Rebuttal Workshop

Good Shepherd Debating

Rebuttal

To illustrate this point, it is a useful to think of a team case as a large tree. The overall proposition that the team is trying to establish is like the trunk. The arguments which support the proposition are like branches. Finally, the leaves are the examples which attach themselves to the branches. Trading lists of examples is like shaking the tree, causing some leaves to fall but allowing the tree to remain largely intact. Rebuttal may therefore be more effective if its intention is to attack the trunk and branches, rather than shake the tree. The exception to this is where certain examples raised in debates become crucial to the overall proposition being advanced by a team.

Two Spheres of Rebuttal

• There is offensive rebuttal which attacks the opposition’s case.

• There is also defensive or counter rebuttal which defends your case and explains why it is a better option.

• In rebuttal try to have arguments from both spheres, particularly as second and third speakers

Types of Rebuttal Against Arguments

• ERROR: Argument is based on an error of fact or a flawed interpretation. Look for misrepresented facts and/or examples.

• PROOF: Lack of proof and explanation in the argument. Look for assumptions.

• RELEVANCE: Argument is irrelevant • LOGIC: Argument is illogical, does not flow, lack of casual

links. Look for a lack of flow or causality.• IMPLICATION: Argument involves unacceptable implication.

Use a logical extension approach.• WEIGHT: Argument has little weight or significance

Types of Rebuttal Against Team Case

• Inconsistency: there is a difference or change in argument, stance, rebuttal or explanation between the speakers

• Invalid Case: in a comparative debate, one team only discusses the benefits of one concept e.g reward and doesn’t acknowledge the other e.g. punishment

• Hung case: Moral and practical arguments are split between first and second speaker and a conclusion can only be drawn at the end of the second speaker

Team Strategy

• CHALLENGES: a request to answer or a resolve a particular issue in the team case. An effective strategy if used by all speakers consistently.

• BURDEN OF PROOF: setting yourself a reasonable burden to prove. Accuse teams of setting a low burden sometimes called squirrelling a debate. Think what do we have to do to win this debate? What is our strategic approach?

• EVEN Ifs: After rebuttal an argument on it’s merit use an even if e.g. Even if your model is correct in principle, it would be too difficult and too expensive to implement.

TOPIC: That Australians care for asylum seekers.

Australian taxpayers foot the bill for our government’s refugee quote. Everyday Australian’s are paying for offshore processing facilities, health services, not to mention the administrative requirements for the majority of refuges who arrive via air. We care about displaced people, refugees who are persecuted, that is why we take action as taxpayers funding the intake of our refugee quota. Many Australians even volunteer to teach newly arrived refugees English through the Australians Migrant English Program. It is clear that everyday Australians care about asylum seekers, otherwise they would dispute this allocation of funds.

Rebut: ERROR, LOGIC, PROOF, IMPLICATION, WEIGHT, EVEN IF, BURDEN OF PROOF, CAUSALITY etc etc

Now write a rebuttal point that attacks this argument in three ways, then present.

Rebuttal in the form of POIs• Australians care about asylum seekers because they are discussed in

the media, the media that we consume everyday.

• CASUALITY / LOGIC: Who said the media directly reflects the views of Australians?

• LOGICAL EXTENSION: If our views are reflected in the media, how does the media supposedly respond to reflect every aspect of our values, especially after the riots in Manus?

• TRUISM: an argument based on a fact that is self evident. There is usually no further interpretation and/or elaboration. The above argument is truistic.