Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 65 The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship Moh. Supardi & Frans Sayogie UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia * moh.supardi@uinjkt.ac.id ARTICLE HISTORY Received : 22 November 2021 Revised : 28 January 2022 Accepted : 4 April 2022 KEYWORDS Argumentation Linguistic Logical Reasons Political Debate Scheme ABSTRACT In academic field, argument is an essential factor of understanding statements. In this regard, the present paper aims to analyse National University Debate Contest (NUDC) 2016 using Toulmin model argumentative structure and its relation with the implied meaning from National University Debate Contest. This paper employs descriptive qualitative analysis to examine the logical pattern of arguments through linguistic expressions that occurred in the debate. The data were taken from NUDC in Mercu Buana University focusing on (part 1) the statement of the government proponent (Bina Nusantara University) and the opposite speaker (Brawijaya University). The data were analysed using the Toulmin model of logical argument. The findings showed that the government opposite speaker very often made the rebuttal claim by showing the weaknesses from the government side; while the government proponent speaker has claimed almost in every pattern of argument proposed by Toulmin model. The paper concludes that both speakers’ patterns of argument have utilized Toulmin model such as claims, data, qualifiers, rebutting conditions, and warrants. Even though there are so many grammatical mistake and unwell-organized structure, but the logical structure can be analysed using Toulmin model. 1. Introduction The argument competence is considered as a necessity degree in academic field to figure out how to properly jury, assess, reply to propositions of certain utterance in a critical way, and to convey perspectives with appropriate strategies. The necessity to comprehend between logic, rhetoric, reasoning, and cognitive development has been practiced from long time ago (Iordanou & Rapanta, 2021). Van Eemeren (2017) suggests that academic education should value and emphasize argumentation and form critical thinking and reflective interactions that contribute to students' ability to reason in their thinking (Wambsganss et al., 2021). Within the context of English, Toulmin (1958; 2003) proposed the structure of his model of argument, (henceforth, the Toulmin model). Each argument consists of three important components: claim, data, and warrant. What is noteworthy is that some of these elements are implicit, and in particular situation, warrants are not necessarily stated in real-life arguments. There are five categories of claims: 1) claims of fact: includes the validity of the claim whether it is real or not and if the claims are considered as a fact. 2) claims of definition: elaborates the detail of the claims like what it is or how it should be classified. 3) claims of cause: reveals how the claim happens, what the causes are, and what are the possible outcome that could be faced. 4) claims of value: challenges the value of the claim including how good or bad the claim is, what are the benefits, which value systems will be applied to judge, and many more. 5) claims of policy: attempts to discover the solution within the claims including figuring out the policy that should be taken. In relation to this, the present paper endeavors to analyze the argumentative meaning from the debate contest among university students in Indonesia. Debate is activity that requires a set of discourse for a certain topic, usually encompass a mediator or moderator and spectators. In a debate, reasonings are set down very often counter-acting opinions. Historically, debates have happened in public spheres, formal institution, debate rooms, and so on. Debate has also been conducted for educational and refreshment motive, commonly related with academic formation and discussing communities. The debates stress on a logical stability, factual accuracy, and psychological interest for the audience. In this political debate contest, student’s argumentation serves as a means of presenting and testing the acceptance level of the arguer's point of view. The idea is in lining with opinion (Iordanou & Rapanta, 2021; Merala, Namlıb & Kayaalp, 2021) that there will be two different argumentations to verify their perspectives if two or more persons convey different perspectives and compose a justification. As a result, multiple argumentation purposes https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 66 have been constructed in the political discourse. The linguistic features of argumentative indicators are also used in this case as a signal that a specific argumentative step is underway (Eemeren et al., 2007). To that regards, the authors are interested to analyse the statements of arguments in the National University Debate Contest (NUDC) held by Mercu Buana University 31st July – 5th August 2016 available in YouTube. The study will focus on linguistic structures that imply manipulative elements during the debates (part 1). The debate competition was conducted to represent the government proponent and opponent side. By using the Toulmin (1958; 2003) model of argument structure, this paper is expected to discover the claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier, as the elements of debate and argumentative structure. The above notions become the ground for this paper to analyse the logical pattern of argument from University students debate contest to discuss the following questions: a. What do logical patterns of argument emerge in the NUDC 2016? b. How do Toulmin’s elements of argument model qualify the NUDC 2016? These two research questions are meant to be answered in a qualitative manner since the goal of the research is to analyse the logical argument according to Toulmin Model of argument. By answering these two research questions, the paper is expected to help to learn to state logical reasons and how to counterattack the opposite opinions. 2. Literature Review Currently, some research in social sciences employ the argumentation discourse analysis in the context of classroom and the argumentation significance in scientific knowledge development and understanding (Iordanou & Rapanta, 2021; Merala, Namlıb & Kayaalp, 2021). In the last decades, Toulmin model as the theoretical model of argumentation mostly applied by researchers (Osborne & Simon, 2004; Chin & Osborn, 2010). This Toulmin model is considered can help researchers to find the basic elements of argument, such as claims, data, qualifiers, rebutting conditions, and warrants. It is considered to help learners to examine quality of their arguments. However, some may wonder when analyzing argumentative meaning implied from daily conversation or debate can be solved by using Toulmin model (Meral et al., 2021). The idea seems very reasonable since Toulmin model might helpful device only in certain conditions (Ellis, 2015). Accordingly, Toulmin model is not, however, an exploratory for discussion. It cannot help the method of evolving claims by intellectual way through possible situation. The idea seems very challenging due to Toulmin model of argument is used in many pragmatics and discourse analysis. This paper, therefore, endeavored to prove the applicability of Toulmin model in examining National University students' debate contest. Thus, this paper may provide different perspective and different result by applying Toulmin model in political debate