YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Rebuttal & Engagement - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 5

Rebuttal & Engagement - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 5 — Transcript

by Manchester Debating Union · 13,356 words · 2,023 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00So, everyone, welcome to this week where
0:02we're going to be covering what is
0:03rebuttal and engagement. Uh so, rebuttal
0:06and engagement, first of all, people
0:07think is a secondary part of the debate.
0:10I can just click forward. Yeah, there we
0:13So, the structure of this workshop is
0:15that we're going to be looking at what
0:17engagement is about, um how you should
0:19come to understand it in the context of
0:21debate, and then we're going to go
0:23through about how you actually go about
0:24executing engagement and rebuttal
0:26particularly well. So, we're going to
0:28talk about how you listen to rebuttal,
0:30how you prioritize what to rebut, and
0:31how you, you know, structure it in your
0:33speech, and how you execute rebuttal.
0:35And also talk about a little bit about
0:36engagement
0:39First, how you should start to think
0:41about rebuttal in a debate. So,
0:44the first mistake that loads of people
0:46typically make is that they think
0:48rebuttal is like this independent
0:50secondary thing to their case. So, they
0:53think that it's something they just do
0:54at the beginnings of their speech, so
0:56that they can run their constructive
0:57case. And they believe that constructive
0:59case is this thing that's going to
1:00actually win them debates or make them
1:01place high in debates. Um and so,
1:03rebuttal is just this thing that you
1:05have to do because judges like you doing
1:07it. Um and you just have to do it
1:09because sometimes other people's
1:10arguments prevent you from running your
1:12actual constructive case. This is not
1:14actually how you should be thinking
1:15about rebuttal. Rebuttal is a
1:17like a contribution in of of itself.
1:19It's very possible for you to actually
1:21come like a solid second if you have
1:24excellent rebuttal and absolutely
1:25nothing else. So, for example, if you're
1:27in CG and you had just had no extension,
1:30if you just focused all of your time
1:32coming up with the most brilliant
1:33rebuttal to that takes up both our
1:35teams, you can place second in a debate
1:37from that alone. Um and so, because of
1:39that, don't think of rebuttal as
1:40something that's just a secondary part
1:42of your case, that's just subservient to
1:44you what your constructive is going to
1:45be. It can be potentially winning
1:47material. Um so, secondly, what you
1:49should think about you think of rebuttal
1:51as is that it should always be tied to
1:54your case. Um if you keep thinking about
1:56rebuttal as independent of your case, a
1:58lot of times what you'll find is that
2:00your rebuttal can
2:01like undermine what your constructive
2:03case is attempting to run. So, a really
2:05good example is something that happened,
2:07I think, a couple weeks ago when we were
2:10um like we were
2:11um sparring and then the motion, I
2:14believe, was about whether or not
2:15universities should prioritize diversity
2:18in hiring over like actual
2:20qualifications. Um and so, OG, of
2:23course, ran all the good arguments, but,
2:24you know, like if you increase diversity
2:26in a faculty, this means they can do
2:28more great research into more niche
2:30topics, that means that minority
2:31students maybe have more uh role models
2:34in academia. Um they can tackle things
2:36like workplace discrimination to a much
2:37higher degree, etc., etc. Opening
2:40opposition came up and attempted to
2:42mitigate a lot of these benefits that OG
2:44was bringing and attempted to say like,
2:46"Hey, actually in status quo without
2:48this motion, loads of universities have
2:50the organic incentive to hire diversity
2:52anyway. So, a lot of the benefits that
2:54OG were bringing are not mutually
2:56exclusive." Now, this is brilliant like
2:57mitigation on its own. But then their
2:59constructive case started to say, "Well,
3:02this motion actually causes a lot of
3:03backlash uh because, you know, like you
3:06think that you're just a diversity hire,
3:07your coworkers don't think you
3:09necessarily earned your place." Um but
3:11note how these two things are in tension
3:13with each other because if the
3:15mitigation was premised on the idea
3:17that, you know, like diversity hires are
3:19happening anyway and therefore OG's
3:21impacts are non-exclusive, then it also
3:23mitigates the harm that opening
3:24opposition was trying to bring about.
3:26So, this is the problem when you think
3:28of rebuttal as independent of your case.
3:30Often, sometimes you can undermine your
3:32case if you think of them as two
3:33separate entities that operate
3:35independently of each other. You need to
3:36be super careful and consider that they
3:38are make one coherent world view, one
3:40coherent case. Um so, all rebuttal must
3:44be tied to your case and all goes
3:46towards tip like tipping the scales in
3:48the judge's head that goes towards you
3:51winning the debate. So, this means like
3:53either maybe it is mitigating others'
3:54rebuttals, it maybe it's taking down
3:56other people's arguments, or maybe it's
3:58rebuilding your own case. So, don't try
4:00to lower your own impacts um and
4:03third thing to note, rebuttal doesn't
4:05exist in a binary. So, often people um
4:09try to I think reach too high and try to
4:12say that, "Ah, like e- either an
4:14argument is true or not true." Uh but
4:16rather rebuttal a lot of times exists on
4:18a spectrum, right? Um sometimes you can
4:20mitigate a lot of like that a lot of
4:23impacts or mitigate the extent to which
4:25it is true. Um and so, note that you
4:27should never think of rebuttal as as
4:29something that completely takes out a
4:31case or it doesn't at all. Um it always
4:35takes down a case to a varying level of
4:37degree, and you should always in that
4:39case prioritize the rebuttal that is the
4:41most destructive. So, if you have a
4:42bunch of layers of rebuttal for to an
4:44argument, for example, prioritize the
4:46ones prioritize the ones that are the
4:48most destructive to your case rather
4:50than seeing them all as equal because
4:51they all exist in this binary of success
4:53over unsuccess- successful. Rebuttals
4:56exist on a spectrum, choose rebuttal
4:58wisely, and in that case also choose
5:00your mitigation wisely because they can
5:01be also varying degrees of successful.
5:04So, how do you actually rebut? So, note
5:07how lots of people tend to be a little
5:09bit what we call uncharitable to what
5:12other people's arguments. So, the way
5:14that you avoid doing this is that you
5:16approach all arguments that your
5:18opponent is making from a neutral state.
5:20So, try to see their arguments as a
5:22judge would see them. Maybe they're not
5:24the best arguments, maybe they're not
5:25the most persuasive, maybe they're
5:26missing analytical links, but try to
5:28look at the at it as a judge would,
5:31right? And so, because of that, when you
5:32approach it neutrally, you more
5:34correctly identify you more correctly
5:36give them like a generous response,
5:39which is to say, even if it's not a
5:40perfect um argument, you're not just
5:42going to point out that uh it's an
5:44imperfect argument, therefore it falls,
5:45you need to engage with it and just try
5:47to rebut what is there anyway.
5:50Uh yeah.
5:52And
5:52and so,
5:54let's see. Let's go ahead. So, practical
5:56concerns, how do you actually start
5:58rebutting? So, the first step of any
6:00successful rebuttal is to listen to what
6:02has been said. Um I cannot identify this
6:05enough. Loads of people like loads of
6:07people think they listen to other
6:08people's speeches. This is completely
6:10untrue for even high-tier debaters. Lots
6:12of debaters will choose to uh rebut the
6:15headlines of people's arguments rather
6:18than the analysis that's actually
6:19substantively given. This shows that
6:21they're not actually listening to what
6:23the speaker is saying, but rather just
6:24like tuning in when it's convenient. So,
6:26for example, if um you're in opening
6:29opposition and your OG comes up and
6:31says, "Hey, like maybe it's about the
6:33university doing diversity hires." You
6:34can say, "OG says like, 'Ah, we think
6:36this will be great uh because minority
6:39students will have more role models.'"
6:41And then they spend the rest of their
6:42speech like, you know, giving like
6:44really concrete analysis about how this
6:46works, you know, like how minority
6:48students feel currently, how this is
6:50going to change, why this is going to be
6:52impactful for their futures, blah, blah,
6:54blah, blah, blah. Um opening opposition
6:56may come up and just choose to rebut the
6:57headline of the case, which is like,
6:59"Ah, you know, um diversity hires will
7:02act as role models." And they'll just
7:03rebut that um and not actually rebut any
7:05of the specific analytical links that OG
7:08has given to prove that statement is
7:10true. Um and so, when you're when you're
7:13rebutting, always always be generous in
7:15your listening. So, try to rebut the
7:17specific analytical links that people
7:19are giving rather than just the
7:20headlines of people's cases.
