Rebuttal 101

 
As you guys know our rebuttal let us down in the last debate (even though we won). The purpose of this sheet is to give you some pointers on how to argue against specific points and what to look for in the oppositions arguments.

Models:

This was a problem which the opposition had rather than us but there were many things we could learn from it still.

When we are talking about banning or beginning something (eg. organs for profit) you need a model. A model means that you can address any possible complications with the banning or the instigation. Really, the opposition in the last debate should have had a model which explained how they were going to encourage people to donate organs without giving them money and we were lucky they didn’t. If the affirmative give a model you must take it almost as part of the definition – they have defined how the system will be introduced so there is no point in arguing, as the opposition did, that something bad will happen if their model means it won’t/can’t. The model is not an actual part of the definition though. You can rebut the model without launching a definitional challenge.

All in all think of the model as the how. You must still prove why it should happen in your arguments.

Now, how to rebut a model:

You have two choices:

1.)    accept the model

2.)    reject the model

1. This option involves saying that, if we were to instigate it, the oppositions model would be the best way of doing that but it is still not a good enough how or why to justify banning/instigating something.

eg.        using our model for the organ debate

Rebuttal: the model successfully limits the possible problems with a for-profit system of organ donation however offering money for organs is not the best way of achieving what the opposition are trying to achieve – greater numbers of organ donation. Instead if we begin an opt-out system and increase education we will be able to…

This approach really rebuts their model with another model which will achieve the same thing the opposition want (eg. increased donations in the organ debate, fewer crimes in a death penalty debate etc. – look at what the purpose of the model is). In this case, as you should have a model too, you should be able to argue against their model by using your model.

To do this:

            1. Look at the purpose of the model – what is it?

            2. Look at the topic of the debate – what is it saying?

3. Look at your model – does it have the same purpose of their model but not involve banning/instigating as the oppositions does?

4. Argue against the opposition – can you use your model? Must you use new arguments?

2. Rejecting the model isn’t really a good idea because often it borders on a definitional challenge. Very rarely will an opposition have a totally unacceptable model though. If they do, just say why the model does not fit with the topic and then continue to argue against the topic. If you can label their model irrelevant then they will not be able to use it to rebut your arguments.

eg. if the last debate had said ‘we should be able to sell our organs in an open market’ (open market means a supply and demand economy where prices fluctuate depending on how many people want a product – if there are 100 people who want 10 organs then the prices will rise so that the seller can get the best price for them and the 10 organs will be sold to the 10 people who can afford them) then we would not have been able to use our model. If we had then the opposition could have said that our model did not incorporate an open market as was defined in the topic and was therefore irrelevant.

You should only use this option if you have to and that will be very rarely. Generally you should argue against it just as you would argue against any other argument as outlined in option 1.

To do this:

            1. Look at how the model works – what does it involve

2. Look at the topic of the debate – what is it saying? Does their model go against the topic in any way?

3. If it does – label their model irrelevant as it does not relate to the topic.

Analogies:

The number one thing with analogies is that they are saying that X is like Y. Generally in debates this also involves a place as well.

We should not do X in Australia because a similar scheme, Y, in place Z did not work.

In this case you need to say which X is not like Y or why Australia is not like Z.

            eg. Why is blood for profit in the US unlike organs for profit in Australia

                        Blood – easy, quick, testing done after blood is taken

Organs – long, drawn out process, medical history taken and medicals done, tests done before the surgery and before the money is paid.

Other Issues:

Don’t be afraid to rebut rebuttal:

A. Dialysis is expensive. We should buy organs to get people off dialysis.

N. Dialysis is paid for by Medicare – cost isn’t an issue

A. Medicare isn’t a bottomless pit (Eddie you touched on this – good job!) and dialysis is awful – if we can get people off dialysis and save money why shouldn’t we do it?

Your model is a tool, not just something to take up some of the first speakers speech. If they ignore your model then get up and say so. Something like this would not have been inappropriate in the last debate:

“Whilst their second speaker very eloquently told us why the black market is bad and how if we allow organ selling in Australia we could end up with a similar situation here, our model clearly states that prices would be fixed by the government and private sales of organs would be illegal just as they are now. The issue of a black market in Australia is not relevant in this debate as our model ensures that we will not end up with a system where we legalise and condone third world organs being flown into Australia by money hungry brokers and sold for thousands to rich, desperate individuals.”

This next bit is ‘borrowed’ (paraphrased/interpreted/headings stolen and my own thoughts inserted) from chapter 9 of

Philips, J. and Hooke, J. The Sport of Debating: Winning Skills and Strategies, UNSW Press 1998.

The library has a copy of it and it is well worth a read. The best debater I know (and the DAV agreed with me – they gave him the regional best speaker award) read (and remembered) it from cover to cover in year 10 and I got a copy and read it in year 12. I wish I’d done it earlier.

            (That was a not-so-subtle hint that you guys should all go out and read it)

Types of Rebuttal

Error of fact:

This doesn’t mean pointing out that the opposition said that WWII ended in 1946 when it really ended in 1945. This is only relevant to decent rebuttal when someone uses a fact to prove or make their point and this fact is wrong. Philips and Hooke use this example:

For example, an affirmative speaker might argue: “It was his victory in the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein [purported fact] that secured President Reagan’s electoral victory in 1984, which demonstrates that people vote for leaders who win wars [interpretation].” (p. 96)

This is an error of fact because the Gulf War was in 1991 when George Bush Snr was in office. Bush was also then defeated in 1992 by Clinton – proving that even if the opposition had got their years and presidents correct the point is not correct.

Irrelevancy:

You guys should be able to recognise an irrelevant argument when you hear one. This involves stuff like in the model example I showed you before. You must not be afraid of saying that the opposition’s points are irrelevant.

Illogical Argument:

This is a tricky one to explain. Most of your rebuttal will follow this form. Philip and Hooke use the death penalty example:

(sorry, the only way I can think of explaining this is using a method of premises and conclusions I learnt in philosophy if you don’t get it, e-mail me) 

Premise 1: Crime is increasing

Premise 2: The way to stop crime is to be heavy handed

Premise 3: The death penalty is a heavy handed punishment

Conclusion: Therefore we should instigate the death penalty to stop crime

In this argument the premise ‘the way to stop crime is to be heavy handed’ is not necessarily correct and to say that the death penalty will stop crime does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Basically, look logically at their arguments. If they don’t seem to make sense or the premises don’t lead to the conclusion it is illogical.

Unacceptable Implications:

This is where an argument makes sense but the consequences of it are such that the argument should not be used. For example, in a debate that we should instigate the death penalty the opposition could say that we need to instigate the death penalty and then deny appeals as they cost too much and often do not change the result. This may be correct – trials are expensive and much of the cost of the death penalty is in court time and appeals but because this approach means throwing away the basis of our justice system it is unacceptable.

A clichéd example of this is the “can we put a cost on a human life” argument – that no cost is too great to save a life and cutting costs and causing death is a bad thing.

Arguments of Little Weight:

These are simply arguments which, whilst they may be true, are so tiny that they are useless. They are normally easy to spot.

Also be on the look out for inconsistencies. This was one point the opposition picked us up on in the last debate (although I don’t think you were being inconsistent you didn’t explain how ‘relieving financial pressure’ wasn’t the same as ‘selling an organ to pay of the latest bill’). If you can point out that a team is being inconsistent you can cast their whole point into doubt by questioning what they really mean and what they are really arguing.