contest. Model of Argument proposed by Toulmin demonstrates six interrelated components arguments analysis, namely “Claim, Data, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier” (Toulmin, 2003, p.89). The fundamental constituents of practical arguments are claim, data, and warrant. Following by those components, there are backing, rebuttal, and qualifier which might incomplete in certain circumstances. In this regard, the concept of argument initiated by Toulmin has been applied by several researchers to conduct a rhetorical argument research (Qin & Karabacak, 2010). Other researchers (Stalepton & Wu, 2015) conduct a deeper analysis. As the result, they discovered particular forms of inadequacies in the interpretation of the six elements, showing that more considerable attention needs to be brought to the quality of argument in persuasive writing presented by students. Cahyono (2016) in his research is implying the model of argumentation presented by Toulmin holds a significant feature that contributes in helping students to convince their arguments. On the other side, Becker (2016) demonstrates that there is a correlation between premise and conclusion as argument components and Situation Entity (SE) type with support and rebuttal as argumentative function and SE type. This is a form of classification of argumentative text (Khairunnisa & Nur Indah, 2017). Prior to providing evidence and discussion, this paper may have different way in presenting the data and discussions in the sense that the evidences are analysed in qualitative manner which are different with the previous research using quatitative data (Kızkapan & Bektas, 2021; Wambsganss, Küng, Matthias & Leimeister, 2021). It is importatnt to note that a debate is a means of expressing opinions and criticism as a form of democratic public participation that allows people to argue. In addition, the debate can send messages to both the government and the opposition about their democratic position in Indonesia. This study uses a debate tool in formulating arguments to explore racism, inequality, manipulation and freedom in democracy (Kızkapan & Bektaş, 2021). Through the practice of argumentation on certain issues using peer scaffolding and peer support methods, students can learn to practice argumentation and critical thinking skills. (Scheuer et al., 2010). The authors consider that the grounds (or data) are made up of data and hard facts, as well as the logic behind the argument, and serve as the foundation for true persuasion. The claim is based on the ‘truth’. Grounds provide evidence of proficiency and the foundation of the established argument. It is crucial to note that the grounds should be unchallenged for they might be a claim to the argument. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 67 Challenged grounds makes defender need to deepen the information and their argument to clarify their claim. These are the reasons given in support of the claim the rationale for supporting a claim as follows; they can also be referred to as evidence, data, claims, or grounds. The evidence that backs up a claim is able to be emerged in the pattern of statistics and facts, professional assessment, samples, explanations, and a logic hypothesis. The support can be found by being inquisitive about what the author might state to influence the audience who reads the claim. In addition, a warrant connects data and other grounds to an argument, validating it by demonstrating that the grounds are appropriate. It is possible that the warrant is either explicit or unspoken (Erduran et al., 2019). The 'What does the data imply that the argument is correct?’ question is answered. These are the key of the argument’s presumption. Commonly, warrants are acceptable in terms of beliefs and attitudes, general approach of how society perceives things; since they are very normal, warrants are implicit most of the times. These beliefs are generally shared by the speaker and the audience. The warrants that are delivered by the speaker might be conflicted with the audience because of the differences between each cultural value. Warrants play a significant role due to the fact that they are considered as the “general basis” of audience and author. Mutual warrants persuade the participation of the audience because they are unconsciously part of the claim (Mageto, 2021). The speculation of warrants can be obtained by asking, “What is the cause of the author’s statement that says the things s/he does?". The authors also consider important to explain about six types of warrants, such as, 1) Generalization-based Argument, this type tends to consider that the truth from the right sample only applies in a larger population, or particular notions that are stable with the sample can be concluded as the part of the group. 2) The analogy-based argument, hypothesizing or expanding application to a new circumstance from a particular event on the basis of nature or the result from a similar situation. It is important to note that the degree to which important parallels can be drawn between circumstances. 3) Sign/Clue Argument, the idea of the fact that particular evidences are associated with broader results. For instance, smoke is often used for a fire sign. Many people assume that someone with a good SAT grade is signified as an intelligent individual. 4) Causal Argument, this category is when the debater arguing that the provided event is the outcome of, or is influenced by, a particular factor. Causal logics are categorized as the most convoluted forms of the warrant that has differences. 5) Authorized Argument, this type of warrant challenges the authoritative source of the issue such as the political, ideological or economic interests that the authority has. 6) The Principle argument, this category is finding a commonly accepted concept and demonstrating that a case occurs in which this principle applies. This category also raises several notions such as the acceptance of the principle, the accuracy of the situation applies, the existence of ‘rival’ ideas that potentially lead to another claim, and many more. Even if the argument has been well constructed, there might be counter-arguments which can be employed. These can be disproved either through further debate or by offering the rebuttal during the original presentation of the argument, thus pre-empting the counter-argument. During an argument, we have to note that it is important to consider the other perspectives and do fair dealings with them. The questions and objections from the head of the audience are need to be answered, so that we can strengthen our argument and it will not be attacked. Sometime, rebuttal will be aimed to the opposite side of claims; it could be aimed to other interpretations of evidence at other times. Coping with objections and counterclaims is the essential part of the constructing, refining, and analyzing arguments process. There are three reasons why author deals with objections or counterarguments. The first one is strategic concession which is a recognition of several benefits of a distinctive view. For some situation, this approach is by means of giving an acceptance to some elements of an argument but denying several parts of it on the other side. The next is refutation in which involving the ability to show the opponent’s significant flaws and deficiency that his/her argument could be rejected. Finally, there are problems that must be understood as forms of irrelevance in democracy as different perspectives may be accepted in certain contexts as