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
 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.
 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.
 
 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
 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.
 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.
 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
 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.
 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.
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
 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.
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
 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
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
 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
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
 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
 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.
 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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.
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.
 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.