53
DEBATE SESSION
obligation to protect the children, it doesn’t in a realize because in most cases the parents is actually the one who
abuse the children.”
“Furthermore, they said that this should not be effective and it doesn’t work because they say that the government should
make the police become more aware.”
The debaters used the gambit ‘they say…’ both in the beginning and in the middle of their utterances. This gambit was used to show confidence by re-stating
the opponent’s arguments in which they countered it in the next sentences. Furthermore, this gambit conveyed the audiences and the adjudicators that the
argument was strong. However, in the next sentence, the speaker weakened the stated argument by giving some facts that could break the argument down. This
was shown in the GOV S3’s utterance which restated the opponent’s argument and countered it in the next sentence. In short, the gambit ‘they say…’ was useful
for clashing the idea brought by the opponents. Those were the discussions of opening gambits used by the debaters.
There were many expressions of opening gambits in conversation gambits. However, there were only seven gambits that frequently used by the debaters in
JOVED event. Most of the debaters used the gambits in the beginning of the sentence in their speeches. Indeed, there were also some debaters who used the
gambits at the end of the sentence in their speeches.
2. Linking Gambits
Keller and Warner 2002 defined linking gambits as gambits which were used to link ideas of one speaker to the others’. It was also used to react to the
54
idea without showing strong offense. Linking gambits also prepared the listeners for the arguments or opinions that would be delivered.
Similar to opening gambits, the debaters in the JOVED event tended to use this kind of gambits. However, the debaters only used some of the linking gambits
in their speeches. In the following page, the writer presented the samples of the debaters’ utterances containing the linking gambits. These were the linking
gambits used by all debaters and the sample on how they used the gambit in the sentence.
a Having good reasons
In delivering speeches in debate, the debaters also used some gambits for stating their reasons. There were two parts of stating reason. They were starting
and continuing. For starting the reasons, the gambits that could be used were ‘the
reason why…’ and ‘because…’. Meanwhile, for continuing the reasons the debaters could use gambits such as ‘that’s why…’, ‘that’s the reason why…’, for
the reason…’, and ‘because of that…’. In this study, there were two gambits related to having good reasons. They
were ‘because’ and ‘that’s why’. The gambit ‘because’ was used by all the debaters both in the first and in the second debate sessions. Some of them used
this gambit to answer their own question in their speeches. Their speeches was more likely to an active conversation. In debate, they not only had speech but they
also made one-way conversation with the audiences. These were the samples of the utterances that used the gambit ‘because’.
55
Table 4.9 The samples on the use of gambit ‘because…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
F I
R S
T D
E B
A T
E S
E S
S I
O N
GOV S1 “Because we think the source of problem is the social media
itself, because there is no eagerness of the social media to give
more protection for the user at the end of the day.”
“Because we want to make social media a good and healthy
environment for every single people to express their opinion.” OPP S1
“Because if you want to punish, it should be the individual
user only and not the social media to begin with.”
“One default, you cannot punish the social media because this
doesn’t fall under the condition when you cannot actually have someone reliable.”
GOV S2 “Because my first speaker has already explained to you how
this social media are stimulating the doer.” “So, it continuously happens, they will feel depressed and it is
very harm toward their basic psychological security because
no matter I go, I continuously being bullied, ladies and gentlemen.”
OPP S2 “Because Noel has already been clear, on the best scenario,
assuming, it would change the calculus of these companies.”
“They believe it’s justifiable because they are using the platform for cyber bullying, because this social media
platform, the one that is providing the platform for cyber bullying, ladies and gentlemen.”
GOV S3 “Because in real world, when you, when you can demand
equal treatment you can ask to your parliament.” “But how in the social media you actually have right to have
equal treatment coming from this, because these social media
become virtual world where everyone in globalization era really expect …”
OPP S3 “Because we directly create the deterrent effect to the doer
themselves which is we can a fear punishment, chill and also
56
fines to the doer itself.”
“When you can sue the doer, you can direct closure because
you can see the doer is being punished in front of you.”
