SPEAKING 2 - READING SECTION

PANGGILAN SAPAAN
  

          Sebagai seseorang yang masih sedang belajar bahasa Inggris seringkali kita merasa bingung tentang bagaimana harus menyapa seseorang dengan benar. Ketika bertemu dengan bule banyak yang merasa tidak enak jika harus menanyakan, “What should I call you? (Bagaimana saya harus memanggil Anda)”.

          Mengapa pertanyaan “What should I call you?” terasa seperti pertanyaan yang sangat sulit ditanyakan? Mungkin karena pertanyaan ini berkaitan dengan status atau posisi seseorang dalam lingkup hubungan dengan anda. Posisi ini bisa melibatkan usia, pekerjaan, pendidikan, agama dan bahkan status pernikahan.

          Karena bahasa Inggris merupakan sebuah bahasa, bukan sebuah kultur, maka cukup sulit untuk mengajarkan para pelajar bahasa Inggris secara pasti bagaimana menyapa seseorang. Akan selalu ada sejumlah orang dan sejumlah profesi yang memerlukan lebih banyak formalitas dibanding yang lainnya. Menyapa seseorang dalam tulisan memilikia aturan dan formalitas tersendiri yang berbeda dengan dalam berbicara.

Bertanya 

          Jika Anda tidak yakin panggilan yang harus diberikan kepada seseorang, maka sebaiknya kita menggunakan sebuah sapaan formal atau cukup bertanya dengan pertanyaan-pertanyaan berikut:

* What should I call you?

* What should I call your mum / the teacher / the manager?

* Can I call you [nama depan] ?

* Is it okay if I call you [nama panggilan yang Anda dengar dari orang lain]?

* What’s your name? (gunakan dalam situasi umum seperti pesta atau kelas dimana nama digunakan)

MENJAWAB PERTANYAAN

          Mungkin Anda bukan satu-satunya orang selalu mempermasalahkan tentang gelar/sapaan yang cocok. SIswa, kolega atau kenalan Anda mungkin juga tidak tahu bagaimana seharusnya menyapa Anda. Jika mereka terlihat tidak yakin tentang bagaimana menyebut nama Anda, atau Anda ingin mereka memanggil Anda dengan panggilan yang lebih santai, bantulah mereka dengan jawaban/pernyataan berikut:

* Please, call me [nama depan]

* You can call me [nama panggilan]

SAPAAN FORMAL BAHASA INGGRIS

 
           Dalam lingkungan bisnis, gunakanlah sapaan formal selama orang yang bertemu dengan Anda tidak meminta untuk dipanggil dengan panggil khusus. Untuk meminta perhatian dari seseorang Anda bisa mengatakan: “Excuse me, Sir” atau “Pardon me, Madam/Ma’am.” Untuk memberi salam seseorang Anda bisa mengatakan: “Hello Sir” atau “Good morning, Madam/Ma’am.”
Berikut sapaan-sapaan formal yang digunakan para penutur bahasa Inggris:

1.Sir (pria dewasa usia berapapun)

2. Ma’am (perempuan dewasa – logat Amerika Utara)

3. Madam (perempuan dewasa)

4. Mr + nama belakang (pria manapun)

5. Mrs + nama belakang (wanita yang sudah menikah yang          menggunakan nama belakang suaminya)
6. Ms + nama belakang (wanita menikah atau belum; umum dalam lingkungan bisnis)
7. Miss + nama belakang (wanita yang belum menikah)
8. Dr + nama belakang (ada juga dokter dengan sapaan Dr + nama depan)
9. Professor + nama belakang (dalam lingkungan universitas).
           Ketika Anda menulis surat kepada seseorang untuk pertama kalinya, gunakanlah sapaan formal: Mr atau Ms + nama belakang jika Anda tahu. Jika Anda tidak mengethaui nama belakang, gunakanlah sapaan umum seperti Sir atau Madam.

Sapaan Informal dalam Bahasa Inggris

           Hubungan biasa atau hubungan yang sangat dekat memerlukan bentuk sapaan informal:
- Nama depan (teman, murid, anak-anak)
- Miss/Mr + nama depan (terkadang digunakan oleh guru/pengajar yang menangani anak-anak sebagai sapaan informal)

Sapaan Kasih Sayang

           Ketika menyapa seorang anak, pasangan, atau teman dekat atau anggota keluarga (biasanya yang lebih muda) kita sering menggunakan sapaan-sapaan yang menunjukkan kasih sayang:
- Honey (anak-anak, pasangan romantis, atau orang yang lebih muda)
- Dear
- Sweetie
- Love
- Darling
- Babe atau Baby (pasangan romantic)
- Pal (ayah atau kakek memanggil anak laki-laki)
- Buddy atau Bud (sangat informal diantara teman atau orang dewasa kepada anak-anak; bisa berimplikasi negatif)

Menanyakan arah

Ungkapan-ungkapan berikut merupakan ungkapan-ungkapan yang umum digunakan ketika kita ingin menanyakan kepada seseorang tentang sebuah tujuan yang kita tidak ketahui jalan/arah untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut. Simak dialog berikut:
A: Excuse me, is there a computer store around here? (Permisi, apakah ada toko komputer di sekitar sini?)
B: Yeah. There is one right across the street. (Iya, ada tepat di seberang jalan itu)
A: Can you tell me how to get to Monas? (Bisakah Anda menunjukkan jalan ke Monas?)
B: Sorry. I don’t live around here. (Maaf, saya tidak tinggal sekitar sini)
A: Where’s Kartini’s Garment Shop? (Dimana Toko Baju Kartini?)
B: It is on the corner of the street. Next to the post office. (Di sudut jalan itu. Disamping kantor pos)
A: How do you get to cinema? (Bagaimana jalan menuju ke bioskop?)
B: Go straight down this street. Turn left when you get to Rambutan Street. Stay on Rambutan Street for half a block. It’s on the right hand side. (Lurus lewat jalan ini. Belok kiri ketika sampai di Jl. Rambutan. Tetap di Jl. Rambutan sampai setengah blok. Di sebelah kanan itu bioskop)

