What is Rebuttal?

Rebuttal is where you respond to the points made by the opposition. Often the best, most lively, and most effective debating happens off the top of people’s heads as they begin to rip into what their opponents have tried to argue. This is where debating comes to life!

The most common criticism adjudicators have is that debaters do not do enough rebuttal. As a general guide, speakers should aim to spend the following proportions of their speeches rebutting the opposing team’s arguments:

• First Speaker (Negative): Approximately 25 % of speaking time.
• Second Speakers: Approximately 25 to 35 % of speaking time.
• Third Speakers: Approximately 80 to 90 % of speaking time.

Rebuttal is essential to debating, and everyone except the first affirmative will need to rebut. Rebuttal is where you explain the flaws in the other team’s arguments. The most effective rebuttals will attack the core of an opposition’s argument as being ILLOGICAL or IRRELEVANT to the topic, and it is always better to attack the argument itself rather than the example or evidence they use to back it up.

However, you don’t always have to argue that the other team is completely wrong: you can also argue that their argument is correct but should be awarded little weight, that the positive outcomes are outweighed by the negatives, that your team’s arguments are more likely, and so on. Always remember that you are attacking the points the other team makes – not the opposition speakers themselves – and never use insults.

The Grounds for Rebuttal

As a general rule, you can rebut an argument on one or more of the following six grounds:

1. Illogical: the reasoning upon which their argument is based simply doesn’t make sense;
2. Irrelevant: the argument has little to do with the actual topic of the debate;
3. Inaccurate: the factual information they presented is incorrect;
4. Unacceptable: there are other consequences or effects which make what they are proposing unacceptable;
5. Unclear: their argument has not been explained in sufficient detail, with key things left out (you must explain what makes it unclear);
6. Marginal: their argument may be correct, but it is a relatively minor point, and your arguments are, in comparison, much more significant.

The Structure of a Rebuttal

The key to good rebuttal is practice. Always give it a shot, reflect on how you went, and over time you will improve. Once you leave the debate, try to think of that perfect comeback, and eventually you will be able to do so during the debate itself.

It is also highly recommended that your team spends time before a debate trying to figure out what the other side’s arguments are likely to be (and how you can rebut them). This is a necessity for third speakers, and nearly all of their speech is rebuttal.

Don’t overthink rebuttal. It is actually quite straightforward. You only need to do two things: tell us what they said (briefly) and then tell us why you thought it was wrong. A typical rebuttal could go think this:

Examples of Rebuttal

Below you can find examples of how the above six grounds of rebuttal could be used. Each example states and opposing argument and then states the problem with it. Note that these are not full rebuttals: ideally additional explanation of these flaws would be provided, as well as an explanation of why your own position is better.

Illogical

The reasoning upon which the argument is based simply doesn’t make sense.
 .

The affirmative team has tried to argue that outlawing hate speech would lead to government control of the media and the emergence of a totalitarian society in Australia. However, they have not explained how this process would take place nor provided any evidence as to why such an outcome is likely in a stable western democracy such as Australia.

The negative team has argued that the death penalty should not be used because the state cannot give life, and therefore should not take it. However, the government regularly takes things that it did not create: taxation, time, the environment, etc.

Irrelevant

The argument has little to do with the actual topic of the debate.
  .

The study that the affirmative team provided discussed children aged 8 to 10 years old. However, our topic is discussing secondary school students, who are much older than this. It is therefore irrelevant to this topic.

  .

  .

Inaccurate

The information or examples they presented is factually incorrect.
  .

The negative team tried to argue that vaccines should not be mandatory because they have been linked to causing Autism. This is completely inaccurate, as the only study linking vaccination and Autism has been repeatedly disproven by subsequent studies, and the authors of this study have had their medical licences revoked due to grossly inappropriate conduct and fabricating results. Because of this factual error, the argument should be given no weight.

The affirmative team tried to argue that marijuana should be legalised because it has no harmful effects. This is factually inaccurate as marijuana has been linked to a wide variety of health problems, such as heart disease, lung problems, learning difficulties, impaired long and short term memory, and the development of psychosis.

Unacceptable

There are other consequences or effects, beyond what the opposition has mentioned, which make what they are proposing unacceptable.
 .

The affirmative has tried to argue that we should legalise euthanasia because it allows people to die with dignity. However, it would be impossible to separate this ‘choice’ from wider pressures upon the terminally ill to end their lives, which gives rise to unacceptable consequences. Not only could family members put pressure on people to ‘end their suffering’ and move on, but more importantly this sends the message that society believes that people should die when they become a burden on others.

‘Slippery slope’ arguments will often fall under this category.  

Unclear

Their argument has not been explained in sufficient detail, with key things left out. You must explain what makes it unclear.
.

The affirmative team has not explained how this is practical given the huge cost of setting up and operating such a program/they have not explained how this can be achieved/etc.

The negative team has argued that companies should be made to hire more people. However, they have not explained how this is possible as forcing companies to do this would cost them too much money and risk mass bankruptcies.

The other team has not explained how something will be achieved – they have made an assertion that could hold some truth, but it is not yet clear how it will be achieved. Without more detail, it’s not linked to their argument/outcome/model/etc.

Marginal

Their argument may be correct, but it is a relatively minor point. Your arguments are, in comparison, much more significant.
 .

We concede that, by spending the money on X we can’t spend it on healthcare, but the amount of money required by this program is so small that it would only, at best, have a marginal impact on these larger issues.

Even if we were to accept the affirmative’s argument that drum lines could help stop shark attacks, it would only have a marginal impact on swimmer safety. On average less than one person a year dies of shark attacks in Western Australia, with many more people dying to X, Y and Z. Because of it’s marginal significance, we believe that the negative effects of … should be given more weight.

Other Approaches to Rebuttal

There are many, many, many ways to rebut an argument. Here is a list of just a few of the more common ways in which an argument can be rebutted:

• Collective points do not amount to a case.
• Cause and effect are poorly linked.
• Cause and effect claims are illogical.
• Case stated and repeated but not really established.
• Case can be inverted against the opposition – the evidence can support a different or opposite claim.
• Argument can have dangerous blind spots – make sure you show them.
• Potential implication of the case are morally or practically unacceptable: eg “If we accept their case then we are condoning murder…”; “If we push this argument to its logical conclusion…” – a.k.a ‘slippery slope’ arguments.
• Practical applications are forbidding and counterproductive.
• Implied values are unfair and not humane.
• Inadequate evidence/substantiation or dubious sources.
• Gross generalizations about…
• Relying on narrow examples.
• Ignoring instances conveniently (i.e. ‘cherry picking’ of examples or outcomes).
• Point out contradictions or bias.
• Concede that it may be a valid point but the arguments against are far more important or convincing.
• Draw out the consequences of their position to show how dangerous it could be for their argument and how misguided it is.

With models especially, there are other possible flaws which can be exploited:

• It is based on flawed assumptions about the nature of things.
• It cannot be put into effect: impractical, too narrow, ill-conceived or vague.
• It does not address the actual problem.
• The negative effects outweigh the claimed benefits.
• It actually has the opposite effect.

.

.

Thematic Rebuttal

Adjudicators love ‘thematic rebuttal’. It is one of the crown jewels of debating. Yet strangely, despite it being very easy to do, many debaters forget about its existence.

The idea behind thematic rebuttal is quite straightforward: rather than simply reciting and responding to the opposition’s arguments in the order they presented them (or worse, in a completely random order), you group them together in a way that is logical and deal with similar arguments at the same time. Just like in your team split, you are able to gather the opposing team’s arguments (and hence your own rebuttal) under common ‘themes’. If the other team is good, they will give you their team split. Write it down, and group together all of your points under the categories they give you. If they were too disorganised to offer a thematic team split, then group them together yourself, perhaps by putting all of the environmental arguments on one card, all the economic arguments on another, and so on.

Adjudicators are a strange bunch, and nothing pleases them more than when a speaker (and especially a third speaker) stands up and says: “Tonight the opposition has presented three themes: environmental, social and economic. I will now discuss these three areas one at a time. Firstly, in relation to the supposed environmental benefits, they have argued… These points are incorrect because… This was also disproved by our own argument that…” and so on.

Another useful way of approaching thematic rebuttal is to try and reduce the debate down to two or three key questions that the debate revolved around, explaining how the oppositions answer to the question was incorrect and your team’s answer was correct.

So that, in a nutshell, is thematic rebuttal. While it may sound fancy, it is actually quite simple, so get into the habit of using it. Remember: make your thematic groupings as clear as possible. Then you will be able to destroy your opponent’s arguments in one eloquently-argued swoop, ideally with reference to the case your team has just presented.

Another explanation of thematic rebuttal can be found by clicking here and looking on the DAV’s website.

Putting it into Practice!

Click here for some practical exercises you can do to improve your manner score.