Bridging British Education Virtual Academy 伦桥国际教育

1v1 English Lesson - Debating Skills (Rebuttal & Fallacies) 1v1 英语课程 - 辩论技巧 (反驳与逻辑谬误)

1. Course Basic Information 1. 课程基本信息

Course Name: 1204 LS04DB-B 课程名称： 课程代码 1204 LS04DB-B

Topic: Rebuttal Techniques and Logical Fallacies in Debate 主题： 辩论中的反驳技巧和逻辑谬误

Date: Not specified (Inferred from context) 日期： 未明确说明（根据上下文推断）

Student: Jaden, Zill, Chloe, George, Renee, Mason (Multiple students present) 学生： Jaden, Zill, Chloe, George, Renee, Mason (Multiple students present)

Teaching Focus 教学重点

Practicing rebuttal skills, identifying and explaining logical fallacies (e.g., non-sequitur, causation), and participating in a structured debate.

练习反驳技巧，识别和解释逻辑谬误（如不合逻辑、因果谬误），并参与结构化辩论。

Teaching Objectives 教学目标

Students will be able to identify and explain common logical fallacies in arguments. 学生能够识别和解释论证中常见的逻辑谬误。
Students will practice constructing effective rebuttals based on opposing arguments. 学生将练习根据对方论点构建有效的反驳。
Students will actively participate in two rounds of structured debate on a given motion. 学生将积极参与关于给定动议的两轮结构化辩论。

2. Course Content Overview 2. 课程内容概览

Main Teaching Activities and Time Allocation 主要教学活动和时间分配

Greeting and Catch-up: Teacher greets students (Mason, Zill, Chloe, George, Renee), checks on exams, and discusses recent personal updates (e.g., Christmas plans).

问候与近况交流： 老师问候学生（Mason, Zill, Chloe, George, Renee），询问考试情况，并讨论最近的个人动态（如圣诞计划）。

Review of Rebuttal and Introduction to Fallacies: Teacher reviews last week's rebuttal topic and introduces key logical fallacies: Non-Sequitur (one thing not following another), Causation, and Equating/Assuming two things are the same.

复习反驳与介绍逻辑谬误： 老师复习上周的反驳主题，并介绍关键逻辑谬误：不合逻辑/不一致（Non-Sequitur）、因果关系（Causation）和等同/假设（Equating/Assuming）。

Fallacy Application Example (Lucky Socks): Using the example of wearing red socks for a good test result, students debate whether correlation equals causation. Teacher confirms George and Chloe's logical stance.

谬误应用示例（幸运袜子）： 通过穿红袜子获得好成绩的例子，学生们辩论相关性是否等于因果关系。老师确认了George和Chloe的逻辑立场。

Debate Round 1: National Parks Motion: Motion: 'This house would buy violent video games' (briefly discussed), then formal debate on 'This house believes that more land should be dedicated as national parks.' Students practice rebutting.

辩论第一轮：国家公园动议： 动议：‘这个屋子会购买暴力电子游戏’（简要讨论），然后正式辩论‘这个屋子相信应该为国家公园划拨更多土地’。学生练习反驳。

Round 1 Deliberation and Winner Announcement: Teacher and Mason deliberate privately, deciding the Affirmative team (Jaden & Renee) won due to stronger scientific backing, despite strong rebuttals from George and Chloe.

第一轮讨论与获胜者宣布： 老师和Mason私下讨论，裁定正方（Jaden和Renee）获胜，因为他们有更强的科学依据，尽管George和Chloe的反驳也很有力。

Debate Round 2 and Wrap-up: Teams switch roles. George chairs Round 2. Mason and Chloe argue Affirmative; Jaden and Renee argue Negative. Disagree team wins Round 2. Teacher praises effort and confirms next week's chair rotation.

