 Debate is enormously creative and rewards hard work. You may have seen debates on TV where people shouted, ignored counter-arguments, or seemed to be in a contest about who could attack the other person more effectively. Debate tournaments are not like this at all. Students use a combination of logic, research, strategy, and persuasiveness to appeal to judges who are focused on substantive issues. Today we are going to look at one of the most important skill sets in Debate – Refutation and Rebuttal. We will talk a little bit about the theory of both refutation and rebuttal, and cover the basics of being responsive in round. In argumentation theory, an objection is a reason arguing against a premise, argument, or conclusion. There are many ways to object, and we use them often in debate rounds. An objection to an objection is sometimes known as a rebuttal. Argumentation scholar Douglas Walton explains that to rebut an argument is to try to show that the argument is questionable or not supported by the evidence, or even that the evidence shows that it is untenable. In competitive debate, rebuttal was the process of defending one's arguments against an opponent's attack. Refutation, on the other hand, is the process of answering opponent's argument. Debaters will find themselves doing both refutation and rebuttal in every debate round, and the line between the two will often blur. Additionally, both refutation and rebuttal share the same basic goal – to respond to arguments. Now that we have some understanding of what refutation and rebuttal are, let's talk about how we can use them in the debate. In order to have a good, effective debate, you need to be responsive to the arguments and counter-arguments of your opponent. In their introductory manual, authors for the International Debate Education Association explained that this means accomplishing four keys things. First, to locate the argument you wish to answer. Next, summarizing the argument which you were responding, then responding to the argument, and finally explaining the impact. Let's take a look at these in more depth. First, locating the argument. This does not simply mean that a debater must find the argument for herself. The debater must locate the argument on the flow for her judge. In the most competitive forms of debate, the debater will typically signpost or refer to the position of the case in which the argument is found. For example, a debater may say, look at our opponent's uniqueness on the first advantage. This enables the judge to go to that place on the flow, locate the argument, and flow the debater's response. Without such clear signposting, judges will inevitably be confused about what the speaker is responding to. Clarity about the location is key to the judge's understanding of an argument and the debater's crafting a clear round. Second, is summarizing the argument. Simply saying, go to my opponent's second advantage. They are wrong here because it's not enough. A debater must tell the judge which argument he is answering so that the judge understands the argument that the debater is making in response. This summary should be no longer than five to ten seconds and should include the claim and a brief description of the warrant of the argument being answered. This makes the premise the debater is challenging extremely clear to the judge. Third is responding to the argument. A response can challenge any part of the argument, the claim, the warrant, or the impact. Claim and impact level challenges typically do not respond to the reasoning provided by the opposing side. Rather, they provide alternate reasons why the claim is ultimately untrue or why the argument is less important than the opposing side wants the judge to believe. For example, my opponent argues that our plan will increase unemployment by stifling private sector growth. This is not true because the plan will increase public spending on infrastructure, thus creating more jobs. This statement does not challenge the explicit reasoning behind the opposing argument, the bill will stifle private sector growth. Rather, it challenges the claim that unemployment will go up by providing an alternate means of increasing jobs. An impact level challenge also does not address the explicit reasoning behind an argument. Rather, it explains why the argument is fundamentally less important than the opposing side wants the judge to believe. For example, my opponent says millions of jobs will be lost because private sector expansion will be stifled. These lost jobs, though unfortunate, are a necessary step to restructuring our economy for the 21st century. Again, the debater is not disputing the claim that jobs will be lost. She simply claims that the impact is a necessary evil. Thus, claim and impact level responses do not disprove the argument being answered. They merely provide alternate reasons to disregard the argument or reasons that carry greater weight than the original argument. While claim and impact challenges are perfectly acceptable, challenges to warrants are usually the most compelling form of refutation. Challenges to warrants explain why an opponent's explicit reasoning is incorrect. Challenges to data demonstrate the opposing debater is simply making assertions unsupported by fact. For example, my opponent argues that our plan would increase unemployment by stifling private sector growth. This is not true, because the plan actually increases private sector expansion by funneling money through the federal government into the hands of private contractors. This directly challenges the opponent's warrant by explaining why the opposite effect will take place. These arguments are typically the most engaging because they target the explicit reasoning of the opposing debater. Warrent level challenges demonstrate strong critical thinking skills to the judge, more so than claim level responses which do not necessarily engage the line of reasoning used by the other side, or impact level responses which typically are not as strong as warrant level responses. Last, explaining the impact. After the debater has responded, she needs to explain the impact of her response. She can choose between two separate types of impacts. Impacts on the real world and impacts in the debate. An impact on the real world details the effect the response will have on some element of society. It should explain in detail what will happen good or bad as a result of an argument. An impact on the debate details the effect the response has to an opponent's argument. It connects the argument that is being made to the ballot and decision that the judge will ultimately make. A good response will contain both a real world impact and an impact on the debate round. For example, because the plan will not stifle but rather will stimulate the private sector, millions of jobs will be created and millions of families will be better off. This argument is central to the affirmative's position and now that it has been turned against them it should be clear that a negative ballot is justified. This impact begins with a real world explanation of the argument's effect and ends with an explanation of the argument's weight and importance in the debate. Today we discuss the basics of rebuttal and refutation. We recovered their basis and argumentation theory and looked at four key steps to being responsive to arguments and debate rounds. Often in American public discourse we are presented with political events that are labeled as debates. Missing from these public spectacles, amongst other things, is the clash of ideas. In competitive academic debate you are challenged to be better than this. Clash is key to understanding and deeper critical thinking. Plus, at the end of the day, a debate without clash is boring. Thanks for watching. This video series is written and produced by me, Ryan Guy, with the help of a wide variety of scholarly research and open educational resources. For more information on the references and materials used in this video, see the description page on YouTube. This video is published under a Creative Commons license. Please feel free to use, share, and remix its content.