REBUTTAL DEBATES

1. REBUTTAL DEBATES Research must be with facts – for both sides – why? You will find the top ten facts for your side Prioritize them from most to least important – why? Take the top three and make those your supporting reasons. Use the rest to bring to mastery the other components of your debate Take the top ten for the opposition – prioritize Take the top 4-6 and write the four step rebuttal for each. Next research should be for your opening, position, closing. Then you write your debate

2. Rebuttal Rebuttal is an essential element of debating. It provides the “clash of ideas” that makes debating different from public speaking. Rebuttal requires debaters to listen to what is being said by the other side and respond to their arguments. An audience member or more importantly, a judge, might be listening to a point made and think “that’s a good argument” and find themselves convinced by the other side. In this sense, it’s important to deal with all the major points being made by the other side.

3. Rebuttal Debate, without rebuttals, would merely be a series of speeches with no relation to each other. Like ships passing in the night, there will be no clash, no conflict and ultimately, no debate. Rebuttal, like argumentation, is one of the foundations of debate. What is rebuttal then? It is a speaker saying that an opponent's argument is not valid and showing why it is not valid.  If the argument is about building logical links in a case, then rebuttal is about the breaking of these links.

4. 1st (of 6) – attacking relevance With this rebuttal, Debaters attack the relevance of their opponent’s arguments and show that these arguments do not support the opponent's stance. This type of rebuttal can destroy the entire argument by showing that it does not even support the opponent’s stance. For instance, in a debate, the negative states: “The Internet is a dangerous force,” The Opposition delivers arguments noting how useful the Internet has been in facilitating communication and education. The stance that the internet is a dangerous place is rebutted by the benefits of the Internet and thereby invalidating the dangers by showing how safe and useful the internet is

5. 2nd way – attacking assumptions With this rebuttal, Debaters attack a particular way in which their opponents had described an assumed trait of the subject. For instance, for “China is Dangerous,’’ - The affirmative argues that China is a Communist country and that this leads to a conflict between China and the Capitalist West. However, the Opposition can rebut that China is mostly Communist but has wholeheartedly embraced Capitalism, thus having less reason to find conflict with Capitalist countries. Citing Hong Kong as an example further provides evidence that China is not a danger to the capitalist west.

6. 3rd way – attacking the impact With this rebuttal, debaters attack the presumed impact of the subject's assumed trait. For instance, for “We should dissolve the UN,” the affirmative speaker points out that the UN has been ineffective throughout the world. However, the Opposition speaker can rebut this by saying that the UN has saved countless lives through humanitarian aide and has stopped many massacres through peacekeeping interventions. Thereby the presumed impact of ineffectiveness is challenged by the mention of UN peacekeeping and aide missions it has completed.

7. 4th way – attacking leaps of logic With this rebuttal, the debaters attack the lack of logical links between the assumed traits of the subject and its presumed impact. For instance, for, “We should ban gay marriage,” the affirmative could argue that everyone should have the right to marry regardless of their sexual orientation Here, the Opponents can rebut that there is a lack of a link between gay and traditional marriage by the very fact that one has opposite sex marriage and the other has same sex marriage. The link is broken by rebutting that all marriages are not the same which is the leap of logic in the proposition

8. 5 way – hung arguments Hung arguments are arguments which are contingent on another argument to survive. With this rebuttal, Debaters can take two arguments out with one attack. For instance, for “Many states censor the arts,” the affirmative first argues that extremist messages are found in art. Next the affirmative argues that the viewers of art should be protected from such extremist messages. The Opposition could rebut that there are no extremist messages in art and that art itself is very much subjective. With this argument taken down, the point about needing to protect viewers of art has little impact, as it is a hung argument.

9. 6th way – attacking examples • In general, Debaters should attack the logic of an argument before moving on to attack the examples. • Attacking the example first is usually not advised, as it allows the opponent to just refer to another of the already mentioned examples and the argument will remain standing. • The only time debaters should attack the example is when the opponent had used one example as the only basis for the argument.  • The proposition states: “Out of 12 million arrests in the United States last year, only 400 deaths occurred during an arrest of a suspect. “ • The opposition can ask or have ready the number of those deaths in which a minority was the victim, thereby making a seemingly small number appear much bigger than intended. “In fact 33% of those deaths involved an African-American which is double the general population percentage of African-Americans.

