THE ART OF RHETORIC USING STYLISTIC DEVICES IN WORLD UNIVERSITIES DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP: A Study of Pragmatics

Debating is recognized as a way of doing persuasion in speech that deals with four points of debate pillars, for instance: assertion, reasoning, evidence, and link back. There are two formats on parliamentary debating competitions; Asian and British. The format of worlds is British Parliamentary debate, which consists of eight debaters divided into four teams, two on the pro-position and other two on the opposition, and allows debaters 15 minutes of preparation and doing the case building before engaging in the round (Harvey-Smith, 2011; Johnson, 2009; Lising, 2010). Over past few years, every country’s debater champions have been gathered and involved in a high level of debate atmosphere to compete each other as their country’s representatives to have worlds’ champion title. In conjunction to the glance of forewords, researcher will analyze annual world most prestigious debating championship, WUDC 2016, which took place in Thessaloniki, Greece. The study will use descriptive qualitative method. The source of this research is taken from video streaming on Youtube that shows ESL grand final round between University of Indonesia team A (Indonesia) as Prime Minister (PM) and RWTH Aachen team A (Germany) as leader of opposition (LO). This approach is intended to answer: (1) What stylistic devices appear in World Universities Debating Championship 2016? (2) What kinds of illocutionary act appear and how its perlocutionary impacts the opponent side’s respond that results in rebuttal? This analysis is based on Aristotle (1991) and Searle (1979) which result is expected to reveal the technique of how debaters unconsciously deliver their persuasive speech in front of adjudicator core

Beyond subjective and objective in statistics

We argue that the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity" in statistics discourse are used in a mostly unhelpful way, and we propose to replace each of them with broader collections of attributes, with objectivity replaced by transparency, consensus, impartiality, and correspondence to observable reality, and subjectivity replaced by awareness of multiple perspectives and context dependence. The advantage of these reformulations is that the replacement terms do not oppose each other. Instead of debating over whether a given statistical method is subjective or objective (or normatively debating the relative merits of subjectivity and objectivity in statistical practice), we can recognize desirable attributes such as transparency and acknowledgment of multiple perspectives as complementary goals. We demonstrate the implications of our proposal with recent applied examples from pharmacology, election polling, and socioeconomic stratification.Comment: 35 page

Debating Technology for Dialogical Argument:Sensemaking, Engagement and Analytics

Debating technologies, a newly emerging strand of research into computational technologies to support human debating, offer a powerful way of providing naturalistic, dialogue-based interaction with complex information spaces. The full potential of debating technologies for dialogical argument can, however, only be realized once key technical and engineering challenges are overcome, namely data structure, data availability, and interoperability between components. Our aim in this article is to show that the Argument Web, a vision for integrated, reusable, semantically rich resources connecting views, opinions, arguments, and debates online, offers a solution to these challenges. Through the use of a running example taken from the domain of citizen dialogue, we demonstrate for the first time that different Argument Web components focusing on sensemaking, engagement, and analytics can work in concert as a suite of debating technologies for rich, complex, dialogical argument

Te Piringa

Māori have an oral tradition, that is, the transfer of knowledge within and between generations, which was carried out orally by way of story-telling or the more formal speech-making. Ngā korero purākau are the stories and whaikōrero is formal talking on the marae or ancestral gathering places of Māori people. The value of public speaking is expressed in the saying: Ko te kōrerote kai a te Rangatira – (The chiefs thrive on talking and debating). This article looks at the transfer of knowledge to the next generation

Critiquing Debate

Debaters enjoy debating more than debate itself. The closer one gets to be-coming ― an old debater (a category to which I will inevitably have to resign myself sooner or later), the more likely we are to find ourselves debating on the side of ― the way debate used to be or ― the way debate is supposed to be. I don‘t malign this seemly inevitable progression or even my place in it. I think the tendency to re-examine ourselves says something about our activity. I enter this debate about debate, I think I should begin by defining my side of the flow, or to at least identify which side of the flow I am attacking. My purpose is not to condemn debating or to defend the good old days of debate. Rather I hope to engage in a critique of the activity. Debaters are familiar with critique, often spelled with a ― k , as an attack upon the philosophical or ideological assumptions of the opponent‘s argument but critiques exist outside the world of debate as well and their purpose is not merely to win arguments. Critique, as Ingram and Simon-Ingram (1992) noted, aims ― at emancipating … addresses from ideology (p. xxviii) and McKerrow (1989) argued the practice of critical rhetoric is ― to unmask or demystify the discourse of power and ― to understand the integration of power/knowledge in society (p. 91). My critique is concerned not with what is good or bad debating, but with how debate constructs ― a particular vision of the world and the ― forms of power … embraced or implicated (McKerrow, 2001, p. 621) by the activity. Specifically, the focus of my effort is on the practice of competitive debating, in particular how debate practices control and organize knowledge in fundamentally undemocratic ways

Debating Societies, the Art of Rhetoric and the British House of Commons: Parliamentary Culture of Debate before and after the 1832 Reform Act

