Course Title: Functional English

Credit Hours: 3
Duration: 16 Weeks
Contact Hours: 48
Level: Undergraduate
Program: BS Governance and Policy Studies, Area Study Center, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad

Lecturer: Riaz Laghari

Functional English: Week 12 - Discussion and Argumentation

From Speaking Clearly to Thinking Together

1. Week 12 Overview

Central Question

How can I express what I believe, respond intelligently to other perspectives, and disagree without damaging the conversation?

In Week 11, students learned to speak with greater:

• confidence;
• fluency;
• intelligibility;
• spontaneity;
• control.

Week 12 takes the next step.

Students now move from:

speaking individually

to:

thinking and communicating collaboratively.

This requires more than fluency.

A successful discussion requires students to:

listen → interpret → evaluate → respond → justify → question → revise

The goal is not simply to teach students how to win arguments.

It is to teach them how to:

participate intelligently in disagreement.

2. The Central Principle

Good discussion is not the exchange of opinions; it is the collaborative examination of ideas.

A weak discussion asks:

“What do you think?”

A stronger discussion asks:

“What do you think, why do you think it, what evidence supports it, and how does your position respond to other perspectives?”

3. Week 12 in the Course Progression

The course now follows this progression:

Week 8 — Write coherent paragraphs

↓

Week 9 — Write for practical purposes

↓

Week 10 — Build academic arguments

↓

Week 11 — Speak confidently

↓

Week 12 — Discuss, question and argue constructively

And this prepares students for:

Week 13 — Presentation and Public Speaking

because an effective presenter must be able to:

• anticipate questions;
• defend claims;
• respond to audiences;
• explain evidence;
• handle disagreement.

4. Learning Outcomes

By the end of this session, students should be able to:

• express opinions clearly;
• distinguish opinions from claims;
• provide reasons for their positions;
• support opinions with examples and evidence;
• qualify claims appropriately;
• agree and disagree respectfully;
• ask effective questions;
• challenge ideas without attacking people;
• respond to opposing views;
• recognise weak arguments and common reasoning errors;
• participate actively in group discussions;
• take turns appropriately;
• build on other speakers' contributions;
• summarise another person's position fairly;
• participate in structured debates;
• use evidence-based argumentation;
• distinguish persuasion from aggression;
• revise a position in response to strong evidence;
• contribute constructively to collaborative dialogue.

PART I — WHAT IS A DISCUSSION?

5. Discussion vs Conversation

A conversation may focus on:

social connection.

A discussion usually focuses on:

a topic, question or problem.

Example:

Conversation

“How was your weekend?”

Discussion

“Should universities require students to complete internships before graduation?”

The second requires:

• ideas;
• reasons;
• evidence;
• responses;
• evaluation.

6. Discussion vs Debate

These concepts overlap but are not identical.

Discussion

Explores an issue from multiple perspectives.

Debate

Structured argument in which participants defend contrasting positions.

Dialogue

Interaction aimed at understanding and potentially developing ideas together.

A useful continuum:

CONVERSATION → DISCUSSION → DIALOGUE → DEBATE

The classroom should practise all four.

PART II — OPINION VS ARGUMENT

7. An Opinion Is a Starting Point

Students often say:

“In my opinion, social media is bad.”

That is an opinion.

The next question is:

Why?

A stronger contribution:

“I think excessive social media use can reduce students' concentration because constant notifications encourage frequent attention shifts.”

Now we have:

opinion + reason

8. From Opinion to Argument

Teach students this progression:

OPINION

“I think X.”

↓

REASON

“because Y.”

↓

EVIDENCE/EXAMPLE

“For example…”

↓

IMPLICATION

“This means…”

Therefore:

A defensible opinion is an argument in miniature.

9. The OREI Model

A practical speaking framework:

O — Opinion

What do I think?

R — Reason

Why?

E — Evidence/Example

What supports my view?

I — Implication

Why does it matter?

Example:

Opinion: Universities should teach AI literacy.

Reason: Students increasingly encounter AI-generated information and text.

