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
Responding gambits is a kind of gambits that is used for stating speakers’
response to a certain idea in the conversation or discussion Keller and Warner, 2002. In this research, there were four debaters out of twelve debaters who used
responding gambits in their speeches. There were many expressions in responding gambits. However, there were only four gambits by the debaters. Mostly, the
responding gambits were the gambits to state agreement or disagreement to the certain arguments. The responding gambits that they used were presented in the
following page along with the samples of the sentences in the speeches.
a Showing disagreement
Some debaters used the gambits such as ‘we don’t think so’, ‘we agree,
but…’, and ‘yes, but…’ to state their responses toward certain arguments. These gambits were usually used for showing disagreement.
Firstly, the debaters used the gambit ‘we don’t think so or that…’ to state
their disagreements. The debaters who used this gambit were OPP S1 and OPP S2. They were the debaters from the first debate session. The samples on how
they used this gambit in their utterances were presented in the following page. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
Table 4.16 The samples on the use of gambit ‘we don’t think sothat…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION OPP S1
“Just two things first, just because social media amplifies the
effect of posting we don’t think that they acrobatically can be
sued.” OPP S2
“Firstly, first response, we don’t think so, we think the
reporting mechanism is working.” OPP S1
Reply Speaker
“So, we don’t think that their goal is achieved.” “You’re going to impose that kind of harm, we don’t think
that this is necessary to be taken.”
The gambit ‘we don’t think that … we don’t think so’ was to show disagreement to the certain idea. The debaters used this gambit to respond to the
previous argument delivered by the opposition team. Usually, the debaters used this gambit in the middle of
the sentence. It was started with the opposition team’s argument and continued with the response and the elaboration. This gambit helped
the adjudicators and the audiences to understand that the debaters countered the idea. Moreover, after stating their disagreement to the certain idea, some of the
debaters presented their reasons why they disagreed to that idea. Secondly, some debaters also used the gambit ‘we agree…, but…’ to state
their disagreements. There were two debaters from the first debate session who used this gambit in their speeches. They were OPP S1 and OPP S2. This gambit
had similar function to the previous gambit. The function was to respond the other team’s argument by stating disagreement. However, in stating the disagreement,
this gambit did not slightly state it. It seemed that in the beginning the speakers agreed to the certain ideas. On the other hand, the next sentence was the rebuttal
73
of the idea. The samples on how they used this gambit in their utterances were presented as follows:
Table 4.17 The samples on the use of gambit ‘we agree…, but…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION OPP S1
“We agree with the norm active that the government should prevent and promote anti-bullying, but what we disagree is
when there is an act of bullying through social media then the platform becomes countable either panelized …”
OPP S2 “Because we agree on the side opposition that social media
are the one who providing the platform, but providing the
platform doesn’t equal to legal or criminal liberality, ladies and gentlemen.”
In the OPP S1 and OPP S2 utterances, it seemed that in the beginning the debaters agreed to one of ideas brought by the previous debater. However, in the
next sentence, the debaters rebutted the other ideas which were brought by the opposition. In other words, when the debaters used this gambit in their speeches, it
meant that the debaters had agreed with one of the opposition’s ideas but they disagreed with the other ideas.
Another gambit that was used to show disagreement was ‘yes, but…’. There was one debater in each debate session that used this gambit. They were
OPP S3 from the first debate session and OPP S1 from the second debate session. Similar to the gambits previously discussed, this gambit was also to show
disagreement in the certain point. In the following page, the writer presented the samples on how they used this gambit in their utterances.
74
Table 4.18 The samples on the use of gambit ‘yes, but…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION OPP S3
“Facebook gives comment box and status box and allow
bulliers to bully. Does it contribute to the harm? Yes, it does. But,
is it criminal layer? We think it’s not.”
SECOND DEBATE
SESSION OPP S1
“Thank you. Yes, on the status quo right now, under the
reasons of law if you are proven see such kind of crime that
are already happen, you are proven wrong. But in this case,
this is still potential that there is no such kind of standard that should be maintaining by the government.”
The debaters used this gambit differently. The OPP S3, in the first debate session, used this gambit in the form of active conversation. There was a premise
that this debater agreed with. However, on the other premise, the response for the premise was a disagreement.
Meanwhile, the OPP S1 from the second debate session used this gambit to response the government’s Point of Information PoI. This debater agreed with
the fact that if someone saw a crime but she or he did not report it, it was proven wrong. However, this debater rebutted the idea of criminalizing the witnesses
because in this case it was only potential. In other words, the government could not criminalize the witnesses since it was not sure yet whether it was crime. In
using this gambit, the debaters should understand well the point that they wanted to agree with and the point that they wanted to rebut.
b Showing agreement
The debaters also used gambit for stating their agreements. The gambit that was used for showing agreement in this debate was ‘we agree that…’. This
gambit was used by one debater from the first debate session. He was OPP S3. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
75
This gambit was aimed to respond the other team’s argument and to show
agreement on the point stated by the other team. The sample on how they used this gambit in their utterance was presented in the following part.
Table 4.19 The samples on the use of gambit ‘we agree that…’ Debate
session Speaker
Sentences
FIRST DEBATE
SESSION OPP S3
“Meme pictures, we agree that it can speed up twitter,
thousand likes in 5 minutes for example.” This speaker used the gambit ‘we agree that …’ to state his agreement to
the idea that meme pictures could speed up thousand likes in the social media. When the speakers wanted to state their agreement to the certain idea, they only
needed to restate the idea they agreed with and they could also add some further information to strengthen the argument. However, in debate, the debaters who
agreed with the other team’s idea would only state the idea they agreed with, without adding further information.
Those were the discussion on the responding gambits which were used by the debaters in their speeches. This kind of conversation gambits was mostly used
by the debaters who had speech in the second turn or after the second turn. It was because they had turn to speak after the first speaker so that they could respond to
the previous statement delivered by the previous speaker. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
76
B. The Function of Conversation Gambits Used by JOVED Participants in English Debate Activities
