REBUTTAL
Rebuttal consists of defending the constructive argument and weakening
or destroying opposing arguments. Rebuttal is both defense and attack.
Refutation is attack alone. In formal debate rebuttal refers to the
final speech made by each debater after he has presented his
constructive argument and his opponents have had a chance to reply. The
main speech in a formal debate is usually of ten minutes’ duration while
the rebuttal speech is of five minutes’ duration. Furthermore, after the
first affirmative speaker has opened the debate it is customary for each
succeeding speaker to introduce his main argument with a short rebuttal
speech of one or two minutes, or he may introduce rebuttal at any point
in his main speech.
The rebuttal speech must introduce no new argument, but is limited to a
discussion of the validity of the arguments already presented. After the
salesman has presented his goods and the reasons why the prospective
customer should buy, he must answer the questions regarding those
reasons and the objections which are made to them. Furthermore, he must
overthrow any reasons for not buying which may be advanced by the
customer. In arguing with a single individual regarding the advisability
of any course of action the arguer must defend his own position as well
as overthrow that of his opponent. In organizations and deliberative
bodies the speaker who proposes any plan or measure must be prepared to
answer any objections which may be made to it; and must also be prepared
to weaken or destroy the arguments which may be advanced in support of
other plans or measures which conflict with his own. It is thus seen
that a knowledge of the preparation and presentation of rebuttal is
almost indispensable to the student who would make practical application
of the theory and practice of argumentation. Since our work is to take
the form of debating, we shall consider the subject largely from this
standpoint. Nevertheless, the student should constantly keep in mind the
broader application of the principles which are used in formal debating.
I. Preparation for rebuttal.
Rebuttal should never be considered lightly from the standpoint of
preparation. The speaker who relies on the “spur” of the moment is quite
sure to find that when the moment arrives it has no “spur.” The rebuttal
should be prepared as carefully as the constructive argument. It demands
exact and far-reaching knowledge. Furthermore, it demands absolute
command of that knowledge in order that it may be used effectively. In
this preparation the student should consider the sources from which he
may derive the appropriate material, and the proper arrangement of that
material after it has been collected.
_1. Sources of material for rebuttal._
_A. Material acquired in constructing the argument._
The investigation which preceded and accompanied the construction of the
brief and argument should have yielded a wide knowledge of the subject.
Much of the material gathered could not be used because of limitations
of time or space, because of its not being adapted to use in the
argument as it was to be presented, or because of the abundance of
better material. The student will therefore have in his possession a
large number of facts which were not used. These should be carefully
reviewed in order that the “stock in trade” of rebuttal material may be
invoiced. The student should then revert to his original analysis and
examine his opponents’ position with a critical eye. He should measure
carefully the strength of that position and compare it with his own. All
the sources which were consulted in the beginning should again be made
to yield information. This can now be done with ease, because the
preparation of the constructive argument has given the student a firm
grasp upon the subject-matter.
Every possible point of attack which the constructive argument presents
must be fortified by full and complete rebuttal material. The debater
should begin at his argument as a starting point and work back along the
line of evidence supporting each general assertion. Since it was
impracticable to put into the argument all the evidence supporting any
one contention, the student must now have this evidence at hand in order
to support his argument at the point where the attack can be made. It is
almost impossible to construct an argument which cannot be attacked in a
plausible manner, but it is entirely possible to construct an argument
which can be defended successfully.
After the constructive argument has been fortified, the main contentions
of the opposition, which the analysis of the question has revealed, must
receive careful attention. Every possible line of attack which the
opposition may advance should be considered. The student cannot hope to
determine beforehand the form in which these arguments will be
presented. Nevertheless, if his analysis of the proposition has been
made in a thorough manner, and if his preparation has been thorough, he
cannot fail to have grasped the underlying arguments of his opponents’
position. These should now be refuted with the best material which the
debater can find. He must be as diligent in ferreting out evidence which
will overthrow his opponents’ position as he was in searching for
evidence with which to support his own. No available source of evidence
should be neglected. Every weak point in the opposing argument should be
exposed and “ammunition” with which to attack these weak places should
be collected. This material should be tabulated on cards in the same
form that was used in tabulating material for the constructive argument.
