Elements of Debating Part 10

REFUTATION

I. Refutation explained.

II. Refutation may be carried on: 1. By overwhelming constructive argument.

2. By showing the weakness of opponents' argument.

III. The time for refutation: 1. Allotted time.

2. Special times.

IV. The right spirit in refutation.

Our work up to this point has dealt with what is called the _constructive argument_, i.e., the building up of the proof. But to make the judges believe as you wish, you must not merely support your contentions; you must destroy the proof which your opponents are trying to construct.

As with the successful athletic team and the successful general, so with the successful debater, it is necessary, not only to attack, but also to repulse; not only to carry out the plan of your own side, but to meet and defeat the plan which the other side has developed. In debating, this repulse, this destruction of the arguments of the opposition, is called _refutation_ or _reb.u.t.tal_.

There are two princ.i.p.al ways in which the refutation of the opponent's argument can be accomplished. The first is _to destroy it with your own constructive argument_. The second is _to show that his argument, even though it is not destroyed by yours, is faulty in itself, and therefore useless_.

Although only one of them is labeled "Refutation" in the model brief in the sixth lesson, both types are ill.u.s.trated there.

There the negative, believing that the first argument of the affirmative would be, "Inter contests are open to abuse," makes its first point a counter-a.s.sertion. It uses as the first issue: "Contests between the high schools of northern Illinois are not subject to such abuses as will warrant their abolition." Which side would gain this point in the minds of the judges would depend on which side supported its a.s.sertion with the better evidence.

If one side wished to raise this question again in the refutation speeches, which close the debate, it could do no better than to repeat and re-emphasize the same material which it used in its construction argument.

The second method of refuting, i.e., showing an argument to be faulty, is also ill.u.s.trated in the brief in the sixth lesson. It is marked "Refutation." This material was introduced because the negative felt sure that the affirmative would attempt to use the experience of Shortridge High School as evidence of the successful working of this plan. It was shown to be faulty in that the experience of this school would not apply to the question here debated.

The student's study of what makes good evidence for his own case will enable him to see the weakness of his opponents' arguments. Apply the _same_ tests to your opponents' evidence that you apply to your own.

What is there about the evidence introduced that should make the audience hesitate to accept it? Point these things out to the audience. It may be that prejudiced, dishonest, or ignorant testimony has been given. It may be that not enough evidence has been given to carry weight. Whatever the flaw, point out to the audience that, upon a critical examination, experience shows the evidence to be weak.

In every debate there is a regular time allowed for reb.u.t.tal. This is, however, not the only time at which it may be introduced. In the debate, put in refutation wherever it is needed. One of the best plans is, if possible, to refute with a few sentences at the opening of each speech what the previous speaker of the opposition has said.

In all refutation, _state clearly what you aim to disprove._ When quoting the statement of an opponent, be sure to be accurate.

Something like the following is a good form for stating refutation:

Our opponents, in arguing that labor unions have been harmful to the commerce of America, have stated that they would use as support the testimony of prominent men. In so doing, they have quoted from X, Y, and Z. This testimony is without strength. X, as a large employer of labor, would be open to prejudice; Y, as a non-union laborer, is both prejudiced and ignorant. The testimony of Z, as an Englishman is applicable to labor unions as they have affected, not the commerce of America, but the trade of England.

A similar form is shown in the brief on inter-and intra-high-school contests in refuting the experience of Shortridge High School.

In all refutation, keep close to the fundamental principles of the question. Do not be led astray into minute details upon which you differ. Never tire of recalling attention to the issues of the question. Show why those are the issues, and you will see that the strongest refutation almost always consists in pointing out wherein you have proved these issues, while your opponents have failed to do so.

In order to be fully prepared, however, it is a good plan to put upon cards all the points that your opponents may use and that you have not answered in your constructive argument. Adopt a method similar to this:

Shortridge argument

I. Will not apply for: (1) Not this plan.

(2) Conditions differ, for: _a) School Review_, October, 1911.

Then if your opponents advance arguments that are not met in your speech, merely lay out these cards while they speak, and use them as references in your refutation.

The closing reb.u.t.tal speech is always a critical one. Here the speaker should again point out every mistake which his opponents have made.

If their interpretation of the question has been wrong, he should, while avoiding details, emphasize the chief flaws in their arguments.

On the other hand, he should summarize the argument of his own side from beginning to end; he should make the support of each of the issues stand clearly before the judges in its complete, logical form.

In these closing speeches, as in the opening of the debate, much may be gained by an att.i.tude which will win the favor of the hearers toward the speaker and his ideas. An att.i.tude of petty criticism, of narrowness of view, is undesirable at any stage of the debate. The debater who is inclined to belittle his opponents will only belittle himself. To the judges it will appear that the speaker who has time to ridicule his adversaries must be a little short of arguments.

Insinuations of dishonesty and attempts to be sarcastic should be carefully avoided. These weapons are sharp but they are two-edged and are more likely to injure the speaker than his opponent.

The right att.i.tude for a debater is always one of fairness. Give your opponents all possible credit. When you have then refuted their arguments, your own contentions seem of double strength. It is said that Lincoln used this method with splendid effect: He would often restate the argument of his opponent with great force and clearness; he would make it seem irrefutable. Then, when he began his attack and caused his opponent's argument to collapse, its fall seemed to be utter and complete, while his arguments, which had proved themselves capable of effecting this destruction, appeared all the more powerful.

In your desire to do well in refutation, do not be led to depend upon that alone. There is no older and better rule than, "Know the other side as well as you know your own." Do not believe that this is in order that you may be ready with a clever answer for every point made by the other side. The most important reason why you should know the other side of the question is the necessity of your determining the issues correctly, and thus building a constructive argument that is overwhelming and impregnable. Many a debate has been lost because the debaters worked up their own constructive argument first, and only later, in order to prepare refutation, considered what their opponents would say. Had they proceeded correctly, they would have destroyed the proof of their adversaries while they built up their own.

A clever retort in refutation often wins the applause of the galleries, but an a.n.a.lysis of the question so keen that the real issues are determined, supported by an organization of evidence so strong that it sweeps away all opposition as it grows, is more likely to gain the favorable decision of the judges.

SUGGESTED EXERCISES

1. What is the purpose of refutation? 2. What two princ.i.p.al methods may be followed?

3. What must one do to refute correctly and well?

4. Do you think it better in refutation to a.s.sail the minor points of your opponent or to attack the main issues?

5. A fellow-student in chemistry said to you: "The chemical symbol for water is H_{4}0; two of our cla.s.smates told me so." You replied: "The correct symbol, according to our instructor, is H_{2}O." Did you refute his a.s.sertion? How?

6. A cla.s.smate makes an argument which could be briefed thus:

Cigarettes are good for high-school boys, for:

I. They aid health of body, for: (1) Many athletes smoke them, for: a) X smokes them.

b) Y smokes them.

c) Z smokes them.

If you disagree with this a.s.sertion, do not believe they aid health, and know X does not smoke cigarettes, how would you refute his contention?

7. If your opponents in a debate quote opinions of others in support of their views, in what two ways can they be refuted?

8. In a recent campaign, the administration candidate used this argument: "I should be re-elected, for: Times are good, work is plentiful, crops are excellent, and products demand a high price."

Show any weakness in this argument.

9. Show the weakness of proof in this argument: Harvard is better at football than Princeton I. They defeated Princeton in 1912.

10. What general rule can you make from 9 concerning a statement supported by particular cases?

LESSON IX

MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBATE