LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

132 

 

Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in a Classroom Debate 
 

Reli Handayani 

University of Jambi 

reli_handayani@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract 

 

Mastering argumentative discourse both in written and oral is a must for students 

nowadays. However, a successful argumentative discourse requires high thinking 

order skill such as developing a stance, analyzing arguments, distinguishing facts 

and opinions, solving problems, comparing and contrasting material, and making 

inferences.  Realizing the importance roles of critical thinking in constructing 

argumentative discourse, this study focuses on students’ performance in debate 

specifically argument, counter-argument, and rebuttals. They are chosen since 

they are always taken into consideration in assessing students’ debate 

performance.  

 

Keywords: critical thinking, assessment, debate 

 

Introduction  

Knowledge of the world 

nowadays can be obtained not only 

from written and oral sources, but 

also from the Internet. This massive 

information demands the students to 

appropriately select it based on their 

needs. The ability to select and 

analyze the relevant information is 

known as critical thinking. Realizing 

the essential role, critical thinking 

becomes unavoidable requirement 

not only in academic but also 

professional setting. In tertiary level 

of education, students are expected to 

develop their critical thinking skill to 

survive courses. In a way that critical 

thinking enable the students (1) to 

analyze, criticize, and advocate 

ideas,(2) to reason inductively and 

deductively, and (3) to reach factual 

or judgmental conclusions based on 

sound inferences drawn from 

unambiguous statements of 

knowledge or belief (Freely, 2009). 

Moreover, in professional setting 

success as an adult depend on the 

ability to think critically (Torr and 

Waburton, 2005). It is relevant in a 

way that critical thinking is highly 

correlated with some one’s ability in 

making decisions. In short, critical 

thinking is an essential skill to 

participating effectively in 

communication, pursuing higher 

education, and succeeding in 

competitive world. 

Freely (2009) explains 

critical thinking as (a) life demands 

decision making (b) the ability to 

make reasoned decisions relies on 

critical thinking (c) skill that enables 

analysis and evaluation of arguments 

(d) skill that improves the use of 

information as well as advocacy. It is 

line with Johnson  (2002) who 

defines critical thinking as (a) a 

clear, organized process involved in 

mental activities such as problem 

solving, decision making, 

persuading, analyzing assumptions, 

and scientific inquiry, (b) the ability 

to reason in an organized way, (c) a 

systematic process that enables 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

 

133 
 

students to formulate and evaluate 

their own beliefs and claims. Eggen 

(2012) offers a concise definition  

“critical thinking is the ability and 

disposition of making and doing 

assessment on summary based on 

evidence.” All these definitions have 

the similar idea that critical thinking 

is the requirement of solving 

problem skill. Numerous definitions 

within the frame of critical thinking 

exist since it delivers different 

meanings for different people. 

Therefore, critical thinking in this 

study is limited to different thinking 

skills such as reasoning, recognizing, 

arguing, interpreting, summarizing 

etc.  

In relation to the teaching 

method of critical thinking, a debate 

has been proved as an educational 

strategy that fosters critical reasoning 

and thinking skills as wall as 

heightens awareness of attitudes, 

values, and beliefs (Huber, 2006). To 

add, debates were incorporated in 

American higher educations in the 

19
th

 through the early 20
th

 century, 

yet lost its appeal until 19880s as a 

teaching tool to develop critical 

thinking logic, and communication 

skill (Snider, 2006). According to 

Freely (2009) debate is the process of 

inquiry and advocacy, a way of 

arriving at a reasoned judgment on a 

proposition. Individuals may use 

debate to reach a decision in their 

own minds; alternatively, individuals 

or groups may use it to bring others 

around to their way of thinking. In 

relation to academic setting, Nisbett 

(2003) declares that debate is an 

important educational tool for 

learning analytic thinking skills and 

for forcing self-conscious reflection 

on the validity of one's ideas. 

