Christian groups in South Korea are calling on the World Evangelical Alliance to put on hold plans for its next General Assembly in Seoul next year.

I know these Presidential debates aren’t debates in the historical sense.  Regardless, I’m looking forward to seeing how both men do on a topic of immense complexity.  Is Mitt Romney going to be more forthcoming about what tax deductions he’d want cut to keep his tax reform plan from ballooning the deficit?  Will President Obama  give more detail about how he would improve the economy, short of a government stimulus that could never get through a GOP Congress?

I’ll be live tweeting during the debate.  Join me @AirTalk #debates.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

I thoroughly enjoyed the VP debate and its fast paced back-and-forth.  Democrats had to love Joe Biden's energy and willingness to challenge Paul Ryan on almost every point.  Republicans had to love Ryan's poise and discipline in how he handled himself, even as Biden was dismissing him throughout the 90-minutes.

Both of our "AirTalk" political strategists, Democrat Darry Sragow and Republican Jonathan Wilcox, agreed that Biden's performance fired up the Democratic base and provided tremendous relief after the President's flat performance the week before.  However, they also agreed that it wasn't likely to have much effect on the small number of undecided voters still out there.

The passionate performances of the VP candidates certainly sets a higher bar for the next Presidential candidates debate.  Will Obama and Romney up their games on Tuesday?  I suspect most of us will be tuning in to see.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

I’ll be live tweeting @AirTalk tonight during the debate.  Of greatest interest to me about President Obama is whether he’ll be able to crisply make his arguments and maintain a high level of energy for the full 90-minutes.  With Mitt Romney I’ll be looking to see whether he can loosen up in the town hall format and make a good connection with the questioners.

What was most striking for me about the first debate was how strongly Romney played with women.  That had been a huge problem for him throughout the campaign.  In fact, a couple of months ago I joked about the “ten single women in the country who were voting for Romney.”  He found a way to connect with women two weeks ago and he’ll attempt to build on that tonight.  The President, obviously, hopes to reverse his loss.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

US President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney debate on October 16, 2012 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Undecided voters asked questions during a town hall format.; Credit: STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

There continue to be questions about how moderators approach Presidential debates and about whether the extra time President Obama has received in the first two debates indicates moderator bias in his favor. 

I had chalked up the concerns to Republican hyper-partisanship, such as we saw with many Democrats criticizing Jim Lehrer for his moderating — as though Obama would’ve won the first debate if only Lehrer had asserted himself more.   However, even CNN has been doing significant follow-up on its own Candy Crowley’s performance in debate number two. 

Maybe it’s not just hardcore GOP loyalists who are questioning Crowley’s decision-making on when to cut in and when to allow the candidates to take more time. I thought she did pretty well, but there are plenty of critics.

As someone who has moderated hundreds of debates, I thought I’d share my thoughts on what we’ve seen so far in this election. Though I’ve never moderated a Presidential debate, with its incredible level of attention, concern about rules, and demands by campaigns, there are certain fundamentals regardless of the office or issue at stake.

Time Doesn't Matter...Too Much
First, as strange as this may sound, the time taken by each candidate has little to do with who has an advantage.   Yes, it’s always possible for a candidate to use another minute to fire off the defining line of the night. However, the well-practiced zingers or essential policy explainers are not left to the end of a candidate’s statement, as the clock is running out. 

I’m sure Mitt Romney wasn’t thinking after the last debate, “If only I would’ve had that extra 90-seconds, and Obama hadn’t gotten 90 more than he deserved.”  Both men front-loaded their major talking points and were going to get them in. Neither man could legitimately say he didn’t have a chance to make his strongest points. At some point, a time advantage could make a difference in who wins or loses, but an extra 90-seconds in a debate longer than 90-minutes isn’t going to do it.

Serving The Audience
As a moderator, you also have to think about what best serves your audience. I never guarantee candidates equal time, as it’s my job to serve the listeners, not their campaigns. I strive to get close to equal time, but can’t make any guarantee. Some speakers get to the point succinctly and have their points well put together. Others are messier in their arguments and eat up time just building up any head of steam. 

