Rebuttal in Debate

New York Parliamentary Debate League

Understanding the basics of an argument

In order to refute an argument you have to understand what an argument is made of.

Understanding the basics of an argument

​

1. Claim: The central assertion or statement being made.
• What is the argument advocating for or against?
2. Warrant: The reasoning behind the claim.
• Why does the claim make sense? What evidence or logic supports it?
3. Impact: The real-world effects of accepting or rejecting the claim.
• What changes occur if the claim is accepted or rejected?

​

Understanding Rebuttal

• Every debate has two sides: The goal of rebuttal is to demonstrate why the other part of the debate isn’t strong enough to win. Rebuttals then have to both defend/rebuild your arguments from the opposing side’s attacks and attack their arguments.
• You need to have both a strong, offensive case and well-executed set of defensive rebuttals to win rounds.
• That being said, “rebuttal” isn’t synonymous with “explaining why every single statement uttered by the other side is total nonsense.” In some instances, sure, the material you’re working with is absolutely incoherent—but in the vast majority of debates, there will be some degree of truth to the other side’s arguments. The job of a good rebutter is not to lie and pretend like the other side’s arguments are stupid, but rather to explain why the other side’s arguments are simply not enough to win the debate!

Understanding Rebuttal

• When crafting a rebuttal, look for the links between different parts of the argument
• Links are the connection between each piece of logic in the argument.
• ex: If we raise taxes then life expectancy will go up
• Taxes raised→more money to spend on safety net programs→benefits become more accessible such as healthcare→more people live for longer
• Each one of the arrows indicate a different link in the link chain. When crafting rebuttals, try to attack one or more of the links.
• For example, you can argue that the taxes raised will not go to safety net programs, rather, it will go to military spending. Now the impact of higher life expectancy cannot be accessed.

Understanding Rebuttal

• Whenever you’re dealing with arguments presented by the other side, it’s a wise move to think about how you can integrate your own constructive material into the rebuttal you present!
• For example, if in your case you have already discussed why the economy will improve in the gov. world and the opp’s case presents that the economy will be harmed in gov. world, you can use pieces of your constructive to rebut the claim.
• Similarly, you should keep in mind your case: make sure that the rebuttals that you make align with the general argumentation you made earlier in the round. If you start off by saying that politicians are bad actors and then end your speech by saying that they are the best people to make decisions you contradict yourself!

Understanding Rebuttal

• Not all arguments are deserving of the same amount of airtime, or the same number of responses. Some arguments that you’ll face are absolutely vital to take out of the round, and if you don’t take them out of the round, you might just lose right then and there. Some other arguments that you’ll face might not be as important—yes, obviously you still need to respond, but they simply don’t pose the same degree of threat to your case!
• Time management and word economy is important for a good rebuttal: keep track of time to make sure you get to everything!

​

THS the EU’s decision to limit imports of Russian energy (e.g. oil, natural gas)

OPP: “this will increase energy prices in Europe”

THS the EU’s decision to limit imports of Russian energy (e.g. oil, natural gas)

OPP: “this will increase energy prices in Europe”

“No, this is nonsense, Europe doesn’t need Russian energy, and Europe is super rich anyway…”

“Energy prices will actually not be affected because the EU can import natural resources from other countries such as the USA and the UAE.”

THS the EU’s decision to limit imports of Russian energy (e.g. oil, natural gas)

OPP: “this will increase energy prices in Europe”

“No, this is nonsense, Europe doesn’t need Russian energy, and Europe is super rich anyway…”

One of this is a BAD response, and one of them is a GOOD response…

“Energy prices will actually not be affected because the EU can import natural resources from other countries such as the USA and the UAE.”

THS the EU’s decision to limit imports of Russian energy (e.g. oil, natural gas)

OPP: “this will increase energy prices in Europe”

“No, this is nonsense, Europe doesn’t need Russian energy, and Europe is super rich anyway…”

One of this is a BAD response, and one of them is a GOOD response…

“Energy prices will actually not be affected because the EU can import natural resources from other countries such as the USA and the UAE.”

😍

but… how do you actually STRUCTURE this?

aka…

when you’re responding to arguments, how can you best structure those responses?

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE ARGUMENT YOU’RE RESPONDING TO!

