Sufficient Rebuttals in Public Speaking Class Debate Activities
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Sarjana Pendidikan
Pratiwi Pamularsih
112009008
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
Sufficient Rebuttals in Public Speaking Class Debate Activities
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Sarjana Pendidikan
Pratiwi Pamularsih 112009008
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Sufficient Rebuttals in Public Speaking Class Debate Activities
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Sarjana Pendidikan
Pratiwi Pamularsih
112009008
Approved by:
Christian Rudianto, M. Appling. Petrus Ari Santoso, M.A.
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright@ 2013. Pratiwi Pamularsih and Christian Rudianto, M.Appling.
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community, I verify that:
Name : Pratiwi Pamularsih Student ID Number : 112009008 Study Program : English
Faculty : Language and literature Kind of Work : Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
Sufficient Rebuttals in Public Speaking Class Debate Activities along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in : Salatiga
Date : June 12nd, 2013
Verified by signee,
Pratiwi Pamularsih
Approved by:
Christian Rudianto, M. Appling. Petrus Ari Santoso, M.A.
SUFFICIENT REBUTTALS
IN PUBLIC SPEAKING CLASS DEBATE ACTIVITIES
Pratiwi Pamularsih
ABSTRACT
Debate is the final activity in Public Speaking Class. In debate activity, students are not only presenting their team arguments but also attacking their opponents’ arguments by delivering rebuttal. Rebuttal as many experts says is a vital part of a debate as a sign that interaction is happening in the debate. This study analyzes and evaluates the students rebuttals presented during the debate activity. The two debate activities from two different classes of Public Speaking are recorded and transcribed as the data to be analyzed to answer the question how sufficient is the students’ rebuttals presented during the debate activity. Content analysis is used to analyze the students’ rebuttals deeper, because it enables researcher to study human behavior indirectly (Wallen, 2007). The study groups the students’ rebuttals into three categories which are (1) weak rebuttal; (2) average rebuttal; and (3) strong rebuttal. The domination of weak rebuttals in the data shows that students are aware about the importance of rebuttal in the debate, but still have difficulties analyzing the opponents’ arguments to later deliver the rebuttal to prove that their opponent is wrong. The finding suggests additional time preparation and more intensive debate practice are needed to familiarize the students in delivering rebuttal during their debate.
Keywords: public speaking, debate, rebuttals, sufficient rebuttal
INTRODUCTION
the winner based on both of the teams’ the performances and make the judgment based on regulations existing in the debate.
Based on the writer experiences involving in some debate competition like in JOVED (Java Overland Varsities English Debate) and IVED (Indonesia Varsities English Debate) the writer got the chance to know deeper about the debate itself. One main problem that a debater or a debate team deals with in the debating world usually is delivering rebuttal. Adjudicators often said that the writer team is trapped into simply defending our own team case and neglecting the case of our opponent. This condition is bad since the adjudicator cannot find the clash and the interaction among the arguments. This is supported by Quinn who said that two opposing cases do not make a debate, however important they are. Not only presenting arguments, debaters also must attack opponent arguments by delivering rebuttals to create the interaction between cases (Quinn, 2005). It means debate is not only about presenting idea of a team, but directly clashing the idea to other and proving that a team’s idea is better becomes the essence of the debate, thus the adjudicators always concern about the existence of rebuttal is in the debate.
often neglected by a debating team, the main thing that the writer wants to know is whether or not the Public Speaking students deliver rebuttals and how sufficient their rebuttals are.
What seemingly happens to our debating activities in Public Speaking is they debate by simply throwing their opinion without trying to attack the opponent’s opinion. They become
dismissive with the opponent opinion and simply continuing the debate by directly explaining their arguments. Casey (2005) says that clash between teams is the essence of a debate and the clash will be achieved through delivering effective rebuttals. It means if both teams are too busy to defend their own idea without trying to analyze or compare which idea is the best, there will be no clash in the debate among the arguments. Moreover, clashing arguments and showing to other that your arguments are the best compare to your opponents will be the main point of debate which can be seen from the rebuttals made by the students during the debate.