“Why so? Because we believe that Facebook is only a victim.”
OPP S1 Reply
speaker “But exactly that is why they are not fair to actually punish the
social media because it’s even the individual that also violate
the term of social condition of the soc ial media that …”
“Because you harming the idea of social media as a platform
to actually actuate your expression in the social media itself.” GOV S1
Reply speaker
“Because we think they still let people to bullying, for
example, to creating a blast of me or mock people every single time, every single time, for example.”
“Moreover, we think the victim is not only the victim of the bullying itself, but we think the doer or the actor of the
bullying itself is the victim of these social media itself,
because media is the one who creating the channel to become
bulliers for example.”
S E
C O
N D
D E
B A
T E
S E
GOV S1 “Because we understand that the possible witnesses most
likely are people that live near these child abusers.”
“We might not even find out cases because people are not
willing to go to the police and report this crime in the first place.”
OPP S1 “As a witness, we will never ever punish them even if they are
failed to report in any potential child abuse because it is such
kind of common thing in a failure of such kind of them of reporting.”
“Because witness is not always the one who knows everything
about the case and the police should not punish the one who even do not directly …”
GOV S2 “Because as the opposition, their responsibility is basically
showing how they can prevent further child abuse with that actually comulizing.”
“Because this forty eight days is probably different between
57
S S
I O
N
this child e e the death or the life of the child.”
“And also other people will be following them ladies and
gentlemen because their sense of morality and not wanting to
be criminalized and this trend …” OPP S2
“Somehow, they are willingly to save other live just because
they also try to concern to their own life ladies and gentlemen, it is really important.”
“Because this such kind is to educate the main target at the
very beginning ladies and gentlemen.” GOV S3
“Furthermore, that they also said that the witnesses is good
enough because they are volunteer.”
“Because by doing that we will not criminalize because they
are already report it.” OPP S3
“Because you don’t even know it has been proved enough
ladies and gentlemen.” “Because people will only be afraid and try to protect
themselv es.”
OPP S1 Reply
speaker
“Because at the end, they are willingly to do report for
example, at the end the humanity also the people surround them will protect each other still valid and how that idea they
never touch at all.”
“Because it is better to even do not know anything and even
not exist be witness rather that you will be punished at the end of the day.”
GOV S1 Reply
Speaker
“Because by not reporting the crime, they are actually being a
variable of the crime and by not doing that they actually hampering the police investigation …”
“That we have proven to you since the very first time that we
have anonymity in order to protect their security because, you know
, they might be the neighbor or the house workers …”
In the first debate session, the speakers used the gambit ‘because’ both in
front and in the middle of the utterances. They used this gambit in the sentences right after delivering a question. Mostly, they used
the word ‘Why so?’ or PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58
‘Because why?’ as the question and in the next sentence they answered their own question by saying ‘because …’. It showed that the previous argument had some
reasons to consider logically. Moreover, this gambit was also used to convince the audience and the
adjudicators that their ideas were reasonable and logically accepted. Besides, the debaters used this gambit to emphasize point or to give more explanation for their
previous statements, arguments or opinions. In conclusion, the gambit ‘because’ was used to explain reasons, to emphasize point, and to give more explanation for
the previous statements. Similar to the first debate session, in the second debate session, the
speakers also used the gambit ‘because’ both in front and in the middle of the
utterances. Sometimes, they used the gambit ‘because’ to give reasons for the
statement previously mentioned. Also, this gambit was used to emphasize point especially in the form of preference
. For instance, the OPP S1’s utterance used the gambit ‘because’ to show suggestion and to give probability as the result of the
government’s proposal. Besides, the debaters also used this gambit to convince the audience and
the adjudicators to accept and follow their proposals. It was related to the purpose of this gambit in which it was used to give reasons and to explain the points
further so that the speeches could be more convincing. In short, this gambit helped the debaters to convey their ideas to the audience and the adjudicators.
