Chapter 8
Refutation and Rebuttal

1. Introduction

Once an argument is presented in debate, it is subject to attack and defense or refutation and rebuttal.
 
2. Taking Notes
2.1. Flowsheet
Flowsheet can be used during preparation of arguments.  You can plan the progress of arguments in advance.  Flowsheet can also be used during the presentation of debate; when you listen to speeches (both your own team's and the opponent's) you must take notes in a flowsheet.  Before you stand up and give a speech, you must plan your arguments and jot them down on the flowsheet.

Sample Flowsheet (Part)  (A complete flowsheet of a debate)

Resolved: That Japan should introduce a jury system in its court of law.

1AC 1NC 2AC 2NC/1NR 1AR 2NR 2AR
II. jury is good
A. jury is neutral
ev. XXXX		 biased
1. believe in police
ev. XXX
2. assume guilty
ev. XXX		 1. ev. biased
2. they believe lawyers		 ---------> jury is neutral ---------> neutrality
jury is betterthan judges
B. jury is logical
ev. XXXX		 people are emotional logical
Dr. Tanaka 89
Okinawa made logical decisions		 cannot generalize neg. no reason 

Okinawa people are Jpn.

 educated by Americans

Jpn not logical
not true
no difference Jpn. and Okinawa

3. Refutation

Review a structure of arguments (Ch. 4)

3.1. Attacking Claim
 
 

3.2. Attacking Evidence
 
 

3.3. Attacking Warrant
 
 

3.4. Presenting Counter-Claim
 
 
 
 

4. Rebuttal

4.1. Miminizing Refutation
 
 

4.2. Adding Supports
 
 

4.3. Extending and Pulling Arguments
 
 
 

5. Refutation Unit

 1. To locate the argument to attack.
 2. To summarize the argument to attack
 3. To give your response.
 4. To support your response.
 5. To conclude the response.
 
Example of a Refutation Unit (2AC above)
About our Contention II, Subpoint B, intelligence of jury,
the negative said that ordinary people are emotional.
But they can make logical decisions.
According to Dr. Tanaka, a law professor at Ryukyu University, in his book in 1989, "People in Okinawa participated in jury trials under the American occupation.  They were perfectly capable of making logical decisions without being influenced by emotion or media reports about the cases they dealt with."
 5. The evidence shows that people can make logical decisions in jury trials.  So ordinary people in jury are as good as expert judges in terms of logical thinking.