What is a Rebuttal Speech?

After the cases outline the competing arguments, the Rebuttal responds to your opponent’s case. The Rebuttal is about engaging your opponents’ arguments in-depth. You will refute and poke holes in their case. This speech has the most substantive refutation during the round. The Rebuttal also begins to compare the two sides. Through refutation you put new material on the table that can be used in the Second Half speeches. What is emphasized, forgotten, or muddied in Rebuttal will make the Second Half, or Summary and Final Focus, an easy path or an uphill battle. Each successive speech builds towards the next one.

My philosophies better explain what Rebuttal should accomplish:
1. Create clash.
2. Expose flaws in opponents’ case.
3. Weigh the round.

Create clash.

Clash is the debate term for conflict between your arguments and your opponents’ arguments. Sometimes you may have in-case arguments that directly attack or address your opponents’ case. More often than not you have to introduce new analysis and evidence to refute your opponents’ claims. This means you must create clash in the Rebuttal speech. Creating clash means showing the judge how both sides’ arguments conflict, even if each concerns different ideas. You must show the judge through how the arguments interact. Never assume a judge identifies clash.

Expose flaws in opponents’ case.

Many debaters take the approach of “defeating” an opponent’s case in Rebuttal. This is not a healthy or realistic way to approach refutation. Assume that your opponents are never going to admit defeat nor will your judge find their arguments altogether incorrect. Rebuttal should expose flawed logic, holes, and incomplete or poorly applied evidence. Types of Rebuttal are detailed later in the chapter. The goal is to display that your logic trumps theirs. You want to make a better argument, not show that their argument has no merit. It is near impossible to prove an argument completely wrong. Furthermore, it is not required that you prove an argument wrong to “win” that argument. Rebuttal should create doubt in the judge’s mind. Doubt allows you to argue that your logic should be preferred over your opponents’ logic.

Expose flaws in opponents’ case.

Many debaters take the approach of “defeating” an opponent’s case in Rebuttal. This is not a healthy or realistic way to approach refutation. Assume that your opponents are never going to admit defeat nor will your judge find their arguments altogether incorrect. Rebuttal should expose flawed logic, holes, and incomplete or poorly applied evidence. Types of Rebuttal are detailed later in the chapter. The goal is to display that your logic trumps theirs. You want to make a better argument, not show that their argument has no merit. It is near impossible to prove an argument completely wrong. Furthermore, it is not required that you prove an argument wrong to “win” that argument. Rebuttal should create doubt in the judge’s mind. Doubt allows you to argue that your logic should be preferred over your opponents’ logic.

Weigh the round.

Clash and effective refutation are Rebuttal’s working parts. The Rebuttal should also address the big picture; use Framework to organize arguments and connect ideas back to the resolution. This also means going one step further than showing how an argument is flawed or clash. Rebuttal should show how your argument is stronger and matters more in the round. Explain in the clash how your arguments should be preferred. Weighing the round is also known as Impact Calculus. See the chapter on Impact Calculus for details. For now, just keep in mind that the Rebuttal should begin to pull back to the big picture as you analyze arguments in a line-by-line fashion. What is a line-by-line rebuttal, you may ask? You’re in luck – you’ll find a full explanation below.