If the moderator holds to a strict time limit, you run the risk of frustrating listeners by cutting off the rambler just as the candidate is getting to the point. There are methods a moderator can use to help guide the speaker toward being more succinct, but there’s no guarantee the person will be able to comply.

Isn’t this inherently unfair to the succinct speaker? No. The purpose of the debate is to allow the ideas to compete.  It’s not a boxing match that’s about landing punches in a given time. The succinct debater has a big advantage, regardless of how much time the candidate has. That’s why Mitt Romney’s victory in the first debate was so lopsided — he won on the conciseness and clarity of his answers, coupled with Obama’s inability to get to his central points.  Obviously, there are those who thought Obama’s arguments were still more compelling than Romney’s, and that Romney lacked essential details.  However, for most viewers of the first debate, it was stylistically no contest.

Equal Time Is Not A Guarantee
When candidates are allowed to talk to each other directly, it’s very difficult to assure equal time. Even CNN’s clock that registers elapsed time for each candidate is subject to squishiness. Unless a debate is extremely formal, with carefully controlled time limits and a ban on candidates following-up with each other, you’re only going to have an approximation of time balance. I thought Crowley did pretty well to land the second debate with the balance she did. I’m not sure I could get it that close for a debate of that length. She had the added challenge of trying to determine when to cut in on President Obama’s lengthier answers. Also, Romney’s speaking rhythm allows more space for interruption. It’s tougher to break in on Obama.

Moderating Is A Balancing Act
Moderators are always trying to balance a need to move on to the next topic with allowing a candidate to answer an opponent’s charge. Sometimes, you open that door for a candidate, only to regret it later when the politician starts into a monologue, instead of confining the response to the previous challenge. Sometimes moderators, having gotten burned, will become less tolerant of such expansive rebuttals, as the debate goes on. Moderators are always juggling competing goals, and it’s a difficult job (at least for me).

Unfortunately, there are those who think debate moderators attempt to influence the outcome of the debate and the performances of the candidates. Maybe I’m naïve, but I can’t imagine any journalist who’s worked hard enough to get to the position of Presidential debate moderator subordinating his or her career in an effort to getting someone elected. Mainstream political journalism is like national sports reporting. You really don’t care who wins the Super Bowl, you want great story lines to explore with your audience. Yes, sports reporters have affinities for the hometown teams of their youth, but that can’t compete with the professional goal of covering great stories. 

Yes, most journalists in mainstream media probably have a stronger cultural and political affinity for Obama, as he’s more like them. However, it doesn’t mean a journalist is going to sacrifice the better story to intentionally provide a benefit to the President.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Behavior-based safety has been practiced since the Ford Motor Company used it to increase seat belt usage in 1970s. Controversy has dogged it ever since, especially in the 1980s and 1990s when the BBS bandwagon attracted a small army of consultants.

TASHKENT, 20 May 2015 – A two-day workshop on cyber and ICT security issues began in Tashkent today. The event brought together some 40 participants, including 10 international experts from Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK, USA as well as representatives of the national parliament, judiciary, ministries for information technology, foreign affairs, academia and law enforcement agencies.

The event facilitated discussions among international and national experts on global, regional and bilateral efforts to enhance international Cyber Security. Best practice and lessons learned in investigations in the field of counter-narrative strategies to counter extremism online as well as countering the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes were also debated. Participants also discussed current threats in cybercrime, local legislations and strategies in use.

“Cybercrime is a new kind of threat that makes people vulnerable to cyber-criminals who can commit crimes against victims located thousands of kilometres away”, stated Deputy Head of Police Academy, Abror Otajonov, in his opening remarks. “This threat to our security can only be addressed by ensuring close international cooperation and adopting comprehensive national policies and developing relevant capacities”.

Ben Hiller, Cyber Security Officer of the OSCE Transnational Threats Department, said: ”With its comprehensive and inclusive approach the OSCE represents a bridge between different national and international approaches to tackling cyber/ICT threats and allows various stakeholders dealing with different cyber threats to move forward in a complementary manner.“

This event was organized in co-operation with the OSCE Transnational Threats Department, as part of the multi-year support provided by the OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Uzbekistan to the National Police Academy to improve the staff training system. 

