SEMINAR

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1. 1 Background of the Study
We find arguments in our daily life. Language is here used not only to tell jokes, sing songs, recite poems, offer helps, say prayers, and so on but also to state arguments Argument does not mean a sentence per se. Argument needs reasons and proof to strengthen (Weston 1992, Van Eemeren et al. 1997, Greg et al. 2002). Commonly, in debate there are two sides arguing, positive side and negative side. They indeed oppose each other. If we take a look at the history, debating activity even happened thousands years ago. It flashed back to the era of Aristotle, ancient Greek. They used writings to show their argumentation so there were several terms used for instance logic (proof), rhetoric (persuasion) and dialects (inquiry).
In accordance with, Discourse Analysis, one of the studies of genre analysis is argumentation discourse (Paltridge, 2000). Before explaining further, there are various definitions about argument. Van Eemeren et al. (1997) say that argumentation uses language to justify or refute a standpoint, with the aim of securing agreement in views. According to Ericson, Murphy, and Zeuscher (2003), argument is an assertion that implies the result of reasoning or proof. In accordance with the argument, Wittig in The Aims of Arguments stated (2003), “The basic agreement between human beings is the language.” It is impossible to argue without using language. While arguing, we also think of words, phrases, sentences which can covey our idea, opinions, and feelings. In critical thinking, argument also refers to reasons: identifying reasons, evaluating reasons, and giving reasons. The logical link between argument and language is quite clear. As listeners or readers we may rely on our background, ideology, knowledge, experiences either to refuse or accept their arguments. How we actually react upon them is through analyzing the language. Since the notion of semantics is to analyze language in Context of Utterance—to infer what argument means, argumentative discourse is one of its extents.
One of activities that I have observed for years concerning argumentative discourse is debate competition. Ericson et al. (2003) stated:

“Debate is one of the oldest activities of civilization. Calm, orderly, debate, in which speakers argue for acceptance of various answers to a given question, is an obvious feature of modern parliaments and congresses…In modern democratic societies, the right to debate is a priceless asset. It enables any citizen to propose a better plan of action than the one that ruling power sets forth. If the speaker can convince enough citizens that the new idea is a better one, he speaker can change the policy of the city, country, state, or even nation.”