Another gambit that was used to state reasons was ‘that’s why’. This gambit was used by some debaters both in the first and in the second debate
59
sessions. The gambit ‘that’s why’ was used to give good reasons. In the following part, the writer presented th
e samples of the debaters’ utterance using the gambit ‘that’s why …’.
Table 4.10 The samples on the use of gambit ‘that’s why…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
F I
R S
T D
E B
A T
E S
E S
S I
O N
GOV S1
“That’s why we should go under the proposal.”
GOV S2
“So, that’s why we think that this social media platform
is also actively contribute to the cyber bullying case that happen toward the status quo, ladies and gentlemen.”
“That is why to provide the basic psychological security
that in the end will give the safety toward the protection, toward the society.”
GOV S3
“That is why we say that social media is reliable for
this.”
“That is why we expect, they expect of […] that
everyone want the social media to have filter, bad wording for example, to this user.”
GOV S1 Reply
speaker
“That is why we think that the report mechanism has no
percent in this debate, right.”
“That is why they are, we think the one supposed to be
punished is company itself and we want to hold the accountability of the account in the end of the day.”
S E
C O
N GOV S1
“That is why we provide anonymity in the process of
reporting child abuse.”
“That’s why they have to report to the police and police
will do investigation.” PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60
D D
E B
A T
E S
E S
S I
O N
OPP S1
“That’s why the justification to punish this kind of
stakeholder should not even stand until the end of the day.”
“That is why it should be appreciated in the very first
time, not by punishment because in the worst scenario the witness will never ever willing to join in the case of
trial …”
OPP S2
“That is why we think that they fail to prove to you why
that to make the consideration of the witnesses is the valid justification to be considered and they should be
punished directly …”
“That’s why it should not the extent that under the idea
of witnesses that they would like to punish them and solve the idea of, you know, of child abuse.”
OPP S3
“Moreover, we say that this kind of suspicion is not
legitimate, that’s why the police itself need to do such
kind of investigation.”
OPP S1 Reply
speaker
“That’s why their proposal should not stand until the end
of day.”
“They want to punish innocent people and that’s why we
do not even justify it Ma’am Sir.” In the first debate session, there were only three debaters who used the
gambit ‘that’s why’. They used the gambit in the beginning of the sentence. It was used to elaborate the reasons why the speakers supported or rejected certain
ideas. In the second debate session, there were four debaters who used the gambit ‘that’s why’.
61
All of them used the gambit in the beginning of the sentence. They used this gambit to elaborate the reasons why the speakers supported or rejected certain
ideas. Also, they used it to draw conclusion in the end of the debate session. In the OPP S1’s utterance, the gambit ‘that’s why’ was in the beginning of the sentence
which was connected with conjunction ‘and’. The second sentence was about to counter the idea. Although it did not have any further explanation, it was clear that
the speaker rejected the idea that had been stated before. Moreover, the OPP S1 of the second debate session also stated the conclusion by using the gambit ‘that’s
why’ to show the last argument that they wanted to convey to the audiences and the adjudicators.
The gambit ‘that’s why’ was about to continue the previous idea with further explanation. This was the reason why the gambit ‘that’s why’ was mostly
used in the beginning of the sentence. It aimed to continue the ideas in different sentences. In short, the gambit ‘that’s why’ was used to elaborate reasons and to
draw conclusion from a certain idea.
b Illustrating point
In a debate, the debaters also needed to illustrate point. The gambits that could be
used for illustrating points were ‘for example’, ‘for instance’, ‘take for example’, and ‘look at that way’. However, in this study there was a gambit that
was frequently used by the debaters. It was ‘for example’. This gambit was used by most of debaters both in the first and in the
second debate sessions. As what had stated, the gambit ‘for example’ was used to
62
give an example on the certain argument. The following part was the samples of the debaters
’ utterances used the gambit ‘for example’.
Table 4.11 The samples on the use of gambit ‘for example…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
F I
R S
T D
E B
A T
E S
E S
S I
O N
GOV S1 “There is a people that really have a chance, for example, and
also, they have venue to express their feeling only inside the media.”
“We think in the worst scenario, for example, if these people, you know, get bullying, every single day, instead this social
media, we think it harm them all.”
OPP S1
“For example like the one I’ve told you before even when you
have to criminalize the one who uses gun to kill others, we don’t also sue the company that also produce guns.”
“For example, they use random account that also anonym
accounts that cannot actually be detecte d to begin with.”
GOV S2 “When you are playing a game, for example, you want to
come out using this kind of social media, how it can just posting you are …”
“For example, let’s take a look on the case of Dijah Yellow, a
woman who like to post her photo or video in Instagram that in the end become the victim of cyber bullying …”
OPP S2 “For example, a scenario, when you are sailor and you see a
leak in ship and you are as a sailor, you have, the people have reasonable expectation that you will fix the ship, ladies and
gentlemen. But you don’t do that.” GOV S3
“For example, in social media, you have a button to report, to
comment, you like a kind of post to indicate that you agree with the content of this report.”
“But we talk about is that it certain situation that really bla e e,
that really mocking certain race, for example .”
OPP S3 “For example, in Indonesia we have UU ITE or anti-
63
discrimination common law system such as Indonesia and America.”
“Meme pictures, we agree that it can speed up twitter,
thousand likes in 5 minutes for example .”
GOV S1 Reply
speaker
“The moment that your student doing bullying, for example, in the school, for example, the one who takes the
responsibility is their parents, right.”
S E
C O
N D
D E
B A
T E
S E
S S
I O
N OPP S1
“Under the idea of punishing witness who exactly the one who are willing to give information and who are willing to give
effort to do even report for example, just because they unveil
…” GOV S2
“For example, they are already bruise and they are already
psychological scar and this is very bad, ladies and gentlemen.”
“And also for example, child abuse happens for fifty days in a
home and then the case comes up and the trial happens after fifty days of child abuse ladies and gentlemen.”
OPP S2 “We say that we analyze the case of child abuse, the protection
should go to the parents, for example, the one that should
have care toward the children at the very beginning.”
“Just because they are unfortunate for example that they are
close to the criminal tragedy that they should be responsible upon this thing and they should sacrifice their idea of privacy
…” OPP S3
“Maybe Enjelin is not punched by her mother or maybe
Enjelin just fall from the stairs for example .”
“The moment when you are giving a constitute, giving a law
for example, to threatening them at the end of the day, they
will be so afraid of giving testimony whether they add …” OPP S1
Reply speaker
“Because the exclusive of being witness for example is that
the police is begging you, somehow they also try to persuade you to even want to be a witness itself.”
“Police will always concern only determining which witness is
being criminalized for example .”
64
Most of the debaters in the first debate session used the gambit ‘for example’ in their speeches. They used this gambit not only in the beginning of the
sentence but also in the middle of the sentence even in the end of the sentence. The position of this gambit did not influence the meaning of the sentence because
it always gave the meaning of giving example. However, the GOV S1 used this gambit mostly in his utterances. Even, in
some sentences, he used it repeatedly. It sounded more likely to a gap-filler because he used it a lot of times. On the other hand, the other debaters used the
gambit in the beginning of the utterance. Some others used it both in the middle of the sentence and in the end of the sentence.
They usually used this gambit to give examples or other possible things that could happen in the scenario. There were various examples which the
debaters deliver in their speeches. Firstly, the examples were related to the factual situation. Secondly, the examples were to give speculation about certain situation
that could happen if their proposals was rejected or accepted. In conclusion, the gambit ‘for example’ was useful for the debaters to give examples and elaboration
on the scenario. In the second debate session, there were some of the debaters used the
gambit ‘for example’ in their speeches. Similar to the first session debaters, they also used this gambit in any position in the sentences. In this session, the debaters
used the gambit ‘for example’ as it was functioned to. In this session, the debaters also used this gambit to give examples of a
factual situation. For instance, the utterance of the GOV S2 was based on the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
65
factual situation. Moreover, the other debaters delivered the examples based on the beneficial situation that could happen in the future if their proposals were
accepted. Furthermore, they also used the gambit ‘for example’ to counter the opposition team’s arguments. As the example, OPP S3 countered the idea of
criminalizing the witnesses by giving a bad poss ibility if the government’s
proposal was accepted. In short, this gambit was useful for the debaters to give examples based on the factual situation and to counter arguments by giving good
intention.