British debating societies are here looked at a parliamentary perspec-tive. The main emphasis is on the rhetorical practise of parliamentary debate, which, it is argued, constitutes the main framework of the British culture of debate. This will be approached from the perspective of how the parliamenta-ry practises were reflected in the activities of various debating societies before and after the 1832 Reform Act. I will highlight that the rhetorical traditions of the British House of Commons were not formed in a vacuum, but, rather, shaped and adapted to constitutional changes. After the 1832 reform the prac-tises in debating societies imitated the procedure and rules of the House of Commons more closely than before. The latter part of the essay concentrates on William Gladstone’s interpretation of parliamentary debate, himself hav-ing actively contributed to various student debating societies. Gladstone’s approach on debate in Parliament illustrates a more general shift in rhetorical practise away from the category of public speaking and towards a more pro-ceduralised way of understanding parliamentary eloquenc

Debating Societies, the Art of Rhetoric and the British House of Commons: Parliamentary Culture of Debate before and after the 1832 Reform Act

British debating societies are here looked at a parliamentary perspective. The main emphasis is on the rhetorical practise of parliamentary debate, which, it is argued, constitutes the main framework of the British culture of debate. This will be approached from the perspective of how the parliamentary practises were reflected in the activities of various debating societies before and after the 1832 Reform Act. I will highlight that the rhetorical traditions of the British House of Commons were not formed in a vacuum, but, rather, shaped and adapted to constitutional changes. After the 1832 reform the practises in debating societies imitated the procedure and rules of the House of Commons more closely than before. The latter part of the essay concentrates on William Gladstone’s interpretation of parliamentary debate, himself having actively contributed to various student debating societies. Gladstone’s approach on debate in Parliament illustrates a more general shift in rhetorical practise away from the category of public speaking and towards a more proceduralised way of understanding parliamentary eloquence

The Echo: November 21, 1928

Mario Capelli In Concert Here On December 3 – Journalism Class Has Unusual Lesson – Eulogonians Hold Extemporaneous Debate – Eureka Debating Club – Story of “Ali Baba” Presented by Philos – Ackerman Has Unfortunate Accident in Illinois – Chorus Boys Fete Girls – Melvin J. Hill Moves to Buffalo – Unique Office in Ad Building – Freshman Dinner Held on Thursday – Dr. Paul Conducts Successful Campaign – Dr. and Mrs. Wray Celebrate Wedding Anniversary – National College Press Hears Professor Pogue – Local Convention Held at Taylor By Missionaries – Talents – Etiquette – Literary Sidelights – Yes, It’s A Funny World – Seeing Faith – Wisconsin Professor Upholds Certain Incorrect English – Inquiring Reporter – The New Arrival – On Our Campus – Bits of Wisdom – Hey! Hey! – Chapel Notes – Glimpses of Chicago – Men’s Ministerial Meeting – Holiness League Hears Convention Report –Gamma Epsilon – Prayer Meeting – Soangetaha Debating Club – Mnanka Debating Club – The Music Box – The “Little Toadstool” – Prayer Band – Alumni News – Sports – Health an Essential To Success – C H O K E S – Debating Club Basketball Series Gets Under Way – Foul Bawl!https://pillars.taylor.edu/echo-1928-1929/1001/thumbnail.jp

The Concordiensis, Volume 37, No 24

Advertisement; Union, 3; Hamilton, 2; The Visionary; Junior Electrics Beaten By Chemists; Cosmopolitan Club Enjoys Evening With Mr. Taylor; Delightful Places; Concordiensis Downs Garnet on Diamonds; Press Club; Glee Club Elects Leader; Here\u27s For A Reverberating Chuckle; Freshman Baseball; Be On Deck; The Debating Season; The Debating Season; A Yarn; Spring Term Examination Schedule; Prep-School Track Teams Meet Here Saturday; Funny Things; The Way It Is Done; Sigma Xi Elections; Y.M.C.A. Notes; Tennis Team Wins From Aggies; Track Team Hands Out Defeat To R.P.I; Classical Club Enjoys Evening With High School Societies; The 1915 Garnet; Advertisementhttps://digitalworks.union.edu/concordiensis_1914/1014/thumbnail.jp

Should we Banish Robert E. Lee & his Confederate Friends? Let\u27s Talk.

After 152 years, Robert E. Lee is back in the headlines. But not in any way he could have imagined. The “Unite the Right” forces descended on Charlottesville, Va., to protest calls for the removal of an equestrian statue of Lee that has been sitting in a city park since 1924. The larger question, however, was about whether the famous Confederate general was also a symbol of white supremacy. The same issues were in play in May when a statue of Lee was removed from Lee Circle in New Orleans. There are also more than two dozen streets and schools named for Lee that have become debating points about symbols of white nationalism. One Army installation in Petersburg, Va., bears Lee’s name; another, Fort Hamilton in New York City, names a driveway for him. (excerpt