Embedded Files
Subscribe to our free biweekly newsletter!
Introduction
Introduction
Refutation can be generally defined as attempting to prove someone or something wrong by using contradictory evidence, arguments, and warrants. While refutation can be as simple as denying the truth or accuracy of another statement such as refuting “the sky is purple” with “the sky is blue,” refutation in Congressional debate speeches and questioning sessions are often more nuanced and deploy more multifaceted techniques.
What is the purpose of Refutation in Congressional Debate?
What is the purpose of Refutation in Congressional Debate?
Refutation is primarily used to weaken the strength of the opposing side’s arguments and to build the foundation for strengthening the winning side’s arguments. However, when answering this question, it is important to keep in mind the ultimate purpose of a speech: to further your side’s winning grounds. Ultimately, the real United States Congress aims to convince representatives and senators to maintain or change their position regarding the legislation being debated on the floor, and the winning side is that which garners more votes upon the conclusion of the session.
When should I use refutation in Congressional Debate?
When should I use refutation in Congressional Debate?
Refutation should be present in every speech following the first affirmative speech, also known as an “authorship” or “sponsorship” speech, on each legislation which is debated. Pre-eminent refutation can also be present in the first affirmative/authorship/sponsorship speech, though this is less common. Integrating refutation into questioning blocks is also possible, though this usage of refutation is typically less obvious and less impactful in the round given the short time constraint of a questioning block.
How much refutation should I use?
How much refutation should I use?
There is no definitive answer to this question, however there are many factors to consider when constructing or altering a speech mid-round:
Consider when the speech is being given. The early round, or 1st and 2nd cycles of affirmation/negation debate should prioritize establishing the main stakeholders and impacts. Refutation, if present, should be minimal. The mid-round, anywhere from the 3rd to the 5th cycles of affirmation/negation debate, should include a variety of half-refutation, full-refutations, new arguments, and linking together previously raised arguments. And the late-round, which comes in the 6th cycle and onward, are typically “crystals.” Crystallized speeches typically use refutation and previously raised arguments as their foundation, and any new evidence or perspective is directly related and in support of refutation.
These numbers can vary. Most notable of these variations depends on how large the chamber is. The typical categories of early round, mid-round, and late round speeches are only general guidelines. Depending on the size of the chamber and the quantity of competitors wishing to deliver speeches on a certain bill, crystallized speeches may begin as late as early as the 4th cycle of debate or as late as the 9th cycle of debate.
In a less numerical route, refutation can also depend on whether or not the strongest arguments in the debate have already been raised. If the early round speakers failed to address an argument, stakeholder, impact, or consideration which is crucial to the debate, it is important to fill in this gap and justify why raising a new constructive argument is necessary. But, if the main points of contention have already been addressed, it is inadvisable to spend time addressing minute details or adding insignificant strength to previously acknowledged arguments. If the main points of contention have already been addressed but failed to address a significant stakeholder or quantifiable impact, it may be appropriate to fill this gap and justify why it was necessary to develop the argument further.
There are some cases in which a round-winning argument is left unaddressed. This might be the case if there is an impact or argument which outweighs all previously mentioned arguments and appears strong enough to win the round. In this event, you should use this argument as the focal point of a speech and should be prioritized above potential refutation. However, in no case should constructing one new argument fill the entire duration of a speech. Demonstrating some degree of awareness of the general direction and arguments within the current round is still important. Mid- and late-round speakers in particular should still look to dedicate at least one minute of their speech to refutation.
The quantity of key arguments that have been raised and which are worth refuting can impact the amount of refutation itself that you may have. It is impractical and unadvisable for speakers to fully address and effectively refute every argument raised throughout the debate. Therefore, identifying the most impactful arguments raised thus far can help a speaker construct more thought-out, meaningful, and specific refutations while striking a balance between refutation and other speech content. If 1-2 key arguments are clearly pulling the most weight in helping the opposing side to win the debate, a speech should focus on providing comprehensive and believable arguments/evidence to fully refute these 1-2 arguments.
