Rebuttal

By Connor O’Brien | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqsa3bouG-M

Rebuttal, in its most general form, refers to the responses you give to things said by the
opposition.

Objectives of Rebuttal

1. Defeat opposition arguments (offensive)

2. Rebuild your arguments (defensive)
3. Overarching aim - establish that your “tower” of arguments is taller than the opposition’s
“tower of arguments.
○ Proving the larger/likelier/deeper impacts will win you the debate.
○ Keep this focus in mind whenever you are responding to the opposition - you
want to either be undermining their case or strengthening your case.
○ Anything else you say is superfluous and unnecessary.

Identifying rebuttal clashes

→ Rebuttal is important as teams will often disagree on important issues - they are on opposite
sides of the motion after all.
● E.g THS nationalism - Teams will disagree about what nationalism looks like in reality,
who believes in nationalistic narratives, what the alternative to nationalism typically
would be etc.
● You are trying to explain why your version of nationalism is true, and therefore why your
arguments are true.
→ You should be thinking about clashes throughout the prep.
→ Identify comparisons and tail your arguments from the get-go to best engage with those
comparisons.
● Are the arguments you are making unique or contentious? Is the opposition likely to
disagree with what you are saying? If they disagree - what are they likely to say in
response? By thinking about clashes, you can give better analytical reasons for your
arguments and you can ‘pre-empt’ the opposition’s best claims by giving
conditions/additional lines of analysis.

Tips for identifying clashes:

1. Think about what the ‘problem’ is - why are we having this debate in the first place.
2. Think about whether you are responding to the same problem as the opposition. If you
are -- you need to explain why your approach is better. (e.g THW ban the Olympics;
 which team improves the quality of sport; which team best helps developing countries
(who would often host the Olympics)
3. Think about the different groups affected by the motions. You may affect different people
in different ways - figuring out who ‘is in your locket’ i.e who you care about will change
your strategic priorities, e.g. THW reduce income taxes for women - Why is this the best
way of improving women’s lives? Opp may argue, we need to improve the lives of POC
or the poor instead (and then explain why their side is uniquely good at doing this)

What can you rebut?

Argument structure - CACI

● Context (factual claim), Analysis, Comparative, Impact
→ You can rebut every layer
● Context rebuttal - questioning the factual basis of the argument
● Analysis rebuttal - questioning the logical steps in the argument
● Comparative rebuttal - questioning the alternative presented
● Impact rebuttal - questioning the significance of the argument
→ You can defend every layer of your arguments too - keep in mind which layer is strongest and
weakest when responding to opposition rebuttal.

Prioritisation

→ Debating is a ‘constrained optimization’ exercise - you are trying to be persuasive within the
rules of this activity (time limits, when you can present argumentation etc.)
→ A debating speech is unique - it is not an essay, Facebook thread, lecture or conversation.
● You need to logically prove your argumentation, rather than just rely on emotion
● You only have seven minutes per speech -- there isn’t time to say every single thought
you may have
● Both teams have multiple opportunities to speak -- debating is interactive, you need to
persuade the adjudicator of your side IN COMPARISON to the opposition
→ Consequently, you need to prioritize the rebuttal you give
● Give the most important/influential rebuttal first
● Only give rebuttal if you believe it is weakening the opposition case or strengthening
your case

Rebuttal Techniques
● Reject the context
● Reject the logic
● Reject the conclusion
● Reject the impact
 ● Flip the argument -- show why the argument is truer under your side -- with their own
analysis, showing why your side is winning
● Outweigh the argument -- show why your arguments are more impactful EVEN IF the
opposition arguments are true (a.k.a explain why your team’s tower is taller than the
opposition team’s tower)
● Importantly -- don’t be too dismissive, try to be ‘charitable’ - don’t deliberately
misinterpret the OPP’s arguments, try to rigorously respond to the reasons they give.
This will make your rebuttal more persuasive and increase your chances of winning.