Example: Students may use AI tools for research, writing and translation.

Implication: Without AI literacy, students may accept inaccurate information without verification.

PART III — EXPRESSING OPINIONS

10. Levels of Certainty

Academic and professional discussion requires more than:

“I think…”

Students need a range of expressions.

Strong

“I strongly believe that…”

“There is a strong case for…”

“The evidence suggests that…”

Moderate

“I would argue that…”

“It seems to me that…”

“I tend to think that…”

Cautious

“It may be the case that…”

“There is some evidence to suggest…”

“One possible explanation is…”

The choice depends on:

strength of evidence + degree of certainty.

11. Avoiding Absolute Claims

Weak:

“Social media always damages students.”

More defensible:

“Excessive social media use can negatively affect students' concentration.”

Why?

Because academic and professional communication should recognise:

complexity and variation.

PART IV — GIVING REASONS

12. Useful Reasoning Expressions

Giving a reason

“The main reason is…”

“This is because…”

“One factor is…”

Giving another reason

“Another important consideration is…”

“In addition…”

“A further point is…”

Giving an example

“For example…”

“For instance…”

“Consider the case of…”

Drawing an implication

“This suggests that…”

“As a result…”

“This means that…”

PART V — AGREEING INTELLIGENTLY

13. Agreement Is Not One-Dimensional

Students should learn different levels of agreement.

Complete agreement

“I completely agree.”

“I think that's absolutely right.”

Qualified agreement

“I agree to some extent.”

“I agree with the main point, although…”

Agreement + extension

“I agree, and I would add that…”

“That's an important point. Another consideration is…”

This last form is particularly valuable.

It turns:

agreement

into:

contribution.

14. Building on Another Speaker

Speaker A:

“Online learning can increase access.”

Speaker B:

“I agree, and I would add that flexibility is equally important for students who work while studying.”

This is constructive dialogue because B:

acknowledges A;

connects to A's point;

adds something new.

Useful phrases:

“Building on that point…”

“I'd like to add something here…”

“That connects with…”

“Another dimension is…”

PART VI — DISAGREEING RESPECTFULLY

15. Disagreement Is Not Conflict

Students often avoid disagreement because they associate it with:

aggression.

But intellectual disagreement can be productive.

The important distinction is:

Challenge the idea, not the person.

16. The Person–Idea Distinction

Avoid:

“You don't understand the issue.”

Prefer:

“I'm not sure that the evidence supports that conclusion.”

Avoid:

“That's a stupid argument.”

Prefer:

“I see a problem with that argument because…”

Avoid:

“You're wrong.”

Prefer:

“I interpret the evidence differently.”

17. A Ladder of Disagreement

Teach students progressively stronger forms.

Level 1 — Soft disagreement

“I'm not sure I agree.”

Level 2 — Alternative perspective

“I see it somewhat differently.”

Level 3 — Reasoned disagreement

“I would challenge that point because…”

Level 4 — Evidence-based disagreement

“The evidence appears to suggest something different.”

Level 5 — Direct analytical challenge

“That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence.”

The objective is:

precision rather than aggression.

PART VII — QUALIFYING DISAGREEMENT

18. The “Yes, But” Strategy

One of the most useful discussion structures:

Acknowledge → qualify → counter

Example:

“I agree that social media can increase political participation. However, participation does not necessarily mean informed participation. The quality of information available to users also matters.”

This is much stronger than:

“No, that's wrong.”

19. Useful Qualification Phrases

“That may be true in some cases, but…”

“I agree with that to a point; however…”

“That is an important consideration, although…”

“I would qualify that claim by saying…”

“The situation may be more complicated because…”

PART VIII — ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS

20. Questions Drive Discussion

A weak question:

“Do you agree?”

A stronger question:

“What evidence would make you reconsider your position?”

The second encourages:

reflection.

21. Six Types of Useful Questions

1. Clarification

“What exactly do you mean by…?”

2. Evidence

“What evidence supports that claim?”

3. Reasoning

“Why do you think that follows?”

4. Assumption

“What assumption are we making here?”

