39
the first speaker of each team. The elaboration of the conversation gambits used in debaters’ speeches was presented in the following part.
1. Opening Gambits
Opening gambits are gambits that are used to help the speaker introduce idea into the discussion Keller and Warner, 2002. In these debate sessions, all of
the debaters used opening gambits. Some opening gambits were used by all the debaters and the others were used only by some debaters. In this discussion, the
researcher presented the opening gambits that were used by the debaters in the speeches.
In identifying the gambits used by the debaters, the researcher used the theory of conversation gambits by Keller and Warner 2002. The opening
gambits that were used by most of the debaters were personal opinion, telling a story, listing excuses, the main trouble, offering suggestion, asking for
information, and sharing confidence. The discussions about the gambits were presented as follows:
a Stating personal opinion
There were five gambits to show personal opinion. They were ‘in my
opinion,…’, ‘to my mind,…’, ‘I think …’, ‘I believe …’, and ‘not everyone will agree with me, but …’ Keller and Warner, 2002. However, in this study there
were two gambits that were used by the debaters both in the first and in the second debate sessions. They were ‘we think that …’ and ‘we believe that …’. In this
40
case, the subject was changed from ‘I’ into ‘we’ because the debater spoke up the
group’s ideas. This was the reason why the subject changed. In the following part, the writer presented the samples on how the debaters
used these gambits in their sentences. Firstly, the writer presented the samples on how the debaters used the gambit ‘we think that …’ both in the first and in the
second debate sessions. The samples were presented as follows:
Table 4.1 The samples on the use of gambit ‘we think that…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
F I
R S
T D
E B
A T
E S
E S
S I
O N
GOV S1 “We think in the current status quo for example, there is a lot of
social media like twitter or in Facebook, for example, they are trying to giving report a report of mechanism …”
“We think this is back clash of the function and the nature of the
social media itself.”
“Thus, we think it is also dealing with the idea of good lifestyle
for every single people and also for every single users in the end of the day, my honorable speaker.”
OPP S1 “We think that this prerequisite is even already exist before
they actually having this account.” GOV S2
“We think that those mechanism cannot counter this and we,
under the proposal, will give the solution of the problem.”
“We think that we should … from her case on how the
environment of social media is still unhealthy and we should fix this.”
OPP S2 “We think pensively speaking is not just because in the end the
legal responsibility should be on the hand of individual perpetuator.”
“We think it’s not reasonable for you to expect these social
media to track the face account, to track the real id of these fake users, ladies and gentleman.”
“We think a reasonable expectation is a very normal calculus
41
either you are using legal system, ladies and gentleman.”
“We think it’s unfair for them to impose the unreasonable
expectation for the social media, ladies and gent leman.”
GOV S3 “When they talking about how this kind of a law prerequisite
before you use social media, we think, we as the users, we
demand about the protection, we also demand about our privacy keep,…”
“But, we think these social media also have, e, make incentive
to the perpetuator to do cyber bullying.” OPP S3
“Even if not, the 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.”
“We think it is a very good intention that why you create that
because you want to help people to connect people around the world.”
OPP S1 Reply
Speaker
“We think that it’s very extreme cases that they cannot take into
beak.”
“So, we think what social media has already created the
regulation, why are you okay to actually punish them toward these actual people that are misusing the term of condition.”
“We think that your harm is even bigger because you also harm
all people that is not going to actually be harm in using this kind of social media.”
GOV S1 Reply
Speaker
“We think we have, you know, we don’t have any kind of trope
because this is automatically stated inside the motion itself, right.”
“We think that awareness of these social media nothing
happening and there is no tangible thing that exist under the parameter of the status quo itself, right.”
S E
C O
GOV S2 “And we think after the trial of investigation exist the
severity of the child abuse will actually be too bad to cure on the children its
elf ladies and gentleman.” OPP S2
“We think that they don’t even explain to us why then the
42
N D
D E
B A
T E
S E
S S
I O
N
justification of the government to protect the security of the witnesses is already
enough in the status quo.”
“We think that, also that, this is not always the
responsibility of the witnesses.”
“However, we think that the benefit that is taken for
granted by the witnesses is bigger instead of the crime that happens.”
OPP S3 “We think that under the second parameter, this kind of
people don’t give harm toward another.”