This study aims to find out how sufficient the students’ rebuttals during the debate
activities as one significant thing to be analyzed later. It is important to analyze the debate of the Public Speaking students since when a teacher teaches the students about debate, the teacher has to know how deep the students’ understanding about debate activity. The teacher has to teach
debate as a whole. The finding on this research can help the teacher to focus more on what is lack from the students’ debate and try to find the best way to overcoming the lack of student’s
debate.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. WHAT IS DEBATE?
more convincing it is to others. This means that debates involve reasoned arguments for and against a given motion to achieved rational decision making (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008 as cited in Saraswati, 2010 and in Kurniawati 2012). Quinn explains that there will be two teams in a debate, affirmative and negative with three people in the each team (Quinn, 2005). Both teams will debate upon a motion given. Motion is the topic to be debated. Affirmative will agree upon the motion and negative will oppose the motion.
Debate activity becomes one of activities in Public Speaking Course ED303A and ED303G in the Faculty of Language and Literature Satya Wacana Christian University. Students are learning about the rules of debate and skills to create arguments, where finally they will do the debate itself during the course. What the students do is the example of educational debate. It is conducted under the direction of an educational institution for the purpose of providing educational opportunities for students (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008). The debate activity in Public Speaking Class is conducted to provide the learning time for the students to train their skill in speaking English through the debate activity. Students also learn to create also defend their arguments upon a motion during the debate. Freely (1969) also says that educational debate is viewed as a valuable method for teaching the principles of argumentation. The debate activity will help the students to learn how to make argumentation, including constructing their arguments and defending their arguments upon objection.
B. WHAT KIND OF DEBATE IS DESIRABLE?
Quinn (2005) states to have a debate, we need interaction between the cases delivered by the affirmative and negative team. A team is not only required to present and support its own arguments but also attack the opponents’ arguments by delivering rebuttal. It means, to create a
arguments from their opponents and try to defeat their opponent’s arguments through presenting rebuttal. Without rebuttal, a debate can be a sharing opinion session only, where there is no interaction among the arguments. It can be concluded that rebuttal play a significant role in a debate, even a debate cannot be called as a debate until rebuttals presented by the affirmative and negative teams. Both teams must attack each other by valuing each other arguments in their rebuttals.
To support the idea that rebuttal is vital to create a debate, Freeley and Steinberg (2008) explains that debate does not take place in vacuum, but in the presence of opposition where the debater is always confronted with the necessity of overcoming objections that are raised by his opponent. They also explained that the process of overcoming these objections is known as refutation or rebuttal. In other words, the objection will not exist in the debate if the debaters do not make any rebuttal. When both the affirmative and negative teams simply neglect each other case and busy explaining each own case, the objection in the form of rebuttal will not appear. Without the existence of rebuttals, the debate is not valid to be called as a debate, instead simply a vacuum condition where the affirmative and negative share their opinion.
C. HOW TO CREATE A SUFFICIENT REBUTTAL?
According to Quinn (2005) destroying the opponent’s case is the goal of delivering rebuttal. The ultimate goal in rebuttal is to attack opposition’s case. It means simply building a
case for the team is not enough. To win a debate, beside presenting arguments and proving that the argument is right, the team has to say that the opponent is wrong and unconvincing. To prove that the other team is wrong precisely become the ultimate goal of delivering rebuttals. The speakers of the team have to create rebuttal that will destroy the opponent’s case. A team cannot
Rybold (2006) says that rebuttal almost always involves countering the evidences from the opposition presented, blurring the link between its evidence and arguments, and ripping apart the arguments’ reasoning. Consequently, simply saying that the opponent’s argument is wrong
without giving further explanation will not be enough. There are things to be done in delivering a rebuttal. The speakers have to countering the opponent’s evidence they have to create
contradiction in the rebuttal. In blurring the link between the evidence and arguments the speakers have to show how unrelated the evidence and arguments are. In ripping apart the arguments’ reasoning, the speakers from affirmative and negative team have to explain how the
reasoning is insignificant, illogical, or wrong.
Sonnreich (2010) explains that in a debate, we mainly do two things. The first thing is constructing argument with three main elements of an argument, consisting of idea, analysis, and evidence. The second thing is deconstructing argument by destroying all the three main elements of an argument, consisting of idea, analysis, and evidence. Therefore, in rebutting speakers from both affirmative and negative team will destroy all the three elements which are the idea, analysis, and evidence through giving explanation and reasoning on how and why saying that those ideas, analysis, and evidence given by opponent team are all wrong.