c Giving reasons
In this study, the debaters also used gambits for giving reasons. There were some examples of the gambits for giving reasons such as ‘also,…’, ‘in
addition,…’, ‘not only…, but…’, and ‘and besides…’. There was a gambit that the debaters used in this study. It was the gambit ‘not only…, but…’.
This gambit was used by some debaters both in the first and in the second debate sessions. The debaters who used this gambit in the first debate session
were GOV S1, OPP S2, and OPP S3. Meanwhile, in the second debate session the debater who used this gambit was GOV S3. The samples of the utterances that
used this gambit were presented in the following page.
Table 4.12 The samples on the use of gambit ‘not only…, but…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
F I
R S
GOV S1 “We think this kind of idea is not only merely talking that the
idea of report for them but somehow it is dealing with the idea
of compensation and also dealing with other damage that go to the victim itself in the very first place Ma’am Sir.”
66
T D
E B
A T
E S
E S
S I
O N
OPP S2 “But secondly, but moreover, ladies and gentlemen, on the
side of opposition, we contend that not only you can report the user but you can also screenshot whatever post that they have
posted to use it as an evidence …” OPP S3
“Not only they are right that they say that a victim can be sued, but they are also victim of misuse by the bullier itself,
right.” “In the very worst scenario you harm the freedom of
expression not only that you harm the victim or also the perpetuator but also you harm people who has good intention
and it’s unjustified for you to violate freedom of expression that is done by innocent people.”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION GOV S3
“So, we believe that if we […] in status quo and follow the solutions that has been said by the opposite of the house, it
wouldn’t make anything better, and it would be, that you
know, there would be more child abuses happen not only in Indonesia but also
in the world.”
The gambit ‘not only … but also …’ was used to give more than one reason. Moreover, it could also be used to give a better or even a worse scenario.
Usually, the debaters used it to strengthen their arguments by giving reasons from the good scenario until the worst scenario to have. The debaters did not use this
gambit for a lot of times. It was because in order to make compound sentences using this gambit, the speaker needed to have two ideas to arrange. In conclusion,
the gambit ‘not only … but also …’ gave the debaters opportunity to make reasons in order to strengthen their arguments in the certain topic. Also, it
67
developed the debaters’ critical thinking since it required two ideas to compile in the compound sentence.
d Countering arguments
Countering th e opponents’ arguments was an important thing in debate.
Therefore, the debaters needed to know how to counter the arguments well. There were some gambits that could help the debaters
counter the opponents’ arguments. The gambits were ‘even so…’, ‘even if…’, ‘that’s probably true, but…’, and
‘possibly, but,,,’. There was a gambit that was used by some debaters to counter the opponents’ arguments. It was the gambit ‘even if…’.
This gambit was used by some debaters both in first and second session. In the first session, the debaters, OPP S2, OPP S3, and OPP S1, used this gambit in
some of their utterances. In the second debate session, the debaters who used this gambit were GOV S1 and GOV S3. The samples of the utterance used this gambit
would be presented in the following part:
Table 4.13 The samples on the use of gambit ‘even if…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
F I
R S
T D
E B
A OPP S2
“Even if the reporting mechanism fails their model is not
benefit or doesn’t compensate the loss of victim of cyber bullying.”
“Because under their proposal the victim doesn’t get any
closure, even if the company is being punished, even if the
company is being pro secuted.”
OPP S3 “Even if not, status quo is not enough, we think it is still
wrong to punish and burden a third party that is innocent, Facebook to bear the responsibility.”
