Types of Rebuttal

With the frame of the Four Step Refutation, there are many ways to form your response. The following is a non-exhaustive list of possible methods to respond.

– Compare their argument to an argument in your case.

– Use evidence to illustrate a flaw in their argument. Use evidence from your case or introduce new evidence.

– Attack the logical reasoning behind their claim. You want to look at the links that connect one fact to the next for places of weakness.

– An option here is to take poor logic to the extreme. This means applying their logical reasoning to another set of facts to illustrate the flaw. Do this with care and make sure your tone remains professional. Avoid sarcasm at all costs. Sarcasm borders on ad hominem attack and is not persuasive.

– You want to be well versed in logical fallacies in order to be able to identify and attack poor logic. You can find helpful explanations online and in print. I like this guide published by UNC.  It’s not important you know the name of every logical fallacy. In fact, I wouldn’t use the technical name in round; it may confuse the judge. What is important is your ability to identify flawed logic and explain the flaw to the judge.

– Illustrate how the argument does not fall under the resolution or within the Framework provided. An easy example is global impacts under a resolutional that is specific to the United States. Scrutinize impacts for their connection to the resolution. If the key words of the resolution are not mentioned in the impact, you will likely find missing link back to the topic.

– Turn your opponent’s argument. A turn is making what was an offensive argument for your opponent into an offensive argument for your side. The most important thing to remember about a turn is that you must concede part of the argument and then explain the turn. If you argue against the validity of the argument, the turn provides you no offense.

There are two types of turns.

Link Turn: A link turn accepts your opponents’ claim and explains how the claim does not result in the impact your opponent claims, but rather an impact that proves your side. An example would be the Con arguing that US intervention causes more conflict and the Pro would argue that intervention would actually decrease conflict.

Impact Turn: An impact turn will accept both the claim and impact of an argument. The turn explains how a negative impact is actually a positive impact, or a positive impact is actually negative impact.

Double Turn: You turn both the argument and the impact. In conjunction work against you. Do not turn both the argument and the impact.

Don’t be afraid to turn evidence as well. If your opponents cite something that helps your case, it’s your job to explain this to the judge.

– Point out if the argument is non-unique. Non-unique arguments occur whether the Pro or Con wins the round. Explain why the argument is true for either side and therefore neither team should be able to use it as a reason to win.

– Expose contradictions within the case. Contradiction occurs when two arguments, if taken to be true, cancel each other out or cannot be true simultaneously. This rebuttal requires a lot of explanation. You must explain step-by-step how the arguments contradict each other. If it is overly complicated to explain, you risk muddying up the argument. This negatively affects your overall word economy and the judge’s comprehension of your response. Carefully select when to argue that your opponents contradict themselves.

Point out a lack of necessary evidence. You cannot only state that there is no evidence. A full “no evidence” rebuttal will:
– Point out the lack of evidence.
– Explain why having evidence matters for this argument – either specific to the argument or more general claims, such as: “Real world debate needs real world evidence”, “If impact is so great, it should be measurable and observable in some way”, “If no evidence is presented, how can we weigh the argument against others?”
– You should also attack logic the evidence would support. If you only point out a lack of evidence, you provide your opponents the opportunity to read evidence. A full rebuttal will mean that if your opponents provide evidence, it still does not win the argument for them.

– If your opponents are using multiple arguments that rely on the same claim or access the same impacts, try to group or collapse those arguments together. DO THIS ONLY IF IN FACT THE ARGUMENTS ARE THE SAME. If you misuse grouping, your opponent can extend arguments that were not refuted. Grouping also takes away the breadth of your opponent’s case, giving you a rhetorical advantage.  Grouping is also effective if your opponents’ case includes more than 4 arguments. There is no way to use LBL analysis on all the arguments in such a case.