BY KENI SABATH FOR NO LIMITS DEBATE CAMP Refutation basics BY KENI SABATH FOR NO LIMITS DEBATE CAMP

What it is So Refutation is why I don’t lose, why they are wrong. Offensive arguments v. Defensive arguments Why I win v. Why I don’t lose To win a debate, you must show both why you win and why the other team’s arguments don’t mean that you lose. Speaker 1: Bananas are better than apples because they contain more potassium. Speaker 2: Circles are better than squares because their shape is more pleasing to the eye. NO Clash! So Refutation is why I don’t lose, why they are wrong.

ON-CASE REFUTATION (VS. OFF-CASE) OFFENSE LINK TURN IMPACT TURN CASE TURN DEFENSE NO LINK NO WARRANT NOT TRUE ETC… BE COMPARATIVE

BASICALLY… BE SKEPTICAL FOCUS ON ASSUMPTIONS ASK ABOUT TRICKY DEFINITIONS AND FRAMEWORK ARGUMENTS [VALUE/VC/OBSERVATIONS] POINT OUT FLAWS *ARGUE AGAINST WHAT THEY SAID, NOT WHAT THEY MEANT TO SAY USE CX TO CLARIFY

AT: VALUE CRITERION NO BRIGHTLINE NO BRINK TAUTOLOGICAL REASONING REASONS TO PREFER PRE-REQUISITE STRONGER LINK TO VALUE (VIOLATION OR CONTEXT) AGENT’S OBLIGATION REAL WORLD CANNOT MEET

AT: CONTENTIONS NOT TRUE NO SOLVENCY EMPIRICS > ANALYTICS [EMPIRICALLY DENIED] BAD AUTHOR / OUT OF DATE DOES NOT MATTER NON-UNIQUE NOT COMPARATIVE NO LINK TO STANDARD OUTWEIGH * BAD STATISTIC MISSING LINK

*WEIGHING PROBABILITY MAGNITUDE DURATION REVERSIBILITY TIMEFRAME

AT: CONTENTIONS LOGICAL FALLACIES MISSING CLAIM, WARRANT, INTERNAL WARRANT, OR IMPACT SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY IS-OUGHT FALLACY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY CORRELATION, NOT CAUSATION

4 Steps of refutation STEP 1: They say…. Step 2: “But I disagree….” Step 3: “Because ….” Step 4: “Therefore….”

eXAMPLE Nations should open their borders to immigration. Silence means consent. Science is more dangerous than religion.