YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Effective Rebuttal (Intermediate) - Ayal Hayut-man and Lovro Šprem. MDA

Effective Rebuttal (Intermediate) - Ayal Hayut-man and Lovro Šprem. MDA — Transcript

by Splitska debatna unija · 8,656 words · 1,272 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:02hi everyone my name is Ayana I'll be
0:05doing this workshop which is basically a
0:08booster box rebuttal
0:09defense rebuttal I think it's called not
0:12100% sure differences between basic
0:15about the best rebuttal but we'll go
0:18through it as we will figure it out as
0:20we go along basically what we're gonna
0:22do is principal getting run over
0:25slightly more conceptual primer then
0:31we're going to be talking about ways
0:34structure both in terms of basically
0:39five or six different ways or different
0:42types of rebuttal that can be used
0:44within debates and afterwards we're
0:47going to practice we're going to take
0:49some arguments we're going to attack
0:51those arguments resent them do the whole
0:54fun thing every time so basically there
1:01are two basic elements debated right
1:03there is proving our arguments and
1:04there's proving it the other side's
1:06arguments are wrong that's that's the
1:08two pillars on which most debating
1:10stands problem and then so last workshop
1:16you had with me lunch about how to build
1:18arguments now we're going to talk about
1:19the second part which is how to knock
1:21them down that's more fun so basically
1:27let's start with what not to do when
1:31you're doing about first of all and the
1:34most tempting thing is responding to
1:36weaker argument directed more towards
1:38actually made by the other side what we
1:40call a straw man or a mr. presentation
1:43of the other side's case that is taking
1:47the words that have been uttered or
1:49taking a something you could extrapolate
1:52from that case
1:53but it's not actually the argument made
1:54and responding to that instead of the
1:56Excel argument so for example let's say
1:58we have a motion about affirmative
2:00action and the government says look
2:03there are scenarios where we recognize
2:05that people have certain disadvantages
2:07and we give them certain things in order
2:10to compensate for this dimension so for
2:12example we have handicapped people and
2:15we allow them people who are disabled
2:17and we give them things like wheelchairs
2:20and even access and beautiful bathrooms
2:23in the same way we believe that people
2:25from a certain minority who have been
2:28discriminated against did not receive
2:29the same opportunities the same
2:31education things like that also deserves
2:34certain access that front stage we
2:37provided them in order to be able to
2:38advance opposition response they are say
2:42they have told us that minorities are
2:44like
2:45handicapped people we don't think that's
2:47true obviously that is not a response to
2:51the actual argument that was made by the
2:52other side right so then so so I would
2:57say two things about why not to do that
2:58one is just annoying like you would be
3:02annoyed if someone made a
3:03misrepresentation mischaracterization of
3:05the argument in response to it in this
3:06way - it's a complete waste of your time
3:09because no sensible judge will say ok
3:12the response to this argument that was
3:14never made by anyone therefore they must
3:16win so generally and here's the flipside
3:21of that always try to respond in a
3:24rebuttal to destroy missed variation of
3:28the case you've just heard I think that
3:30that's a much much better way of dealing
3:34with this thing called way of trying to
3:36think what is the best possible
3:40formulation of this argument that could
3:42be gathered what was actually said and
3:44deal with and why first of all because
3:48you are showing that even if like you're
3:51making sure that this Europe and now
3:54your engagement is actually really
3:57really timed like that even if making
4:00best first of the case it's still your
4:02bottle still sent also specifically if
4:04you are if that team has another speaker
4:07sticking after you that can rebuild the
4:09argument or make it better you make sure
4:11that rebuttal is still relevant so for
4:14example if you are I think that may be
4:17the most annoying position to being
4:19given to a bottle is cut with where you
4:21have where you read the extension but
4:24there is a pop whip you can basically
4:26make the whole extension again and and
4:29you sometimes don't have a chance to
4:30deal with it
4:31and at the same time you also deal with
4:32two other teams so making sure your
4:36rebuttal is comprehensive it really
4:37takes in that takes the other sedative
4:40strongest it's really really useful in
4:42getting in making sure the OP work
4:45doesn't have really easy life just
4:46rebuilding and reframing and get
4:49employment asbestos so that's one thing
4:54a the other thing is sometimes judges
4:58will give arguments more credit than you
5:00you would give the garments so you want
5:02to be gained make sure that you are
5:04dealing with the strongest version
5:06possible the arguments this thing
5:08especially to and I say this just
5:11because I know some things here are
5:12prepping for international tournaments
5:13for euros things like that
5:15this is unfortunately and even more true
5:19when you deal it with a team that has
5:20more leaf opening I think that's more
5:22will them in the circuit maybe the judge
5:24knows them and suddenly it stuff like
5:25that
5:26so sometimes judges will go the extra
5:28mile in filling in some gaps and other
5:31teams analysis you we want to make sure
5:33we are fully addressing them if there's
5:36even if they get that extra credit we
5:39are still beating them and finally it
5:42just makes us speaks higher like if if
5:44our rebuttal is is at the high level
5:46it's sometimes higher level than the
5:48architecture made against us that is
5:50something that will be in our favor in
5:52our credit so I think it's always useful
5:54to try to me now and the reason I'm
5:56saying this is this is very unintuitive
5:59right because our basic intuition in an
6:01argument is trying to think that the
6:03other side is weaker like I don't buy it
6:06that that's that's it's not not
6:08as it's relevant none of that is true
6:09and I think that's very tempting and
6:13it's very natural I also think you do
6:15need to be certain of your case but I
6:18think that trying to tackle the other
6:20side thinking where the other side is
6:22strong and trying to tack on them it is
6:25the right approach eventually to the
6:27baby into the way we play this game but