Debate is of course with arguments but some people may use different characteristics in delivering their arguments and it is interesting for me to observe. What is researched in this thesis is the characteristics of argument and their flaws based on Toulmin’s Layout of Argument. Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Jacksons, ans Jacobs (1997) argued, “Toulmin’s theory takes judicial attention on the interchange between two opposing arguer roles. The measurement of this consistency is by Toulmin’s claim, ground, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal (Toulmin, 1969).
One of pioneers executing High School Debate Competition (HSDC) in Surabaya is English Department of Airlangga university of Surabaya. What usually happens in debaters’ argument, especially high school debaters, is that they often forget to make their arguments effective. There are abundant argumentations that fail to give solid proofs and logical link toward the motion or theme so that it is possible that their argument becomes so-what arguments. Thus, Toulmin’s layout of argument can be applied to analyze their argument and see whether they have been able to make their argument solid and effective.
The study is focused in the semifinal round. For this round, they debate upon the motion “This House Will Ban Junk Food”. It means that the first team comes as the Government proposing and arguing this theme to debate and another team has to give counter arguments to oppose government’s proposal to ban junk food. In this competition, debaters debate by following Australasian Parliamentary System (APS). APS has two team debating and each team consists of three speakers and four roles, namely first, second, third, and reply-speakers. They have time to deliver their substantive speech for 7 minutes and 20 seconds (maximum time). Based on the model of debate, it is compatible to analyze debate argumentation by using Toulmin’s layout of argument because every argument they make has to be understandable and solid.
Talking about argumentative discourse, there is an abundance of research held based on this discourse and Toulmin’s theory. In 1987, Cohen’s article entitled Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse focused on a model for analysis of arguments which include a theory of linguistics clues. Other article was Syverson’s patterns and process of reasoning in virtual world in 1998. An old theory of Aristotle also becomes the ground of argumentative discourse. His theory is ‘syllogism’ used in Greek writings and logic (proof), rhetoric (persuasion), and dialect (inquiry).
Furthermore, there are some studies made based on Toulmin’s theory. Enduran, Simon, and Osborne (2004) wrote an article by the title TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse in the classroom. Gorski, Cyra, Jarzebowicz, and Miler in 2008 also wrote about Toulmin model of argument in trust cases. In 2007, Jamaludin, Ho, and Chee wrote about The Impact of Structured Argumentation Board and Enactive Role Play on Students’ Argumentative Writing Skills. It reports the impact of using a structured argument and enactive role play in Second Life on students’ argumentative writing skills in the context of the A-level subject General Paper by using quantitative method.
So far, the articles reviewed above are mostly about writings and spoken argumentation in judicial courts. The discussion about debate itself is mostly about teaching debate. Therefore, the study of my thesis is the use of Toulmin’s layout of argument in analyzing argumentation in debate competition. It is obvious that linguistically the argumentative discourse—in Toulmin’s theory—is worth analyzing: how far it influences and be applied in the argumentation analysis used by society.
One of the aims of argument is to provide mature reasoning (Crusius and Channel, 2003). While analyzing the elements of argument, Toulmin proposes a general view of the generic structure of an argument (Toulmin 1969, Van Dijk 1997, Fairclough 2003, Rottenberg 1988). There are mainly three characteristics namely claim, data, and warrant (Van Dijk 1997, Fairclough 2003). Toulmin (1969) further adds backing, rebuttal, and qualifier to his layout of arguments. In this case, he defines claim as the statement being argued (a thesis); data (ground or support) as the fact or evidence to prove the argument; warrant as the general hypothetical (and often implicit) logical statements that serve as bridges between the claim and data-logical link; qualifier is a statement that limit the strength of the argument or statement that proposes the condition under which argument is true; rebuttal is the counter argument or statement indicating circumstances when general argument does not seem true; and backing is a statement that supports warrant to be true. When the speaker has already fulfilled at six characteristics, namely claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier and rebuttal, his argumentation is considered sound arguments because in mature reasoning the speaker is demanded to show logical links in their arguments (Toulmin, 1969). Therefore, this study observes the use of argumentation analysis by the debaters in High School Debate Competition and be analyzed in qualitative way and the goals of this study are to see the use of Toulmin’s model of argumentation applied by debaters and to know the flaws they make in delivering their arguments.
1.2 Research Questions
Based on the phenomenon above, there are some research question to be discussed further as below.
1. What are the characteristics of argumentation used by high school debaters in delivering their arguments?
2. What flaws do they make in their arguments according to Toulmin’s layout of argument?
1.3 Objective of the Study
This study observes the use of argumentation analysis by the debaters in High School Debate Competition. The motion or theme of this debate is This House (Parliament or Government) will ban junk food. The goals of this study are to see the characteristics of argumentation used by high school debaters in delivering their arguments and to know the flaws they make in delivering their arguments. From the finding, the readers may have the insight on how to prepare and arrange sound argumentations. On the other hand, since it is a purposive study, therefore, the result of this study may not be able to be generalized for all debaters. It is due to the fact that most of debaters may have their own way in packaging their argument delivery. Basically the notions of argument are similar; they have to prove the audience that it is logic and is not mere assumption.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The attempt of this study is to analyze debate by using argumentative discourse. It is hoped that it will contribute other point of views to study discourse in debate by focusing on its argumentation analysis. Besides that, by reading this thesis, it is hoped that readers especially teachers and coaches have insight how to prepare students or debaters to join English debate competition. For students, they know what skills they need to understand when they join in debate competition and know how to make sound argumentations whenever they are debating.
1.5 Definition of Key Terms
1. Argumentation: the process of developing or presenting an argument; reasoning. (Hornby, 2005)
2. Backing : something which its precise relations to data, claim, warrants, and condition of rebuttal deserve some clarification (Toulmin, 2003). In this case it becomes a further back up for warrant and other characteristics. It shows the logical link to the argumentation.
3. Claim : a conclusion whose merits we are seeking to establish (Toulmin, 2003). It shows speaker’s thesis or idea that s/he wants to prove within the argumentation.
4. Data : the facts we appeal to as a foundation for a claim (Toulmin, 2003). In this case, it gives evidence and or proof to show that a claim is considerable and not assumption.
5. Debate : a formal discussion of an issue at a public meeting or in a parliament. In a debate a two or more speakers express opposing views and then there is often a vote on the issue (Hornby, 2005)
6. Layout of arguments: the pattern of arguments or the way arguments are set (Toulmin, 2003)
7. Motion : a formal proposal that is discussed and voted on a meeting (Hornby, 2005)
8. Qualifier : explicit reference to the degree of force which data confer on claim in virtue of warrant (Toulmin, 2003). It is the hedging given to a claim. It indicates how strong the claim that the speaker makes.
9. Rebuttal : Condition of exception (Toulmin, 2003). It shows what can be conflicting viewpoints in audiences’ mind.
10. This House : a group of people discussing something in a formal debate (Hornby, 2005)
11. Warrant : the soundness of all arguments of the appropriate type (Toulmin, 2003). It firstly serves the logical link between data and claim to show that a claim and data are not nonsense.



CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Frameworks

In 1958, the turning point came up showing the development of argumentation studies after an old theory of Aristotle, syllogism. Syllogism was used to show logic, rhetoric, and dialect. In the rush of dialectification, Toulmin’s work became the central. He proposed that by regarding substantive context, argument could be viewed as the offering of claim along with answers to characteristics questions. He still used the premises of classical logic. Somehow it differs from a classical model of argument. He focused on the functional relationship not on the formal relationship (Van Eemeren et al, 1997).
Talking layout of argument, Toulmin believed that argument is structured as an organism. He made such analogy in order to convince that within the structures of argument, there were parts which functioned as a finer structure. He also noted that within the physiological level lied the idea of logical form. Basically all these notions referring to the layout of arguments can help us achieve the logic of arguments.
Logic meant in this study, as acknowledged by Aristotle was concerned with the ways in which men thought, argued, and inferred (Toulmin, 2003). Toulmin himself (2003) saw logic concerned with the soundness of the claim as we made, with the solidity of the grounds we produced to support them, and the firmness of the backing we provided in defense of our claims. Therefore, a sound argument (logic argument) was a well-grounded or firmly-backed claim.
There were six characteristics in Toulmin’s layout of argument. There are mainly three characteristics namely claim, ground, and warrant (Van Dijk 1997, Fairclough 2003). Toulmin (1969) further adds backing, rebuttal, and qualifier. Claim is conclusion whose merits we were seeking to establish (C) (Toulmin, 2003). Claim basically asked “What is the author trying to say?” for example Harry is a British subject. In case we were challenged, we had to make our claim justifiable, by appealing facts to support. Thus, these facts were upon which our claim was based. Data was the facts we appealed to ask as a foundation for the claim (D). Data could be evidence, proof, argument, or ‘What does the author say to persuade the audience of the claim?” foe instance Harry was born in Bermuda. Claim and data might not be enough to justify argument. If we were challenged further, we might not require adding more factual information but ‘How do we get there?’ In this case, we could present data by committing to a certain steps, to shop how we could justify this help. As this matter, we needed hypothetical statements, “acting as bridges and authoring the sort of step to which our particular argument commits us.” (Toulmin, 2003 p.91). Toulmin called proposition of this kind as warrant (W) to distinguish them from conclusion (C) and Data (D) for example A man born in Bermuda will generally be a British subject.
.
D so C
Since
W
Toulmin also added that data (D) were appealed to explicitly and warrant implicitly. Warrant showed general indicating the soundness of all arguments of the appropriate type. In this case, warrant answered “What’s causing the author to say the things s/he does? And how do we get there? Some warrants made us accept a claim unequivocally and qualify our conclusion with the advers ‘necessarily’. On the other hand, we may be challenged to make the step from data to conclusion by using conditions, exceptions, or qualifications. To overcome such problem, we might inquire some explicit reference to the degree of force by putting a modal qualifier (Q) because it is often necessary. Qualifier was like hedging e.g. many, many times, some or rarely, few, possibly, and so on. The example of qualifier is presumably. In addition, rebuttal could be given either through a continued dialogue or by pre-empting the counter by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. Rebuttal showed the counter argument or statement indicating circumstances when general argument does not seem true. Besides that, it also indicated circumstances in which the general authority of the warrant would have to be set aside for example Both his parents are Aliens / he has become a naturalized American. It now became more complex. Model qualifiers may (Q) and conditions of exception or rebuttal (R) were different from Data (D). Data and warrant were supposed to be put in separate places in layout. Besides, a last distinction proposed by Toulmin was backing the warrants. It was supposed to answer why in general this warrant should be accepted as justification. Backing of the warrants had precise relations to data, claim, warrants, and rebuttal for instance The following statutes and other legal provisions. Toulmin’s layout of arguments can be seen as follows.

D so, Q, C

Since
W Unless
R
On account of
B

Based on theories above, Toulmin’s theory was applicable to analyze arguments in debate speeches because in practice there were some arguments’ functions to be performed by different kinds of proposition. Toulmin argued (2003) the kinds of propositions did not stop on a premises and conclusion but among claims, data, warrant, modal qualifier, condition of rebuttals, statements about the applicability or inapplicability of warrants and other. Toulmin’s theory was also tested by some experts for instances Professor H. L. A. Hart and Sir David Rose. Both of them examined Toulmin’s theory of rebuttal in philosophy, jurisprudential study and the field of ethics. To analyze the flaws, the completeness of Toulmin’s layout of arguments is seen. If an argumentation does not give one or more characteristics of the layout, it is considered flaws because it has decreased the soundness of an argumentation. Therefore, this thesis used Toulmin’s theory because it was compatible with the aim of the research.
2.2 Related Studies
There were several articles based on Toulmin theory and argumentation which served as my related studies. Firstly, Cohen (1987) wrote an article entitled Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse. The paper described a model for the analysis of argumentation which included a theory of expected coherent structure which was used to limit analysis to the reconstruction of particular transmission forms, a theory of linguistics clues which assigned a functional interpretation to indicate the structure of the argument, a theory of evidence relationship including the pragmatic analysis to accommodate beliefs. Then, the implications of such particular design for dialogue analysis in general were the structure, linguistic constructions, and pragmatic analysis.
Next, it came from Enduran, Simon, and Osborne (2004) who wrote TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin’s argument Pattern for studying Science Discourse. It reported some methodological approached to the analysis of argumentation discourse in a projects titled ‘Enhancing the Quality of Argument in School Science. It showed the model development of instructional activities in an effort to make argumentation a component of instruction. The article started from a brief theoretical justification to show the argumentation was significance to science education. Then they contextualized the use of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) in the study of argumentation discourse and provided a justification for the methodological outcomes. They presented two methodological approaches to the analysis of argumentation resulting in whole class as well as small group student discussion. Their finding was the use of TAP as an indicator of quality and quantity of argumentation in classroom discourse.
The paper presented by Gorski, Cyra, Jarzebowicz, and Miler (2008) represented and appraised Toulmin model arguments in trust cases. It allowed arguing various properties of its systems. They also introduced a method of argument appraised with the corresponding aggregation mechanism. Besides, Jamaludin, Ho, and Chen (2007) also wrote The Impact of Structured Argumentation and Enactive Role Play on Students’ Argumentative Writings Skills. Students there were taught the characteristics of argumentations based on Toulmin’s argumentation framework. Students participated in two separate modes of technology-facilitated learning in a cyclic, interwoven fashion, alternating back and forth between two cycles of argument and enaction. There were pre and post argumentation essays written based on Toulmin’s argument framework. The data were then contrasted and presented in the statistical results.