STEP 2: ATTACK THE CENTRAL CLAIM MADE BY THE ARGUMENT YOU’RE RESPONDING TO!

STEP 3: SUMMARIZE HOW YOUR REBUTTAL BEATS THEIR ARGUMENT!

STEP 4 : EXPLAIN HOW AN ARGUMENT CAN APPLY TO MULTIPLE POINTS!

OKAY, SO…

We now know how to STRUCTURE refutation. But the question then becomes—how exactly do you find ways to refute arguments?

​

Next, let’s chat about exactly that: different ways to attack the arguments your opponents will make!

Strategy 1: Direct Refutation

Directly challenging the validity of the opponent’s arguments.

Strategy:

• Point Out Flaws: Identify logical fallacies, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies in the opponent’s case.
• Use Evidence: Provide counter-evidence to debunk the opponent’s claims.
• Clarify Misunderstandings: Correct any misconceptions or misrepresentations of facts.

Ex: the opp side misinterprets Germany as having veto power in the UN. This is untrue, meaning that their argumentation that their plan cannot function.

​

Strategy 2: Delinking

As the name suggests delinking is a rebuttal form the targets an arguments links

By disproving an arguments links you automatically disprove an arguments impacts

How to Use Delinking?

1. Listen for impacts that don't directly support the claim, this is a easy way to spot weak links
2. Identify the logic the opponent uses to connect each part of the argument
3. Explain why link(s) are incorrect
4. Show the judge how this delinking weakens the opposing case.

Ex: The opp argues that drinking apple cider helps the NY State apple groves, but most commercially available apple ciders do not source their product from NY State.

​

​

​

Strategy 3: Outweighing

Outweighing is a rebuttal strategy where a debater argues that their points are more significant or have greater impact than the opposing side’s points.

​

Why Use Outweighing?

• Priority: It helps prioritize which arguments should carry more weight in the judge’s decision.
• Strength: Demonstrates the superiority of your case even if the opposition has valid points.
• Persuasion: Convince the judge that your impacts are more critical.

Ex: Even if you buy the opp’s arguments that there will be inflation, the impacts of dying children is far more important.

Strategy 3: Outweighing (continued)

​

How to Use Outweighing?

1. Identify Impacts: Determine the main impacts of both your arguments and the opposing arguments.

​

• Compare: Explain why your impacts are more significant.
• Magnitude: The size or scope of the impact.
• Probability: The likelihood of the impact occurring.
• Timeframe: The immediacy of the impact.
• Reversibility: Whether the impact can be undone or not.
• Prerequisites: If an impact needs to be dealt with before another.

​

• Summarize: Clearly summarize why your impacts should be prioritized.

​

​

Strategy 4: Turning an argument

Turning an argument is a rebuttal technique where a debater takes an opponent’s argument and demonstrates how it actually supports their own side of the debate.

​

How to Use Argument Turning?

1. Identify: Listen for key arguments that can be reframed to support your position.
2. Reframe: Show how the opponent’s point logically supports your case.
3. Explain: Clearly articulate why this turned argument strengthens your side and weakens theirs.

Two Types:

1. Impact Turn: The impact that is argued (positive or negative) is the opposite
2. Link Turn: A link in the argument will cause the opposite of which is argued

​

​

​

​

Strategy 4: Turning an argument (continued)

"This House would ban smoking in public places."

Opposition Argument: "Banning smoking in public places will lead to an increase in illegal smoking areas, making it harder to regulate and enforce."

Argument Turning Strategy:

• Reframe: The increase in illegal smoking areas highlights the difficulty in regulation and enforcement of smoking, which supports the need for a ban to control public health risks more effectively.
• Explain: By pointing out enforcement challenges, it strengthens the argument that stricter measures, like a ban, are necessary to protect public health and ensure regulations are effective.

​

Strategy 5: Non-unique

An argument is non-unique if the impact or effect it claims would happen regardless of the resolution being debated.

​

How to Prove an Argument is Non-Unique?

1. Identify the Argument: Listen for the key claims and impacts the opposition presents.
2. Find the Common Ground: Show that the same impact would occur in both scenarios (with or without the resolution).
3. Present Evidence: Provide examples or logic demonstrating that the impact is not unique to the opposition’s stance.

​

Strategy 5: Non-unique (continued)

"This House would implement a universal basic income (UBI)."