Sonnreich (2010) states that in rebutting speakers from the affirmative and negative team will deconstruct the opponent’s arguments. Based on his book “Monash Association of Debaters Members Training Handbook”, here is the anatomy of an argument and the value of each
element to be rebutted: Best and most
effective part to attack
Excellent part to attack
[image:13.612.88.530.185.522.2]Weakest link in the chain and the easiest target, but not as effective
FIGURE 1. Anatomy of an argument
Figure 1 about the anatomy of an argument above shows that how to deconstruct opponent’s arguments can be done in various ways. Different point of attack will also give
different effect. Just attacking the evidence will leave the idea and analysis of the opponent stand still. It means the attack is not really strong. Destroying opponent’s analysis will be excellent, but still the idea is still there. The best choice will be attacking opponent’s idea and then the attack will break the arguments construction. Making no rebuttal means letting the opponent’s
arguments stand until the end of the debate without any attack or objection. Stating the disagreement to the opponents is required by delivering rebuttal and deconstructing opponent’s
arguments.
1. IDEA
2. ANALYSIS
Quinn explains that the essence of rebuttal is obviously the ”Why the opponents’ argument is wrong”, and affirmative also negative speakers should almost always spend most
of the time here (Quinn, 2005). It can be concluded that in rebutting the speakers cannot simply claim that the opponent argument is wrong. Therefore, to answer the question why, the speakers have to state the analysis, explanation and reasoning upon the opponents’ arguments by delivering rebuttals. People cannot simply accept a claim that the opponent is wrong if there is no analysis in what way the rebuttal is wrong.
Sonnreich (2012) says that to create a valid argument speakers cannot simply give an assertion, or something that is stated as true, without enough analysis to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe that a claim is true and convincing. It means assertion is just a point of idea without further analysis. It just likes a topic sentence in a paragraph without supporting sentences or further explanation. Thus, to create a valid and convincing idea the speakers have to state the idea, the analysis of the idea, and the example to support the idea. It will be just a statement, without proof of its validity.
Freeley and Steinberg also add that demonstrating the effect of rebuttal toward both teams’ cases is the most critical and is the one most frequently overlooked. Much of the effect of
refutation is lost unless it is clearly related to the case of opposition or to advocate’s own case (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008). It can be concluded from that the core of rebuttal is to demonstrate the effect of rebuttal. It will not be sufficient to say that the opponent is wrong without giving clear explanation on how your rebuttal can weaken the opponent’s case or strengthen your case.
Quinn (2005) also states that a good rebuttal point will always demonstrate a number of key characteristics, they are:
1. First, it is important to identify the argument or idea that you are attacking. 2. Second, you obviously have to show what is wrong with that argument or idea. 3. Third, you need to bring your case into the picture.
From all of the experts’ opinions above, it can be summarized that there are three
significant principles in discussing about whether a rebuttal is sufficient or not. The two principles are:
1. Whether or not the ultimate goal of delivering rebuttal is achieved.
As Quinn (2005) states that the ultimate goal in rebuttal is to attack and destroy the opponent’s case. In debate, proving that you are right is not enough. If you are right,
2. Whether or not the rebuttal successfully analyzes and destroys the underlying or significant issue in the arguments.
As Freeley and Steinberg (2008) explain that you need to spend more rebuttal time dealing with particularly important and significant issue in the arguments or the major issues. It means if the speakers from the affirmative and negative team simply rebut the trivial point the rebuttal will have less value to destroy or defeat the opponent arguments. Rebutting is only about attack what is easy to be attacked but attack the key point in the argument to destroy the case of the opponents.
Based on the two principles of desirable rebuttals derived from three experts about what rebuttal actually is and what requirements needed to deliver a rebuttal, then rebuttals can be classified into the following categories:
LEVELS OF REBUTTAL DESCRIPTIONS
STRONG REBUTTAL The rebuttal attacks the underlying argument or the significant argument.