5. Consequence

“What would happen if we adopted that approach?”

6. Alternative

“Is there another way of interpreting the situation?”

These questions move students beyond:

opinion exchange

toward:

intellectual inquiry.

PART IX — THE SOCRATIC QUESTION

22. Questioning Without Attacking

The goal is not:

“How can I defeat this person?”

The goal is:

“Can we examine the reasoning more carefully?”

Example:

Student A:

“Universities should ban AI because students use it to cheat.”

Student B:

“What proportion of AI use would you consider cheating?”

Then:

“Would you also ban tools such as grammar checkers?”

Then:

“Could AI be used for legitimate learning purposes?”

This may reveal that the original claim was:

too broad.

PART X — CLAIM, REASON, EVIDENCE, ASSUMPTION

23. The CRE Model

A useful critical-discussion framework:

C — Claim

What is being argued?

R — Reason

Why?

E — Evidence

What supports it?

A — Assumption

What must be true for the reasoning to work?

Example:

Claim: Universities should make attendance compulsory.

Reason: Students learn better when they attend classes.

Evidence: Research may show a relationship between attendance and achievement.

Assumption: Attendance itself contributes substantially to learning rather than simply reflecting student motivation.

This encourages:

deeper questioning.

PART XI — COMMON REASONING ERRORS

Students should recognise common weaknesses in arguments.

24. Overgeneralisation

“One student cheated using AI, so AI makes all students dishonest.”

Problem:

one example → universal conclusion.

25. False Dilemma

“Either we ban AI or students will stop learning.”

Problem:

assumes only two options exist.

Alternative possibilities may include:

• regulated use;
• assessment redesign;
• AI literacy;
• oral assessment;
• process-based writing.

26. Ad Hominem

“You only support this policy because you're a student.”

Problem:

attacks the person rather than the argument.

27. Appeal to Popularity

“Everyone believes this, so it must be true.”

Popularity does not establish truth.

28. Straw Man

Misrepresenting another person's position so it becomes easier to attack.

Person A:

“AI should be regulated.”

Person B:

“So you want to ban all technology.”

That does not accurately represent A's position.

29. Slippery Slope

“If universities allow AI for grammar correction, eventually students will use it to write every assignment.”

This assumes a chain of events without demonstrating why it must occur.

PART XII — STEELMANNING

30. Represent the Other Side Fairly

Before disagreeing with someone:

state their position in a form they would recognise as fair.

Example:

“If I understand your argument correctly, you are not saying that AI should be unrestricted. You are arguing that universities should permit it for learning while establishing clear boundaries.”

Then respond.

This is called:

steelman reasoning.

It develops:

• listening;
• intellectual fairness;
• precision;
• empathy;
• critical thinking.

31. The Rule

Do not attack an argument until you can explain it accurately.

This should become a core classroom norm.

PART XIII — GROUP DISCUSSION

32. What Makes a Good Group Discussion?

An effective discussion has:

• participation;
• relevance;
• listening;
• turn-taking;
• questioning;
• evidence;
• respect;
• synthesis.

A group in which one person speaks for 90% of the time is not functioning as a discussion.

33. The Five Roles

Assign students rotating roles:

Facilitator

Keeps the discussion focused.

Contributor

Introduces ideas.

Questioner

Challenges assumptions.

Evidence checker

Asks what supports claims.

Summariser

Periodically synthesises the discussion.

This makes participation purposeful.

34. Discussion Rules

Rule 1

Critique ideas, not people.

Rule 2

Listen before responding.

Rule 3

Support important claims.

Rule 4

Do not monopolise the discussion.

Rule 5

Invite quieter participants.

Rule 6

Disagreement is acceptable; disrespect is not.

Rule 7

Be willing to revise your position.

PART XIV — TURN-TAKING

35. Entering a Discussion

Useful phrases:

“Can I add something here?”

“I'd like to build on that point.”

“There is another perspective worth considering.”

“May I respond to that?”

36. Interrupting Politely

Sometimes interruption is necessary.

Instead of:

“No, no, no!”

