Analysis of Fallacies in Below-Average Chinese Debaters’ Speech From Judges’ Oral Feedback
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1301.21Keywords:
fallacies, oral feedback, below-average debatersAbstract
This study aims to explore and analyze the common characteristics of fallacies made by below-average Chinese debaters and identify the criteria used by judges in evaluating those fallacies that determine the ranking of debaters. The 20 pieces of oral feedback from judges on the total fallacies made by five teams of below-average debaters from one tournament of the FLTRP CUP debate competition were selected. A direct link to the cause of faulty reasoning in the group of lower ranked teams was found between relevance-related and structural-related fallacies. Additional contributory fallacies which prevented debaters from winning if not necessarily losing were those related to acceptability and refutation, finally, the most prevalent fallacy was found to be that related to sufficiency which occurred in varying degrees and at different levels of the team.
References
Damer.Edward.T.(2008). Attacking faulty reasoning: A practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments, Sixth Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Millbrae, CA: Measured Reasons and the California Academic Press.
Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research & Development, 3, 371-385.
Johnson, S. L. (2010). Win in debate. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Paul, R. & L. Elder. (2006). Critical Thinking: Learn the Tools the Best Thinkers Use. Pearson/ Prentice Hall.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press．
Trapp, Robert. (2016). Building global relations through debate. Beijing: foreign language teaching and Research Press.
