Special Methods of Refutation

For Any Argument Type

• The presence of inconsistent arguments suggest unclear thinking and a weakness in the overall analysis presented.

• Minimization implies that a conclusion may be correct but denies its significance in relation to other facts or other arguments.

• Maximization reveals the importance of a position that the opposition has argued is insignificant.

• Reducing to absurdity involves extending the analysis to the point where the conclusion is absurd or otherwise unacceptable.

Special methods of refutation focus less on individual arguments and look more at the overall relationship between and among arguments

Look for 4 fallacious ways your opponent might “reduce to the absurd”:

• Slippery Slope

• Ad Hominem or Ridicule

• Straw Figure– Putting words in someone’s mouth, or

setting up a another similar argument and easily knocking it down.

• Phony Refutation– Red Herring or purposely trying to veer the

argument off course.

• Denying inherency responds to an opposition argument by attempting to demonstrate that the particular problem identified is not fundamental to the system.

• Identifying irrelevancies suggests that an argument is unrelated to the issue and that it should have no bearing on the final judgment.

• Establishing dilemmas reduces the opposition to two alternatives, neither of which is unacceptable to the opponent or to the audience. Don’t let your opposition get away with this.

• Turning the tables admits the validity of part of an opposing argument and claims that the admitted part actually supports, rather than denies, your claim.

• Remember: Refuting an argument does not necessarily show that the conclusion or proposition is false.

• That’s why issues remain controversial.

• We can’t agree on the conclusions even though refutations take place, because both sides have reasonable conclusions.

Other Ways of Refuting an Argument:

• Show that at least one of the premises or claims is dubious.

• Show that the proposition and/or premises/clams are not strong.

• Show that the conclusion is false.

• Attack the reasoning.

• Attack the evidence.

• Anticipate your opponent’s arguments and reasoning.

Example: Explore the role of each claim in the following discussion:

• Ralph: I think sex is the answer to almost everyone’s problems.

• Sue: How can you say that?– (Unsubstantiated claim. Sue’s “Why?” asks for support for

this claim. It’s an invitation to give an argument.)

• Ralph: It takes away your tension, right?– (He offers support for his conclusion.)

• Sue: Not if you’re involved with someone you don’t like or doing it with someone you don’t know.– (Sue shows Ralph’s support for his claim is false or

dubious.)

• Ralph: Well anyway, it makes you feel better.

– (He gives up on that support and offers another.)

• Sue: Not if it’s against your morals to have indiscriminate sex. Anyway, heroin makes you feel good too.

– (Sue’s first comment shows Ralph’s claim is dubious. Her second comment shows that the relation of Ralph’s claim to the conclusion is weak. She’s challenging the unstated premise, “If it feels good, it’s good to do.”)

• Ralph: But it’s healthy and natural, just like eating and drinking.– He gives one last try to support his conclusion.)

• Sue: Sure, and you can catch terrible diseases. Sex should be confined to marriage.

– (Sue shows that Ralph’s last claim is dubious too. Then she asserts her own view, which is somewhat supported by her previous claims.)

• Ralph: I can’t decide if your proposing marriage to me or your some kind of right-wing religious nutcase.

– (He’s revealing himself or making light of an increasingly serious argument. His second observation is attacking the person, not the argument.)

Refuting Evidence

• A claim is only as strong as the evidence that supports it.

• Without evidence, a claim is merely an assertion.

• Therefore, attacking evidence is a key way to begin refuting a case.

Refuting Examples

• There are several questions that you can ask to test the validity of the example the opponent is using:

– Does the example support the claim?

– Suppose that the claim is that politicians are corrupt. You use Bill Clinton as an example of sexual indiscretion. But this is where the controversy could come in: Does sexual misconduct equal complete corruption?

Refuting Examples

• Is the example representative of the whole?

– If your opponent cites Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal as further evidence, then you can ask whether Nixon’s action is representative of all politicians.

– If you don’t believe that this is the case, you must provide sufficient examples where it is not the case.

Refuting Examples

• Is the example explained sufficiently?

– Don’t leave out significant details.– In discussing corrupt politicians, a team might

cite Bill Clinton and the Whitewater scandal.– At first glance, this would seem to illustrate

Clinton’s corruption.– But a savvy opponent would [point out that

though Clinton was linked to the scandal, he was not convicted of any wrongdoing.

Refuting Statistics• Is the source of the statistics credible?

– Don’t be afraid to ask your opponent to cite where he/she got their statistics from.

• Are the statistics reasonable?

– Could the statistics be true?– If your opponent insists that 34% of American die

each year from AIDS, that is not a reasonable statistic.

– Thus, both the claim and the ethics of the debater can be called into question.

Refuting Authority or Experts

• Asking questions about the “experts” often provides good ammunition for refutation.

• Is the authority an expert on the topic at hand?

– A person may have a list of credentials, but unless they have expertise in the field of discussion, their credentials can be worthless (Joyce Vedral, Hollywood celebrities).

Refuting Authority or Experts

• Is this the expert’s current or most recent view on the topic?

– As the opponent, you should be sure to question whether the authority cited still supports the purported view.

– Senator John Kerry lost the presidential race because he was accused of being a “flip-flopper.”

– So, stay aware of the political changes that often enter into debates.

Refuting Evidence

• Any use of evidence requires the opposing team to scrutinize the evidence to make sure it supports the claim.

• An opponent or team can attack the validity of the evidence by pointing out weaknesses in the evidence.

• An opponent can provide counter-evidence that disproves his/her opponent’s evidence.

• We all know how easily it is to find competing statistics for any given issue.

• Remember:

• Refutation and rebuttal are much like building and tearing down a house.

• You keep trying to knock down the foundation pillars of the house while the other team tries to rebuild them.

• And the your opponent attempts the same with you.