6:30that's more on the conceptual level so
6:34what does it mean to effectively about
6:36the case to effectively rebut to do
6:42effective rebuttal to knock down another
6:44team's case so I'm asking this is a
6:48rhetorical question more than as for
6:51specific replies basically I would say
6:54there are many different ways in which
6:57you can approach our answering argument
7:02basically I'm going to divide it into
7:04six this is something I give credit to
7:05Chris for two
7:07Yanik Oh neato I'm not sure if you're
7:09familiar with him and a long time
7:12Israeli code a debate coach and he came
7:16up with
7:16Yummy's six answers to any argument ever
7:19made and those arguments are and those
7:22responses are the following one and
7:26these are ordered by the way it is
7:30awarded by have what we want use first
7:33like these are ordered by prioritization
7:37in the sense of the first one is one
7:39it's the most useful
7:41for battle and going down from there so
7:44what would be the most effective form of
7:46a bottle you can think of tournament
7:48you've been debated for a while you have
7:50done different source per bottle if you
7:52have any suggestions excellent of cash
7:58this thing is irrelevant to the debate
8:01why is this such an effective answer
8:06exactly because I don't have it's the
8:10most time-efficient it debates I have
8:13seven minutes of giving my speech
8:16that's my limiting factor I could if you
8:20give me an hour to give a speech I would
8:23be able to rebut any argument ever made
8:24by anyone especially if they have other
8:27settlements the limiting factor for me
8:30is the time so if I have something that
8:32doesn t can pull up my time and it's
8:35still a useful response that is the move
8:38the best thing I wanted because and if I
8:40manage to prove the elements of clash
8:42that Parliament can be brilliant this
8:44room is really well made that were
8:46making last for like we've been four
8:49whole minutes in which great analysis
8:50was given and I still win despite it so
8:55obviously if an argument is very clearly
8:59of clash then that part that responds
9:02very easy like it's just saying that
9:04that's completely irrelevant we don't
9:05know why that's important and so on ah
9:07the more complex version that that I
9:09think it's more useful to be familiar
9:11with is exploit it when it needs some
9:13explanation so for example let's say we
9:16have a motion on a limiting the workweek
9:20two points 40 hours 40 hour workweek no
9:23possibility for extra time this is the
9:26motion and God gives the argument that
9:29says it really explains well it says
9:31workers are more efficient when they
9:35don't when they're not stressed
9:36the only work for these forty hours
9:38therefore it's good for companies to do
9:40this one would be if you want to explain
9:44to me that this argument is different so
10:03to honor that that already goes into the
10:05actual logic they are demented we
10:06haven't really established in this point
10:08but think of this this motion is about
10:12the government forcing workers or
10:14companies to do this right if it is true
10:18that for every company and every word
10:21that would be the most efficient thing
10:23to do companies who do it themselves
10:25there is no need for this possible so it
10:29like company and even send me an Alice
10:32look get one of your buddies companies
10:34spend the great majority of their time
10:36thinking how they can be the most
10:38effective in and make the most use of
10:42their workers if what government was
10:44telling us is telling us was true then
10:46first of all you just don't need a
10:48mechanism to do this all companies would
10:50just give their employees no more than
10:5240 hours of every week but also if this
10:57neck if this was true we would just see
11:00this happening throughout the market
11:01obviously this motion is only about the
11:04cases where this is not true like your
11:06companies have made the assessment that
11:08their workers are actually is it it's
11:09better for them to have workers working
11:11more than those 40 hours a week right
11:13and therefore and this is this not alone
11:17explain right it doesn't take more
11:19than 15 seconds 20 seconds of my time
11:21but it has at this point quite
11:25invalidated the other team's argument
11:26now obviously you can bring something
11:29back up like for example if government
11:31were to say in their second speech
11:33something like so
11:35just rebuilding that speech after that's
11:49great but that's a different argument
11:50again the issue of exploitation is
11:53definitely a good argument to talk here
11:54but not this specific argument about
11:56productivity let's say I've already
11:58spent a lot of time is government's
11:59building the productivity argument today
12:01what makes the world and after God does
12:02your brother's think it's off - so maybe
12:06I should say something like companies
12:08have the short-term but they advise
12:10where they care about your productivity
12:12is short term but in the long term
12:13employees actually become and become
12:16less efficient and hear reasons why
12:18that's true all for example saying
12:21companies this is generally true of the
12:23companies still make bad decisions
12:25because some other reason or maybe
12:27people work in more than one company at
12:29the same time doing different doing
12:31shifts in different places so each
12:33company would like them to to only work
12:36a specific amount of time but it's not
12:38actually up to them anything of that
12:40sort can be a way of bringing that back
12:43on lunch but still the rebuttal of
12:46saying something is completely automatic
12:47is a very very useful one time to do it
12:50slightly more defense or a version of
12:53that let's say so we have a debate this
12:57was the final of video opened a few
12:59years back and exactly this thing
13:00happened the motion was this house
13:05you're a scientist you have found a
13:09definitive proof that God does not exist
13:13you bet this proof is very competitive
13:15like people are likely to believe it you
13:19are the only person
13:21to be true this house would not publish
13:23that would destroy the the evidence
13:26would not project open government very
13:29very good Serbian team I guess you know
13:31them Syrian dilemma is never fear chance
13:34again Melanie but they give very good
13:38analysis on one religion is the basis
13:40for more debt has been historically the
13:44basis for morality the world is
13:46developed from religious institutions in
13:48religious notion and therefore it's