CHAPTER III: METHOD OF THE STUDY
High School Debate Competition (HSDC) was annually held by English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Airlangga University of Surabaya. Based on its history, it has evolved time after time, especially the number of participants. It was firstly participated by Surabaya and Sidoarjo debaters. These last two years, HSDC has been participated by other cities like Ponorogo, Malang, and other cities in East Java.
Since there were seven matches in debate tournament, the sample of this study was purposive that was the semifinal round. The approach for this research was qualitative. According to Wray, Trott, and Bloomer (1998), qualitative method showed the recognition of the importance of subjectivity of human beings. Debate was seen as a single context so that it needed interpreting and capturing its complexity. The samples taken were only four participants due to the difficulty in transcribing the data, the process of data collection, and limited time work on it, in the other words, it did not complete the requirement of quantitative approach that demanded validity and reliability. Furthermore, the nature of debate here was speaking while speaking itself was evanescent which disappears as soon as it was spoken (Cameron, 2001). That was why the speeches need recording, transcribing orthographically, and coding to ease the researcher in analyzing the data. Thus, by using qualitative approach, this proposal study was hoped feasible to research.
3.1 Sampling
. The sampling of this research was taken in semifinal round, SMAN 4 Malang versus SMA St. Albertus Malang. Sampling technique was purposive sampling (Wray et al. 1998, Given 2008). The sample was purposively chosen considering they were best speaker, one of the team was last year champion, and another team was clear enough in delivering their speech. It was very helpful for the researcher to transcribe the speeches. Besides that, it was matched with the characteristics of the sampling that was lying in selecting information rich-cases for in-depth analysis related to the central issues being studied.
The samplings were first and second speakers of each team debating under a motion. It was to standardize their capability. At least they have passed three preliminary rounds and octo-final rounds (4 matches). Ericson et al. (2003) argued that constructive speeches were delivered by first and second speaker of affirmative (Government) and first and second of negative (Opposition).
3.2 Technique of data collection
In this research, this observation used participatory observation because I was the adjudicator of this match. These were the steps that I took.
a. being the adjudicator of HSDC,
b. following the match- semifinal round,
c. recording the audio of this match,
d. transcribing the spoken data orthographically, and
e. coding data
To distinguish which speaker and arguments were analyzed, there were codes for instance T for Team, S for Speaker, and P for Point (statement). As an example T1 S1 P3 is for “Everybody loves junk food especially children”. The statement belonged to First Speaker of First Team (Government) in the 3rd point or statement.
3.2 Technique of Data Analysis
In this study, I used qualitative research method rather than quantitative. After the evanescent speeches were recorded, transcribed orthographically and coded, the following steps were below.
a. classifying and identifying the characteristics of arguments based on Toulmin’s model
Each characteristic had question to answer.
• Claim: what does the speaker try to prove?
• Data: what does the speaker say to persuade the audience of the claim?
• Warrant: how do we get there? Or what causes the speaker to say the thing s/he does?
• Qualifier: what is the degree of force to strengthen the claim?
• Backing: why in general should this warrant be accepted as justifiable?
• Rebuttal: what is the condition of exception?
If the answer was matched with an argument, then the argument belonged to certain characteristic. Besides that, to know the changing of argumentations, the topic or subtopic had to be distinguished by analyzing the environment of the speech. By recognizing sign postings, the changes were differentiated.
b. identifying the flaws of the argument based on the completeness Toulmin’s layout of arguments.
CHAPTER IV : ANALYSIS

4.1 Characteristics of Toulmin’s Layout of Argument
From the presentation of the transcription data of debate by the motion This House Will Ban Junk Food, each of speaker has used the characteristics of Toulmin’s layout of Argument even though not in all their arguments. Below is the result of the analysis on the characteristics of argumentation which are frequently used by high school debaters in delivering their arguments.

