that single vote, if it had been yes, would have granted salary increases to teachers. I wonder if you could explain that, sir.
MR. NIXON: I’m awfully glad you ge- got that question because as you know I got into it at the last of my other question and wasn’t able to complete the argument. Uh – I think that the reason that I voted against having the federal government uh – pay teachers’ salaries was probably the very reason that concerned Senator Kennedy when in January of this year, in his kick-off press conference, he said that he favored aid for school construction, but at that time did not feel that there should be aid for teachers’ salaries – at least that’s the way I read his remarks. Now, why should there be any question about the federal government aiding s- teachers’ salaries? Why did Senator Kennedy take that position then? Why do I take it now? We both took it then, and I take it now, for this reason: we want higher teachers’ salaries. We need higher teachers’ salaries. But we also want our education to be free of federal control. When the federal government gets the power to pay teachers, inevitably in my opinion, it will acquire the power to set standards and to tell the teachers what to teach. I think this would be bad for the country; I think it would be bad for the teaching profession. There is another point that should be made. I favor higher salaries for teachers. But, as Senator Kennedy said in January of this year in this same press conference, the way that you get higher salaries for teachers is to support school construction, which means that all of the local school districts in the various states then have money which is freed to raise the standards for teachers’ salaries. I should also point out this; once you put the responsibility on the federal government for paying a portion of teachers’ salaries, your local communities and your states are not going to meet the responsibility as much as they should. I believe, in other words, that we have seen the local communities and the state assuming more of that responsibility. Teachers’ salaries very fortunately have gone up fifty percent in the last eight years as against only a thirty-four percent rise for other salaries. This is not enough; it should be more. But I do not believe that the way to get more salaries for teachers is to have the federal government get in with a massive program. My objection here is not the cost in dollars. My objection here is the potential cost in controls and eventual freedom for the American people by giving the federal government power over education, and that is the greatest power a government can have.
MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy’s comment?
MR. KENNEDY: When uh – the Vice President quotes me in January, sixty, I do not believe the federal government should pay directly teachers’ salaries, but that was not the issue before the Senate in February. The issue before the Senate was that the money would be given to the state. The state then could determine whether the money would be spent for school construction or teacher salaries. On that question the Vice President and I disagreed. I voted in favor of that proposal and supported it strongly, because I think that that provided assistance to our teachers for their salaries without any chance of federal control and it is on that vote that th- Mr. Nixon and I disagreed, and his tie vote uh – defeated his breaking the tie defeated the proposal. I don’t want the federal government paying teachers’ salaries directly. But if the money will go to the states and the states can then determine whether it shall go for school construction or for teachers’ salaries, in my opinion you protect the local authority over the school board and the school committee. And therefore I think that was a sound proposal and that is why I supported it and I regret that it did not pass. Secondly, there have been statements made that uh – the Democratic platform would cost a good deal of money and that I am in favor of unbalancing the budget. That is wholly wrong, wholly in error, and it is a fact that in the last eight years the Democratic Congress has reduced the appropri- the requests for the appropriations by over ten billion dollars. That is not my view and I think it ought to be stated very clearly on the record. My view is that you can do these programs – and they should be carefully drawn – within a balanced budget if our economy is moving ahead.
MR. SMITH: The next question to Senator Kennedy from Mr. Vanocur.
MR. VANOCUR: Senator, you’ve been promising the voters that if you are elected president you’ll try and push through Congress bills on medical aid to the aged, a comprehensive minimum hourly wage bill, federal aid to education. Now, in the August post-convention session of the Congress, when you at least held up the possibility you could one day be president and when you had overwhelming majorities, especially in the Senate, you could not get action on these bills. Now how do you feel that you’ll be able to get them in January –
MR. KENNEDY: Well as you take the bills –
MR. VANOCUR: – if you weren’t able to get them in August?
MR. KENNEDY: If I may take the bills, we did pass in the Senate a bill uh – to provide a dollar twenty-five cent minimum wage. It failed because the House did not pass it and the House failed by eleven votes. And I might say that two-thirds of the Republicans in the House voted against a dollar twenty-five cent minimum wage and a majority of the Democrats sustained it – nearly two-thirds of them voted for the dollar twenty-five. We were threatened by a veto if we passed a dollar and a quarter – it’s extremely difficult with the great power that the president does to pass any bill when the president is opposed to it. All the president needs to sustain his veto of any bill is one-third plus one in either the House or the Senate. Secondly, we passed a federal aid to education bill in the Senate. It failed to came to the floor of the House of Representatives. It was killed in the Rules Committee. And it is a fact in the August session that the four members of the Rules Committee who were Republicans joining with two Democrats voted against sending the aid to education bill to the floor of the House. Four Democrats voted for it. Every Republican on the Rules Committee voted against sending that bill to be considered by the members of the House of Representatives. Thirdly, on medical care for the aged, this is the same fight that’s been going on for twenty-five years in Social Security. We wanted to tie it to Social Security. We offered an amendment to do so. Forty-four Democrats voted for it, one Republican voted for it. And we were informed at the time it came to a vote that if it was adopted the President of the United States would veto it. In my judgment, a vigorous Democratic president supported by a Democratic majority in the House and Senate can win the support for these programs. But if you send a Republican president and a Democratic majority and the threat of a veto hangs over the Congress, in my judgment you will continue what happened in the August session, which is a clash of parties and inaction.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?
MR. NIXON: Well obviously my views are a little different. First of all, I don’t see how it’s possible for a one-third of a body, such as the Republicans have in the House and the Senate to stop two-thirds, if the two-thirds are adequately led. I would say, too, that when Senator Kennedy refers to the action of the House Rules Committee, there are eight Democrats on that committee and four Republicans. It would seem to me again that it is very difficult to blame the four Republicans for the eight Democrats’ not getting a something through that particular committee. I would say further that to blame the President in his veto power for the inability of the Senator and his colleagues to get action in this special session uh – misses the mark. When the president exercises his veto power, he has to have the people upo- behind him, not just a third of the Congress. Because let’s consider it. If the majority of the members of the Congress felt that these particular proposals were good issues – the majority of those who were Democrats – why didn’t they pass them and send to the President and get a veto and have an issue? The reason why these particular bills in these various fields that have been mentioned were not passed was not because the President was against them; it was because the people were against them. It was because they were too extreme. And I am convinced that the alternate proposals that I have, that the Republicans have in the field of health, in the field of education, in the field of welfare, because they are not extreme, because they will accomplish the end uh – without too great cost in dollars or in freedom, that they could get through the next Congress.
MR. SMITH: The next question to Vice President Nixon fa- from Mr. Fleming.
MR. FLEMING: Mr. Vice President, do I take it then you believe that you can work better with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate than Senator Kennedy could work with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate?
MR. NIXON; I would say this: that we, of course, expect to pick up some seats in both in the House and the Senate. Uh – We would hope to control the House, to get a majority in the House uh – in this election. We cannot, of course, control the Senate. I would say that a president will be able to lead – a president will be able to get his program through – to the effect that he has the support of the country, the support of the people. Sometimes we – we get the opinion that in getting programs through the House or the Senate it’s purely a question of legislative finagling and all that sort of thing. It isn’t really that. Whenever a majority of the people are for a program, the House and the Senate responds to it. And whether this House and Senate, in the next session is Democratic or Republican, if the country will have voted for the candidate for the presidency and for the proposals that he has made, I believe that you will find that the president, if it were a Republican, as it would be in my case, would be able to get his program through that Congress. Now, I also say that as far as Senator Kennedy’s proposals are concerned, that, again, the question is not simply one of uh – a presidential veto stopping programs. You must always remember that a president can’t stop anything unless he has the people behind him. And the reason President Eisenhower’s vetoes have been sustained – the reason the Congress does not send up bills to him which they think will be vetoed – is because the people and the Congress, the majority of them, know the country is behind the President.
MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY: Well, now let’s look at these bills that the Vice President suggests were too extreme. One was a bill for a dollar twenty-five cents an hour for anyone who works in a store or company that has a million dollars a year business. I don’t think that’s extreme at all; and yet nearly two-thirds to three-fourths of the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against that proposal. Secondly was the federal aid to education bill. It – it was a very uh – because of the defeat of teacher salaries, it was not a bill that uh – met in my opinion the need. The fact of the matter is it was a bill that was less than you recommended, Mr. Nixon, this morning in your proposal. It was not an extreme bill and yet we could not get one Republican to join, at least I think four of the eight Democrats voted to send it to the floor of the House – not one Republican – and they joined with those Democrats who were opposed to it. I don’t say the Democrats are united in their support of the program. But I do say a majority are. And I say a majority of the Republicans are opposed to it. The third is medical care for the aged which is tied to Social Security, which is financed out of Social Security funds. It does not put a deficit on the Treasury. The proposal advanced by you and by Mr. Javits would have cost six hundred millions of dollars – Mr. Rockefeller rejected it in New York, said he didn’t agree with the financing at all, said it ought to be on Social Security. So these are three programs which are quite moderate. I think it shows the difference between the two parties. One party is ready to move in these programs. The other party gives them lip service.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Warren’s question for Senator Kennedy.
MR. WARREN: Senator Kennedy, on another subject, Communism is so often described as an ideology or a belief that exists somewhere other than in the United States. Let me ask you, sir: just how serious a threat to our national security are these Communist subversive activities in the United States today?
MR. KENNEDY: Well, I think they’re serious. I think it’s a matter that we should continue to uh – give uh – great care and attention to. We should support uh – the laws which the United States has passed in order to protect us from uh – those who would destroy us from within. We should sustain uh – the Department of Justice in its efforts and the F.B.I., and we should be continually alert. I think if the United States is maintaining a strong society here in the United States, I think that we can meet any internal threat. The major threat is external and will continue.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Nixon, comment?