English education department 

in UNJA specifically speaking for 

professional purpose course then 

introduces debate as one activities of 

public speaking. For the purpose of 

this study, I utilize a prepared debate 

format. I select reclamation of north 

Jakarta beach as the issue of the 

debate and give them a week to 

prepare. I suggest them to conduct an 

extensive search of materials and 

consider some aspects of the project 

involving law, economic, and 

environmental aspect. First, 

researching process requires students 

have to skim, scan, and read related 

materials to expand their knowledge 

base. Second, analysis process covers 

complex activities. The students have 

to develop a perspective, distinguish 

relevant and irrelevant information, 

question facts and opinions, make 

inferences, recognize contradictions, 

and explore implications and 

consequences in order to derive in 

cohesive and logic arguments. Third, 

they are also forced to consider the 

opposite perspective. They have to 

evaluate evidence on both sides to 

prepare counterarguments and 

rebuttals. It is in line with Tumposky 

(2004) who argues that analysis of 

both sides of an argument in debate 

format encourages participants to 

step outside their personal frame of 

reference and become aware of their 

own thinking, if only to anticipate 

how such thinking might be 

vulnerable to attack from an 

opponent.  

This insight gained 

throughout the pre-debate, during 

debate, after debate encourages the 

students to approach material with 

several sub skills of critical thinking. 

Peirce (2006) mentions that the 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

134 

 

cognitive skill dimension of critical 

thinking includes several skills and 

sub skills as follows: 1) 

Interpretation (categorization, 

decoding significance, clarifying 

meaning), 2) Analysis (examining 

ideas, identifying arguments, 

analyzing arguments), 3) Evaluation 

(assessing claims, assessing 

arguments), 4) Inference (querying 

evidence, conjecturing alternatives, 

drawing conclusions), 5) Explanation 

(stating results, justifying 

procedures, presenting arguments), 

5) Self-regulation (self-examination, 

self-correction). 

Realizing the importance of 

critical thinking, the purpose of this 

study is to describe how the students’ 

critical thinking is performed in 

classroom debate. In other words, 

debate in this study is introduced as a 

critical thinking assessment 

According to Coogan and Pawson 

(2006) assessment should focus on 

various aspects such as argument and 

debate content, strategic presentation 

of arguments, verbal communication 

skills and argument style. Therefore, 

this article will focus on arguments, 

counterarguments, and rebuttal. First, 

arguments are defined as reasons 

given by the affirmative team to 

support the resolution (claim) 

meanwhile counter-argument are 

reasons given by contra team which 

against the resolution (claim). 

Second, rebuttal refers to 

identification of weakness in both 

team’s arguments and ability to 

defend itself against attack (Latif, 

2011). 

 

Research Methods 

The second semesters of 

students majoring in English 

education are the subject of this 

study. In the course of speaking for 

professional purposes, the debate is 

compromised of 2 teams of 4-5 

students who will actually debate the 

issue. The members of team are 

assigned at random. Meanwhile 

affirmative and negative team is 

decided through lottery. After given 

a week for preparation, a 

representative from both teams will 

be given 5 minutes of opening 

speech for each. In the opening 

speech, they have to mention their 

claims and provide several 

arguments to support it. After that, 

the next 30 minutes consists of 

rebuttal from both teams. At the end 

of the debate, a representative from 

both teams will summarize the 

team’s view.  

The data of this study are 

arguments, counterarguments, and 

rebuttal given by both parties. Since 

critical thinking is an ongoing 

process rather than a recognizable 

outcome, it may difficult to measure. 

Thus, this study employ general 

education critical thinking rubric 

created by north-eastern Illinois 

University (NEIU, 2006) to analyze 

the data. This four-point scale rubric 

consists of 5 criteria relevant to 

critical thinking. 

 

Findings and Discussion 

Freely (2009) defines 

argumentation as reason giving in 

communicative situations by people 

whose purpose is the justification of 

acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values. 