7:22Furthermore, in on that same race note,
7:24try to also
7:26actively listen. So, um this is, I
7:29think, something that is refined through
7:31experience, but I think that the problem
7:34with also lots of people's rebuttals is
7:35that not correctly listening to the
7:37correct parts. Um so, often they were
7:39they will listen to So, an argument is
7:41like a chain of logical links that you
7:44go step by step by step. Or maybe it's
7:46like a pyramid where the base premise is
7:48the thing that you need to rebut. I've
7:50seen people try to rebut examples that
7:52don't matter in a debate and think that
7:54that takes out the argument when really
7:56they just exemplified deeper analytical
7:58links that the that the opponent was
8:00trying to prove. Um so, typically what
8:02you have is a premise to an argument,
8:04then a bunch of analytical links based
8:06on that premise, um and then you have
8:08the impact, maybe you have an example to
8:10illustrate what you're saying. Um so,
8:12always when you're actively listening,
8:14try to understand what the argument is
8:17premised upon and therefore what you
8:19have to rebut. Um and if you're not good
8:21at this,
8:22um or like if you're not good at this
8:24and it's been identified to you by maybe
8:26a judge or by maybe your partner, try to
8:29do more of this practice or more of this
8:31drilling where you listen to people's
8:33arguments and you correctly identify the
8:35premise of the argument. Because if you
8:36just waste time rebutting the example or
8:39just like the mitigating the impact and
8:41you don't really
8:42hit the crux of the argumentation, your
8:45rebuttal's always going to be quite
8:46inherently weak. So, those two notes I
8:49wanted I wanted place onto listening.
8:51So, always listen to the premises of the
8:54argument. So, actively listen, try to
8:56understand the structure of the argument
8:58and what it is
8:59premised upon. Um and number two, try to
9:03listen to the specific analytical links
9:06of what people say and not just rebut
9:07the headlines of what people uh what
9:09people's arguments are. Um on that same
9:11note, also listen to your partner. Maybe
9:13if you don't know how to rebut
9:14something, maybe they know how to rebut
9:16something. Uh so, if your partner is
9:18trying to pass you something, so like
9:19say like telling you, "Please say this
9:21in your speech." Um try to figure out a
9:24way for them to effectively communicate
9:26that to you. So, maybe if you're kind of
9:27a nervous person and you don't like
9:29people whispering in your ear while
9:31you're trying to listen to a speech
9:33someone is trying to give, tell them to
9:35write it down or something and pass it
9:37to you. Tell them to type it on a
9:38computer or message you over Facebook.
9:40Um or maybe if you're comfortable with
9:42them whispering in your ear, try to
9:43listen to what they're saying. Um so,
9:45always communicate with your partner
9:46even when you're trying to actively
9:48listen to a speech that's going on. So,
9:49that's all the things I have to say
9:51about listening. Now, prioritization.
9:53So,
9:54um so, how do you choose the things that
9:57you should rebut in in in a debate? Uh,
10:00so first thing I want to know in this,
10:02loads of people choose the most stupid
10:05thing that people say in a speech and
10:07choose to rebut that for like 3 minutes
10:08because it feels really good to rebut
10:10that stupid thing and show how stupid
10:11your opponent is. Um, sometimes that
10:13this this is not the most strategic
10:15thing to do. Always try to understand
10:18someone's arguments or someone's points
10:20in context to your own team strategy.
10:23So, let's say someone um like let's say
10:26like we're having a debate about the
10:27university diversity quota thing. Um, my
10:30opponent says something really stupid um
10:33that's kind of irrelevant. So, they say
10:34something like uh
10:35well
10:36uh, like the the sky is purple and then
10:40and then like I'm just like wait, that's
10:41so stupid. I then I spent 3 minutes
10:43rebutting that. So, obviously this not
10:45strategic thing to do because it was
10:46always irrelevant to the debate and it's
10:48completely irrelevant to my ability for
10:50my team to actually take the debate. So,
10:53try to identify which points are
10:55actually relevant in the burdens of the
10:57debate and prevent you from placing
10:59higher in the debate. Um, so these are
11:01arguments that actively obstruct your
11:03ability to run an argument. So, these
11:05are arguments that contradict what your
11:08arguments try to say. So, for example,
11:10if if you know like you're trying to
11:12persuade the judge that the sky is blue
11:15and the opponent says the sky is orange,
11:18that
11:19argument or that statement directly
11:21contradicts that of your argument. So,
11:23you need to prioritize rebutting that
11:25before you can prioritize rebutting
11:26anything else. Um, so try to understand
11:28contextually what arguments are the most
11:31important to rebut and don't just go for
11:32the low hanging fruit.
11:34Um, yeah and so that like I said,
11:36prioritize the material that explicitly
11:37or implicitly interacts with your case.
11:40So, for example, characterizations of
11:42actors. Um, so this is really really
11:44typical in loads of debates where you
11:46know someone will say like uh
11:49uh, like you know, if to give an
11:52example, it might be um this house would
11:55promote a narrative of collective guilt
11:58after huge uh
12:00atrocities against humanities, for
12:02example, the Holocaust. Um, you know, OG
12:05says uh this is going to be really good
12:06because people will accept
12:07responsibility and will you know, give
12:10things like reparations and the other
12:11side says no, they're going to be really
12:13angry that you blame them for the
12:14Holocaust and so they're going to
12:15backlash against the minorities even
12:18more. So, obviously these are
12:19contradictory statements um and how they
12:22interact and it is based on the
12:23characterization of people, right? So,
12:25like are people more likely going to
12:27feel guilty um or are they more likely
12:30to backlash? That's based on who how
12:32they are characterized as people. Um,
12:34and so
12:35where so like try to understand what
12:38where the clash is being located um and
12:40then try to rebut that specific clash
12:43rather than just
12:45you know, just like abstractly the
12:46argument, right? Um, yeah and so also
12:49prioritize teams that engage based on
12:51your strategy. So, just pulling up an
12:53example that I had.
13:01Yeah, so for example
13:03um
13:04so based on that example that we just
13:06went through just like the collective
13:08guilt thing. So, OG says
13:11uh you know, like people are going to
13:12internalize this guilt and they're going
13:14to act better. Opening opposition says
13:15no, they're going to backlash. If you're
13:17you're in CG
13:19and you what your extension is is that
13:21uh we we have the characterization that
13:23proves that this is likely. Um
13:26you don't need to rebut everything that
13:27opening opposition says because you can
13:29just be like hey our extension just
13:32shows that this this scenario is more
13:34likely and opening opposition hasn't
13:36proved any constructive or structural
13:37analysis that proves their side is true.
13:39And so based on that, you can choose
13:42which what arguments to actually rebut
13:44based on the content of your extension
13:46or the content content of your
13:47constructive case. Um, another example
13:49may be um a motion about war. So, maybe
13:53this house would indoctrinate soldiers
13:55to not fear. One side said like the top
13:58half could just be about whether or not
14:00the like war is increased. So, whether
14:02or not the frequency of war is
14:03increased. Um, and you in CG in CG your
14:06extension may be uh we're actually going
14:07to talk about how this impacts soldiers
14:09on the ground, maybe how much sympathy
14:11they get from the general public and how
14:13much support they'll get from the state
14:15after the war is over. So, that's your
14:16extension. Um, and so you can just try
14:19to do something called washing which is
14:21to say like look, I don't want to rebut
14:23everything opening opposition has
14:24already said because let's just face it,
14:26wars are not about whether or not
14:28soldiers can ever feel fear. That like
14:30wars are probably about whether or not
14:32your state has any resource scarcity,
14:34whether or not they like other states
14:36pose an existential threat. Um, those
14:38are probably the things that affect
14:39whether or not you go to war, not
14:41whether or not your soldiers feel fear
14:42or not. So, because of that, that clash
14:45is irrelevant. So, what I So, just by
14:48doing that, proving the irrelevancy of
14:50something, that's very good in terms of
14:52the strategy of your extension because
14:54your extension is far more granular and
14:55specific to soldiers on the ground
14:57rather than this big impact of war that
15:00the top half has talked about. So, try
15:02to be quite intelligent about how and
15:04what you rebut uh based on the strategy
15:06of your constructive case. And so, note
15:09that because of the constructive case,
15:10I've evolved my strategy about how to
15:12actually rebut.
15:15Okay, so um
15:17thirdly, so preemptive rebuttal. So, um
15:20this is more so towards constructive
15:23speakers, but it's also quite useful to
15:25know for second speakers as well.