The last question you should ask is: have the strongest arguments on the opposing side already been refuted? This is a common scenario for extremely late-round speeches in highly competitive rounds. It is likely that the strongest arguments on the opposing side have already been identified and refuted to a sufficient extent. In this case, briefly acknowledge within your speech that another speaker has already proven the effectiveness of the opposing side’s winning grounds. This acknowledgement is especially helpful if dealing with more inexperienced judges, or judges who are not paying close attention to the debate. If the strongest arguments have not yet been identified nor refuted, point out within your speech that the opposing side’s winning grounds rely on certain arguments, and specify what these arguments are and which speaker was responsible for raising them.
What are types of refutation? When are they most effective?
What are types of refutation? When are they most effective?
First is the takeout or delink refutation.
Here, the purpose is to prove that the hypothetical impact or argument does not actually come to fruition, or will not occur. This can be done by proving a lack of positive impact or solvency (when refuting affirmation), or a lack of harm (when refuting negation). Takeout refutations are most effective when the opposing side has raised a severe impact. This severe impact, whether a net gain (affirmation) or net harm (negation), constitutes the majority of the opposition’s winning grounds in the whole debate. Proving that the strong impact will not actually occur can nullify its impact to the round. Here, you should make a brief restatement of the original impact given, and the name of the speaker(s) who mentioned them, a clear assertion that the aforementioned impact will not actually occur, and therefore cannot help the opposition win the debate, and lastly evidence with citation which proves the assertion.
For example, Anna claims that if the safety net is removed from the trampoline, every child who falls off the trampoline will break a bone. However, the reality is that the trampoline is situated in a large pool. Therefore, children who fall off the trampoline will not break any bones even if the safety net is removed. Separately, Jonathan posits that if Congress passes a bill which bans the operation of private vehicles carrying less than three passengers, urgent emergencies would be delayed for people who live in smaller living arrangements. However, section 4 of the bill states that cases of emergency (ie. medical emergency, fire, criminal activity, severe weather) will allow exceptions to the policy. Therefore, Jonathan’s net harm is ineffective.
The second is non-unique refutation
Here, the goal is to prove that the hypothetical impact/argument would have occurred or failed to occur with or without the legislation. Essentially, to prove that the impact is not unique to the affirmation or negation side of the debate. Here, the solvency or net-harm is not reliant on the passage of the bill. Non-unique refutation can technically be classified as a type of takeout refutation, and therefore should be deployed in similar situations: when the opposing side’s winning grounds are reliant on a strong impact, and the speaker has evidence which proves the impact non-unique to both the hypothetical affirmation world and negation world. Once again, it requires a brief restatement of the original impact given, and the name of the speaker(s) who mentioned them, a clear assertion that the aforementioned impact will occur whether the affirmation or negation wins the debate. Followed by evidence with citation which proves the assertion.
For a quick example, Isabella wants to sprinkle salt on the icy road because she believes that people and vehicles will sleep unless the ice is melted. However, the ice on the road is currently too thick to be melted with salt. Therefore, people and vehicles would slip whether or not ice is sprinkled on the road. Alternatively, the opposition states that if a carbon tax is not implemented on corporations, the air quality will continue to worsen and the ozone layer will continue to be depleted. However, evidence from a study shows that carbon emitted by corporations in the United States plays an insignificant role in the worsening of air quality and depletion of the ozone layer. Therefore, both environmental harms would continue to occur at a comparable extent with or without a carbon tax.
The 3rd refutation is a link flip, also known as a link turn or an offensive response.