relevant in identifying problems. The modal qualifier reflects the strong point of the leap from the data to the warrant, and it may edge the claim's universality. The word of qualifier includes 'most', 'usually', 'always' or 'sometimes'. As a result, arguments might variety from forceful affirmations to generally flimsy or, more often than not, ambiguous remarks. Since the argument is most likely not about certainty, it is not recommended to use the form of superlatives such as all, every, absolutely or never, none, no one. Toulmin et al. (1979; 1984) asserted that several second-level parts in an extended argument structure such as qualifier, backup, and rebuttal, whose functions are defined by the argument's exigencies are exist. The modality statement component is a position statement sharpening tool. It is said to be a sharpening tool because the modality statement limits the scope of the position statement so that the position statement becomes more specific. The final element in the argument structure of Toulmin et al. (1979) is a rebuttal (B) in the form of an exception statement. These exceptions will greatly determine the validity of the position statement related to certain conditions. The use of the six components of the argument Toulmin et al. (1979) will make the quality and sharpness of argument. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 68 3. Method The data were collected based on the Toulmin’s model of argument as it is displayed in the figure 1 below. The logical pattern of arguments that occur in the debate are measured through linguistic expressions using descriptive- qualitative methods in this study. This method is considered appropriate to analyse the qualitative data which were collected using a sampling technique including systematic and purposive sampling (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2014). The data of the research were focused on the first part video (see Appendix). This selection on the first part video is intended to provide in-depth analysis since there were so many NUDC video posted during the 2016 competition. The 2016 NUDC debate video obtained from YouTube published by Universitas Mercu Buana Jakarta is presented as the source of this study’s research data, which is then presented in a diagram using the freelane-free mind mapping and knowledge building software application 1.8.5 copyright 2000-2020. Figure 1. Toulmin’s model of argument basic elements From the figure 1 above, it can be explained that the flow of argument may be described as the following: first is claims of fact. This usually includes the validity of the claim whether it is real or not and if the claims are considered as a fact. Second, claims of definition. It usually combines the detail of the claims like what it is or how it should be classified. Third, claims of cause. It usually reveals how the claim happens, what the causes are, and what are the possible outcome that could be faced. Fourth, claims of value. This usually challenges the value of the claim including how good or bad the claim is, what are the benefits, which value systems will be applied to judge, and many more. Fifth, claims of policy. It usually efforts to discover the solution within the claims including figuring out the policy that should be taken. In general, Stephen Toulmin identifies three majors, required aspects of an argument, as well as three additional, optional components, in his work on logic and argument. The claim, the facts (support), and the warrants are the three main components. By using the Toulmin argumentation model, data collection is done by watching videos, transcribing video texts, reading transcriptions, marking and classifying argumentative linguistic expressions. The data are presented in two ways, first showing the statement from the government proponent side, and the second, showing the statement or arguments from the government opponent side. 4. Results As has been mentioned earlier that the data are presented in two ways, first the statement from the government proponent side, and the second, the statement or arguments from the government opponent side. The following table may help to explain about the two arguments taken from the debate contest using Toulmin Model of argumentation. This section provides answer for the research question about what logical patterns of argument emerge in the arguments conducted by the participants identified by the Toulmin component. The results are presented in a diagram using “the free plane mind mapping application and free knowledge building software 1.8.5 copyright 2000-2020”. The use of six components of developed by Toulmin et al. (1979) will make the quality and sharpness of scientific thought argument very strong. A rebuttal or exception is an out-of-the-box environment or situation that can weaken or strengthen an argument. If a condition weakens the argument, the exception element can be presented to strengthen the argument's position. The use of the exception element also makes the position statement more specific. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 69 Statements or information that are accepted as truth or action are defined as claims that may be stated directly or impliedly. This demand can be seen from the speaker's statement which he tries to prove. The speaker of government side tried to persuade the audience by stating “We think it is time for us to send the new narrative to them let go”. The speaker gave an initial claim to the audience that Indonesia practiced discrimination and implied that Indonesia had been unfair to the people of Eastern Indonesia. To support the speaker's claim in the debate, the following tables may help to obtain general idea of Toulmin model of argumentation. Table 1. Argumentation of Government opponent Code Argument Statement T1.C.1 Claim We're still being discriminated… we're still going to be oppressed anyway. We think it is time for us to send the new narrative to them "let go" T1. E. Evident the failure that in Indonesia to acknowledge the melanistic culture and characteristic shows to you that Indonesia cannot see us as a human being but only as an economic entity that you can use when you please… T1.W. Warrant you will never be able to understand us anyway, that’s why we can have a violent revolution T1. B. Backing we will also make sure that we keep reminding them on all human right violation that they had committed to us and killing us and our villagers… T1. R. Rebuttal today every province is likely to govern itself in their own way- even if it is not effective, but it shows you there is a way to go T1. Q. Qualifier First, we will attack in an account of the Indonesian border, just like Japanese or Chinese, just like that… Table 2. Argumentation of Government proponent code Argument Statement T2.C.2 Claim We think it is a good chance for us to have diplomacy and economic task… T2. E. Evident when you access our free port and you do not give us anything and return when get govern to say that we need to protect ourselves we think it just under two reasons, the first reason is that we think we need to get a revenge to Indonesia we know it very hard work but this is what we got when we cannot do other things, but the second reason why is this principally okay for you to be violence is that violent revolution is a normal phase of getting independence T2.W. Warrant you have to prove what is so good to go about the government in Papua T2. B. Backing violent revolution is just to break from the colonialism that happens inside of Indonesia