Refutation
Refutation is important for debate because it represents true clash. When you
analyze an opposing argument, expose flaws in the reasoning or oppose the
evidence in the opposing argument, the judge will question the position of the
opposing team.
Refutation is used to:
1) Undermine the opposing argument
2) Establish your position
3) Remind the adjudicator of your advocacy
4) Establish your own arguments.
It is important to note that refuting an argument is a direct clash with the argument.
A counterargument is advancing your own position
Refutation is important for the negative and the affirmative. The first team that has
the opportunity to refute is the negative.
Structure of an argument refutation:
Direct refutation
1) Identify (They say…)
a. Refer to the argument in which you are responding
b. Rephrase the argument strategically to focus your response
2) Disagreement (I disagree…)
a. Identify the fallacy (flaw in reasoning or evidence) within the
opposing argument
3) Support (Because…)
a. Offer evidence or reasoning to support your objection
b. Backing for your counterargument
4) Impact/Objection (Therefore…)
a. Why should the judge reject this argument?
b. How does this refutation matter in the context of the debate?
Logical Fallacies
1) Fallacies in Reasoning
c. Appealing to Popularity
i. Some actions is right because it is popular
d. False analogy
i. The analogy used as support for the argument has critical
points of difference and cannot be used for the comparison
e. Hasty generalization
i. An argument generates a conclusion based off an insufficient
amount of evidence
f. Begging the Question
1)
2)
3)
4)
i. The claim and the evidence are the same thing
g. False Dilemma
i. Reducing the conflict or conclusion to two options
Fallacies in False Evidence
a. Non-Sequiter
i. The evidence ‘does not follow’ the claim
b. Red Herring
i. The evidence provided for the argument distracts from the
claim
c. Post Hoc
i. The argument points to an incorrect causal relationship
d. Slippery slope
i. A minor action leads to a major conclusion
Fallacies in Character
a. Ad Hominem
i. Attack on the person instead of the issue
b. Guilt by association
i. A person is stereotyped of characteristics because of their
association with other people
Fallacies of Emotion
a. Appealing to fear
i. Using fear as the reasoning of an argument
b. Appealing to pity
i. Using pity as the reasoning of an argument
c. Appealing to patriotism
i. Using patriotism as the reasoning of an argument
d. Appealing to tradition
i. An action/argument is true because it has happened in the past
Fallacies of Language
a. Loaded language
i. Using emotionally charged terms to insight emotion of the
decision makers
b. Equivocation
i. Using terms that have alternate meaning
c. Vagueness
i. Using unclear or ambiguous terms in an argument leads to a
false conclusion
Turn
1) Use the affirmative’s logic against them to point to a different conclusion
2) Example
a. Cats are excellent pets because they are good at catching mice.
b. Response: Cats are terrible pets because after they catch mice, they
leave the bodies on your bed.
c. Answer: Offensive—the answer reverses the original assumption that
catching mice is good. It says that catching mice is actually a bad thing.
Refutation Strategies
Strategy
Assessing
probabilities
Defining time
frames
Demonstrating the
opposite
Denial
Exposing failure to
advance an
argument
What it is
Arguing the impacts (harms or disadvantages)
asserted by your opponents are unlikely,
whereas the impacts you have identified are
more likely
Arguing the impacts you have identified are
more immediate or more long term and so
deserve attention, whereas the impacts
identified by your opponents are more remote
or temporary and so deserve less attention, if
any
Showing that the opposite conclusion should be
drawn from that which the advantage suggests
Showing when an advocate is completely wrong
Proving that the conclusions offered are
erroneous
Demonstrating arguments have not been
extended either through analysis or evidence
Exposing
inconsistencies
Pointing out inconsistencies when a speaker or
team contradicts itself.
Exposing
irrelevant
arguments
Exposing
omissions
Maximizing
Demonstrating arguments have no relevance to
the claims.
Method of
residues
Dividing that matter of dispute into two or more
sections, which includes all possibilities in the
case, then all but one are demolished - the one
left standing being the aspect of the issue which
the refuter wishes to establish.
Minimizing
(refutation by
mitigation)
Making ideas and arguments favorable to your
opponent appear insignificant
Structured
response
Asking a series of unimportant questions, which
the respondent must answer in a predetermined
way, until a pattern has been established – then
the crucial question is asked
Arguing that an argument presented by your
opponent actually supports your position.
Turning the tables
Demonstrating where advocates have failed to
respond to an issue or argument
Making ideas and arguments unfavorable to
your opponents appear highly significant
Helpful hints
This involves a comparison.
Demonstrate clearly why one is likely and the
other
is less likely.
Determine when the harms or advantages occur
and
compare times.
The more immediate the impact, the more
attention
it deserves.
Point to specifics: “Other studies do not verify the
conclusion.” “Negative instances show the
contrary.”
This is accomplished through counter evidence,
analysis and reasoning.
Point out when an advocate has failed to move the
argument further.
Advocates will, sometimes, merely repeat an
argument or evidence without countering an
argument against it. Point this out and conclude
your position has not been countered.
Be aware of where people are apt to fall into
inconsistencies in using argument.
Be sure that the inconsistency is real - that you
have
listened carefully and accurately to what was
said
and that you are not taking the whole thing out
of
context.
Identify irrelevant arguments and show why these
are not relevant.
Point out that there was no response and the
importance of the omission to their position.
If there are a few examples, then the extreme harm
or the extreme injustice in these few cases will
have to be emphasized. If additional examples of
the problem or evil can be found, it will be of the
greatest benefit.
Note if there are other possible alternatives than
just
those mentioned.
Try to see if the alternatives are mutually
exclusive.
Claim the ideas or arguments are dubious or the
evidence is questionable.
Such refutation will diminish the strength of the
advocate’s claims, but some probative
argumentative force will probably remain so use
it
in conjunction with other arguments.
Can be an effective strategy to either use in crossexamination or during a speech, if used carefully.
Make use of the evidence, arguments, or
statements
supplied by your opponent to support your own
case.
Be sure to quote opponents accurately and within
context.
Information in the chart came from
Huber, Ch. 10, http://debate.uvm.edu
Rybacki and Rybacki
Ehninger and Brockriede
Meany and Shuster