ED 2/94 part three version three

[drtuna@aol.com]

ED 2/94 part three version three


REBUTTALS
By Andrew Jacobs, Director of Forensics at Rockland Community College

I am currently working on a textbook for CEDA debaters.  The following is a
draft of one of the chapters (with some minor additions).  I would love to
know what the Eastern Region thinks about it.   Would coaches leave
impressionable novices alone in a room with it?  Do debaters find it useful? 

If you had to pick a team of debaters that excelled in only one debate skill
and were mediocre in every other respect, what skill would you choose?  In my
mind there is no doubt what that skill would be.  The skill would not be
researching, nor would it be flowing, and it certainly would not be
spreading.  The skill would be giving good rebuttals.  No matter what your
strategy, or where your strength lies, virtually every round is decided in
rebuttals.  Unfortunately, most debaters don't realize that the skill and
strategies used in giving good rebuttals are entirely different from those of
giving a good constructive.   
The first part of this article is devoted to explaining some of the general
strategies used to improve rebuttals.  The second part is devoted to
discussing strategies specific to each of the four speakers.  Because the
methods used by 1ARs are so different from the other rebuttalists, 1As may
wish to skim through the general section. 

General Rebuttal Strategies
Beginning debaters commonly make four mistakes about the purpose  of
rebuttals:
Mistake #1: Rebuttal Means Repetition
Since making new arguments is forbidden in rebuttals, I must simply repeat
what I said in constructives.
Mistake #2: 1NR Must Extend 2NC
Novices quickly learn that dropping an argument is the same as granting the
argument to be true.  So during the negative block the 1NR makes certain to
extend the 2NCs arguments in an effort to keep them alive.  When 1NR fails to
do this, 1AR declares 2NCs arguments dropped. 
Mistake #3: More is Better
  Since dropping an argument is the same as granting it to be true, it
logically follows that the more arguments you have in rebuttals the more
likely you are to have a winning argument in the final speech.  This is
called a shotgun approach to rebuttals. 
Mistake #4: The Judge Understands What I'm Saying
This assumption is a corollary to #3.  Since the judge understands that more
arguments are better in rebuttals, if some of my arguments are a little fuzzy
the judge will understand my predicament and somehow know where the argument
is going anyway.  Furthermore, the judge will be able to sort through all of
the arguments and interpret them in a coherent fashion.

---

• Prev by Date: ED 2/94 part two version three
• Next by Date: Re: Reasons I would choose CE...
• Prev by thread: Re: ED 2/94 part two version three
• Next by thread: ED 2/94 part four version three
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page