The Schedule
Our Team
Philosophers
Rebuttal—at least 10 days of study
It’s all in the Argument—What to say and how to say it
The rebuttal, no matter how good your constructive is, will win or lose you the debate. The best debaters in the state know this point, and you should too. Even if you do horribly in cross-examination, the rebuttal time will allow you to catch up—or fall further behind. It’s like running a race; you may have had a bad start, but this is your time to sprint and catch up.
The structure of the Affirmative Rebuttal is broken down into two speeches: one four-minute speech, then a final 3-minute speech after the NEG rebuttal. In the four-minute speech, you have to do two things as the AFF: 1) Attack the NEG case, 2) Strengthen your own case by deflecting the NEG’s attacks and helping your contentions stand.
First, let’s discuss the idea of refuting the NEG case. In a four-minute speech, do not spend any more than 2 minutes attacking the NEG case; this will allow you at least two minutes to strengthen your own case—to prove your point—which is a must for the Affirmative to win. This means that if your opponent has a three contention case, you can only spend 40 seconds on each contention. Therefore, you must be direct in your attacks. No stories about the history of your opponent’s argument, no humorous anecdotes, just do the following: 1) state your opponent’s contention ("my opponent’s first contention was…"), 2) state your main argument against that contention ("I believe this is wrong because…"), and 3) state why you believe that contention is incorrect. DO NOT think of multiple arguments against a contention unless they’re really good—you want quality, not quantity. The judge should be able to remember what you’re saying when he or she makes the decision. A strong, focused argument is easily more memorable than stating 3 weird attacks just for the sake of numbers.
Once you have refuted the NEG case, you must review your own case: 1) State your contention and your opponent’s main attack against the contention, 2) state why his attack is wrong, and 3) most importantly, state why your contention still stands. You must prove, in the end, that your contention is near flawless to win on AFF. At this point, go to practice rebuttals and do a practice 4-min AFF. Then rest for the day.
The 3-minute AFF rebuttal at the end of the round is what is commonly referred to as a "crystallization round." You must make up three or so main points of conflict in the round and explain how they all go the Affirmative side. If you can convince the judge that these MAIN POINTS are for the Affirmative, you will probably stand a good chance of winning. Keep your argument focused, spend a minute on each point, and, if you can, tie all the main points into a solid VALUE CONNECTION.
The NEG Speech is 6 minutes, and since you only get one, it’s pretty complex. Here is what you must do: 1) State again why your arguments against the Affirmative still stand, and why the Affirmative’s contentions all fall (2 minutes), 2) State why your own contentions still stand, and therefore you have fully negated the resolution (2 minutes), and 3) Crystallize by giving the three main points, and explain how they all flow to the negative side of the debate (2 minutes). Spend a day working on practice NEG rebuttals.
Here is a list of rebuttal DO’s and DO NOT’s
- DO cover all points as thoroughly and quickly as you can
- DO not spend too much time on any argument
- DO use solid, focused attacks
- DO use your opponent’s concessions is cross-examination to strengthen your own case
- DO NOT stutter or appear lost or frustrated—confidence must emanate from you
- DO point out any possible contradictions in your opponent’s case—doing so will scare your opponent and will dually be noted by the judge.
- DO NOT get frustrated if your opponent misconstrues an argument or lies—a calm head shall always prevail
- DO NOT end in the middle of a sentence if you run out of time.
- DO NOT shuffle papers or seem disorganized while giving your speech
- DO have notes on possible attacks before you enter a round
Practice Rebuttals—Case Studies
Some of these following 12 cases come from state qualifiers, some do not. Studying these cases will help you to learn the best attacks on the good and the bad debaters alike. DO NOT write on the paper, but rather write your answers on a separate sheet of notebook paper so that we can redo the attacks later. Do only 1 or 2 a day, until you have practiced for 10 days to 14 days. GOOD LUCK! If you wish, I can tell you whose cases these are later on, but for now, assume all cases are great. Here are the instructions for each case:
- Rank the case on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best—why do you think so?