13:51really really important for us to
13:52maintain religion you want to claim that
13:55this argument is off cut you probably
13:57most of us will not be able to directly
14:00refute every line given by a very strong
14:03team like Helen and Stan but you want to
14:07be so you want to instead of taking the
14:09argument just showing technically a
14:11logical argument just showing it off
14:12much X this is not a regrets debate this
14:26is debate like even if it's completely -
14:30it
14:30religions down on these things these
14:32things have already happened we have
14:34systems karate does crudely we depend of
14:37religion that it's not clear why people
14:41as soon as these for believing we lose
14:43all those moral systems that difficult
14:45front and this is indeed the rebuttal
14:47that made them to those that debates to
14:49it the team in closing opposition so
14:53basically cuts so that if you're able to
14:56show that a different another team's
14:59argument is soft crash that's the most
15:01useful and the most effective form about
15:04because it can even take down really
15:06good sophisticated analysis for many
15:08good teams if you just do that quite
15:10short analysis saying here is why this
15:12is all clash here's why this is
15:13irrelevant and this will require however
15:17to actually make that analysis and
15:19explain very clearly why that is the
15:21case and notice a very important thing
15:24to note here it's sometimes hard for
15:28psychologically for judges to accept us
15:30if it just really likes an argument and
15:32and the logic works sometimes it will be
15:35hard for them to notice that you've
15:37actually done this and completely took
15:39down or rebutted environment if just
15:43showing it's completely off - be very
15:45very explicit on what and very clear or
15:49why that thing is true even if it means
15:51adding another 1015 seconds to doubt
15:53that fill up your bubble just to make
15:55sure they get exactly why that argument
15:59is it is a flash because that's
16:01something that's a slightly more
16:02sophisticated type of response
16:04not everyone gets constantly okay so
16:07this is one type of response
16:09secondary response suggestions the
16:19second one is great but there's one even
16:21before that exactly not true
16:24there was no explanation to an argument
16:26sometimes unfortunately this is the case
16:28your throat some frozen assertion you
16:31could spend maybe two minutes attacking
16:34the logic behind that assertion
16:36something says you can use like for
16:38example if you know parties will notice
16:42or really imbalance in the sense of one
16:44speaker significantly better than the
16:45other and you have a Loa standing up and
16:48giving them a bunch of assertions and
16:51then you have your defender your DPM and
16:54you don't yellow is going to make the
16:56same arguments that actually build them
16:57in that case it might be useful to think
17:00wait what is the idea behind this
17:03argument
17:03Channel robot there's a famous story of
17:06this Israeli but Perry's real innovators
17:09who are in a tournament in the
17:12Netherlands and they're doing well one
17:16of them is doing p.m. then a lot stands
17:18up says my points are going to be miss
17:20with this and sit down
17:23like literally giving the roadmap and
17:25thank you
17:26this were my points thank you so much
17:29so DPM stands up at this point with
17:32nothing written on Vedas cuz obviously
17:34she was planning to take that seven
17:37minutes to search and view stuff stands
17:40up five points per bottle and three but
17:43each of those points and if it was that
17:45argument is political started so that is
17:48something you can sometimes however
17:51first of all you could get it wrong it
17:53might be completely different reasons
17:55than what you think
17:56otherwise might be just very strange
17:58like an assertion that you have no idea
18:00why why that thing will be true and
18:03sometimes also there are these things
18:05this mean seems it to be disliked to
18:09make this new strategy is making me lots
18:12and lots of analyzing arguments in one
18:13speech and then building all those
18:16arguing to the second speech or making
18:18building some of those arguments and
18:19often it's not possible to actually
18:21refute anything so just going look this
18:23is not the explain there was no logic
18:26behind this argument we don't know why
18:28that's true and even adding anything
18:30they add about this when we be material
18:32but we can take to the responder that's
18:34often useful if therefore we're just not
18:37going to address this any further or for
18:39example if you are a web speaker and
18:42teams in front of dumbest when they have
18:45damned for surgeons at this point
18:48they're back like they don't have a
18:50chance to truly to build the new logic
18:52into these assertions so it's fair
18:54enough to just say this was never proven
18:56we don't know what this argument is true
18:59we're not going to address them it
19:00doesn't matter and again if this case if
19:04this is the case it actually something
19:05is not being proven small then that's
19:08much more useful much more time
19:10efficient than trying to attack it and
19:12going in different ways
19:13trying to tackle the logic to sacrifice
19:15facts on one thing to be careful of here
19:20if there is some explanation to an
19:22argument
19:23try and deal with this with a slight
19:26explanation that was given even if it's
19:28bad explanation just one where it's bad
19:29but don't do this thing where you're
19:32going
19:32this won't explain it so would there
19:34isn't
19:35just goes like nothing that's not true
19:37there is analysis here I haven't written
19:40down so be slightly careful of it
19:44then again exactly as he said
19:46technologic technologic is probably the
19:49most common type of robot that we
19:51actually do which is just like here's
19:54why
19:55usually it will be something of the
19:57format of milk just talked about I guess
20:01like building analyzing and building
20:04step-by-step analysis so attacking the
20:08logic which usually look like she was
20:10the problem with me now it's like yeah
20:11your premise you have a link link link
20:14link group this thing is long or the
20:19these two links aren't actually
20:20connected there is a jump there's a leap
20:22between this link and this link usually
20:25this is what I what rebuttal to a logic
20:28of an argument would look like if that
20:30argument support instructor so it will
20:33talk more about that later but basically
20:35what I'll stay here is you want to find
