Line-By-Line Analysis and Four-Step Refutation

When you write your case, you construct each argument with a claim, warrant, and impact. Line-by-line analysis (LBL) is the deconstruction of arguments. LBL focuses your refutation on parts of each argument rather than addresses an argument as a nebulous idea. Targeted refutation is more effective because it is specific. Breaking apart each argument opens up multiple places for refutation. This allows for multiple responses. It also allows you to refute one part of an argument rather than try to refute an entire idea. Never think you have to refute every part of an argument. Attack where the flaw is or where clash occurs. LBL analysis requires a flow with notes about the claims, warrants, and impacts in your opponents’ case. In order to respond to each argument part, you have to flow each part. LBL analysis should also make you realize there are multiple points of attack within each argument.

When organizing a Rebuttal, the most efficient and effective method to use is the Four Step Refutation. To each argument you refute, apply the following steps:

1. State the argument (claim, warrant, or impact) that you are answering from the case or CROSS-FIRE.

2. State your response to this claim, warrant, or impact. See “Types of Rebuttal” for ways to create responses.

3. Compare and contrast your argument to your opponents’ arguments.

4. Explain why your argument is “better”. “Better” could involve Impact Calculus or rely on a flaw in your opponents’ argument that you overcome with analysis or evidence. This analysis depends on what you are refuting within each argument and what makes the most sense.

LBL analysis requires clear transitional language for each step. This is called signposting, or verbally marking the transitions in your arguments.

-Refer to arguments by number and tagline.

-If you have multiple responses, number them.

-If you are cross-referencing your own case, note the point number and tagline of the argument you reference.

-Use comparative language, i.e.: when compared to, if … then…, this matters because, etc.


Example Rebuttal to sample case:
Point 1 stressed that the US is a uniquely capable intervener in democratic struggles. Voeten found a “statistically significant” positive impact. The Peceny evidence even states that as of 1999, 70% of countries where the US had intervened became democracies.

First, our opponents rely on evidence that does not take into account the past decade of U.S. interventions, which have been failures, nor do our opponents explain what “statistically significant” means. Second, our Hoover card in Point 3 points out that chances of success of an internally imposed democracy are very slim no matter who intervenes.

While they show a positive effect, we must measure the end result to justify intervention. Our evidence points to this end result, whether democracy takes hold or not after intervention. Our evidence finds on the whole democracy does not take hold.

Our opponents must explain the actual effect of intervention rather than hide behind scientific language. We also have shown that the probability of the positive impact, democracy, is almost zero. No matter how positive the Pro’s impacts sound, they are at best idealistic and do not account for the severe impacts of failed interventions that we illustrate in our case.