第二轮辩论与总结： 队伍角色互换。George主持第二轮。Mason和Chloe持正方，Jaden和Renee持反方。反方赢得第二轮。老师表扬了所有人的努力，并确认了下周的主持人轮换。

Language Knowledge and Skills 语言知识与技能

Vocabulary:
Rebuttal, fallacy, non-sequitur, causation, equating, affirmative, negative, proposition, investigation, vast, habitat, pollution, tourist, revision, compelling.

词汇：
反驳，谬误，不合逻辑/不一致，因果关系，等同，正方，反方，动议，调查，广阔的/浩瀚的，栖息地，污染，游客，复习，令人信服的。

Concepts:
Logical fallacies, structured debate format, active listening, defending a stance against counterarguments.

概念：
逻辑谬误，结构化辩论形式，积极倾听，针对反方论点进行辩护。

Skills Practiced:
Constructing rebuttals, critical thinking about evidence (statistics vs. anecdotal), maintaining argument coherence, public speaking under time constraints.

练习技能：
构建反驳，批判性思考证据（统计数据与轶事），保持论点连贯性，时间限制下的公开演讲。

Teaching Resources and Materials 教学资源与材料

Whiteboard/Screen for writing motion and key points. 白板/屏幕，用于书写动议和关键论点。
Debate structure explanation/Chairing notes. 辩论结构说明/主持笔记。

3. Student Performance Assessment (Jaden, Zill, Chloe, George, Renee, Mason (Multiple students present)) 3. 学生表现评估 (Jaden, Zill, Chloe, George, Renee, Mason (Multiple students present))

Participation and Activeness 参与度和积极性

All named students actively participated in discussions and both debate rounds. 所有点名的学生都积极参与了讨论和两轮辩论。
Students demonstrated increasing confidence in speaking and challenging ideas. 学生在口语表达和质疑观点方面表现出增强的信心。

Language Comprehension and Mastery 语言理解和掌握

Students correctly applied the concept of correlation vs. causation in the 'lucky socks' example. 学生在“幸运袜子”的例子中正确应用了相关性与因果关系的概念。
Students grasped the motion topic ('National Parks') and generated relevant arguments for both sides. 学生理解了动议主题（“国家公园”），并为正反双方生成了相关的论据。

Language Output Ability 语言输出能力

Oral: 口语：

Renee and Jaden delivered clear opening statements in Round 1, leading to their victory. Renee和Jaden在第一轮中发表了清晰的开场陈述，为他们的获胜奠定了基础。
George provided strong, evidence-based counterarguments in Round 1, impressing the judges. George在第一轮中提供了有力、基于证据的反驳论点，给评委留下了深刻印象。

Written: 书面：

Notes and arguments were visibly written on the board by participants and teacher.

参与者和老师在白板上写下了笔记和论点。

Student's Strengths 学生的优势

George: Excellent critical thinking and ability to frame strong counterarguments (Round 1). George：出色的批判性思维和构建有力反驳论点的能力（第一轮）。
Chloe: Clever use of practical, everyday examples (e.g., cigarettes causing pollution in parks) in rebuttals. Chloe：在反驳中巧妙地使用了实际的日常例子（例如香烟造成公园污染）。
Jaden & Renee: Strong grasp of supporting evidence (scientific research) in Round 1. Jaden & Renee：在第一轮中对支持性证据（科学研究）的掌握扎实。
Mason: Showed significant confidence improvement in chairing duties during Round 2. Mason：在第二轮主持工作中表现出明显的信心提升。

Areas for Improvement 需要改进的方面

Students need to ensure their arguments are backed by evidence, as noted when Jaden's evidence was questioned. 学生需要确保他们的论点有证据支持，正如Jaden的证据受到质疑时所指出的那样。
Students sometimes rely too heavily on assumptions (e.g., 'buildings cause CO2') without fully exploring the counter-logic of construction itself. 学生有时过于依赖假设（例如“建筑产生二氧化碳”），而没有充分探讨建设过程本身的逻辑。
Ensure notes taken during listening are clearly legible for later use. 确保倾听时记的笔记清晰易读，以便后续使用。