Use:

“Sorry to interrupt, but may I clarify something?”

or:

“Could I come in here for a moment?”

37. Returning to the Topic

“Coming back to the main question…”

“Perhaps we should return to…”

“That's interesting, but how does it relate to our main issue?”

These are important professional communication skills.

PART XV — INVITING QUIET PARTICIPANTS

A good discussion leader should not simply reward the loudest speakers.

Useful expressions:

“We haven't heard from Sara yet. What do you think?”

“Would you like to add anything?”

“Does anyone have a different perspective?”

This creates:

inclusive participation.

PART XVI — DEBATE

38. What Is a Debate?

A debate is a structured form of argument in which participants defend contrasting positions according to agreed rules.

The objective is not simply:

to speak more.

It is to:

construct, defend and test arguments.

39. Debate Structure

For a classroom debate:

Opening

State position.

Argument 1

Present first reason.

Evidence

Support it.

Argument 2

Present second reason.

Rebuttal

Respond to opposing arguments.

Closing

Restate central position.

40. Rebuttal

A rebuttal is not:

“I disagree.”

It is:

identifying a weakness in an opposing argument and explaining why it matters.

Useful structure:

Acknowledge → identify weakness → explain → counter

Example:

“My opponent is correct that online learning can reduce travel costs. However, this argument overlooks unequal access to reliable internet. For students without stable connectivity, online learning may create rather than remove barriers. Therefore, accessibility cannot be evaluated only in terms of physical distance.”

PART XVII — CLASSROOM DEBATE

Motion

“Universities should allow students to use generative AI in assessed academic work.”

Divide class into:

• Proposition;
• Opposition;
• Judges/observers.

41. Preparation

Each team develops:

Position

What do we believe?

Three arguments

Why?

Evidence

What supports each?

Counterarguments

What will the other side say?

Rebuttals

How will we respond?

Closing

What should the audience remember?

42. Debate Language

Opening

“Our position is that…”

Introducing an argument

“Our first argument is…”

Evidence

“This is supported by…”

Rebuttal

“The opposing side argues that…, but…”

Clarification

“What we are arguing is…”

Conclusion

“For these reasons, we maintain that…”

PART XVIII — CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE

43. Debate Is Not the Final Goal

For Governance and Policy Studies students, the deeper skill is:

constructive dialogue.

Public policy rarely offers problems with:

one obvious answer.

Policy decisions involve:

• competing values;
• limited resources;
• conflicting interests;
• uncertainty;
• evidence;
• political constraints.

Students therefore need to learn:

how to disagree while continuing to work together.

44. From Winning to Learning

Weak debate culture:

“I must defeat you.”

Constructive dialogue:

“I must understand your reasoning, test my assumptions, and improve the quality of the collective decision.”

This distinction is central to democratic communication.

PART XIX — POLICY DISCUSSION

45. Governance and Policy Context

Use issues relevant to students' programme.

Possible discussion questions:

• Should voting be compulsory?
• Should university education be free?
• Should social media platforms be regulated more strictly?
• Should governments use AI in public-service delivery?
• Should civil servants be required to disclose conflicts of interest?
• Should governments prioritise economic growth over environmental protection?
• Should public examinations be replaced with continuous assessment?

These questions have:

no intellectually serious one-sentence answers.

That makes them excellent discussion material.

PART XX — THE POLICY ARGUMENT FRAMEWORK

For governance students, introduce:

PROBLEM → CLAIM → EVIDENCE → STAKEHOLDERS → TRADE-OFF → RECOMMENDATION

Example:

Problem

Youth unemployment remains a significant policy concern.

Claim

Universities should strengthen university–industry partnerships.

Evidence

Graduate employability depends partly on opportunities to acquire workplace-relevant skills.

Stakeholders

• students;
• universities;
• employers;
• government.

Trade-off

Greater industry involvement may improve employability but could narrow curricula excessively.

Recommendation

Partnerships should complement rather than replace broad academic education.

This is discussion at a policy level.

PART XXI — LISTENING TO DISAGREEMENT

46. The Three-Step Listening Test

When someone disagrees, students should ask:

1. What exactly are they claiming?

2. Why do they believe it?

3. What evidence supports it?

Only then:

respond.

This reduces reactive argument.

47. The “Before You Respond” Rule

Students should mentally complete:

“If I understand you correctly, you are saying…”

before responding to a complex argument.

This promotes:

accurate listening before evaluation.

PART XXII — CHANGING YOUR MIND

48. Intellectual Flexibility

One of the most important outcomes of discussion is:

the willingness to revise a position.

Changing one's mind after encountering strong evidence is not weakness.

It is:

intellectual competence.

Teach students useful language:

“I hadn't considered that.”

“That's a fair point.”

“I would revise my position slightly.”

“The evidence changes how I see the issue.”

“I still disagree overall, but I accept that point.”

This is sophisticated communication.

PART XXIII — DISCUSSION LAB

49. Activity 1: Opinion Line

Place students along an imaginary continuum:

STRONGLY AGREE — AGREE — UNCERTAIN — DISAGREE — STRONGLY DISAGREE

Statement:

“University examinations should be completely replaced by continuous assessment.”

Students choose a position.

Then each student must give:

one reason + one example.

After discussion:

students may move.

The key question:

Did anyone change position? Why?

50. Activity 2: Four-Corners Discussion

Statement:

“Generative AI is more likely to improve education than damage it.”

Four positions:

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Each group develops:

two arguments;

one piece of evidence;

one counterargument;

one response.

51. Activity 3: Fishbowl Discussion

Create:

inner circle + outer circle

Inner circle discusses:

“Should governments regulate social media algorithms?”

Outer circle observes:

participation;

questioning;

evidence;

listening;

respectful disagreement;

turn-taking.

After 10 minutes:

students switch.

52. Activity 4: The Rebuttal Challenge

Give students an argument:

“Online education should replace most traditional university teaching because it is cheaper and more flexible.”

Student A:

defend it.

Student B:

challenge it.

Student C:

identify the strongest point from each side.

Student D:

formulate a balanced position.

This moves students from:

binary thinking

toward:

evaluative reasoning.

PART XXIV — THE 60-SECOND ARGUMENT

Students receive one minute to answer:

“Should university attendance be compulsory?”

They must include:

position;

reason;

example;

counterargument;

response.

A useful structure:

I believe…

The main reason is…

For example…

Some people might argue…

However…

Therefore…

PART XXV — TEACHER'S FEEDBACK FRAMEWORK

Do not evaluate only:

grammar.

Use five dimensions.

Dimension	Question
Clarity	Was the point understandable?
Reasoning	Was there a logical reason?
Evidence	Was the claim supported?
Interaction	Did the student respond to others?
Delivery	Was the speech intelligible and controlled?

PART XXVI — COMMON DISCUSSION PROBLEMS

Problem 1 — Opinion Without Reason

“I disagree.”

Repair:

“I disagree because…”

Problem 2 — Repetition

Student keeps saying the same thing.

Repair:

“Can you add a new reason or example?”

Problem 3 — Personal Attack

“You don't know what you're talking about.”

Repair:

“Challenge the claim, not the speaker.”

Problem 4 — Monopolising

One student dominates.

Repair:

Introduce timed turns and invite others.

Problem 5 — Silence

Nobody contributes.

Repair:

Give students:

30–60 seconds preparation time.

Preparation often dramatically improves participation.

Problem 6 — Unsupported Claims

“Everyone knows…”

Repair:

“What evidence would support that?”

Problem 7 — False Certainty

“This will definitely solve the problem.”

Repair:

“How certain can we reasonably be?”

