Effective Rebuttal Strategies in Debate
Rebuttal strategies like "delink," "terminal defense," and "topicality delinks" are discussed with examples on how to effectively counter opponents' arguments in debate settings. These tactics aim to point out flaws, falsehoods, or lack of relevance in the opponent's claims without directly disproving the impact. It emphasizes the importance of providing clear reasoning and carded evidence while countering arguments.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Rebuttal (II) By:Sharmila Nimbkar and Damien Rivera
Delink A delink is where you point out that one warrant in your opponents case does not mean they get to assume the next one. It requires no evidence, but it's also a weak tactic because an opponent can present evidence of their warranting or just explain their crappy links away. Before trying to delink, we highly suggest checking the card. Figuring out exactly what the evidence does and does not say determines whether you can make assumptions. Does Not disprove their impact per say, just states that they can't logically access it The Number One mistake teams make when delinking is not explaining enough. You can t just say, it doesn t make sense . You have to very carefully talk specifically about what they stated in case and why it is illogical and against common sense
Delink Examples ie. say the resolution is The benefits of puppies outweigh the harms . The aff team presents an argument puppies reduce anxiety, saving lives. How do you delink? Why don't you have a card about exactly how many people with anxiety puppies have saved? Considering people with anxiety aren't at immediate risk of death, they can t just claim that puppies stop tons of anxious people from dying ie. on the OCOs resolution, the neg team states that foreign OCOs on US companies cause 60% of businesses to shut down after a cyberstrike Those are due to foreign strikes on US companies, not US government OCOs. you never proved how US OCOs cause these strikes. now they have a new burden to make that link.
Terminal Defense It's the simplest kind of rebuttal Terminal Responses are basically a delink but with cards Says that your opponent s claims are false Their card doesn't say what they say it says, or you can prove it s suss You have a better card (warranted, more resolution-specific, significantly more credible) BE CAREFUL with this one. If their card analysis is accurate or if they actually do have a good link chain, you look either abusive or retarded Leaves you opponent with no access to their impacts, but is more effective than just delinking because terminal responses are usually carded, so unless they do some serious finessing, the argument is effectively dead.
Topicality Delinks Essentially explains that what your opponents saying doesn't have to do with the resolution. You have to do it properly or it wont work. 1) Explain what the resolution is asking of you. For OCOs, it's basically are US OCOs good or bad. 2) Explain what is NOT explicitly asked of the debate in the resolution and exactly which part you opponent misconstrued (actor, action, weighing mechanism, framework, definition) a) This resolution is NOT about whether we should get rid of OCOs, whether or how we should reform US OCOs, NOT about corporate OCOs, what other countries are independently deciding to do with their OCOs 3) Finally, explain exactly why what your opponent says does not fall in the scope of the debate and why that means their case should be dropped
Terminals Practice ie. say the resolution is The benefits of puppies outweigh the harms . The neg team presents a poorly warranted argument that most people think puppies are ugly. How do you terminate this agreement? Evidence. The NYT finds that 98% of people find puppies cute. ie. on the OCOs resolution, the neg team states that foreign OCOs on US companies cause 60% of businesses to shut down after a cyberstrike Actually, that evidence was revoked by the organization that published it, stating their analysis was grossly incorrect and the statistic is unreliable.
Mitigation Mitigation is lessening your opponents impact to essentially say its not as bad or good as they originally made it seem Doesn t turn argument against them, just makes impacts smaller so you can outweigh Examples of mitigation Well, thats just one example Having evidence to show that the actual impact is smaller Actually, not all of impact Y is caused by warrant X. only some of it
Mitigation Practice Ie. say the resolution is The benefits of puppies outweigh the harms . The aff team presents an argument stating that pet owners who take their puppies for a walk tend to live longer Mitigation would be responding with a card stating that only 12% of dog owners actually take their dogs for a walk Ie. If your opponents say that the US killed 10,000 people in the Middle East, a region where US OCOs are used. How do you mitigate this argument? Just because OCOs were used in that region doesn't mean that OCOs killed ALL 10,000 people, because military conflict is also raging in the ME and is probably primarily responsible. OR add carded evidence. OCOs have actually only killed 120 ppl in the ME. still not great but at least now you have a shot at outweighing Mitigation does not win you offense. You haven't proven that no deaths were caused by OCOs and you did not prove that OCOs save lives. Just that they didn't kill all 10,000 people
Turns Turns are when you agree to part of the warrant them proceed to turn the argument against them Yes but that's actually bad/good because Extremely powerful because your opponents can't revoke their own link to defeat you Hardest to pull off You must have strong evidence to pull this off. You have to have anticipated that argument before hand and had evidence reverse the impact
Turns Practice ie. The resolution is say the resolution is The benefits of puppies outweigh the harms . The aff team presents an argument stating that since puppies are fluffy, their relieve anxiety for over 100,000 people with severe anxiety. How do you turn this argument against them? First, agree that puppies are fluffy. However, puppy hair causes severe allergic reactions in children and resulted in 2 million children getting hospitalized in 2018. On OCOs resolution, say your opponents state that OCOs cost less money that a physical response of the same magnitude. How do you respond to turn it against them? The reason that OCOs cost less money is because they only accomplish policy objectives 4% of the time, meaning the government actually needs way more of them and it costs 3x as much as regular military response