Explaining clearly the weakness or mistake of the opponents’ by answering the question why the argument is wrong
AVERAGE REBUTTAL The rebuttal does not attack the
underlying argument or the significant argument.
Explanation about the weakness or mistake of the opponents’ by answering the question why the argument is wrong is confusing.
WEAK REBUTTAL The rebuttal does not touch the
important and significant argument.
Those levels of rebuttals will later be used to identify what level of rebuttals delivered by the students in two Public Speaking classes. Those criterions will help the writer to analyze the rebuttals given by the students.
THE STUDY
Context of study
The setting of the study was in two groups of Public Speaking Class (ED303A and ED303G), English Department Satya Wacana Christian University. In the Public Speaking Course ED303 students are expected to acquire the basic skill of speaking and use their skill to speak in public. One activity to train the students’ speaking skills in Public Speaking Class is
debate, where the students creating and defending their own arguments, and in the same time try to defeat the opponents’ arguments.
Focusing on the debate activity with four debate teams and two debate activities from two different classes, the writer analyzed how sufficient the rebuttals presented by the students. Quinn says that since making rebuttals considered more difficult since it requires attacking opponents’ arguments, usually the beginner debaters do not deliver rebuttals (Quinn, 2005). In
Methodology
Since the writer needs to observe an actual debate activity for the research and the debating activity is only can be observed in Public Speaking class purposive sampling is used by the writer to gather the data. Audio recording of the debate activities was done during the debating time. All the result of the audio recording was analyzed to show how sufficient the rebuttals delivered by the students during their debate. The writer discussed how sufficient the rebuttal for a debate based on two principles of a sufficient rebuttal, which are (1) Whether or not the rebuttal the rebuttal answer the question why the argument is wrong and (2) Whether or not the rebuttal successfully analyze and destroy the underlying or the significant issue in the rebuttal. The rebuttals of the students were categorized into three categories which are (1) strong rebuttal, (2) average rebuttal, and (3) weak rebuttal.
Time variable which is how many minutes the students spent to deliver their rebuttals is not considered to be analyzed in this research because the data showed that all of the students in the debate activities actually had already allocated the time properly to deliver their rebuttal. There is no significant problem related to the time variable. The significant thing to be analyzed is the content of the rebuttal itself which is the quality of rebuttal that actually the students delivered during the time they used to deliver rebuttal. The sufficiency of the rebuttal related to whether the students delivered rebuttals based on the requirement of sufficient rebuttals is the main focus significantly to be discussed in the research.
Data Collection
the research. The rebuttals from the two debate activities were gathered and analyzed to decide how sufficient the rebuttals made by the students based on the three categories, which are (1) Weak rebuttal, (2) Average rebuttal, and (3) Strong rebuttal.
Procedure
The writer transcribed the recording of the debate activities from the four teams. Using Clean Transcription, the writer focused on the rebuttals made by the students. The writer use the clean transcription to focus on the content of the rebuttals only since the focus of the writer is not on the manner or the attitude of the debaters in delivering their speech but the research wants to focus on the content of the rebuttals, as Zacharias (2011) says that by using clean transcription you only focus on the content of the data.
Data Analysis
The writer used Content Analysis to analyze the rebuttals gathered from the audiotape debate. Based on Fraenkel and Wallen (2007), content analysis enables researchers to study human behavior in an indirect way. Content Analysis will support the writer research by accommodating the need of the research to study the students’ way in making their rebuttal
during the debate through recording after the debate over. Indirect study using Content Analysis will make the writer easier in analyzing deeper the students’ rebuttals.
weak rebuttal. Those three categorizations would show what kind of rebuttal the students of Public Speaking made in their debate activity in Public Speaking ED303A and ED303G.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Rebutting means to overcome opposing evidence and reasoning by introducing other evidence and reasoning that will destroy its effect (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008). The existence of rebuttals in the debate is becoming the vital part of debating. The communication, where both affirmative and negative teams are proving not only that they are the right one, but also that their opponent is wrong, will create a desirable debate, since both affirmative and negative teams fulfill the requirements of debating by constructing their team case and also deconstructing their opponent case through presenting rebuttals.