In this type of refutation, the burden is to prove that the opposition’s existing link to an impact will only occur on your side. In other words, to prove that an impact raised by the opposition is reliant on a condition which will only be satisfied on your side of the debate. What’s interesting is that you admit the opposition is correct in that their impact does, in fact, come true as a result of their link. However, the impact actually provides net gain or solvency (refuting negation), or actually provides net harm (refuting affirmation) because that link happens on your side, not theirs. Flip refutations are most effective when a speaker can prove that the conditions or “link” necessary for the opposition’s hypothetical or impact can only come to fruition on their own side. A flip refutation is generally more advanced and less commonly seen, due to its difficult and relatively more complicated nature. Flip refutation should only be used when the speaker feels confident that they can explain the flip clearly and prove their assertions, especially when judges in the round are experienced debaters/educators. The usage of flip refutation can be especially helpful in appearing tolerant of new ideas and analytical in the eyes of judges. This is because explicitly conceding to being wrong is uncommon in debate, and because the level of analysis, understanding of the topic, and evidence necessary to successfully complete a flip turn is more high-level than other types of refutation and argumentation. Flip refutation is relatively more time-consuming than other types of argumentation or refutation, therefore it is always important to identify and refute only the most impactful round-winning arguments that have been raised. The “ingredients” per say for a link flip refutation are for the most part the same, with some minor adjustments. There’s the brief restatement of the impact or hypothetical situation given by the opposing side, along with the name of the specific speaker; and the clear concession that the opposition raised a valid statement or impact which should be considered. However, there’s also the rundown and explanation of the links and conditions which are necessary for the opposition’s statement/impact to come true, with evidence and citations. Then, there’s the assertion that the aforementioned links and conditions only exist on the speaker’s side, with evidence and citations. Finally, you can conclude the refutation with a clear statement that the opposition’s argument has now been flipped to work in favor of the speaker’s side.
For example Kao does not want to purchase a new laptop because he wants to save up money from his new job. Stephen points out that in the job description of his new job, Kao must have a brand-new laptop. Stephen has successfully flipped Kao’s argument. As another example, Adeline wants to abolish the SAT and ACT to promote academic honesty in the college admissions process. Lucas concedes that cheating occurs on the SAT/ACT, but then asserts that by eliminating the SAT/ACT, more emphasis is placed on academic grades and coursework. Lucas mentions a study which proves that academic dishonesty is more common in classroom assignments and assessments than on the SAT/ACT. Lucas then asserts that keeping the SAT/ACT in college admissions would be relatively better from the perspective of academic integrity.
Impact Flip
Somewhat similar to the offensive response, there’s also the impact flip, also known as an impact turn and the reverse. Here, you must prove that an impact raised on the opposing side is, in actuality, beneficial to your own side. Impact refutations are most effective when the speaker has given a point that is not inherently or morally correct for their side. Simply, don’t impact turn so that death is good because overpopulation is bad. For a more reasonable example, prove that automation is good because it creates more jobs than it destroys. The steps are once again, pretty simple. First, you acknowledge the opponent’s argument and briefly re-explain it. From there, you concede that everything they said in their point up until “affirm” or “negate” is true (the further you concede, the better it is for the flow and your side). From there, you have 2 options. Either prove that the opposite of their impact happens, such as the creation rather than the destroying of jobs (this is often the easier and better path). Alternatively, you could prove that their impact is false and that a separate impact that is beneficial to your side is true. Either way, you need sufficient evidence to support your stance, and a statement summarizing what you have done to both sides of the debate.
Heres an example from one of our FREE congress labs on removing subsidies on fossil fuels and a carbon tax!
It may seem kind of complicated, so here’s an example; Sasha states that if more funding is given to charter schools, public schools will decrease in quality and become underfunded. Mark points out that underfunded public schools is good, because rich students in said public schools will move to private schools, resulting in less funding given to less students at the public schools (a net-zero change on per-student funding) and now instruction is more individualized allowing for better test scores.
Mitigation
As another refutation option, the mitigation refutation is also beneficial. Here, the goal is not to prove that the argument is false or that a net-benefit becomes a net-harm (or vice versa). Instead, it is merely to take a large argument and make it smaller in importance. This can be done in a variety of ways, either by explaining how it impacts less people than the other side claims (scope), that it impacts them to a lesser extent (magnitude), that it impacts them later on in the future (timeframe), or that the likelihood of the impact is less than they claim (probability).