4.1.1 Claim
Claim is the conclusion, controlling idea or thesis, or the main point of argument. Here are examples of claim found in the speech.
• T1 S1 P 9: Junk food should be banned at especially school.
The first speaker of Government opens this debate by saying that now everyone especially children love junk food. She continued to show the fact that junk food is delicious and cheap. In this case she tries to say that those children do not realize the future implication of eating junk food. She also adds that junk food contain dangerous ingredients. Based on this problem, the Government want to ban junk food at school for the sake of students’ future. The argument above become the headline of the Government to propose this motion to the audience to consider. Therefore, it is called claim because she considers it as a major point in proposing a motion to audience. It is what she is trying to prove.
• T2 S1 P 68: As we the senior high students, we have ability to differentiate which is good and which is bad.

It is the turn for the Opposition to oppose the proposal given by the Government. The first speaker of the Opposition in this occasion rebuts the first speaker of the Government. He firstly assumes the statement given by the Government. The Government does not say whether in this debate the students are limited to elementary students or other children. Thus the Opposition assumes it to be the senior high school students. Since the Opposition assumes that the parameter is senior high school students, the Opposition then generalized his view that “We” (senior high school students) can differentiate good and bad. This statement also answers and challenges the first speaker of the Government about the nature that she states to give the insight about the children and reason why they should be taken care by the school. Therefore, the statement above is called claim because it is what the speaker asked the audience to accept or believe. It becomes the conclusion of the speaker’s statement about his concern to future even though he also consumes junk food.

Claim is one of the main characteristics in Toulmin’s layout of arguments. The students here frequently use it to state what they want to prove either to propose or to oppose.
4.1.2 Data
Data are reasons given to support the claim in order that the audience can see the evidence or proof of the given claim. Here are the examples of data found in the speech.
• T1 S2 P109-110: Please remember that this is snack but the impact is poisonous case, even Ladies and Gentlemen if you eat just a small thing, but it can lead you to face cancer and later on.

It is the second rebuttal given by the second speaker of Government. After attacking the Opposition on food standardization, he rebuts the data given by the Opposition. It was about the personal experience of the Opposition speaker that was concerned with the speaker’s concern to future and his cilok consumption. The Government speaker tries to tackle the data by saying that junk food is still poisonous. He tries to describe what the audience can have later because of junk food. He in this case uses cause and effect to give data for his rebuttal. The statement above is called data because the speaker wants to convince his claim that junk food is very dangerous. They are called data because the speaker uses them to rebut the Opposition’s argument about consuming cilok.
• T2 S2 P174: We know that outside there are still many junk food if students wants to buy.

What has been done by the Opposition is to show that the Government’s proposal is not significant to be granted. One of the efforts done by the Opposition is to oppose the Government who want no more junk food for many reasons. The Opposition has convinced that junk food is not dangerous and he tries to prove that the proposal is not significant because it can lead to other problem for instance economic condition of the sellers and the demand in the society (students). He adds the reasons that outside there are junk food available for students. He tries to use the statement above as data to prove his claim that it can not make significant effect to consume the junk food.

Data is also one of the main of characteristics in Toulmin’s layout of arguments because it provides support for the claim. If a speaker only states claim without any data, it may be considered as assumption because the claim has no ground to support and the question will be how that speaker comes to such claim if there is no data. Based on the analysis above, these data are mostly about proof to make audience believe because they seldom use evidence such as facts or experts’ opinion. In the other words, the speakers take for granted what their knowledge and generalize them to be data for their claim.

4.1.3 Warrant
Warrant is assumption or presupposition underlying the argument. It is usually in the form of general beliefs understood by the speaker and the audience. Here are the examples of warrant found in the speech.
• T1 S1 P20: Students don’t know which one is healthy and or not.
The first speaker of Government would like to explain the nature of students so that they want to ban junk food at school. She believes that students buy junk food most of the times because junk food is delicious even cheap. She makes audience believe that students only matter with the delicate and cheapness of jubk food. Thus the statement above is called warrant because it serves the logical link of “the nature of the students who do not know which oen is healthy and or not”.
• T2 S1 P80: Of course it is dangerous because we eat it all the times as the main menu, but actually they forget that cilok is snack.

After proving that junk food is delicious and ahs high demand in the society, the Opposition tries to answer the Government’s rebuttal that junk food is not dangerous. He Opposition believes that it is dangerous because it is not all the times just like main menu. He tries to distinguish snack and main menu. He also makes believe that junk food is just a snack. It is called warrant because it logically becomes the logical link to show that “junk food is dangerous especially if consumed as main menu”.
Warrant is one of the main characters as well. Its functions as the logical link for data and claim. Many of the argumentations use warrant, but for some argumentations are without warrant.

4.1.4 Backing
Backing is the further back-up of the argumentation. Here is the example of backing found in the speech.
• T1 S2 P107: That is why this is false standardized.
The second speaker has to support the previous speaker of his team and opposes the Opposition. Before he delivers his arguments to support, he attacks the speaker of the Opposition. Before that, the Opposition says that junk food has passed standardization. To Government, this is actually wrong standardization because kios-kios (sellers) selling macaroni and cilok do not have acknowledgement to pass standardization. He says that it happens because they also have to pay so that they jus sell it at kios2kios and schools, not in the big higher markets.
It is called backing because it further supports the warrant “That’s why there is also standardization at all because this is only sold at kios-kios and this is only sold at school, not in the big higher” and claim “This is actually wrong the standardization”.

• T2 S2 P176: Junk food can’t be banned to the school because they still can buy it outside the school.

This point is to show how that banning junk food is insignificant. It opposes the proposal of the Government. Whenever the Government says that the jun food is harmful and should be banned at school, the Opposition simply negates by saying that it is useless because outside there are junk food sellers and students can but. The statement above is called backing because it becomes the further back up to a claim” It can not make significant effect to consume the junk food’ and warrant “So based on my explanation, it can make conclusion that if we ban junk food in the school, it cannot give significance and moreover bring bad impact especially junk food seller and towards the students because cannot give snack”.
Backing is one of the he six characteristics of arguments. It actually gives the further back up to all characteristics of arguments. If warrant indicates logical link for data and the claim, backing indicates the logical links among other characteristics of Toumin’s layout of arguments. Many of their argumentations use backing to strengthen their argumentations.

4.1.5 Qualifier
Qualifier is the hedging given in the argument. Here is the example of qualifier found in the speech.
• T1 S1 P53: And if we combine with the nature of junk food which will lead to bad things , into dangerous healthy thing.

In her previous statement she explains the poisonous harmful junk food band why banning junk fod. She tries to refer to the nature of education and relates it to schools’ obligation to take care of students including their food at schools. She argues that students do not know what they will eat. To qualifies her claim, she refers to the nature of junk f ood to show the conditional possibility. The qualifier qualifies the claim “we equal to bad thing, to harmful thing especially for students (……) take care by school”.

• T1 S2 P118: When it is hungry.
The Government still believes that the motion stands still. The Government would like to bring the motion philosophically from the nature of schools, students, and junk food. A claim is given by the Opposition that junk food is only a snack not a main menu for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It is needed to lose hunger. Then the Government comes up by saying that it can not fulfill the hungriness. The qualifier of the claim is the statement above. It is called qualifier because it qualifies the claim “it cannot fulfill the hungriness”.

• T2 S2 P166: If it’s banned at school.
The Opposition believes that the motion fails. The second speaker of the Government tells about the standardization. According to Opposition, it is only assumption especially junk food (macaroni) can cause cancer. The Opposition this time rebuts the Government that they can not give significance why cilok should be banned at schools. The Opposition gives the data that there are many junk food sellers outside. Therefore, it is insignificant. The statement above become the condition for the claim so that we know that the banning is useless if it is done at schools.
Qualifier is one of six characteristics proposed by Toulmin to strengthen the argumentation. Some of students’ argumentations use qualifier in supporting their claim. Most of them are in the forms of if-condition. The weakness is then how they use the condition for instance “if in home their parents still providing them with healthy food, of course there is kind of balance of nutrition”. They only stop to that statement. It is better to put a sentence as data “their parents provide them with healthy food.” Such statement can make the qualifier as the standard that has been achieved by the speaker to prove the claim. Thus, their if-condition can strengthen their claim rather than weaken their claim.


4.1.6 Rebuttal
Rebuttal is the counter argument or statement indicating circumstances when general argument does not seem true. Here is the example of rebuttal found in the speech.
• T1 S1 P16: While the negative side of the House should explain to you and prove here that junk food is okay, nice, and not dangerous for them in the future.

After defining the motion and telling why they want to propose the motion, the first speaker of Government gives rebuttal the Opposition in order to be answered in the next speaker. Since the Government proposes the motion, the Opposition has to oppose the motion. Thus the statement above is called rebuttal because it is directed to their opposition to prove since the Government team believes that this is dangerous.
• T2 S1 P82: Meanwhile, include the parents still provide their children the health food, Ladies and Gentlemen. Let me remind you that junk food is not dangerous.
The Government always attacks the Opposotion that junk food is dangerous. On the other hand, the Opposition believes that junk food is not consumed as main menu and it is not dangerous. He also believes that people do not consume it all the times. To answer the conflicting view point in the Government and audience, he gives such rebuttal above. It is to satisfy the curiousity in the eaudience’s mind.
Besides that, it answers the question of the previous speaker from the Government when she was saying “Junk food is dangerous”.
Rebuttal is one of six characteristics supporting the soundness of arguments. Many of their argumentation use rebuttal either to answer or to question the claims of opponents. Rebuttal can be in the form of claim, data, warrant or other characteristics. In their speeches, they are mostly in the form of claim. So when the focus of speakers is on giving rebuttal, the claim is omitted because the claim is in the form of rebuttal.
Based on the analysis above, it shows that high school debaters also have been able to use the characteristics as in Toumin’s layout of arguments. To my own finding, some of their arguments are floating so that they cause confusion when they need classifying.



