Outline

- Basics
- Rebuttal Goals (including examples and drills)
- Structuring Rebuttal
- Common Errors
- Bonus: dealing with factual clashes

BASICS

LISTENING is very important.

◦ You have to know what you are responding to.
◦ Make sure you understand the argument.
◦ PRIORITIZE
◦ You can’t respond to everything. Make sure you are responding to the STRONGEST
PARTS of their case:
Identifying the strongest part of their case:
o What do they need to prove to win? Attack that.
o What’s hurting your case the most? Respond to that.
o What have they proven successfully?
o What has your team not responded to yet?

REBUTTAL GOALS: What are you trying to do with your rebuttal?

(a) Direct attack

1. Prove that their claim is untrue
2. (If possible) flip it: IF it is true, that it is actually helpful to your side
(b) Prove that their argument is less important (or unimportant) even if it is true
1. Show that the harm applies to their case too (if possible)
2. Minimise the impact of their claim / mitigate (if possible)
3. Weigh it against your counter-claims
● Best-case, worst-case comparisons
(c) Prove that their argument does not have the analytical links to support the conclusion

Direct attack: Proving that an argument is untrue

- This is usually the strongest rebuttal and the most straightforward. But this is not always
possible because some arguments are hard to directly disprove.

Example: THBT countries should pay reparations to former colonies

Opposition:
Today’s generation did not benefit from the crimes committed by their ancestors. Reparations
are unfair because it will affect their quality of life.

Rebuttal:
That is not true. Some of their national wealth comes from extracting resources and labour
from their colonies. Current citizens benefit from this wealth in the form of public services.

Direct attack: Flipping the argument

- Say why it causes harms.

- Flip the argument – explain why it is exactly as told, EXCEPT it works in your favour.

Example: THW ban prostitution

Proposition:
 Most people who engage in prostitution are poor. They are desperate and vulnerable,
which means it’s a false choice and we need to protect them.

Rebuttal: Flip and prove harms

If this is true, then banning it will not change the fact that they will continue to engage in it, but
this time with no control over their working conditions (flip)
If this were true, their alternatives are worse (harm)

Drill:

Argument: Immigrants create more costs for their host countries

Is it true?
How do you flip?

Argument: Tougher sentences will make people less likely to commit crimes because people
will be fearful of the consequences. Therefore, tougher sentences for crime will make society
safe.

Is it true?
How do you flip?

Proving that an argument is less important

- It is rare that the other side does not prove anything. THEREFORE, you MUST protect
against this by explaining why even if the argument is true, your arguments matter more
anyway.
- If you refuse to concede ANYTHING, you may sound unreasonable. Or you may waste too
much time trying to disprove the obvious.

- What can you do if the argument seems true?

MITIGATION: Minimise or neutralise the impact.

WEIGHING. Even if it is true, “this argument is NOT AS IMPORTANT AS… another argument
we brought”.

Example: Minimising impact

Argument: We need to criminalise libel to prevent journalists from making up accusations

against public figures

Response:
- Journalists have an incentive to safeguard their reputation, so they are unlikely to do this;
- Competition in media is a check
- There are already editorial standards and sanctions
- The benefit is VERY small.
- The cost is HUGE: this can be weaponised against the free press!

Example: Mitigation and Weighing

Motion: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should intervene in cases of
human rights violations of member-nations

Proposition Argument: This policy is necessary because are so many human rights abuses
that are taking place in ASEAN countries and ASEAN is sending a message that these
abuses are acceptable by not intervening (true)

(a) Mitigation: There is no need for ASEAN to do this because its member-nations already
subscribe to international binding human rights agreements. [Shows that even if ASEAN does
not protect human rights, there may be other ways to do it]

(b) Weighing: If ASEAN does this, some member nations such as Myanmar or the Philippines
may withdraw, thereby weakening the economic alliance or leading to a collapse. [Directly
shows that the policy doesn’t solve the problem and makes it worse]

Example: Mitigation and Weighing

THW provide financial reparations to historically oppressed indigenous groups

Proposition Argument:
These groups deserve reparations for the harms we have caused them historically, which are
still felt now (true)
Financial compensation means better quality of life because money is important to reduce
poverty and they can invest it (also true)

Opposition:
Mitigation: Money = short-term benefits only, especially if lack entrepreneurial skills
Weighing: Challenge the second part: Is money the best way? What is the tradeoff? Political
capital for more sustainable solutions (land rights, political representation, education, etc.)

Proving that an argument does not have the analytical links to support the
conclusion

a. Pinpoint which part of the argument you have a problem with. This can be:
i. an unproven assumption or an incorrect or flawed premise
ii. logical gaps
iii. a contradiction/logical inconsistency,
iv. a major factual inaccuracy,
v. an unexplained example,
vi. there is an alternative conclusion that fits their evidence (for example, lower
crime rate does not necessarily mean lower crime – it could mean people are
afraid to report; higher reporting may not mean more crime, it could mean
people are more empowered to report)

Drill

Argument: Green tech is expensive. If we shift to green technology, businesses will

collapse and people will lose jobs.

Attack this.
D:advocate:
- How expensive is this shift?
- Won’t new jobs be created?
- What about the costs incurred by pollution?
- Won’t mass production of green tech drive down costs?

Structure

b. Mention which argument you are responding to.

c. Summarize that argument. Use this opportunity to clarify the argument you are
responding to if it was unclearly presented. Be quick but be fair.
d. You can have multiple problems with it (different responses). Outline this so it’s easy
to follow.
e. Analyze each problem and show why it disproves the mentioned argument.
f. Emphasize how this problem impacts their case.
g. Move on to next argument/rebuttal
 Specifically for BP:

Responsive material CAN be considered extensions, especially if they are new, fresh,
and introduce new lines of analysis to the debate.