- Write down the best possible attack for each contention/observation/value.
- Write down 5-8 cross-examination questions for each case
- Give a two-minute speech attacking the case and the value behind it—write you attacks down on the notebook paper so that I may read it.
- If you’re on AFF, give a four-minute speech with both the attack on the NEG case and a defense of the generic cases at the end of this section. Then give a three-minute speech with 3 solid main points, using your notebook paper.
- If you’re on NEG, give a 6-minute speech with all the components of the NEG rebuttal.
After you’ve done one or two cases, rest for the day.
YOUR OWN GENERIC CASES ARE:
Capital Punishment Affirmative:
CONTENTION 1: Locke’s social contract justifies capital punishment
CONTENTION 2: Capital punishment is the only way to ensure that a criminal will not harm another person in society.
CONTENTION 3: Capital punishment, because it is the most severe punishment, is the best deterrent.
Observation 1—The idea of CP is different from the implementation-ax.
VALUE—justice CRITERIA—Locke’s Social Contract
Capital Punishment Negative:
CONTENTION 1: Capital punishment shifts the power to take life to the government—Hitler’s blatant use of CP.
CONTENTION 2: Capital punishment assumes that the criminal will not reform
Sub-point: Rehabilitation, with CP, is impossible.
VALUE—justice CRITERIA—reform
JOURNALIST Affirmative:
CONTENTION 1: Only by protecting a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources can information be encouraged.
CONTENTION 2: Protection of the right to shield confidential sources—by the first amendment—ensures fair and equal protection for all.
CONTENTION 3: Protection through the 1st Amendment is the most permanent (longstanding) protection
Observation 1—When two rights conflict, one can take precedence, but the lesser right will not be eliminated.
VALUE—justice CRITERIA—a)shielding sources is good
b)right should be protected by 1st.Amendment
JOURNALIST Negative:
CONTENTION 1: The extents of confidentiality can be effectively outlined through state shield laws—addresses each state’s needs
CONTENTION 2: The finality of the first Amendment puts reporters above the law by giving them an extra, unnecessary, and indeed dangerous right—they could protect one who is committing slander.
VALUE—justice CRITERIA-none (a simple oversight that didn’t really matter)
THE PRACTICE REBUTTALS
1. Opponent is Negative, you’re Affirmative, "capital punishment is justified"
CONTENTION 1: Costs of Capital punishment are great—3 sub-points
a) Execution of innocent people is inherent
b) Capital punishment is arbitrary within the legal system—mistakes
c) Capital punishment takes away the sanctity of life
CONTENTION 2: Capital punishment offers no greater benefits than any other punishment, there are better options.
VALUE: Cost-benefit justice—the cost of CP outweighs the benefits, and therefore it is unjust. CRITERION—The rest of the case
2. Opponent is Affirmative, you’re Negative, "capital punishment is justified"
CONTENTION 1: Capital punishment provides justice—3 sub-points
a) society must provide security due to the SOCIAL CONTRACT
b)Security is provided for society through deterrence
c)Capital punishment is the most effective deterrent
CONTENTION 2: Capital punishment is justified as a punishment—2 sub-points
a) Capital crimes—ones punishable by death—merit capital punishment
b) Capital punishment promotes societal interest
CONTENTION 3: In a just society, people lose rights when they kill
VALUE—justice CRITERIA—A just society’s need for progress
3. Opponent is Affirmative, you’re Negative, "capital punishment is justified"
CONTENTION 1: The moral community—people are expected to obey the laws, and to not hurt the community, persons, property, and dignity. Those who do may justly receive the death penalty.
CONTENTION 2: The Legal Community—2 sub-points
a) People give up certain rights to gain others—Locke’s Social Contract
b) Deterrence—prevent murderers from killing again—"The criminal cannot reform"
VALUE—Justice, defined as "what is right or lawful"
4. Opponent is Affirmative, you’re Negative, "In the United States, a journalist’s right to shield confidential sources ought to be protected by the first amendment."