20:37that you wanna attack an argument where
20:39it's released you do not wait while it
20:43may seem contradictory to what they said
20:45before off you want to take the argument
20:47its strongest version but what I mean
20:49here is if the argument will have points
20:52which better analyze and other points
20:54where it's more strings when you need to
20:57do some effort to believe you need to do
20:59something like leap of faith in order to
21:01believe that part of the argument to be
21:02true so that's where you wanna think
21:05that's where you want yourself to be
21:08able to use your rebuttal in the most
21:10effective way by the way I just since
21:14they just give it to give an analysis
21:15for a truck which was the opposite of
21:19that but you just haven't worked upon
21:22analysis I will just mention if you are
21:26building a monument think yourself where
21:30you would attack that argument even ask
21:32your partner where you attack this
21:33argument and you make sure you have lots
21:35of analysis on that because because
21:39basically there usually are specific
21:41places within argument that are likely
21:43to be
21:43or contested than others and if you want
21:47to be a Teague rebuttal there but you
21:48also want to be anymore if you're not a
21:50to both parts I will give some examples
21:52of that later and practice it for start
21:57rebuttal factually incorrect less common
22:02debating but can sometimes have a let's
22:06say okay ir motions the classic the
22:12curse of many many theaters I personally
22:15love them but many people dislike it
22:18quite strongly specifically because of
22:20that because it can make a perfectly
22:22logical well construct the argument just
22:24is completely untrue in reality for
22:28quite obvious reasons
22:29even give a very extreme curve with a
22:32example of this and tournament in
22:35Southeast Asia and version this house
22:39would this has belief that the US should
22:42withdraw all financial like military
22:45support to Israel a position going if
22:49they do if the u.s. does this then
22:51Israel will not be able to sustain its
22:53army and its neighbors such as Iraq and
22:55Libya will invade Iraq and now you're
22:59not from Italy but I neither a magnolia
23:02have a common border with Israel Iraq it
23:06has a border with Jordan that
23:08technically they could go through Libya
23:10needs to pass like four different
23:12countries in order to get it tanks to
23:15relevant positions so that would be just
23:18very effectively correct
23:20no matter how well analyzed so sometimes
23:24just pointing out an argument is absurd
23:27in terms of the factual basis is also a
23:29very useful way of attacking or it
23:32knocking down an argument so so that's
23:36just something to keep in mind although
23:37our biggest motivator logic sometimes
23:39back
23:41are you important fifth type of Republic
23:46and this one is is important and
23:48slightly less intuitive in young ones by
23:51this logic what is by this what we mean
23:56try to sing for example okay yeah
23:59classic example is you have emotion
24:02about this house would this has been
24:07would Bank Peppa this also dead the
24:09construction of Elko and government says
24:12we need to ban alcohol because this is
24:14addictive
24:16responses your opposition your
24:19responding to the Sun yes this house
24:23would vent BP announced ethyl alcohol
24:26government makes the argument alcohol is
24:29addicted therefore it should be yeah
24:34yeah wait I want to stay for a second
25:02with this except with the example this
25:03motion and then we'll if it's okay
25:06what's thing with the example this
25:07motion and then we'll talk about other
25:09other examples
25:10I'm great it's greater than their
25:12questions I just want to conclude the
25:13basic point before we move on thank
25:17chocolate Bening coffee potentially
25:19worth physical exam so basically it's
25:37just showing that not the logic used by
25:39the other side leads to certain
25:41conclusions if if applied if generally
25:44like now this can be used in slightly
25:49more sophisticated ways like there are
25:52definitely many arguments that there are
25:55that seems solid until we think wait
25:58what would that also mean a classic
26:01example if what you really recommend
26:04watching is the final of this semi-final
26:07of worlds 2012 where the motion is this
26:11house would been any advertisement
26:14that's any form of determines it's
26:16supposed to be even slightly sexually in
26:19touch in attachment or sexually arousing
26:20and opposition leader proposition
26:25excellent better makes the claim that
26:27says there is currently a societal to
26:30move around sexuality brought men
26:32punctuality it's really really important
26:34for sexuality to be displayed to be
26:37something that's in the comment of you
26:38in order for people to be able to for
26:43people to be able to engage with a
26:44conversation about it yeah I'm not sure
26:52not sure that actually follows from the
26:54logic because I could see a difference
26:57that so the suggestion was saying by
27:00this logic we should also legalize drugs
27:01in order to have a conversation about
27:03drugs I could say I think there is a
27:05distinction saying human sexuality is
27:08probably something babe that there are
27:10good reasons why independent
27:12of sexualized commercials we want to
27:15have conversations about but anybody
27:18this speaker that gets a pillow I'm
27:20asking by this logic
27:22do you also support people having sex in
27:25the street he stops he thinks Spence
27:30this is a Bamberger excellent debater in
27:33one week he's known to be the only
27:35debater or faint being on debater who
27:36never uh mom never had a never Stalin
27:40never said ah or just super fluent so
27:44it's gotta guess it's beyond its tense
27:46fix but 15 seconds suspense that
27:51eventually says if it is proven to be
27:53inherently consistent with a logic of my
27:55case then yes makes elo a claim
28:06specifically about a LGBTQ and
28:09homosexuality and weiming in the
28:11discussion and that's all sexuality and
28:13then gets P o I asking so would you
28:15support showing a mourning period on
28:17which he also is not able to properly
28:20respond at this point this case is done
28:23although I think great analysis great
28:26speakers but their logic doesn't make
28:29sense if you take it as logical
28:31conclusion there is probably cases of
28:34math logic and therefore and this is
28:36enough to take down the case so thinking
28:40about where the case of word about the
28:42other side actually means it's a very