Therefore, it is important that you take note of how to properly use rebuttals as a closing
team in BP. For the opening teams, the principles of rebuttal remain largely similar to what
happens in 3v3.

In Closing, when responding, make sure you AVOID the following -

1) Using rebuttals that the opening has already used against the opposing team.
Repeated rebuttals often only serve to reinforce the importance of Opening’s material.

- If your rebuttals are similar, you want to make sure you are introducing new lines of
analysis to tack on to the same premise - for instance, use Even If tiers, or new
characterisations and contexts, or introduce comparatives that the Opening has not used.

2) Using the same language as the Opening teams in responding to arguments.

- As far as possible, you want to use a different set of terms and language in order to
respond to the argument. Even if the premises and analyses are similar at certain points,
try to find synonyms, or a different way in which to express the same idea, in order to
avoid similarities being drawn between yourself and the opening team.

Stuff you should try to do -

1) As far as possible, you want to use your extension as rebuttals.

If your extension is a new context, situate your rebuttals in the new context and show
why they are worse there.
If your extension is a brand new argument, as far as possible, try using that argument
to respond to the arguments in the top half, and show why they break deadlocks that
remain unresolved

→ Deadlocks are clashes that do not have a settled answer in the opening half. For
instance, both sides might have asserted a differing characterisation about a
particular actor, with both sides providing one or two lines of analysis that are not
determinative of the outcome. Find these deadlocks, and try to show why one is more
persuasive than the other. This helps with generating the kind of responsive material
that is considered substantive contributions to the debate.

2) Make a concerted effort to explain why your rebuttals are distinct and new as
compared to the Opening’s.

Do this by explaining where Opening’s rebuttals leave off, and what exactly you are
adding. Make sure you stress the importance of the rebuttal you are forwarding in
resolving a clash in the debate, and why your analysis is uniquely important to
winning an argument.

VII: Common Errors

Common Error 1: “Root cause”

“This does not solve the problem/ is not the root cause of the problem”
- Take into account net benefit! Something doesn’t HAVE to solve the root of the problem to be
valuable.
- Some things don’t have ONE root cause!
 • Ex. TH regrets cosmetic surgery
• Proposition says cosmetic surgery reinforces racial and gender hierarchies because it
feeds on people’s insecurities
• It’s not enough for Opp to say ‘banning does not solve the root cause’ of patriarchy
and racism (Prop is still reducing it!)
• Individual as best judge of what helps them most

Common Error 2: Not being comparative

◦ If you accuse the other side of a harm, make sure it doesn’t apply to you (or that it
applies to a significantly less extent)
◦ If one team proposes invasion of a rogue state, and you propose sanctions on the
population, you cannot accuse them of radicalizing the population without showing
how you do it less

Common Error 3: Straw man

- A straw man is light and easy to take down. To “straw man” means to substitute a person’s
actual position with a distorted and weaker version that is easier to beat.

Drill: Ask them to explain why the ff: responses are a strawman.

Argument: We need to reduce our defense budget and spend on environmental protection
instead.
Strawman: The previous speaker would like to abolish the army and leave us defenseless.

Argument: We should also include sex education in the curriculum.

Strawman: The previous speaker wants to pressure young people to have sex.

Argument: We should focus on rehabilitation instead of retribution.

Strawman: The previous speaker supports violence and lawlessness.

Common Error 4: Not assuming the strongest version

Being too happy when the other side has weak arguments
- This is how you lose to back-heavy teams
- Best solution: BUILD UP the argument (but make sure to clarify that you’re analyzing for
them!) and THEN rebut it

Common Error 5: Example ping pong

• It is not enough to use examples to rebut the other side’s arguments-by-example

• That will, at best, give you a deadlock. To win the rebuttal, go a step further and ANALYZE
why your rebuttal is likely to make more sense.

Dealing with factual clashes in the debate

If there is a disagreement about facts that are important in the debate, do one or more of these
three things:
- Don’t just state the opposite: explain why your version is more plausible/believable
- Provide explanations for why, regardless of whose version is correct, your case stands
- Direct judges to other more important parts of the debate so you do not rely on this factual
clash to persuade them

For example: If one side says “Chinese citizens did not want to host the Olympics”, don’t simply say,
“Oh yes they did!”.
You can first say: “Chinese citizens protested outside the embassies of countries that suggested that
the Olympics should be moved elsewhere. And Chinese citizens attended the Olympic games in full
force.” This demonstrates that your version is more plausible.

You can also say: “It does not matter if some Chinese people were not happy with hosting the
Olympics. It was economically and politically strategic for China to do so, and for as long as they
provided a qualified bid, they deserved to host”. This shows that regardless of who is factually
correct, you are winning.

You can also say: “It is generally impossible to determine the level of public support for hosting
international sports competitions because this is not a voting issue in elections”. This allows you to
direct judges to other issues such as hosting capacity and effect on sports
ey did!”.

You can first say: “Chinese citizens protested outside the embassies of countries that suggested that
the Olympics should be moved elsewhere. And Chinese citizens attended the Olympic games in full
force.” This demonstrates that your version is more plausible.

You can also say: “It does not matter if some Chinese people were not happy with hosting the
Olympics. It was economically and politically strategic for China to do so, and for as long as they
provided a qualified bid, they deserved to host”. This shows that regardless of who is factually
correct, you are winning.

You can also say: “It is generally impossible to determine the level of public support for hosting
international sports competitions because this is not a voting issue in elections”. This allows you to
direct judges to other issues such as hosting capacity and effect on sports