Related Stories

• OSCE promotes implementation of effective traffic safety measures in Uzbekistan
• OSCE Project Co-ordinator lights up central Tashkent with 20 solar-powered street lamps
• OSCE launches training seminar for Uzbek journalists on human trafficking

A televised debate hosted by the Montenegrin Public Service Broadcaster and supported by the OSCE Mission on 2 May 2016, ahead of World Press Freedom Day, raised on awareness about the threats to media freedoms and specific problems facing journalism as a profession.

Taking part in the debate were Nikola Markovic, Editor-in-Chief of daily Dan; Tufik Sofitc, Acting Director of Radio Berane, journalist of daily Vijesti and weekly Monitor, and currently under police protection; Ranko Vujovic, Executive Secretary of the Media Council for Self-Regulation ; Marijana Bojanic, Executive Director of Vijesti Television; and Drasko Djuranovic, Editor-in-Chief of the daily Pobjeda.

Among the issues highlighted were problems related to the polarized media industry in Montenegro, different pressures on journalists, state-financing subsidies and the media market, the social standing of journalists, and the lack of solidarity.

Panellists agreed that the amended Code of Ethics for media professionals is a major step forward which has improved co-operation among the media but the focus now should be on its implementation.

 “In order to achieve and practice the freedom of expression, it is necessary to have a strong and independent media, and in order to have that, it is essential to ensure their sustainability,” said Bojanic. 

The TV debate is available in the Montenegrin language.

Related Stories

• OSCE Mission to Montenegro-supported campaign on benefits of composting kicks-off in Pljevlja
• OSCE Mission to Montenegro supports seminar on strengthening co-operation between prosecutors and police on forensic evidence
• Head of the OSCE Mission highlights the media’s crucial role in building democracy

New storms and flooding hit Spain's southern Malaga province as EU debates crisis management

MEPs debate future EU-US relations against backdrop of US administration change

An 11-page document that’s attributed to a Pentagon whistleblower has provided new cases in the controversy over unidentified anomalous phenomena — also known as UAPs, unidentified flying objects or UFOs. The document, released today in conjunction with a House subcommittee hearing on UAPs, lays out details about what’s said to be a special access program …

Continue reading "Congressional Hearing Fuels Fresh Debate About UFOs"

The post Congressional Hearing Fuels Fresh Debate About UFOs appeared first on Universe Today.

[This is a guest post by Conal Boyce] Recently I watched a video posted by Alexander Unzicker, a no-nonsense physicist who often criticizes Big Science (along the same lines as Sabine Hossenfelder — my hero). But in this case (link below) I was surprised to see Unzicker play back a conversation between himself and ChatGPT, […]

The members of the House debated the role of lack of integration, antisemitism within the Muslim population, and failure of authority in a discussion about the attacks.

Dutch parliamentarians clashed on Wednesday in a heated debate to discuss the attacks on Israeli fans after a football match last week, with some lawmakers pointing fingers and others urging unity.

The Netherlands is still dealing with the political fallout from last week’s violence in Amsterdam, when fans of Tel Aviv Maccabi were assaulted by men on scooters in several parts of the capital.

Five Macabi fans were briefly hospitalised after being beaten up following a match with the local Ajax team last Thursday, in what Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof termed an incident of “unadulterated anti-Semitism”.

After the match, groups of men on scooters engaged in “hit-and-run” attacks on Maccabi fans in areas of the city.

Police said the attackers were mobilised by calls on social media to target Jewish people.

Far-right MP Geert Wilders, leader of the biggest party in the coalition government, said the perpetrators of the violence against Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were “all Muslims” and “for the most part Moroccans”.

The anti-Islam Wilders called for the attackers to be prosecuted “for terrorism.”

“For the first time since the Second World War there was a hunt on Jews,” Wilders said, adding “I am sick of being criticised when I tell the truth.”