28:44great useful way of tackling cases this
28:47is especially true for principals when
28:51we engage in more principled discussion
28:53of what should be our guiding principle
28:55the society however and a few words
29:00warning you one do not make this in a
29:05way that that is an extreme variation of
29:10the other sideline for example you
29:12obviously know this classic
29:15first-year this house would legally
29:17would
29:18death penalty opposition going if the
29:21government can just kill people who will
29:24they kill next if by your logic is
29:27legitimate for the government to execute
29:29people next date will be executing
29:31political apostles or dissidents no this
29:35is not actually the logic built there
29:38for doing this is a game just miss
29:40repeating events of time so that's
29:43something to be mindful of but and you
29:48want to be very clear that what you're
29:49doing is not a slippery slope but it's
29:52actually applying the actual logic
29:54presented by the other side so every
29:57useful it so again be like explain that
30:00something is off - it takes an
30:01elaboration it takes look this is
30:04actually a pretty respect or this is
30:06actually the logic stated here is what
30:08this lot distinguish it leads to a
30:10different situation here's why that
30:12means means that not even absurd and
30:14then and then by now is showing that
30:18it's inconsistent if you think about
30:19most of the reply responses to a
30:22utilitarian why there's a problem like a
30:25conceptual problem with the moral frame
30:27is of like the idea that people so that
30:30we should always try to maximize utility
30:32in to maximize happiness that's a most
30:36of them are this type of logic like
30:38saying so what do you have this one
30:40person who has who derives significantly
30:43more pleasure and more happiness than
30:45anyone else in society technically that
30:48would mean you have to enslave the rest
30:49of society do that person pity right
30:51because you're maximizing the overall
30:53happens or for example a person comes a
30:57completely healthy person comes to
30:58hospital his organs can be used to save
31:01five other people utilize the the right
31:04choice would be killing that person
31:06giving
31:06organs to those five other people
31:08obviously that would be wrong like there
31:12are big promises and the logic actually
31:14leads to that conclusion so that's a way
31:17of like that's that's dated you had a
31:19question or example no problem no
31:29problem and this is also very useful
31:31like I'll just point out thinking
31:34critically of your own of your own
31:36thoughts and your own robots is very
31:38useful so sometimes it will stop you
31:39from making them agree actual debate and
31:41just saying something that a waste of
31:43your time that even makes you sound less
31:45persuasive so by this logic very very
31:50useful tool then a fine then we have and
31:56finally and this is the least efficient
31:58solar bubble because it's not really
32:00about is just true but less important
32:04than something else because at the end
32:07of the day and this comes into a
32:09different workshop this will probably
32:11happen at some point on weighing in
32:13prioritizing okay at the end of the day
32:15there are things that are just true like
32:18there are claims by the other side that
32:21you know like if you do if you have
32:26enacted death penalty there will be some
32:29people who will be determined there will
32:31be mistakes where people are wrong next
32:33both these things will happen
32:35things can mitigate them they can every
32:38buttons they can have really good like
32:40reasons of my things will not happen at
32:43the end of the day these two things are
32:46true and it's very very important to
32:48know that someone you go yes that is
32:51true
32:51but what we are talking about some more
32:53important but what we're talking about
32:55it happens more and so on this is like
32:57different workshop but remember the
33:00dissertation
33:01and a useful type of rebuttal to happen
33:03like yes this is drew but so this is
33:10basically the six times per bottle the
33:13six answers to every argument ever made
33:16one useful thing to note here you can
33:20use many of those together if an
33:22argument is very important from the
33:24other side you can say both that this
33:27argument is not to be invalid and the
33:30logic which leads to absurd pink roses
33:32or you can even say this for this
33:34argument is off clash but even if it's
33:36all clash here's a problem with the
33:38logic of this argument or here's a
33:40problem with the explanation of this
33:41argument so the more generally I will
33:45say the more important an argument that
33:47the other side is the more you would the
33:49more weight you will try to give to
33:51rebutting that argument and making sure
33:53it doesn't snap so a just second there
33:59was something I want to do other than
34:00that I do not currently remember what it
34:02was so at this will do you have any
34:05question do you have anything you want
34:07me to discuss more in terms of rebuttal
34:10how it's done
34:13it's feel free yeah struggles you've had
34:16once that you you had this from specific
34:19problem with we were fighting an
34:20argument okay so what I suggest we do
34:25now is practice and from practice we
34:28might get more stuff and see more things
34:31that that leads working on how do we do
34:34this can we we don't have another room
34:37right where we didn't because this is
34:39the big room you know what we can just I
34:42think stay for a while in this forum and
34:45if we see that it's too much
34:46not everyone gets time to chance to
34:48speak then we'll make it we'll see how
34:51we can split so basically what I suggest
34:55we do is lorridaile
34:57we'll just make arguments and you will
34:59try it together
35:09okay okay
35:43some cars but fair you know it's okay so
36:08let's do for example we are a position
36:12that we are now the opposition and we
36:15are claiming that this leads to a stress
36:20ought to eat like it stress among
36:23children and therefore those children
36:25performing less well this is our
36:28argument we're trying to wait wait wait
36:31we have a yarn that's
36:33if I just said that you're the right
36:36response would be next time because
36:39because at this point they didn't give
36:41any like so
36:43yeah let's let's make young man so maybe
36:50but let's start with the fact that
36:53probably that we're talking about
36:55specific financial pressure here right
36:58so these kids are going to be under