MR. NIXON: I agree with Senator Kennedy’s appraisal generally in this respect. The question of Communism within the United States has been one that has worried us in the past. It is one that will continue to be a problem for years to come. We have to remember that the cold war that Mr. Khrushchev is waging and his colleagues are waging, is waged all over the world and it’s waged right here in the United States. That’s why we have to continue to be alert. It is also essential in being alert that we be fair; fair because by being fair we uphold the very freedoms that the Communists would destroy. We uphold the standards of conduct which they would never follow. And, in this connection, I think that uh – we must look to the future having in mind the fact that we fight Communism at home not only by our laws to deal with Communists uh – the few who do become Communists and the few who do become tra- fellow travelers, but we also fight Communism at home by moving against those various injustices which exist in our society which the Communists feed upon. And in that connection I again would say that while Senator Kennedy says we are for the status quo, I do believe that he uh – would agree that I am just as sincere in believing that my proposals for federal aid to education, my proposals for health care are just as sincerely held as his. The question again is not one of goals – we’re for those goals – it’s one of means.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Vanocur’s question for Vice President Nixon.
MR. VANOCUR: Mr. Vice President uh – in one of your earlier statements you said we’ve moved ahead, we’ve built more schools, we’ve built more hospitals. Now, sir, isn’t it true that the building of more schools is a local matter for financing? Uh – Were you claiming that the Eisenhower Administration was responsible for the building of these schools, or is it the local school districts that provide for it?
MR. NIXON: Not at all. As a matter of fact your question brings out a point that I am very glad to make. Too often in appraising whether we are moving ahead or not we think only of what the federal government is doing. Now that isn’t the test of whether America moves. The test of whether America moves is whether the federal government, plus the state government, plus the local government, plus the biggest segment of all – individual enterprise – moves. We have for example a gross national product of approximately five hundred billion dollars. Roughly a hundred billion to a hundred and a quarter billion of that is the result of government activity. Four hundred billion, approximately, is a result of what individuals do. Now, the reason the Eisenhower Administration has moved, the reason that we’ve had the funds, for example, locally to build the schools, and the hospitals, and the highways, to make the progress that we have, is because this Administration has encouraged individual enterprise; and it has resulted in the greatest expansion of the private sector of the economy that has ever been witnessed in an eight-year period. And that is growth. That is the growth that we are looking for; it is the growth that this Administration has supported and that its policies have stimulated.
MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy.
MR. KENNEDY: Well, I must say that the reason that the schools have been constructed is because the local school districts were willing to increase the property taxes to a tremendously high figure – in my opinion, almost to the point of diminishing returns in order to sustain these schools. Secondly, I think we have a rich uh – country. And I think we have a powerful country. I think what we have to do, however, is have the president and the leadership set before our country exactly what we must do in the next decade, if we’re going to maintain our security in education, in economic growth, in development of natural resources. The Soviet Union is making great gains. It isn’t enough to compare what might have been done eight years ago, or ten years ago, or fifteen years ago, or twenty years ago. I want to compare what we’re doing with what our adversaries are doing, so that by the year 1970 the United States is ahead in education, in health, in building, in homes, in economic strength. I think that’s the big assignment, the big task, the big function of the federal government.
MR. SMITH: Can I have the summation time please? We’ve completed our questions and our comments, and in just a moment, we’ll have the summation time.
VOICE: This will allow three minutes and twenty seconds for the summation by each candidate.
MR. SM1TH: Three minutes and twenty seconds for each candidate. Vice President Nixon, will you make the first summation?
MR. NIXON: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Senator Kennedy. First of all, I think it is well to put in perspective where we really do stand with regard to the Soviet Union in this whole matter of growth. The Soviet Union has been moving faster than we have. But the reason for that is obvious. They start from a much lower base. Although they have been moving faster in growth than we have, we find, for example, today that their total gross national product is only forty-four per cent of our total gross national product. That’s the same percentage that it was twenty years ago. And as far as the absolute gap is concerned, we find that the United States is even further ahead than it was twenty years ago. Is this any reason for complacency? Not at all Because these are determined men. They are fanatical men. And we have to get the very most of uh – out uh – out of our economy. I agree with Senator Kennedy completely on that score. Where we disagree is in the means that we would use to get the most out of our economy. I respectfully submit that Senator Kennedy too often would rely too much on the federal government, on what it would do to solve our problems, to stimulate growth. I believe that when we examine the Democratic platform, when we examine the proposals that he has discussed tonight, when we compare them with the proposals that I have made, that these proposals that he makes would not result in greater growth for this country than would be the case if we followed the programs that I have advocated. There are many of the points that he has made that I would like to comment upon. The one in the field of health is worth mentioning. Our health program – the one that Senator Javits and other Republican Senators, as well as I supported – is one that provides for all people over sixty-five who want health insurance, the opportunity to have it if they want it. It provides a choice of having either government insurance or private insurance. But it compels nobody to have insurance who does not want it. His program under Social Security, would require everybody who had Social Security to take government health insurance whether he wanted it or not. And it would not cover several million people who are not covered by Social Security at all. Here is one place where I think that our program does a better job than his. The other point that I would make is this: this downgrading of how much things cost I think many of our people will understand better when they look at what happened when – during the Truman Administration when the government was spending more than it took in – we found savings over a lifetime eaten up by inflation. We found the people who could least afford it – people on retired incomes uh – people on fixed incomes – we found them unable to meet their bills at the end of the month. It is essential that a man who’s president of this country certainly stand for every program that will mean for growth. And I stand for programs that will mean growth and progress. But it is also essential that he not allow a dollar spent that could be better spent by the people themselves.
MR. SMITH: Senator Kennedy, your conclusion.
MR. KENNEDY: The point was made by Mr. Nixon that the Soviet production is only forty-four percent of ours. I must say that forty-four percent and that Soviet country is causing us a good deal of trouble tonight. I want to make sure that it stays in that relationship. I don’t want to see the day when it’s sixty percent of ours, and seventy and seventy-five and eighty and ninety percent of ours, with all the force and power that it could bring to bear in order to cause our destruction. Secondly, the Vice President mentioned medical care for the aged. Our program was an amendment to the Kerr bill. The Kerr bill provided assistance to all those who were not on Social Security. I think it’s a very clear contrast. In 1935, when the Social Security Act was written, ninety-four out of ninety-five Republicans voted against it. Mr. Landon ran in 1936 to repeal it. In August of 1960, when we tried to get it again, but this time for medical care, we received the support of one Republican in the Senate on this occasion. Thirdly, I think the question before the American people is: as they look at this country and as they look at the world around them, the goals are the same for all Americans. The means are at question. The means are at issue. If you feel that everything that is being done now is satisfactory, that the relative power and prestige and strength of the United States is increasing in relation to that of the Communists; that we’ve b- gaining more security, that we are achieving everything as a nation that we should achieve, that we are achieving a better life for our citizens and greater strength, then I agree. I think you should vote for Mr. Nixon. But if you feel that we have to move again in the sixties, that the function of the president is to set before the people the unfinished business of our society as Franklin Roosevelt did in the thirties, the agenda for our people – what we must do as a society to meet our needs in this country and protect our security and help the cause of freedom. As I said at the beginning, the question before us all, that faces all Republicans and all Democrats, is: can freedom in the next generation conquer, or are the Communists going to be successful? That’s the great issue. And if we meet our responsibilities I think freedom will conquer. If we fail, if we fail to move ahead, if we fail to develop sufficient military and economic and social strength here in this country, then I think that uh – the tide could begin to run against us. And I don’t want historians, ten years from now, to say, these were the years when the tide ran out for the United States. I want them to say these were the years when the tide came in; these were the years when the United States started to move again. That’s the question before the American people, and only you can decide what you want, what you want this country to be, what you want to do with the future. I think we’re ready to move. And it is to that great task, if we’re successful, that we will address ourselves.
MR. SMITH: Thank you very much, gentlemen. This hour has gone by all too quickly. Thank you very much for permitting us to present the next president of the United States on this unique program. I’ve been asked by the candidates to thank the American networks and the affiliated stations for providing time and facilities for this joint appearance. Other debates in this series will be announced later and will be on different subjects. This is Howard K. Smith. Good night from Chicago.