But the firebrand MP drew the ire of opposition parties, who accused him of “adding fuel to fire”.

‘Dividing the country’

While unanimously condemning the violence, left-wing parties have called for dialogue with the Muslim community instead of “dividing the country”.

“I share the condemnation of the violence in Amsterdam and yes, there was indeed anti-Semitic violence,” left-wing opposition leader Frans Timmermans said.

“You are simply stoking the fires while this country has a need for politicians to unite people and find solutions,” Timmermans told Wilders.

Amsterdam mayor Femke Halsema on Tuesday called the attacks a “poisonous cocktail” of anti-Semitism and hooliganism.

Events ahead of the match heightened tensions, including anti-Arab chants by Maccabi fans, who also set fire to a Palestinian flag on the city’s central square and vandalising a taxi.

After the match, which passed off peacefully, reports emerged of social media calls to attack Jews, Amsterdam police said.

The violence took place against the backdrop of an increasingly polarised Europe, with heightened tensions following a rise in antisemitic, anti-Israeli and Islamophobic attacks since the start of the Gaza conflict.

The Dutch PM indicated that the government would present concrete steps to tackle antisemitism on Friday.

Eight people remained in custody over the violence.

A stunning video of lava flowing over snow in Iceland has gone viral, captivating viewers worldwide. Captured by Icelandic photographer Jeroen Van Nieuwenhove, the mesmerizing footage showcases a steady stream of lava swiftly moving across a pristine snow-covered landscape at Sundhnúkagígar

The assisted suicide debate now before the US Supreme Court.

Call for debate on ISKCON changes to Srila Prabhupada's established system of management.

RSS is commonly defined as really simple syndication. So, this means that any material contained in a feed is available for syndication, right? Well no, not exactly. It means that the content contained in an RSS feed is in a format that is syndication friendly, if the copyright holder allows for syndication. Offering a feed for syndication does not in fact grant any legal rights to anyone to reuse the feeds content beyond what the Copyright laws grant as Fair Use.

RSS' Copyright Debate

[UNDP] Addressing the climate crisis and building a more gender equal world

December 15, 2005 – Yesterday the House of Representatives voted to renew certain provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of this month. The bill now moves to the Senate, where debate is scheduled to begin on Thursday. But in an odd twist, a bipartisan group of six senators is threatening to filibuster the bill unless certain civil liberties guarantees are made. If the bill does make it to a vote, it has the votes to pass. But there is a 50-50 chance that the filibuster will hold which means the New Year could begin with significantly scaled back federal surveillance powers.

December 16, 2005 – In a stunning defeat for the White House, the Senate failed to end a filibuster that is preventing a vote to make sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act permanent law. The provisions, which give the government sweeping search and seizure powers, are due to expire at the end of this month. But a grass roots movement combined with news of abuses of power on the part of the administration, have given civil rights activists real hope that the provisions will never make it to a vote.

RSS is commonly defined as really simple syndication. So, this means that any material contained in a feed is available for syndication, right? Well no, not exactly. It means that the content contained in an RSS feed is in a format that is syndication friendly, if the copyright holder allows for syndication. Offering a feed for syndication does not in fact grant any legal rights to anyone to reuse the feeds content beyond what the Copyright laws grant as Fair Use.

RSS Copyright Debate

Are we living in the "Brave New World" of Aldous Huxley?

F1 did something it has never done before last weekend and moved a race start time earlier. But did that affect your ability to watch?

WE have all experienced it – engaging in a discussion where new information or an opposing viewpoint makes us feel like doubling down on our beliefs rather than reconsidering them. This phenomenon, known as the backfire effect, occurs when people react
to contradictory information by holding more firmly to their existing beliefs.

The backfire effect can create a barrier to constructive dialogue, fostering defensiveness and preventing us from learning, evolving and understanding each other. With complex social issues on the rise, understanding the backfire effect and learning how to counteract it is essential to creating productive and respectful conversations.

The backfire effect is most common in debates involving personal values or issues closely tied to identity, such as opinions on social, environmental or political matters.