37:00pressure to provide for their families
37:01because at some point the fact that they
37:04have good grades of bad race is what
37:06determines the amount of money that the
37:08family is going to be able to spend on
37:10on family members of stuff like this
37:12this is problematic because in the
37:14status quo these people are already
37:16under a lot of financial stress and
37:18pressure because they are the relatively
37:21poor to the rest of the society which
37:23means they think about this a lot so
37:25they think and they struggle with
37:26gaining money we find stuff other people
37:28having stuff intercept this now at this
37:31point for you it's different because in
37:34the status quo these people think from
37:37the perspective of our family cannot
37:39afford this and now this pressure is
37:40different because the pressure is on
37:42them to change this by giving additional
37:45money if they perform well in schools
37:46and stuff limits this is important
37:48because in schools oftentimes you rely
37:51on specific high-pressured movements
37:54when you are on the bridge of getting
37:57the good grade or of anyway so things
37:58think of things such as oral exams or
38:00things such as it's taking an exam a lot
38:02of things happen at a specific moment
38:04where you have to focus a lot in order
38:06to perform well that's not like this
38:08once this is combined with the idea of
38:10having pressure to perform well these
38:12people are going to constantly or these
38:14kids are going to constantly think about
38:16stuff that they have ahead of them and
38:18they are going to feel stressed about
38:20this they are going to like not be able
38:23to study very well because they
38:24to be under pressure of having the
38:26burden of performing well and what's
38:28going to happen if they don't perform
38:29well and because of that they're going
38:31to fill a lot of psychological stress
38:33right and this is something that
38:34oftentimes they're not going to be able
38:36to talk with other people because
38:38they're going to be in the same relation
38:41as them they're not going to be able to
38:42talk to their family about this because
38:44again they feel this pressure of
38:45performing other stuff like this which
38:47means that this pressure is likely not
38:49to be something that they are going to
38:51be able to top in our people they're
38:53going to accumulate this amongst
38:55themselves it's going to build up the
38:56double-up at some point this is going to
38:59lead to problems for them whether
39:01mentally or whether just feeling of
39:03being anxious and not being able to
39:21there are a great episode of pressure
39:23and we need to sort of help them in
39:26release under stress these can provide
39:28this sort of mechanism in which they
39:30still if they are managing to de-stress
39:34we are rewarded okay so I think this is
39:38a very good direction the thing is if
39:40you notice in local speech she already
39:42address at least to an extent because
39:45they said look we understand they're
39:47courting understand here is the
39:49difference the difference is currently
39:51they just worry about their family not
39:52making money now they worry about they
39:54have to provide the different how do you
39:56respond to that and anything this is a
39:58very good director so just take it to
40:00one step further
40:01yeah
40:07so like they are actually although there
40:10so they get money monthly so that's just
40:12an addition to what everybody can so
40:14they don't have like that burden
40:18providing everything okay okay so so
40:22that is the response that definitely
40:23mitigates the amount of additional
40:25stress that's that's happened completely
40:28but anything else right so I'll just
40:34start by saying this was obviously a
40:35world constructor we do not say that we
40:39cannot say for example this was not it's
40:40fun it's also quite hard to say list of
40:42clutch right because is definitely a
40:45impacted base its impact on children and
40:48it's an impact on their on their success
40:49so so where do we go we probably go to
40:52try and detect the logic and it's like
40:54what what were there are parts of body
40:56so yeah so we want to attack the devil
41:00you want to say that the the difference
41:03between the stress currently in the
41:04stress after that the day after this
41:06motion is not actually that large or
41:09even non-existent how do we do this they
41:17consult money problems with performing
41:20bouts of it's basically the same same
41:22thing they have to do why are they
41:24currently now stresses performing well
41:26well nobody wants to live
41:28I mean there are there are groups just
41:32[Music]
41:35even okay so basically saying look
42:17here's the problem the assumption
42:19government is that relational positions
42:22is that crudely biscuits are just one
42:26welfare and they don't have this ability
42:27to provide however in many cases they do
42:30they go after school and they work if
42:34another job at the same time and
42:35sometimes even quit school in order to
42:38be able to work this means they have the
42:42same amount of stress actually in for
42:44synonyms like they are we have the
42:46stress of providing involved by both
42:48walls
42:48yeah and say that these kids
42:57there are kids and in this case they
43:01don't know what they're actually doing
43:02and they don't know what the importance
43:07of this my
43:09their family because of their age that
43:11it's not causing them stress because
43:14they don't actually know the importance
43:17of it great so that's basically
43:19attacking the art is that the DNA
43:20technologic just in a different part of
43:22the chain of the logic going look again
43:26there is an assumption and notice we
43:28always go by here is an assumption it's
43:31not working actually that's the that's
43:32maybe the groom with ridiculous the zero
43:35bubble goes by there's a jump right
43:37there is jumping this part of the link
43:39to this bubbling and shear specifically
43:41saying look the Assumption composition
43:43is that these kids know that there is a
43:47direct correlation between their
43:49performance in the test and the amount
43:52and them preferably get more money now
43:53this works this could work depending on
43:56your case is not if your cases
43:58government is saying we want to motivate
44:00children that this can't work right
44:02because then you have to assume the
44:04children know that that they're very low
44:07performance and test and manage the
44:08family if however your case is we want
44:11to motivate parents this can definitely
44:13work then if what you want to do is
44:15multiple is get the parents incentive
44:16change and you can say this the child
44:20doesn't know how much what checks
44:23parents get from the government permits
44:25that is not something he doesn't see
44:27that it doesn't it doesn't mean anything
44:28to him it doesn't know probably owe the
44:30bank account is depending on how to
44:31operate access it
44:33what oh the ones who know other bands
44:37the parents have a clearance ending for
44:39the child would not be stressed right
44:41that they don't want that child to
44:43underperform and all these things so the
44:46likely scenario is just what the child
44:48experienced this is parents sitting
44:50waiting more often and doing the
44:51homework with him and saying yes you can
44:53do this
44:54and so on so the knowledge off this is
44:57really really important doesn't get to
44:59each other great times
45:01so these are two ways to offer free to
45:03the argument that they think each of
45:04them can be quite strong both they can
45:06to get their mean a lot of work for the
45:09other team to try and rebuild the we
45:26should take this psychological pressure
45:30as American criteria to set the quality
45:35of this public policy but I don't it's
45:41not really clear why that criterion is
45:44relevant to the discussion because for
45:46example as another argument we would say
45:48in this civilized mother nature being
45:52able to handle pressure and to regulate
45:55your pattern of behavior to work towards
46:00handling blood pressure makes you more
46:02productive and is a necessary skill that
46:05kids should be exposed and should be
46:07like and some ice to to deal with and
46:12that's why even if like this
46:16tangles flight perhaps it's not so I
46:22think this is a very interesting way of
46:24working it
46:25the main issue then is the clink main is
46:29saying not just very stress but this
46:32dress actually leads to worse
46:34performance what you need to do in order
46:35for that round to work is say what is
46:38more likely the distress lead to better
46:40to good neurons like so it's a game
46:43tackling it's done in a different part
46:46of the chain of reasoning the same look
46:48the part we have a problem with is there
46:51that I am stressed means I took less
46:54well actually when her or have stressed
46:57I am more focused when I'm stressed I
46:59study harder when I'm stressed I develop
47:02better look at studying methods all
47:03these things mean that I that I do this
47:06better
47:07the one thing it differently I think is
47:10necessary here is a game there is
47:12rebuttal novels analysis that's directly
47:15on this right there is being us says the
47:18actor specific point in time where I
47:21really really need to have to be focused
47:23when I'm stressed I'm really worried
47:25that this might presenting this Karthik
47:29when I'm stressed I'm really I'm really
47:33worried and so on if and if you want to
47:36make that argument I would also have
47:38will also say you need to address that
47:41directly like explain why that is untrue
47:43and you're in the alternative
47:45characterization if you have this more
47:48it's more likely because what you don't
47:51want to do and this actually brings me
47:52to a very important bottom line that I
47:54have discussed with one what we don't
47:56want to do any rebuttal
47:57it's just build a a competing analysis
48:01which is not explaining what the other
48:04side is wrong but just saying this could
48:06also work in a different way like there
48:08is also a different scenario I will
48:10still work and then what you're doing is
48:12you're leaving it up to the judge to say
48:13which you I find more plausible and
48:16that's that could work real it could
48:19also not and it very much depends you're
48:22leaving it up to chance my sense and in
48:24what much - the players is directly
48:27engaging with the analysis made by by
48:30that in what they say stress is bad for
48:32your performance because X here's why
48:35that's untrue and but we think it's
48:38actually opposite is true and taking
48:40that further I think that's definitely
48:42very useful cool let's take another
48:46example another analysis this time I'll
48:51a I'll do one which is motion motion
48:57from the
48:58Euro 2009 semi-final this house believes
49:03that this accretion of religious science
49:05is a legitimate tactic in war is the
49:09creation of religious sites like you
49:10know we go to a temple and our church
49:14and you defile a to you as as stated by
49:18Prime Minister to set up the debate we
49:20piss in the ponds we dance in the
49:22streets with the course of saints
49:24so that's anything that is a legitimate
49:27tactic in water opposition makes the
49:31following claim it is so there are
49:36things that are illegitimate remove for
49:39example it is enjoyment to take to deny
49:43people basic things like food or water
49:47religion is as important or something is
49:51more important to people than food and
49:53water therefore taking away their
49:56ability to practice their religion is
49:57actually as bad and should be banned for
50:01the same reasons as for example take
50:03care best for example the nine people
50:05footed water anymore
50:07how do we respond to this argument we
50:09are definite display why those two
50:24element in order to be to have a
50:34sustainable way of living these are like
50:41biological needs
50:42[Music]
50:47and religion is like doesn't fit in that
50:53category and by that by you yeah yeah
50:59can you say sure but essentially
51:03religion is not necessarily okay or is a
51:18state of health and we're not discussing
51:20whether it's morally wrong or morally
51:22correct we're discussing whether it's an
51:24efficient effective to decrease the
51:27moral people we're going to be accept
51:29emotion this appraised into this
51:30hospital gym a technical for so so that
51:33would be specifically less less relevant
51:35given that Dennis the question has been
51:37motion but yeah we use by this logic and
51:42then see them perhaps amazing musician
51:44has the same commitment to his
51:49instrument and music as one person has
51:52to call so we can then use by this logic
51:55then
51:56actually anything configuration okay
51:59great sucks all think I'll take the
52:02three things that percent and we try to
52:04see how they work like as different
52:06layers of her government so on say this
52:10is factually incorrect that taking away
52:13that that desperate over the site means
52:17that you're taking away person's freedom
52:19of religion because for example you can