Offering

           Dalam dialog berikut diberikan beberapa contoh ungkapan ketika kita akan menawarkan sesuatu kepada orang lain.
A: Here. Have a cookie. (Ini, silakan dimakan kuenya)
B: Thanks
A: Would you like some cake? (Anda mau makan kue)
B: No thank you. It looks delicious though (Tidak terima kasih. Kelihatannya enak juga)
A: How about a glass of coffee? (Bagaimana dengan segelas kopi?)
B: Thanks, but I don’t drink coffee. (Terima kasih, tapi saya tidak minum kopi)
A: What will you have (to drink)? (Kamu mau minum apa?)
B: Manggo juice will be fine. (Jus mangga saja)
A: Would you like some more pie? (Kamu mau makan kue lagi?)
B: Sure. It’s really good. Did you bake it yourself? (Tentu, sangat enak. Apakah kamu yang membuatnya sendiri?)
A: Can I get you some milk or something? (Bisa saya buatkan susu atau sesuatu)
B: Well, a glass of water would be okay. (Baiklah, segelas air putih juga tidak apa-apa).

Describing someone

Terkadang kita perlu menceritakan mengenai seseorang kepada orang lain, baik dari segi identitas, kepribadian, penampilan, kebiasaan dan lain-lain. Nah, bagaimana anda melakukan ini dalam bahasa Inggris? Berikut contoh dialog tentang menceritakan mengenai seseorang.
Dialog:
Kepribadian dan Penampilan
A: Tell me about your father. What kind of person is he? ( Ceritakan padaku tentang ayah kamu. Dia orangnya seperti apa?)
B: Well, he is very friendly, smart and funny. (Baiklah, ayahku itu sangat ramah, cerdas, dan menyenangkan).
A: What does he look like? ( Bagaimana penampilannya?)
B: He’s young, short and handsome. He has straight black hair dan green eyes. (Dia masih muda, agak pendek dan tampan. Rambutnya hitam lurus dan matanya berwarna hijau).
A: What does your mother look like? ( Bagaimana penampilan ibu kamu?)
B: She’s tall, thin and beautiful. She has blonde hair and wear glasses. (Dia itu tinggi, kurus dan cantik. Rambutnya pirang dan memakai kacamata).
A: How about your little sister? ( Bagaimana dengan adik perempuan kami?)
B: She has curly red hair and a cute smile. Everybody likes her. (Rambutnya merah keriting dan senyumannya sangat manis. Setiap orang menyukainya).
Pakaian
A: What is your brother wearing? ( Pakaian apa yang dikenakan saudara lelakimu?)
B: He’s wearing light brown pants and an orange t-shirt. (Dia mengenakan celana panjang berwarna coklat terang dan kaos oranye).
A: What kind of shoes does he have (on)? ( Sepatu bagaimana yang dipakainya?)
B: Sneakers, and he’s wearing white socks. (Sepatu karet, dan dia memakai kaos kaki putih).
A: Is Anty wearing a dress? ( Apakah anti mengenakan gaun?)
B: No. She’s wearing a blue skirt and a yellow blouse. (Tidak, dia memakai rok biru dan blus warna kuning).
A: Anything else? ( Ada lagi informasi tambahan?)
B: Yes. She’s wearing boots and carrying a purse. (Ya, dia mengenakan sepatu boot dan membawa sebuah dompet).

Talking about hobies

 
Apa yang anda katakan jika ingin mengetahui hobi/kesukaan orang lain dan bagaimana anda mengutarakan hal-hal yang menjadi kegemaran atau kesukaan anda? Berikut contoh sebuah dialog yang berbicara tentang hobi dan kesukaan.
Dialog:
A: What is your favorite color? (Apa warna kesukaanmu?)
B: My favorite color is purple. (Warna kesukaan saya ungu)
A: What your favorite kind of music? (Jenis musik apa favorit kamu?)
B: I like pop music. (Saya suka musik pop)
A: Do you have a lucky number? (Apakah kamu punya angka keberuntungan?)
B: Yes. It’s eight. (Ya, angka delapan)
A: What kind of food do you like best? (Makanan apa yang paling kamu suka?)
B: I like Makassarnese food. (Saya suka makanan khas Makassar)
A: How about movies? (Bagaimana dengan nonton film?)
B: I like action movies. (Saya suka film aksi)
A: Who is your favorite movie star? (Siapa bintang film favoritmu?)
B: My favorite movie star is Salman Khan. (Bintang favorit saya adalah Salman Khan )
A: What city do you like most? (Kota apa yang paling kamu suka?)
B: Jakarta, of course! (Jakarta tentunya

Agreeing ( ungkapan setuju) 

 
I agree
So do I
Me too
Me nether (setuju dengan pendapat negatif)
I don’t either (setuju dengan pendapatn negatif)
You’re right
That’s right
Good idea
I think that’s a good idea

Disagreeing ( ungkapan tidak setuju) 

 
I disagree
I don’t think so
(No) That’s not right
Yes, but…
(I’m sorry, but) I don’t agree

Asking for Opinions (meminta pendapat)

 
What do you think?
What’s your opinion?
What are your ideas?
Do you have any thoughts on that?
How do you feel about that?
(“Semua ungkapan di atas berarti “Apa pendapatmu” atau “Bagaimana menurutmu?”)

