Retour au programme
Critical thinking and oral debate are evaluated at BAC Terminale level. Critical thinking skills : Analysis : breaking an argument into its components to evaluate its logic. Evaluation : judging the strength of evidence and the validity of conclusions. Inference : drawing logical conclusions from available evidence. Synthesis : combining information from multiple sources to form a coherent view. Logical fallacies to identify and avoid : Ad hominem (attacking the person, not the argument), straw man (misrepresenting the opponent's argument), false dichotomy (presenting only two options), appeal to emotion (substituting feelings for logic), slippery slope (assuming one step leads inevitably to extreme consequences). Debate structure : proposition (for the motion) vs opposition (against). Opening statement, rebuttals, cross-examination, closing statement. Language for debate : 'I would like to argue that...' / 'My opponent's point overlooks...' / 'The evidence clearly demonstrates...' / 'With respect, that argument is flawed because...'
Exercise 1 : Identify the logical fallacy in each argument.
1. 'If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry animals.'
2. 'You can't trust her opinion on climate change — she's not a scientist.'
3. 'Everyone is buying this phone, so it must be the best.'
Exercise 2 : Prepare and deliver a 2-minute speech for or against:
'Social media does more harm than good.'
Include: an opening hook, 3 arguments with evidence, a rebuttal, a strong conclusion.
What is an ad hominem fallacy and why is it ineffective?
Correction
An ad hominem (Latin: 'to the person') attack targets the character or credibility of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. Example: 'You can't trust her views on poverty — she grew up rich.' It is a fallacy because the validity of an argument is independent of who makes it. It is ineffective in debate because it distracts from the real issues and can appear desperate or unfair to the audience.
How do you structure an effective rebuttal in a debate?
Correction
(1) Acknowledge: 'My opponent makes an interesting point about...' (shows you listened and are fair-minded). (2) Challenge: 'However, this argument fails to consider...' or 'The evidence actually shows the opposite...'. (3) Provide counter-evidence: a statistic, example, or expert opinion. (4) Conclude: link back to your position — 'This reinforces our argument that...'
What is the difference between analysis and evaluation in critical thinking?
Correction
Analysis means breaking down an argument, text, or situation into its components to understand how it works — identifying claims, evidence, assumptions, and structure. Evaluation means judging the quality and validity of those components: Is the evidence reliable? Is the logic sound? Are the assumptions justified? Analysis asks 'What is it?' — Evaluation asks 'How good is it?'