52:21practice your religion by rebuilding
52:23that site and that would be it stop it
52:27and meaning just as meaningful the
52:29religious act as yeah definitely giving
52:44examples useful as in addition to that
52:46is about like saying look for example I
52:50would say the Jewish people have had
52:52their temple destroyed maybe two
52:53thousand years ago people still practice
52:55Judaism apparently like you can't move
52:58back so that's one big one we've done
53:02another way of technique which is a sort
53:04of combination of both the things you
53:06said is going look there is a difference
53:10between someone really caring about
53:12something and or really wanting a right
53:14and something being around because if we
53:17go by this logic and say if I really if
53:20I care about something more than I care
53:21about food and water
53:22then that thing should be provided to me
53:24that if you know I really care about
53:27having a million dollars I really wanted
53:30where it goes I wanted more than I want
53:32matter that I want money but it didn't
53:34want food or water then do I have a
53:37right to that if for example I'm really
53:40nothing fun and that the love that I
53:43feel to this person is more important to
53:45me then for the water I'm moving too
53:47fast for days or to be with this person
53:49I love does that mean I am like I have a
53:52right to be with this person I like even
53:55if this
53:55wanted necessarily and so on like there
53:58are a lot of problems if we take this
54:00much or the example of the musician
54:02obviously anything can be a very very
54:07important desire for people and what
54:12should be the criteria like with the
54:14first step this logic is wrong the logic
54:16you should actually be applying is an
54:18objective notion of Rights which is what
54:21what you propose saying look actually at
54:24water there are things that just should
54:27be right it doesn't keep it doesn't
54:29matter what you think you deserve in
54:32what matters is what objectively should
54:35be had which is for example the basic
54:37Sutton ability to live and maintain your
54:40life food water and so on okay what they
55:16are most recently so I think that
55:18sometimes it's easy to say that
55:21something is more objective something
55:23else I think in this specific regard you
55:25can use the criteria of how we can
55:27assess what people actually need and
55:30then say that it's really unlikely we're
55:32able to objectively assess how much
55:34people need religion specifically we
55:36talk about people who are like different
55:38state of religion in terms of how
55:40committed they are above Allah while
55:42compared to is become objectively
55:44assessed than all of the people need
55:46bread and water and also something
55:48that's very often using the basic
55:49rebuttals
55:50specially is but also what the ayah said
55:53in terms of Wayne is the idea of what
55:55comes as a prerequisite for something
55:57else so if you have religion never
55:59satisfied need then you might or might
56:03not have for that stuff like this but if
56:05you don't have food and water as a
56:07satisfied needs that means you
56:09definitely cannot have religion because
56:10you're not going to be able to sustain
56:12you on there right so this is something
56:14you can because you like I don't know
56:34why that's true I don't know these
56:35things are true and not much more
56:37excitement but definitely I think these
56:39are all good robots if you asked about
56:42the emotions like market global market
56:44revolution this is less the issue of
56:48this workshop because we're talking
56:49about rebuttal and not necessarily about
56:51are given dish and about argumentation
56:54but this did give me an idea let's take
56:58both another's case from the facility
57:03world final and your budget so I might
57:09be slightly misinterpreted I don't think
57:11I am very much so the basic premises of
57:14that case and help me from if I'm
57:17missing stuff is basically the following
57:19things what property they're trying to
57:23justify a global market revolution
57:24saying the following things one capital
57:29most capital the world was acquired
57:31unjust was acquired under cause you know
57:34people stole from others people had
57:36system impression some people had more
57:38benefits and so on
57:40that's too many people live in a
57:45situation where they have literally very
57:48little choice about their life because
57:49they don't have money they live under
57:52what beau beautifully calls the
57:54dictatorship open alternatives
57:57at the the notion of you have a like you
58:03have to keep to live your entire life
58:04just struggling to get food just
58:08struggling two things up work the only
58:10job that's offered you you don't
58:13actually have a lot of control over your
58:15life
58:17thirdly the idea that the because
58:22capital was unjustly unjustly acquired
58:26that is like these two things taken
58:30together in the fact that things were
58:31stolen for people and that most part
58:34people stopped people and it leads to
58:35people being in integrated state this is
58:37an affront to humanity in general in
58:40something we should correct plus the
58:42idea that says mark sit there a Marxist
58:45revolution is something that Dutch it
58:49might take a lot of price and I have to
58:52twelve people but basically it falls
58:54under the principle of self-defense
58:56because people's lives and freedoms are
58:59being threatened and this is something
59:02that because of this this falls under
59:05the idea that I can defend myself and
59:07when I'm defending myself I it is legit
59:10for me to do even in act violently and
59:13it's legitimate for me to do things such
59:16an and plus it's might not work we
59:19accept it might not work however the
59:22principle is the like walking at the
59:24jump rises legitimate and and we just
59:27fight through the idea of subjects this
59:31is the case results yes
59:36because the balls case after all but
59:39only quality and it sure the system was
59:43unjust can you say when by this logic
59:46many throughout history who have been
59:48proven to be unjust
59:49should we start burning churches because
59:51essentially a invalidation women to be
59:55witches and stuff like it if you go by
59:58this logic

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Effective Rebuttal (Intermediate) - Ayal Hayut-man and Lovro Šprem. MDA by Splitska debatna unija, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,656 words across 1,272 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.