The gambits ‘we think … or we think that …’ was used to show the result of their thinking. It was related to the process of thinking that the debaters did
before making arguments. They took process called case building, this was a process to think about the motion and the arguments to deliver in the speeches so
that this gambit was mostly used in debate. Moreover, this gambit was used to start an argument. It was the reason why the debaters used this gambit in the
beginning of the sentence and it was in a form of complete sentence. In other words, when the debaters used this gambit, it was not in a form of phrase or
fragment of sentence. In the first debate session, all the debaters used this gambit. However, in
the second debate session, there were only three debaters who used this gambit in their speeches. They were GOV S2, OPP S2, and OPP S3. In addition, the side of
43
gov ernment mostly used the gambit ‘we believe that …’ to state their arguments
because it was consider ed as the stronger gambit than ‘we think that …’. The
discussion o n the gambit ‘we believe that …’ was presented in the following part.
Table 4.2 The samples on the use of gambit ‘we believe that…’
Debate session
Speaker Sentences
S E
C O
N D
D E
B A
T E
S E
S S
I O
N GOV S1
“As the government of the house we believe that right now, in
status quo, we can see the statistics of child abuse happening here, on our country.”
GOV S2 “We believe we will prevent child abuse or at least decrease the
severity because we believe the existence of witnesses.”
OPP S2 “We believe that the protection should not go directly upon the
idea of witnesses ladies and gentleman.”
“We believe that their security is more important rather than the
idea of ISIS itself, ladies and gentleman.” GOV S3
“We believe that they have moral obligation if they see
something wrong.”
“We believe that in most cases the witness is an adult and we
believe that adult has something to see, something to say if there is something wrong.”
The GOV S1 used gambit ‘we believe that…’ for a lot of times. Almost in every sentence of her speech, she used this gambit. Similar to the GOV S1, the
GOV S3 also used the gambit ‘we believe that…’ almost in every sentence. They used this gambit unconsciously. In other words, they used it for a lot of times
44
because they had been accustomed to use it while practice debating. It sounded like gap filler when the debaters used the gambit ‘we believe that …’ in almost
every sentence. Referring to the discussion of GOV S1 and GOV S3 who used the gambit
‘we believe that …’ unconsciously in every sentence, it could be concluded that this gambit was also the common gambit for the debaters. It was because this
gambit was to show stronger ideas. Similar to the gambit ‘we think that …’, this gambit was also related to the process called researching and compiling notes that
they did after thinking about the idea to argue. This process helped them strengthen their thought and be sure with their ideas after having small research
and compiling notes. This was the reason why the gambit ‘we believe that …’ was
considered as stronger gambit than the gambit ‘we think that …’ in the debate. This gambit also gave the debaters more confidence in stating their
arguments. It was because the adjudicators would consider their argument as a strong argument to rebut. This also eased the adjudicator to distinguish the
strength of the debaters’ arguments.
b Listing excuses
There were some gambits such as ‘first of all’, ‘second’, and ‘beside that…’. In this study, the debaters used of gambits ‘first of all’, ‘secondly’ and the
other numeration gambits to deliver arguments structurally. These gambits were used by most of the debaters both in the first debate session and in the second
debate session. The debaters used these gambits variously. In the following page, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45
the writer presented the samples of the use of numeration gambits in the debaters’ speeches.
Table 4.3 The samples on the use of gambit ‘firstsecond first of all…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
F I
R S
T D
E B
A T
E S
E S
S I
O N
OPP S1 “Second of all, we think that they spend too many time to
actually say the harm that goes to the people being bullied, it is also weak.”
GOV S2 “First, it will give the basic psychological security for all
layers of user.”
“Second contention, it will develop a better environment in
social media.” OPP S2
“So, firstly, what is their reason why they believe that their
proposal that is something that is genius are because reporting mechanism is working and how…”
“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 …”
GOV S3 The first reason is coming from this, the individual who
actually contribute is actually the user itself because…” OPP S3
“Therefore, in this case you are going victimize Facebook
even double, first, you are suing them, and second, they are
victim of misused by user.”
“First rebuttal, Facebook can never protect all the timeline.” “And, second rebuttal, let’s assume that Facebook contribute
to the harm.” OPP S1
Reply Speaker
“First, why the opposition wins, and second, why they
deserve to lose in a very clear major.”
“Number one, take a look on their goal, right.” “Second, supporting system.”
GOV S1 Reply
“First argument that coming from us, media is a tool or
media that, you know, creating a trending which is leading
46
Speaker into a bad behavior in term of the
idea…”
“First of all, we think we are really better by saying to you
this is only a minimum standard like procedural, for example, they’re trying to fulfill…”
“And second of all, we think the idea of term of conditions is
only to gaining user even more, my honorable speaker.”
