Finding Points of Clash

In order to effectively attack your opponent’s points, you need to identify areas in which your arguments “clash” head-on with your opponent’s. During your refutation, you need to find these points of clash and explain why your contention is stronger. The judge has to choose between your argument or your opponent’s, and you want to make sure that they can clearly weigh the round’s contentions.

Example

Your contentions: marijuana is detrimental to health, expensive, and gateway drug.
Theirs: marijuana is affordable, does not cause addiction, and has no proven harms.
Points of clash: affordability, potential for future harm, and health effects.

Points of clash are best addressed later on in the debate, when both sides have had a chance to fully formulate and elaborate on their points. Oftentimes debaters will use a part of their last speech (Either in the last few minutes of the Leader of the Opposition speech or during the final Prime Minister speech) to address points of clash and how they fall on their side of the house. It’s extremely important to do this: it shows the judge that you are actually interacting head-on with the opponents’ case and explaining exactly how your case supersedes theirs, and does so in a way that doesn’t seem unfair– you aren’t just saying that their points are wrong and yours are right, but instead are explaining why on a direct contradiction, the judge should believe your side has the correct view. To do so, use your evidence put forth and your rebuttal in coordination: break down their side of the clash and build up yours at the same time. You often can even use this as a secondary rebuttal for their point, as long as you do it fast– you won’t have that much time, and you have other important things to get to!

Video

Effective Rebuttal:

Drills

• Make a case for both sides, then match up the contentions based on which ones disagree the most with each other.
• Think of a phenomenon. Explain why their reason for that phenomenon is wrong, and then provide an alternative reason than the one they provided. Practice this drill whenever you brainstorm case arguments.
  • Let’s take apart an argument: Foreign aid fails because of corruption in recipient nations. The claim is that foreign aid is ineffective, and the warrant is that corruption prevents the aid from reaching the intended population. Through the warrant we’ve identified the reasoning. To defeat their reasoning, think of alternative factors influencing aid: a lot of foreign aid is channeled through NGOs and grassroots movements. The presence of alternative means of aid takes out the initial warrant AND provides a more complete view of the world that shows that foreign aid is proactively good.