The following specimens of rebuttal cards, prepared by students for an
inter-class debate, may prove suggestive.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│_Injustice._ _D. A. Wells._│
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│“Taxation in aid of private enterprises is to load the tables of the │
│few with bounty, that the many may partake of the crumbs that fall │
│therefrom.” │
│ │
│_The Theory and Practice of Taxation_, p. 292. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│_Test of Ability._ _Philip S. Post._│
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│“By successive stages more equitable standards of taxation have been │
│reached, until now there is a general acceptance of the maxim that │
│income is the best test by which to measure a man’s ability.” │
│ │
│_Outlook_, Vol. 85, p. 503 (1907). │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│_Equality of Sacrifice._ _R. T. Ely._│
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│“An income tax honestly assessed and honestly collected answers the │
│canon of Equality of Sacrifice.” │
│ │
│_Taxation in American States_, p. 89. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
_B. Books, papers, and documents._
It often happens that the question has been debated previously. In such
cases books, papers, and documents may be found which contain
“ready-made” rebuttal arguments. The debater should never rely on these
alone. The preparation suggested in the last section is an absolute
prerequisite to successful work in rebuttal. However, these ready-made
arguments should be searched out carefully and made to form a part of
the material for rebuttal. Such evidence is of course subject to the
same requirement regarding its worth and validity as the sources of
material consulted in constructing the main argument.
The student should now go over his cards carefully and consider the
various books, papers, or documents from which his information was
derived. Any of these books, papers, or documents which stand as
authority for vital facts, or for facts about which there is likely to
be a dispute, should be taken out and placed with the other material
which is to be used in rebuttal. Especially should this be done in cases
where the debater feels that he has authority which is probably better
than that which his opponents will be able to quote. For example, a
government document makes a very effective showing when it is quoted as
contradicting the statement of some unknown magazine writer. In like
manner statistics from the _United States Census Reports_ will prevail
over statistics found in an address delivered by some partisan leader.
Since such conflicts of authority are likely to arise it is important
that the debater have at hand the original sources of the information
which forms the basis of his argument or rebuttal. Moreover, a
recognized authority sometimes changes his opinion. In this case the
debater should be careful to provide himself with the book, paper, or
document which contains his latest views on the subject discussed. These
become especially valuable when the opposition relies upon the old views
of the authority quoted. In this, as in all other cases of authority,
the usual tests of sufficiency apply.
_C. Questions._
The skillful asking of questions is a most important matter in debating.
These are often asked in the main argument, but it is in the rebuttal
that the answers are usually threshed out. If the questions are not
asked originally in the rebuttal they should at least be reverted to
during this part of the debate. No debater can consider himself
thoroughly prepared who has not framed some effective questions and who
is not ready to answer questions which may be asked by his opponents.
The interrogatories which are intended to be discussed in the rebuttal
are not rhetorical questions, but questions calling for definite
answers.
There are two well defined uses to which these questions may be put.
First, they may be used to compel an opponent to take a definite
position on some issue which he appears to be attempting to evade.
Second, they may be used to force an opponent into a dilemma, in which
position he will be at a disadvantage without regard to the answer which
he gives. Very often an opponent is more skillful in evading the real
point at issue than he is in debating it. In such cases a question or
series of questions may be necessary in order to compel him to discuss
the subject of dispute. Sometimes an opponent intentionally evades the
real point at issue because he knows his position is weak and seeks to
cover up the real defect under a plausible show of language. In both of
these situations the use of direct questions is effective. The wording
of these questions should receive the same careful consideration which
is bestowed upon the wording of a proposition. The questions must be
clear and unambiguous and must call for definite and direct answers. No
opportunity for evasion should be allowed. Furthermore, these questions
must be worded forcibly and emphasized in such a way that an opponent
will not dare to leave them unanswered.