For example, in Malaysia, discussions on humane stray management or environmental policy can often spark passionate debates where each side becomes more rooted in their stance.

Recognising when the backfire effect is influencing a conversation can help us redirect it, moving from argument to dialogue and creating spaces for understanding and potential solutions.

At its core, the backfire effect is rooted in psychological defensiveness. When people’s beliefs are challenged, particularly on issues they are deeply invested in, it can feel like a threat to their sense of self.

Psychologists suggest that this is because we tend to intertwine certain beliefs with our identity, making it difficult to separate disagreement with an idea from a personal attack. This effect is more pronounced when discussing issues tied to social identity, politics or moral values.

Additionally, the fear of admitting error can make us cling to our views. If we have championed a particular idea or belief, admitting that we may have been mistaken can be uncomfortable. The backfire effect is a subconscious way of defending against this discomfort by rejecting new information and doubling down on previous beliefs.

Techniques for engaging in constructive debates

Understanding the backfire effect is the first step towards overcoming it, but real progress requires adopting strategies that can help us and others engage in more open, constructive discussions.

Here are several techniques to help foster productive dialogue,
reduce defensiveness and encourage open-mindedness:

Lead with curiosity, not conviction

Entering a conversation with a desire to understand rather than persuade is essential. Leading with curiosity helps set a collaborative tone, showing others that you are genuinely interested in their perspective.

For example, if someone disagrees with humane stray management practices like trap-neuter-release (TNR), you may start by saying, “I’m interested in your view – what experiences shape your opinion on this?”

This approach can disarm defensiveness and invite the person to share their experiences, making them more likely to reciprocate by considering your perspective.

Share stories, not just statistics

Facts and figures are essential but they often fail to connect emotionally. To counter the backfire effect, try sharing personal stories or experiences instead of relying solely on statistics.

For instance, in conversations about environmental policy, instead of only quoting data about pollution or deforestation, share a personal story about how environmental changes have affected your community or family. Stories humanise issues, making it easier for others to empathise and consider different viewpoints.

Emphasise shared goals and values

Even when opinions differ, finding common ground can help make the conversation more collaborative. For instance, both sides of a debate on environmental policies may share the same goal – a cleaner environment and a better quality of life – but disagree on how to achieve it.

By highlighting these shared values, you shift the conversation from an “us vs them” dynamics to a joint problem-solving approach. Statements like “we both want what is best for future generations; we just have different ideas about how to get there” can help bridge divides and reduce defensiveness.

Introduce new information gradually

Presenting too much information at once can make people feel overwhelmed, triggering a defensive response. Instead, offer new ideas or evidence in small, manageable pieces.

For example, if discussing environmental laws, introduce one or two key points rather than a long list of statistics. Gradual information- sharing allows individuals to process new perspectives without feeling pressured to accept them immediately, which can reduce the likelihood of the backfire effect.

Reframe disagreements as learning opportunities

Changing the way you frame a discussion can help mitigate defensiveness. Rather than seeing a debate as a “battle” to be won, approach it as a chance to learn.

This mindset shift encourages openness and reduces the need for defensiveness. When someone feels that a discussion is about sharing knowledge rather than proving a point, they are more likely to listen and engage constructively.

Know when to step back

Not every debate will lead to agreement, and that is okay. If a discussion becomes heated or begins to feel unproductive, it may be time to disengage respectfully.

Try phrases like, “I appreciate hearing your perspective, and I think we may have to agree to disagree for now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.”

This approach allows both parties to leave
the conversation without feeling pressured, preserving the relationship for future discussions.

In Malaysia, topics like stray animal management and environmental policies are prime examples of where the backfire effect
often arises.

On one side, many advocate for humane and sustainable stray management practices, such as TNR, which can reduce stray populations over time. Others, however, may believe in stricter measures, fearing that strays could pose health or safety risks.

In such debates, the backfire effect can quickly escalate, with both sides becoming more entrenched as they try to defend their views.

To move forward constructively, a focus on shared goals – like safer communities and reduced stray populations – can shift the conversation from debate to dialogue.

