Transcript Refutation - Idaho Speech Arts Teacher`s Association

Refutation
SKILLS AND STRATEGY
*REFUTATION IS EVIDENCE AND
ARGUMENTATION THAT DENY THE
VALIDITY OF THE OPPONENTS’
POSITION
4 Steps of Refutation
 Step 1: “They say…”
 Step 2: “But I disagree…”
 Step 3: “Because….”
 Try to show that your argument is better because….
 It’s
better reasoned
 It’s better evidenced
 It has historical or empirical support
 It has greater significance
 Step 4: “Therefore….”
Responding to arguments
 Cause and Effect
 Analogy
 Example
 Minimization/Maximization
 Probability
Cause and Effect
 Causal reasoning identifies a functional relationship
between phenomena.
 Frequently the initial causal assertion rests upon
some experts’ statements that A causes B.





Do the cause and effect appear in a regular time sequence?
Is the causal association a strong one?
Is the association between cause and effect coherent?
Are there other causes of the effect?
Will intervening causes preclude an expected cause and effect
relationship?
Analogy
 Arguments from analogy assume that if 2 cases are
alike in all essential, known regards, they will be
alike with regard to a characteristic known in one
case but unknown in the other.


Are the compared cases alike in all essential characteristics?
Are the compared characteristics accurately described?
Example
 Arguments by example make a generalization about
a class based on an examination of limited members



Are the examples typical of the whole?
Have a sufficient number of cases been examined?
Are negative instances accounted for?
Minimization/Maximization
 Attack the conclusion. Impact arguments-minimize
or maximize the results or significance of arguments.




Identify a favorable trend-Trends in the opposite direction
maximize the original harm analysis.
Comparative statistics
Analysis of the components of a problem.
Vivid examples or expressing the problem using different
statistical measures.
Probability
 Judging the probability or likelihood of an impact
 Test of causal reasoning
 Probability due to historical data
 Previous events
Responding to the EVIDENCE
 General tests of evidence
 Is the source identifiable?
 Is the source free from bias?
 Is the source able to make a qualified judgment?
 Is the context fairly represented?
 Is the evidence recent?
 Is the evidence consistent?
 Is the evidence relevant to the issue?
 Does the evidence provide a clear rationale?
Responding to Evidence cont.
 Responding to statistical evidence
Many stats are not based on actual counts.
 Statistics are limited.
 Methods vary





The original research report should be studied.
Sampling technique should be thoroughly examined
The appropriateness of the time period should be evaluated.
How the stats are expressed and interpreted should be
considered.
Summary
 Students well trained in argumentation should be
able to analyze and respond to arguments without
undue reliance on counter evidence. The
relationships between ideas can be responded to by
applying appropriate tests of reasoning and by
examining the analysis from a broader perspective.
Tools of Refutation
METHODS AND STRATEGY
Specific Tools of Refutation
 Denial
 Turning the Tables
 Reducing to absurdity
 Dilemma or Catch 22
 Mitigation
 Identifying logical fallacies
Denial
 This is the act of denying
 Source Tests
the truth of the opposition.  Specificity of Source
This is usually done by
 Qualifications of Source
providing counter evidence  Bias of Source:
that reveals that the
 Factuality of Source:
opposing position is
 Direct Tests
inherently flawed or
 Recency
untrue. One must
 Sufficiency:
remember to discuss why
 Logical Relevance:
ones evidence is superior to  Internal Consistency:
that proposed by the
 External Consistency:
opposition. This can be
done by utilizing the tests
of evidence.
Turning the Tables
 This is the act of utilizing the evidence or reasoning
of the opposition to support your position, to take
what they have provided and turn it on them.


Example
Proponents of gun control claim stricter gun laws will keep
more guns off the street making them safer, but this only
makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns not those
who go outside of the law, actually making it less safe for them.
Reducing to Absurdity
 This is that act of accepting the logic of the opposition as
if it were true and showing that when applied to other
situations (or the world at large) it leads to absurd, i.e.
illogical or undesirable, results.


Example
Supporters of gay marriage claim that marriage is a partnership
between people who love each other and should not be denied to any
who meet that criterion. But if this is the case, then why couldn’t
siblings, parents and children or other close family members enter
into a marriage if they so desired. This logic would also support
polygamous and polyamorous marriages as well. If we cannot
support those unions we cannot support gay unions.
 Note: Be careful when using this technique that you do
not fall into the slippery slope fallacy.
Dilemma
 This is the act of reducing the opposition to two
possible outcomes and then showing that both of
these outcomes are undesirable.


Example
If we do not build a new school now, as my opponent wants,
we will either have to build on to and remodeling our existing
buildings or we will have to build a new school later. Both of
these options are more expensive than building a new school
now.
Mitigation
 This is the act of minimizing the importance of the
opposition’s arguments to the overall discussion at
hand.


Example
My opponent has argued that the 40 million, or 15%,
uninsured Americans provide ample reason to revamp the
healthcare system to provide for them, but this is at the risk of
disturbing the other 85% of Americans who are happy with
their insurance.
Identifying Logical Fallacies
 This is the act of pointing out the flaws in the
oppositions reasoning that undermine their position.
Pointing out any fallacy substantially decreases the
overall effectiveness of the opposing position.


Example
My opponent has stated that since he became mayor that the
crime rate in the city has gone down 33%. Unfortunately,
since he has provided no other information about this
correlation, this is simply an example of the Post Hoc, Faulty
Causation, fallacy and must be discarded.
How to Refute
 The goal is to strike a balance between covering
issues in the round and being able to present a
cohesive position.
 USE S-E-W
 Extension and Drops
 Offense vs Defense
S-E-W
 Sign post



Use the actual rhetoric of the opponent
Don’t give the judge a summary of the opponents argument, just
provide the subjective matter.
Don’t forget to use sources
 Explain



Tell why your opponents arguments are flawed
Don’t elaborate too much, be concise
Be prepared to write some blocks
 Weigh


Use a standard(s) to compare arguments
Respond to not only the claim, but attack the warrant and impacts as
well.
Extensions and Drops
 Turn your opponents mistakes into your strengths
 ‘MacGyver’ your way out of your own drops.
 Weigh your own way out of the argument
 Explain how those ‘dropped’ arguments are irrelevant.
 Sign-post the arguments and extend
 Strike their weak points
 Impacting
 Make sure all your claims take effect and have YOUR impacts.
Offense VS. Defense
 The sword
 Turns- using your opponents arguments against them, by
establishing your own warrant.
 ‘overviews’ and burdens
 Generic responses are problematic with aff and neg positions,
establish the burdens so the judge can weigh the round. Always
question legitimacy of the burden.
 “A priori” (this comes first) issue and other debate theory.
Establish that your arguments come before or are paramount
in round.
Offense VS Defense cont.
 The Shield
 Non-unique- generic issues- Discuss how their arguments are
not addressing the question of the resolution. (Topicality)
 No Impact- discuss how the criterion/standard/argument
doesn’t affect the round.
 Denial- Argument is not true, empirical evidence only prove
things in certain context.