1. Refutation
“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that”-John Stuart Mill

2. What is the difference between Refutation and a Rebuttal?
“A rebuttal is a counter-argument, an argument offered in response to an argument.” (Herrick)
“Refutation is a thoroughly successful rebuttal, one that clearly demonstrates a flaw in in the original argument.” (Herrick)

3. Direct Refutation
Direct refutation directly contradicts what a speaker has said.
In direct refutation you attempt to respond to every claim the advocate made, or at least most of them.
Do this by refuting that claims are not relevant / have no bearing.
That claims are not proven with good evidence / are only assertions or come from inadequate sources.

4. Direct Refutation
Use direct refutation to argue that the claim is not true. Present evidence that contradicts the claim.
Use direct refutation to turn arguments against one another…use evidence and reasoning from the arguer against them.
Use direct refutation to point out contradictions.

5. Indirect Refutation
Indirect refutation tries to deny the proposition, without speaking directly to what the other advocate has stated, or presented.
Indirect refutation argues that the argument is not prima facie / that the arguer did not meet the burden of proof. Therefore, a reasonable person cannot accept the proposition.

6. Indirect Refutation cont…
Indirect refutation argues that the argument is nonpropositional, which shows that it supports something slightly different.
Indirect refutation also argues in favor of the counterproposition. This supports alternative viewpoints.
Indirect refutation questions underlying assumptions

7. Refutation process: Good “critical listening.”
Critically evaluating arguments.
Formulating a response.
Presenting the response.

8. Critical listening:
Critical listening is “the ability to evaluate the reasoning, logic, and quality of information, ideas, and arguments that a person hears.” (Beebe)
A good critical listener is able to separate facts from inferences, evaluate the quality of the evidence, and evaluate the underlying logic and reasoning well.

9. Becoming a better listener:
Get rid of distractions.
Develop good note taking skills.
Develop good “attending behavior.”
Suspend judgments.
Use paraphrasing techniques.
Use good probing questions.

10. Critically evaluating arguments:
Define and determine what the argument is about? (beware of obfuscation)
Evaluate the reasoning. (beware of fallacies)
Evaluate the evidence. (grounds)

11. Ways to respond to arguments:
Acceptance: being convinced or adopting.
Consideration: reflect on possibilities.
Rebuttal: offering counter arguments.
Repudiation: not considering the argument at all.

12. Techniques for responding:
Minimizing or mitigation: implies that a conclusion (claim) may be correct but denies its significance in relation to other facts or other arguments.
Denial: attempting to show that that the conclusions given by the advocate are erroneous.

13. More:
Reducing to absurdity: extending the analysis to the point where the conclusion is absurd or otherwise unacceptable.
Turning the tables: “a turnaround” used in which it means taking a negative position and making it a positive one.
Ex. absurdity-opponents of drug legalization-implies that laws against rape, speeding and murder should be repealed as well. Turning the tables-argument that some policy has adverse consequences for the American economy.

14. More:
Exposing inconsistencies: positions taken and conclusions drawn are inconsistent with each other.
Identifying irrelevancies: arguments which are not relevant to the issue being considered.
Inconsistencies-common in politics were testimonies are inconsistent.

15. Presenting the refutation:
Start out by identifying the point to be refuted.
Tell how you will refute the point.
Present evidence to refute the point.
Show how the evidence refutes the point.
Explain the significance of the refutation.

16. Prepare to respond to questioning
Never answer until you understand the question.
Take your time.
Recognize that some questions don’t deserve answers.
If the questioner interrupts allow it.
Don’t elaborate if it won’t help you.

17. More:
Ask permission to elaborate if it will help you (If permission is denied, remain silent).
Answer only those parts of the question that you believe deserve an answer.
Answer a question that was not asked, if that makes more sense to you.

18. More:
If given an opportunity to repeat your argument, accept it in full.
Remember that during your refutation you will have a chance to explain or discount the effect of your answers.

19. Conclusion:
Replace the tendency for excitement with good communication skills.
Take good notes during the process.