PART XXVII — THREE-HOUR TEACHING PLAN

Time	Component	Focus
0–10 min	Retrieval	Week 11: spontaneous speaking
10–20 min	Diagnostic	One-minute opinion
20–35 min	Mini-lecture	Discussion vs debate vs dialogue
35–50 min	Lecture	Opinion → reason → evidence
50–65 min	Practice	OREI framework
65–80 min	Lecture	Agreeing and disagreeing
80–90 min	Break	—
90–105 min	Lecture	Questioning and critical response
105–120 min	Practice	Socratic questioning
120–135 min	Lecture	Group discussion skills
135–150 min	Group activity	Fishbowl discussion
150–165 min	Debate preparation	Argument + evidence + rebuttal
165–175 min	Debate	Structured mini-debate
175–180 min	Exit ticket	Reflection

PART XXVIII — EXIT TICKET

1. What is the difference between an opinion and an argument?

An opinion expresses a position; an argument gives reasons and, where appropriate, evidence to support that position.

2. What should you challenge in a disagreement?

The idea, claim, evidence or reasoning, not the person.

3. What is a rebuttal?

A reasoned response that identifies and addresses a weakness or limitation in an opposing argument.

4. Why is questioning important?

Questions clarify claims, test evidence, uncover assumptions and deepen discussion.

5. Is changing your position necessarily a weakness?

No. Revising a position in response to strong evidence demonstrates intellectual flexibility.

PART XXIX — HOMEWORK

Functional Discussion Portfolio — Week 12

Task 1 — Recorded Argument

Respond for 90 seconds:

“Should governments regulate the use of artificial intelligence in public services?”

Use:

Opinion → Reason → Evidence/Example → Implication

Task 2 — Counterargument

Write 150–200 words answering:

“What is the strongest argument against your position?”

Then write:

“How would you respond to it?”

Task 3 — Dialogue Reflection

After participating in a class discussion, write 200 words answering:

What was my original position?

What was the strongest opposing argument?

Did my position change?

What evidence influenced me?

What would I do differently in the next discussion?

PART XXX — WEEK 12 SKILLS CHECKLIST

Students should now be able to:

☐ express an opinion clearly;

☐ give reasons for an opinion;

☐ support claims with examples or evidence;

☐ qualify excessive claims;

☐ agree appropriately;

☐ disagree respectfully;

☐ build on another speaker's point;

☐ ask clarification questions;

☐ ask evidence questions;

☐ identify assumptions;

☐ challenge reasoning;

☐ distinguish people from ideas;

☐ recognise common reasoning errors;

☐ represent opposing views fairly;

☐ formulate rebuttals;

☐ participate in group discussion;

☐ manage turn-taking;

☐ invite others into discussion;

☐ participate in structured debate;

☐ summarise competing perspectives;

☐ remain open to revising a position;

☐ communicate disagreement without hostility.

WEEK 12 — CORE TAKEAWAYS

1. A discussion is not merely an exchange of opinions; it is an organised examination of ideas.
2. A useful opinion becomes a stronger argument when it is supported by reasons, examples and evidence.
3. Good disagreement challenges ideas rather than people.
4. The strongest speakers are also strong listeners.
5. Questions can be more powerful than statements because they reveal assumptions and test reasoning.
6. A rebuttal should address the opposing argument rather than simply reject it.
7. Intellectual disagreement does not require interpersonal hostility.
8. A sophisticated speaker can acknowledge the strengths of an opposing position while defending a different conclusion.
9. Changing one's mind in response to compelling evidence is intellectual strength, not defeat.
10. The ultimate purpose of discussion is not to produce the loudest speaker but to produce better thinking.

WEEK 12 COURSEPACK PRINCIPLE

The purpose of argumentation is not to defeat another mind but to test ideas rigorously enough that better ideas can emerge.

The course progression now becomes:

WEEK 10 — ARGUE WITH EVIDENCE

↓

WEEK 11 — SPEAK WITH CONFIDENCE

↓

WEEK 12 — THINK WITH OTHERS

&

the deeper Functional English model is emerging:

LANGUAGE → COMMUNICATION → REASONING → DIALOGUE → COLLABORATIVE THINKING

This is particularly important for Governance and Policy Studies, where professional effectiveness depends not merely on speaking English accurately, but on being able to listen to competing interests, formulate evidence-based positions, negotiate disagreement, evaluate alternatives and communicate decisions responsibly.

Riaz Laghari, Visiting Lecturer in English,  Area Study Center, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad