In fact, the process of refuting the opponent's argument and proving that their argument is wrong is the most exciting part of a debate process, especially because the plot will be very difficult to predict. In the process, your team must refute all the arguments given by the opponent to prove that their arguments are wrong and have no impact on the case being discussed. To give a quality rebuttal, make sure you really understand your team's arguments, anticipate counterarguments that may arise, and understand the various strategies for refuting your opponent's arguments.
Step
Part 1 of 3: Building a Strong Rebuttal
Step 1. Know your argument
Make sure you fully understand the topic being raised, your position in the topic, the reasons you chose that position, and the evidence you will use to support that reasoning. It's easier to understand arguments if you have a written case. But if not, you can still maintain the quality of the argument by taking notes throughout the debate process.
- If you have a written case, study the case carefully and outline the argument before the debate takes place. Underline important statements and understand where the evidence you are going to provide is coming from.
- If you don't have a written case, make sure you first examine the evidence that will be presented and prepare some arguments that can be built on the topic of the debate. Doing so will help you to choose arguments or supporting evidence more quickly during the debate.
Step 2. Write down your 3 or 4 main arguments
Since the opposing team will attack your argument, carefully understand your main argument to anticipate their attack and think about the relevant rebuttal afterwards.
- This method is easier to implement if you have a written case. If you have a written case, simply highlight and summarize your main argument.
- If you don't have a written case, try choosing the most likely argument that builds on the topic at hand.
- For example, you might write: "My main argument is that peanut products should be removed from the school environment because they can endanger the lives of students who are allergic to peanuts. I would argue that the potential harm is so great that it is a very significant issue to raise. In the end, I would argue that removing the product is the easiest and cheapest way to solve the problem when compared to other solutions, such as building a new canteen or moving students with allergies."
Step 3. Identify possible objections to your argument
The process of identifying these objections must be carried out before the actual debate process takes place. Knowing your opponent's possible objections will give you more time to think about the right response. Therefore, review the 3 or 4 main arguments that you will give, and try to attack your own arguments. After that, devise a plan to counter the attack.
- To enrich your understanding, try asking some debate partners to refute your argument.
- Think of some of the rebuttals you might give in response to their objections. By doing this exercise regularly, you will definitely be helped to more easily rebuttal to the actual debate process.
- For example, the opposing team might argue that the percentage of students who are allergic to peanuts is so small that the issue is insignificant to discuss.
- To respond to this argument, try to provide evidence to show that the allergic reaction is so dangerous that the issue is significant. Also provide evidence that the number of people who are allergic to food is increasing over time.
Step 4. Always monitor the arguments given by your team and the opposing team
Make sure you always record all the arguments your team – and the opposing team – give. By doing so, you will also know if the opposing team failed to refute your argument and make your team entitled to win points from the jury.
Try saying, "In their final rebuttal, the opposing team did not respond to my attack on the relevance of their plan. Since the opposing team ignored the rebuttal, it is clear that our team won the argument."
Step 5. Create a framework of arguments that you can use as a reference while providing rebuttals
Don't waste time writing all the details of your argument. In addition to wasting your preparatory time, you're more likely to need to constantly look at your disclaimer and fail to make eye contact with the jury. Instead, summarize your argument in a structured framework so you can use it as a reference when rebutting your opponent. The general structure of the argumentation framework that you can emulate:
- A. Refuting the counterargument – This issue is important because the danger of allergies to peanuts is enormous and the number of students affected by it is increasing every year
- B. Relevance – The evidence provided by the opponent is irrelevant to my team's position
- C. Negative impact – The available evidence suggests that the opposing team's plans will exacerbate the problem. Meanwhile, my team's proof of being able to reduce the problem
- D. Examples – The examples given by the opposing team are logically flawed – read the evidence
- E. Restate the team position
Part 2 of 3: Delivering a Solid Disclaimer
Step 1. Attack the opponent's most recent argument
Most debates provide ample time for both teams to provide more than one rebuttal. Start attacking the most recent arguments first, especially since they are bound to be fresh in the minds of the jury.
- Take the time to briefly review your argument.
- If you believe you've won an argument (or if the opposing team's argument proves wrong), immediately summarize your entire argument briefly to remind the jury that your argument should be won.
Step 2. Remind the jury of the opponent's argument
Summarize the opponent's statement in one short sentence; start with the most refutable or most crucial argument on the topic.
Try saying, "Our opponents insist on keeping one of the most common allergens into our school environment, regardless of how many students are at risk of exposure to the sap."
Step 3. Reaffirm your position
Remind the jury of your argument, and point out that it was the better option in the current situation. Choose your words wisely and take care to make the most of your arguments sound.
Try saying, “All students need a safe educational environment. So far we have stopped sending students to schools that are rich in asbestos fibre. From now on, we have to stop sending students to schools that still provide peanuts in their canteens.”
Step 4. Give the jury two options to emphasize the urgency of your rebuttal
Present your argument in a persuasive way, but try to package it in a way that makes the jury think they have a choice. It also shows that in fact, the jury does not have to bother choosing because the two options are very contradictory.
- For example, try saying, "The choice is simple: We can protect students from allergic attacks that can threaten their lives, or we can still allow some students to eat peanut butter at lunch."
- The argument implicitly states that a crucial health issue is juxtaposed with something as trivial as serving a peanut butter sandwich at lunch.
Step 5. Explain why your argument is the best
Reconnect your argument to the topic, and present evidence to support it. Explain to the jury why the evidence is so solid to support your argument; Also emphasize why your argument is better than the opponent's. While it really depends on the number of arguments you want to refute, it generally takes a few minutes to do so.
- Do not give reasons that are not accompanied by an explanation. Remember, your rebuttal is very dependent on how you explain an argument.
- For example, try saying, "Our plan to remove peanut products from school canteens fulfills our goal of creating a safer learning environment by eliminating common potential risks. The available evidence suggests that the threat of allergies to peanuts is enormous, and that every day, the number of students experiencing allergies in schools is increasing. Therefore, the easiest and cheapest way to protect students is to eliminate peanut products. Please vote for our argument to create a safer school environment for all students."
Step 6. Show why your winning argument deserves consideration by the jury
Chances are, your team and the opposing team will win the argument alternately throughout the debate. However, understand that the jury still has to choose one winner. Therefore, show that your argument is able to provide the most appropriate solution to the problem raised, and therefore is very worthy of consideration by the jury to choose the winner.
- For example, relevance is one of the factors that can win an argument because an irrelevant argument will not have any impact. Therefore, try to show that the opponent's argument is irrelevant to the topic at hand so that your argument deserves to be won.
- For example, try saying, "The opposing team argues that sugary foods should be banned, not peanut butter. However, that argument is irrelevant to my case. Therefore, there is not a single piece of evidence about the dangers of sugary foods that they give you that is worth considering.."
Step 7. Provide a conclusion that prompts the jury to select your argument
Try to summarize your argument briefly and ask the jury to support your position.
For example, try saying, “The evidence my team has provided has shown that the opponent's argument is irrelevant and fails to resolve the issue. In addition, the opposing team has also made the wrong assumption, namely that peanuts can only cause allergic reactions when consumed. Based on all these reasons, the jury must support my team's position."
Step 8. Don't just ignore the argument
Remember, arguments that are not elaborated are vulnerable to being picked up by other teams and used as a boomerang to attack you. Even if your argument loses, at least still mention it in your rebuttal before moving on to a stronger argument. If the opposing team manages to show that you ignored an argument, the situation will look much worse to the jury than hearing you admit it yourself.
Also pay attention to the arguments that the opposing team ignores. Make sure you present the situation to the jury and state that you have won the argument by a landslide
Part 3 of 3: Reducing the Opponent's Value
Step 1. Show that the opposing team's argument or evidence is irrelevant
Sometimes, your opponents will provide arguments or pieces of evidence that are not really relevant to their position. Generally, this kind of argument will be difficult to identify because it is still in the corridor of the right topic. However, always remember that their job is to show evidence of their position, not just to make statements that they deem relevant.
For example, you might argue that peanuts should be removed from school lunches to protect students with peanut allergies. If afterward the opposing team argued that peanuts were a healthy snack and rich in protein, the argument was actually irrelevant because they had to be able to show that the presence of peanuts in the school canteen would not harm the health of students with allergies
Step 2. Break the chain of logic in the opponent's argument
Look for loopholes that undermine your opponent's logic and don't align with your opponent's position, statement, or evidence. Give reasons why you think their logic is flawed and unreasonable.
For example, the opposing team stated that 50% of students asked for peanuts to remain on the school lunch menu. Therefore, the policy of eliminating peanuts may violate the rights of those 50% of students. If that's the case, you could argue that their logic is flawed because the opportunity to eat and access peanuts doesn't qualify as a right
Step 3. Point out that the opposing team has made the wrong assumption
Through this strategy, you acknowledge that your opponent's argument sounds good enough, but remains weak because they are drawing conclusions based on faulty assumptions.
- For example, the opposing team argued that students who were allergic to nuts would still be safe as long as all foods containing nuts were labeled. In fact, you can refute this argument because the opposing team has assumed that an allergic reaction will only occur if they eat the nuts. In fact, some people can have an allergic reaction to peanut protein without having to eat it.
- Or, you can admit the truth of some of the arguments, but refute something more important. For example, peanut butter is an inexpensive source of protein and can be purchased anywhere before students arrive at school. Then, emphasize that the safety of students with allergies is much more important and should be prioritized.
Step 4. Weaken the impact of the opponent's argument
Through this strategy, you acknowledge that the opposing team managed to touch the issue, but failed to fix anything. Since their argument doesn't make much difference, your argument should be the winner after that.
For example, the opposing team may refute your rebuttal by arguing that non-allergic students could eat peanuts outside the cafeteria. If that's the case, emphasize that peanut residue that may be left in the environment outside the canteen can still harm allergic students. Thus, their argument failed to provide any solution to the problem
Step 5. Attack the most basic arguments if the opposing team provides more than one argument
Sometimes, the opposing team will provide two arguments which, when combined, will form a stronger argument. If all of the arguments are based on one main argument, try to break them all at once.
If the opposing team argues that banning peanuts can violate students' rights and result in fear of authorities, refute the entire argument by pointing out that a policy of eliminating peanuts will not violate students' rights
Step 6. Point out the contradictions in their arguments
Sometimes, the opponent will give two quality arguments that are actually contradictory or contradictory to the topic issue. If the opposing team makes that mistake, try to fight them using arguments that come out of their own mouths.
For example, the opposing team argued that the number of students bringing peanuts to school was so low that the potential risk was minimal. After that, they argued that peanuts should be allowed in the school cafeteria because most students wanted them. The two statements are actually contradictory so you can easily refute
Step 7. Show why their argument is impractical
Chances are, the opposing team will present arguments that solve the problem but are difficult to implement due to lack of money, time, resources, public opinion, or other relevant logical reasons. If that's the case, take advantage of the impracticality to refute your opponent's argument.
For example, the opposing team suggested that schools should provide a special area for students who want to eat and store peanuts, and provide a special sink to wash their hands at the exit. In fact, although it is able to protect students with allergies, the policy requires a very large cost so that it is difficult to implement
Step 8. Counter the example the opposing team gave at the last moment
If you have time, try refuting the various examples given to refute their argument (such as anecdotes, analogies, or historical facts). Choose the worst example and explain to the jury why it is so weak and/or unable to support the opponent's argument.
- For example, you could state that the anecdote could actually be fabricated or why the analogy given does not support an argument.
- Counter weak examples first, and keep moving until your time is up. Make sure you still have time to summarize the disclaimer and come up with a final conclusion.
Tips
- Focus on the most important arguments.
- Discuss with your teammates. Believe me, working together is much better than thinking alone. While the opposing team is giving its argument, pass your notes to your teammates.
- Practice using possible analogies or presuppositions.
- Don't just know information. Instead, know where the information came from so you can submit an accurate and reliable disclaimer.
Warning
- Remember, what you have to attack is the argument, not the opposing team's personality.
- Don't spend too long on one rebuttal.