S E
C O
N D
D E
B A
T E
S E
S S
I O
N
GOV S1
“The first one is we need witnesses to report child abuse
because we believe that children cannot speak up for themselves.”
“And second we will explain why it’s focusing on the
potential of harm.”
“And the third one why it’s justifiable for the government to
criminalize these people.”
OPP S1
“First, because this is an absolute right of any individual right
to report and give good intent ion, and they have freely …”
“Secondly, under the justice of law, we only crime the one
who fulfilling the criteria of crime…”
GOV S2
“Their speeches is basically firstly doesn’t rebut our
argumentation that
this might
hamper the
future investigation…”
“And secondly upon how they essentially believe that
witnesses are innocent ladies and gentlemen.”
OPP S2
“Firstly, why right of witnesses, why they have a right to
report, for example every single information that they have.”
OPP S3
“Number one, why, at the very beginning, under the idea, there are two discussions under the debate, number one is
justification, second is harm and benefits.”
OPP S1 Reply
Speaker
“The first one, justification why the government can punish
someone who are exactly shou ld be have appreciation…”
“Second argument that we deliver to you on how being
witness is not an obligation at all.”
GOV S1 Reply
“First, what is actually the importance of witnesses itself.” “Second, why are we justify the government to actually…”
47
Speaker
“And third, what would actually bring for future…”
In debate, there was a strategy to tackle the arguments. This was called as rebuttal. The debaters also explained the rebuttals they made for tackling the
arguments. In rebutting the arguments, the debaters mostly made logical reasons so that they could counter the arguments accurately. Moreover, they also used the
gambits for listing their reasons. The reasons were related to the arguments and rebuttals that the debaters made. In short, the debaters used these gambits to make
distinction between arguments, rebuttals, and reasons. They used these gambits in order to make their arguments more structurally and well-managed.
In the first and second debate sessions, the debaters used the gambits such as ‘first of all’, ‘first’, ‘second’, and ‘second of all’. They used these gambits both
for stating arguments and rebuttals. For stating arguments, the debaters usually stated ‘first argument’, or ‘second argument’. However, sometimes they did not
mention the distinction whether it was an argument or a rebuttal. The debaters, in some ways, mentioned the general argument and then they explained it by using
the numeration gambits. In addition, these gambits were also used for explaining clashes and even
making list of important points. The use of numeration gambits eased the adjudicators and the audiences to follow their arguments since these gambits were
used for making distinction.
c Telling a story
There were some gambits to deliver the speech structurally. They were ‘to
begin with’, ‘first’, and ‘second’. However, in this study there was a gambit that was used by the one debater from the first debate session. It was
‘to begin with’. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
48
In the following part, the writer presented the samples on how the debaters used these gambits in their sentences. The writer presented the samples on how
the debaters used the gambit ‘to begin with…’. This gambit was used only by OPP S1 from first debate session. The samples were presented as follows:
Table 4.4 The samples on the use of gambit ‘to begin with…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION OPP S1
“Because if you want to punish, it should be the user only and
not the social media to begin with .”
“Their main proof is to show that their mechanism is not
enough to begin with .”
This speaker used the gambit ‘to begin with’ for a lot of times. Most of the time, he used it in the end of the sentence.
Actually, the gambit ‘to begin with’ was used in the beginning of the sentence since it was about to start an argument
or sentence. This purpose wa s similar to ‘first, second, and etc’. However, this
speaker used the gambit in the end of the sentence. Since he used it almost in every sentence, it sounded like he used it for fulfilling the sentence without any
meaningful intention. This phenomenon had been confirmed to the speaker. He said that he used this gambit unconsciously and he had no meaningful intention in
using this gambit. In this c ase, the gambit ‘to begin with ...’ was considered as
gap-filler gambit.
d Stating the main trouble
There were four gambits in stating the main trouble. They were ‘the problem is…’, ‘the main problem is…’, ‘the real problem is…’, and ‘the point
is…’. However, in this study there was one gambit that frequently used. It was the gambit ‘the problem is that…’. There were two debaters who used the gambit ‘the
49
problem is that…’. In the first debate session, this gambit was used by GOV S1. Meanwhile, in the second debate session, this gambit was used by OPP S1. In the
following part, the writer presented the samples of the utterances using this gambit.
Table 4.5 The samples on the use of gambit ‘the problem is…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION GOV S1
“The problem is that the social media is really perceive
toward the cyber bullying cases that happen in certain states …”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION OPP S1
“But the problem is that they want to punish the one who
proven failed to report the kind of thi ng in the trial.”