T2. R. Rebuttal meaning they only rely on Indonesia as their umbrella, but not being able to pursue the economic size to pursue diplomacy ties, because simply Indonesia is only a member state because again Indonesia is not fully Melanesian T2. Q. Qualifier …you might want to believe in right… 1 Table 1. Claim, Evidence, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier (T1.C, E, W, B, R, Q) 2 Table 2. Claim, Evidence, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier (T2.C, E, W, B, R, Q) From the two tables 1 & 2, we can see “Claim, Data, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier” proposed by Toulmin argumentation model (Toulmin, 2003, p.89). All Toulmin elements in the debate were discovered from the government opponent side. These elements were given different names such as closing statements, opinions, or affirmations; data evidence was considered a reason, reason, premise, support, or evidence; warrant; rebuttal (Maimon et al., 2007; Troyka, 2004). Such data analysis was expected to be able to identify the structure and substructure of the argument in depth and obtain a higher level of reliability and accuracy (Bracewell & Breuleux, 1994). The strength of the position statement can be seen from the description of the modality used. Modality statements, such “just like” “maybe,” “perhaps” to indicate the degree of probability of a position statement. If an adverb of modality “just like” is used what is indicated is a low level of probability. On the other hand, if the modality adverb 'must or definitely is used, the probability level is definitely high. However, the strength of a position statement is also largely determined by the depth, adequacy of the data, and other elements. The rebuttal component is an exception statement to the position statement, for example, “That's why we can have a violent revolution…”. The exception statement determines the validity of the position statement in relation to certain conditions. Claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier are obtained from the government opponent side. Table 1 above presents the definitions and examples of the six Toulmin basic elements (Ramage & Bean, 1999). The main rationale of analyzing these six elements are because the elements are frequently used in most relevant studies, and many argumentative texts are identified relatively reliably by those six elements (Crammond, 1998; Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005). In identifying these elements, semantic structures and linguistic aspects are sometimes being the foundation for they typically signal the presence. To illustrate, in claim identification, there are two linguistic forms applied: (a) statements including “we believe”, “we think”, “in our opinion,” and (b) declarations like “Without doubt, we should search the Internet wisely.” In data identification, explicit subordinators and prepositional phrases like “because,” and “for that reason” as well as “for one thing” were also included. A counterargument and a rebuttal assertion sometimes standing together. To analyze them, particular indicator phrases and words were suggestive, such as “It is said that but…” “Some people claim that. However,” “although,” “despite,” and “even though”. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize the fact that the identification process can be assisted only by the semantic structures and linguistic elements. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 70 5. Discussion The applicability of Toulmin’s elements of argument model for the university students debate contest are qualified or discussed as the following: 5.1 Argumentation of Government Opponent The government opponent speaker gave argument that inspired the audience to give a value secernment. As can be seen in (T1.C), the speaker invoked the audience by presenting facts by saying "we're still being discriminated, we're still going to be oppressed anyway”. The speaker called discrimination a "shame," but then accused Indonesia of discriminating against the people of Eastern Indonesia. In such cases, the speaker can be classified as face manipulative method to influence the opposite speaker (. Face manipulation studies have been discussed by many researchers (Thies et al., 2016; Korshunova et al., 2017; Nirkin, Keller & Hassner 2019; Natsume, Yatagawa, & Morishima 2018; Wu et al., 2018). In the context of semantic manipulative method, the defenses strategy employed by the speaker is to presuppose explicit or implicit accusations by saying that discrimination is shameful. Accordingly, manipulation usually requires the normal structure and arrangement of ideological debate, such as stressing our good things (Van Dijk, 2006). Here, the speaker sent an implicit message to the audience that Indonesia should not treat the people of East Indonesia like that. In this case, the speaker labels Indonesia as a discriminator, and the speaker emphasizes by saying “We think it is time for us to send the new narrative to them let go”. The speaker's argumentative statement, however, is still questionable, because it is inconsistent in presenting evidence even though the facts are given objectively. As the consequence, it may affect to the “malignant argument,” that seems underestimate and uncontrollably harm other opinion (Starnes, 1977). This can be seen from the speaker’s statement: “the failure that in Indonesia to acknowledge the melanistic culture and characteristic …” (T1.E). The requirements for supporting evidence to strengthen his claim in an argumentative manner, such as citing a paper from The Jakarta Post which provides information about Indonesian failure to acknowledge the melanistic culture and economic discrimination as well as provide discrimination example that occurs in the USA (The Jakarta Post, Thursday, June 4, 2020). The utterances of discrimination indicated that the speaker wanted to strengthen his/her main demand that injustice has been done to what was done by Indonesia. This is supported by the statement that there have been Separatist Movements in Eastern Indonesia such as the Republic of South Maluku (Republic of South Maluku), the Free Papua Organization (Free Papua Organization), the Free Sulawesi Movement (Free Sulawesi Movement) which united took up arms and carried out a revolutionary movement to separate themselves from Indonesia Government (Febrianti, Arum, Dermawan & Akim, 2019). The idea can be seen from the statement, "you will never be able to understand us anyway because we're different" (T1.E), the speaker tries to convince the audience to believe in his ideology by providing evidence and data support. Such argument usually intent to provide perception of firm point of view (Fine & Sandstrom, 1993). The speaker provides qualifications for the argument by giving the statement "first, we will attack in an account of the Indonesian border” and “just like …” (T1.Q) as a way to strengthen the topic of his/her statement. The speaker then gives a rebuttal by stating “we need to remind them that we will not back down”. Then, the speaker completes his/her rebuttal with an argumentative sign “today every province is likely to govern itself in their own way- even if it is not effective, but it shows you there is a way to go” (T1.R) to evade this situation that we can fight Indonesia. The statement “even if it is not effective, but it shows you there is a way to go” is used to show rebuttal and to represent the people of East Indonesia. The speaker at the beginning of his/her rebuttal emphasized the statement of injustice by expressing “today every province is likely to govern itself in their own way”. The argument seems to show a rebuttal that can be categorized as persuasion and intents to adjust the public’s incorrect idea and deliver knowledge about the truth of matters (Sui & Zhang, 2021). This provides evidences of logical argument utilized by the government opponent speaker to Toulmin model and to see the applicability to the quality of NUDC. The logical argument can be seen from the speaker’s argument in her opening claim, the speaker provided other sub-elements of the argument such as evidence, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier as the main argument. 