15:27So, you can always always preempt
15:29rebuttal. Um, and so
15:32uh like if you're in Prime Minister um
15:35and uh
15:36the maybe the motion is something quite
15:38basic. This house would ban school
15:39uniforms. You can you like if you're in
15:43OG, you definitely definitely can
15:45already predict that opening opposition
15:47is going to come up and say uh but
15:49uniforms like
15:51prevent discrimination against
15:53uh students from poor backgrounds or
15:56like prevents things like gender
15:57inequalities because like girls no
15:59longer really have to focus about you
16:01know, seeming appealing to their cohorts
16:03or anything. So, like you definitely
16:04know that this line of argumentation is
16:06going to come up. So, therefore you can
16:08preempt this and just instantly take out
16:10that argument or make it much harder for
16:12the other side to run uh from the
16:13get-go. So, the way that you don't do
16:16this is is with
16:18by explicitly saying uh you know
16:20opening opposition might run the
16:23argument that this prevents
16:24discrimination. This is far too blunt
16:26and it often doesn't work. Uh, so don't
16:29say uh they might say this and this is
16:30my response to that. If you're
16:31constructive speaker, try to do this a
16:33little a little bit more subtly. So, for
16:35example, if you definitely know that
16:37opening opposition is going to run this
16:39discrimination argument, you as opening
16:41government may choose to in as Prime
16:43Minister may choose to run an argument
16:46based on
16:47why school uniforms actually increase
16:49discrimination. For example, it gives
16:51teachers the license to sex to
16:53inappropriately sexualize the bodies of
16:55young girls by saying that the skirts
16:57are way too short, by you know, pointing
16:59out um
17:00how sexualized their bodies are and
17:02making them uncomfortable in a school
17:04environment. So, it actually increases
17:06the amount of gender discrimination. It
17:07also gives people the license to
17:09discriminate against religious lines
17:12based on uniform. So, for example, um
17:14people who wear hijabs might feel
17:16discriminated against because they don't
17:18fit into uniform code. And so, it might
17:20actually increase the amount of
17:21discrimination that people feel.
17:23And so, you can So, like just by running
17:25constructive analysis that is
17:27contradictory to what opening opposition
17:29is going to say, you already preempt a
17:31line of argumentation um that your
17:33opponent is going to try to run and make
17:35it much harder for them to run it in the
17:36first place. So, do try to do it in a
17:38way that's more sneaky and a little bit
17:40more subtle than they might say X and
17:43this is my response to X. Um, so that's
17:45how you do preemptive rebuttal. Um
17:47so you run constructive analysis about
17:49why that rebuttal like why that rebuttal
17:51is unlikely. Good. Now, next on to
17:54external and integrated rebuttal.
17:56So
17:57um
17:58depending on your extension
18:00note that you can sometimes not have to
18:04do any rebuttal at all or you can try to
18:06integrate the rebuttal. So, note that a
18:08lot of debates are based on a few key
18:11clashes in the debate. They try to
18:12answer a few key questions just like we
18:14identified in the past or just like we
18:16identified in past workshops. So, try to
18:19understand whether or not a point
18:21clashes with your material and it makes
18:23just sense to integrate it. So, for
18:24example, like if the key question in the
18:27argument is about uh do school uniforms
18:30increase or decrease discrimination,
18:33your entire constructive could just be
18:34like giving a bunch of structural
18:36reasons about why it increases
18:38discrimination. It's therefore just it
18:40makes more sense for you to try to rebut
18:42or address people's points while you're
18:45doing your argument. So, for example,
18:47you could try to give a bunch of
18:48structural reasons about why
18:49discrimination increases with um
18:51uniforms and while you're doing that
18:53constructive analysis say like uh my
18:55opening opposition tried to tell you
18:56this
18:57this is why it's not true. Now, going on
18:59with the rest of my case. Um, and so it
19:01makes it saves a lot more time rather
19:03than just having to repeat yourself
19:05continuously because you're trying to
19:06address these same key points in both
19:08the rebuttal and your your constructive.
19:11Um
19:12cool.
19:13And
19:14note that oops.
19:17And note that especially if you're an
19:18extension
19:20I always recommend prioritizing getting
19:22the extension out there because unlike
19:24the top half where you have both the PM
19:26and the DPM or you have the LO and the
19:28DLO to get out the case to give a bunch
19:31of constructive analysis
19:33in closing half, you only have the
19:35extension speech. If the whip tries to
19:37bring out an argument or give um huge
19:39amounts of constructive analysis needed
19:41to make the argument run, it won't be
19:43credited at all. So, if you're an
19:45extension speaker, always prioritize
19:48getting the full argument out there and
19:50don't waste any time on rebuttal if you
19:52think it's going to make you have less
19:54time to get the extension. You might
19:56even choose to say like, "Hey, let me
19:57get the extension out there and then do
19:59rebuttal." So, try to be quite uh like
20:03try to always prioritize your
20:05constructive if you're in in closing,
20:07basically. Um let your whip handle most
20:09of the responses unless the response is
20:11actively obstructively to run the
20:13extension. Then just choose to take down
20:15those specific arguments, then go into
20:17your extension.