On the other hand, if an opponent propounds certain questions to which
answers are demanded, the debater must either answer these questions
satisfactorily or show good reason why they should remain unanswered. In
the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, which began August, 1858, questions
were frequently asked by both parties. In the first debate, which was
held at Ottawa, Illinois, Douglas asked Lincoln seven distinct
questions. In the second debate which was held at Freeport, Lincoln
restated these questions and answered them briefly and to the point in
the following manner:
“In the course of that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to me
seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half, I
attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I
thought, answered one of the interrogatories then. I then distinctly
intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories on
condition only that he would agree to answer as many for me. He made no
intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply
allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him no injustice in
saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as
though I had _refused_ to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that
I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will
answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an
opportunity to respond. The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will
answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not; and that
after I have done so I shall propound mine to him.
“I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party
at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of
the party, then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall
answer I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will
be perceived that no one is responsible but myself.
“Having said this much, I will take up the Judge’s interrogatories as I
find them printed in the Chicago _Times_, and answer them _seriatim_. In
order that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the
interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first one
of these interrogatories is in these words:
_Question 1_—‘I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did
in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave
law?’
_Answer_—I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional
repeal of the Fugitive Slave law.
_Question 2_—‘I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day,
as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more Slave States into
the Union even if the people want them?’
_Answer_—I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission
of any more Slave States into the Union.
_Question 3_—‘I want to know whether he stands pledged against the
admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the
people of that state may see fit to make?’
_Answer_—I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State
into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may
see fit to make.
_Question 4_—‘I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?’
_Answer_—I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia.
_Question 5_—‘I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the
prohibition of the slave trade between the different states?’
_Answer_—I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade
between the different states.
_Question 6_—‘I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit
slavery in all the Territories of the United States, north as well as
south of the Missouri Compromise line?’
_Answer_—I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the
_right_ and _duty_ of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United
States Territories.
_Question 7_—‘I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the
acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited
therein?’
_Answer_-I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory;
and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition,
according as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate
the slavery question among ourselves.
“Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these
questions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I was not
_pledged_ to this, that, or the other. The _Judge_ has not framed his
interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered
in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly,
that I am not _pledged_ at all upon any of the points to which I have
answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his
interrogatory. I am rather disposed to take up at least some of these
questions, and state what I really think of them.”
In the above example of the use of questions and answers it will be
noted that Lincoln emphasizes his fairness by offering to answer his
opponent’s questions provided that opponent will do the same with
questions which he propounds. When Judge Douglas does not accept this
proposition, Lincoln follows up his just course of conduct by declaring
that he will answer his opponent’s questions whether that opponent will
answer his or not. He then makes an introductory statement in which he
limits the responsibility of his answers strictly to himself. He next
takes up each question and answers it briefly and directly. He concludes
these answers with a paragraph in which he shows that he has answered
the questions strictly in accordance with the form in which they were
asked. Then he again shows his fairness and even liberality toward his
opponent by taking up the more important questions and giving a full and
complete discussion of each one. After this fair and comprehensive
treatment Lincoln proceeds to propound his questions to Judge Douglas in
the following manner.
“I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories so far as I
have framed them. I will bring forward a new installment when I get them
ready. I will bring them forward now only reaching to number four.
The first one is:—
_Question 1_—If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely
unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and
ask admission into the Union under it, before they have the requisite
number of inhabitants according to the English bill,—some ninety-three
thousand,—will you vote to admit them?
_Question 2_—Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful
way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude
slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitution?
_Question 3_—If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that
States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of
acquiescing in, adopting, and following such a decision as a rule of
political action?
_Question 4_—Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in
disregard of how such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery
question?”
The foregoing examples of questions and answers will give an idea of the
way in which they may be used in a formal debate. The third
interrogatory propounded by Lincoln illustrates well the type of
question which is designed to force an opponent into a dilemma. This
inquiry is an example of the great analytical ability of Lincoln, as the
following circumstances will show.
The Dred Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court had held that
Congress did not have the power to exclude slavery from any of the
territories. Lincoln regarded this decision as wrong and said so.
