In the realm of argumentation and debate many debaters negotiate their point of views in front of people all the time. Debates are basically distributive bargaining situations where debaters utilize selective presentation to try and win their arguments. This paper will define what a distributive bargaining situation is and secondly, this written discourse will define the technique of selective presentation. Furthermore, this paper will also discuss the definition of power, and the role power plays in negotiation. To elaborate on distributive bargaining situations and the use of selective presentation, I will use two arguments from a debate between James Carville, Jr., a liberal political commentator and professor at Tulane University, and S.E. Cupp, a republican political commentator, writer, and Ivey League socialite. The arguments originally specified by the republican commentator S.E. Cupp, stated “President Obama did not received the same microscope treatment that President Bush received from the media, congress, and the Senate;” and “raising taxes will not create more jobs, cutting taxes will create more jobs because businesses are job creators.” These two arguments will be used to show how selective presentation is applied in intellectual distributive bargaining situations. Before I jump into the overall essence of this paper I would like to emphasize the race factors that come with the first argument that will be analyzed. Secondly, I will also touch on the problematic and complex intricacies that the second argument relates to concerning the gap between the wealthiest one percent of Americans and the rest of us. As you stumble upon the beginning of this paper one may ask the question I thought this paper was about Negotiation? Make no mistake about it, this paper is about negotiation. The reasoning behind my decision to bring these two issues to light is because of their importance and the influence these social issues have on negotiation. In an article from the Harvard Business Review written by David A. lax and James K. Sebenius titled A Guide to Complex Negotiation, the article states that "direct negotiation "at the table" often makes sense. But for complex deals, which are usually built on a series of smaller ones involving multiple parties, a more strategic approach is to focus on what unfolds away from the table." If one focuses on the issues that impact negotiation away from the table, gender, race, and status are at the top of the list; furthermore, if these particular issues effect negotiations away from the table you better believe they also effect negotiations at the table. If someone thinks that their gender, race, and overall status do not have an effect, they are sadly mistaken. As stated in the previous paragraph, race, gender and social status plays a vast role in negotiation. One might ask the question how I came to that conclusion. I answer that question with one word, simple, the founding principles and ideals that a nation, country, business, or entity is founded upon seeps through its entire existence; case and point, America was founded upon racism, rebellion, and sexism. That’s why we all see things on the news about occupy Oakland or American citizens causing a rut cuss in New York at the stock exchange; or the fact that woman are not considered equal in the workplace, for example still in this day an age of 2012 women still get paid 91 cents for every dollar a man makes according to the Washington Post. “… [women make] 91 cents for every dollar, as compared to men, due to factors that have nothing to do with life choices — a difference that many researchers identify as discrimination” (Washington Post, 2012). Concerning racism, let’s just look at the denotation and underlined mean of the statement S.E. Cupp, stated towards Professor Carville, “President Obama did not received the same...