10. FOUR STEP PROCESS TO CONSTRUCTING A REBUTTAL • STEP ONE: Write a statement that summarizes your opponent’s argument (reason) • STEP TWO: Summarize your rebuttal – this is where you challenge the logic of your opponent’s argument (the part that you take issue with) • STEP THREE: Offer evidence and/or analysis that supports your rebuttal (stats, numbers, charts, studies, reasoned logic, rationale, etc) • STEP FOUR: Explain why your rebuttal is superior to your opponent’s argument and what the implications are for the debate

11. EXAMPLE OF A REBUTTAL • STEP ONE: My opponent claimed that the death penalty works because is serves as a deterrent to stop others from murdering • STEP TWO: The logic of my opponent’s argument is that killing those who murder will prevent others from committing the same crime • STEP THREE: According to FBI statistics from years 1990 to 2009 states with no death penalty have lower murder rates than those states with the death penalty. • STEP FOUR: Statistically, it is not a deterrent, and I have not even touched on the moral, ethical, and religious reasons why my opponent’s first reason was not based on solid foundation, reason or fact.

12. According to FBI statistics from years 1990 to 2009 states with no death penalty have lower murder rates than those states with the death penalty. See below chart

13. REBUTTAL DEBATE REMINDERS • BE READY BY 13MAR – NEXT FRIDAY • You will be graded on all elements of last debate • Rebuttal and Presentation are two added elements • Constructive point is eliminated • Rebuttal is how well you counter two of the three reasons given by your opponent using the four step rebuttal method • Presentation is how well you prepared, your tone, level of confidence and overall demeanor

14. WRITTEN REQUIREMENTS FOR DEBATE • There are no exact number of sentences required for this debate. However it must include the following: • Opening statement (grabbing the audience) • Thesis statement (stating your position) • Best three reasons to support your position • Two successful rebuttals (that you can use as part of the three required to submit) • Closing statement • Separately but on the same piece of paper – three rebuttals in the four step method

15. FORMAT FOR REBUTTAL DEBATE • FORGET THE QUESTIONS AND PREVIOUS FORMAT – WE ARE SIMPLIFYING THIS PROCESS. YOU WILL ONLY HAVE TO CORRECTLY IDENTIFY A REASON AND PROVIDE A REBUTTAL TO THAT REASON. HERE IS THE NEW REBUTTAL FORMAT: • AFFIRMATIVE- 3 MIN – ONLY OPENING, POSITION, AND THREE REASONS, NO REBUTTALS OR CLOSING • NEGATIVE - 3 MIN – ONLY OPENING, POSITION, THREE REASONS, NO REBUTTALS OR CLOSING • 1 MINUTE TIMEOUT FOR REBUTTALS • NEGATIVE’S 1ST REBUTTAL • AFFIRMATIVE’S 1st REBUTTAL • NEGATIVE’S 2nd REBUTTAL • AFFIRMATIVE’S 2nd REBUTTAL • 1 MINUTE PAUSE FOR CLOSING • AFFIRMATIVE CLOSING • NEGATIVE CLOSING

16. Reminders • Remember: 3 scores – written debate (100 points), debate score (100 points), and self reflection (100 points) • Remember each rebuttal must have the four step process to count as a complete rebuttal • We are going to have each table to constructively critique one part of the rubric • Presentation was also added

17. SEQUENCE – TOPIC – CONCEALED WEAPONS • The negative gave as a reason that 21 states have banned weapons on school campuses and another 22 states have left it up to the colleges and 95% of colleges in these states have banned weapons on campus. That means 43 states have weapons – not just concealed weapons banned on campus. That represents 86% of campuses in America have banned weapons – not just concealed weapons on their campus. • So looking at this reason what can you use for a rebuttal? • Concealed or unconcealed weapons • Colleges or campuses • State laws • Percentages being used

18. REBUTTALS CONT • STEP 1: What my opponent failed to mention regarding people carrying concealed weapons is not everyone is issued a permit. • STEP 2: There are screening requirements for individuals to get that permit. • STEP 3: People must pass strict requirements: minimum age, no prior felony conviction, and no recent commitments to a mental institution. Further they must submit to a credit check to ensure they have no money problems which is another check in the system. • STEP 3: Lastly, according to the National Research Council, between May 2007 and May 2014 14 law enforcement officers and over 600 innocent law abiding citizens were murdered by people who had legally issued concealed weapons permits. I bet my opponent would not want to explain the legal ramifications of concealed weapons permits to the families of those innocent victims. • STEP 4: My rebuttal is stronger than the reason given by my opponent because she failed to mention all the requirements to get a concealed weapon and there will continue to be innocent victims – some who are authorized to carry weapons – as long as we have concealed weapons.

19. DO ATTACK NEW ARGUMENTS FIRST Debaters should prioritize by rebutting the latest arguments from their opponents FIRST. These arguments are fresh and attacking them quickly ensures that they will not linger in the minds of the judges. Meaning try to rebut the 3rd reason before the 2nd reason. So the debaters MUST attack these points first. If these arguments are left for the later parts of the speech, they may not be given sufficient time for proper rebuttal.

20. Do complete the attack Some debaters tend to only point out the shortcomings of an argument without actually attacking its logic in full. Meaning they do steps 1 and 2 but that is it. For instance, Debaters often describe an argument as lacking examples or not having any strong logic but fail to do anything more. You must provide a hard fact as well as explain why your rebuttal trumps their reason So, rebuttal should always ensure all four steps are done in a rebuttal.

21. Do not do one-liners Some Debaters also tend to use only a single line or two to make a rebuttal.  My opponent said the death penalty is morally wrong and I do not think so. And they are done. This is not considered a complete attack and will usually not be rewarded much content score by the judges. In order to rebut effectively, Debaters will have to complete the four step rebuttal process

22. Do not just list rebuttals Some Debaters have a habit of merely listing several “responses” to a particular argument. Meaning they start off with step three – not completely explaining which reason and part of that reason they are rebutting. Make sure you clearly align your rebuttal with one of the reasons given by your opponent and exactly what part of that reason you are rebutting.

23. Do not use Rhetorical Questions Debaters should also avoid using rhetorical questions as a substitute for rebuttals. If these questions are to be used, they must at least be answered by the Debaters themselves. Otherwise, the judges are left to answer the question for them and they will not necessarily agree with Debaters. For instance, if Debaters merely ask “but how will the opponent’s policy work?” and leave it at that, the judges may well end up thinking of several ways it could work. Further it merely provides an opening for the opponents to answer the question later and show how the policy will work!!

24. Develop rebuttals In order to successfully attack an argument, it should be rebutted completely. Ideally, an Argument will be attacked at its core logic first and then a specific part of the reason clearly identified as the part being rebutted. Then connect the hard fact and the reason why the rebuttal is superior to the reason.

25. Push to the end Wherever possible, Debaters should try to rebut an argument by taking the opposite stance. This will allow for the greatest degree of clash and the highest degree of differentiation between the two teams. For instance, for the affirmative “We should ban handguns,” the negative can argue that handguns make communities more dangerous by empowering criminals. The Opposition can make a “neutralizing” rebuttal by saying that handguns do not make communities more dangerous. However, it will be best if the Opposition can make an “attacking” rebuttal by saying that handguns make communities less dangerous and more safe since the citizens are armed and protected against criminals.

26. What if all three reasons are great? • Sometimes your opponent provided great reasons that are hard to rebut. It happens. • Instead of trying to argue that the sun does not always rise in the east. Concede the point and then work around the edges. • Talk about the ill effects of the sun • Argue the damaging effects the sun has on humans such as cancer • But do not try to argue the sun does not come up in the east – it is just a waste of time and you will look ridiculous doing it.