CONTENTION 1: Confidentiality linked to the free press—if the journalist’s rights are protected, he will be willing to provide info—NIXON-Watergate
CONTENTION 2: Purpose of the constitution is upheld—the constitution is broad and is meant to protect rights.
CONTENTION 3: The first amendment is the most effective and universal means of protection.
VALUE—justice CRITERIA—upholding democracy
5. Opponent is Negative, you’re Affirmative, THE JOURNALIST resolution
CONTENTION 1: Shield laws are currently under the jurisdiction of the United States, as is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment
CONTENTION 2: There cannot be 1 universal shield law, one must comply with the differences of each state
CONTENTION 3: Confidential sources do not allow for justice—People have a right to know who says what.
VALUE—freedom of the press Criteria—justice
6. Opponent is Negative, you’re Affirmative, "capital punishment is justified"
CONTENTION 1: Innocents have been executed—2 sub-points
Implementation fails
Governments differ too much for there to be a perfect judicial system
CONTENTION 2: Race and mental state of criminal plays a deciding role
Implementation fails
CONTENTION 3: Capital punishment discriminates against the poor
Implementation fails
VALUE—individual justice
7. Opponent is Affirmative, you’re Negative, "capital punishment is justified"
CONTENTION 1: Social contract justifies capital punishment—in the military draft, for example, people forfeit their rights to protect the country. With capital punishment, criminals forfeit their rights for the good of the nation.
CONTENTION 2: Society is obligated by the social contract to protect citizens for the greater good.
CONTENTION 3: Capital punishment establishes equality—impose the same amount of suffering that the criminal gave out.
VALUE—utilitarianism and equality CRITERIA: reason
Observation 1—Capital punishment is a principle, not an action
Observation 2—Justice differs from society to society
8. Opponent is Affirmative, you’re Negative, "capital punishment is justified"
CONTENTION 1: Capital criminals break the social contract of Rousseau.
CONTENTION 2: A criminal forfeits the right to life through a capital crime
CONTENTION 3: Capital punishment is just when other means fail—it may be the safest way to stop terrorists, for example.
VALUE—societal security CRITERIA—social contract
Observation 1—We’re not speaking of individual, but societal justification
Observation 2—Affirmative cannot argue every case—there are exceptions.
9. Opponent is Affirmative, you’re Negative, JOURNALIST resolution
CONTENTION 1: The right is protected under a clause that prohibit abridgement of freedom of speech and press—Watergate—can’t harm anyone for their speech.
CONTENTION 2: The right to assemble peacefully protects a journalist’s privilege
CONTENTION 3: The press wins in a conflict between the press and government
VALUE—Individual freedom
Observation 1—Information is corroborated through other means than the journalist
Observation 2—The abuse of the right to shield does not negate the resolution
Observation 3—The more important right violates the less important right
Observation 4—There is a growing trend toward the journalist revealing the source
Observation 5—Supreme Court Decisions mean nothing in the resolution.
10. Opponent is Negative, you’re Affirmative, JOURNALIST resolution
CONTENTION 1—The right has never existed, there is no mandate for change
CONTENTION 2—The 1st Amendment deals with freedom of press, not with sources’ confidentiality—shielding occurs after the work is published.
CONTENTION 3—The rights of the accused must be protected—the 6th Amendment allows testifying to occur
Value—justice CRITERIA—the right to a fair trial
11. Opponent is Affirmative, you’re Negative, JOURNALIST resolution
CONTENTION 1—Free speech is essential—Rawls
CONTENTION 2—1st Amendment protects us from injustices of the government
CONTENTION 3: Protection of speech is vital.
VALUE—Protection of Freedom of the Press
12. Opponent is Negative, you’re Affirmative, JOURNALIST resolution
CONTENTION 1: Under Rousseau’s social contract, the flow of information is needed
CONTENTION 2: No grounds under the 1st Amendment for a Newsman’s privilege—the government has power to tax corporations, the press therefore has some civic duties.
That’s it for the rebuttal practice. IF YOU NEED HELP WRITING CONTENTIONS, pick at least three of these cases and rewrite the contentions in a concise and direct manner.