Giving Opinions (memberi pendapat)

I think we should get a new car. (Saya pikir kita harus membeli mobil baru)
I don’t think we need one. (Saya pikir kita tidak butuh)
I believe (that) smoking should be outlawed. (Saya setuju – bahwa – merokok harus dilarang)
I don’t believe (that) it should be illegal. (Saya tidak setuju – bahwa – itu ilegal)
In my opinion, Gone with the Breeze is the best movie ever made.(Menurut saya, Gone With The Breeze adalah film terbaik yang pernah dibuat).
I feel that it’s the right thing to do. (Saya pikir itu hal yang tepat untuk dilakukan)
I don’t feel that it’s such a good idea. (Saya tidak menganggap itu ide yang baik)
Conversation Starters ( Pembuka pembicaraan)
General greetings and inquiries ( Salam dan pertanyaan umum)
How’s it going?
How’s everything?
How’s life?
Ketiga ungkapan di atas sama artinya dengan “How are you?” atau apa kabar. Untuk How’s it going, artinya bukan “Kemana Anda akan pergi?”.

Asking about present activities ( Menanyakan tentang aktivitas sekarang)

 
What’s up?
What’s happening?
(Kedua ungkapan di atas sama artinya dengan “What are you doing now?”)

Asking and telling about recent events ( Menanyakan dan menceritakan kegiatan terbaru)

 
           What’s new? (Kita menanyakan apa hal-hal menarik yang terjadi sejak terakhir bertemu)
Guess what? (Ini digunakan jika kita ingin menceritakan sesuatu dan menginginkan lawan bicara menanyakannya. Biasanya jawabn yang tepat adalah “What”).
Perhatikan audio untuk contoh dialog berikut setelah voice di atas.
(A) Guess what?
(B) What?
(A) I just got a new job. (Saya baru saja mendapatkan pekerjaan baru)
(B) Congratulations! (Selamat!)
Bringing up a serious topic ( Jika ingin membicarakan masalah penting)
Can I talk to you for a minute?
Do you have a minute?
Got a minute?

Narrating

A) : Tell us about your trip. (Ceritakan kepada kami tentang perjalanan Anda!)
(B) : It was the most horrible five days of my life. First, we missed our flight; then we had to wait four hours for our luggage. The food on the plane was terrible, and there was no shower in the hotel. (Perjalanan itu adalah lima hari paling mengerikan dalam hidupku. Pertama, kami ketinggalan pesawat; kemudian kami harus menunggu empat jam untuk barang-barang kami. Makanan di atas pesawat sangat mengerikan, dan tidak ada shower di hotel.)
(A) : What happened to your ankle? (Ada apa dengan kakimu?)
(B) : Well, my best friend and I went skiing over the weekend. I wanted to try something exciting, so I took the most difficult trail. I hit a bump and fell. Then I slid 500 meters before I could stop. (Ini karena saya dan teman dekatku pergi main ski di akhir pekan. Saya ingin mencoba sesuatu yang menyenangkan, jadi saya mengambil jalan yang paling sulit. Saya menabrak gundukan dan terjatuh. Kemudian saya terguling 500 meter sebelum terhenti.).
(A) : What did you do last summer? (Kamu bikin apa musim panas kemarin?)
(B) : We went scuba diving in Malaysia. It was my first time, so I learned a lot. We took a boat out to a tiny island, found the perfect spot, and swam for hours among the fishes. (Kami pergi menyelam di Malaysia. Ini yang pertama kali, jadi saya belajar banyak. Kami naik perahu menuju ke sebuah pulau kecil, setelah menemukan tempat yang pas, kami berenang selama berjam-jam di kelilingi ikan-ikan.).

Comparing 

(A): Which sofa should we buy? (Sofa mana yang akan kita beli?)
(B) : This one is larger, but it is also more expensive. (Yang ini lebih besar, tetapi lebih mahal.)
(A) : I need a new watch. (Saya butuh jam tangan baru)
(B) : The Classie is nicer than the Timebox. That one is less affordable though. (Jam tangan Classie lebih bagus dari Timebox. Yang itu lebih murah tapi).
(A) : Which runner are you cheering for? (Atlit mana yang kamu soraki?)
(B) : Sammy. He’s the fastest. But Timmy is the most handsome. (Sammy. Dia yang tercepat. Tetapi Timmy yang paling tampan).
(A) : I like the blue sweater. (Saya suka sweater biru)
(B) : I think the red one is better. But the green one is the best. (Saya pikir yang merah itu lebih bagus. Tetapi yang hijau yang paling bagus).
(A) : How much sugar should I add? (Berapa banyak gula yang harus saya tambahkan?)
(B) : Only a little. That’s too much! (Sedikit saja. Itu sudah terlalu banyak.)

Expressing possibility 

         Berikut beberapa kata atau frase untuk mengungkapkan kemungkinan dalam bahasa Inggris.

• May
• Might
• Can
• Could
• Maybe
• Perhaps
• Probably

[A] We can stay here for the evening. (Kita bisa tinggal disini untuk malam ini)
[B] I’d rather not. It’s only a few more hours (of driving). (Lebih baik jangan. Tinggal beberapa jam lagi kok)

[A] I may be in California next Monday. (Mungkin saya akan California Senin depan).
[B] Well, let me know what you decide. (Baiklah, beritahu padaku apa keputusanmu).

[A] She might not make it to the wedding. (Dia mungkin tidak pergi ke pesta).
[B] That’s too bad. I hope she feels better soon. (Sayang sekali. Saya harap dia baikan secepatnya).