5.2 Argumentation of Government Proponent To counter attack the government opponent speaker, the government proponent speaker provides the claim by exposing the fact that there are still many solutions to find such as diplomacy and economic problem: (T2.C) “We think it is a good chance for us to have diplomacy and economic task…” The speaker provided the situation from the utterance that they can do two things: firstly, they tried to make a Melanian culture festival, which means to appeal to them to make sure and glorify to the world that Indonesia is actually doing a good thing to Melanesian people but the funny thing is that in that Melanian culture festival. However, they consider that Indonesia does not even include Eastern Indonesia people by saying “instead they invite NTT people which is pollination, this is another race, other than Melanesian”. From the statement, it can be https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 71 inferred that the speaker seems to supply firm argument that take a part a significant role in rising rebuttal assumption (Yada & Head, 2019) Here, the speaker tries to depict how policies existed are to avoid discrimination that it has using them as restricted economic policies by saying “instead they invite NTT people which is pollination, this is another race, other than Melanesian” as their national origin. Therefore, the speaker emphasizes the argument by providing evidences. Even though the arguments seem to be logical fallacies but the speaker presumes that Indonesia does not even think to exclude Eastern Indonesia people as discernment toward the Eastern Indonesian people in terms of economic policy. This become the evidence when the speaker said (T2.E) “when you access our free port and you do not give us anything…” With such situation, the speaker attempted to relate the data to his/her claim through a warrant: “you have to prove what is so good to go about the government in Papua” (T2.W). Here, the speaker tries to argue by uttering a substantive warrant to support her argument in certain circumstances. Such argument can reinforce the opposite speaker’s contenment as the government side (Wang & Huang, 2021). The speaker believed that cooperating with the Indonesian can be a treatment for eastern of Indonesian people. The speaker also tries to convince the opposite speakers that they cannot pursue your own freedom just because you want to secede from Indonesia. There was the use of the phrase “Eastern Indonesians” by the speaker to represent people hope in Eastern Indonesia who are fighting against the Indonesian government. Although there are argumentative inconsistencies in the generalizations applied by the speaker to the warrant due to the negative behavior of certain extremists generalized through the phrase “Eastern Indonesians”. The speaker assumed that all Eastern Indonesians will consider their intention to rebel against the Indonesian government. The speaker put aside the real situation that the majority of Eastern Indonesian society still have many ways to overcome the problems. The speaker also gives her backing by saying “violent revolution is just to break from the colonialism that happens inside of Indonesia.” This argumentative statement was emphasized by the speaker because integrating with the Indonesian government can avoid the risk of providing any benefits to the people of Eastern Indonesia. To set the boundaries of her argument, the speaker argued that the difference among Indonesian people cannot be overcome by separating from Indonesia. Here, the speaker used an argument by providing a backing to support her argument. Even though the argument seems to be logical fallacies, but the speaker offered solutions to address the problem of Indonesian unity. The speaker used the word “Indonesian society” as a form of justice in terms of welfare policies. The speaker tried to annihilate the negative stigma for Indonesian government. The speaker also tries to convince that violent revolution will ruin the country. Based on the arguments above, the speaker consciously and deliberately persuaded the people of Eastern Indonesia to unite themselves with Indonesian government. Several researches have put forward that such condition may have function to show an effective role for the reception of rebuttals (Li et al., 2021) In order to support her claim, the speaker also gives rebuttal by saying: “meaning they only rely on Indonesia as their umbrella…” (T2.R). In this case, the speaker gave the facts that being Indonesian means is by integrating their existence in terms of economy and culture. By quoting the utterance, the speaker wants to convince the opponent speaker that we need to protect ourselves because this is very hard work but this is what they have done. The speaker provides her rebuttal to indicate linguistic indicator to pursue the opposite speaker to raise their awareness of the consequences that will be faced by the Eastern Indonesians if they seceding from Indonesian government and they will not get any benefits for them. This is in line with the idea that rebuttals can be considered as a subject matter of heightening academic awareness as a feasible approach (Pal et al., 2020). To support her argument, the speaker wanted to convince the opposite speaker by saying that they can recover economic policies not as the colonialism of the Dutch, for example, and they are allowed to do that even they use Papuans to become one of their armies. That’s why, the speaker stressed her argument by using qualifier: “…you might want to believe in right…” (T2.Q). Here, the speaker presupposes the words to convince toward the eastern Indonesian people. The use of qualifier in this utterance is to reinforcing the data with her claim, evidence, rebuttal and the warrant that used by the speaker. In such cases, the claim can be incapacitated or strengthened by a qualifier “…you might want to believe in right…” which indicates the robustness of the connection between the data and the claim (Romero and Soria, 2021). The speaker qualifies the utterance by using “might” to indicate that she is trying to see the alternative ways that seceding from the Indonesian government would bring them down. Through his qualifier, the speaker tried to convey her view that cooperating with the Indonesian government will lead into the prosperity, so the speaker pursues the opposite speaker not to separate from Indonesia. In addition, the speaker’s qualifying statement may help people to stay together with Indonesia and arouse the spirit not to rebel against the Indonesian government. The speaker, in fact, used the argumentative fallacy of the command generalization to generalize the behavior of opposite speaker by saying “…you might want to believe in right…” The speaker might imagine that all Eastern https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 72 Indonesians