另一个同学没来。另一个同学没来。Hi, Jasper. I think we're still waiting on Scarlett and then we can get started. 你不都老师教课吗？作学六个同学没来呀，那叫同学干啥呀？等啊，听老师的对啊，他说等啊。Okay, let's get started. Okay, so today is lesson eleven. Okay, today we'll be learning about rebuttals. Jasper, do you know what rebuttals are those? Just like first trying say something to other people, then other people say something back to you. Yeah, exactly. Something. Other people say something and you say something back to other people. This is rebuttal. Yeah, exactly. So you're argumenting against someone else's point, right? So Yeah, totally, right. Okay, so today in this lesson, we'll be looking at bad arguments and how to rebut them. Okay? So logical fallacy. So logical fallacy, this is quite a scary term. At first, you may not know what it means. Essentially, it means that there's a logic problem with your argument. So one way of having a logic problem is when you associate correlation with causation, okay? So for instance, correlation is when one thing follows another, okay? Whereas causation is when one thing causes another, okay? So a logical fallacy, a logic problem in an argument, could be that an argument is using correlation instead of causation, okay? So for instance. We can look at some examples. For instance, in your last math test, you got 90% your best ever result. You also wore red socks that day. You've got another math test tomorrow. What should you do in your opinion? What should you do? Jasper, what do you think after reading this? Do you think it makes a difference? No, I no, I didn't think so. Exactly. So should they wear red socks or do revision if you were to pick between these two options? Revision do? Revision. Yeah, exactly. So the answer would be to do revision. And why is that? Well, this is because revision causes higher grades, right? It's not the the wearing of red socks which causes higher grades. No, it's when you do revision that you get higher grades. And so here, if your opponent says, Oh, he should wear red socks because when he wore red socks the other day, he scored a really high grade well, no, you're confusing correlation and causation, and that's a logical fallacy. Instead, he should be doing revision because that would be the best way to get high grades. Okay? So that's how you can lose logical fallacy. You can directly say to your opponent, Nope, that's a logical fallacy. You're conflating, you're equating, you're confusing correlation and causation, and you cannot do that. Okay? So that could be an argument. Another example, this house would ban violent computer games. Okay, imagine this is the emotion for today. The proposition will say, violent computer games have never been more popular. At the same time, levels of knife crime amongst Young people have never been higher. We need to ban these games now to keep our children safe. Okay, why is this a bad argument? Is it a argument, yewhy? Is this a bad argument? Because like these two are not afftogether, I just seem to be sadest. Exactly that you don't affect each other, right? Yeah. So is this an argument that shows correlation or causation? Which one is it? Remember, correlation is when something follows another. Causation is when something causes another. Correlation correlation exactly? Yep, correlation. So what you could say is. I think the proposition is wrong because they're argumenting from a perspective of correlation instead of causation. And we know that correlation does not equal causation. And so that means that this is a logical fallacy. This is a logic problem. And so this argument does not make sense. Okay, so that could be an example of a rebuttal, right? Because what we want in rebuttals, what we want in our arguments, is causation. We want causation. We want to show that something causes something else. We don't want to show that something follows from something else because that doesn't matter to us, right? Cool. Great. Okay. So well, okay, I've essentially just said it, but what would you say to the proposition? To combat and to rebut their argument right here. These two things doesn't affect together. And then talking about this these words, if you could. Yeah. And so it is a. Fallexactly, it's a logical fallacy. It so it doesn't make sense. Great. Yeah, exactly. So it's correlation and therefore it's not causation. And so that is a logical fallacy. Okay so you can start so how would you address this right? So you've already addressed it I an example let's see the perfect way to address this so horrific though knife crime is you have not provided any evidence that it is connected with the use of violent computer games. Okay so that shows that again, that was your point. Knife crime is not related in any way to buy the computer games. Or you can turn the connection between the two factors so that the correlation works in your favor. For instance, millions of Young people play violent video games every day, and only a tiny minority engage in acts of violence. This is surely compelling evidence that playing these games is harmless. Okay, so this just shows another way to address this logical fallacy. Okay, let's go through another example and then that will be about the halfway point of the class and then we can get started on the debate portion. Okay. So. Okay, so this is the motion for today. This house would abolish public exams. If we abolish public exams, students in years ten and eleven will have no motivation to study. As a result, they will pay no attention in class, no one will learn anything, and students will leave school without basic literacy and numeracy skills. They will not be able to find work and will have no choice but to turn a crime, and the murder rate will go up. Okay. So why is this a bad argument in your opinion? It again, why is this a bad argument? Take some time to read it through and then let me know what. Yeah, too long, but more specifically about the content itself, more specifically about hi, scarlet. Okay, cool. So I'll quickly just go back to the sarjust for scarlet. Thanks for joining. Okay, today we'll be learning about rebuttals. Okay, so again, a recap of rebuttals. Rebuttals are when your opponent says something and you want to defend your side and so you argument against their argument. So you're essentially attacking their argument. You're saying your argument is wrong because et ceter etc.etc.. Okay, so more specifically today we'll be diving deeper into a specific type of rebuttal, okay? And the specific type of rebuttal is called logical