Argument is omnipresent (van Eemeren et al., 2014). The argument competence can be considered as an essential skill needed, especially in the academic field to figure out how to properly, assess, adjudicate, and response to propositions of certain utterance in a critical way, and to present perspectives with appropriate strategies. Argumentations have been delivered in academic activities,
through debates, training students to become proficient in analyzing, advancing, critiquing, and defending claims in reasoned discussion (Kuhn & Udell, 2003).
This study is an attempt to extend the existing research on argumentation structure by utilizing discourse analysis and argumentative theories to capture the process of constructing the argumentation by answering three questions. How is the argumentation produced in a parliamentary system competitive debate (using the elements of Toulmin, 2003)? What strategies are adopted to construct the argumentation during a parliamentary competitive debate, and how are the quality
of the arguments produced (using Clark & Sampson’s, 2008) hierarchical argumentation quality based on opposition? The data of this research are recorded debates from the National School Debating Championship (NSDC) held by the Pusat Prestasi Nasional, The Indonesian Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology.
The findings from this study reveal that almost all of the participants have knowledge of how to construct solid arguments employing six different elements of claim, ground, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal as proposed by Toulmin (2003). However, based on the completeness of the elements, around one third of the whole arguments are created with the minimum required elements using claim, ground and warrant, which is equivalent to as basic skill according to Toulmin (2003), Walton (2008), and Johnson (2009). Such competence has the potential to be improved. Furthermore, students have known how to infuse most of the discourse moves (as proposed by Clark and Simpson, 2008) to make their arguments persuasive. However, the students still have not fluently utilized a few
of the most substantive moves, such as counterclaim, rebuttal, and signposting. The study also reveals that almost all students, are able to deliver the highest-level quality of oral argumentation based on opposition as proposed by Clark and Sampson (2008). It indicates that the argumentation produced by the students throughout the debate involved multiple rebuttals and at least one rebuttal that challenges grounds used to support a claim are employed.
Finally, this study has both theoretical and pedagogical implications. In terms of the study's theoretical implications, the research findings add four discourse moves to the ones that Clark and Sampson have suggested. They are Point of Information (POI), signposting, opening, and closing. This contribution would help similar investigations, especially those related to competitive debate in the parliamentary system. In terms of the pedagogical implications, academic debate activities such as classroom debate and competitive debate are proven to empower students with stronger information literacy skills, critical thinking skills, and communication skills. Unfortunately, its popularity has grown rather slowly. Limited materials in Indonesian and few training opportunities for teachers may become challenges for such an important skill. Hopefully, this study may encourage all the related stakeholders with an interest in proliferating debate skills among students in Indonesia to continue the work. Lastly, argumentation is culturally specific and context-bound. Since competitive debate has its roots in Western culture, it may be helpful for students to discuss these differences with the teachers or coaches and one another before they fully immerse themselves in debate practice or training. This may help them get over any discomfort or confusion they may be feeling regarding the conflicting cultural issues between the students’ native culture and the Western culture invested in competitive parliamentary debate. |