In mitigation refutations, the “ingredients” are as follows: you identify a strong impact on the opposition, and acknowledge it as a valid and plausible impact. The name of the speaker(s) who raised the impact should be mentioned directly. Then you name a flaw in the argument in that they’ve drastically over-estimated the impact in one of the areas mentioned, providing evidence which proves the aforementioned factors, even in situations where it may be intuitive. Lastly you summarize the impact you’ve made on the flow, likely giving some rhetoric alongside it.
For example, Jack claims that snow boots are needed for all students in Texas because it will reduce the chance of them slipping on ice on the way to school. Tracy then mitigates this argument by explaining how ice is incredibly rare in Texas, and in the cases where it is present, school is often closed and thus students would not be on their way to said closed building. Here, Tracy has mitigated the scope of the impact. Alternatively (or in combination), she too could argue that slipping on one’s way to school is generally safe, and while it is scary, very few students have ever received serious injuries from slipping on ice in Texas. Here, she will have mitigated based on magnitude. As yet another option, Tracy could bring attention to the fact that the bill is implemented at the end of winter, and the snow boots wouldn’t be used for nearly a year, thus mitigating based on timeframe.
Less common and more risky, but can be effective: political refutation
The final refutation form is the political refutation. Here, you rely on the idea that a small net-benefit is actually a net-harm because it is much more difficult to make further progress on a problem that has already been “solved” by a solution that had really made no significant difference. Basically, congress only has one shot towards making a great impact and afterwards lobbying will stop them from making any real progress. It’s imperfect because it gets into a meta-debate about who is congress after the end of the session (the debaters, or the real-world congressmen). This is great, however, for many debates where there is an alternative solution that is much better and is not being discussed. Simply, the path forward for a political refutation is to state the opponent’s arguments and demonstrate their insignificance (mitigation without the evidence, for the most part). From there you can either propose an alternative solution incompatible with the debated legislation (i.e. a carbon cap-and-trade system as opposed to a carbon tax), or an amendment to the current legislation that seeks to expand the impacts much more broadly (you do not need to actually approach the chair with an amendment, although doing so is very helpful to your case). From there, you need to present an argument with warrants and evidence supporting the idea that your preferred legislation is, in fact, better than that currently being debated in regards to its ability to solve the same problems. If you’ve chosen the former of the two options, you should then present evidence and a citation proving why we cannot immediately pass your preferred legislation after passing the bill currently being debated. Once that is complete, briefly summarize the refutation.
As an example, Olive wants to give Puerto Rico statehood within the USA. However, Ariel wants Puerto Rico to become its own independent country. These solutions are incompatible with one another, and thus Ariel explains how the problems Puerto Rico faces are caused by the U.S. and giving them statehood would only further those problems. Alternatively, independence gives Puerto Rico the separation it needs to solve the U.S.-caused problems it currently faces.
What about weighing?
What about weighing?
Weighing is not a form of refutation, however it does act like one. It’s much preferred in the early-round when you’d rather spend your time on building up new arguments than a complicated and lengthy offensive response argument, for example. Weighing is also extremely helpful in the late-round, when arguments have already been refuted and are unlikely to waver in their current standing amidst the judges perspective.
Instead of reducing or removing arguments, weighing is just comparing them favorably for your side. Just like mitigation, you can weigh 2 arguments in a variety of ways. The first of those ways is scope, where you claim that your impact affects more people than your opponent’s impact. In this type of weighing, it’s literally just a numbers game, and shows the importance of how much quantified evidence is needed in a round. Without quantified evidence, you cannot weigh an impact on scope and, largely speaking, the judges and fellow competitors will take a negative inference based on the scope in relation to what it truly would be had you quantified it.
Second is by magnitude. Here, it’s impossible to know exactly what’s more impactful on an individual level for every single type of impact. However, there is a broad consensus that, as a general order, it can go (from least important to most important), losing $1, then unemployment, then poverty, and finally death. All other impacts can be placed somewhere within that framing, but those are some common impacts frequent in many debates (except for losing $1, which represents a bunch of small impacts that one might see within a debate).