OPP S1 “Because if this person seeing one post only they go to
68
T E
S E
S S
I O
N
Reply Speaker
suicide, then under any circumstances even if real life, if they
also being bullied once, they are also to kill themselves to begin with.”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION GOV S1
“And the second is even if the children have a choice they
actually prevented.” GOV S3
“Even if the parents is not the one who abuse the children that
means that the parents have the parents have obligation to report when there is something wrong with the children, that
they might be abused by someone.”
The gambit ‘even if …’ was used to state the counter-arguments. It could be used both in the beginning of the sentence and in the middle of the sentence.
This gambit was always used to counter the arguments stated by the previous debaters. Moreover, it functioned to emphasize the bad situation related to the
certain idea to share. In other words, in countering the arguments, the speakers worsened the opposition team’s argument by using this gambit and presented the
better situation based on their opinions.
e Showing hesitation
In delivering ideas, there were some times the debaters lost what they should say. To overcome this kind of situation, the debaters sometimes used
gambits to show their hesitation. The gambit that was used by the debaters for showing hesitation was ‘umm’.
69
This gambit was used by the first speaker that was GOV S1 from each debate session both in the first and in the second debate session. The samples of
the utterances were presented as follows:
Table 4.14 The samples on the use of gambit ‘umm…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION GOV S1
“That we think this kind of virtual world also represent, you know, the real world for certain people, for certain individual
that they think this is the only chance for them to express what
they want, to express what, umm, umm, to exercise or to do
self actualization or anything else, right?
“Because the media make you, umm, because the media
provide the idea of privacy or even the protection that it is not being provide in real world itself, right.”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION GOV S1
“Umm, first, the importance of the witnesses itself.” “We have also proven to you how actually, umm, how it is
actually importance to start or criminalized even if it is still …”
“Therefore, you know, umm, saving children anyway and the
more important failure of the opposition of the house in they never prove to you how they will save the children
themselves.”
The gambit ‘umm’ was used mostly in the middle of the sentence. It was because this gambit had similar function to the gambit ‘you know’. The debaters,
somehow, used the gam bit ‘umm’ to fill up the sentence while they were thinking
of the lost idea to say. Also, it was about to show hesitation in which the debaters were not really sure of the idea they stated. However, this gambit was useful to
control the communication. It was because this gambit helped the speakers not to be silent while they were thinking of the certain idea.
70
f Emphasizing a point
In some cases, the debaters emphasized their points in their speeches. In emphasizing their points, the debaters used gambit ‘the question is…’. This
gambit was used by two of the debaters both in the first and in the second debate sessions.
In the first debate session, this gambit was used by OPP S1. Meanwhile, in the second debate session, the debater who used this gambit was GOV S3. They
used this gambit in some parts of their utterances. The samples of the utterances using this gambit were presented in the following page:
Table 4.15 The samples on the use of gambit ‘but the question is…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION OPP S1
“But the question is that, we think that they never
actually engage the status quo mechanism that is totally working to give closure to these people to begin with.”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION GOV S3
“The question is simple Ma’am, Sir, when you are being
a witness you are not having such kind of privilege or obligation to give information of to give effort, right?”
The gambit ‘the question is …’ was used to emphasize points on the certain ideas. The structure of a sentence that used this gambit was in the form of
statement. Moreover, it was also used to question the argument of the previous speaker. In other words, the debaters could ask for the clarification on the certain
argument that became the question. Lastly, this gambit was useful for the debaters to emphasize their points and to ask for clarification on the certain ideas.
Those were the discussion on the linking gambits that were used by the debaters in their speeches. There were many gambits that could be used by the
71
debaters. However, they only used some of them. The linking gambits that they used helped them state their arguments in the speeches. These linking gambits
helped the debaters to manage the speech so that the speech could flow naturally and contextually. It was because the linking gambits gave the opportunity for the
debaters to link ideas from one argument to the other arguments.
3. Responding Gambits