Douglas denounced Lincoln for his attitude in the matter and declared
that it was unpatriotic, disloyal, and revolutionary for any man to
criticize a decision of the United States Supreme Court. On the other
hand Lincoln denounced Douglas on the ground that he, acting in
conjunction with other Democrats, was engaged in a conspiracy to
nationalize slavery. In support of this charge he offered reasonable
evidence, and showed that the conspirators’ efforts would be complete
providing they could get a decision of the Supreme Court which would
declare that a state could not exclude slavery from its borders. Lincoln
charged Douglas with active attempts to secure this decision. It was
under these circumstances that Lincoln asked the third question,
viz.:—“If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that the
States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of
acquiescing in, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of
political action?”
If Douglas answered this question in the affirmative it would put him in
the position of substantiating Lincoln’s charge of conspiracy. This
would be very embarrassing for Douglas and give Lincoln a decided
advantage. On the other hand, Douglas’s position would be just as
embarrassing and his opponent would reap as great an advantage, if he
answered in the negative, for then he would be opposing a decision of
the Supreme Court,—the very thing for which he had so bitterly denounced
Lincoln. The question was so worded that an affirmative or a negative
answer would be equally disastrous.
By a judicious use of such questions the debater may direct the
discussion along the narrow channel which it should take, and bring out
in a forcible way any defects in his opponents’ position. No debater
should consider himself thoroughly prepared for rebuttal until he has
worked out carefully a list of questions framed in accordance with the
principles here suggested.
Another form of attack which properly belongs under this heading is that
of demanding a definite plan. If the speaker is upholding the negative
in a debate on the question of the inheritance tax, he should demand
that the next affirmative speaker show a definite plan of taxation. If
the opponent refuses to present a definite plan he may be charged with
impracticability, vagueness, and a fear that no plan which he might
present could be defended safely. On the other hand if he presents a
definite plan it may be easy to point out glaring defects in its
construction. In either case the demanding of a definite plan may be
made to work to the advantage of the debater. If a definite plan is
demanded it is usually best to reply that the discussion is on
principles not plans. In this way attention may be called to the
underlying principles of the controversy and it can be shown that, after
the difficulties which they present have been solved, a discussion of a
definite plan will be in order and its construction will then be a
simple matter. This method of procedure, both as regards the demanding
of a definite plan and the answering of that demand, affords ample scope
for the argumentative mind to display its breadth of perception and its
keenness in analysis.
_2. Arrangement of rebuttal material._
After a satisfactory amount of rebuttal material has been collected the
debater must arrange this material in such a way that any particular
part of it will be readily accessible. Since the amount of evidence must
necessarily be so large, that all of it cannot be kept in mind at one
time, some easy method of classification is necessary which will include
everything that may be of use when the rebuttal is to be presented. The
importance of this systematic classification becomes apparent when the
debater stops to reflect that he has enough rebuttal material for a one
or two hour speech, while the actual time which is allowed for its
presentation in a formal debate is usually five or six minutes. Even if
there is no time limit the debater must not weary the audience by long
delays while he searches for material. The debater must know exactly
where each piece of evidence may be found. It is not sufficient that he
have a vague recollection that somewhere in his notes is an
authoritative fact which will refute the argument his opponent has just
advanced. He must know just where to find that fact. If his opponent has
misquoted statistics from the Report of the United States Industrial
Commission it is not sufficient for him to know that somewhere within
the nineteen volumes of that report is a small table of statistics which
will prove his opponent to be wrong. He must be able to turn to the
exact volume and page. He may be confident that an authority, which he
has quoted as favoring his position, is really on his side of the case;
but if he cannot give an exact reference to the place where such
authority is to be found, his opponent may dispute the assertion with
impunity. These and many similar situations which are bound to arise in
actual debating make it plain that the task of arranging material is a
very important part of the preparation for rebuttal.
_A. Classification of cards._
The rebuttal cards should all be classified under a sufficient number of
headings to cover the entire field of the evidence collected. The exact
number of headings will, of course, vary with different questions. There
must be, however, a sufficient number of divisions to separate the cards
into groups small enough to be handled easily. On the other hand the
number of divisions must not be so great as to become confusing in
themselves. In actual practice from four to eight divisions are
sufficient for practical purposes. In a debate on the proposition,
“Resolved, that the United States should make no discrimination between
the immigrants from China and those from other countries,” the rebuttal
cards were divided into the following groups; (1) Economic influence,
(2) Social influence, (3) Political influence.