[A] We could go (and) see a movie. Or we could go out for ice cream. (Kita bisa pergi dan menonton film. Atau kita bisa keluar mencari es krim).
[B] That would be fun. (Itu akan menyenangkan)

Closing

Sebelum menutup pembicaraan
(A) It’s been nice talking to you.
(B) Nice talking to you too
(A) (I’m sorry, but) I have to go now. 

Menutup pembicaraan

Dapat dilakukan dengan mengucapkan ungkapan perpisahan:
Good bye
Bye
See you later
See ya (informal)
Catch you later (informal)

Likes and dislikes

(A) I like fruit. (Saya suka buah)
(B) What kind? (Buah apa?)
(A) Oranges and bananas. (Jeruk dan pisang).
(A) Helen likes sports. (Helen suka olahraga)
(B) What kind of sports? (Olahraga apa?)
(A) Football and tennis. (Sepakbola dan tennis)
(A) Ms. Cramer doesn’t like coffee. (Nona Cramer tidak suka kopi)
(B) Really? Does she like tea? (Benarkah? Apakah dia suka teh)
(A) Yes, she does. (Ya, dia suka)
(A) Tony does not like action movies. (Tony tidak suka film laga)
(B) Oh. What kind does he like? (Oh, film apa yang dia suka?)
(A) (He likes) drama. (Drama)
(A) Does Terry like swimming? (Apakah Terry suka berenang)
(B) Yes, he does. (Ya, dia suka)
(A) Does Phil like soft drinks? (Apakah Phil suka minuman ringan?)
(B) No, he doesn’t. (Tidak, dia tidak suka)
(A) Does Sheila like salad? (Apakah Sheila sika salad?)
(B) No, she does not. (Tidak dia tidak suka)
(A) Do you like Chinese food? (Apakah Anda suka masakan Cina?)
(B) Yes, I do/No, I don’t/A little.

Read more »

ANTONYM - GENERAL

In lexical semantics, opposites are words that lie in an inherently incompatible binary relationship as in the opposite pairs male : female, long : short, up : down, and precede : follow. The notion of incompatibility here refers to the fact that one word in an opposite pair entails that it is not the other pair member. For example, something that is long entails that it is not short. It is referred to as a 'binary' relationship because there are two members in a set of opposites. The relationship between opposites is known as opposition. A member of a pair of opposites can generally be determined by the question What is the opposite of  X ?

The term antonym (and the related antonymy) has also been commonly used as a term that is synonymous with opposite; however, the term also has other more restricted meanings. One usage has antonym referring to both gradable opposites, such as long : short, and (non-gradable) complementary opposites, such as male : female, while opposites of the types up : down and precede : follow are excluded from the definition.

A third usage (particularly that of the influential Lyons 1968, 1977) defines the term antonym as referring to only gradable opposites (the long : short type) while the other types are referred to with different terms. Therefore, as Crystal (2003) warns, the terms antonymy and antonym should be regarded with care. In this article, the usage of Lyons (1963, 1977) and Cruse (1986, 2004) will be followed where antonym is restricted to gradable opposites and opposite is used as the general term referring to any of the subtypes discussed below.

Contents [hide] 1 General discussion 2 Subtypes 2.1 Complementaries 2.2 Antonyms (gradable opposites) 2.3 Directional opposites 3 Auto-antonyms 4 See also 5 Notes 6 Bibliography 7 External links

General discussion

This section requires expansion.

Opposites are, interestingly, simultaneously different and similar in meaning. Typically, they differ in only one dimension of meaning, but are similar in most other respects, including similarity in grammar and positions of semantic abnormality. Additionally, not all words have an opposite. Some words are non-opposable. For example, animal or plant species have no binary opposites (other than possible gender opposites such as lion/lioness, etc.); the word platypus therefore has no word that stands in opposition to it (hence the unanswerability of What is the opposite of platypus?).

Other words are opposable but have an accidental gap in a given language's lexicon. For example, the word devout lacks a lexical opposite, but it is fairly easy to conceptualize a parameter of devoutness where devoutun- or non-, with varying degrees of naturalness. For example, the word undevout appears in Webster's dictionary of 1828, while the pattern of non-person could conceivably be extended to non-platypus. lies at the positive pole with a missing member at the negative pole. Opposites of such words can nevertheless sometimes be formed with the prefixes

Opposites may be viewed as a special type of incompatibility.^[1] Words that are incompatible create the following type of entailment (where X is a given word and Y is a different word incompatible with word X):^[2]

sentence A is  X   entails  sentence A is not  Y  ^[3]

An example of an incompatible pair of words is cat : dog:

It's a cat  entails  It's not a dog ^[4]

This incompatibility is also found in the opposite pairs fast : slow and stationary : moving, as can be seen below:

It's fast  entails  It's not slow ^[5]

It's stationary  entails  It's not moving

Cruse (2004) identifies some basic characteristics of opposites:

• binarity
• inheritness
• patency

 Subtypes

Complementaries

Complementary opposites are pairs that express absolute opposites, like mortal and immortal.

• interactives
• satisfactives
• counteractives

Antonyms (gradable opposites)

For the purposes of this article (see introduction), antonyms, from the Greek anti ("opposite") and onomahot and cold, slow and fast, and fat and skinny. Words may have several different antonyms, depending on the meaning: both long and tall can be antonyms of short. ("name") are gradable opposites. Gradable opposites lie at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum of meanings; examples are

Though the word antonym was only coined by philologists in the 19th century, such relationships are a fundamental part of a language, in contrast to synonyms, which are a result of history and drawing of fine distinctions, or homonyms, which are mostly etymological accidents or coincidences.

Languages often have ways of creating antonyms as an easy extension of lexicon. For example, English has the prefixes in- and un-, so unreal is the antonym of real and indocile is of docile.

Some planned languages abundantly use such devices to reduce vocabulary multiplication. Esperanto has mal-bona = "good" and malbona = "bad"), Damin has kuri- (tjitjuu "small", kuritjitjuu "large") and Newspeak has un- (as in ungood, "bad"). (compare

Directional opposites

• antipodals
• reversives
• converses (or relational opposites)
• pseudo-opposites

• Relational antonyms (Converses) are pairs in which one describes a relationship between two objects and the other describes the same relationship when the two objects are reversed, such as parent and child, teacher and student, or buy and sell.

Auto-antonyms

An auto-antonym is a word that can have opposite meanings in different contexts or under separate definitions:

• enjoin (to prohibit, issue injunction; to order, command)
• fast (moving quickly; fixed firmly in place)
• cleave (to split; to adhere)
• sanction (punishment, prohibition ; permission)
• stay (remain in a specific place, postpone; guide direction, movement)

Read more »

SYNONYM - GENERAL

Synonyms are different words with almost identical or similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. The word comes from Ancient Greek syn (σύν) ("with") and onoma (ὄνομα) ("name"). The words car and automobile are synonyms. Similarly, if we talk about a long time or an extended time, long and extended become synonyms. In the figurative sense, two words are often said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation:

"a widespread impression that … Hollywood was synonymous with immorality" (Doris Kearns Goodwin)

Synonyms can be any part of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or prepositions), as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech. More examples of English synonyms are:

• noun
  • "student" and "pupil"
  • "petty crime" and "misdemeanor"
• verb
  • "buy" and "purchase"
• adjective
  • "sick" and "ill"
• adverb
  • "quickly" and "speedily"
• preposition
  • "on" and "upon"

Note that synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the "aperture in the iris of the eye" is not synonymous with student. Similarly, he expired means the same as he died, yet my passport has expired cannot be replaced by my passport has died.

In English, many synonyms evolved from the parallel use, in the early medieval period, of Norman French (from Latin) and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) words, often with some words being used principally by the Saxon peasantry ("folk", "freedom", "bowman") and their synonyms by the Norman nobility ("people", "liberty", "archer").

Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique. Different words that are similar in meaning usually differ for a reason: feline is more formal than cat; long and extended are only synonyms in one usage and not in others (for example, a long arm is not the same as an extended arm). Synonyms are also a source of euphemisms.

The purpose of a thesaurus is to offer the user a listing of similar or related words; these are often, but not always, synonyms. (Rooted derivatives are not synonymous, such as: to force —- forcing^{[clarification needed]})

Related terms

Antonyms are words with opposite or nearly opposite meanings. For example:

• short and tall
• dead and alive
• increase and decrease
• add and subtract

The words synonym and antonym are themselves antonyms.

Hypernyms and hyponyms are words that refer to, respectively, a general category and a specific instance of that category. For example, vehicle is a hypernym of car, and car is a hyponym of vehicle.

Homonyms are words that sound or are spelled the same, but have different meanings.

Read more »

DEBATE - GENERAL

Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. (Of course, this implies that facts are based on consensus, which is not factual.) Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies.

The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease.

Debates are sometime organized for purely competitive purposes, particularly at the US high-school level, but also in other English-speaking countries.

Contents 1 Competitive debate 2 Forms of debate 2.1 Parliamentary (Parli) debate 2.2 Mace Debate 2.3 Jes Debate 2.4 Public Debate 2.5 Australasia debate 2.6 World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID) 2.7 Asian Universities Debating Championship 2.8 Policy debate 2.9 Classic debate 2.10 Extemporaneous debate 2.11 Lincoln-Douglas debate 2.12 Karl Popper debate 2.13 Simulated legislature 2.14 Impromptu debate 2.15 Moot court and mock trial 2.16 Public Forum (Po Fo\Pufo) Debate 2.17 Paris Style Debating 3 Other forms of debate 3.1 Online debating 3.2 U.S. presidential debates 3.3 Comedy debate 4 Debate Strategies 4.1 Moral High Ground 4.2 Model Construction / Destruction 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

Competitive debate

Competitive debate is an organized to argue with other teams, competing at the local, national, and international level.^[1] It is popular in English-speaking universities and high schools around the world, most notably in South Africa, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. Many different styles of debate occur under a variety of organizations and rules.

In schools and colleges, often, it takes the form of a contest with explicit rules. It may be presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within limits. Each side is either in favor ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution) which if adopted would change something with the exception allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted. To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.

Forms of debate

Parliamentary (Parli) debate

Main article: Parliamentary debate

Parliamentary Debate (sometimes referred to as "parli" in the United States) is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary procedure. It features the competition of individuals in a multi-person setting. It borrows terms such as "government" and "opposition" from the British parliament (although the term "proposition" is sometimes used rather than "government" when debating in the United Kingdom). This is usually very formal.

Throughout the world, parliamentary debate is what most countries know as "debating", and is the primary style practiced in the United Kingdom, India, Greece and most other nations. The premier event in the world of parliamentary debate, the World Universities Debating Championship, is conducted in the British Parliamentary style.

Even within the United Kingdom, however, British Parliamentary style is not used exclusively; the English-Speaking Union runs the national championships for schools in a unique format, known as the 'Mace' format after the name of the competition, while simultaneously using British Parliamentary format for the national universities championships.Sort of formal.