4.1.7 Signposting Resulted in a Claim
Signposting resulted to be a claim means that the statement is actually a signposting to indicate the new topic to introduce but it results to be so-what claim to the argumentation. The example can be seen below.
T1 S1 P19: Now I will explain first philosophically, the nature of the students.
The aim of the speaker is to show the nature of the students. Unfortunately, the statement stops and there is no further information to what the nature of students is related. The next sentence also can not be stated as claim too because it actually elaborates the first statement. Besides, that next statement functions as the warrant for the floating statement and data. Further, the environment of the statement also shows that they refer to the nature of the students as steted above. Thus, the statement above is called signposting resulted to be a claim.
4.1.8 Rebuttal Resembling a Claim
In the argumentations, a claim is absent and rebuttal is present instead. Identified further, it is only a rebuttal that comes as a claim to be justified to oppose the opponent. It causes confusion because the function is to tackle, not to provide an argumentation. It often comes at the beginning of the presentation of debaters to refute their opponent. Some examples can be seen below.
T1 S2 P112 Rebuttal: The first speaker of the negative side of the House is actually hypocrite.
The speaker uses the argument to attack the Opposition. He tries to show the audience the fallacy made by the Opposition. Data, warrant and backing are given to show that the first speaker is hypocrite. The sense is also different from the rebuttal at which a claim usually exists.
T2 S2 P 154 Rebuttal: The negative side of this House does not support this motion because this junk food is not main menu in our daily.

The environment of the statement above is data and warrant which support the rebuttal. It is used as rebuttal because it shows the conflicting viewpoint that is asked by the Government. The function is to answer the question asked by the Government whether junk food is not dangerous. Basically there is no claim found in the argumentation and it is actually used as a mean to attack the Government’s general argumentations. At the end it is still rebuttal resembling a claim.

4.1.9 Claim Repetition within an Argumentation
It shows the repetition within a package of argumentation. An example can be seen below.
T2 S2 P 174: It can not make significant effect to consume the junk food.
T2 S2 P177: It cannot give significant impact towards students

The argument above appears twice but in slight difference of diction. It may be aimed at reemphasizing of the whole Opposition cases because it is stated before the speech ends. Unfortunately, there are two statements that refer to a single claim, namely T2 S2 P174 and T2 S2 P177. So, here we see in an argumentation, claim is stated twice with slight difference. If T2 S2 P177 is categorized as a separate argumentation, it is going to be redundant because in fact it refers to the same thing as the previous argumentation. Therefore, it still belongs to an argumentation but it is called a claim repetition.
4.2 Flaws on the Argumentations Made by the Speakers
Toulmin has argued that there are mainly six characteristics namely claim, data, warrant, qualifier, backing, and rebuttal to make sound argumentation. To analyze the flaws, therefore, the completeness of Toulmin’s characteristics are examined. It is also to see the logics concerned with soundness of the claim, the solidity of the grounds, and the firmness of the backing.
The example of flaws in argumentation can be seen as follows.
T1 S1
P (14) Rebuttal: we as the government side of the House should prove to you all that junk food is not healthy at all even junk food is dangerous.
P (15) Claim: Therefore we want to ban it.
P (16) Rebuttal: While the negative side of the House should explain to you and prove here that junk food is okay, nice, and not dangerous for them in the future.

The statements above are stated after the speaker gives little explanation to the audience about junk food. She then gives rebuttal to the Opposition that they will prove that junk food is dangerous and the Opposition should prove that junk food is not dangerous. The claim for those rebuttals is that they want to ban junk food. The weakness of the argumentation above is due to the absence of data, warrant, qualifier, and backing. If the speaker states the argument followed by other four characteristics, her argumentation may be tangible to deter her opponent.

• T2 S1
P (62) Rebuttal: The government side of the House believes this motion that junk food is dangerous to be consumed while the negative side of the House believe that junk food is not dangerous.
P (62) Data: Junk food had fact that since there is the Government’s explanation of food which Indonesian know as especially today BPOM.

Before the speaker gives his main case, he rebuts some point of the Government. He states that junk food is not dangerous and there is also BPOM. The weakness of the argumentation is that there are no warrant, backing, and qualifier. Besides that, he does not elaborate the function of BPOM. He may assume that the audiences know what BPOM is. But, it will be better if he explain what BPOM is and what it does so that his data can be strong enough to attack the Government.

T2 S1
P (71) Rebuttal: So moreover outside the school there is so much cilok sellers and other junk food.
P (71) Claim: so the government’s fact is not significant.

