The Rebuttal

One of the most important factors when it comes to deciding the Debate comes to the Rebuttal. The Rebuttal is a four minute speech delivered after 1st Cross. This speech involves the Second Speaker refuting their opponents’ arguments and it is mostly a pre-planned speech - meaning that most of the substance in rebuttal is already written.

We make the rebuttal a pre-planned speech through something called a block. A block is a response to an argument that is written prior to round. We can come up with blocks through considering stock (otherwise known as common) responses. If you want to learn more about Blocks, check out LearnPF’s article on creating a block file under Advanced Topics!

Now that you hopefully know what the basics of a blockfile are, let’s consider developing responses. Before we dive into the types of responses, you should consider certain aspects of the opponent’s case. For instance, does it logically flow together? How strong are the links? Do they make any assumptions? Do they concede anything or contradict themselves? If you believe that there are sketchy aspects of your opponent’s case, point them out in your speech. Doing so puts pressure on the opponent to address these mistakes and can influence the judge in your favor.

If nothing in the case seems to be worth pointing out in the speech, you can instead, deliver some of the responses below.

Let’s go back to the parts of the case. We have the uniqueness, link, warrant and impact. When we utilize the de-link, we try to prove why the Link to the case is false. Insofar as the link is false, the opponents can, therefore, not access their impact.

Let’s look at an example of a delink with this year’s Biometric topic. Going back to a quick overview of the topic, the Pro (affirmative) side argues that Biometrics should NOT be banned whereas the Neg (negative) side argues that Biometrics SHOULD be banned. One argument on the negative (biometrics should be banned) was that Biometrics allow for the rise of the surveillance state - in other words, they allow for the US government to track citizen’s every move.

The link-chain for this argument is broken down below

  • Uniqueness: Right now the United States is becoming increasingly less Democratic
  • Link: Biometrics allow for the United States government to track citizens w/o their permission.
  • Warrant: If we don’t ban biometric’s, the US government is going to backslide.
  • Impact: Loss of Freedom for Millions of Americans.

One example of a possible de-link against this argument is that the United States government is not going to track citizens since that is inherently unconstitutional and by law, they cannot do that.

A link turn is when I say that the opposite of the link is true. Essentially, I “turn” the link against them. Going back to our example on the surveillance state, if I were to turn the link, I would argue that Biometrics PREVENT the US Government from tracking citizens. Obviously, this may not be true, but it is important to realize that each type of response may not be effective for every argument.

Nonunique

When I run the non unique response, I essentially say that the impact happens in both worlds. For instance, in our surveillance argument, I would say that in both an affirmative and negative world, all citizens are going to lose some sort of freedom due to (some external factor).

Mitigation

If I run the mitigation response, I essentially tell the judge that the impact is smaller than the opponents say. For instance, in our example, I would say that a backsliding wouldn’t happen but rather less trust in the government.

Impact Turn

If I run an impact turn, I would argue that the opponent’s impact is a good thing. In this case, if you ran an impact turn (which you probably shouldn’t), you would argue that Democratic backsliding is a GOOD thing.

Indict

Finally an indict refers to an opponent’s piece of evidence. If the evidence is really weak or the study which the opponents cite is not performed correctly, then you can indict the evidence.

Frontlining

We define frontlining as responding to the opponent’s rebuttal. It is necessary to frontline as if you don’t, it makes the job of your partner much harder in summary. We tend to frontline in the second rebuttal as that is directly after your opponent has given their rebuttal speech (if you deliver the first rebuttal, you don’t have to frontline as there is no substance for you to address. Rather, your rebuttal should be a top down response of the opponent’s case). Write your frontlines in the same way you structure rebuttal and use the strategies above when developing responses.