1. Lincoln-Douglas Debate RefutationRefutation

2. Step One: Briefly restate your opponent’s argument. The purpose of restating is to provide geographic marker for your argument so that your judge knows where to flow it. Signposting is essential in faster, more complex debates. As you progress into varsity and varsity elimination rounds the complexity and speed will require expert signposting.

3. Step Two: State your responses. Counter-claiming: simply saying “not” to your opponent’s claim Pimp: saying “no warrant,” “no impact,” “Doesn’t link.” Mitigate: arguing that your opponent’s argument is inconclusive, partially flawed, uncertain (casting doubt) Take-out: providing claim and warrant to prove that your opponent’s argument is false. Turn: showing that your opponent’s argument is not only false, but actually causes the problem or increases rather than decreases its identified harm (Offensive argument)

4. Step Three: Relate the response to the criterion. After stating your responses connect them to the impact of your argument. Show how your arguments prevent your opponent from achieving his standard/criterion.

5. Step Four: Lather, rinse and repeat When negative, respond to all the arguments that the affirmative has made in the order they were presented. Begin with the value premise and criterion and address the over-arching logic (or assumptions) behind the opponent’s case Watch your time! “Budget” your comments and be selective. Attack those arguments that are crucial to your opponent’s case.

6. Challenge Underlying Assumptions How to topple the house of cards.

7. All arguments have assumptions. “I should win because my case promotes individual rights.” My opponent should lose because she increases the risk of nuclear war. Rights are good. Nuclear war is bad.

8. Assumptions are unconscious. Know the assumptions implicit in your own case and be ready to defend them. Defend your case’s assumptions with warrants through evidence and analysis. Remember that each part of your opponent’s case has assumptions: value premise, contentions, standard, - address each strategically. If the internal case assumptions conflict or contradict each other this can be used to turn the case on itself.

9. Assumptions in the Cross-Ex Question their value, “Why is _x_ good?” Question that answer, “Why is _y_ valuable?” Question the next answer, “Why is that good?” Wait & watch for the contradiction to their own case, or a previous answer. Thread the contradiction into your next speech as a turn on their case.

10. Rebuttals The beginning of the end.

11. Drop, Drop, Drop... Is it raining? Dropped arguments must be connected to the criterion to be strategically powerful in the debate. Just saying “He dropped...” is not enough. Give analysis (perhaps in an underview) that shows the drops are both essential to winning and irrecoverable. Pre-empt an attempt by your opponent to regain the dropped argument, “Don’t let my opponent bring up ___ in his next speech – this argument has been dropped...”

12. The Egg “Remember an argument is like a raw egg – once dropped it can not be picked back up.”

13. First Affirmative Rebuttal Typically start with the negative case and then move to your own case. At a minimum, make 5 answers in the order that they were presented. Spend your time strategically and keep one eye on your timer. If your opponent’s first attack is against your criterion, they have dropped your value – point this out and give analysis. (unless their value is the same as yours) Weigh your argument’s relevance in the round, and impact each argument in relation to the criterion.

14. First Negative Rebuttal This speech must not only answer the arguments of the 1AR, but pre-empt the arguments of the 2AR. No new arguments; your arguments must be laid upon the groundwork you did in the 1NC. Rebuild by following the steps for effective refutation. Choose strategically what is hardest for your opponent to counter and has the most impact in the round. Set up hurdles for your opponent to jump that will control their time use and set logical traps.

15. Second Affirmative Rebuttal Crystallize! Make it “crystal clear” for your judge by clarify the offense vs defense, the drops, comparing the impacts. Pull all the pieces of the puzzle together for your judge – don’t assume that they will see the round as you do. Give voters! A voter should be a complete argument, not simply an idea or a statement. Tie your voters into the criteria. Weigh the round and tie it all back to the resolution.

16. Thou shall not... Simply restate your original argument in response to your opponent’s attack. Spend large chunks of time answering arguments that do not impact the round. Lose track of time elaborately explaining an analogy and fail to cover major strategic issues.