If the number of cards in any one group is too large to be handled
easily, that group may be divided under two or more sub-heads. For
example, in the division above made the topic “Social influences” was
found to include a much larger number of cards than either of the other
subdivisions; hence it was divided into two sub-heads, (a) assimilation,
(b) morality and crime. This careful division of the material will make
the debater so familiar with all his rebuttal evidence that he can
without hesitation lay his hands upon just what is wanted. The work of
locating particular points of evidence must be done with dispatch. Time
is valuable, for the debater will soon be called upon to answer the
argument that is being presented. Moreover, if he spends too much time
looking over his cards and if the process requires all his attention, he
may lose some very important statement which is being made by his
opponent.
In a formal debating contest it is sometimes advisable to have the
alternate take charge of the entire mass of rebuttal material. In this
case the cards should be typewritten so that each member of the team can
read any card as well as any other member of the team can read it. The
alternate sits at the table with the team and has all the rebuttal cards
in a filing box before him. Then as each argument is brought up he
quickly finds the most effective rebuttal material on that point and
hands it over to the speaker who is to answer that argument. This system
of working allows the regular members of the team to give all their
attention to what their opponents are saying. The alternate performs the
mechanical work of finding the particular evidence required. With a team
whose members have worked out the question together in a thorough
manner, this method is very effective.
_B. Arranging books, papers, and documents._
Following the suggestions regarding sources of material, the debater
will have before him a number of books, papers, and documents. When the
time comes to use these sources of material the debater cannot delay the
discussion by hunting through them in an aimless fashion in search of
the precise information which he needs. He must be able to pick out the
volume and turn to the exact page without hesitation and at a moment’s
notice. This requisite demands the same systematized classification that
was employed in the arranging of rebuttal cards. One method of making
this classification is to have a card index of the material. The general
topic to be refuted should be placed at the top of the card. Below this
should be an exact reference to the book, paper, or document in which
the material for refutation is found. Then when an opponent puts forth
his argument it is only necessary to look it up in the card index and
turn to the reference. The places in the books, papers, and documents,
to which reference is made in the card index, should be marked with long
slips of paper extending beyond the tops of the books and having on the
protruding parts the numbers of the pages which they mark. Furthermore,
the particular portions of the page which are applicable should be
marked with marginal lines. Great care should be taken to mark only
those passages which are exactly to the point; otherwise too much time
will be wasted in referring to matters which may be relevant but are of
no value as proof.
This system of indexing material contained in books, papers, and
documents will be found to be almost indispensable when the time for use
arrives. The debater must practice this system until he can manipulate
it with ease and rapidity. In the case of team work, the alternate may
have charge of this index, which can be made a part of the large card
classification. He can then provide each rebuttal speaker with the
proper material as the occasion for its use arrives. Of course, in the
case of a single speaker, where only a very few volumes are to be used
in the rebuttal the system of card indexing can be dispensed with, but
the system of marking the exact references by means of slips of paper
and marginal lines should always be employed.
In the beginning the working of this system, as that of any system, will
seem awkward and unwieldy; but the debater must practice using it under
all argumentative conditions. In this way he will gain in the ease and
rapidity with which he can manipulate its parts. When this is
accomplished he will have a most effective aid to the kind of rebuttal
work which secures results. The student must not fail to make his
preparation in this respect thorough. Every detail must be mastered;
every rebuttal card must be so well in mind that a mere glance will be
sufficient to reveal its contents. The reading of rebuttal cards takes
all the life out of a rebuttal argument. This part of the argument more
than any other must be delivered with native force and enthusiasm.
Effective presentation in rebuttal follows only from the most thorough
preparation.
_C. The summary and closing plea._
After the preparation above outlined has been completed one task yet
remains. The debater must have an effective conclusion for his rebuttal
speech. He must not rely upon a chance inspiration of the moment.
Experience proves that for all but professional speakers, and oftentimes
even for them, it is best to have a committed summary or closing plea.
