Transcript Rebuttal Workshop

Rebuttal Workshop
Good Shepherd Debating
Rebuttal
To illustrate this point, it is a useful to think of a team
case as a large tree. The overall proposition that the team
is trying to establish is like the trunk. The arguments
which support the proposition are like branches. Finally,
the leaves are the examples which attach themselves to
the branches. Trading lists of examples is like shaking the
tree, causing some leaves to fall but allowing the tree to
remain largely intact. Rebuttal may therefore be more
effective if its intention is to attack the trunk and
branches, rather than shake the tree. The exception to
this is where certain examples raised in debates become
crucial to the overall proposition being advanced by a
team.
Two Spheres of Rebuttal
• There is offensive rebuttal which attacks the
opposition’s case.
• There is also defensive or counter rebuttal which
defends your case and explains why it is a better
option.
• In rebuttal try to have arguments from both
spheres, particularly as second and third speakers
Types of Rebuttal Against Arguments
• ERROR: Argument is based on an error of fact or a
flawed interpretation. Look for misrepresented facts
and/or examples.
• PROOF: Lack of proof and explanation in the argument.
Look for assumptions.
• RELEVANCE: Argument is irrelevant
• LOGIC: Argument is illogical, does not flow, lack of
casual links. Look for a lack of flow or causality.
• IMPLICATION: Argument involves unacceptable
implication. Use a logical extension approach.
• WEIGHT: Argument has little weight or significance
Types of Rebuttal Against Team Case
• Inconsistency: there is a difference or change in
argument, stance, rebuttal or explanation
between the speakers
• Invalid Case: in a comparative debate, one team
only discusses the benefits of one concept e.g
reward and doesn’t acknowledge the other e.g.
punishment
• Hung case: Moral and practical arguments are
split between first and second speaker and a
conclusion can only be drawn at the end of the
second speaker
Team Strategy
• CHALLENGES: a request to answer or a resolve a
particular issue in the team case. An effective strategy
if used by all speakers consistently.
• BURDEN OF PROOF: setting yourself a reasonable
burden to prove. Accuse teams of setting a low burden
sometimes called squirrelling a debate. Think what do
we have to do to win this debate? What is our strategic
approach?
• EVEN Ifs: After rebuttal an argument on it’s merit use
an even if e.g. Even if your model is correct in principle,
it would be too difficult and too expensive to
implement.
TOPIC: That Australians care for
asylum seekers.
Australian taxpayers foot the bill for our government’s refugee quote.
Everyday Australian’s are paying for offshore processing facilities, health
services, not to mention the administrative requirements for the
majority of refuges who arrive via air. We care about displaced people,
refugees who are persecuted, that is why we take action as taxpayers
funding the intake of our refugee quota. Many Australians even
volunteer to teach newly arrived refugees English through the
Australians Migrant English Program. It is clear that everyday
Australians care about asylum seekers, otherwise they would dispute
this allocation of funds.
Rebut: ERROR, LOGIC, PROOF, IMPLICATION, WEIGHT, EVEN IF, BURDEN
OF PROOF, CAUSALITY etc etc
Now write a rebuttal point that attacks this argument in three ways,
then present.
Rebuttal in the form of POIs
• Australians care about asylum seekers because they are discussed
in the media, the media that we consume everyday.
• CASUALITY / LOGIC: Who said the media directly reflects the views
of Australians?
• LOGICAL EXTENSION: If our views are reflected in the media, how
does the media supposedly respond to reflect every aspect of our
values, especially after the riots in Manus?
• TRUISM: an argument based on a fact that is self evident. There is
usually no further interpretation and/or elaboration. The above
argument is truistic.