In the United States the American Parliamentary Debate AssociationEast Coast and including all of the Ivy League, although the more recently founded National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is now the largest collegiate sponsor. The National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL) is the umbrella organization for all parliamentary debating at the secondary school level in the United States. And in Canada, the Canadian Universities Society for Intercollegiate Debating (CUSID) is the umbrella organization for all university-level debating; at the secondary school level, the Canadian Student Debating Federation (CSDF) has the same function. is the oldest national parliamentary debating organization, based on the

Topics in parliamentary debate can either be set by the tournament or determined by the debaters as the "Government" side begins. For example, if the topic was "This House Would Bomb Cultural Sites", the Government could define it in any way which it feel suitable, for example, only during wartime, and excluding religious cultural sites. The Government must be sure the definitions does not give them an unfair advantage, and the Opposition may dispute the definition if it feels it violates fair play. In many forms of the activity rhetoric and style, as well as the more traditional knowledge and research, can play a significant role in determining the victor with marks shared equally between matter and manner. It has been widely labeled as the most democratic form of debate.

Mace Debate

This style of debate is prominent in Britain at schools level. Two teams of two debate an affirmative motion (e.g. "This house would give prisoners the right to vote,") which one team will propose and the other will oppose. Each speaker will make a seven minute speech in the order; 1st Proposition, 1st Opposition, 2nd Proposition, 2nd Opposition. After the first minute of each speech, members of the opposing team may request a 'point of information' (POI). If the speaker accepts they are permitted to ask a question. POI's are used to pull the speaker up on a weak point, or to argue against something the speaker has said. However after 6 minutes, no more POI's are permitted. After all four have spoken the debate will be opened to the floor, in which members of the audience will put questions to the teams. After the floor debate, one speaker from each team (traditionally the first speaker), will speak for 4 minutes. In these summary speeches it is typical for the speaker to answer the questions posed by the floor, answer any questions the opposition may have put forward, before summarising his or her own key points. In the Mace format, emphasis is typically on analytical skills, entertainment, style and strength of argument. The winning team will typically have excelled in all of these areas.

 Jes Debate

This style of debate is particularly popular in Ireland at Secondary School level. Developed in Coláiste Iognáid (Galway) over the last ten years, the format has five speakers: two teams and a single 'sweep speaker' on each side. Speeches last 4:30 minutes with 30 seconds protected from POIs at either end of the debate. Adjudication will depend on BP marking, but with particular recognition of principled debating.A ten minute open house will also be adjudicated. Traditionally, the motion is always opposed in the final vote.^{[citation needed]}

Public Debate

Main article: Public debate

The International Public Debate Association (IPDA), inaugurated on February 15, 1997 at St. Mary's University (Texas) in San Antonio, Texas, is a national debate league currently active in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Florida, and Oklahoma. Among universities, IPDA is the fastest growing debate association within the United States. Although evidence is used, the central focus of IPDA is to promote a debate format that emphasizes public speaking and real-world persuasion skills over the predominate use of evidence and speed. To further this goal, IPDA predominantly uses lay judges in order to encourage an audience-centered debate style. Furthermore, although the main goal of the debater is to persuade the judge, IPDA also awards the best speakers within each tournament.

IPDA offers both team debate where two teams of two debate and individual debate. In both team and individual debate a list of topics are given to the two sides thirty minutes before the start of the round. A striking negotiation ensues to pick a topic. The sides, one affirming the resolution and one negating the resolution, then prepare an opening speech, a cross-examination of the other side, and closing remarks for the round.

While most member programs the International Public Debate Association are associated with colleges or universities, participation in IPDA tournaments is open to anyone whose education level is equivalent to seventh-grade or higher.

Australasia debate

Main article: Australia-Asia debate

Australasia style debates consist of two teams who debate over an issue, more commonly called a topic or proposition. The issue, by convention, is presented in the form of an affirmative statement beginning with "That", for example, "That cats are better than dogs," or "This House", for example, "This House would establish a world government." The subject of topics varies from region to region. Most topics however, are usually region specific to facilitate interest by both the participants and their audiences.

Each team has three members, each of whom is named according to their team and speaking position within his/her team. For instance the second speaker of the affirmative team to speak is called the "Second Affirmative Speaker" or "Second Proposition Speaker", depending on the terminology used. Each of the speakers' positions is based around a specific role, the third speaker for example has the opportunity to make a rebuttal towards the opposing teams argument introducing new evidence to add to their position. The last speaker is called the "Team Advisor/Captain". Using this style, the debate is finished with a closing argument by each of the first speakers from each team and new evidence may not be introduced. Each of the six speakers (three affirmative and three negative) speak in succession to each other beginning with the Affirmative Team. The speaking order is as follows: First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative.

The context in which the Australasia style of debate is used varies, but in Australia and New Zealand is mostly used at the Primary and Secondary school level, ranging from small informal one-off intra-school debates to larger more formal inter-school competitions with several rounds and a finals series which occur over a year.

World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID)

WUPID is an invitational tournament that employs the BP or Worlds format of debating. It invites the top 30 debating institutions in accordance to the list provided by the World Debate Website administered by Colm Flynn. If any or some of the teams cannot participate than replacements would be called in from the top 60 teams or based on strong recommendations from senior members of the University Debating community.

WUPID was first held in December 2007 with Sydney University being crowned champion. The second installation in 2008 saw Monash taking the trophy home. The third WUPID will be held in University Putra Malaysia (UPM) in December 2009. The first two tournaments were co-hosted by Univerisiti Kuala Lumpur (UNIKL).

WUPID was the brainchild of Daniel Hasni Mustaffa, Saiful Amin Jalun and Muhammad Yunus Zakariah. They were all former debaters for UPM who took part at all possible levels of debating from the Malaysian nationals to the World Championship.

Asian Universities Debating Championship

This is the biggest debating tournament in Asia, where teams from the Middle East to Japan come to debate. It is traditionally hosted in southeast Asia where participation is usually highest compared to other parts of Asia.