would have the same positive judgment by integrating with Indonesian government. The logical patter of argument that can support the speakers can be seen in the (T2.B) following statement: “violent revolution is just to break from the colonialism that happens inside of Indonesia…” Here, the speaker provides the statement in order to support her argument as a kind of fairness in terms of equal justice. It seems that the speaker attemps to eliminate cynical stigma for Indonesian government opponents. Besides, the speaker is likely trying to ensure that unequal justice will destroy the country. From the statement, the speaker consciously and intentionally convinced the Eastern people of Indonesia to integrate themselves with Indonesian government From the discussion, it can be inferred that it is essential for learners to comprehend the logical pattern of argument and to develop the awareness of using language in different context. The utility of specific and consistent pattern of argument in using appropriate language may help a connection between language ability and model (Pérez & Aleixandre, 2015). Another important dimension of understanding logical pattern of argument and the ability to apply in real context require longer processing time. However, by practicing the right strategies and activating the right logical pattern of argument may acquire the awareness of communication and is essential to achieving a satisfactory understanding of communicative function in general (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). As mentioned earlier, the pattern of argument is considered to be integral to many dimensions of language use and logical pattern. Learners who have awareness to the logical pattern of argument are likely better at manipulating their opinion than those who do not understand logical pattern of argument. The pattern of argument developed by Toulmin can help the learners to have benefited their communicative strategies and skills. Therefore, the pattern of argument plays an important role in developing learners' strategies and skill in communicating their opinion with other people as well as in debate contest and formal debate. Through this paper, learners can learn the strategies how to express their opinion through the logical pattern of argument developed by Toulmin's model. Thus, the learners can improve their awareness of making argument through the use of appropriate linguistic selection in different context and situation. Consequently, this paper is expected to contribute to the development of learners’ awareness in using the logical pattern of argument and conceptual understanding through the appropriate linguistic choice. The idea seems to be paralled with the notion that studies of argumentation may help learners in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and students’ conceptual understanding (Erduran et al., 2004). Even though Toulmin’s model has been criticized cannot help to integrate between the elements (claim, warrant and so on), particularly in dialogic argumentative sequences (Nielsen, 2013), however, the discursive characteristic may become a good frameworks of argumentation concept that can be applied in developing the learners ability and skill, for instance Pragmadialetics and Linguistics (Franco & Munford, 2018) as well as a main theoretical structure in arranging arguments for decision-making issues and inquiry-based teaching and learning (Bernat, Ferrandis, & Gómez, 2019; Pérez & Aleixandre, 2015; Ratz & Motokane, 2016). 6. Conclusion As the conclusion, the debate conducted by the NUDC 2016 have applied all the argumentative elements proposed by Toulmin’s model and appeared to bring ideologies of rebellion during the debates. The use of the argument structure in the debate by the debaters showed that the debaters tried to include an argument structure in the form of claims, reasons, warrants, backings, rebuttals, and qualifications. In fact, there has been an inconsistency of qualifications manipulated in each of its elements. The debater deliberately stressed these strategies to take the control of audience’s mind so that she could maintain the manipulation, inequality, and exclusion. This paper suggests that even though there many linguistic inconsistencies, however, Toulmin model is helpful to find the argumentative structure of the debate. It is also helpful to improve the students’ general debates skill including debates analysis, presentation, and any other important aspects of debates. 7. Acknowledgement We are indebted to Prof. Bahren who encouraged to write this paper. Thank you for giving some advice during the class of Pragmatics. We have no conflict of interests that may be perceived to influence the results and discussion reported in this paper (personal & institutional). This research received no external funding. References Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school english. American Educational Research Journal, 40: 685– 730. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312040003685 Becker, M. (2016). Argumentative texts and clause types. Science Direct, 38: 444-456. https://doi.org/10.1016.2010.06.012 Bernat, F. X. M., Ferrandis, I. G., & Gómez, J. G. (2019). Competencias para mejorar la argumentación y la toma de decisiones sobre conservación de la biodiversidad. Enseñanza de las Ciencias. Revista de https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 73 investigación y experiencias didácticas, 37(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2323 Bracewell, R. & Breuleux, A. (1994). Substance and romance in analyzing think-aloud protocols. In: Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.), Speaking about writing: reflections on research methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 55-88. Cahyono, B. B. (2016). Rhetorical strategies used in indonesian persuasive essays written by students majoring in indonesian and in english. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 7: 388-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/jip.v7i0.683 Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530036 Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230-268. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088398015002004 Pérez, B. C., & Aleixandre, M. P. J. (2015). Desafíos planteados por las actividades abiertas de indagación en el laboratorio: articulación de conocimientos teóricos y prácticos en las prácticas científicas. Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 33, 63-84. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1469 Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press. Eemeren, F. H., Henkemans, F. S. & Houtlosser, P. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: a pragma- dialectical study. Springer. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012 Erduran, S., Guilfoyle, L., Park, W., Chan, J., & Fancourt, N. (2019). Argumentation and interdisciplinarity: reflections from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science Project. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1- 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0006-9 Merala, E., Namlıb, Z. B. & Kayaalp, F. (2021). The effect of argumentation-based teaching on developing argument skills of prospective teachers, and on their willingness to debate. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 13(2), 1039-1062 Ellis, L. (2015). A critique of the ubiquity of the Toulmin model in argumentative writing instruction in the U.S.A. Grand Valley State University. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/eng_chapters/1 Franco, L. G., & Munford, D. (2018). A análise de interações discursivas em aulas de ciências: ampliando perspectivas metodológicas na pesquisa em argumentação. Educação em Revista, 34, e18295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0102-4698182956 Febrianti, S. W., Arum, A. S., Dermawan, W., & Akim. (2019). Internal conflict resolution between government of Indonesia and separatist movement in papua using horse-trading mechanism. Society, 7 (2), 83-100 Fine, G. A., & Sandstrom, K. (1993). Ideology in Action: A Pragmatic Approach to a Contested Concept. Sociological Theory, 11(1), 21-38 Huang, Q., Zhang, J., Zhou, W., Zhang, W., & Yu, N. (2021). Initiative Defense against Facial Manipulation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(2), 1619-1627. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/1625 4 Iordanou, K. & Rapanta, C. (2021). Argue with me: A method for developing argument skills. Front. Psychol. 12: 631203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631203 Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science education, 84(6), 757-792. Indah, R. N., & Khoirunnisa, A. (2018). Argumentative statements in the 2016 presidential debates of the US: A critical discourse analysis. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 4(2), 155- 174. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v4i2.347 Kızkapan & Bektas. (2021). Improving 7th grade students’ epistemological beliefs by epistemologically enriched argumentation model. Pedagogical Research, 6, em0095. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/10949 Korshunova, I. Shi, W. Dambre, J., & Theis, L. (2017). Fast face-swap using convolutional neural networks. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 3677–3685. Li, Z., Zhang, Q., Du, X., Ma, Y., & Wang, S. (2021). Social media rumor refutation effectiveness: Evaluation, modelling and enhancement. Information Processing & Management, 58(1), 102420. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 74 Mageto, J. (2021). Big data analytics in sustainable supply chain management: a focus on manufacturing supply chains. Sustainability, 13: 1-22 7101. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13137101 Maimon, Y. & Yancey. (2007). Awriter’s resource: a handbook for writing and research, Second Ed. McGraw Hill, New York. McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62-76. Meral, E., Şahin, İ. F., & Akbaş, Y. (2021). The effects of argumentation-based teaching approach on students’ critical thinking disposition and argumentation skills:“Population in our country unit”. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(1), 51-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2021.8.1.195 Natsume, R. Yatagawa, T., & Morishima, S. (2018). Rsgan: face swapping and editing using face and hair representation in latent spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03447 Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x Németh, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 213-240. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F136216880100500303 Nirkin, Y. Keller, Y., & Hassner, T. (2019). FSGAN: Subject agnostic face swapping and reenactment. In IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV), 7184–7193. Nussbaum, E. M., Kardash, C. M., & Graham, S. E. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994- 1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035 Pal, A., Chua, A. Y., & Goh, D. H. L. (2020). How do users respond to online rumor rebuttals? Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106243 Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012Ramage, J., & Bean, C. (1999). Writing Arguments. Allyn and Bacon. Ratz, S. V. S., & Motokane, M. T. (2016). A construção dos dados de argumentos em uma Sequência Didática Investigativa em Ecologia. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 22(4), 951-973. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516- 731320160040008 Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students' level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 52-59. Romero, E., & Soria, B. (2021). Metaphorical argumentation. Informal Logic, 41(3), 391–419 Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing?. Computers in Human behavior, 21(6), 957-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025 Scheuer, OLoll, F., Pinkwart, N. & Mclaren, B.M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5:43-102. Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions, content familiarity and biology. Written Communication, 18: 506-548. doi: 10.1177/0741088301018004004 Stapleton, P. & Wu, Y. A. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students' persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17: 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006 Starnes, C. E., & Singleton Jr, R. (1977). Objective and subjective status inconsistency: A search for empirical correspondence. Sociological Quarterly, 18(2), 253- 266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533- 8525.1977.tb01411.x Sui, Y., & Zhang, B. (2021). Determinants of the perceived credibility of rebuttals concerning health misinformation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1345. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031345 Thies, J., Zollhofer, M., Stamminger, M., Theobalt, C., & Niebner, M. (2016). Face to Face: Real-Time Face Capture and Reenactment of RGB Videos. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 75 van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and Manipulation. Dscourse & Society: Sage Publication, 17(3), 359- 383. 10.1177/0957926506060250 Van Eemeren, F. H. (2017). Argumentation theory and argumentative practices: A vital but complex relationship. Informal Logic, 37(4), 322-350. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i4.5002 Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213 Wambsganss, T., Küng, T., Matthias, S., & Leimeister, J.M. (2021). Argue tutor: an adaptive dialog-based learning system for argumentation skills. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445781 Wang, Q. S., Yang, X., & Xi, W. Y. (2018). Effects of group arguments on rumor belief and transmission in online communities: An information cascade and group polarization perspective. Information & Management, 55(4), 441–449. htps://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.10.004 Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6840-8 Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: expanding the space of learning. Springer Wu, W., Zhang, Y., Li, C., Qian, C., & Change Loy, C. (2018). Reenactgan: Learning to reenact faces via boundary transfer. In European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 603–619. Yada, N., & Head, M. (2019). Attitudes toward health care virtual communities of practice: survey among health care workers. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(12), e15176. The Jakarta Post (2020). PapuanLivesMatter’: George Floyd’s death hits close to home in Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/06/04/pap uanlivesmatter-george-floyds-death-hits-close-to- home-in-Indonesia.html https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies ISSN (Online) 2684-9224, ISSN (Print): 2684-7620 Vol. 4, No. 1, February 2022, pp. 65-76 https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466 How to cite this article: Supardi, M., Sayogie, F. (2022). The Logical Pattern of Argument: A Case Study of National University Debating Championship. Elsya : Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 65-76. 