ABSTRACT
This study is concerned with persuasive speech in debate in which the debaters apply their reasonable reasons and logical thinking to convince other people. The focus of the study is the use of causal relationships and the logical fallacies committed in the debaters’ speeches of the grand final round of the Eighth Indonesian Varsities English Debate (8th IVED) Championship 2005. The problems of the study are (1) what kinds of causal relationship did the debaters use in the 8th IVED Championship 2005? and (2) what kinds of logical fallacies were made by the debaters in the causal relationship in the 8th IVED Championship 2005? The objectives of the study were to identify the kinds of causal relationship used by the debaters and the logical fallacies made by the debaters in the causal relationship in the 8th IVED Championship 2005.
The type of the data in this study was qualitative. The data were six substantive speeches of the affirmative and negative teams that were performed in the grand final round of the 8th IVED Championship 2005. They were collected by doing the following steps: recording the whole speeches, transcribing the recorded verbal speeches into written words. Then, the data were selected and put into three categories of causal relationship based on Shurter and Pierce’s theory, which were cause-to-effect, effect-to-cause, and effect-to-effect reasoning. Each category was further analyzed to find out the logical fallacies in causal relationships using Copi’s theory. They were Pos hoc ergo propter hoc and Non causa pro causa. The analysis of the data was conducted using the method suggested by Miles and Huberman which included; (1) data reduction, (2) data display, and (3) conclusion drawing and verification.
The results of the analysis show that there were two kinds of causal relationship used by debaters; cause-to-effect reasoning (17 times) and effect-tocause reasoning (17 times). There was only one type of logical fallacy committed in those reasoning that was Non causa pro causa; 8 times occurred in cause-toeffect reasoning and 5 times were found in effect-to-cause reasoning.
After drawing the conclusions, several suggestions were offered. First, good speakers should prepare their speech well before delivering it to the audience. Second, good speakers have always to make efforts to enhance their communication skill. And third, to deliver a persuasive and convincing speech, it is better for speakers to enrich their knowledge with techniques of public speaking, such as presenting argument by considering the course of reason and logic.