Asian debates are largely an adaptation of the Australasian format. The only difference is that each speaker is given 7 minutes of speech time and there will be points of information (POI) offered by the opposing team between the 2nd to 6th minutes of the speech. This means that the 1st and 7th minute is considered the 'protected' period where no POIs can be offered to the speaker.

The debate will commence with the Prime Minister's speech (first proposition) and will be continued by the first opposition. This alternating speech will go on until the third opposition. Following this, the opposition bench will give the reply speech.

In the reply speech, the opposition goes first and then the proposition. The debate ends when the proposition ends the reply speech. 4 minutes is allocated for the reply speech and no POI's can be offered during this time.

Policy debate

Main article: Policy Debate

Policy Debate is a style of debating where two teams of two debaters advocate or oppose a plan derived from a resolution that usually calls for a change in policy by a government. Teams normally alternate, and compete in rounds as either "affirmative" or "negative". In most forms of the activity, there is a fixed topic for an entire year or another set period. In comparison to parliamentary debate, policy debate relies more on researched evidence and tends to have a larger sphere of what is considered legitimate argument, including counterplans, critical theory, and debate about the theoretical standards of the activity itself. While rhetoric is important and reflected in the "speaker points" given to each debater, each round is usually decided based on who has "won" the argument according to the evidence and logic presented. Additionally, in certain segments of the activity, debaters may "speed" (speak very rapidly), in order to present as much evidence and information as possible and counter the other side. People speed read in the attempt to "spread" the opponent out of a speech. In effect, the debater presents so much information, spread out over many topics, that the opponent does not have time to cover everything and must ignore arguments that the original team then focuses on.

Policy Debate is mostly practiced in the United States (where it is sometimes referred to as Cross-Examination, or CX debate), although it has been attempted in Europe, Venezuela, Colombia, and Japan and has certainly influenced other forms of debate. Successful high school policy debaters are frequently recruited for and offered college scholarships for their policy debate experience. Former policy debaters have also credit their success in virtually every field, including politics, law, academia, business, entertainment, and more. The National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, and the various individual debate leagues, are set up in order to provide students of all economic backgrounds an opportunity to experience and succeed in this life-changing activity.

Classic debate

Classic debate is a relatively new debate format, first created and primarily practiced in the state of Minnesota. It was formed as an alternative to Policy debating. Certain judges and coaches felt that the development of Policy had led it to become an extremely specialized form of debate with heavy reliance on near-incomprehensible speed in speaking and less emphasis on real-world arguments in favor of "strategic" arguments that often bordered on the near-absurd. With a structure similar to that of Policy, Classic debate emphasizes logic and real-world discussion. For this reason, it is often nicknamed "Policy Lite".

As opposed to Policy, where each Affirmative proposes a new plan, Classic debate is simpler: one resolution is chosen at the beginning of the season, which the Affirmative affirms and Negative negates. The emphasis on depth instead of breadth provided by the restriction can make for interesting rounds that often come down to arguments that might otherwise pale in other formats. Conceptually Classic debate is intended to develop skills that transfer directly to "real world" debate settings.

Extemporaneous debate

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011)

Extemporaneous debate is a style that involves no planning in advance, and two teams with a first and second speaker. While a majority of judges will allow debaters to cite current events and various statistics (of which opponents may question the credibility) the only research permitted are one or more articles given to the debaters along with the resolution shortly before the debate. It begins with an affirmative first-speaker constructive speech, followed by a negative; then an affirmative and negative second-speaker constructive speech respectively. Each of these speeches is six minutes in length, and is followed by two minutes of cross examination. There is then an affirmative and negative first-speaker rebuttal, and a negative and affirmative second-speaker rebuttal, respectively. These speeches are each four minutes long. No new points can be brought into the debate during the rebuttals.

This style of debate generally centers around three main contentions, although a team can occasionally use two or four. In order for the affirmative side to win, all of the negative contentions must be defeated, and all of the affirmative contentions must be left standing. Most of the information presented in the debate must be tied in to support one of these contentions, or "sign posted". Much of extemporaneous debate is similar to policy debate; one main difference, however, is that extemporaneous debate focuses less on the implementation of the resolution.

Lincoln-Douglas debate

Main article: Lincoln-Douglas debate

Lincoln-Douglas debate is primarily a form of United States high school debate (though it also has a college form called NFA LD) named after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. It is a one-on-one event focused mainly on applying philosophical theories to real world issues. Debaters normally alternate sides from round to round as either the "affirmative", which upholds the resolution, or "negative", which attacks it. The resolution, which changes bimonthly, asks whether a certain policy or action conforms to a specific value.

Though established as an alternative to policy debate, there has been a strong movement to embrace certain techniques that originated in policy debate (and, correspondingly, a strong backlash movement). Plans, counterplans, critical theory, postmodern theory, debate about the theoretical basis and rules of the activity itself, and kritiks have all reached more than occasional, if not yet universal, usage. Traditional L-D debate attempts to be free of policy debate "jargon". Lincoln-Douglas speeches can range from a conversational pace to well over 300 wpm (when trying to maximize the number of arguments and depth of each argument's development). This technique is known as speed. There is also a growing emphasis on carded evidence, though still much less than in policy debate. These trends have created a serious rift within the activity between the debaters, judges, and coaches who advocate or accept these changes, and those who vehemently oppose them.

Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate tournaments are often held concurrently at the same school.

