I.

Write a reaction paper regarding the Presidential debate in 2022 of the

Philippines.

Reaction Paper

On March 19, 2022, the Philippines had their first presidential debate. Debate can aid in
the organized presentation of counterarguments to natural key differences. The issues
discussed were very limited; candidates who will answer are not shuffled, so it would be
unfair that the last person to answer would be the most prepared because they could
get opinions from others and form a better opinion to attack them. The debates provide
voters with an opportunity to examine how candidates respond to pressure and this
helps them exposed their mindset to people. With only 90 seconds to respond and
getting questions from other candidates and having to answer it immediately, I was
slightly surprised at how good all of them seem to be. The debate opened with a
discussion regarding economy the most witch is the most thrilling subject matter to
discuss with.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed that Bongbong Marcos declined to participate in the

presidential debates hosted by television stations. He was among the most popular
candidates, if not the most popular, and it was sad to see the debate without him
because this will come in handy in the future. The majority of projects that have been
done in the past will be used in the future, and this is a probability. During the argument,
it’s sad to say that Ping Lacson claimed that just 12 of the 108 projects have been
accomplished. If one of the candidates has developed such programs, I would not
expect them to continue with them; rather, the Philippines has too many problems for
programs like better tourism to succeed. Those are just plans, and they aren't their top
priority.

The internet is the most important platform since most people base their votes on who is
widely known because they believe that voting for a good candidate without the
acknowledgement of others will be meaningless. I want everyone in the country to vote
responsibly and not form opinions instantly without knowledge of the government
structure and without having to form judgments without understanding the reasons
rational reasons behind it. If people continue to dismiss candidates who can address
Philippine issues and provide proper solutions, our country will remain what it is, a third-
world country.

My only advice to Filipinos who saw and heard the debate is to be cautious while
judging, since the discussion alone does not suffice to demonstrate that they are
capable of handling the job. This reminds us that we are not witnessing a game show,
but rather a serious one that will affect our entire system. Although the presidential
candidates' suggestions to enhance infrastructure and agriculture, most involving the
economy, are only plans and not quick fixes, taking action is all the more essential if
your concept has the potential to make a significant contribution to society. Some of
them responded to the questions by formulating a working plan on how to put this notion
into a practical solution, and it's impressive how straightforward they are with it. Just like
how Jose Montemayor Jr answered, He was asked whether to pursue Rodrigo Duterte's
"Build, Build, Build" program, which strives to promote infrastructure and economic
growth, but he is taking thought first before agreeing to the program, I like how rational
he is about it, knowing that the Philippines will need another debt to pay for it. Even
though he only had 90 seconds to respond, it was enough information for me to judge
how good his answer is, since he still needs to consider whether the economic risk
outweighs the benefits of creating new jobs. It's not a question you can directly agree or
disagree with because we still must consider our GDP (gross domestic product). If he's
still thinking about the risks, that means if he were president, he'd come up with ways to
overcome or calculate the risks he makes and gain valuable insights into the issues
before taking action. Which is also similar what Norberto Gonzales also said, making
plans first before doing it and to look for the direction for this program while the others
already have plans for it. This is only a probability and it does guarantee anything,
however, The responses of Jose Montemayor Jr have proved a lot of point. Which
changed my perspective of him and ended up liking him even after the end of the
debate. Complete knowledge of the situation is also another factor which affects the
future actions which is what I’m taking note of.
I'd like to point out that each candidate has a strong potential of becoming president,
although most of them do not obtain the recognition that they earn because people
focused too much on Leni Robredo and Bongbong Marcos. I'm not implying that those
two candidates should not receive the most votes; rather, I'm merely saying that all
candidates have impressive answers, which leads me to believe that this is turning into
a popularity contest rather than a contest to determine who fits best the position of
president. I'm not putting any assumptions, but this is only through observation.

Having to analyse each candidate and form my own opinion. I want to discuss about
Manny Pacquiao, I expected him to have the most foolish answers among the
candidates, but I was proven wrong by observing him during the debate; on the media,
he was portrayed as one of the dumbest candidates and was mocked by his
foolishness, and I believed on the internet simply because no one defended him,
instead agreed with one another, what I can say about him is that his intentions are
good but are poorly executed. With his wealth he wants to lift Philippines higher, viewing
the farmers as breadwinners, with his intentions I am not one to say that he is capable
of holding the position but he isn’t as foolish as they say. 

I can't say I loathed the debate because it was a fair debate with no one criticizing or
yelling at each other, and they weren't forced to react negatively to the situation. I was
mildly thrilled to see how they have similar ideals but different approaches to the
economy's main problems. If I had to connect it to one of the media arguments, I'm
most likely to assume that the majority of them haven't done any research. I'm not one
to claim that I'm well-versed in politics or that I've done much research, but I'm still
perplexed as to why the media continues to portray them as someone who lacks
understanding and ability to hold the position. The candidates are ridiculous they say. I
doubt that.

I'm pleased to say that every competitor wants to improve harvest facilities and
agricultural development. This debate demonstrates that everyone is patient enough to
listen to each other's viewpoints. In relation, if a person is in a good mood, they will
accept the adjustment without question at that moment, but none of them did, in fact,
they were all quite serious. Politics has always been one of those issues where people
use a range of phrases and methods to persuade others that their choices are the best
options. I do believe that effective listening in our society should be more productive so
that we can vote for the best candidate.