fallacy, okay? Logical fallacy is just a fancy term for a logic problem, okay? So just think of it as a logic problem, okay? So there's three words which you need to know for this. Firstly, correlation. So correlation is when one thing follows another, okay? That's correlation. Causation is when one thing causes another. And then equating just means equals, okay, just means equals. What you're trying to do in an argument is you're trying to show causation. You're trying to show because of this, then this will happen. However, very often people will mistake this for correlation. They will say because of this, this follows, but following and causing is different. Okay, so this is where you can rebut. Okay? So for instance, I did this with Jasper, but just very quick going over it again, in your last maths exam, you got 90% your best ever result. You also wore red socks that day. You've got another maths test tomorrow. What should you do? What should you do, scarlet? Should you wear red socks or do revision? What does revision mean? Revision means study study for your exam. B B exactly. So you should you should study you for your exam. Why should you study and not wear red socks? Because like red red socks, like you can wear it every day whatever you want the time. But like do the revision like the test. You only have one time or one chance and you you wanted to get like the best result. Exactly. So even though he wore Red Sox last time and scored a high grade, that does not mean that Red Sox causes high grades, right? That is very different. Okay? So this shows correlation. Okay? This is correlation. However, we know that studying increases your grades. And so when you study, you get good grid. And so that is causation. Okay? Causation. Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation? Okay, let's move on. So another example. Let's say the emotion for today day's, this house would ban violent video games. Okay? So the proposition says violent computer games have never been more popular. At the same time, levels of knife crime against Young people have never been higher. We need to ban these games now to keep our children safe. Okay? So why do you think this is a bad argument? What did you just said? I didn't hear it. So why do you think this is a bad argument? Add argument, why in your opinion, do you think this is a bad argument? 嗯。Does violent computer games mean higher knife crimes? I think that does it always mean higher enough? Nope, it's like just like an opinion. Yeah, exactly. So this is an argument of cauof correlation. Okay? So I would say I disagree with the proposition on this point, because I think that they're argumenting on the correlation perspective. I disagree. I think that there is no proof or evidence that this takes place. And so we cannot show causation. Thus, this is a logical fallacy. This is a logical c problem, and this argument should fall, okay? Something like that, right? So again, this just shows correlation. They're just saying higher video games equals higher knife crime, but they're not showing how he causes it. Okay? So this is a logical fallacy. This is a logic problem. Okay, so now we're here with Jasper. Let's suppose the emotion for today is this house would abolish public exexams. Okay? So if we abolish public exams, students in year ten and eleven will have no motivation to study. As a result, they will pay no attention in class, no one will learn anything, and students will leave school without basic literacy and numeracy skills. They will not be able to find work, and will have no choice but to turn to crime, and the murder rate will go up. Okay, what do you think of this argument? Is this a good argument? What do we think? If we abolish, if we ban exams, will people turn to crime? Is there evidence of that? No, no, right? So is this correlation or causation? 嗯，这个论证于谬典型的。Remember, correlation is when one thing follows from another. Causation is one thing causes another. 嗯。Okay, this is correlation, okay? Jasper and Scarlett, can you guys tell me why this is correlation and not causation? 嗯，corlation cau这里的relation causation是逻辑谬误理的混淆相关与因果。Jasper scarlet, do you guys tell me why this is an argument of correlation and not causation? Sorry. Can you speak a little louder, Jasper? There's no right or wrong here, just we're here to learn, so there's no worries. Do you guys think this is why is this correlation and not causation? Maybe because it doesn't something Yeah it doesn't cause anything, right? So they're just saying if we ban exams, then what we'll follow is more people will turn to crime. They're not saying this causes that, right? So this is an argument of correlation. And again, there's no evidence. So if there's no evidence, there's no causation causation. There needs to be evidence and there needs you need to show that something causes another and something does not just follow from one to two, right? You need to show the transition of why one causes two. Okay, cool. So the slippery slip. So. So I'll read this out and then I'll explain it a little bit. So it posits an inevitable progression towards an extreme consequence for an action, without proving that this consequence is inevitable or even likely. So okay, to make that make more sense, logical fallacies, basically they try and show that because one thing is associated to another, or because one thing is connected to another, that one thing causes another. But that is not the case, right? We know that this is not the case just because one is connected to two. That is not the case, right? For instance. I could say. Having black hair, like I could say a lot of people that have black hair have black eyes, right? Black colored eyes. Does that mean that black hair causes black colored eyes? No, that doesn't. That just means that they're connected, right? They're more likely to be together, right? So this is the difference between correlation and causation. Okay, care. So now I'm going to, we'll do another example, and then we will get into the debate portion of today. Scarland, Jasper, listen up. So let's go with the same motion. This house would abolish public exams. Okay, that is the motion. This house would abolish public exams. Now, the proposition states this, while some students may temporarily lose some motivation in the absence of public exams, a great majority will still see that it is not in the interest to disengage from school. It is actually more likely that students will be more motivated, as lessons will be more interesting