76 Appendix Transcription of Video 1 Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLONYndDPW4&t=15s Motion: Republic Maluku Selatan, Papua Merdeka, Sulawesi Merdeka, should unite, take an arm, and conduct a violent revolution to secede from the republic of Indonesia. Government proponent side: Stella BINUS Government Opponent side: Universitas Brawijaya Government opponent Speaker: We have to sit down and wait for Indonesian people to come as our white savior, but it will not happen. We're still being discriminated, we're still going to be oppressed anyway. We think it is time for us to send the new narrative to them "let go", because we're different, you will never be able to understand us anyway. That's why we think it's important when you're no different and you will never become unity anyway. That's why we can have a violent revolution. So real point of modal In my opening the government, firstly, we will attack in an account of the Indonesian border, we see. Secondly, we will also make sure that we keep reminding them on all human right violation that they had committed to us and killing us and our villagers, even though you're only peaceful, a human being just like Japanese or Chinese, just like that, we need to remind them that we will not back down. And we think the question on whether or not they will unite Mr, madam chair, because these eastern Indonesian people most likely share common characteristics of being colonized by distinct of Indonesia and therefore we think they will be able to unite and the next steps after that secede is to be discussed whether or not they will make new federal state or whether or not they want to make independence state that that's another debate, but the question would be whether or not it is justified or whether it will be effective for you to do violent revolution. Would you think it is very important, my first issue on how our current status quo will never work If you only rely on yourself or Indonesia, my first issue on how it will not work If you work by yourself the most ideal way for you to secede is to have diplomacy and current ways of eastern Indonesia we have an organization called MSG, which is the Melanesian spear hard group? This is like ASEAN, but for Melanesian countries, such as New Guinea, east Solomon, and other eastern countries which are different characteristics from Malayu. Government opponent Speaker: We think it is a good chance for us to have diplomacy and economic task, but guess what because Indonesia is already being registered in MSG as an observer, Papua, or other eastern countries cannot apply independently to MSG, meaning they only rely on Indonesia as their umbrella, but not being able to pursue the economic size to pursue diplomacy ties, because simply Indonesia is only a member state because again Indonesia is not fully Melanesian, therefore MSG is reluctant to give us full membership toward Indonesia, so what it tells you, it tells you that you cannot pursue your own diplomacy just because you are still in the same umbrella as Indonesia, to begin with, therefore, it is impossible for you to have a good topic of having economical ties toward them. That's why in the keys of the first diplomacy that cannot work, but secondly what we have tried to do nonviolence protest, because unlike popular opinion we are as civilized as what you might want to believe in right, but what do we get after nonviolence protest by our movement we got arrested just because we have a different race, just because we have a different skin color. So, what does it tell you? It tells you all along with the excessive not only in Indonesia and in Jogja for example, our love to Indonesia is not just being reciprocate, because simply we are different from them and that’s why we always talk like a bad name inside it tells you that mono violent protest do not give us love back from Indonesia, that’s why we think if you rely on our source as eastern Indonesia you will not go anywhere, but we still have our second hope which is Indonesia but we will thought that you will not get independent and your ideal economic situation if you only rely on Indonesia, the reason is simple because Indonesia always fail to see our inherent differences, because we always thought bhinneka tunggal ika that somehow we are the same, guess what people, it is not the same we think this kind inherent self-respect do not want to feel Indonesia to recognize that we are different but maybe we cannot eat rice or the other thing, but they think just because we are different that they are secure of us and they think they are different and weird, what has Indonesia done in current status quo? they do two things, firstly they tried to make a melanian culture festival, which means to appeal us to make sure and glorify to the world that Indonesia is actually doing a good thing to Melanesian people but the funny thing is that in that Melanian culture festival, Indonesia does not even include eastern Indonesia people, instead they invite NTT people which is pollination, this is another race, other than Melanesian. even though they will look characteristically the same a little bit but we are not the same, but the filler that in Indonesia to acknowledge the melanistic culture and characteristic shows to you that Indonesia cannot see us as a human being but only as an economic entity that you can use when you please, but if you do not understand what is us at the end of the day, therefore, we think these inherent characteristics fail to see if something make us even depressed inside of status quo because they always see that we are the same and we should be the same but we are not born for that. Government proponent Speaker: today every province is likely to govern itself in their own way- even if it is not effective, but it shows you there is a way to go. Government proponent speaker: First, you have to prove what is so good to go about the government in Papua when you were still being arrested. Instead of it, and so to do whatever you want to do inside of it we don't think of it but secondly, in my principle, violent revolution is just to break from the colonialism that happens inside of Indonesia. we think this is colonialism Mr. madam chair. when you access our free port and you do not give us anything and return when get govern to say that we need to protect ourselves we think it just under two reasons, the first reason is that we think we need to get a revenge to Indonesia we know it very hard work but this is what we got when we cannot do other things, but the second reason why is this principally okay for you to be violence is that violent revolution is a normal phase of getting independence. This is what also Indonesia did in the colonialism of the Dutch for example and we are allowed to do that and you are allowed to do that even you use Papuan people to become one of your armies to do that, therefore, if we now have like violence revolution it is the same at least Indonesia should grand to us because that is what we are thinking us back from inside of the status quo. We think we need to do this. And at the very risky scenario that the society does not secede and will lose in the war we send a message that we are not going to be set down just because you told us to eat rice, we do not eat rice madam chair this is how different and it is very important for you to recognize from very far to propose. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v4i1.8466