Karl Popper debate

Karl Popper debate, named after the famed philosopher, is a widely used debate format in Eastern European and Central Asian high schools. Originally created by the Open Society Institute as a more flexible team debate format, Karl Popper debate has risen greatly in popularity as the first format that many high school students learn. It focuses on relevant and often deeply divisive propositions, emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and must research both sides of each issue. Constructed similarly to the Lincoln-Douglas debate format, each side is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questions to the opposing side. The first speakers of each side have 6 minutes to present their constructive cases, or in the negative's case a rebuttal. The other 4 speakers each have 5 minutes to deliver a speech supporting their team's main arguments. There is also an allotted 3 minutes after each of the first 4 speeches for cross-examination, during which the opposing team has a chance to clarify what was stated in the preceding speech.

Each year, the International Debate Education Association (IDEA) hosts an annual Youth Forum, during which the Karl Popper World Championships are held. Nations from all around the world attend this Forum for the tournament, as well as the 2 week debate training camp.

Simulated legislature

High school debate events such as Student Congress, Model United Nations, European Youth Parliament, Junior State of America and the American Legion's Boys State and Girls State events are activities which are based on the premise of simulating a mock legislature environment.

Impromptu debate

Main article: Impromptu debate

Impromptu debate is a relatively informal style of debate, when compared to other highly structured formats. The topic for the debate is given to the participants between fifteen and twenty minutes before the debate starts. The debate format is relatively simple; each team member of each side speaks for five minutes, alternating sides. A ten-minute discussion period, similar to other formats' "open cross-examination" time follows, and then a five-minute break (comparable to other formats' preparation time). Following the break, each team gives a 4-minute rebuttal.

Moot court and mock trial

In the United Kingdom the national mooting championships are run by

Public Forum (Po Fo\Pufo) Debate

Public Forum combines aspects of both Policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate, with shorter speech lengths, but longer periods, called "cross-fires", of interaction between the debaters cessibility to both debaters and audiences through its simplistic emphasis on logical persuasion (supported by evidence as appropriate) and due to its ability to help develop real-world argumentation and speaking skills.

[Paris Style Debating

This is a new, specifically French format. Two teams of five debate on a given motion. One side is supposed to defend the motion while the other must defeat it. The debate is judged on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the rhetoric, the charisma of the speaker, the quality of the humor, the ability to think on one's feet and, of course, the teamwork.

The first speaker of the Proposition (Prime Minister) opens the debate, followed by the first speaker of the Opposition (Shadow Prime Minister), then the second speaker of the Proposition and so on.

Every speaker speaks for 6 minutes. After the first minute and before the last minute, debaters from the opposite team may ask Points of Information, which the speaker may accept or reject as he wishes (although he is supposed to accept at least 2).

The French Debating Association^[2] organizes its National Debating Championship upon this style.

Other forms of debate

Online debating

With the increasing popularity and availability of the Internet, differing opinions arise frequently. Though they are often expressed via flaming and other forms of argumentation, which consist primarily of assertions, there do exist formalized debating websites, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards. The debate style is interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because of the obvious lack of time restraints (although practical time restraints usually are in effect, e.g., no more than 5 days between posts, etc.).Forums are Moderated and welcome online debaters in a friendly format so all may speak their pros and cons. Many people use this to strengthen their points, or drop their weaker opinions on things, many times for debate in formal debates (such as the ones listed above) or for fun arguments with friends. The ease-of-use and friendly environments make new debaters welcome to share their opinions in many communities.

There have been two World Online Debating Championships, run by Debatewise and IDEA.

U.S. presidential debates

Main article: United States presidential election debates

Since the 1976 general election, debates between presidential candidates have been a part of U.S. presidential campaigns. Unlike debates sponsored at the high school or collegiate level, the participants, format, and rules are not independently defined. Nevertheless, in a campaign season heavily dominated by television advertisements, talk radio, sound bites, and spin, they still offer a rare opportunity for citizens to see and hear the major candidates side-by-side. The format of the presidential debates, though defined differently in every election, is typically more restrictive than many traditional formats, forbidding participants to ask each other questions and restricting discussion of particular topics to short time frames.

The presidential debates were initially moderated in 1976, 1980, 1984 by the League of Women Voters, but The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic parties. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. However, in announcing its withdrawal from sponsoring the debates, the League of Women Voters stated that it was withdrawing "because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." In 2004, the Citizens' Debate Commission was formed in the hope of establishing an independent sponsor for presidential debates, with a more voter-centric role in the definition of the participants, format, and rules.

See also: Leaders debate

Comedy debate

Main article: Comedy debate

With the growing popularity of debate among the general public, comedy debates have developed as a form of entertainment with an often educational twist. While comedy debates are not generally mainstream events, they have gained significant popular support at occasions such as the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, and are often popular fixtures among experienced debaters.

All forms of debate, whether consciously or not, make certain assumptions about argumentation theory. The core concept of argumentation theory is the notion of advocacy. In most cases, at least one side in a debate needs to maintain the truth of some proposition or advocate some sort of personal or political change or action. A debate could also potentially be between two or more competing propositions or actions. Or debate could also be a purely performative exercise of charisma and emotion with no assumption of fixed advocacy, but it would possibly lose much of its coherence.

Debate Strategies

While debating is an art, involving aspects from showmanship to critical thinking, there are certain strategies that are commonly used to shape the direction of a debate.

Moral High Ground

One such strategy is to adopt the Moral High Ground, consigning the other parties to appear weak, unethical. In this strategy, the party will try to illustrate the moral benefits that their side of the debates bring to the table. i.e. more environmentally aware, pro-human rights etc.

Model Construction / Destruction

Often, in the process of debates, each party will need to build a conceptual model of the topic on which to base the debate. Thus merits will be given to the team with the better model.

The model can be assessed on the following count.

• completeness
• timeliness
• feasibility

A model can be attacked as well by highlighting undesirable effects. e.g. Floodgate effect that can follow a policy, the social backlash that could happen.

Read more »