In Malaysia, environmental policies are at a crossroads, often sparking strong opinions due to their impact across different economic levels.

Stricter policies aimed at protecting natural resources are crucial, yet they also raise concerns about their potential economic burden on lower-income communities, who may rely heavily on resource-based jobs.

Balancing the urgent need for environmental protection with the livelihoods of these communities is complex but essential.

A sustainable path forward lies in building
a common ground around shared values – a commitment to a clean, healthy environment alongside economic stability for all. This inclusive approach can help foster productive dialogue and more resilient, equitable policies.

Ultimately, overcoming the backfire effect requires us to approach conversations with empathy, open-mindedness and a willingness to understand where others are coming from.

Constructive debates are less about changing someone’s mind on the spot and more about creating a space where learning and growth are possible.

By leading with curiosity, sharing personal stories and finding common ground, we
can transform difficult conversations into opportunities for connection and progress.

Dr Praveena is a certified
mental health and awareness practitioner specialising in narcissistic abuse recovery.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Karachi's biryani vendors offer variations of the beloved dish, reflecting South Asia's shared heritage

Human senses are the least reliable tool to detect the truth of things around us.

A combination of images shows the World Health Organisation logo seen near its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland and a test tube labelled "Mpox virus positive". — Reuters/File

The World Health Organisation will convene a meeting of its Emergency Committee on November 22 to...

Harris criticised Trump’s legal woes, foreign policy, mostly on Ukraine, while Trump attacked her position on Israel

The Biden administration's strategy of seeking to manage geopolitical competition with China is not working and should be replaced with a policy of achieving victory, according to Matthew Pottinger, former White House deputy national security adviser.

Centring missions, creating space for discussion and continuing to test and learn will help every charity tailor their approach to online spaces

Chris Sherwood says the charity’s public profile can make it feel like a ‘goldfish bowl’

Despite slip and fall accidents accounting for 15 percent of all accidental deaths in the United States, second only to motor vehicle accidents, there is a growing yet dangerous trend to eliminate the most critical measurement to prevent slips on hard-walkway surfaces.

Washington – How can the federal workers’ compensation system balance the needs of injured workers with the wise use of taxpayer funds? The question was debated during a May 20 hearing convened by the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee.

Washington – Four stakeholders recently debated the merits of an OSHA injury and illness prevention program standard.

Washington — The validity of a perceived shortage of commercial motor vehicle drivers is again in the spotlight after a recent analysis conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Washington – The Department of Labor claims proposed changes to its Federal Employees’ Compensation Act program would create a more equitable system, but some experts at a July 10 House hearing warned that the changes could drastically affect injured federal workers.

The post Principles for the 2025 Tax Debate: End High-Income Tax Cuts, Raise Revenues to Finance Any Extensions or New Investments was curated by information for practice.

The candidates are all in Iowa stumping for caucus votes, but Brady is here to round up the latest primary news, like whether TV debates are having a bigger effect on the primary than old-school retail politics. Plus: what Donald Trump rallies have in common with arena rock concerts or screenings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and campaign voicemails magically transformed into garbled emails!

Prof. Eric Posner explains a voting system for protecting the rights of minorities

Sen. Tina Smith and her Republican challenger Jason Lewis sparred over the coronavirus response, public safety, climate change and immigration Friday during a debate on MPR News. 

What’s being done to confront the coronavirus and stem the economic fallout from the pandemic are central to this year’s election campaigns. That was clear when the candidates in Minnesota’s 2nd and 6th Congressional Districts met in separate MPR News debates Friday.

The front-runners in Minnesota’s 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts took part in telephone debates on Politics Friday.

The candidates for Congress in Minnesota’s 7th and 8th districts debated the major issues, on Politics Friday with host Mike Mulcahy.

"God in Eternity and Time" has been well received by all segments of the Evangelical community, and its irenic spirit has been much appreciated, drawing accolades from across the Evangelical theological spectrum.

The role of guns in U.S. society is a subject of intense policy debate and disagreement.