Third is by timeframe. This is most common in climate change debates, although many debaters have gotten good enough to prove that climate change isn’t something in the future, but rather something happening right now. Basically, it just says that the impacts on my side are more immediate than the impacts on your side. This one is especially important to provide evidence, as most people don’t give time frames with their cards when they are giving their arguments, thus necessitating you to contextualize the time frames of both sides, rather than just your own.
Lastly is probability. This is completely unquantifiable, but instead largely intuitive. Nuclear war is unlikely to happen, regardless of the circumstances. And so if someone argues nuclear war as an impact, you can simply outweigh on probability for most any impact you choose to give. While rarely used, it serves mostly as a reason why not to give outlandish arguments that are completely improbable. However, if you do see one in round, don’t be afraid to tackle it with this weighing mechanism.
How can refutation be used as the foundation for new arguments?
How can refutation be used as the foundation for new arguments?
There are two common misconceptions about later round speeches:
Later-round speeches should be based entirely on refutation. Late-round speakers should take notice of the direction of the debate, and aim to strike down as many arguments as possible from the opposition’s side. Ultimately, if done effectively, this will make their side win from the net harm or lack of net gain on the other side.
Later-round speeches should aim to fulfill the challenge of raising a novel argument. Late-round speakers should prepare extensive arguments and deliver the arguments which have not yet been discussed on their own side. Ultimately, if done effectively, this will make the side win by adding to the net gain on their own side.
The reality is, that both can be effective in rare cases. Generally speaking, the two should be combined to maximize the speaker’s role in winning the debate for their own side. A speaker nor a side can guarantee their win in a debate by simply proving the lack of net gain on the opposing side. They must dedicate an equivalent or more significant portion of time to explaining and proving:
The net gain if their side wins the debate.
The net harm if the opposing side wins the debate.
Previous sections have discussed factors in determining how much of each speech should consist of refutation. For refutation to be directly connected to or used as the foundation for building new arguments at any point in the round, several prerequisites must be fulfilled:
The new contention must be linked to the argument raised in refutation.
The speaker should clearly separate refutation and new arguments by indicating the impacted party. The impacted party can be the affirmation/negation side of the debate, or a relevant stakeholder in the debate.
Evidence or a line of reasoning must be present. It is possible to use evidence to qualify refutation and proceed to use the same evidence to qualify the new argument. In some cases, this method is more confusing and less effective than raising two distinct evidence cards.
Common ways in which refutation and new arguments can work together for affirmation speakers:
Prove lack of net gain in negation’s world —> prove net harm in negation’s world.
Example: Eliana wants to buy lemon cake. Aidan wants to buy banana cake. Aidan claims that bananas are more popular. Nobody in the party likes bananas, so there is no net gain in Aidan’s world. However, someone in the party is known to be allergic to the smell of bananas. Therefore, there is net harm in Aidan’s world. (pro-Eliana)
Example: if the United States does not offer an incentive to recycle plastics, plastics will continue to be disposed of in the same toxic manner as they are today, so there is no net gain in failing to provide a recycling incentive. In addition, with the population and plastic usage rising, the increased plastic waste which is improperly disposed of will cause an increased strain on marine life, water safety, and animal health. Therefore, a net harm exists in failing to provide a recycling incentive. (pro-recycling incentive)
Prove net harm/long term harm in negation’s world —-> prove net gain in affirmation’s world.
Example: Eliana wants to buy lemon cake. Aidan wants to buy banana cake. Eliana proves that someone in the party is known to be allergic to the smell of bananas, therefore there is net harm in Aidan’s world where the banana cake is purchased. In addition, many party attendees previously responded to a poll stating their preference for lemon cake. Therefore, there is net gain in Eliana’s world where the lemon cake is purchased. (pro-Eliana)
Example: if the United States does not offer an incentive to recycle plastics, the rising population and plastic usage will cause an increased strain on marine life, water safety, and animal health. Therefore, a net harm exists in failing to provide a recycling incentive. However, if an incentive is offered to recycle plastics, more people will become aware of the importance of plastic disposal and become involved with efforts to reduce plastic litter and animal exposure to plastic. Therefore, an overall net gain exists in providing a recycling incentive. (pro-recycling incentive)
Prove lack of net harm in affirmation’s world —-> prove net gain in affirmation’s world.
