Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Refutation

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.

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)

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.

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.

Challenge Underlying Assumptions

How to topple the house of cards.

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.

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.

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.

Rebuttals

The beginning of the end.

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 . . .”

The Egg

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

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.

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.

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.

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.