SKILLS AND STRATEGY *REFUTATION IS EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTATION THAT DENY THE VALIDITY OF THE OPPONENTS’ POSITION Refutation

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.

METHODS AND STRATEGY Tools of Refutation

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 the truth of the opposition. This is usually done by providing counter evidence that reveals that the opposing position is inherently flawed or untrue. One must remember to discuss why ones evidence is superior to that proposed by the opposition. This can be done by utilizing the tests of evidence. Source Tests  Specificity of Source  Qualifications of Source  Bias of Source:  Factuality of Source: Direct Tests  Recency  Sufficiency:  Logical Relevance:  Internal Consistency:  External Consistency:

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.