Example: Eliana wants to buy lemon cake. Aidan wants to buy banana cake. Aidan claims people in the party may be allergic to lemons. Nobody in the party has an allergy or strong opposition to lemon cake, therefore no net harm exists in purchasing lemon cake. In addition, many people in the party specifically stated they would be delighted if a lemon cake was purchased. Hence, there is a net gain in purchasing lemon cake. (pro-Eliana).
Example: the negation has expressed concern that offering a plastic recycling incentive program will increase the cost of waste treatment. Systems have already been developed and deployed where plastic can be recycled at the same time and cost as landfill disposal. Therefore, there is no net harm in offering a plastic recycling incentive. In addition, offering a plastic recycling incentive can create new and safe jobs in the waste treatment sector. Hence, there is a net gain in offering a recycling incentive. (pro-recycling incentive)
Common ways in which refutation and new arguments can work together for negation speakers:
Prove lack of net harm in the negation’s world —-> prove net harm in the affirmation’s world.
Example: Thalia wants to go skiing. Sawyer wants to go swimming at the pool. Thalia claims that pool water is unsanitary, however the pool has been freshly bleached and tested for quality. Therefore, swimming does not pose an increased risk of illness. However, sickness-inducing mold was recently reported to be rampant in the ski mountain’s snow-generating machines. Hence, skiing provides an increased risk of illness. (pro-Sawyer)
Example: some say that failing to provide universal healthcare will cause discrimination among health providers. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures that such discrimination is illegal. Therefore, discrimination is not more likely in privatized healthcare than in universal healthcare. However, universal healthcare is known to cause longer waiting times and tighter schedules. Studies have shown that when doctors are more strained, they are more likely to judge patients on the basis of physical appearance. Hence, providing universal health care may increase the likelihood of discrimination. (anti-universal health care)
Prove lack of net harm in the negation’s world —--> prove lack of net gain in the affirmation’s world.
Example: Thalia wants to go skiing. Sawyer wants to go swimming at the pool. Thalia claims that the pool may contain venomous seahorses, however no seahorses are known to be venomous. Therefore, there is increased danger of venomous seahorses when swimming. In addition, another study proved that the likelihood of seahorses surviving in bleached pool water is approximately the same as on a ski slope. Hence, skiing is not relatively safer from venomous seahorses than swimming. (pro-Sawyer)
Example: supporters of universal healthcare believe that the increasing population will make it more difficult to treat emergency medical situations. While the population is increasing, recent studies show that medical professionals are increasing proportionally to the population. Therefore, the increasing population will not cause less urgency for emergency situations. In addition, universal healthcare does not provision additional incentive for individuals entering the medical field or receiving training in emergency medical treatment. Therefore, universal healthcare does not increase the speed nor quality of emergency medical services. (anti-universal health care)
Prove a lack of net gain in the affirmation’s world —-> prove a net harm in the affirmation’s world.
Example: Thalia wants to go skiing. Sawyer wants to go swimming at the pool. Thalia claims that skiing will be enjoyable for the whole party. However, in a survey, 50% of the party stated a preference for skiing, while the other 50% stated a preference for swimming. Therefore, skiing is not more pleasurable than swimming. In addition, several members of the party do not own ski equipment and are stressed because they cannot afford to purchase or rent equipment. Therefore, skiing is less pleasurable than swimming. (pro-Sawyer)
Example: supporters of universal healthcare believe that universalizing healthcare will decrease the wait time necessary to receive treatment due to an increased quantity of medical professionals. However, universal health care doesn't provide additional incentive for individuals entering the medical field or receiving training in any medical profession. Therefore, the quantity of healthcare providers is unlikely to increase, and the wait time for treatment is unlikely to decrease. However, when the UK and Canada implemented a similar universal healthcare system, they saw a shortage of professionals and consequently, an increased waiting time for non-emergency medical services. Hence, universal healthcare will increase wait times for medical services. (anti-universal health care)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse