REBUTTALS

HOW TO PREPARE THE REBBUTALS

First, THINK ABOUT YOUR SIDE. Compare your position to your opponent's position. For example, "We are for single-sex schools; they are opposed to them."

Second, FIND THE ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR SIDE. Identify three or four key arguments that support your position. For example, "We are showing single-sex schools help girls learn more; Single sex schools prevent harassment against girls."

Third, IDENTIFY ANY OPPOSING ARGUMENTS THAT MIGHT DEFEAT YOU. Look at your flow, think about what the opposing team appears to be winning. For example, "Hmm, they are showing that single-sex schools reinforce gender segregation in society." NOW, THINK HOW YOUR ARGUMENTS DEFEAT THIS ARGUMENT. For example, "We showed single-sex schools help girls and thereby break barriers in society."

PRESENT THE REBUTTAL

Begin by IDENTIFYING THE CHOICE FOR THE JUDGE. "This debate boils down to, do you give students a choice to go to single-sex schools or do you stop that choice."

Then, LIST OUT EACH OF MAIN REASONS TO SUPPORT YOUR SIDE. Present your reasons, follow it with an explanation and supporting arguments. After this, respond to any opposing arguments that might undermine your argument.

Then, SUM UP & EXPLAIN why this reason is a voting issue for you. For example, "The first reason to vote government is that single-sex schools stop harassment. Harassment is a serious problem--the opposition has conceded that girls are sexually harassed, touched inappropriately, even raped. Single-sex schools stop this harassment because the environment changes and there isn't the opportunity to harass. That is a fact.

Now, the opposition wants to argue the harassment would just happen out of school. First, that concedes that we do stop the harassment in the school and that is a worthwhile achievement. Second, as we argued, women speak out and empower themselves in single-sex schools and that encourages change in our society to reduce the attitudes that contribute to harassment. In sum, our proposal puts a dent in harassment especially in schools and that justifies a government ballot."

THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE REBBUTALS :

The position is self-contradictory. (It says one thing one place and affirms a contradiction some place else.)
The position equivocates. (The writer or speaker changes the meaning of words, so that something seems to be slipped by the audience who had consented to one meaning and is therefore roped into consenting to another meaning without catching the shift.)
The position contains non sequitors. (It suggests that a conclusion can be drawn from a premise, but the premise really doesn't lead naturally to that conclusion.)
The position contains errors in reasoning about cause and effect. (The most common is the post hoc fallacy, in which two coincidental happenings are linked in a cause and effect relationship. Another variation is to claim that a supposed cause produced an effect, when really it only contributed to the effect.)
The opponent attributes authority to someone who doesn't have it.
The opponent cites unconvincing examples, perhaps because they don't fit the situation or perhaps because they are insufficient in number.
The position is built on faulty assumptions. (Sometimes the reasoning is internally consistent, but the taken-for-granted assumptions of the argument are not true.)
The opponent uses questionable arguments. (Perhaps he or she claims that circumstances will eventuate without proof; or that someone is not to be believed because he belongs to a certain group.)
Arguments Based on Pathos
Although rebutting someone using emotions is sometimes considered unethical, the use of pathos is not inherently wrong. Suppose that your opponents' policies will result in the suffering of others. Simply pointing out the possibility of suffering is not as effective as actually saying something like, "Let's consider the case of Janice if these policies are put into effect." Then you would go on to tell a story about Janice in some detail. The emotional tone of the story may be a more effective rebuttal of the opponent than several arguments based on logos.

Arguments Based on Ethos

Rebuttals based on ethos are the most likely to be unethical. Such an argument attacks the character of the opponent directly without dealing with her position's logic. This argument is sometimes call the ad hominem argument, meaning "against the man." Normally, it is listed as a fallacy, and students are encouraged to point out that their opponents are employing a fallacy. It is the use of such arguments that cause politicians to cry out that "negative political ads are destroying the political process."
Certainly, one should avoid attacking someone else's character if at all possible, but there may be some occasions in which discussion of your opponent's character is appropriate. It's almost impossible to give rules of thumb about when it is permissible and when it isn't. There is much debate among ethicists about this very issue. Does someone's personal life have anything to do with whether or not people should support his or her positions? Why or why not? I'll leave that up to you to decide.