10 rebuttals 2003 version
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
1/26
REBUTTALSREBUTTALSREBUTTALSREBUTTALS
Ateneo Debate Camp 2008Ateneo Debate Camp 2008
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
2/26
Main goal of rebuttal = to
prove that the other sideis WRONG.
Not adjudication Dont JUST go Well, this person had
bad analysis; he did not present his
arguments in an organized manner.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
3/26
PROVE THAT THEARGUMENT OF THE
OTHER SIDE IS WRONG Ex. In a debate about the legalization
prostitution, say somebody argues prostitutionshould be illegal because its immoral. How wouldyou rebut that?
One way to disprove it is to look at its premise. Inthis case, the argument assumes a specific formof morality that he/she intends to shove downeveryones gullets. In rebutting, you should
question and disprove that premise throughdiscussing things like alternative forms ofmorality. More on this later.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
4/26
STRUCTURE OF
REBUTTAL
Mention which argument you are responding to. Summarize that argument Say that its wrong
Pinpoint which part of the argument you have aproblem with. This can be a premise, acontradiction/logical inconsistency, a majorfactual inaccuracy, etc.
Analyze this problem and show why it disproves
the mentioned argument. Emphasize how this problem impacts their case.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
5/26
Mention which argument
you are responding to. As much as possible, use the same label
that the person who raised the argumentused.
In the context of the example, this wouldentail saying something as simple as,Before anything else, I wish to respond tothe Prime Ministers argument regarding
the immorality of prostitution based onCatholic morals.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
6/26
CASE STUDY THBT prostitution should remain illegal inthe Philippines.
PMs argument: It is immoral to legalizeprostitution because prostitution violates
the morality of the Catholic majority in thePhilippines. The Philippines, as a Catholiccountry, should reflect Catholic morals.And, as far as Catholic morals go,prostitution violates the sacredness of the
human body and the sexual act by turning itinto a function of commerce rather thanlove.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
7/26
Summarize that
argument Use this opportunity to clarify the argument you
are responding to if it was unclearly presented.
In the context of the example: The previousspeaker said that prostitution violates Catholicmorals. According to him, since the Philippines is aCatholic country, it should espouse Catholicmorals in its laws.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
8/26
Say that its wrong Make your disagreement with the argument
explicit. This argument on religious morality isunacceptable and runs contrary to the principlesof our democratic society.
There may be times when it is strategic toconcede an argument. In which case, you would notsay that the argument is wrong. Rather, you wouldsay the argument is right. However, despite it
being right, it still doesnt justify the position ofyour opponent (to be explained more later!)
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
9/26
Pinpoint which part of theargument you have a
problem with Faulty premise, a contradiction/logical inconsistency, a major
factual inaccuracy, or you may find the implications of theargument unacceptable (there are many other things that could bewrong with an argument). Whatever the case, no argument is
perfect, which means no argument is unassailable.
Say something like, The Prime Ministers argument is problematicbecause it lies on faulty premises. It assumes that religiousprinciples should be reflected in the laws of a secular state. It alsoassumes that the religion of the majority should be imposed evenon people who do not subscribe to that religion.
Note: Some debaters find multiple problems in one argument. Inthese cases, they launch multi-tiered rebuttals. E.g. I have xproblems with this argument.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
10/26
Analyze this problem and show whyit disproves the argument
This is the most important step. Its not enough that you citea problem. You have to prove that the problem is graveenough that it disproves the argument.
E.g. This is a problem because, as most of us know, there is aseparation between Church and State. We cannot legislatebased on religious doctrine because the state is required toconsider the common good not just the good of a religiousgroup. The common good of society is not reflected inreligious doctrine; rather, it is found in the actual effects ofthe policy. We will argue in our case that legalizingprostitution can save lives and protect rights because it
allows for government regulation. Given this, the previousspeakers argument privileges shoving religious doctrine downthe throats of people over actual social benefits. Theargument falls because it espouses a rationale for legislationthat cannot hold water in the context of a seculardemocratic state.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
11/26
Emphasize how this problem
impacts their case: Depending on how much you think it is important
to emphasize your rebuttal, this is a step that youmay opt to skip. At times, however, going through
this may contribute to your rhetorical strength.
E.g. And so we find that the problem with thisargument reflects a larger problem with OpeningGovernments case. It shows that they are not
aware of the nature of legal principles and howthey should be applied in a country like ours.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
12/26
COMMON ERRORS1) This does not solve the problem/ is
not the root cause of the problem
-Take into account net benefit!