Moreover, Toulmin states that people 

have to provide good reasons to 

convince other people. Good reasons  

may be defined as “ reasons which 

are psychologically compelling for a 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

 

135 
 

given audience, which make further 

inquiry both unnecessary and 

redundant— hence justifying a 

decision to affirm or reject a 

proposition.” The findings of this 

study are presented in four parts, 

namely arguments, counter-

arguments, rebuttal from affirmative 

team, and rebuttal from negative 

team.  

 

Arguments 

The first following data is the 

opening speech from affirmative 

team that consists of a claim and 

three arguments to support it. The 

arguments mentioned are positive 

effects of the reclamation project 

related to economic, geographical, 

and environmental aspect. The 

explanations given for the first and 

second argument demonstrate good 

understanding of the issue. However, 

the third argument can be considered 

as a weak  argument since 

explanation given to support it is 

irrelevant with their claim, as the 

negative team will also object this 

argument later. Specifically, the third 

affirmative team is failed to address 

relationships between reclamation 

project and Giant Sea Wall as part of 

national capital integrated coastal 

development. 

Affirmative : … This house believe 

that reclamation of north beach is a 

good plan and should be continued. 

The first argument is increasing the 

income of Jakarta and national 

economies. The developer and 

investor will pay the tax about 15% 

as their contribution in investing or 

building factory on that land. If this 

reclamation succeed so Jakarta will 

be one of  the forward city in the 

world that attract the tourists. The 

second argument is expanding the 

area of Jakarta’s mainland. Jakarta's 

population is increasing every year, 

but the land is limited. That land can 

be filled with building that can be 

enabled for residential, office or 

other activities. The third argument is 

it can decreasing the flood. Jakarta 

must build giant dike (Giant Sea 

Wall) to prevent flooding because 

the soil every year in Jakarta fell by 

15 cm, if not immediately addressed 

it floods every year gets worse. So 

that’s all our arguments, thank you. 

 

 Counter-argument 

The opening speech from 

negative team is called counter-

argument for it against affirmative 

team’s claim. If the affirmative team 

comes up with three arguments, 

negative team then provides five 

counter-arguments to support their 

claim. They build their first and 

second argument based on their 

concern of negative environmental 

effects. Yet, both arguments have a 

similar idea that is “causing 

environmental problem” without 

mention specific detail for each. 

Related to critical thinking, they are 

not successfully labels dimension of 

the problem. Moreover, the use of 

“high possibility” in first argument 

shows that they identifies important 

assumptions, but do not evaluate 

them for clarity. The economical 

aspect for local fishermen and upper 

class people is mentioned in third 

and fifth arguments. However,  the  

last argument is inappropriate since it 

is built on assumption instead of fact. 

To add, the fourth argument is under 

developed from the aspect of 

completeness because it is lack of 

explanation. 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

136 

 

Negative : … i want to explain  eh.. 

the problem with thing about the land 

reclamation project. There are 5 

points from us. First. As the project 

builds at least 17 artificial islands 

with a projected total area as big as 

bogor. It will significantly outer and 

be grade be already fragile 

environment of costal jakarta. There 

is high possibility that the land 

reclamation does not help jakarta 

subsidence problem and that it and 

than that it will even weed to other 

environmental problems. Second the 

presence of artificial island will 

changes the sea current with which 

can lead to the erosion of near bay 

natural island or worsen including 

out of the city. Third. The project 

will affect… will affect fisherman. 

Because they will have to go farther 

out to sea. Increasing their  gasoline 

expenses. Fourth, the project also 

clash  with other  construction 

project and existing infrastructure. 

Fifth, there also possibility that the 

land will mainly be use by higher 

income citizen instead of benefit in 

the public at large,    the reason  

glave clash reflect   the tendency of 

developers to  exploit land and 

private benefit instead of the public. 

Thank you. 

 The following data shows 

another counter-argument concerning 

with legal aspect of the reclamation 

project. The negative team develop 

well elaborated counter argument 

completed with accurate evidence.  

Here, the skill of evaluating evidence 

shows high proficiency since they 

not only identify important evidence 

but also provide it as information for 

consideration. 

Negative: well. I want to bring out 

the legal basis of this project. The 

jakarta governor Mr. ahok always 

use  presidential decree number 52 

from 1995 but since presidential 

degree number 54 from 2008 came 

out. It’s one of the point this 

president  decree number 50 from 

1995 is expired   and cant be use 

again  anymore  as legal basis. so i 

said this project illegal because 

doesn’t have any legal basis 

 

Rebuttal 

In contrast to arguments, 

rebuttals are used to disprove the 

validity of argument or claim. Thus, 

good rebuttals generally have a basic 

statement, explanation, analysis and 

supporting evidences. Both 

affirmative and negative teams have 

to raise objection in order to show 

argument’s weakness of the opposite 

team. Another function of rebuttal is 

to defend from opponent’s attack. 

The data below is started with 

counter argument saying 

“reclamation can increase 

environmental problem” and 

followed by each team rebuttals. 

Affirmative: And I also disagree with 

your argument, the first argument, 

that the reclamation can increase the 

environmental problem. It can 

increase it, the environmental 

problem.  Let you know the fact is 

the reclamation can also provide a 

positive impact to wildlife and can 

anticipate climate change and 

habitat. So it’s for public, it’s not 

only for rich people, it’s for 

environmental. (rebuttal) 

Negative: well Iam really I strong 

disagree with you. Because eee 

actually ee the environmental 

impacts  from these land reclamation 

eee..  it’s from the environmentalist 

said  that ee.. great  such as great 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

 

137 
 

garuda wall a separate but related 

project  it will be more even restive  

because eehm taslim arifin a 

researcher  at the research and 

development    center from marine     

and coastal resources and the 

ministry  said that the water inside 

great  garuda wall would  also 

become a problem as the water trap 

the pollutantss  deposit      by     13 

river in jakarta would accumulate in 

one place the water inside the sea 

would become a big pound of  

polution. So I think the 

environment… the environmental 

problem just will be getting be more 

worst  not even better. (rebuttal) 

Affirmative: No, you are wrong, you 

know the reclamation of Indonesia 

will seems like the Singapore’s 

reclamation, and you know in 

Semakau Landfill, Singapore, the 

reclamation of land used as sewage 

treatment. In addition, this area is 

also used as the conservation of flora 

and fauna. And this area is also used 

as a recreational area, and it’s very 

useful because we can get more tax 

(income) from the recreational and 

then it can get more tourist to come 

to our country, and Basically, the 

reclaimed areas generally can be 

more secure against erosion, it’s the 

point, it can make secure against the 

erosion, this is because the 

construction of the security is set up 

as hard as possible to be able to 

withstand the onslaught of the waves 

of the sea. Another benefit is, the 

reclamation can restore the affected 

coastal abrasion configuration to its 

original shape, so it’s very useful. 

(rebuttal) 

The counter-argument saying 

that reclamation project may harm 

the environment is rebutted by 

affirmative team. However, the 

negative team respond and dealt it 

effectively by including expert’s 

opinion “Taslim Arifin.” The debate 

becomes more interesting when the 

affirmative team also gives example 

of Singapore’s reclamation success. 

Both teams success in identify 

important evidence and using it to 

defend their claims constitutes 

critical thinking. 

 

Rebuttal from Affirmative Team 

The first rebuttal is stated by 

the affirmative team in order to 

against the fifth argument purposed 

by negative team. From the structure, 

it is considered as effective rebuttal 

since they state the argument that is 

going to be refuted, disagreement 

expression,  reason of disagreement, 

and conclusion. They realize that the 

statement given by negative team is 

assumption that is not supported with 

adequate evidence.  

Negative : …. There also possibility 

that the land will mainly be use by 

higher income citizen instead of 

benefit in the public at large,    the 

reason   glave   clash reflect   the 

tendency of developers to  exploit 

land and private benefit instead of 

the public.  (claim) 

Affrmative : I want to ask you what 

that you said before, the reclamation 

can will only use by the rich people 

and the poor people can’t enjoy that, 

it’s like, I don’t think so because 

with the reclamation the poor people 

they can get any, they can get the 

jobs from there, of course from the 

first they build the reclamation of 

course they need the worker and 

worker so they can work that and if 

the building is done, they need 

employee just like so they can, so it 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

138 

 

can open the new job vacancy so I 

don’t think that only the rich people 

can use that and for the government 

that they in the reclamation place 

plan it will save any public place 

facility not only for the rich people 

but the poor people who take any 

advantages from the land 

reclamation. (rebuttal) 

During the debate, several 

poor rebuttals related to counter-

argument of illegal base for the 

reclamation project occur. The 

underlined utterances show that 

rebuttal is built of personal opinion. 

Responding to the first rebuttal, the 

negative team acknowledge  

objections from affirmative team and 

provide convincing replies to these. 

They also restate its component 

propositions and reconstructs their 

relationship correctly. Dealing with 

second rebuttal, the negative team 

succeed defending its’ counter-

argument by stating fact as written in 

bold.   

Affirmative: okay and I want to 

answer Chris’s argument that you 

said the president decision is not 

valid, and how can you said like that 

but the law is still valid until now 

from what we read before. If not we 

believe the reclamation is can’t 

continue until now, if illegal it is not 

continue. (rebuttal) 

Negative:   wait I want to explain to 

you. first the presidental degree 

number 54 from   2015 from 1990 is 

especially made  for this reclamation 

project. And one that my favorite is 

for if they want to make the 

reclamation project . this is if if you 

want to make the reclamation project 

you use this  but this one  is made by  

president soeharto especially for this 

program but in 2008 the presidential 

degree is expired and this one ahok 

doesn’t know. that’s why you know 

the main reason is the project is been 

stop because it doesn’t have  any 

legal basis. Ahok say yes he doesn’t 

know that before so that’s why they 

still made law for it 

Affirmative :How can you said that 

Ahok didn’t know that laws is not 

valid again or it’s expired, you know 

Ahok is a president of Jakarta, so of 

course he really knows that the 

president decision is still valid until 

now. (rebuttal) 

Negative : ahok admit him self he 

does not know. that’s why the project 

been stop  the main reason this 

project  because it doesn’t have any 

legal basis. 

 

Rebuttal  from Negative Team 

The first rebuttal from 

negative team is aimed to object the 

third argument from affirmative 

team. The negative team realize that 

there is no logical relation among its 

proposition in the affirmative team’s 

argument. Their rebuttal is 

constructed clearly by using causal 

effect relation.   

Affirmative : …the third argument is 

it can decreasing the flood. Jakarta 

must build giant dike (Giant Sea 

Wall) to prevent flooding because 

the soil every year in Jakarta fell by 

15 cm, if not immediately addressed 

it floods every year gets worse. 

(claim) 

Negative :  … You  said  that eee this 

aa jakarta this land reclamation  

would decrease flood  in jakarta city. 

I dont think so. Because aaa emm 

the.. the land reclamation ee…  just 

will worsen flooding of the city. 

because ee the..the sea current is 

traped ee by the artificial island so it 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

 

139 
 

would a fact and to worsen the flood 

in city. Not decreasing it (rebuttal). 

On the contrary, the 

following data exemplify poor 

rebuttal. The use of ‘if you watch,’’ 

you can see the news,’ three times 

occurrences of ‘we can smell’ are 

linguistic evidence of personal 

opinion. In relation to critical 

thinking, the rebuttal shows that they 

identifies embedded issues but do not 

explain its relation to counter-

argument or how and why it become 

problem. In the end, it derives them 

into inaccurate conclusion. 

AG : …so I don’t think that only the 

rich people can use that and for the 

government that they in the 

reclamation place plan it will save 

any public place facility not only for 

the rich people but the poor people 

who take any advantages from the 

land reclamation. (claim) 

NG : : ehm i think..ehm i want to say 

that aaa i really aaa disagree with 

you. Well,there is.. if you watch 

news these days. The reason keys a 

reflect the tendency of developers to 

exploit land for private benefit, 

instead of the public. Because aaaa 

and that’s from emmm that case, we 

can eeehm we can smell something 

fishy that in future eee the land 

actually will just benefit the higher 

income citizen not...not everyone, 

not not the public. We can smell it 

just from this  case. You can see the 

news that the developers drive the 

government. From that case you can 

smell that actually there is something 

fishy behind it. Why they want to 

exploit the land from for themselves. 

It means that they.. They not actually 

build this for public benefit but just 

for their themselves benefit. and I 

think so. That’s the proof. (rebuttal) 

 

Conclusion and Suggestion 

The finding of the study 

demonstrate that debate enhance not 

only students’ communication skill 

but also their critical thinking skill. 

Debate enables students to present 

their understanding of a topic, 

questioning others’ opinion, arguing 

others’ argument, reasoning and 

clarifying their argument, and 

evaluate others. Regarding to the 

finding of the study, there are some 

suggestions that can be proposed. 

First, the students have to practice to 

construct a coherent and logic 

argument. They also have to control 

their emotions when the debate is 

getting heated. Second, the teachers 

or lecturers have to arrange format of 

debate based on students’ needs, 

number,  and competence. As a 

challenge, the debate can be 

conducted in sudden so they are 

forced to think critical on the spot. 

Third, the future researcher may 

employ other standardized critical 

thinking assessment tools or even 

develop it themselves.  

 

References 

Coogan, J. and Pawson, C. (2006) “Widening Participation and Debate in 

Psychology”, Psychology Learning and Teaching Conference, 27 – 29 

June, York St John University College, York. 

Eggen, P and Kauchak, D. (2012). Strategies and Models for Teachers: Teaching 

Content and Thinking Skills. USA: Pearson Education, inc. 

Freely, A. J. (2009). Argumentative and Debate. California: Wadsworth Co. 



LLT Journal Vol. 19 No. 2                                                                                      ISSN 1410-7201 

140 

 

Halonen, J.S. and Gray, C. (2001). Critical Thinking Companion: For 

Introductory Psychology, Worth Publishers Inc 

Huber R and Snider A.C. Influencing through Argument. Updated ed. New York: 

International Debate Education Association; 2006 

Johnson, E. (2002). Contextual Teaching and Learning: Menjadikan Kegiatan 

Belajar-Mengajar Mengasyikkan dan Bermakna, (Indonesian translation). 

Bandung: MLC. 

Latif, M.A. (2011). A Comprehensive Guide to Debate Adjudication. Retrieved 

August 2
nd

 2016, from http://www.debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php. 

NEIU. (2008). Northeastern Illinois University General Education Critical 

Thinking Rubric. Retrieved August 2
nd

 2016, from 

http://www.neiu.edu/~neassess/gened.htm#rubric 

Nisbett, R. E. (2003) The Geography of Thought. The Free Press. 

Peirce, W. (2006). Designing Rubric for Assessing Higher Order Thinking. 

Retrieved August 2
nd

, 2016, from 

http://www.academic.pg.cc.md.us/~wpeirce.html 

Snider A, Schnure M. (2006). Many Sides: Debate Across the Curriculum. New 

York: International Debate Education Association. 

Tumposky, N. (2004). The Debate Debate. The Clearing House,  78: 42-55. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.neiu.edu/~neassess/gened.htm#rubric

	Front Cover LLT Journal Oct 2016B.pdf
	Part 1-LLT Journal Oct 2016 rftb2
	Part 2-LLT Journal Oct 2016 Articles
	Part 3-LLT Journal submission guidelines