In the case of a debating team the work of closing the argument should
be left to the last speaker in rebuttal. This summary should be the
strongest statement that it is possible to produce. All the main
arguments that have been presented should be summarized. The position of
both sides of the controversy should be set forth in clear and vigorous
language. If questions have been asked, or demands have been made of the
opposition, a direct and forcible reference to the effect of these
questions or demands should be made. Then, summoning all the powers of
eloquent utterance of which he has command, the speaker should make a
closing plea for the adoption or defeat of the proposition.
Examples of effective closing pleas are too numerous to need extended
discussion. In debating the proposition “Resolved, that the Federal
Government should levy a progressive inheritance tax. Granted, that such
a tax would be held constitutional,” the last speaker for the
affirmative delivered the following summary:
“We have asked our opponents, how will the enforcement of present laws
reach the evils of congested wealth? What are the benefits derived from
the perpetuation of such fortunes? Where will you place the power of
control, at Wall Street or at Washington? Have the gentlemen answered
these questions to your satisfaction?
“We have accepted the burden that devolved upon the affirmative and we
have met that burden by showing that the Federal government needs this
revenue because of its rapidly increasing functions; that it is
practicable because it has twice been in actual operation; and that as a
Federal tax it possesses the qualities of certainty, elasticity, and
regularity.
“We have clearly shown that as a regulative measure it is necessary for
the reasons, that the perpetuation of swollen fortunes is productive of
industrial inequalities which are un-American and of evils which it is
beyond the power of ordinary legislation to control. We have
demonstrated its practicability by proposing a definite plan which will
remedy the evil, first, by actually taking a part of these enormous
accumulations, and second, by compelling their greater distribution.
Finally we set forth the beneficial effects of such a measure upon
public opinion—resulting in the greater responsibility of wealth and in
removing the incentive to corruption.
“In short, while the gentlemen of the opposition are standing as the
champions of swollen fortunes, magnates, and a governing aristocracy
founded upon wealth and corruption with the center of power at Wall
Street, we stand for the suppression of corruption, the resurrection of
individual opportunity, and government by the great mass of the common
people with the center of power at Washington. The negative would foster
an aristocracy; we would perpetuate democracy.
“We plead, therefore, that in passing upon this resolution, you consider
the welfare of the whole nation, that you consider this measure as
legislation complementary to the regulative laws already enacted; that
you consider the opinions of eminent statesmen, and the conservative
will of the people—in short, that you adopt this resolution.”
The conclusion for the final rebuttal speech should be prepared with the
same care that is exercised in the preparation of the conclusion for the
main argument. It differs from the latter in that it takes more into
account the arguments of the opposition. It is the last chance the
debater has to plead for his cause, and he must make the most of his
opportunity.
II. Presentation of rebuttal.
In the presentation of rebuttal all the principles which are laid down
in the next chapter should be observed. They are of equal importance and
apply with equal force to both the main argument and the rebuttal
speeches. However, the conditions under which the two speeches are
delivered are very different and it is therefore necessary that we give
special attention to the presentation of rebuttal. The difficulty of the
task which now confronts us is even greater than that which we must
consider in connection with the delivery of the main argument. The
qualities of mind which success demands are of a higher order, and the
mental exercise involved is of greater value. The ability to grasp the
essential features of a situation as it presents itself, the ability to
analyze keenly and determine definitely and without hesitation upon a
plain course of action, and finally the power of presenting clearly and
forcibly the conclusions which have been reached, are all comprised in
the art of debate.
_1. Attention to argument of opponent._
The first essential of rebuttal work is a keen interest in, and
attention to, the opposing argument. It is impossible to rebut an
argument which has not been heard or one which was not understood. If
the preparation for rebuttal has been thorough and has conformed to the
plan laid down in the first part of this chapter, the student will be so
familiar with the possible lines of discussion that he will have no
difficulty in grasping his opponents’ arguments. The debater should
experience a keen interest in the way in which the opposing speakers
will present their arguments. He must not let his mind wander from the
subject for a single instant. All his mental power must be concentrated
on the business in hand. He must not be confused by any unusual method
of presentation. If his preparation has been thorough no essentially new
argument will be brought forth, although arguments with which he is
familiar are quite likely to be presented in a form with which he is
unfamiliar. He must grasp quickly the significance of such arguments and
reduce them to terms in which they are clear to his own mind. Then he
must correlate his own rebuttal material with what he has heard. He must
see the relation which each part bears to the whole and be able to weigh
the relative values of the contentions. The keynote of effective
rebuttal is keen attention to the opposing argument.
_2. Selecting the arguments to be refuted._
No attempt should be made to refute everything which the opposing
speaker presents. In breaking a chain it is just as effective to break
one link as it is to break every link. The successful debater must
analyze keenly and sift the essential from the trivial. If his opponent
is a skilled debater he will have certain definite main issues and
definite evidence and reasoning. The task of refutation is thus made
easy. The main issues are refuted directly by showing that he has not
analyzed the question rightly, or by showing mistakes in evidence or in
processes of reasoning. If his opponent is not skilled in debate his
argument must be reduced to certain definite parts and then refuted in
like manner. Very often the rebuttal cards will contain the exact
arguments presented by an opponent, but more often it becomes necessary
for the speaker to select the vital parts of the opposing contentions
and write them down briefly. He should be sure that he states the exact
position of his opponent. Otherwise he is thrown open to the charge of
willful misrepresentation, or carelessness, or lack of ability in
grasping what has been said. Only that which is vital should be selected
and it should be written down either in clear-cut phrases, or in the
exact words of the opponent. The latter plan is often most effective
because it offers the least chance for a dispute as to what the argument
really is. On the other hand where the position of an opponent is
unmistakable, although somewhat ambiguously expressed, a decided
advantage is gained by stating his position in a better way than it has
previously been stated. In any event an argument is not selected for
refutation until it has been set off from all subsidiary material by
brief, clear phrasing.
Where several means of proving a proposition have been presented, but
only one of them could in reality stand as proof, that is the one to
discuss in rebuttal. The debater should be constantly on the lookout for
arguments or evidence which may be combined under one heading. By a
judicious combination of related arguments the destructive work of
rebuttal may be made to cover a wider field. Furthermore, much can be
done to widen the field by means of ingeniously arranging the order of
rebuttal arguments in such a way that certain arguments may be met by
referring them to contentions which have already been answered. In any
event the debater should arrange his arguments in their most effective
order.
When rebuttal is given in introducing the main argument, it is well to
begin by answering the last argument presented by the last speaker for
the opposition. This action on the part of the debater shows quickness
and ability and is sure to make a favorable impression on the hearers.
This may be followed by a refutation of one or two points which have
been especially emphasized by the preceding speaker, after which the
debater should swing naturally and easily into his main constructive
argument. Furthermore, as will be suggested in connection with the
chapter on delivery, the main speech should be so adapted to the
contentions of the opposition that the whole constructive argument is
used to tear down the case of the opposition as well as to be
constructive of one’s own case.
_3. Reading quotations._
The reading of exact quotations from authority usually plays a very
important part in a debate. Especially is this true in cases where a
dispute arises as to what a particular authority says on the point at
issue. For example, if the controversy hinges on the exact wording of a
decision of the Supreme Court, the speaker who produces that decision
and reads from it in the proper manner has gained a decided advantage.
The production of the large leather bound book, in itself, aids the
effect which it is the speaker’s intention to produce. It is something
tangible, something which the audience can see; it is the visual symbol
of superior authority.
Following out the preparation for this reading which has already been
suggested, the student should turn without hesitation to the passage to
be read. He must be so familiar with the wording that he can follow it
with but an occasional glance at the printed page. He must still look
directly at the audience and refer to the book only for the purpose of
guiding his reading. He should read slowly and deliberately, emphasizing
those parts which bear directly on the point at issue. If a statement
contradicts flatly the contentions of the opposition it is well to read
it over again in order to emphasize it more forcibly.
_4. Team work._
In a formal contest the individual debater must work with his team. It
is just as important that the members of a debating team work together
as it is that the members of a football team work together. In formal
debating contests one team is pitted against another team. It is not a
struggle between the individuals composing the teams but a struggle
between the teams themselves. Therefore each must sacrifice his own
inclinations for the good of the team. When there is a necessity for
rebutting an argument which has been advanced by the opposition, the
next speaker must rebut such argument. This must be done notwithstanding
the fact that the rebuttal for that argument is a pet piece of property
belonging to another member of the team who will speak later in the
program. This point cannot be emphasized too strongly.
_5. Treatment of opponents._
The object of debate is to reveal the truth. One who speaks in public on
any question is under obligation to inculcate right principles into the
minds of his hearers. Vanity, subterfuge, resentment, and malice have no
place in debate. Only the truth should prevail; and nothing but the
truth will prevail in the end. Therefore the attitude of the debater
toward his work must be one of sincerity and respect. His whole
personality should indicate this state of mind. The use of invective,
ridicule, or satire towards one’s opponents is clearly out of keeping
with this spirit, and nothing of such a nature should be allowed to
intrude itself into the discussion.
The day has passed when “bullyragging” the opposition passed for
argument and won the respect of an audience. The simple fact remains
that an opponent’s argument, not his personality, is to be refuted. The
moment invective, ridicule, or satire enter, they drive out that spirit
of calm inquiry after truth which should be the controlling spirit of
every controversy. Although the hearers as a whole seem to acquiesce in
a vindictive spirit, laugh at sarcastic comments, and appear interested
in a belligerent attitude, the moment the excitement has subsided a
reaction sets in and their respect for the speaker who has amused and
entertained them in this way is dead. If an opponent has used these
unkind weapons against you, the most effective reply that you can make
is to ignore them and begin at once a continuation of the discussion in
a plain, orderly manner.
It is both discourteous and unnecessary to accuse an opponent of
dishonesty, or misrepresentation. If he has really indulged in these
unfair means the evidence advanced in rebuttal will reveal that fact.
When any difference arises it is best to assume that the opponent is
honestly mistaken. A favorite method of Lincoln’s was to show that his
opponent’s conclusion appeared to be right on the first consideration,
but that a more extended investigation revealed the fact that it was
unsound. Sometimes he even took great care to explain that he had
himself formerly held the opinions which his opponents were attempting
to defend, and then by skillful use of evidence he would show why he had
changed his own opinion. In this way, without giving offense to his
opponents or to his audience, he was able in many cases to win them to
his cause without their looking upon him as an active agency in
producing the change.
A debater must deal honestly with his opponents. It is dishonest and
immoral to present evidence in such a way that it will appear to show as
true that which the debater knows to be untrue. No concealment or
suppression of fact designed to mislead the opposition should be
tolerated. Sometimes vital issues are ignored or an attempt is made to
conceal them under a display of confusing language. Such methods are
reprehensible. Nothing but absolute fairness in the treatment of
opponents will gain any permanent advantage, for even from the selfish
standpoint honesty and fairness are best. A speaker cannot impress his
audience with his fair-mindedness unless he is treating his opponents in
a fair manner. An appearance of fairness always gains a respectful
hearing for a cause. A man must be a man before he can be anything else.
That fine sense of personal courtesy which characterizes the gentleman,
and the earnest desire for truth which denotes the scholar, are
fundamental requisites for him who would persuade.
_6. The summary and closing plea._
After the debater has answered what he conceives to be the essential
arguments of the opposition, he should present his final summary. Where
a time limit is fixed beyond which he may not speak, he must allow
himself ample time to deliver this closing plea entire. The necessity of
stopping before the end is reached destroys the sense of completeness
which this conclusion is designed to give the argument. The form of this
summary has been discussed in a previous section. All aids to a
persuasive delivery discussed in the chapter on delivering the argument
must be employed to give force and conviction to this last appeal. The
end of the discussion has been reached, and the debater, if his
preparation has been in accordance with the principles which we have
considered, has put forth his best efforts. All the weeks or months of
preparation must now be crystalized into one final effort, and the
speaker must realize his own responsibility. He should feel sure that
his cause will triumph, and the fire and vigor of his delivery must
manifest this fact to the audience. He should remember that he is
fighting for principles of right which are eternal. Even the defeat of
the moment, if it come to him, should in no wise make him afraid.
Victory should not elate, nor defeat depress, the spirit of truth which
ever should be the sure foundation of those whose high calling it is to
persuade men to act in accordance with that which is right.