“But the problem is that this crime is a potential abuse,
which is the witness still also need such kind of evidence and that is not simple to collect every single evidence.”
This gambit was used to emphasize the problem they saw in the debate motion. Moreover, the speakers used this gambit to counter the arguments of the
opposition team. Sometimes, the speakers restated the opposition’s argument. However, in the next arguments, they counter the opposition’s arguments by
emphasizing the problem which was more important. Even, this gambit was also used to show that the proposals of the opposition’s team were the main problem
itself. It was seen from the utterance of OPP S1 from the second debate session who stated that the main problem was
that the opposition’s proposal. In short, the gambit ‘the main problem is …’ was used to emphasize problems, counter the
opposition’s arguments, and counter the opposition’s proposals. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
50
e Offering a suggestion
There were some gambits that could be used for offering suggestion. The examples of gambits that were used for offering suggestions were ‘why not…?’,
‘perhaps you could…’, ‘I have an idea…’, ‘let’s…’, and ‘have you thought about…?’. However, there was a gambit that was used by the debaters in this
debate competition. It was ‘let’s or let us…’. This gambit was used both in the
first and in the second debate sessions. In first debate session, this gambit was used by GOV S2, OPP S2, and
GOV S3. Meanwhile, in the second debate session, this gambit was used by GOV S1 and GOV 3. These were the sample of the speeches using this gambit:
Table 4.6 The samples on the use of gambit ‘let’s…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION GOV S2
“Let’s take a look on the situation where bullying is still
actively happening in social media.” OPP S2
“But, let’s assume that reporting mechanism is failed.”
GOV S3 “Now, let’s take a look on the characteristics of cyber
bullying.”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION GOV S1
“Now, let us analyze the children itself.”
GOV S3 “Let’s take a look on an example of a case of Enjelin in Bali.”
The gambit ‘let’s or let us…’ was used to invite the audience to follow the speakers’ suggestions. In other words, they used it for inviting the audience to see
what they were going to say in their speeches. Usually, the speakers used this gambit to tell the audience that they had some solutions to the problem in the
debate. Mostly, it was in a form of imperative sentence but it had no action to do. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
51
It was because this gambit had a function to attract the audience’s attention to the speakers so that the audience followed their speeches.
f Asking for information
Some debaters also used gambit for asking for information. There were some examples of asking for information such as ‘do you know…?’, ‘could you
tell me…?’, ‘I’d like to know…’, and so on. There was a gambit mostly used by the debaters. It was the gambit
‘you know’. This gambit was used by GOV S1 in the first debate session. Meanwhile, in the second debate session, this gambit was
used by OPP S2 and GOV S3. The samples of the speeches were presented in the following page.
Table 4.7 The samples on the use of gambit ‘let’s…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION GOV S1
“We think people that got, you know, mocked or even blast
of me by certain people through social media and report to the government as well, and …”
“And, you know, they even enhancing the feature for example, by giving, you know, you can posting your photo, or
you can …”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION OPP S2
“And there are several rights of witnesses not to disclose
separate information ladies and gentlemen, like your, you know
, right of you individuals not to disclose information…”
“Because, you know, they are already psychologically depressed for example, and also they are psychologically, you
know, always aware that this kind of information will bring
harm toward them later on.” GOV S3
“The Opposition of the House brought the idea that, you know, it is not justifiable, because the witnesses do not have
the obligation to report the potential child abuse.”
52
Those debaters used the gambit ‘you know’ mostly in the middle of their utterances. They used this gambit to fulfill the sentence while they were
remembering the idea to deliver in the speech. In other words, they used it as a gap-filler. It was because in
stead of ‘e e e’ they preferred to use gambit ‘you know’ to fill up the gap in their sentences. Actually, they did not really have
intention to ask the audience whether the audience know or not. In case, they did not disguise their act of thinking when they lost their words to speak.
g Sharing confidence
In this debate competition, the debaters also used the gambits for sharing confidence. There were the examples of the sharing confidence gambits: ‘have
you heard…’, ‘I’ve heard…’, and ‘they say…’. The gambit that was frequently used by the debaters was ‘they say…’. This gambit was used by one debater both
in the first and in the second debate sessions. In the first debate session, this gambit was used by GOV S2. 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 used this gambit was presented
as follows:
Table 4.8 The samples on the use of gambit ‘they say…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION GOV S2
“They say to you on how they will encounter information,
they will have to support.”
“And they say to you on how in the end they have report
mechanism and in the end will be enlisted to the account to be deleted.”
SECOND GOV S3
“So, when they say that the parents is the one who have
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