From 2 debating activities that the writer have observed and recorded, actually, the communication is happening during the debate. The affirmative and negative team offered their rebuttal during the debate. Both teams tried to evaluate arguments brought by their opponents. None of the team directly jumped to their own arguments without valuing their opponents’ arguments first. However, the writer cannot simply take for granted that their rebuttals are sufficient to create the communication during the debate.
explained earlier, the speakers’ rebuttals delivered during the debate are analyzed whether the rebuttal is (1) weak rebuttal, (2) average rebuttal or (3) strong rebuttal, the analysis focuses on two main principles of rebuttal, they are:
1. Whether or not the rebuttal successfully analyzes and destroys the important or significant issue in the arguments.
2. Whether or not the rebuttal answers the question why the argument is wrong.
There are two motions that were analyzed from the students’ rebuttals that were transcribed.
The two motions are:
1. This House Would erase English from Primary School 2. This House Would ban beauty contest
However, the data from one motion only, which is “This House would erase English from
Primary School” discussed in the data analysis, since the rebuttals of this motion that can be
categorized into weak rebuttals, average rebuttals, and strong rebuttals also were found in the second motion. So, presenting the data from the first motion has portrayed the rebuttals that the two debates had.
In the following discussion, there will be analysis and discussion about the big three themes appears in the debate. The first theme to be discussed is Weak Rebuttal, second is Average Rebuttal, and the third is Strong Rebuttal.
1. WEAK REBUTTAL
Like what have been explained before in the literature review, a weak rebuttal is the rebuttal that (1) cannot attack and destroy the opponent’s significant case (Quinn, 2005) and (2)
following discusses some examples of weak rebuttal delivered by the students of Public Speaking ED303A and ED303G.
Two classifications of weak rebuttal are discussed: rebuttal with assertion only and rebuttal to trivial point. 18 out of 36 rebuttals from the data gathered are classified as the weak rebuttals. The following discussion talked about two examples of weak rebuttals from the students’ debate.
Motion : THW erase English from primary school
A. Rebuttal with assertion only
Extract 1
Argument : Learning English start from primary school will build the strong foundation to learn English. The linguistic experts say that primary school ages is the best period to learn language acquisition. Because their brain is still fresh and they can receive the new language easily. And then learning English in primary school is a natural process when the children area to learn, play, and explore by the games or materials given by the teachers. Erasing English from primary school will erase the chance for the children to learn English in the best period. (Original Speech delivered by 1st speaker of the negative team)
Rebuttal : Responding to the first negative speaker, she said about she agree to keep English in the school, in the curriculum of primary school, and I agree that she said that the sooner we learning English the better we understand. And because we look from linguistic aspect. I agree that in that age is their critical period of acquiring language. That is the easier, because their brain is still capable to achieve that. But, we have to learn and look from the social aspect. (Original Speech delivered by the 2nd speaker of affirmative team)
rebuttal attacked the main idea from the argument. The 2nd speaker lack of analyzing why teaching English in their best period still cannot stop the government to erase English from primary school. As Freeley (1969) says that a speaker must be selective and need to spend more rebuttal time dealing with that important issue. Simply end the rebuttal by saying that social aspect needs to be more considered is not enough to destroy the main point in the argument. The rebuttal above showed that the 2nd speaker of the affirmative team did not spend more time explaining the important issue about the social aspect itself, but spending more time agreeing to the argument.
The rebuttal also fits to the second criteria of a weak rebuttal, which is a rebuttal that does not answer the question why the argument is wrong. In the rebuttal, the reason why the idea about primary school as the best period to teach English is wrong is never discussed. The only statement of the rebuttal that shows disagreement diverts from the topic of best period or age. By saying “But, we have to learn and look from the social aspect.”, the 2nd
speaker wanted to say that social aspect is more important to be considered rather than teaching English in the best period like what linguists say. However, he simply shifted to other view to approach the topic and left it unexplained. The rebuttal failed to prove that the opponent’s argument is wrong. There is no further reasoning on why the idea of teaching English in primary school is wrong. It means that the rebuttal above actually has no value in proving that the opponent argument is wrong. It is supported by Quinn (2005) statement that failure in giving reason will cause the rebuttal left unexplained and loose the essence of the rebuttal itself.
argument or to convince the people that the argument is wrong. The 2nd speaker of the affirmative team simply claim that social aspect is more important but without further explanation. The rebuttal even kept agreeing to the argument idea. The rebuttal failed to destroy the significant point in the argument and left the claim without reasonable explanation.
B. Rebuttal to Trivial Point in the argument
Extract 2
Argument : In Indonesia English learning process in primary school actually is very fun, but government does not have clear goal in teaching English. Government actually didn’t have a clear and good concept in making curricula for learning English process in elementary school. Moreover, government also does not have clear rules about the recruitment for the teachers that will teach the students in elementary school. So if the government did not have a good concept about the curricula and government did not have clear rule about the recruitment of English teacher, how can students learn well in English? Those factors also make the learning process is not maximum and students cannot get best output from learning process. That is why we must erase English from the primary school. (Original speech delivered by the 1st speaker of affirmative team)
Rebuttal : We as the negative team do not agree that the house would erase English from primary school. Here are my rebuttals, now we cannot deny that English is more fun than learning Bahasa Indonesia. The fault is not English itself. Usually English teacher can make the class more fun. And they can make it into levels. That you can see Bahasa Indonesia class, there is no levels, there’s no games. So, the students, the primary school students can choose which things they want to learn.(Original speech delivered by the 1st speaker of negative team)
school. D’Cruz (2003) said that a rebuttal will effective when it identifies and attacks the important strategic issues in the debate. It means the rebuttal above failed to identify the important strategic issue to be rebutted then the team loses the chance to destroy the main argument which will create great destruction toward the cases.
The rebuttal also fits with the second criteria of a weak rebuttal which cannot answer the question why the argument is wrong. The rebuttal tried to say that this idea is wrong by stating that if English is fun, then it is not the fault of the students to choose English over the other lesson. However, there is no further explanation on why if English is fun, then it is better to keep English as a lesson in primary school. The level in the rebuttal also is not supported by sufficient explanation so then people will understand what the level meant in the rebuttal and why the levels are good. Freeley and Steinberg (2008) say that a rebuttal must introduce the counter evidence and reasoning to support the objection. By doing so, the rebuttal will have the power and answer the question why the argument is wrong and can prove that the objection is true. The rebuttal above actually has no evidence and reasoning on why if there is unclear goal and curriculum of English in primary school then it is still better to keep English in primary school.
As Quinn (2005) says defeating opponent case must be the goal of a rebuttal. The rebuttal failed to attack the significant point of the argument, and the rebuttal also does not successfully explain what is so wrong with erasing English that has no clear goal and curriculum from primary school. It can be concluded that the rebuttal is weak since it fits with the two characteristics of a weak rebuttal.
2. AVERAGE REBUTTAL
(2) successfully answer the question why the argument is wrong (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008). Having only one of two principles cannot fulfill those three elements. Loosing clarity and consistency in delivering rebuttal will decrease the value of the rebuttal. This kind of rebuttal is called as average rebuttal. 11 out of 36 rebuttals founded in the two debates are classified as average rebuttals. The following discussion will show one example of average rebuttal.
Extract 3
Argument : Language is a part of culture. And now, we have also survive our culture in the globalization era, including our language itself. It is our national language, bahasa Indonesia. And bahasa Indonesia have to be taught and built in strong foundation first in that age, that is in primary school. So, about including English in primary school curriculum, the question is that how can they learn 2nd language, while they still learn about Indonesian language? We believe learning English in primary school will make te students forget about Indonesian language. The children have to be expert in national language first to learn the 2nd language and preserve their national language.(Original speech delivered by the 2nd speaker of affirmative team)
Rebuttal : Let me deliver my rebuttal. I think studying two languages in one time is possible. And if someone masters English then they can speak English, it does not mean that someone cannot speak in Indonesia or someone forgets about Bahasa Indonesia. They still can maintain their Indonesian by doing interaction with their family in home and friends outside the class. I will give example in the other situation, as we know that students in school spend long time with the school activities. Usually the school start at 7 and the students back to home at 4 pm. They spend long time for their school activities to study, but they only have few hours to gather with their family. But if they spend long time for their school activities they still think that the family is there for them. If we study English it does not mean that we forget about Indonesia, because Indonesia still becomes our mother tongue. (Original speech delivered by the 2nd speaker of negative team)
Indonesian language, so that the students will not lose their national language even they learn English from primary school.
However, the context of the rebuttal above is not clear and is not developed well. The portrayal of the primary school students is unclear and confusing. The duration of time the students spent with the parents and also the presence of the family were not explained clearly in the context of the debate to be the reason why students will not lose their mother tongue. Freeley and Steinberg (2008) say that if a rebuttal is not developed within the context of the debate, then it has little value. The main point from the argument is about learning English in primary school will decrease the capability to learn Indonesian language. In the rebuttal the 2nd speaker of negative team actually can analyze deeper on how the interaction between students and their family also their friends will keep their ability to speak in Indonesia even if they learn English since primary school.
The further example about the duration the students spent in school and in house is confusing. It cannot significantly support the rebuttal point about interaction with family will maintain the capability to speak Indonesian. Smith says that the purpose of rebuttal is to demonstrate clash between cases (Smith, 2011). Inconsistency of clarity and relevancy will reduce the power of rebuttal. Losing the consistency and clarity in explaining why the argument is wrong made the rebuttal above less convincing. The rebuttal is an average rebuttal since it does not fully fit with two characteristics of a strong rebuttal which is attacking the main significant point of an argument and explaining why the argument is wrong.
3. STRONG REBUTTAL
wrong (Freeley and Steinberg, 2008). Only 7 rebuttals out of 36 rebuttals in the two debates are classified as strong rebuttals. One example of strong rebuttal will be discussed in the following explanation.
Extract 4
Argument : And next my argument is, we can look also from the evidence why we agree that erasing English from primary school curriculum, we can see from general evidence that in primary school in the city, there is quite long gap in English competence. And the solution is that we erase the English lesson in primary school. Why? Because we can focus more first in our national language. And it will remove the gap of English competence in primary school. And also it will make a balance competence between our primary school in the city and primary school in the village.(Original Speech delivered by the 2nd speaker of the affirmative team)
Rebuttal : Second rebuttal, if the English is erased from the primary school it will give the bad impact for students in the city and the village. The fact is if the English erased in the school lesson, the students that realized that studying English is important and there is the importance of globalization, they should find another way to study English because the school does not provide English lesson. So, to study English they should study in English course maybe. It needs more money. For the students in the village that they want to study English, the facilities in village and city is different. In village there is no English course or it is very limited. The only way to learn English for village students is learning English at school. So, if English lesson is erased from primary school, it will make a big differential for the students in the city and the village in English skill. The gap is become bigger. (Original Speech delivered by the 2nd speaker of the negative team)
the underlying argument of the opponent, the rebuttal above fits with the first criteria of a strong rebuttal.
The rebuttal above also fits with the second criteria of a strong argument, answering the question why the argument is wrong. In the rebuttal, it can be seen that the idea about erasing English from the primary school to reduce the gap of skill between village and city students is actually unacceptable idea. The rebuttal analyzes how actually it creates more burdens toward students in the city to take English course outside school and pay more for that. Moreover, there is also analysis on how the condition is different between the city and the village, also the statement that the only way village students can learn English is from school also explain clearly on how erasing English will create harm toward villages students. Sonnreich (2012) explains that deconstructing all of an arguments element from the idea, the analysis, to the evidence will create effective destruction toward the opponents’ case. The explanations in the rebuttal support
the conclusion about the gap of students in the village and in the city even bigger if English is erased from the primary school. It can be concluded that the reasoning in term of analysis toward the argument in the rebuttal above successfully attacks the argument about erasing the gap of English skill.
on why the argument is wrong, the example of rebuttal in Extract 4 above is classified as a strong rebuttal.
CONCLUSION
The students from two debate activities in Public Speaking ED303A and ED303G are already aware and understand toward the importance of delivering rebuttal during a debate. It is proven by the data showed none of the speakers suddenly jumped to their own team arguments and simply neglected the opponents’ arguments. From the existing rebuttals, it can be seen that each team not only presenting their own arguments but also claiming and proving that their opponents’ arguments are wrong that created the clashes in the debate which formed of the
communication in the debate.
However, there are still many rebuttals that actually do not fulfill the two principles to create a strong rebuttal like (1) Attacking and analyzing the main significant point argument and (2) Answering the question why the argument is wrong. The content analysis showed that most of the students produce weak rebuttals. 18 weak rebuttals out of 36 rebuttals dominate the findings, with 11 average rebuttals, and only 7 strong rebuttals were found. It indicates that students in Public Speaking Course still lack of capability to make a strong rebuttal that explain clearly why an argument is wrong and touch the significant point of an argument.
speak. It means the more a speaker do the practice, the more the speaker is able to perform better.
The second suggestion is related to intensive learning of delivering rebuttal. The students of Public Speaking class have time to prepare their speech in the previous Public Speaking activities. In delivering informative speech, persuasive speech, and argumentative speech, the teacher gives them time to prepare their speech. When the rebuttal is actually more on the spontaneous speech rather than prepared, the students need more time to accustom their selves in delivering rebuttal. That is why more practice on delivering rebuttal is needed to deepen the understanding and the skill of the students in delivering rebuttal which is more spontaneous.
This research is limited to the students of Public Speaking Class learning process that is categorized as an educational debate which purpose is to introduce the students to debate and there is no aim to win the competition. The students do not have any demand to win in the competition. Their opponents are their own friends which they mostly already know how good or bad their speaking skills. Therefore, the result of this research is limited to the students’ rebuttals delivered in the class, not in the more challenging and demanding condition that the debaters in competition like IVED and JOVED has.
The further research can be conducted to find other significant elements in debate like the students difficulties related to debate activity, the students’ quality of arguments, or impact of
Acknowledgement
I would express my biggest gratitude to Allah SWT for infinite love and power given to me.
I would also like to express my gratitude for the guidance from my supervisor, Christian Rudianto, M.Appling., who has supported and believed in me that I could finish my thesis; and also Petrus Ari Santoso, M.A., who has shared useful insights and comments upon my research.
My gratitude is delivered to the support and encouragement from my parents Pardiyono and Sri Wahyuni, also my dearest brother Diyo during my research and my study. I am also thankful for Mbak Hanum and Mbak Tya for the patient, encouragement, and useful input. I am blessed for Jessyca, Pembayun, and Erlina who always believe in me and provide shoulders to cry. Big thanks to Tyas Putri, Kiki Kurniawati, and Nining for all the support and laughing times during my frustrating days. I am thankful for the big family of EDS (English Debating Society) Mas Henry, Mas Iwan, Mas Adit W, Mbak Sekar, Mas Yos, Mas Don, Mas Ai, Mbak Lila, Kak Vina, Metro, Cik Ivana, Deasy, Rio, Kath, Hezky, Tora and others for every precious knowledge and experiences given to me. I also owe my gratitude to the big family of 2009 students that has let me grow in the ED together with them these 4 years.
REFERENCES
D’Cruz, R. (2003). Australia-Asia Debating Guide Second Edition. Australian Debating Federation.
Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2011). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
Freeley, A.J. (1969). Argumentation and Debate 2nd Edition. United States: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Freeley, A.J. & Steinberg, D.L. (2008). Argumentation and Debate : Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making Twelfth Edition. United States: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Greenstreet, R. (1993). Academic Debate and Critical Thinking: A Look at the Evidence. National Forensic Journal, XI, 13-28.
Kurniawati, K. (2012). Debaters’ perception on English debate contribution to their English proficiency. Salatiga: Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana.
Mckay, S.L. (2006). Researching Second Language Classroom. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Merriam, S. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, S. (2005). Debating. From: www.learndebating.com. Online publishing: Brisbane, Queensland.
Rybold, G. (2006). Speaking, Listening, and Understanding: Debate for Non Native English Speakers. International Debate Education Association. 98-105.
Saraswati, S. (2010). Difficulties in Constructing Arguments in Debating : A Case Study. Salatiga: Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana.
Smith, N.H. (2011) The Practical Debate to Debating. International Debate Education Assosiation PRESS: Southport, United Kingdom.
Sonnreich, T. (2012). Monash Association of Debaters Guide to Debating : Tips, Tactics and First Principles. Australian Debating Association.