How to deal with multiple reasons being true

→ In most debates, there are good arguments that can be made on side government and side
opposition
→ It is therefore highly likely that the opposition will still have arguments/lines of analysis left
standing after your rebuttal (unless everything they say is completely illogical). Therefore, resist
the temptation to reject every single thing they say or to respond to their assertions with new
assertions
● People often have complex and competing incentives → show why your incentives are
more influential.
● Rather than denying any incentives provided by OPP, it is better to show why the
incentives you present are more influential
● E.g THW repeal the death sentence. The impulse to commit heinous crimes and the
deterrent effect of implementing the death sentence both exist. Your job, as side GOV, is
to explain that the former is more influential than the latter, and therefore that the death
penalty is a) mostly ineffective and b) comes with additional harms (e.g the immoral
nature of the penalty, the deaths themselves, the politicization of the death penalty acts)

The importance of rebuilding

→ Key priority -- making sure that you have proven your arguments
● If the opposition has disproved most of your arguments, it's almost impossible to win the
debate -- you basically need to defeat every OPP argument
● Rebuilding is critically important -- it means that your rebuttal doesn’t have to be perfect
and you can make the difference between two teams larger. Debating can be quite
subjective -- showing that you have won by a LOT will make the decision much easier for
the adjudicator. It's easier to explain why you win when you have a clear and well-proven
benefit.
● Rebuttal is not a completely separate skill from argumentation -- you need to make sure
that your rebuttal and your arguments work hand in hand.
Moving through rebuttal
Basic structure
● OPP said X
● OPP gave two reasons why X is true
● We have two responses; X response and Y response
● Therefore, X is untrue
Additional possible layers:
● Even if X is true; (1) why X is better under our side; (2) Why X doesn’t matter, (3) Why X
matters less than our argument Y

Explaining why you win

● It is very important to explain why you have won the debate to the adjudicator
● At the second and third speaker, you should try to provide a ‘roadmap’ of the debate that
illustrates the ‘paths to victory’ for each team i.e what each team needs to establish to
win the debate.
● You should then try to show why your arguments are debate-winning (through the size of
their impacts or through defeating OPP arguments)
● You should never just give rebuttal -- you need to explain the significance of your rebuttal
in the debate (why is your rebuttal defeating an OPP argument)

BP Rebuttal Tactics
General considerations:
● Which teams to rebut
● How much time to spend on rebuttal
● What types of rebuttal to give
● Extraneous vs integrated rebuttal
● Rebutting preemptions/implicit responses
● Rebuttal vs rebuilding

Tips for LO/Member

● Offer the ‘flattest’ responses possible i.e strike to the heart of the logic/context that
underpins the argument
● Think about where OPP arguments could GO not only what they are when prioritizing
responses.
 ● Keep rebuttal to 1-2 minutes unless you are flipping material
● Try to integrate rebuttal where possible
● Avoid giving detail that could be provided at Deputy/Whip - setting the agenda

Tips for Deputies

● Slightly different approach for DPM vs DLO -- DPM ought to respond in sufficient breadth
and depth to knock out all strong LO material, DLO has the luxury of knowing the entirety
of the OG case -- should spend more time explaining exactly why ahead rather than
offering responses.
● Trade-off between structure of rebuttal and time to think about exact responses -- always
prioritize the latter
● Make sure to give 1-2 key takeaways for the judge (regarding what your rebuttal has
done to their case/your rebuilding to your case).

Tips for Whips

● Focus on ‘racking up points’ i.e. maximizing your rank. Avoid hail mary strategies that
risk a fourth on response. → weakest to strongest to not risk a fourth if you start with
attacking the strongest.
● More of an imperative to respond to the core of the member speech -- need to approach
rebuttal like an LO/Deputy speech.
● Spend more time weighing/framing when responding to opening -- give direct rebuttal
only when you are doing something meaningfully different with it vs your opening half.
● Explain the implications of everything you say -- why is it helping you win the debate.

→ Subtlety to prevent knifing from the Opening Half when you are saying something is
important.
→ Saying that the rebuttal of OO to OG is effective and then giving rebuttals so as to claim the
benefits of opening half.
→ Rebuttal of principled arguments:
● if there are principles in both sides → explaining why your reasoning is more effective
● If only one principle on one side → attack the validity of the principled argument or
create very unfair consequences so you can talk about the utilitarian means as to why
we ought to only care about maximizing happiness or if it is arbitrary; rigorously attacking
the layer. → is it true, is it important, is it comparative?
● Mitigation is trying to shrink the effect of the case while flipping is saying that it is actively
better on one side.
● Whips: Assess the individual contribution of teams and their impacts → deal with this
and prioritized based on if they are good or not
● For PM, spend a lot of time thinking about clashes and organizing material based on this
clashes to make it more impactful within the round → don’t setup for setup sakes.
○ Don’t meta-dumping → prove rather than just dumping; cover two or three
arguments and weigh it rather than saying many arguments → consider depth,
impacting and weighing.