Refutation & Rebuttal

In debate, you will be required to respond to the various other arguments presented within rounds. And despite case construction being the essential backbone of any argumentation presented, refutation and rebuttal are what bring on the argumentative “back-and-forth” nature of a debate. However, as outlined by the NSDA (National Speech & Debate Association), speakers need to aim to: identify and discuss the biggest questions and clashes in the debate, rebut the most crucial points, and contribute original refutation to have a productive round.

Do’s and Dont’s

Do’s	Dont's
Identify the largest questions around central points of clash Refute the most notably important contentions made by the opposing bench Continue to formulate new lines of analysis and extensions within pre-existing refutation Create new rebuttals Structurally organize rebuttals (i.e., signposting, offering the comparative mechanization and impact) Use the established framework to your advantage when it comes to weighing the debate/worlds Respond to refutation given by your opponents in a way that is effectively new to the round	Ignore or completely drop key points of clash Make extreme generalizations and create overly vague or general lines of refutation Intentionally misrepresent or strawman your opponent’s case Recycle rebuttal Take every piece of refutation to have an equal role in the debate (i.e., spending equal amounts of time on every single contention and refutation that follows. There are some pieces of rebuttal that are far more important in round, and therefore, will require more time to analyze whereas some contentions may only require a line or two of actual rebuttal)

Do’s

Dont's

Identify the largest questions around central points of clash
Refute the most notably important contentions made by the opposing bench
Continue to formulate new lines of analysis and extensions within pre-existing refutation
Create new rebuttals
Structurally organize rebuttals (i.e., signposting, offering the comparative mechanization and impact)
Use the established framework to your advantage when it comes to weighing the debate/worlds
Respond to refutation given by your opponents in a way that is effectively new to the round

Ignore or completely drop key points of clash
Make extreme generalizations and create overly vague or general lines of refutation
Intentionally misrepresent or strawman your opponent’s case
Recycle rebuttal
Take every piece of refutation to have an equal role in the debate (i.e., spending equal amounts of time on every single contention and refutation that follows. There are some pieces of rebuttal that are far more important in round, and therefore, will require more time to analyze whereas some contentions may only require a line or two of actual rebuttal)

Common Techniques of Refutation

Refuting Assertions

Assertion comes and goes in many different styles in debate, with the most common one being that in the case where an opponent has failed to prove something they claimed, you would be the one to point that out
“They have yet to provide us with any mechanism as to how x would lead to y”

Counterexample

Oftentimes, counters come in the form of facts or statistics that directly support the opposite of whatever your opponent has been trying to prove
This is most commonly the case in many political debates, policy debates, or otherwise debates that require a lot of background knowledge and research
E.g., “Due to this policy, we have actually seen a decrease in the amount of [positive benefits] that your side has claimed would result”

Even-if responses

Even-if responses are a last resort and should always come at the end of other rebuttals. They concede to an argument's logic but aim to prove how that logical reasoning is instead beneficial to your case. Flipping is when you concede to an argument's logic but show why that logical reasoning is instead beneficial to your case.
This can come in mostly two forms: flipping the argument or mitigating its impact. For example, flipping would sound like “Using their own logic/explanation, it actually supports our side of the house…” Mitigation would sound like "Even if our responses didn't stand, the impact of their argument would be minimal at best."

Click for Impact Calculus