Analisis Komparatif Pola Persiapan Dan Kompetensi Debat Bahasa Inggris SMA Kabupaten Ngada, NTT: Studi Kasus Tim Finalis Dan Non-Finalis

Abstract

This comparative descriptive qualitative study aims to deeply analyze the differences in internal and external preparation patterns as well as debate competence levels (content, style, and strategy) between finalist and non-finalist high school English debate teams in Ngada Regency, East Nusa Tenggara. The research subjects comprised two finalist teams (six students) and two non-finalist teams (six students) selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews, participatory observation during competitions, and documentary analysis. Data trustworthiness was established through technical and source triangulation followed by data analysis using Miles, Huberman, and Saldana's interactive model. The findings reveal significant disparities between the two groups. Internally, the finalist teams implemented the "Speaking Without Script" training method, possessed domain-specific vocabulary exceeding 2,000 words, practiced active listening using recordings of international competitions, and demonstrated mental resilience and a growth mindset when handling impromptu motions and Points of Information (POIs). Conversely, the non-finalist teams relied heavily on reading full scripts, exhibited limited vocabulary (below 500 words), and experienced high anxiety accompanied by cognitive rigidity when interrupted. Externally, finalist teams benefited from proactive school management featuring dedicated budgets, guidance from experienced coaches, structured practice frequencies (3–4 times a week), and access to global literature and news platforms. Meanwhile, non-finalist teams struggled with reactive/incidental training, restricted data literacy, and minimal ecosystem support. Regarding debate competence, the finalist teams excelled in constructing solid logical chains and layered analysis (content), persuasive unscripted rhetoric (style), and adaptive time management with clash analysis (strategy). These findings emphasize that debate success requires a systematic synthesis of linguistic competence, logical articulation, mental toughness, and institutional support.