10 Rebuttals 2003 Version

8/9/2019 10 Rebuttals 2003 Version

1/26

REBUTTALSREBUTTALSREBUTTALSREBUTTALS

Ateneo Debate Camp 2008Ateneo Debate Camp 2008


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


8/26

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!)


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


14/26

COMMON ERRORS2) Making accusations lightly

(especially when they apply to you as

well!)


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!


16/26

COMMON ERRORS3) Using examples to rebut the other

sides arguments-by-example


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.


18/26

COMMON ERRORS4) Refusing to concede any arguments

or premises

- If you cant rebut an argument, justweigh its value against those of yourarguments.


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)


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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!)


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.

Documents

10 Rebuttals 2003 Version