In debate, speakers often employ logical fallacies to bolster their statements and appeal to their audience in order to secure victory by persuasively introducing a collection of factual or belief errors. Numerous studies have analyzed the use of logical fallacies, primarily in presidential debates and public figures' speeches. However, there has been limited research that has specifically investigated the occurrence of logical fallacies in students' debates. Therefore, this research aimed to examine the arguments presented by the speakers in the final round debate at NUDC. The primary objective is to identify and categorize the logical fallacies present in these arguments, applying Damer's (2009) proposed theoretical framework.

         The study employed the descriptive-qualitative method to observe and categorize the logical fallacies presented by the speakers. The data was taken from recorded video and a transcript of the argument featuring eight speakers among NUDC‘s finalists. The source of the data is then reduced and organized into utterances that contain only logical fallacies that are therefore classified into the category based on Damer‘s theory.

          The study reveals that a grand total of eight fallacies were identified, classified into four categories and five different types. The most prevalent types of fallacies observed in the argument were those that violated the relevant criterion, with a total of four occurrences. This indicates that half of the fallacies identified can be classified under this category. Meanwhile, the most frequently occurring fallacy types are manipulation of emotion, appeal to common opinion, and causal oversimplification. The findings suggest that students should be taught to construct effective arguments that are based on evidence and logic, rather than relying on emotional appeals or popular opinions.