20:18Cool. Uh this is my I'll head over to
20:20Lizzie.
20:21Yeah. Okay, cool. Uh just before I go
20:23on, um I think we need like three more
20:25people to fill in fill in the room. So,
20:27if you just came or if you didn't manage
20:29to do it yet, uh it would be great if
20:31you could fill in the form if you want
20:32to speak and can speak um after the the
20:35workshop. Cool. Um so, continue with the
20:37practical stuff. Um so, the next is on
20:40structure. So, how to structure your
20:42rebuttal. So, again it shouldn't be just
20:44you throwing one-line responses on the
20:46other side. It should have structure and
20:48it should be thought through in the same
20:50way as you're going to be thinking
20:51through arguments or thinking through
20:53characterization, etc. So, broadly the
20:55three steps that you want to be
20:57following if you are doing a rebuttal
20:58are these. So, one, you're going to be
21:00outlining what they said. Secondly,
21:02you're going to be giving tiered
21:03responses. And thirdly, you're going to
21:05be explaining the implication. So, going
21:07through them one by one. Um first in
21:09terms of saying what they said. So,
21:12again the recommendation here is you
21:14always want to make clear what you are
21:16responding to. So, you don't want to
21:17just be throwing responses without
21:19specifying to your judge what
21:20specifically you are addressing. But
21:22when you are doing it, you want to be
21:23clear and concise. So, you want to make
21:25it clear what you are referring to, but
21:26you don't want to give them free airtime
21:28by just like repeating their argument
21:29and going into details like exactly to
21:31what they said. So, make it clear
21:33one summary sentence about what they
21:35said, making it obvious what you are
21:38responding to. Again, um
21:40we mentioned this before, but I think
21:42this is here this is specifically
21:43important. The charitable reading
21:45principle really matters here. So, when
21:47you are outlining their argument, you
21:48want to do it in a charitable way. So,
21:50you don't want to present like some like
21:52straw man misrepresented like idea of
21:54their claim or like mock them because
21:57like very often what happens is the
21:58judge might tune out when they hear you
22:01saying a misrepresented idea of the
22:03argument because they're going to assume
22:05that you are not going to respond
22:06properly. So, even though maybe your
22:07responses afterwards are going to work
22:10for the actual argument, if you sound
22:12like you're going to be just mocking,
22:14the judge might just tune out. So,
22:15always be charitable, always be as nice
22:17as possible outlining what you are
22:19responding to.
22:21So, second in terms of the responses
22:22themselves. So, again, um
22:25you want you want to make those
22:27responses tiered. So, I think the usual
22:29tiers are one, you want to want to
22:31explain why the argument is not true.
22:33Then secondly, even if it were true, why
22:36it is not important. And thirdly, even
22:39if it was as important as they wanted it
22:40to be, it still doesn't outweigh what
22:42you are saying. So, um you can spend
22:45different amounts of time on different
22:47of these three tiers. Sometimes, for
22:49example, there are arguments which just
22:51are quite true and you can't really
22:53argue with them, but you can very
22:55effectively outweigh them. So, then you
22:57prioritize going for like the third part
22:59of the responses. But again, like those
23:01are the basic I think you definitely
23:03heard it before um ways you can deal
23:05with an argument.
23:07Um so, the reason why this is good is
23:09because those are multiple responses
23:11that back each other up. So, when the
23:12other side is responding back to you and
23:14trying to rebuild their arguments, they
23:15have more work to do because you
23:17attacked it from different angles. And
23:19again, you can kind of give multiple
23:21reasons within the rebuttal. So, for
23:23example, you want to say um three
23:26reasons why this why the argument is not
23:27true and give three different ones. So,
23:29again making it harder and harder to
23:31deal with your rebuttal. So, especially
23:33when you're responding to the crucial
23:34points, try to make your rebuttal as
23:36robust as possible in the same way as
23:38you would be delivering your
23:39constructive. And lastly, in terms of
23:41implication, I think this is really
23:42important even though it might not take
23:44that much time. Um like very often this
23:46is like 10 to 5 seconds of your speech,
23:49but it's very important. So, once you
23:50finish a rebuttal, specifically if it's
23:52something really important when you're
23:54dealing with a really important part
23:55like part of their speech, you're going
23:57to explain and make it very very clear
23:59what your rebuttal achieved. So, for
24:01example, you want to say the implication
24:03of the rebuttal I've just Can I have it
24:05back?
