Rebuttal Strategy
Many debaters begin the Rebuttal with an “off-time roadmap”; a roadmap usually says, “I’ll first refute my opponent’s case and if time permits, move on to my own.” The order of PF rebuttals does not vary like LD and Policy rebuttals. Unless you are going to deviate from the established order or hcave a first time judge, a roadmap is unnecessary. Roadmaps annoy many experienced judges. You also risk the judge starting time although you say, “off-time”. Then you’ll lose crucial time for a useless roadmap. Don’t use a roadmap unless you break from conventional rebuttal structure.
Refute your opponents’ case first and if time permits, review your own case. This is the conventional approach. The Rebuttal speech is for refutation, not reviewing your arguments. I would argue the ideal ratio is three minutes of rebuttal to one minute of review or your case or overview of the round. In any case, ALWAYS dedicate at least the last few sentences of the speech to talk about your side. Leave the judge thinking about your arguments and why you are winning, rather than why your opponents are losing. Time management comes with practice. You should keep a timer visible at all times during your speech. Intentionally look at the time to see where you are; this will keep you on track and aware of needed changes in your delivery.
You want to address your opponents’ arguments in the order they were made. This maximizes clarity for the judge and for your speech organization. Only if you have a very good reason to break from the in-case order should you not go “down the flow”. Nonetheless, there are two reasons to break this rule. The first reason is to discuss Framework. As mentioned in the Framework chapter, the rebuttal of your opponent’s Framework should be the first thing in the Rebuttal. The second reason is to discuss your arguments during the Rebuttal. The time savvy debater will weave in their arguments into the refutation of their opponents’ case. Dedicating the end of the Rebuttal to your case should also break from the established order. Reaffirm your most important points and extend key impacts. Don’t feel obliged to discuss your first point because you have to stay in order. Discuss your strongest point. Another tactic is to conclude with your Framework and bring the judge’s attention back to the big picture. If you are the second speaking team, use the conclusion to address your opponent’s rebuttal to your key points. Avoid rereading your case. The judge does not need or want to hear you read your case, in any part, again. Give the judge a fresh take on your argument.
Keep in mind that you should (and in fact, must) engage every argument your opponents present. Never assume that a judge does not “buy” an argument and you don’t have to refute it. The job of the Rebuttal is to explain to the judge the flaws in your opponents’ case. I say engage every argument rather than address because engage denotes an active taking apart of the arguments. A lot of debaters address their opponents’ argument but never in fact explain what was wrong with it. Refutations must diagnosis a flaw, and explain the flaw and how it matters to the round.
If you run into a case that contains upwards of 7 arguments, you are going to have to be strategic. You won’t be able to do a full LBL analysis of each argument. First, I advise you think about your opponent’s Framework. Which of their arguments best fits the Framework? These are the arguments most likely to become voting issues. Teams rarely run 7 arguments with the intention of extending them all to the Second Half. The intention is to get you to drop some arguments and pull those through. Make sure you cover all the arguments, at least partially, and focus your attention on the arguments that appear to be the “winning” arguments in the case. You can also use CROSS-FIRE to refute arguments you cannot cover in Rebuttal.
In the back of your mind, remember that creating clash is the overall goal of Rebuttal. While refuting your opponents’ arguments, you should also give affirmative reasons why the judge should prefer your side. This brings us back to what the entire round is about – the resolution. Keep the resolution in mind in creating clash. The resolution includes both sides of the debate, not just your opponents. A debate win should not be based on proving your opponents wrong (defensive arguments). A debate win should be about why you have won your arguments in comparison to your opponents (offensive arguments). You should focus Rebuttal on defensive arguments you should win, but also include offensive arguments when you can.
