Refutation and Rebuttal - Angelfire



Refutation and Rebuttal

The heart and soul of debate lies in refutation. It is this direct conflict of ideas, concepts, principles, facts, and opinions that keeps debate alive and well. A successful debater doesn't seek to avoid the issues or present muddled responses. A successful debater listens to what is being said, organizes the information, and then gives a direct response. In doing this she will not only excel in the art of refutation and debate, but will be a confident voice in any situation.

Clash

When discussing refutation one word will be used time and time again: CLASH. Clash is the direct refutation of an argument and a crucial aspect of debate. Providing clash means identifying an argument, understanding the premise of that argument and responding to it directly. Without clash the debaters might as well be in different rooms presenting their arguments. With that in mind let's look at strategies in developing clash.

Two Areas of Clash

Effective refutation deals with the opposition by clashing in several different areas. Refutation should challenge: the criterion, definitions, an arguments premise, evidence, opponent's reasoning, prima facie and so on. For our purposes, however, we will break down these areas of clash in two categories: whole case arguments and individual arguments.

Whole Case Arguments

The whole case argument addresses the opponent's general position on the resolution. What values are they upholding, what is their understanding of the resolution, and does their case reach the goal they have set for themselves. These arguments deal with the case as a whole and would typically challenge the opponent's definitions, criterion, and prima facie. At this level of refutation, arguments question the foundation of the opponent's position and the effectiveness of their case. Here are a few questions you can ask when refuting the whole case argument:

* Do you agree with the general position of the opponent? (The answer must be NO or we can all go home.) If not, then summarize it and say how you will prove that it is wrong.

* Do you agree with the criterion? If not then you directly respond, ”Our opponent has presented quality of life as their criterion. This is not acceptable for the following reasons....”If yes than you say so. ” I accept the criterion as an ultimate goal but reject their methods (arguments) for reaching that goal”

* Do you agree with their definitions? If not, then you say ”we do not accept our opponent's definitions and would like to offer the following...”

Individual Arguments

The second level is an attack on the individual arguments in an opponent's case. These are focused on directly refuting the opposition's contentions, finding reasoning fallacies and making evidential challenges.   

Are the arguments supported by evidence? Be careful. Don't assume that just because they read a quote or give a statistic that they have supported their claim. Listen carefully to make sure the evidence says what they want it to say.

* Have they drawn the right conclusion? Make sure that there is an accurate cause and effect.

For example, just because the opponent might claim that education will prepare you for a job and that employed people are educated doesn't mean that if you are educated you will definitely have a job. There are a lot of other factors which could come into play and in refuting these arguments it is your responsibility to explain them.

* Do the arguments justify the resolution? In other words, have they shown that they will meet the criterion they have set. Remember individually their arguments may work, but combined they should be reaching their desired goal.

Although both the affirmative and negative team develop refutable arguments, the negative has the initial burden of offering direct clash with the affirmative case. Without this initial clash the affirmative is left to simply reiterate their case and the debaters again appear as if they are speaking in different rooms. (For more on negatives burden of refutation see the “Negative Strategies“ chapter.)

The Rebuttal

Until now we have used the term refutable arguments to mean arguments which challenge the original or case arguments. Taking it one step further, a rebuttal is the rebuilding of the original arguments in light of the refutation against those arguments. It is the reestablishment of the original argument addressing the challenges made in the refutation. Let‘s take a look at an example to understand the difference.

First Affirmative

Capital punishment does not deter crime. Evidence suggests that violent crimes are most often crimes of passion and that the criminal does not consider the consequences before committing the crime.

First Negative

Capital punishment deters crime. Research with "at risk youth" as states with the death penalty indicate the threat of death row persuades the ”would-be criminals” to seek alternatives to violent crime indicating a deterring effect.

Second Affirmative

Capital punishment does not deter crime. We have shown you that violent crimes are most often crimes of passion. A study of at risk youth is irrelevant when discussing what happens in the moment of the crime. In fact, evidence shows that not only does capital punishment not have a deterant effect but in states where the death penalty is enforced, violent crimes are up 20% compared to those in states without the death penalty.

In the original case argument, the affirmative claimed (most likely in their case) that capital punishment does not deter crime. The negative refuted the argument saying that it does indeed deter crime and gives a study which explains how. The negative rebuts the argument by challenging this study and reestablishing their original argument and addressing the specifics of the refutation argument.

The term “rebuttal” can refer to either an argument or a speech. A rebuttal speech is one where no new arguments are introduced and the focus is to reestablish the original arguments or case in light of refutation that was made against that case.

Giving The Big Picture

At this point we would like to once again employ a common idiom presented earlier in the handbook. ”Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.” In other words, don't get so into the detail of refuting each argument that you forget to explain how it affects the opponent's case, your case, and ultimately the debate. Don't leave it to the judge to draw the conclusions. After directly responding to the whole case argument and the individual arguments, take the extra moment to show the impact, or to show how your responses should affect the entire debate. Showing the significance of your arguments will not only strengthen them but will improve the overall effectiveness of the refutation.

Clear Language

You've listened to your opponent’s arguments very closely! You've identified definite points of refutation! You've organized your thoughts and are ready to provide impact! WAIT! There is one more thing to remember. Regardless of how good your arguments are if the judge isn't able to understand which argument you are refuting, or the direction you are taking in your attack, then all your work will be lost. With a few helpful tips, you can learn to be clear in your clash and turn your judges into fans.

Tip #1: Identify the argument you are refuting. If you have time, give a BRIEF summary of the opponent's argument before refuting it. This is helpful to first insure your judge knows which argument you are refuting and secondly that he has a clear picture of how you understand the argument. Remember it’s possible for you and the judge to have a different interpretation of the same argument. For example, you would say, ”In the affirmative's second argument they claim that capital punishment does not deter crime because violent crimes are mostly crimes of passion and not premeditated. Our response is .....”

Tip #2: Tell the judge how you will be attacking the case. This will not only help her to follow along but it will show your organization and confidence; both admirable equalities for a debater. ”I will begin by attacking their criterion and case and then will present my arguments.”

Remember it doesn't matter how good your arguments are or how well you feel you've presented them; if the judge isn't able to follow your reasoning, then you were ineffective. Use simple and clear language and guide the judge through the debate.

Everything we have said so far assumes that you are able to identify the opponent's criterion, record their arguments, and remember their evidence. This is not always easy, especially when the debaters are presenting a lot of information, asking a lot of questions and doing it all very quickly. You need a system to help record the information so that you can be an informed, organized, listener who can offer direct clash.

Flowsheet

If we can agree that direct refutation demands informed, organized listeners than we can agree that the flowsheet is one of the most effective tools in developing refutation skills.

The term ”flowsheet” refers to a sheet of paper (sometimes called a table) used to take notes during a debate round. Designed to create a linear argument, a flowsheet is divided into the appropriate number of speeches. For the Karl Popper Debate Program there should be 6 columns each representing a speech. The following is an example of a flowsheet and specific points which should be included.

Guidelines For Effective Flowing

1. Divide your paper into 6 columns (allowing for CX columns see diagram).

2. Label each column according to the speaker.

3. Make sure your flowsheet is big enough allowing you to record all the arguments legibly.

4. Listen carefully to the information presented and record as much as possible.

5. Learn to abbreviate words giving you more time to listen rather than write.

6. Record the information presented in the column indicating the correct speaker ( ie. 1A's arguments should be recorded in the column labeled 1A).

7. Record both the affirmative and negative case in the order it was presented.

8. Use the same wording or phrases the debater used. This will make it easier when references are made to a particular argument.

9. When recording points of refutatation write your response next to that argument in the appropriate column. (See the diagram.)

10. Record the negative case either at the bottom of the 1N column if there is room (not interfering with the affirmative case) or on a separate piece of paper.

11. Continue to listen throughout the debate and evaluate the individual arguments as they develop on your paper.

Using the flowsheet as your tool for recording the information will give you a better picture of each individual argument and the debate as a whole. With this clearer picture you will then be able to organize your responses and offer direct clash to the judge.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download