24:06Oh.
24:08No, that Thank you. Um
24:11So, you want to say the implication of
24:12the rebuttal I've just done is that it
24:14mitigated mostly everything they said on
24:16this. And then like this is how it now
24:18weighs up. Or you want to we want to
24:21point out this took down the assumption
24:23that their entire point was predicated
24:24upon, illustrate how it was predicated
24:26upon on it, and therefore it is not it
24:29doesn't sound likely, doesn't sound
24:30plausible anymore. So, the reason why
24:32you should do it is because you don't
24:34want to leave it up to a judge to
24:35interpret. Sometimes, you might have
24:38taken down an entire point like taken
24:40down an entire assumption, but the judge
24:42might not see it as that and might just
24:44assume that you just mitigated. And then
24:46it might cost you maybe a ranking in the
24:50in the debate. So, you want to be very
24:51very clear about what you are doing and
24:53making making sure that the judge knows
24:55exactly what the point of your rebuttal
24:57was and what you achieved. Cool. Uh can
24:59I have next slide?
25:01Okay. So, just in terms of the execution
25:03itself. So, like the basic of how you
25:06Now, when we know where to place it and
25:08how to structure it, what how do you
25:10actually do it? So, I think um
25:13the illustration that you see here on
25:15the slide is um
25:17probably familiar to you. So, in terms
25:19of how we can generally very
25:20simplistically kind of um uh
25:23figure out how strong an argument is is
25:25if you imagine that one of these axes is
25:27likelihood and one of these axes is
25:28importance, then like the bigger the end
25:31rectangle is going to be, the stronger
25:32the argument is. So, if you are
25:34rebutting, you are just imagining the
25:36opposite way. So, what you are trying to
25:37do is to shrink their rectangle so it's
25:40as small as possible or even better, uh
25:42make it disappear completely. So, then
25:44you you kind of taking it completely
25:45down. So, um here is like a little
25:47toolbox of
25:49what different kinds of rebuttal there
25:51are and what you are what you can try to
25:53address. Again, this is something that
25:55we can't like teach you uh
25:57for every single instance, but it's
25:59something that with experience you're
26:01going to develop the intuitions what
26:03where is it helpful to address what. So,
26:05just to walk through them, I think the
26:07first one in terms of counter-framing, I
26:09think the last session if you were here,
26:11uh we talked about this quite in depth
26:13about how you can use characterizations
26:15and like the kind of preemptive um
26:18they very often functions preemptive
26:19rebuttal. How to characterize in a way
26:21that you can make the other side's
26:23argument sound irrelevant or sound them
26:25less likely. So, those this is one way
26:27you can do rebuttal when it kind of
26:28merges with the characterization we
26:30talked about last week. Um second, I
26:32think you can focus and try to rebut
26:34unproven assumptions. I think very often
26:37this happens in debates that concern
26:39themselves with things like bodily
26:40autonomy or privacy, etc. Um so, what
26:43very often happens there is that teams
26:44just kind of assume that certain thing
26:47matters and they don't spend any time
26:49proving it. So, for example, they just
26:51assume that privacy is that is something
26:53that is good and we care about and they
26:54spend their entire case proving that why
26:57it's going to increase privacy without
26:58ever explaining why that's something
27:00important. So, this is where you can
27:02kind of sneakily go and just question
27:04whether privacy is something we care
27:06about, just question whether that is a
27:08right or something good. Um
27:10and very easily take down the entire
27:12case through those through rebutting
27:13those assumptions. I think thirdly, this
27:15is quite straightforward in terms of
27:17rebutting mechanisms. So, just looking
27:18at the links they are making from
27:21getting from point A to point B to their
27:23conclusion and just figuring out whether
27:25they're logical or not. Um
27:27again, I think this is straightforward
27:28in terms of how we before like
27:30talked about structure of arguments, you
27:32just do the kind of opposite way. Um you
27:34can rebut impacts. So, you can question
27:36um whether their impacts are going to be
27:37as big as they're claiming or um you can
27:40question whether impacts actually are
27:41negative. Um sometimes teams just make
27:44the assumption that they arrive to an
27:46impact and it's going to be a good thing
27:48without actually proving it. So, for
27:49example, um that was in spring, uh me
27:53and my partner were in a debate that was
27:55about uh regretting the rise of
27:56non-career politicians.
