Abstract
This study aims to explore and analyze the argumentative competence of Chinese debaters by observing the fallacies they made in one semester’s English debate course. The 8 rounds of debates are selected, of which three teams participated in 2 of the prepared debates and 2 fixed impromptu debates respectively. It is evident that of the five categories of fallacies, relevance-related, sufficiency-related and acceptability-related fallacies were the most common fallacies compared with structural-related fallacies and rebuttal-related fallacies. In prepared debate, the debaters’ argumentative skills in relevance, sufficiency, acceptability, structure, and rebuttal improved but in impromptu debate, this trend did not exist, revealing the debaters’ argumentative competence was unstable and varied from team to team.
Highlights
This ability to think and to express their thoughts correctly is arguably one of the most fundamental skills underlying success in academia and professional careers
This study aims to explore and analyze the argumentative competence of Chinese debaters by observing the fallacies they made in one semester’s English debate course
This study assesses the argumentative competence of six debate learners from the fallacies they made in preparing debate an impromptu debate
Summary
This ability to think and to express their thoughts correctly is arguably one of the most fundamental skills underlying success in academia and professional careers. Those who master these critical thinking (CT) skills can understand, decide, or persuade effectively through the process of argumentation. This situation has engendered the growth of such courses as a debate at university due to its proven relationship with critical and higher-order thinking and is the reason for the increasing popularity of the research on the cultivation of critical thinking ability in the field of English teaching and scientific research. The research on the effectiveness of argumentation in college students’ English debate is almost blank and needs to be studied in detail
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