Opposition Argument: "Implementing UBI will lead to inflation."

Non-Unique Strategy:

• Identify the Argument: The opposition claims UBI leads to inflation.
• Find the Common Ground: Show that inflation can occur due to other economic factors, not just UBI.
• Present Evidence:
• Example 1: Highlight historical instances where inflation occurred without UBI (e.g., post-war periods).
• Example 2: Present economic theories or expert opinions indicating that inflation can be caused by various factors like monetary policy or supply chain disruptions.

​

Strategy 6: Gut Checks

• Whenever you listen to arguments, pause and ask yourself a genuine question: would a non-debate person find this argument persuasive? Does this actually make sense?
• It’s very easy to assume—falsely, sometimes—that just because an argument sounds fancy, it must be true. But that’s often not the case
• Strategy #3: gut check arguments, and see if they pass a basic ~vibe check~

​

Strategy 7: Weaponizing characterization

• Arguments are often premised on a certain assumption about how the world works—and most commonly, warrants/mechanisms (as well as impacts!) only apply if that conception of the world is proven to be true!

​

• Consider how you can counter-characterize how the world works, such that you can take arguments out of the round not by directly beating their logic, but by indirectly beating the characterization they’re premised upon

​

• Often, this can be done by taking a holistic view of the round: what does each case boil down to? Is it a presumption that something is good/bad? Is it a specific link that every argument relies on?

let’s do an example…

THP a world where all writing is pseudonymous

In other words, the true identities of writers isn’t revealed to the public!

GOV Argument #1

When writers don’t reveal their true identities, they won’t face things like death threats when people disagree with their writing!

THP a world where all writing is pseudonymous

In other words, the true identities of writers isn’t revealed to the public!

GOV Argument #1

When writers don’t reveal their true identities, they won’t face things like death threats when people disagree with their writing!

STEP 1

“I’m going to respond to GOV’s first argument on the authors’ safety”

THP a world where all writing is pseudonymous

In other words, the true identities of writers isn’t revealed to the public!

GOV Argument #1

When writers don’t reveal their true identities, they won’t face things like death threats when people disagree with their writing!

STEP 1

“I’m going to respond to GOV’s first argument on the authors’ safety”

STEP 2

“Their logic is flawed, since if writers currently fear they might face death threats, they can just choose to use a pseudonym!”

THP a world where all writing is pseudonymous

In other words, the true identities of writers isn’t revealed to the public!

GOV Argument #1

When writers don’t reveal their true identities, they won’t face things like death threats when people disagree with their writing!

STEP 1

“I’m going to respond to GOV’s first argument on the authors’ safety”

STEP 2

“Their logic is flawed, since if writers currently fear they might face death threats, they can just choose to use a pseudonym!”

STEP 3

“The vast majority of writers aren’t publishing highly controversial material, so our arguments are more important because we affect a bigger group of people!”

THP a world where all writing is pseudonymous

In other words, the true identities of writers isn’t revealed to the public!

GOV Argument #1

When writers don’t reveal their true identities, they won’t face things like death threats when people disagree with their writing!

STEP 1

“I’m going to respond to GOV’s first argument on the authors’ safety”

STEP 2

“Their logic is flawed, since if writers currently fear they might face death threats, they can just choose to use a pseudonym!”

STEP 3

“The vast majority of writers aren’t publishing highly controversial material, so our arguments are more important because we affect a bigger group of people!”

STEP 4

“Thus, we beat this argument by proving it can be easily avoided and applies to very few people”

TH opposes the academization* of social justice movements

*The increasingly significant presence of academics and academic terminology, processes and structures in many parts of the world

GOV

The rise of academic elites within social movements has crowded out more vulnerable, intersectional voices with more meaningful lived experiences that better reflect the nature of discrimination

TH opposes the academization* of social justice movements

*The increasingly significant presence of academics and academic terminology, processes and structures in many parts of the world

GOV

The rise of academic elites within social movements has crowded out more vulnerable, intersectional voices with more meaningful lived experiences that better reflect the nature of discrimination

What does this argument implicitly presume in terms of the characterization of academics within social movements?

1. Academics occupy the same space as traditional activists, so their speech must crowd out the speech of conventional members of social movements

​

2. The type of research published by these academics ignores the lived experiences of vulnerable marginalized communities

TH opposes the academization* of social justice movements

*The increasingly significant presence of academics and academic terminology, processes and structures in many parts of the world

GOV

The rise of academic elites within social movements has crowded out more vulnerable, intersectional voices with more meaningful lived experiences that better reflect the nature of discrimination

What does this argument implicitly presume in terms of the characterization of academics within social movements?

1. Academics occupy the same space as traditional activists, so their speech must crowd out the speech of conventional members of social movements

​

2. The type of research published by these academics ignores the lived experiences of vulnerable marginalized communities

This argument fails because the characterization which undergirds its analysis is untrue. Academics aren’t likely to be publishing in the same spaces as activists (e.g. marches versus academic journals), and academics are probably basing their publications on lived experiences they’ve studied (e.g. interviews with victims)

​

Helpful Tips

• One of the most difficult parts of rebuttal is coming up with them in the first place! Here are some helpful tips:

1. Break an argument down into Claim Warrant Impact (CWI) and link chains. Seeing each individual part of the argument helps you see where it is weak.

2. Take their logic to the extreme: this helps you spot different rhetorical fallacies or flaws in the argument

3. Familiarize yourself with different types of rebuttals, something you just forget that you can turn an argument or delink it.

4. If the topic is very dense/confusing, put it in layman's terms or an example! Instead of complex philosophical ideas, now you are debating a scenario of Bob choosing his dinner.

Concluding Effectively

• There’s a very strong tendency, when rebutting, to just dump some responses onto an argument and assume that you’re good—but if you really want to kick an argument out of the round, it’s in your own best interest to wrap up your rebuttal/refutation in a way that makes it seem quite clear to the judge that there is no viable world in which their argument is a debate-winning argument!

​

• Here is where you can explain the FUNCTION of your responses, flips/turns, and all that jazz—after you’re done introducing your responses, you can explain HOW they fit into the debate, and why the argument you’ve just finished dealing with isn’t a round-winning argument!

THW forcibly break up systemically large financial institutions

OPP

“Large financial institutions access economies of scale”

THW forcibly break up systemically large financial institutions

OPP

“Large financial institutions access economies of scale”

Large financial institutions suffer from diseconomies of scale, large higher communication costs across departments

Smaller financial institutions are forced to be more competitive, so even if they’re unable to access economies of scale, they’re also more incentivized to maximize efficiency

The problem of moral hazard outweighs this argument because even if large banks do access economies of scale, the marginally higher rate of return that creates during secular periods is vastly outweighed by the immeasurable damage done during periods of recession

Empirically, it’s not particularly clear if such economies of scale actually exist within the increasingly-complex and compartmentalized financial sector

THW forcibly break up systemically large financial institutions

OPP

“Large financial institutions access economies of scale”

Large financial institutions suffer from diseconomies of scale, large higher communication costs across departments

Smaller financial institutions are forced to be more competitive, so even if they’re unable to access economies of scale, they’re also more incentivized to maximize efficiency

The problem of moral hazard outweighs this argument because even if large banks do access economies of scale, the marginally higher rate of return that creates during secular periods is vastly outweighed by the immeasurable damage done during periods of recession

Empirically, it’s not particularly clear if such economies of scale actually exist within the increasingly-complex and compartmentalized financial sector

but what is the takeaway from all of tis?

The conclusion of this rebuttal is simple: the benefit GOV strives for, in terms of economies of scale, is either factually uncertain or heavily marginal. Moreover, there are unique economic inefficiencies that arise when financial institutions exist at such large scales. Therefore, when weighing this debate, you should prioritize our material on, for instance, recessions given how non-comparative and insignificantly impactful this GOV argument is

​

miscellaneous advice!

Listen to arguments, think about those arguments, flow/note those arguments, and then think about how you’ll respond

1

Use your partner’s speech as a time to generate responses to (1) arguments that have already been said, or (2) arguments that you anticipate will come up

3

Arguments are often quite repetitive. Respond once; flag how prior responses apply elsewhere (same thing for extending your partner’s material!)

4

🤑🤑Million Dollar Idea🤑🤑

GOV

OPP

HW is good for performance

HW is bad for performance

physically attack your opponent with another sword!

sadly, this tactic is illegal :(

Some people might consider this an equity violation