出處http://csm00.csu.edu.tw/0299/E_modern_history/20th/20th_content/1953/Kennedy.htm
問題一：
在我三年級第一次看到學長姐辯論前，我根本不知道有辯論這個東西，看到學長姐辯論後，便開始查關於辯論的資料，到五年級親身體驗後，我對它的看法是一種以口語說服對方的語文訓練，考驗著反應力和思考能力，非常的有趣！
辯論：對某一件事情有不同的見解及意見的兩方，依照共同認定的規則，當面說出自己的想法或對反對的理由提出質疑，使對方認同我方的想法。
出處：《丹諾自傳》商周出版
美國著名律師克萊倫斯．丹諾，在一次幫幾個無知的青少年不因為任何理由的殺了人，拼命幫助他們免除死刑。在辯搏時說了依據最讓人深刻，也是讓這些青年免除死刑的一句重要名言：「在還沒有證據證實他是有罪時，他就是無罪的。」
問題一：請你說出你自己對「辯論」一詞的看法嗎？
「辯論」給我的第一印象是兩個人在台上爭吵誰是對的誰是錯的，後來，開始上辯論課後，我才知道辯論是有禮貌的在台上說服對方和自己的想法一致，而且是三人對三人的公平競爭。
問題二：請找出古今中外一件名人的重要辯論對話？（注意標明出處）
《孟子‧告子》
原文：
告子曰：「生之謂性。」
孟子曰：「生之謂性也，猶白之謂白與？」
曰：「然。」
「白羽之白也，猶白雪之白；白雪之白，猶白玉之白與？」
曰：「然。」
「然則犬之性，猶牛之性；牛之性，猶人之性與？」
ANSWER1：當你對一件事情的看法跟別人不一樣，而想辦法讓對方認同你的想法，就是辯論。
ANSWER2：九月甲午，晉侯、秦伯圍鄭，以其無禮於晉，且貳于楚也。晉軍函陵，秦軍氾南。
佚之狐言于鄭伯曰：『國危矣，若使燭之武見秦君，師必退。』公從之。辭曰：『臣之壯也，猶不如人；今老矣，無能為也已。』
公曰：『吾不能早用子，今急而求子，是寡人之過也。然鄭亡，子亦有不利焉！』許之。夜縋而出。
見秦伯曰：『秦、晉圍鄭，鄭既知亡矣。若亡鄭而有益於君，敢以煩執事。越國以鄙遠，君知其難也。焉用亡鄭以陪鄰？鄰之厚，君之薄也。若餘鄭以為東道主，行李之往來，共其乏困，君亦無所害。且君嘗為晉君賜矣；許君焦、瑕，朝濟而夕設版焉，君之所知也。夫晉，何厭之有？既東封鄭、又欲肆其西封，若不闕秦，將焉取之？闕秦以利晉，唯君圖之。』
秦伯說，與鄭人盟。使杞子、逢孫、楊孫戍之，乃還。
子犯請擊之，公曰：『不可。微夫人之力不及此。因人之力而敝之，不仁；失其所與，不知；以亂易整不武。吾其還也。』亦去之。
《左傳．燭之武退秦師》
http://www.cyut.edu.tw/~tfhuang/content.htm#十一
問題一：請你說出你自己對「辯論」一詞的看法嗎？
辯論，一種溫和的吵架方式，雙方秉持著不同的想法，用各種數據、資料，和最重要的辯論，使對方同意且贊成我方的想法。而又為什麼是溫和的吵架呢？因為在辯論上不可以動粗，言談舉止也必須溫和。
1.辯論就是有兩群不同意見的人，然後以和氣的提出自己對那件事的看法，試著讓對方來同意這件事
2.
2.子有著曠達的心境，視富貴榮華有如敝屣。其高超之生活情趣，自然超離人群與社群。無怪乎在他眼中，“以天下為沉濁，不可與莊語”。（《天下》）既然這樣，就只好“獨與天地精神往來”了。像莊子這樣絕頂聰明的人，要想找到一兩個知己，確是不容易。平常能夠談得來的朋友，除了惠子之外，恐怕不會再有其他的人了。他們都好辯論，辯才犀利無比；他們亦很博學，對於探討知識有濃厚的熱誠。
惠子喜歡倚在樹底下高談闊論，疲倦的時候，就據琴而臥（“倚樹而吟，據槁梧而暝”），這種態度莊子是看不慣的，但他也常被惠子拉去梧桐樹下談談學問（“惠子之據梧也……”），或往田野上散步。一個歷史上最有名的辯論，便是在他們散步時引起的：
莊子和惠子在濠水的橋上游玩。
莊子說：“小白魚悠閒地遊出來，這是魚的快樂啊！”
惠子問：“你不是魚，怎麼知道魚是快樂的？”
莊子回說：“你不是我，怎麼知道我不曉得魚的快樂。”
惠子辯說：“我不是你，固然不知道你；准此而推，你既然不是魚，那麼，你不知道魚的快樂，是很明顯的了。”
莊子回說：“請把話題從頭說起吧！你說：‘你怎麼知道魚是快樂的’云云，就是你知道了我的意思而問我，那麼我在濠水的橋上也就能知道魚的快樂了。”（《秋水》）
http://big5.cri.cn/gate/big5/gb.cri.cn/3601/2005/10/18/882@742158.htm
關於問題一：
我覺得實在是很 無聊
可是上過課之後
就發現辯論其實蠻好玩的
翻譯好了
不過怪怪的
霍華德K. 史密斯, 調解人: 晚上好。美國的電視和電臺和他們附屬的駐地是驕傲為關於問題的討論提供設施在當前的政治競選由二名主要候選人為總統的職務。候選人不需要介紹。共和黨候選人、Richard M. Nixon 副總統, 和民主黨候選人, 約翰・甘乃迪參議員。根據規則由候選人設置, 各個人將做一份公開聲明大約八分鐘的期間和一個結束語句大約三分鐘的期間。在候選人之間將回答, 或評論在答復對問題由通訊員組提出。在這中, 第一討論在一系列四uh – 聯接出現, 主題問題讚成, 將被制約內部或國內美國事態。並且現在為第一公開聲明由約翰・甘乃迪參議員。
甘乃迪參議員: 史密斯, 尼克森先生先生。在1860 年的競選, Abraham Lincoln 說問題是是否這個國家能存在一半奴隸或無一半。在1960 年的競選, 和與世界在我們附近, 問題是是否世界將存在一半奴隸或無一半, 是否它將行動自由的方向, 在我們上的方向路, 或是否它將行動奴隸制的方向。我認為它將取決於大部分什麼我們做這裡在美國, 我們建立的這种社會, 我們維護的這种力量。我們今晚談論國內問題, 但我不會要那是任何涵義被給這直接地不介入我們的奮鬥與Khrushchev 先生為生存。Khrushchev 先生是在紐約, 並且他在世界各地維護共產主義攻勢由於蘇聯的有生產力的力量。中國共產黨總有多人口。但他們是重要和危險現在因為他們登上主要努力在他們自己的國家之內。我們有這裡的這种國家, 我們有的這种社會, 我們建立在美國將是自由防禦的這种力量。如果我們湧出這裡, 如果我們符合我們的義務, 如果我們向前搬走, 我然後認為自由將是安全在世界。如果我們失敗, 自由然後失敗。所以, 我認為問題在美國人是之前: 我們是做儘量我們能做? 我們是一樣強像我們應該? 我們是一樣強像我們必須如果我們維護我們的獨立, 並且如果我們維護和給予友誼的手對那些看對我們為協助, 對那些看對我們為生存? 我應該講非常清楚, 我不認為我們做□足夠, 那我不滿意作為美國人對進展我們獲得。這是一個偉大的國家, 但我認為這能是一個更加偉大的國家; 並且這是一個強有力的國家, 但我認為這能是一個更加強有力的國家。我不滿意有我們的鋼磨房容量的百分之五十未使用。我不是滿意當美國去年有任一個主要工業化社會經濟增長的最低的率在世界上。由於經濟增長意味力量和生命力; 它意味我們能承受我們的防禦; 它意味我們能遇見我們的承諾海外。我不是滿意當我們有九十億美元價值食物- 一些它爛掉- 即使有一個飢餓的世界, 並且即使四百萬美國人等每個月食物包裹從政府, 平均為五分每天每個體。我看見了案件在西維吉尼亞, 這裡在美國, 孩子採取他們的學校午餐的家庭部份為了餵養他們的家庭因為我不認為我們符合我們的義務往這些美國人。我不是滿意當蘇聯結果兩次許多位科學家和工程師當我們是。我不是滿意當許多我們的老師不充分地被支付, 或當我們的孩子去學校兼職轉移。我認為我們應該其次有一個教育系統對無。我不是滿意當我任意仍然看見人像吉米・Hoffa – 負責最大的聯合在美國- 。我不是滿意當我們不開發美國的自然資源充分。這裡在美國, 顯現出修造盛大Coulee 並且其它水壩在西北美國以水力發電生產的當前率的田納西谷和- 和那是一個工業化社會標記- 蘇聯由1975 導致更多力量比我們。這些是所有事, 我認為, 在可能使我們的社會加強的這個國家, 或可能意味, 它靜立。我不是滿意直到每個美國人享受他充分的憲法給予的權利。如果嬰孩是出生的黑人- 和這並且是真實的Puerto Ricans 和墨西哥人在一些我們的城市- 他作為一個白嬰孩有大約二分之一同樣多機會得到通過高中。他有三分之一同樣多機會得到通過學院作為一名白學生。他有三同樣多機會是一個專業人, 大約半同樣多機會對自己房子。他有關於uh – 四次同樣多機會, 他將是喪失工作在他的生活中像白嬰孩。我認為我們能做更好。我不要任何美國人天分去浪費。我知道, 有那些想要轉動一切對政府。我不根本。我要個體遇見他們的責任。並且我要狀態遇見他們的責任。但我認為有並且全國責任。論據被使用了反對社會立法每個片斷在最近二十五年。人民美國不能單獨地開發了田納西谷; 他們能集體有。棉花農夫在佐治亞或一位花生農夫或一個乳牛場場主在威斯康辛和明尼蘇達, 他無法保護自己免受供給和需求力量在市場; 但共同努力在有效的政府節目他能做如此。十七百萬美國人, 居住六十五在大約七十八美元一張平均社會保險支票每月, 他們不能單獨地承受自己, 但是他們能承受自己通過社會保險系統。我不相信大政府, 但是我相信有效的政府行動。並且我認為是唯一的方式美國維護它的自由。這是我們向前移動的唯一的方法。我認為我們能做一個更好的工作。我認為我們必須做一個更好的工作如果我們遇見時間和事件安置了在我們的責任。我們無法轉動工作對任何人。如果美國失敗, 那麼自由的整體起因失敗。並且我認為它依靠大部分什麼我們做這裡在這個國家。原因Franklin Roosevelt 是一個好鄰居在拉丁美洲是因為他是一個好鄰居在美國。由於他們認為美國社會再搬走。我要我們奪回那個圖像。我要人在拉丁美洲和非洲和亞洲開始看對美國; 看見怎麼我們做事; 想知道什麼美國的居民做□; 並且不看Khrushchev, 或看中國共產黨。那是義務在我們的世代。1933 年, Franklin Roosevelt 說在他就職, 這個美國人的世代有一rendezvous 以命運。我認為我們的美國人的世代有同樣rendezvous 。問題現在是: 自由可能被維護在它曾經知道的最嚴厲的大頭釘- 攻擊之下? 我認為它可能是。並且我認為在它取決於的最後的分析什麼我們這裡。我認為它是時間美國開始的再行動。
史密斯先生: 並且現在公開聲明由Richard M. Nixon 副總統。
尼克森先生: 史密斯, 甘乃迪參議員先生。事, 甘乃迪參議員說多數人的我們可能與一致。沒有問題但那我們無法談論我們的內部事務在美國沒有認為他們有一巨大對我們的國際地位有影響。沒有問題但那這個國家無法站直; 因為我們是在致命的競爭中, 競爭不僅與人在Kremlin, 但人在北京。我們是向前在這競爭中, 如同甘乃迪參議員, 我認為, 暗示了。但當您是在種族, 唯一的方式向前停留將向前行動。並且我完全地訂閱對甘乃迪參議員今晚表達了的精神, 美國應該向前移動的精神。, 然後, 我們在哪裡不同意? 我認為我們今晚不同意在他的評論的涵義和在他做了在許多場合在他的競選期間對作用團結的狀態站直的聲明。我們聽見了今晚, 例如, 聲明被做, 我們的成長在全國產品去年是最降低任一個工業國家在世界上。現在去年, 當然, 是1958 年。那偶然是一後退年。但當我們今年看G.N.P. 成長, 一年補救, 我們發現它今天是六和nine-tenths 百分之和一個最高在世界上。更多對此以後。然後看對這個問題的怎樣美國應該向前行動並且在哪裡美國行動, 我認為它是好的我們採取一個非常著名運動家的忠告: 我們看紀錄。美國站直嗎? 它是真實的, 這管理, 作為甘乃迪參議員充電, 是撤退的管理, 失敗, 停滯嗎? 是它真實, 只要這個國家, 在電力領域, 總計他提及了的領域, 我們向前未搬走。很好, 我們有我們能做的比較。我們有杜魯門政府的紀錄七和一半幾年和七和一半艾森豪威爾政府的幾年。當我們比較這兩個紀錄在甘乃迪參議員有- 的區域今晚談論, 我認為我們發現美國向前行動。我們採取學校。我們比我們修造了在早先七和一個一半, 就此而言在早先二十年建立了更多學校在這些前七和一半幾年。我們採取水力發電。我們比被開發了在任一早先管理在歷史上開發了水力發電在這些七和一個一半幾年。讓我們採取醫院。我們發現更多被修造了在這管理比在早先管理。同樣是真實的高速公路。我們投入它用我們大家可能瞭解的術語。我們經常聽見國內總產值被談論和在那個方面可以我說那當我們成長在這管理與那早先管理比較有然後百分之十一總成長經過七年; 在這管理有是百分之十九總成長經過七年。那展示, 有是更多成長在這管理比在它的前輩。但不讓我們投入它那裡; 我們投入它根據平均家庭。什麼發生在您身上? 我們發現您的薪水攀登五次一樣在艾森豪威爾政府像他們做了在杜魯門政府。怎麼樣您支付的價格? 我們發現您支付的價格一樣攀登五次在杜魯門政府像他們做了在艾森豪威爾政府。什麼是這的實際結果? 這意味著, 平均家庭收入攀登百分之十五在艾森豪歲月與百分之二比較在杜魯門歲月。現在, 這不站直。但, 好的雖然這個紀錄是, 願我強調它不是足夠。紀錄從未是某事站立。它是某事修造。並且修造在這個紀錄, 我相信, 我們有秘密為進展, 我們知道方式進步。並且我認為, 首先, 我們自己的紀錄證明, 我們知道方式。甘乃迪參議員建議他相信他知道方式。我尊敬他m- 他做那個建議的真誠。但另一方面, 當我們看他提供的各種各樣的節目, 他們不似乎是新的。他們似乎是簡單地翻新在它之前杜魯門政府的節目。並且我會建議在晚上期間他也許表明他的節目是新的那些區域在, 他們將意味更多進展比的地方我們然後有。什麼樣的節目我們是為? 我們是為將擴展教育機會的節目, 那將給所有美國人他們相等的機會為教育, 為是必要和親愛的對我們的人民的心臟的所有事。我們是為節目, 另外, 看見我們的衛生保健為變老是- 比它是- 是- 好被處理當前是。這裡再, 願我表明那位參議員甘乃迪並且我不是在分歧至於目標。我們兩個想要幫助老人。我們想要看, 他們有充分衛生保健。問題是手段。我認為, 我主張的手段更好比他主張的手段將到達那個目標。我能給出更好的例子, 但為- 什麼它是, 是否它是在住房的領域, 或健康、或衛生保健、或學校, 或電力的嗯發展, 我們吃我們相信將移動美國, 移動她向前的節目並且修造在我們創造了這些過去七的美妙的紀錄並且一半幾年。現在, 當我們看這些節目, 也許我建議那在評估他們我們經常有一個傾向說節目的測試是多少您花費。我承認, 在我提到了甘乃迪參議員的所有區域比我會安排它花費會安排spe- 聯邦政府花費更多。我花費了在民主黨平臺之外的費用。它跑極小值十三並且two-tenths 億萬美元一年更多比我們比我們目前花費目前花費對十八十億美元最大值一年更多。共和黨平臺現在將花費也是。它將花費四十億美元極小值一年更多, 最大值四並且nine-tenths 十億美元一年更多比我們目前花費。現在, 這個手段, 他的節目比我們的好? 。由於這不是多少的問題聯邦政府花費; 這不是政府做多數的問題。這是管理做正確的事的問題。並且我們的情況, 我相信, 我們的節目將刺激創造性的能量一百和八十百萬自由美國人。我相信甘乃迪參議員提倡者把一個傾向抑止那些創造性的能量的節目, 我相信換句話說, 他的節目會導致我們需要在這個國家得到進展驅動力的停滯。我希望提出的最後的觀點是這: 甘乃迪參議員建議了在他的講話, 我們缺乏慈心為貧寒, 為老, 和為其他人是不幸的。讓我們瞭解在這次競選過程中, 他的動機和我的是懇切的。我知道什麼它意味是窮的。我知道什麼它意味看是失業的人。我知道甘乃迪參議員一樣深深地感覺關於這些問題像我, 但我們的分歧是沒有關於目標為美國而是只關於手段到達那些目標。
史密斯先生: 謝謝, 尼克森先生。完成公開聲明, 和現在候選人將回答問題或評論在彼此的答復對問題, 投入由網路的通訊員。通訊員: [ 自我介紹: “我是沙磨機Vanocur, NBC 新聞;” “我是查爾斯・Warren, 相互新聞;” “我是斯圖爾特Novins, CBS 新聞;” “鮑伯・Fleming, ABC 新聞。” ] 第一問題對甘乃迪參議員從Fleming 先生。
FLEMING 先生: 參議員, 副總統在他的競選說, 您天真和時常發育未全。他提出了領導的問題。關於這個問題, 為什麼您認為人應該投票支持您而不是副總統?
甘乃迪先生: 很好, 副總統和我一起來了到國會1946 年; 我們兩個擔任了在辛苦委員會裡。我在那裡現在十四年, 他有, 以便我們的經驗在uh – 的同樣時期政府是可比較的。第二, 我認為問題是uh – 什麼是我們主張的節目, 什麼是我們帶領的黨紀錄? 我從民主黨出來, 在本世紀生產了Woodrow Wilson 和Franklin Roosevelt 和Harry Truman, 並且支持和承受這些節目我今晚談論。尼克森先生從共和黨出來。他由它提名了。並且這是通過大多這些最近二十五年共和黨領導反對聯邦援助為教育的事實, 衛生保健為變老, 田納西谷的發展, 我們的自然資源的發展。我認為尼克森先生是他的黨一位有效的領導。我希望他會授予我同樣。問題在我們之前是: 和我們要哪個觀點哪個黨帶領美國?
史密斯先生: 尼克森先生, 您要不要評論對那個聲明?
尼克森先生: 我沒有評論。
史密斯先生: 下個問題: Novins 先生。
NOVINS 先生: 副總統先生, 您的競選強調您的八年經驗的價值, 並且問題出現至於是否那經驗是作為觀察員或作為參加者或作為創始者決策。您會勸告我們具體地喜歡什麼主要提案您提出了在由管理採取了的最近八年?
尼克森先生: 它相當難蓋他們在八和在二和一半分鐘。我會建議這些提案能被提及。首先, 在每個我的外國旅行我提出了被採取了的建議之後。例如, 在我的第一次旅行以後海外- 海外, 我強烈推薦我們增加我們的交換節目特別如同他們與領導的人交換關係了在辛苦領域和在資訊領域。在我的旅行以後向南美洲, 我做推薦那南美國家好比借會想要比參加借貸代理處對待世界所有國家同樣的一個分開的相互美國借貸代理處被設定。Uh – 我提出了其它建議在每個其它旅行以後; 例如, 在我的旅行以後海外到匈牙利我提出了被採取的一些建議關於匈牙利難民情況, 不僅由總統但有些被立法了入法律由國會。在管理內部, 作為總統的Committee 的主席在價格穩定和經濟增長, 我有機會提出被採取了在管理內部並且我認為是合理地有效的建議。我知道甘乃迪參議員昨天被建議在他的講話在克利夫蘭, 那個委員會不是特別有效的。我只會建議當我們不獲好評為它- 我不會假定- 那個委員會從那以後被組成了價格行舉行了很好在美國範圍內。
甘乃迪先生: 很好, 我會說在後者那- 和那是什麼我發現了uh – 有些令人不滿關於圖uh – 尼克森先生, 您使用了在您的早先講話, 當您談論了杜魯門政府。您- 杜魯門先生走向辦公室在十九uh – 四十四和在戰爭的結尾, 和uh – 困難面對美國在那個轉折期- 1946 年當物價調控被舉了- 因此它相當難使用一個整體圖採取那些七和一半幾年和比較他們與最近八年。我喜歡採取最近二十年民主人士和共和黨人的八年的整體百分比紀錄顯示成長的一個整體期間。關於uh – 定價穩定uh – 我不知道, 那個委員會導致了一定曾經是在國會面前從立法觀點關於控制價格的推薦。關於學生和工會交換, 我是小組委員會的主席在非洲並且我認為那一個最不幸的階段我們的對於那個國家的政策是我們有交換的詳細的數量。我認為它並且是真實的拉丁美洲。我們自告奮勇以學生節目為是更多的剛果三百比聯邦政府有為所有非洲去年, 以便我不認為那uh – 我們搬走了至少在那些二個區域中以充足的強健。
史密斯先生: 下個問題對甘乃迪參議員從Warren 先生。
WARREN 先生: Uh – 甘乃迪參議員, 在您簡要的講話期間幾分鐘前您提及了農廠節餘。
甘乃迪先生: 那是正確的。
WARREN 先生: 我希望要求這: 這是事實, 我認為, 總統候選人傳統上做諾言對農夫。許多人, 我認為, 不瞭解為什麼政府支付農夫不生產某些莊稼或不支付農夫如果他們overproduce 就此而言。現在, 讓我要求, 先生, 為什麼農夫無法經營像操作一家工廠的商人? 如果一個汽車公司overproduces 某一模型汽車山姆大叔不走進來和不收買節餘。為什麼這恆定求婚農夫?
甘乃迪先生: 很好, 因為我認為如果聯邦政府搬出了節目和撤出了它的支持uh – 然後我認為您會有完全uh – 經濟紛亂。農夫植物在春天和收穫在秋天。有成千上萬他們。他們真正地不- 他們不能控制他們的市場很好。他們帶來他們的莊稼或他們的家畜, 大多數大致同樣的時間。他們有唯一買他們的牛奶或他們的肉豬的幾位採購員- 幾個大公司在許多情況下- 並且因此農夫不是非常有效地講價在市場。我認為二十的經驗顯示了自由市場能做對農業。並且如果農業經濟崩潰, 那麼美國的剩餘的經濟遲早將崩潰。農夫是第號一個市場為美國的汽車業。汽車業是第號一個市場為鋼。如此如果農夫的經濟繼續一樣尖銳decline 像它近年來有, 那麼我認為您會有後退在國家的剩餘。如此我認為論點為政府干預是一好一個。第二, 我的對當前農廠政策的反對是, 沒有有效的控制帶領供給和需求進入更好的平衡。滴下支持價格為了限制生產不運作, 並且我們現在有最高的uh – 節餘- 九十億美元價值。我們有一uh – 高稅收裝載從財寶為農夫在過去幾年內以最低的農場收入在許多歲月。我認為, 這項農廠政策失敗了。在我的評斷將運作的唯一的政策將是使有效的供給和需求是在平衡。並且那可能只做通過政府行動。I 建議因此在支持的那些基本的商品, 那聯邦政府, 在背書由農夫在那件商品, 企圖帶領供給和需求進入平衡之後- 試圖有效的產量控制- 以便我們不會有五或百分之六打破價格十五或百分之二十的節餘。我認為Benson 先生的節目失敗了。並且我必須說, 在讀副總統的講話以後在農夫之前, 如同他讀了我的, 我不相信, 它是非常與Benson 不同的先生。我不認為它提供有效的政府控制。我認為支持價格被栓對最近三年的平均市場價, 是Benson 先生的理論。I 因此不相信, 這是銳利足夠的突破口以過去給我們成功任一希望為將來。
史密斯先生: 尼克森, 評論先生?
尼克森先生; I 當然不同意甘乃迪參議員只要他的建議至於什麼應該是完成uh – 與錸在農廠節目。他提出了建議什麼我們需要將行動更多政府控制的方向, 並且會意味的建議培養價格uh – 消費者支付產品和im- 和強加給農夫uh – 控制在英畝甚而更多比他們今天有。我認為這是錯誤方向。我不認為這從前運作; 我不認為這在將來將有效。我主張了的節目是一個離開當前節目我們有對此。它認為, 政府有責任避免農夫他目前是的因為政府讓他進入它。並且那是根本原因為什麼我們無法讓農夫走他自己當前。農夫導致了這些節餘因為政府要求他對通過立法在戰爭期間。即然我們有這些節餘, 是我們的責任保障農夫在那個期間, 我們擺脫農夫uh – 節餘。直到我們讓節餘農夫的回到, 然而, 我們應該有一個節目譬如我宣佈了, 看見農場收入阻止。但我會提議保持, 收入不是通過甘乃迪參議員建議了會提高價格的類型節目, 僅一個會保障農夫, 支付農夫在親切的uh – 從是在節餘的產品。
史密斯先生: 下個問題對尼克森副總統從Vanocur 先生。
VANOCUR 先生: Uh – Vice 總統先生, 因為行政領導的問題是一個非常重要競選問題, I’d 如跟隨Novins 先生的問題。現在, 共和黨競選口號- 您將看見他們在標誌在國家周圍如同您上星期做了- 言這是計數- 是在圖片的你自己的經驗; 先生uh – 暗示您有更加政府的行政政策制定uh – 經驗比uh – 您的對手。現在, 在他的新聞發佈會在8月二十四日, 艾森豪總統請求給出他採取你一個主要想法的一個例子。他的回復是, 並且我引述; “如果您給我一個星期我也許認為一個。我不記住。” 即然是一個月前, 先生, 並且總統未帶來它因為, 和我想知道, 先生, 如果您能澄清哪個版本是正確的- 那個由Republican 競選領導投入或你投入了由艾森豪總統嗎?
尼克森先生: 很好, 我會建議, Vanocur, 那uh 先生- 如果您知道總統, 大概是滑稽評論。Uh – 我並且會建議只要他的聲明有關, 那我認為它會是不正當為美國總統透露uh – 他的正式家庭的成員提出了建議的事例, 如同我多年來做了他們對他, 他接納了或rejected 。總統非常適當地總維護了和以便他有資格得到什麼忠告他想要從他的內閣和從他的其它顧問沒有透露那對任何人- 包括實際上國會。現在, 我能只說這。多年來我坐了在國家安全理事會中。我是在內閣。我會見立法領導。我會見總統當他做出了巨大決定關於黎巴嫩、Quemoy 和Matsu, 其它事態。總統請求我的忠告。我給了它。有時我的忠告被需要了。有時它沒有。我不說, 我做出了決定。並且我會說, 總統不應該曾經允許任何人做出主要決定, 總統只做出決定。所有他的顧問將給忠告當他自討苦吃。就什麼經驗計數並且是否那是計數的經驗, 那不是使我說。Uh – 我能只說我的經驗是那裡使人民考慮; 甘乃迪參議員的在那裡使人民考慮。如同他指出了, 我們走向國會在同年。他的經驗是與我的不同。我的是在行政分支。他的是在立法分部。我會說, 人民現在有機會評估他的與我的比較並且我認為他和我遵守什麼人民決定。
史密斯先生: 甘乃迪參議員。
甘乃迪先生: 很好, 我說, 問題是經驗並且問題並且是uh – 是什麼我們的評斷未來, 並且是什麼我們的目標為美國, 並且什麼能力我們必須實施那些目標。1860 年Abraham Lincoln 走向總統的職務在一寧可一點知道的uh 以後- 會議在眾院裡和在被擊敗為參議院以後在五十八和是一位卓越的總統。沒有某一路對總統的職務。沒有保證uh – 如果您採取uh – 一條路或另, 您將是一位成功的總統。我是在國會十四年。我投票了在最後uh – 八年uh – 並且副總統是uh – 主持參議院和遇見他的其它責任。我遇見了遇見的uh – 決定在八百次期間在影響不僅美國的國內安全的事態上, 而是作為參議院外交關係委員會的成員。問題真正地是: 哪名候選人和哪個黨可以遇到問題, 美國面對在60?
史密斯先生: 下個問題對甘乃迪參議員從Novins 先生。
NOVINS 先生: 甘乃迪參議員, 於您講話的這些未來相聯的問題, 和您吐字及早在您的直接談話的節目, 您要求擴展一些福利救濟節目為學校, 為老師薪金, 衛生保健, 等等; 但您並且要求減少聯邦債務。並且我想知道怎麼您, 如果您是總統於1月, 會去支付票據所有這。您的這個手段?
甘乃迪先生: 我沒有表明。我沒有主張減少聯邦債務因為我不相信您能非常減少聯邦債務1961, 二, 或三。我認為您有影響我們的安全, 我們必須見面的重的義務。並且因此我有從未建議我們如果uh – 能極大地退休債務, 甚至根本1961 或二。
NOVINS 先生: 參議員, 我相信- 在您的講話的當中一個中-
甘乃迪先生: 不, 從未。
NOVINS 先生: – 您建議那減少利率會幫助往-
甘乃迪先生: 不。不。不減少興趣-
NOVINS 先生: – 聯邦債務的減少。
甘乃迪先生: – 減少利率。在我的評斷, 堅硬金錢, 緊縮銀根政策, 這管理財政政策對減速貢獻了在我們的經濟, 幫助帶來後退五十四; 哪些使後退五十八相當強烈, 並且哪些減慢了, 有些, 1960 年我們的經濟活動。什麼我談論了, 然而, 我談論了, 在我的評斷的這种節目, 是uh – 財政聲音。衛生保健為變老, 我會投入在社會保險之下。副總統和我不同意在這。節目- Javits 尼克森或尼克森Javits 節目- 由狀態會花費, 如果充分地被使用的uh – 六百百萬美元由政府每年, 和六百百萬美元。我主張, 無法由五個表決美國參議院的節目, 會投入衛生保健為變老在社會保險方面, 和會被支付通過社會保險系統和社會保險稅。第二, 我支持聯邦援助對教育和聯邦援助為老師的薪金。我認為是一種好投資。我認為我們必須做它。並且我認為堆積負擔進一步在財產稅, 已經被勞損在許多我們的社區, 將提供, 將做sh- 保險, 以我所見, 許多我們的孩子不會是充分地教育的, 並且許多我們的老師不充分地補償。沒有其次更加巨大的回歸到經濟或到社會比一個教育系統對無。在自然資源的發展的問題, 我會支付如同您進來在感覺他們會是平衡的並且力量收支把充足的金錢帶回提供經費給項目, 以與田納西谷相似的方式。我相信在平衡預算方面。並且下我會失衡預算的唯一的條件在會是如果有嚴重國家急事或嚴肅的後退。否則, 以經濟增長的平穩的率- 並且尼克森先生和洛克菲勒先生, 在他們的會議, 說百分之五經濟增長會帶來由1962 十十億美元額外在稅收入。什麼被帶來, 我認為, 我們能提供經費給根本節目在一個平衡預算之內, 如果事務依然是井然。
史密斯先生: 尼克森, 您的評論先生?
尼克森先生: 是。我認為什麼先生Novins 提到是沒有甘乃迪參議員的講話的當中一個, 而是民主黨平臺, 提及削減國債。我認為, 同樣, 它應該被指出當然它不是可能的, 特別根據甘乃迪參議員主張, 或削減國債或減少稅的提案。實際上它將是必要提高稅。因為甘乃迪參議員指出那只要他的一個提案- 那個為衛生保健為變老- 那會被提供經費給出於社會保險。, 然而, 提高稅為那些支付社會保險。他指出, 他會做支付和你去是為我們的自然資源發展的依據。那裡我並且支持, 附帶的我們的自然資源發展-, 然而- 每當您uh – uh – – – uh – 合適金錢為這些項目的當中一個, 您必須現在支付並且合適金錢和嗯當他們最終支付, 它不意味您- 政府不必須今年投入金錢。並且我如此會說那總計甘乃迪參議員提出的這些提案, 他們導致二件事的當中一個: 或者他必須提高稅或他必須失衡預算。如果他失衡預算, 那手段您有通貨膨脹, 並且那將是, 當然, 非常殘暴的吹動對人民- 老人- 那我們談論。只要援助為學校建築, 我傾向那, 如同甘乃迪參議員, 於1月今年, 當他說他傾向了那而不是援助對s- 老師薪金。我傾向那因為我相信是最佳的方式援助我們的學校沒有冒任何種風險什麼聯邦政府告訴我們的老師什麼教。
史密斯先生: 下個問題對尼克森副總統從Warren 先生。
WARREN 先生: 副總統先生您提及了學校並且這是我認為的正義昨天您請求崩潰節目提高教育標準, 並且您今晚談論了前進在教育。您副總統, 1957 年先生說- 它回來- 那薪金被支付對學校教師突然是□什麼一種全國恥辱。更高的薪金為老師, 您補充說, 重要並且如果情況未被改正它能導致一個全國災害。仍然, 您拒絕投票在參議院為了打破領帶表決當那個唯一表決, 如果它是是, 會授予增加工資老師。我想知道如果您能解釋那, 先生。
尼克森先生: 我是可怕地高興的您ge- 被得到問題因為因為您知道我獲取了入它我的其它問題為時並且沒有能完成論據。Uh – 我認為原因我投票反對有聯邦政府uh – 薪水老師的薪金大概是原因關心的參議員甘乃迪當於1月今年, 在他的開球新聞招待會, 他說他傾向了援助為學校建築, 但那時沒有認為那裡應該是是方式的援助為老師的薪金- 至少我讀他的評論。現在, 為什麼那裡應該是關於聯邦政府的任何問題援助s- 老師的薪金? 為什麼甘乃迪參議員然後需要了那個位置? 為什麼我現在需要它? 我們兩個然後需要了它, 並且我現在需要它, 因此: 我們想要更高的老師的薪金。我們需要更高的老師的薪金。但我們並且要我們的教育免於聯邦控制。當聯邦政府得到力量支付老師, 不可避免地以我所見, 它將獲取力量規定標準和告訴老師什麼教。我認為這會是壞為國家; 我認為它會是壞為教的行業。有應該提出的其它觀點。我傾向更高的薪金為老師。但, 作為甘乃迪參議員說於1月今年在這次同樣新聞招待會, 您得到更高的薪金為老師的方法將支持學校建築, 意味所有地方學區在各種各樣的狀態然後有被釋放提高標準為老師的薪金的金錢。我應該並且指出這; 一旦您投入責任在聯邦政府對支付老師的薪金的部份, 您的地方社區和您的狀態不遇見責任儘量他們應該。我相信, 換句話說, 我們看了地方社區和狀態承擔更多那責任。老師的薪金非常幸運地攀登百分之五十在最近八年與唯一百分之三十四上升比較為其它薪金。這不是足夠; 它應該是更多。但我不相信, 方式得到更多薪金為老師將安排聯邦政府進貨以一個大節目。我的反對這裡不是費用以美元。我的反對這裡是潛在的費用在控制和最後的自由為美國人由給聯邦政府力量在教育, 並且那是政府可能有的大國。
史密斯先生: 甘乃迪參議員的評論?
甘乃迪先生: 當uh – 副總統引述我於, 1月六十日, 我不相信聯邦政府應該直接地支付老師的薪金, 但那不是問題在參議院之前在2月。問題在參議院是之前金錢會被給狀態。狀態能然後確定是否金錢會花費為學校建築或老師薪金。在那個問題副總統和我不同意。我投票了傾向於那個提案和強烈支持了它, 因為我認為那提供援助對我們的老師為他們的薪金沒有任一次聯邦控制的機會並且是在那個表決th- 我先生尼克森和不同意, 並且他的領帶表決uh – 擊敗了他的打破平局擊敗了提案。我不想要聯邦政府直接地支付老師的薪金。但如果金錢將去狀態並且狀態可能然後確定是否它將去為學校建築或為老師的薪金, 以我所見您保護地方政府在校務委員會和學校委員會。並且因此我認為是一個酣然的提案並且所以我支持了它和我後悔它沒有通過。第二, 有是聲明被做uh – 民主黨平臺會花費很多金錢和我是傾向於失衡預算。那是完全錯誤的, 完全錯誤, 並且這是在最近八年民主黨國會減少了appropri- 要求專有十十億美元的事實。那不是我的意圖並且我認為它應該非常清楚陳述在紀錄。我的意圖是, 您能做這些節目- 和他們應該仔細地被畫- 在一個平衡預算之內如果我們的經濟向前行動。
史密斯先生: 下個問題對甘乃迪參議員從Vanocur 先生。
VANOCUR 先生: 您參議員, 許諾選民如果您被選舉總統您將嘗試和將推擠通過國會票據在醫療援助對變老, 一張全面極小的計時工資票據, 聯邦援助對教育。現在, 在國會的八月崗位大會會議上, 當您至少阻止了可能性您能一天是總統並且當您有決大多數, 特別是在參議院, 您不能得到對這些票據的行動。現在怎麼您認為您能得到他們於1月-
甘乃迪先生: 井如同您採取票據-
VANOCUR 先生: – 如果您沒有能得到他們在8月?
甘乃迪先生: 如果我也許採取票據, 我們通過了在參議院票據uh – 提供一美元二十五分最低工資。它失敗了因為議院沒有通過它和議院未通過十一個表決。並且我也許說, 共和黨人的三分之二在議院裡投票反對一美元二十五分最低工資並且民主人士的大多數承受了它- 幾乎三分之二他們投票支持美元二十五。我們由否決威脅了如果我們通過了一美元和處所- 它是極端困難的以總統做通過任一張票據的大國當總統被反對它。所有總統需要承受任一張票據他的否決是三分之一加上一個在或議院或參議院裡。第二, 我們通過了聯邦援助對教育票據在參議院。它無法對來了到眾院的地板。它被殺害了在管理委員會裡。並且這是一個事實在八月會議上, 是共和黨人加入與二位民主人士管理委員會的四名成員投票反對寄發援助到教育票據到議院的地板。四位民主人士投票支持它。每名共和黨人在管理委員會投票反對送那張票據由眾院的成員考慮。第三, 在衛生保健為變老, 這是繼續二十五年在社會保險方面的同樣戰鬥。我們想栓它對社會保險。我們提供一個校正做如此。四十四位民主人士投票支持它, 一名共和黨人投票支持它。並且我們是消息靈通在它來了到的表決時候如果它被採取了美國總統會否決它。在我的評斷, 一位蒼勁的民主黨總統由民主黨多數支持在參眾兩院裡能贏取支持對於這些節目。但如果您送共和黨總統並且民主黨大多數和否決的威脅垂懸在國會, 在我的評斷您將繼續什麼發生了在八月會議上, 是黨和不活動碰撞。
史密斯先生: 尼克森, 評論先生?
尼克森先生: 井我的意圖明顯地是一少許不同的。首先, 我沒看見怎麼它是可能的為身體的三分之一, 譬如共和黨人有在議院和參議院停止三分之二, 如果三分之二充分地被帶領。我會說, 同樣, 當甘乃迪參議員提到議院管理委員會的行動, 有八位民主人士在那個委員會和四名共和黨人。它再會似乎對我, 它非常難由於八位民主人士的責備四名共和黨人不得到某事通過那個特殊委員會。我進一步會說由於參議員和他的同事的無能責備總統在他的否決權得到行動在這特別會議uh – 錯過標記。當總統行使他的否決權, 他必須有人upo- 在他之後, 不僅國會三分之一。由於我們考慮它。如果國會的成員的多數認為這些特殊提案是好問題- 那些多數是民主人士- 為什麼他們沒有通過他們和沒有送到總統和沒有得到否決和有問題嗎? 原因為什麼這些特殊性法案在被提及了的這些各種各樣的領域未被通過不是因為總統是反對他們; 它是因為人民是反對他們。它是因為他們是太極端。並且我被說服我有, 共和黨人有在健康領域, 在教育領域, 在福利領域的供選擇提案, 因為他們不是極端, 因為他們將完成末端uh – 沒有太了不起的費用以美元或在自由, 他們能得到通過下國會。
史密斯先生: 下個問題對尼克森副總統fa- 從Fleming 先生。
FLEMING 先生: 副總統先生, 我採取它您然後相信您比甘乃迪參議員能工作以民主黨多數在參眾兩院裡能工作更好以民主黨多數在參眾兩院裡?
尼克森先生; 我會說這: 我們, 當然, 準備拾起一些位子在兩個在議院和參議院裡。Uh – 我們會希望控制議院, 得到大多數在議院uh – 在這次競選。我們無法, 當然, 控制參議院。我會說, 總統能帶領- 總統能通過他的節目- 大意是他有國家的支持, 人民的支持。有時我們- 我們得到觀點在得到節目通過議院或參議院這純淨地是立法finagling 和所有那種事的問題。它真正地不是那。每當人民的大多數是為節目, 議院和參議院反應它。並且是否這參眾兩院, 在下個會議上是民主黨或共和黨, 如果國家投票支持候選人為總統的職務和為他提出了的提案, 我相信, 您將發現總統, 如果這是共和黨人, 因為它會是在我的情況, 能得到他的節目通過那國會。現在, 我並且說那只要甘乃迪參議員的提案, 再, 問題不是簡單地一個uh – 總統否決停止節目。您必須總記得, 總統無法停止什麼除非他有人民在他之後。並且原因艾森豪總統的否決被承受了- 國會不送票據到他的原因哪些他們認為將被否決- 是因為人民並且國會, 多數的他們, 知道國家是在總統之後。
史密斯先生: 甘乃迪參議員。
甘乃迪先生: 很好, 我們現在看副總統建議是太極端的這些票據。你是一張票據共計一美元二十五分每小時為任何人在商店或公司中服務有百萬美元一年事務。我不認為是極端根本; 仍然幾乎共和黨人的三分之二到四分之三在眾院裡投票反對那個提案。第二是聯邦援助對教育票據。這- 這非常是一uh – 由於老師薪金失敗, 它不是uh – 適應以我所見需要的票據。問題的事實是它是是較少的票據比您推薦了, 尼克森先生, 今晨在您的提案。這不是一張極端票據仍然我們不能使一名共和黨人加入, 至少我認為四八位民主人士投票送它到議院的地板- 沒有一名共和黨人- 並且他們加入與被反對它的那些民主人士。我不說民主人士被團結在節目的他們的支持。但我說大多數是。並且我說共和黨人的大多數被反對它。三是衛生保健為變老被栓對社會保險, 被提供經費在社會保險資金外面。它不投入缺乏在財寶。提案推進了由您並且由先生Javits 會花費六百成千上萬美元- 洛克菲勒先生rejected 它在紐約, 說他沒有同意財務根本, 說它應該是在社會保險。如此這些是是相當適度的三個節目。我認為它顯示出區別在雙方之間。一個黨準備好行動這些節目。另一黨給他們嘴唇服務。
史密斯先生: Warren 先生的問題為甘乃迪參議員。
WARREN 先生: 甘乃迪參議員, 在其它主題, 共產主義那麼經常被描述作為思想體系或存在某處除在美國之外的信仰。讓我要求您, 先生: 多麼嚴肅威脅今天是對我們的國家安全這些共產主義顛覆活動在美國?
甘乃迪先生: 很好, 我認為他們是嚴肅的。我認為這是我們應該繼續對uh 的事情- 授予uh – 巨大關心和注意。我們應該支持美國通過為了保護我們免受uh – 的uh – 法律那些會毀壞我們從內。我們應該承受uh – 司法部在它的努力和F.B.I., 和我們應該是連續地機敏的。我認為如果美國贍養一個堅強的社會這裡在美國, 我認為, 我們能遇見任一個內部威脅。主要威脅是外在的, 將繼續。
史密斯先生: 尼克森, 評論先生?
尼克森先生: 我同意甘乃迪參議員的評估一般對此。共產主義的問題在美國範圍內是一個讓我們擔心從前。它是一將繼續是一個問題幾年來來。我們必須記得, Khrushchev 先生發起的冷戰並且他的同事從事, 從事得全世界並且它從事這裡在美國。所以我們必須繼續是機敏的。它是還根本的在是裡機敏的, 我們是公正的; 公正因為由是公正的我們維護共產主義者會毀壞的自由。我們維護他們從未會跟隨品行的標準。並且, 在這連接, 我認為那uh – 我們必須看對未來有在頭腦裡事實我們在家與共產主義戰鬥不僅由我們的法律應付共產主義者uh – 少數成為共產主義者和少數成為tra- 旅客, 但我們在家並且與共產主義戰鬥由行動反對存在在我們的社會共產主義者餵養的那些各種各樣的不公道。並且在那連接我再會說當甘乃迪參議員說我們是為現狀, 我相信他uh – 會同意我是正懇切的在相信我的提議對於聯邦援助對教育, 我的提議對於醫療保健是正懇切地舉行作為他的。問題再不是目標- 我們的當中一個是為那些目標- 它是手段的當中一個。
史密斯先生: Vanocur 先生的問題為尼克森副總統。
VANOCUR 先生: uh 先生副總統- 在您的更加早期的聲明的當中一個中您說我們向前搬走了, 我們修建了更多學校, 我們修造了更多醫院。現在, 先生, 它不是真實的, 更多學校大廈是一件地方事情為財務? Uh – 您聲稱艾森豪威爾政府負責對這些學校大廈, 或是這提供它的地方學區?
尼克森先生: 。實際上您的問題提出點, 我是非常高興做。在太經常估價不管我們搬走向前或不是我們認為只什麼聯邦政府做□。即然不是測試是否美國行動。測試是否美國移動是是否聯邦政府, 加上州政府, 加上當地政府, 加上所有的最大的段- 單獨企業- 移動。我們有例如大約五百十億美元國內總產值。大致一百十億到一百和四分之一十億那是政府活動的結果。四百十億, 近似地, 是什麼的結果個體。現在, 艾森豪威爾政府行動了的原因, 原因我們有資金, 例如, 當地修建學校, 並且醫院, 並且高速公路, 獲得我們有的進展, 是因為這管理鼓勵了單獨企業; 並且它導致經濟的私營部門的最巨大的擴展曾經被目擊了在8 年的期間。並且那是成長。那是我們尋找的成長; 這是這管理支持了並且它的政策刺激了的成長。
史密斯先生: 甘乃迪參議員。
甘乃迪先生: 很好, 我必須說, 原因學校被修建了是因為地方學區是願意增加財產稅對一個巨大地高指數- 以我所見, 對點報酬減少為了幾乎承受這些學校。第二, 我認為我們有一富有的uh – 國家。並且我認為我們有一個強有力的國家。我認為什麼我們必須做, 然而, 是安排總統和領導被設置在我們的國家確切地之前什麼我們必須做在下十年, 如果我們維護我們的安全在教育, 在經濟增長, 在自然資源的開發中。蘇聯做巨大獲取。它不是足夠比較什麼也許已□做了八年前, 或十年前, 或十五年前, 或二十年前。我想要比較什麼我們做□與什麼我們的敵人做□, 以便至1970 美國是向前在教育, 在健康, 在大廈, 在家, 在經濟實力。我認為是大任務, 大任務, 聯邦政府的大作用。
史密斯先生: 我可以有總和時間請嗎? 我們完成了我們的問題和我們的評論, 並且在片刻內, 我們將有總和時間。
聲音: 這允許三分鐘和二十秒為總和將由各名候選人。
SM1TH 先生: 三分鐘和二十秒為各名候選人。尼克森副總統, 您將做第一總和嗎?
尼克森先生: 謝謝, 史密斯先生。甘乃迪參議員。首先, 我認為它將很好投入在我們真正地站立關於蘇聯在成長這全部事項的透視。蘇聯比我們有快速地行動。但那的原因是顯然的。他們開始從一個更低的基地。雖然他們比我們有快速地搬走成長, 我們發現, 例如, 今天, 他們的總國內總產值是只我們的總國內總產值的百分之四十四。那是同樣百分比, 它是二十年前。並且就absolute 空白有關, 我們發現美國比它二十年前向前是更加進一步。這個任何原因是為自滿嗎? 由於這些是堅定的人。他們是狂熱人。並且我們必須使非常大多數uh – 在uh 之外- 脫離我們的經濟。我完全地同意甘乃迪參議員因此。那裡我們不同意是在我們曾經使多數脫離我們的經濟的手段。我恭敬地遞交, 甘乃迪參議員太經常會依靠太多聯邦政府, 在什麼它會做解決我們的問題, 刺激成長。我相信當我們審查民主黨平臺, 當我們審查他今晚談論的提案, 當我們他們與我提出了的提案比較, 他的這些提案提出不導致更加偉大的成長為這個國家比會是實際情形如果我們跟隨了我主張了的節目。有他提出的許多觀點我希望評論。那個在健康領域值得提及。Javits 參議員和其它共和黨參議員, 以及我支持- 的我們的健康節目- 那個是一個為所有人民提供六十五誰想要健康保險, 機會有它如果他們想要它。它提供選擇有或政府保險或私有保險。但它強迫沒人有不想要它的保險。他的節目在社會保險之下, 會要求大家有社會保險採取政府健康保險不管他想要它。並且它不會蓋幾由社會保險不包括根本的百萬人民。這我認為的一個地方我們的節目做一個更好的工作比他的。我會提出的另一觀點是這: 這降低等級多少事花費我認為許多我們的人民將瞭解更好他們看什麼發生了當- 在杜魯門政府期間當政府花費更多比它採取了- 我們發現了儲款在終身由通貨膨脹吃光。我們找到能最少買得起它的人民- 居於在退休的收入uh – 人們在固定收入- 我們發現了他們無法遇見他們的票據月底。它是必要的一定是這個國家立場總統為每個節目將意味為成長的一個人。並且我代表將意味成長和進展的節目。但它是還必要的他不允許能由人民更好花費的一美元花費了。
史密斯先生: 甘乃迪, 您的結論參議員。
甘乃迪先生: 觀點由尼克森先生提出了, 蘇聯生產是只我們的百分之四十四。我必須說那百分之四十四和那個蘇聯國家導致我們很多麻煩今晚。我想要確信, 它停留在那個關係。我不想要看天當這是我們的百分之六十, 並且我們的七十和七十五和八十和百分之九十, 用它能利用為了導致我們的破壞的所有力量和力量。第二, 副總統提及了衛生保健為變老。我們的節目是校正對Kerr 票據。Kerr 票據提供援助對那些不是在社會保險。我認為這是一個非常清楚對比。1935 年, 當社會保險法案被寫了, 九十四喪失九十五名共和黨人投票反對它。1936 年Landon 先生跑撤銷它。在8月1960 年, 當我們設法再得到它, 僅這時候為衛生保健, 我們接受了一名共和黨人支持在參議院在這個場合。第三, 我認為問題在美國人是之前: 當他們看這個國家並且當他們看世界在他們附近, 目標是同樣為所有美國人。手段是在問題。手段爭論中。如果您認為一切現在做□是令人滿意, 那相對力量和美國的聲望和力量增加關於那共產主義者; 我們有b- 獲取更多安全, 那我們達到一切作為我們應該達到的國家, 我們達到更好的生活為我們的公民和更加巨大的力量, 那麼我同意。我認為您應該投票支持尼克森先生。但如果您認為我們必須再搬走60, 那總統的作用將設置在人民之前我們的社會的未完成的事務如同Franklin Roosevelt 做了在三十, 議程為我們的人民- 什麼我們必須做作為社會適應我們的需要在這個國家和保護我們的安全和幫助自由的起因。作為I 說在開始, 問題在我們之前所有, 面對所有共和黨人和所有民主人士, 是: 自由在下一代可能征服, 或共產主義者是成功的嗎? 那是巨大問題。並且如果我們遇見我們的責任我認為自由將征服。如果我們失敗, 如果我們不向前搬走, 如果我們不開發充足的軍事和經濟和社會力量這裡在這個國家, 我然後認為uh – 浪潮能開始運行反對我們。並且我不要史學家, 十年從現在起, 說, 這些是歲月當浪潮用盡了為美國。我要他們說這些是歲月當浪潮進來; 這些是歲月當美國開始再行動。那是問題在美國人之前, 並且只您能決定什麼您想要, 什麼您要這個國家是, 什麼您想要做以未來。我認為我們準備好行動。並且它是對那偉大任務, 如果我們是成功的, 我們對演講。
史密斯先生: 謝謝, 先生們。這個小時由所有太迅速去。謝謝允許我們提出下名美國總統在這個獨特的節目。我由候選人請求感謝美國網路和附屬的駐地提供時刻和設施為這次聯合出現。其它辯論在這個系列以後將宣佈和將是在不同的主題。這是霍華德・K. 史密斯。晚上好從芝加哥。
?
?
要成為辯論高手，不能只靠表達能力，更要靠思維能力；簡單的說──凡欲成就辯才者，必先練其腦才，輔以出眾口才，則大事可成。
主辯:在辯論賽中擔當整組的代表人物,主要的辯論工作都由主辯負責
助辯:協助主辯,替主辯的漏洞做出掩飾,並幫忙找出對方的漏洞
結辯:由主辯發表,結辯要強而有力,收尾俐落,有好的結辯可以增加自己的勝算
準備，是指參賽隊員在賽前對”論辯賽”的性質和特點要有所認識。我們知道屬於口頭論辯的大致有三類：一類是專門場合下進行的有特定議題的論辯，如談判論辯、法庭論辯；一類是由日常生活中、工作中的矛盾引起的人與人之間的爭辯，如鄰里爭辯、同事間爭辯、上下級爭辯；再一類就是各種形式的論辯賽。前兩種論辯，論辯雙方各自有明確的立場和主張，辯論的目的是爲了說服對方接受自己的觀點或爭取第三者支援自己的觀點。於此同時，自己也有被對方說服或作出妥協的心理準備。論辯賽則不同，論辯賽是一咱作爲比賽專案來進行的類比論辯（即論辯演習）。這種論辯往往不問論辯者本人的立場和主張，而側重於人們的論辯技巧的比賽。比賽雙方都不準備說服對方或被對方說服，而以駁倒對方、爭取評委的裁決和聽衆的反響來擊敗對方。因此，這種比賽有以下三個特點：
1.論辯的題目、論辯的程式、發言的時間等，都是由論辯賽的組織者所決定，參賽者必須按規定進行論辯，不能隨意改變。
2.比賽勝負標準包括立論、材料、辭令、風度以及應變技巧等綜合因素、勝負由評委根據標準及主觀印象進行裁定。
3.論辯時只能針對對方的觀點和理由進行攻擊，而不能涉及對方的立場和人品。
初賽者瞭解了論辯賽的這些性質和特點，就不會在比賽中，在思想和方法上與日常爭辯相混淆。
某隊初次參加論辯賽，到正式臨辯時，他們突然發現黑板上寫的辯題爲《當今青年一代是否缺乏社會責任感》，而他們事行準備的辯題卻是《當今青年學生是否缺乏社會責任感》。某隊經過初賽、復賽進入了決賽，在決賽開賽前，突然聽到比賽主持人宣佈各方允許發言時間比初賽、復賽時增加一倍，而他們事先卻按初賽、復賽規定的時間準備辯詞。更有甚者，進入賽場後，雙方才發現誰爲正方誰爲反方都未搞清楚。凡此種種，都是由於初賽者缺乏經驗，在事先準備過程中缺少仔細核對有關比賽事項這一環所造成的。
前面已經說過，論辯賽是一項新近發展起來的比賽專案，目前雖有”國際雄辯賽”這樣大型的論辯賽，但還沒有統一的比賽規則。事實上，論辯賽的規模有大有小，層次有高有低，各主辦單位的具體要求也會因時因地而不盡相同，所以論辯賽的規則也很難趨於統一。既然目前論辯賽的規則難於統一，這就要求參賽者在接到比賽通知後，不能立即簡單地按照通知上的要求去準備，更不能想當然去準備，而應設法主動地找主辦單位仔細核對一下通知上各項比賽規定和要求是否實無誤，包括辯題的確切的字面樣子，正反方所屬，論辯程式細則，各位隊員的分工和允許發言時間等，這既是爲了確保本方準備辯詞時無誤，又是爲了防止主辦單位的工作上有可能失誤。一些主辦單位本身也是初次主辦論辯賽，由於缺乏經驗，難免出現疏忽，包括通知傳遞時的差錯，這就要求參賽者每次都要主動認真地核對有關比賽事宜，以使比賽獲勝取得起碼保證。
辯題被明確無誤地確認後，參賽隊員就可以根據辯題，共同商量，研究確立一個最有利於本方論證的具體的總論點。所謂最有利於本方，就是指該總論點不僅觀點正確，旗幟鮮明，而且用之攻能破對方任何的立論，用之守能抵擋對方的任何攻擊。能不能確立這樣一個總論點是一次論辯賽準備的成敗關鍵。
爲了要確立這樣一個總論點，首先要對辯題進行嚴格的審題，也就是要對辯題字面上的每個詞或片語逐個進行概念分析，即通常所說的”破題”。這種分析要同時站在雙方的立場審視，不能一廂情願。尤其是要分析出哪些詞或片語對對方立論具有潛在的有利因素，可能成爲雙方首先爭論的焦點，因爲一般的論辯賽雙方都會抓住辯題中的某個詞項解釋入手開始辯論，有時會出現整個論辯賽始終圍繞這種解釋來進行。因此，儘量設法站在一定理論高度，對辯題作出有利於本方觀點的界定，以獲得大多數聽衆的”公認”，是極爲重要的一環。
論辯隊要想在正式比賽中獲勝，一定要在正式比賽前搞一次嘗試性的比賽，以檢驗自己的賽前準備是否經得起實際的考驗。爲了達到檢驗的效果，試辯條件和氣氛要儘量搞得逼真些，這就需要在正式參賽隊員進入準備階段的同時，應有一支與之實力相當的假設”對方”也進入準備階段，並且雙方都應處於”保密”狀態。不過，爲了增加正式隊員的一些難度，正式隊員應故意泄露些立論方面的要點，來吸引”假設對方”作有針對性的進攻準備，用之在試辯中檢驗參賽一方的立論和戰略戰術是否能奏效。
試辯的另一個意圖，是讓參賽隊員進入角色。前面已經說過，論辯賽的最大特點就是辯題觀點不一定與論辯者本人最初的觀點相一致，就像某些演員本身的性格與劇中人的性格不一致一樣，需要深入生活，深入實踐才能進入角色。論辯賽在比賽過程中不僅有理信紙上的正面交鋒，還辯論風度、情態等方面的表演，通過試辯往往能促使參賽隊員不僅在理論上，而且在情感上也完全站在所持的辯題觀念上，以便逼真地表現出理直氣壯、慷慨激昂、義正辭嚴而又通情達理地維護真理的樣子。對於初賽者來說，試辯還可以先鍛煉一下上場的膽量，培養一下臨場的經驗。