Refuting, Attacking, and Cross-Examination

Refuting an Argument Briefly restate your opponent’s argument: “In the first claim, my opponent argues that health care is a precondition for political participation.”

Refuting an Argument State your response to each argument. There are both defensive and offensive arguments when refuting.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Counter-Claim: countering the truth of the original argument by giving counter evidence or examples. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Counter-Claim Example: Capital punishment does not deter crime because people still are convicted of capital crimes.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Nit-picking: using nit-picky questions or responses, used to distract the opponent’s time and trick them into spending time on an argument not really going to be used to win the debate. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Nit-picking Example: This argument has no warrant. This argument has no impact.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Mitigate: to diminish or reduce the severity of the argument; accepts that the argument is true but suggests that the impact is not as bad as claimed. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Mitigating Example: Evidence for and against deterrence exists. Since it is inconclusive, we can not be certain of the deterrent effect.

Refuting with Defensive Arguments: Taking out the argument: nullifies or cancels another argument Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Taking out the argument Example: Conclusive evidence suggests that capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect because criminals are not rational so they don’t think about the consequences of their actions.

Refuting with Offensive Arguments: Link-turn:suggests that the claim does not connect to the impact but rather the claim connects to another impact that would prove the opposite side. Resolution Example: Capital punishment deters future crime. Link-turn Example: Evidence suggests that when murderers are witnessed that they kill any remaining witnesses because they would already receive the highest punishment. Capital punishment creates an incentive to finish the job.

Refuting with Offensive Arguments: Impact-turn:suggests that the impact argued by one debater to be detrimental was actually positive. Claim Example: Universal health care would cause the economy to collapse, resulting in war. Impact-turn Example: The economic decline as a result of Universal health care would dampen the desire to go to war.

Refuting with Offensive Arguments: Double-turn:it is a mistake for a debater to argue both link and impact turns against the same argument, so this works against the debater using them both Double-turn Example: If the link turn was that the affirmative solves a problem and an impact turn was that the problem is actually a benefit, then the affirmative can say that they stop a good thing from happening.

Purpose of Cross-Examination Ask clarification questions about: Arguments that the student missed Arguments that the student didn’t understand The exact meaning of definitions presented The tactical implications of arguments in the case

Purpose of Cross-Examination Attack the opponent’s case position To question the truth of the claims made To question the logical links between the arguments Commit your opponent to position

Guidelines for Cross-Examination During cross-examination, look at the judge/teacher and not at each other. Stand still and upright. Remain calm and collected at all times.

When cross-examining: Start with offense. Have a plan and know what you are trying to accomplish with your questions. Use shorter questions and avoid one long ponderous question.

When being cross-examined: Remain calm and composed. Answer questions directly without rambling. Know your case and stick to it. Unless it is a yes or no question, make sure you clarify answers.