4. Teaching Reflection 4. 教学反思

Effectiveness of Teaching Methods 教学方法的有效性

The interactive, fast-paced debate format successfully engaged all students. 互动性强、节奏快的辩论形式成功吸引了所有学生。
The constant rotation of roles (speaker/chair) maximized practice opportunities for everyone. 角色（发言人/主席）的不断轮换最大化了每个人的练习机会。

Teaching Pace and Time Management 教学节奏和时间管理

The teacher managed the time strictly, using a two-minute speaking limit per speaker to cycle through all participants. 老师严格管理时间，使用每位发言人两分钟的限制，以确保轮到所有参与者。
Preparation time was brief but sufficient to encourage spontaneous critical thinking. 准备时间简短但足以鼓励自发的批判性思考。

Classroom Interaction and Atmosphere 课堂互动和氛围

Engaged, energetic, and competitive, with mutual respect shown between debaters, even when strongly disagreeing.

投入、精力充沛且富有竞争性，辩手之间表现出相互尊重，即使观点强烈对立。

Achievement of Teaching Objectives 教学目标的达成

Students actively demonstrated the use of rebuttal and fallacy identification during the structured debates. 学生在结构化辩论中积极展示了反驳和逻辑谬误识别的应用。
All students successfully fulfilled speaking or chairing roles. 所有学生都成功履行了发言人或主持人的角色。

5. Subsequent Teaching Suggestions 5. 后续教学建议

Teaching Strengths 教学优势

Identified Strengths: 识别的优势：

Dynamic role rotation (Chairing) ensuring comprehensive skill development. 动态的角色轮换（主持）确保了全面的技能发展。
Clear illustration of complex concepts like fallacies using relatable, simple examples (lucky socks). 使用贴近生活的简单例子（幸运袜子）清晰地阐释了逻辑谬误等复杂概念。

Effective Methods: 有效方法：

Using a dual-judging system (Teacher + Student Chair) for immediate feedback and validation. 采用双重评判系统（老师+学生主席）进行即时反馈和验证。
Explicitly instructing students to listen for and use specific fallacies during the debate setup. 在辩论设置中明确指导学生倾听并使用特定的逻辑谬误。

Positive Feedback: 正面反馈：

Teacher praised Mason’s significant improvement in chairing confidence. 老师称赞了Mason在主持信心方面的显著进步。
The teacher expressed pride in the overall improvement and effort shown by all students. 老师对所有学生表现出的整体进步和努力表示骄傲。

Next Teaching Focus 下一步教学重点

Further practice on chairing roles for students who have not yet chaired or need more practice. 为尚未担任主席或需要更多练习的学生继续进行主持角色的练习。
Applying the learned fallacies in a new, complex motion. 在新的、复杂的动议中应用所学的逻辑谬误知识。

Specific Suggestions for Student's Needs 针对学生需求的具体建议

Speaking & Communication: 口语与交流：

For next week, please prepare at least two evidence-based points (statistics or specific research findings) to support your stance in the debate. 为了下周，请准备至少两个基于证据的论点（统计数据或具体研究发现）来支持你在辩论中的立场。

Logic & Critical Thinking: 逻辑与批判性思维：

When arguing against causation, clearly state *why* the two events are merely correlated, not causal (e.g., external factors are the true cause). 在反驳因果关系时，请清楚说明为什么两个事件只是相关而非因果（例如，外部因素是真正的原因）。

Note-taking & Preparation: 笔记与准备：

When acting as chair, ensure all speakers are documented correctly for the next rotation schedule. 在担任主席时，请确保所有发言人都被正确记录，以便进行下一次轮换安排。

Recommended Supplementary Learning Resources or Homework 推荐的补充学习资源或家庭作业

Review the definition of Ad Hominem and Straw Man fallacies before the next session. 在下一节课之前，复习“人身攻击”（Ad Hominem）和“稻草人谬误”（Straw Man）的定义。
Teacher will send the motion for next week's debate via chat. 老师将通过聊天工具发送下周辩论的动议。