Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Don't Let Your Arguments Die (Ep 06)

Hello everyone, Argument Alice here.

Today I'm going to train you in a crucial part of building arguments.

Rebuilding arguments.

We have learned from Rebuttal Rosie that every speaker, after the first speaker, must provide a rebuttal to the arguments of the previous speaker.

I have told you that building an argument is like building a house.

Rosie teaches us that a rebuttal is like tearing down or deconstructing the house of your opponents.

When your opponents tear down your team's arguments,

you need to rebuild these arguments in the next speech. from attack.

In some ways, rebuilding arguments is like a rebuttal to the rebuttal of your opponents.

There are a few things to keep in mind when rebuilding our arguments.

Let's look at the key steps we need to take when rebuilding arguments.

Step 1: Let the audience know that you will begin to rebuild your partner's argument.

As always, Structure Sam reminds us to clearly signpost the

We should make it clear in our introduction that we will rebuild our partner's argument later in the speech.

When we get to that part in our speech, we should clearly let the audience know that we will rebuild.

Step 2.

Briefly summarize the argument of your partner and explain why it is so important.

In this step, we make sure to restate the main claim of our argument.

Step 3.

Briefly summarize the rebuttal of your opponent to this argument.

your team's argument.

Here you can restate the reasoning provided by your partner, you can restate the evidence and examples provided by your partner,

you can also offer new reasoning and evidence.

Step 5: Conclude the rebuilding.

Make it clear that you have finished this part of your speech, and you will now move on to the next section.

Let's take a look at these five steps in an actual debate.

We will first hear an example of an argument.

Then we will listen to an example of a rebuttal to that argument.

Finally, we will see an example of how to rebuild the argument.

Listen carefully to the original argument.

Ladies and gentlemen, my first argument to support the topic

that kids should not be allowed to have mobile phones is: mobile phones are bad for kids eyes.

Now, Let me explain the reasons why this is true.

First of all, Mobile phones have a light called a blue light.

That's what allows us to see the screen.

If kids look at this light too much, it will hurt their eyes.

Mobile phones have so many bright colors and images that are too bright for kids eyes.

Secondly, most kids cannot stop looking at their mobile phones.

Mobile phones have lots of games and videos that kids like to watch.

These games and videos are fun and exciting and kids can't stop watching them.

The bright colors and images are very attractive to kids.

Third, sometimes parents and teachers cannot control the mobile phone use.

Parents and teachers cannot watch their kids at all times because they're busy.

This means that kids can look at their mobile phones all day, which is bad for their eyes.

introduced some evidence to support this claim.

A new study says that smartphones may ruin your eyesight.

Researchers at the University of Toledo in Ohio have found that exposure to blue light, the glow emitted from most smartphones,

tablets, and laptops, promotes the growth of poisonous molecules in your eyes, leading to macular degeneration.

So, Ladies and gentlemen, we believe that kids should not have mobile phones because they are too harmful to kids' eyes.

Now, listen carefully to the rebuttal.

My opponent's first argument was mobile phones are harmful to kids' eyes.

They explained that the blue light on the phone, along with the inability of kids to control phone use, will damage their eyes and can even lead to blindness.

However, I would like to challenge this argument.

I think this argument is flawed for two reasons.

One, it is not true that kids cannot control their use of phones.

We believe that parents can control phone use through screen control apps.

We also think that kids can control their phone use and

that they prefer to play with friends and do things other than look at their phones.

So it is just not right that if kids have phones, they will look at them like zombies all day long.

2. Even if kids do look at mobile phones a lot, we don't think it will be that bad for kids' eyes.

The worst case scenario is that kids have to wear glasses, but we don't believe this is such a big deal.

Also, reading a lot of books can hurt kids' eyes too, but we would never say that kids should not be allowed to read.

Therefore, we think that the effects of mobile phones on kids' eyes are not a reason kids should not have mobile phones.

Now we can see an example of how to rebuild the original argument.

you I will now rebuild our team's argument.

In our team's first argument, my partner explained to you that mobile phones are harmful to students' eyes.

My opponent has attempted to rebut this argument by saying that parents can control the mobile phone use of their kids.

They have also explained that kids can manage their own mobile phone use

and that the impact on kids' eyes is not so bad.

However, this rebuttal is not enough to defeat our argument.

My partner clearly explained that mobile phones are addictive.

He explained that the phones are designed to be addictive.

My opponents have said that kids and parents can control themselves.

The bright images, sounds, and videos are addictive to kids.

If it is true that phones are addictive, it isn't easy for kids and parents to control.

Even if some kids and parents can monitor their phone use, many kids cannot.

So it is best to not allow them to have phones.

Therefore, our team's first argument still stands.

Sometimes, your opponent will not provide a rebuttal to one of your team's arguments In this case, it is imperative to point this out to the judge.

You can say: Ladies and gentlemen, my partner explained to you that mobile phones are harmful to students' eyes and that eyes are critical.

We have heard absolutely no response to this argument, which means that my opponents accept the argument to be true.

Remember, the debate is a team activity.

You should always support your partner's arguments and defend them from attack.

At the end of the debate, you want all of your team's arguments standing strong.

Now go out there and rebuild!

Thank you.

you you you

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?

Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.

Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Don't Let Your Arguments Die (Ep 06)

Thông Tin Về Bài Học Này

Từ Vựng & Cụm Từ Quan Trọng

Mẹo Luyện Tập

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?