australasian parliamentary english debate system johanes leonardi t., s.pd, m.sc english education...

31
Australasian Australasian Parliamentary Parliamentary English Debate English Debate System System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education WIDYA MANDALA CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY - SURABAYA

Upload: cory-roberts

Post on 17-Jan-2016

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Australasian Australasian Parliamentary English Parliamentary English Debate SystemDebate System

Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc

English Education Study ProgramFaculty of Teacher Training & EducationWIDYA MANDALA CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY - SURABAYA

Page 2: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Definition

A formal method of interactive and representational argument.

Consist of two teams debating over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition.

Encouraged in high schools and colleges

Page 3: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

The Advantages

A means of encouraging critical thinking.

A means of personal expressions.

Tolerance of others' opinions.

Page 4: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Formation

Affirmative

Team

Negative

Team

Adjudicators

Chair Person Time Keeper

Page 5: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Australasian Debating

Affirmative:

1st Speaker

2nd Speaker

3rd Speaker

Reply Speaker

Negative:

1st Speaker

2nd Speaker

3rd Speaker

Reply Speaker

Page 6: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Speech Delivery

Substantive Speech: 5-8 minutes

Reply Speech: 3-5 minutes

Page 7: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Affirmative (“The Government”)

Has the right to define the motion.

Support it with constructive arguments.

Page 8: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Negative (“The Opposition”)

Oppose the motion defined by the Affirmative.

Build a counter-case against the Affirmative.

Challenge the definition if invalid only.

Page 9: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Motion (Topic)

A prepositional statement that determines what a debate shall be about:

That we should give President SBY a chance.

That American pop culture is a threat to civilization.

Page 10: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Defining the Motion

Must be debatable. Must not a bizarre

distortion of the motion.

Page 11: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Defining the Motion

That what goes up must come down. what being the President of RI. goes up takes power come down step down from the

power “That the Indonesian presidency

should be limited to 2 terms”

Page 12: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Challenging the Definition

Truistic Tautological/ Circular Squirreling Time & Place Setting

Page 13: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Truistic Definition

It is ‘true’ by nature thus make the arguments unarguable.

That we should eat, drink, and be merry.

That we should eat because otherwise we starve to death; drink because otherwise we would die; and be merry because we are alive.

Page 14: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Tautological/Circular Definition

The given definition is circling to the motion.

That technology is killing our work ethic.

That all scientific advancements that make life easier and therefore kill our work ethic are killing our work ethic.

Page 15: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Squirreling Definition

It isn’t tied down to the spirit of the motion & doesn’t have a proper logical link to the motion.

That the USA is opening up to the PRC. USA: Untidy Students of Asia PRC: Pretty Room Cleaners

Page 16: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Time & Place Setting Definition

The subject matter of the debate cannot be confined to a very particular time & place.

Limiting the subject matter to only the economic development of Japan during the specific period of the Meiji restoration.

Page 17: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Theme Line

It is the underlying logic of a team’s case.

Used to prove a team’s stand on the motion.

Key question: Why is it true? Indonesia’s presidency should be

limited to 2 terms in respect to democracy, balance of power, and adapting to the world changes.

Page 18: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Team Split

Distribution of arguments to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd speaker.

Page 19: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Argumentation

The process of explaining why a point of view should be accepted.

Valid by its supporting logic & facts.

Page 20: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Good argumentation

Relevance Organization Consistency & internal

logic Clarity Effective use of

evidence

Page 21: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Rebuttal

The process of proving that the opposing team’s arguments should be accorded less weight than its claim.

Showing how & why the opposition’s arguments are invalid.

Page 22: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Rebuttal: The arguments are…

Based on a wrong of facts/ interpretation of facts.

Irrelevant to the topic. Illogical. Involving unacceptable implications.

Page 23: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Role of the First Speaker

Affirmative: Defines the motion. Presents the team’s theme line

why the case is logically correct. Outlines the team split. Delivers 1st substantial argument. Provide a brief summary of the case.

Page 24: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Role of the First Speaker

Negative: Accepts/challenges the definition. Rebut 1st affirmative’s arguments. Presents the theme line. Outlines the theme split. Delivers 1st substantial arguments. Provides a brief summary.

Page 25: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Role of the Second Speaker

Affirmative: Rebuts the 1st negative’s arguments. Restates the affirmative team’s case. Delivers 2nd substantial speech. Provides a brief summary.

Page 26: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Role of the Second Speaker

Negative: Rebuts the two affirmative speakers. Restates the team’s case. Delivers the 2nd substantial

arguments. Provides a brief summary.

Page 27: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Role of the Third Speaker

Affirmative: Rebuts the two negative speakers. Restates the theme line & the two

speakers’ arguments. Summarizes the issues of the debate.

Page 28: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Role of the Third Speaker

Negative: Rebuts all three affirmative speakers. Restates the theme line & the two

speakers’ arguments. Summarizes the issues of the debate

Page 29: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Reply Speakers

Provide an overview of the debate. Identify the issues by both sides. Provide a biased adjudication of the

debate.

Page 30: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

Adjudication

The process of determining which team wins the debate.

Matter: 40 Manner: 40 Method: 20

Page 31: Australasian Parliamentary English Debate System Johanes Leonardi T., S.Pd, M.Sc English Education Study Program Faculty of Teacher Training & Education

HAPPY DEBATING!!!