Something doesnt HAVE to solvethe root of the problem in order to
have value.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
13/26
Ex. Say someone argues in a debate about givingreparations to Australian aborigines that reparations
reduce their poverty and allow them investmentopportunities.
This isnt the most brilliant of arguments. But, asbad as this argument is, youre argumentativeabilities will not shine if you rebut it this way:
You shouldnt give reparations, because, despite thefact that the aborigines need money, reparationsdont solve the root cause of their oppression, whichis racial discrimination. OF COURSE that is a bigger
cause. BUT does that mean its a bad thing tomitigate the effects of that discrimination throughthings like reparations? Of course not.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
14/26
COMMON ERRORS2) Making accusations lightly
(especially when they apply to you as
well!)
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
15/26
Ex. Say someone argues in a debate about
troubled democracies that sanctions willwork their leaders care about theirpeoples welfare (and cite the fact thatMyanmar has let aid-givers in)
- dont rebut it by saying oh yeah? Myanmarisnt even a democracy! And what aboutNorth Korea? They dont let aidgivers in!- NORTH KOREA isnt a democracy either!
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
16/26
COMMON ERRORS3) Using examples to rebut the other
sides arguments-by-example
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
17/26
(using the same North
Korea-Myanmar example) It is not enough to give a tit-for-tat example.
That will, at best, give you a deadlock. To win therebuttal, go a step further and ANALYZE why
your rebuttal is likely to make more sense. E.g. It would make sense that North Koreas Kim
Jong Il, like other dictators, dont care abouttheir people because a well-fed and educatedpopulace is more likely to be able to overthrow an
unpopular leader than one that spends most of itstime starving and sickly.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
18/26
COMMON ERRORS4) Refusing to concede any arguments
or premises
- If you cant rebut an argument, justweigh its value against those of yourarguments.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
19/26
Ex. How do you rebut the argument of reparationsmaking aborigines richer? Of course you dont saymoney doesnt make them richer. You say, thats
true, but its not worth the trade-off. And thetrade-off is reparations encourage right wingbacklash; it makes it seem as if aborigines arebeing coddled. This backlash makes it harder forthe government to create political will for more
important reforms like, say, returning stolen landto aborigines.
(using the same
Aborigines example)
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
20/26
COMMON ERRORS5) Being too happy when the other side
seems stupid and flippantly dismissingarguments- this is how you lose to back-burningteams- best solution: BUILD UP the argument(but make sure to clarify that youreanalyzing for them!) and THEN rebut it
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
21/26
COMMON ERRORS6) Rebutting false matter/premises by
saying Thats untrue! THIS is the
truth/premise! (blah blah)- This will become a he-says-she-says(or we-say-they-say) situation. In
times like this, offer a reason forwhy your matter is more believable
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
22/26
E.g. If the other side asserts : The Chinesedont care about the Olympics that much,
dont just say oh yes, they do! Talk aboutthe Olympics rallies and riots against theperceived French insults as proof of yourassertion.
E.g. If the other side says the acceptance ofgay marriage in the US has growndramatically in the last 4 years, and morestates have legislated to allow it, dont justsay it hasnt! Only one state allows it!Make your fact seem more reasonable bybacking it up with a fact everyone shouldknow that Bush approved the FederalDefense of Marriage Act in the recent past.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
23/26
COMMON
ERRORS7) Reiterating old arguments to rebutnew rebuttals
- just dont. the adj probably heardit well enough the first time. If youMUST repeat it, bec you think theother side wasnt listening, still add
another layer of rebuttal to makesure youre not static.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
24/26
E.g. you argue that the 3W states shouldnot legislate prostitution because ittakes advantage of the desperation ofpoor women
- other side says well, all jobs takeadvantage of different levels of
desperation, thats why you have wagedifferentials and poor people acceptinglower wages
- dont just repeat that initial well,
its still wrong to take advantage of it.Talk about the difference betweennormal jobs and prostitution especiallyin the 3W setting.
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
25/26
COMMON ERRORS8) Forgetting to weigh (a.k.a. adjudication-
style rebutting!)- Criticism is not rebuttal! E.g. That argument
was not analyzed well enough, It had poortime management, or That argument didnot follow the split, ARE NOT REBUTTALS.
- Especially important if you have a counter-prop! (make sure the detriment yourepointing out from the other side is notpresent to a greater degree in your prop!)
-
8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version
26/26
E.g. In a debate between populationcontrol tax-breaks vs. SQ, the teamdefending pop control tax-breakssays they better protect womensright to choice because a tax break
doesnt punish them if they dontfollow the kid-limit, but rewards themif they DO follow. Of course, this is
nonsensical bec the other sidepromotes unfettered choice.