Still giving rebuttal to the Government, the Opposition in this case speaks generally. He only refers to general thing without giving any details which points he tries to rebut. In giving rebuttal, the speaker should rebuts certain point and provide reasoning to his rebuttal in order that he can really attack the argument of the opponent. The flaws of the argumentation above lie on the absence of warrant, backing, and qualifier because the rebuttal above is claim rebuttal.
Based on the flaws above and overall speeches identified, argumentations made by speakers are separated or not well-arranged. They still can not tie their arguments into some solid argumentations. As the result, there are many repetitions in their argumentations and some flaws appear. They may need to make good sign postings too from a topic to others.

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

High School Debate Competition is annually held by English Department of Airlangga University of Surabaya. Many senior high schools join this competition. In accordance to enrich the study on argumentation discourse, the researcher studies the use of argumentation in high school debaters. This study purposes its analysis on the semifinal match, exactly on four speakers of the two teams debating.
In high school debate competition, it is found that debaters frequently use the characteristics proposed in Toulmin’s layout of argument like claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal though not all of their argumentations use the six characteristics. The findings show that they have frequently made arguments as proposed by Toulmin’s theory. Many of their argumentations fulfill the characteristics of layout of arguments. In addition, some argumentations have failed to complete the layout of arguments and they are considered flaws due to the incompleteness. The incompleteness makes argumentation less sound. Flaws art their argumentations are mostly about adding warrant, backing and qualifier. Besides, there are also some floating in the layout of argumentations for instance signposting resulted in a claim. A claim is a conclusion of data, warrant and other characteristics. While in this case, the statement is actually a sign posting of a new topic. Other statements assert the signposting statement as if it is a claim to assert. Thus, it results in a claim for the rest of arguments. Other is rebuttal resembling a claim. The function of a statement is to rebut while assertion for the statement make it as a claim. The last floating is a claim repetition within an argumentation. Some of floating arguments occur because students’ argumentations are sometimes not well arranged so that there are many repetitions thus making argumentations not tight and separated.
Toulmin’s layout of arguments helps to structure the argumentation. It is hoped that by reading this thesis, readers as well as teachers and coaches can have insight to prepare their students to learn how to debate especially in making argumentation. They can encourage their students to join debate competition. For students, they can know what skills they need to understand to join debate especially recognize the elements to make sound argumentations. Further, may this study give more insight to argumentative discourse.


REFERENCES
Bassam, Greg., Irwin, William., Nardone, Henry., Wallaca, James M. (2002). Critical Thinking: A Student Introduction. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cameron, Deborah. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse . London : Sage.
Cohen, Robin. (1987). ‘Analyzing the Structure of Argumentation Discourse’, Journal of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Volume 13, Number 1-2, January-June. pp. 11-24.
Crusius, Timothy W., and Channel, Carolyn E. (2003). The Aims of Arguments: A Text and Reader, 4th ed. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Enduran, Sibel., Simon, Shirley., and Osborne, Jonathan. (2004). TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin’s argument Pattern for studying Science Discourse. London: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Retrieved May 22, 2010, from http://interscience.wiley.com
Ericson, Jon M., Murphy, James J., and Zeuschner, Raymond Bud. (2003). The Debater’s Guide. 3rd Edition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Faiclough, Norman. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Gorski, Janusz., Cyra, Lukasz., Jarzebowicz, Aleksander., and Miler, Jakub. (2008). ‘Representing and Appraising Toulmin Model Arguments on Trust Cases’, Journal of the Proceeding of 8th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. Patras: Gdansk University Press.
Hornby, AS. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 7th Edition. NY: Oxford University Press.
Jamaludin, Azilawati., Ho Mei Lin Caroline, and Chee Yam Sam. (2007). ‘The Impact of Structured Argumentation and Enactive Role Play on Students’ Argumentative Writing Skills’, Journal of the Proceeding Asvilite Singapore 2007. Nanyang Walk: Nanyang Technology University Press. pp. 430-439.
Paltridge, Brian. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse. Queensland: Gold Cost.
Palys, Ted. (2008). Purposive Sampling. In Lisa M. Given (Ed.). The Sage: Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods Volume 1 & 2. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rottenberg, Annette T. (1988). Elements of Argument: a Text and Reader. 2nd Edition. NY: St. Martin’s Press Inc.
Syverson, Margaret A. (1998). ‘Pattern and Process of Resoning in Virtual Worlds’, in Christopher Launder and Kirstie Bellman (ed.), Journal of the Proceeding of the Virtual Worlds and Simulation Conference. San Diego: Society for Computer Simulation International. pp. 107-112.
Toulmin, Stephen. (1969). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/making_argument/toulmin.htm
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Grootendoorst, Rob., Jacksons, Sally., and Jacobs, Scott. (1997). ‘Argumentation’ in Teun Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structures and Process: Discourse Studies a Multidisciplinary Inroduction, V0l. 1. London: Sage.
Wray, Alison., Trott, Kate., and Bloomer, Aileen. (1998). Projects in Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Weston, Anthony. (1992). A Rulebook for Arguments. 2nd Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Woods, Nancy. (2004). Perspective on Argument. 4th ed. NJ: Prentice Hall.