and stimulating once they no longer have to focus on boring, repetitive drilling for exams. Okay, so take five minutes, try and read this again and let me know why this is a bad argument. Like Yeah take some time to yourself and then let me know what this is a bad argument. Sorry, no, my apologies. This is an example of. What you should say to rebut the last argument. Sorry, this is my fault. So this is what you would say to combat this last argument. So again, this last argument showed that banning exams does not cause, banning exams is related to crime, okay? And this right here is saying that there's no proof, there's no actual evidence for this, okay? So this is what you would say to show that correlation does not equal causation. Okay? Does that make sense for everybody? This will probably be all new information. So it doesn't matter if you didn't get everything. What I'd like you to just know for today is correlation means something follows another. Causation means something causes something, okay? And when you're arguing something, you want to show causation, not correlation. Okay? Cool. The topic for today is this house believes that more land should be dedicated as national parks. Okay? So I'm going to pick teams now and you guys have about ten minutes to prepare, so not much time. Okay. Yes. Scarlet, you show this slide that shows today's debate. Yeah, this this is the slide for today's today. This house believes that more lands should be dedicated as national parks. Okay. So it's national parks are parks that people visit where there's trees, there's nature. And the motion today is more land should become national parks. Okay. So Jasper, you will be the proposition. Scarlet will be the opposition. Okay, Jasper. Cool. Okay. So scarlet, you are the opposition and Jasper is the proposition for this topic and you guys have approximately ten minutes. Okay. Yes. So so what does this house believe that more land should be detected? What would demean dedicated dedicated means? Should be should become national parks, should be national parks. So you can you can ignore this. It could just be this house believes that Moland should be national parks. Okay. So Yeah so scarlet you are the opposition. Jasper is the proposition. So so like I'm agreeing or disagreeing disagreeing opposition. Disagree. Okay, I know. What does G C mean? Oh, sorry, this is the motion for today. This house believes that more lands should be national. This one right here. Can everyone see be bored? Sorry, the power point was frozen. This is right here. So you're the proposition. You, Jasper, you believe that yes, more land should become parks and scarlet, you believe no lands should not become parks. Okay. I'll give you a bit more time. So don't worry. I'll give you guys about ten minutes starting from now. So. Okay, since I don't know where scarlet is. But Jasper, would you like to start off the debate? Still some I think there are still some time. I can give you like two minutes. Okay, okay, okay. Great, scarlet. I just told Jasper we're starting in two minutes. What did you say? I didn't hear it clearly. I just told Jasper that we are starting in two minutes, two minutes. So like we have two minutes. Yeah, still two minutes to prepare. Yeah. Okay, it is time. Gasper, would you like to start us all? Start. Sorry, go ahead, go ahead. Me, Yep. Hi Yeah Jasper, you can start. Yeah. Jasper, you can start your speech. Are you okay with starting Jasper? Can you start your speech, please? Hello, everyone. Just and I believe that more should we more. The the national parks. Because of. First, the national parks has many trees that will make sure that it can like. So to make sure release oxygen. And like absorb the carbon dioxide and also the change water and ground ounwater. And also it will it will make sure the city will be cobecause of the many of the hea. Because of the many buildings. So the city is very but very hot. So the the prinon, the porks that would help to make sure outside its color and also. It can be sure that we are all very healthy because in the park, you can do many things in the park. And. Yeah. Great. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, nice job. I really like your arguments, especially the ones related to carbon dioxide. And overall, I like your structure. The start was good. I think in general, your next steps are working on your fluency and how eloquently you can speak. But overall, good job. What about you, scarlet? Let's hear from you, scarlet. How many minutes do we got? Two to three minutes. I have a word that I didn't know. Can I search because conclusion, is it like like the last? Is it called conclusion? Right p. Okay conclusion can I start? Yeah you can start. Hi everyone. I'm Scarlett today where debate that whether or not we should use more lands for natural parks. I disagree. Let me talk through why I disagree first. The other, can I say that please with national parks have clean air, so we need more parts. But wait, this is correlation, not cosellation. For example, my mom drinks coffee and the sun comes up every morning, but coffee doesn't make the sun rise. They just happened together. It's the same here. The city air was probably clean before the park was built. Maybe there are no big factories there. The park didn't make the air clean. It's just got built in a clean place. Taken. They might also say people near national parks are happier, so we need more parks. Again, that's correlation, not causolation. Think about it. If a neighborhood has a playground on a park, kids are happy because the playground, not the park. The park and happy people just hang out together, but the park isn't the reason they are happy, sir. The other team, micas, said, national parks have lots of animals, so more parks need more animals. Nope, this is correlation. Two, the lfor. The park was already a good home for animals, like having lots of raackberries before it came apart. The park didn't bring the animal. It just used lands where animals were already living. Oh, also, if we use more lands for national parks, we might not have space for new schools or playground. Kids need place to study and play with friends. Those are more important for us right now. We don't have to take. He left us. What? Happened. Where did scarlet go? Well, it is the end of class. So good job, Jasper. Again, try and remember for next lesson, correlation and causation. Yeah and we'll continue next week. So thank you so much, Jasper. See you next week. Bye, Jasper.