Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Jurnal

THE The Soundness of Arguments in The American Presidential Debate Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

English Education Journal · Vol. 9 No. 4 (2019) · hlm. 467–475

DOI
10.15294/eej.v9i4.31737
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Terbit
2019-07-30
Penerbit
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Bahasa
eng

Abstrak

This study aimed to assess the soundness of arguments uttered by the presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the first American Presidential Debate 2016. This study was a qualitative study using Criterial Approach proposed by Hughes (2014). The data were analyzed based on three criteria namely, acceptability, relevance and adequacy. The results of the study show that Hillary Clinton gave 24 arguments supported by 70 premises. 50 of her premises met the criteria of acceptability, and 59 premises met the criteria of relevance 19 met the criteria of adequacy. Overall 5 of her arguments have all the premises fulfilled all the criteria of soundness. While for Donald Trump, he produced 25 arguments, 21 were acceptable, 20 relevant, and 3 adequate. Out of his 25 arguments, only 1 met all the criteria and can be considered as a sound argument. The findings indicated that Hillary Clinton made stronger and sounder arguments since they were supported by more accurate and logical premises. Trump failed to give sound argument since most of his premises were more focused on attacking his opponent’s personality rather than providing solid evidences or convincing reasoning. The results of this study should be beneficial for high school, college students or everyone who are interested in debating as an example of how to create a logically strong and sound argument..

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

40 penulis · 118 tautan kepenulisan bersama · menampilkan 40 yang paling banyak terhubung

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • Universitas Syiah Kuala
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Dwi RukminiAfiliasi tidak diketahui11
Abdurrachman FaridiAfiliasi tidak diketahui6
Januarius MujiyantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui6
Warsono WarsonoAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Widhiyanto WidhiyantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Rudi HartonoAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Ahmad SofwanAfiliasi tidak diketahui4
Suwandi SuwandiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Djoko SutopoAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Mochamad Adnan FalahuddinAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Melawati AnggrayaniAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Dini Setiana ningrumAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Ratna Widya IswaraAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Anita Rizky KurniawatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Arif Arga KusumaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Nova Rifqi FaristaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Abdurrahman FaridiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Nur Laila HafidhohAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Dwi UndayasariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
IGede Arga AnggaraAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Issy YuliasryAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Muhammad Rizky RochmawanAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
sigit sulistiyantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Ratih OktavianiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Nur AnisahUniversitas Syiah Kuala1
Dery Purnama SaefudinAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Kurnia AtiullahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Aulia PrianganAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Raikhatuz ZahrohAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Siti Nafakhati RahmahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Umi Aisyah Sulistyaning TyasAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Niro Arif SASAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Annisa Kumara DewiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Sri Wuli FitriatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Dian RahayuningsihAfiliasi tidak diketahui1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/oai, pertama di-harvest 5 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 5 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc) 
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">THE The Soundness of Arguments in The American Presidential Debate Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Permana, Rangga</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Saleh, Mursid</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Wuli Fitriati, Sri</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">



This study aimed to assess the soundness of arguments uttered by the presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the first American Presidential Debate 2016. This study was a qualitative study using Criterial Approach proposed by Hughes (2014). The data were analyzed based on three criteria namely, acceptability, relevance and adequacy. The results of the study show that Hillary Clinton gave 24 arguments supported by 70 premises. 50 of her premises met the criteria of acceptability, and 59 premises met the criteria of relevance 19 met the criteria of adequacy. Overall 5 of her arguments have all the premises fulfilled all the criteria of soundness. While for Donald Trump, he produced 25 arguments, 21 were acceptable, 20 relevant, and 3 adequate. Out of his 25 arguments, only 1 met all the criteria and can be considered as a sound argument. The findings indicated that Hillary Clinton made stronger and sounder arguments since they were supported by more accurate and logical premises. Trump failed to give sound argument since most of his premises were more focused on attacking his opponent’s personality rather than providing solid evidences or convincing reasoning.&amp;nbsp; The results of this study should be beneficial for high school, college students or everyone who are interested in debating as an example of how to create a logically strong and sound argument.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; .



</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2019-07-30</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/31737</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/eej.v9i4.31737</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 9 No 4 (2019): December 2019; 467-475</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/eej.v9i4</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/31737/13815</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2019 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>