27:58Uh and one of the teams on gov, um they
28:01did really really good and detailed
28:02analysis that ended up with an impact
28:05that the rise of those politicians might
28:08uh kind of weaken established
28:09institutions and it might lead to rise
28:11of like anti-establishment politicians.
28:14So, they really well analyzed why the
28:16impact is going to occur, but they never
28:18explained why that's something that's
28:19bad. So, what we did um in closing up,
28:22we just pointed out we think that's not
28:24a bad thing. We think that's a good
28:26thing, especially if the majority of
28:27people is fed up with the establishment.
28:29It is unclear
28:30why um we don't want to have more
28:32anti-establishment people who can deal
28:34with the system given that the system is
28:35probably quite if so many people
28:37are voting against it. So, again, uh
28:39then they obviously didn't do too well
28:41in the round because um that whole case
28:43kind of fell just by the nature of that
28:45impacts no longer sounding as anything
28:48bad. Um or anything beneficial.
28:51So, that's one thing you can do. Always
28:53ask yourself, even if maybe it sounds
28:55intuitive for you, ask is there a way I
28:58can make it flip. Um and lastly, I think
29:01Jack already mentioned this, so just
29:02very quickly, you can also co-opt
29:04arguments. You can try to wash them,
29:05make it symmetrical. Um I think there
29:07was an explanation before, so just
29:09remind that that's also one of the ways
29:11you can do rebuttal. So, this is like
29:12the broad toolbox that you can use. Um
29:14and um it should be I think kind of
29:17exhaustive in different ways how you can
29:20rebut. Uh can I have next slide?
29:23Cool.
29:24Um very last thing
29:26um that I just wanted to uh make this
29:29distinction um
29:31clear for people. So, I think there are
29:33two types broadly uh of rebuttal um
29:36aside of the more like technical things
29:38that we talked about before, now more of
29:39the nature of the rebuttal itself. So,
29:41um
29:43this is about contradictory versus
29:44alternative rebuttal. Um this might be a
29:47little bit abstract, so after I finish
29:49the example, um, I want to make sure
29:51that you you understood what I'm saying.
29:53But in terms of what contradictory, when
29:55you doing a contradictory rebuttal, you
29:57are explaining why the other side is
29:58untrue, why what they're saying is
30:01actively not true. Alternative means
30:03that you are explaining why something
30:05other than what they said is true.
30:07If this sounds confusing, here is an
30:09example. So,
30:11imagine we are debating a motion that is
30:14this house opposes this attempts of the
30:15feminist movement to redefine roles and
30:18behaviors traditionally associated with
30:19women, e.g. wearing makeup, trying to be
30:22a housewife as empowering.
30:24Um,
30:26so I actually was have to had to judge a
30:28very similar debate a few weeks ago.
30:31That was kind of uh traumatizing, so now
30:33I'm getting
30:35um, trauma from it.
30:37Uh, but I think it's a good motion. So,
30:38imagine you are opening up, uh, and you
30:40want to run the argument that many women
30:42will be alienated from the feminist
30:44movement as a result as a result of that
30:46empower
30:48trying to present these traditional
30:49things as empowering, which will then
30:51compromise your ability to campaign for
30:53other things, e.g. equal pay. Um, does
30:55everyone like understand the
30:57broadly
30:58that argument that we are trying to run?
31:00Just to make sure.
31:02Cool.
31:03Okay. So, if so, um, so we are all now
31:06imagine the Prime Minister stands up and
31:08they say, "These behaviors and roles are
31:11forced on women by the society and they
31:13have no way of opting out of them."
31:16So, most women resent these behaviors
31:18and roles, which is why the feminist
31:19movement needs to establish a culture
31:21where it is acceptable to opt out of
31:23these behaviors,
31:25um,
31:25which is compromised by celebrating them
31:27as empowering.
31:29Cool. So, um, before I
31:32outline the responses and explain which
31:34one is contradictory or which one is
31:35alternative,
31:36um,
31:37just a very quick exercise. Um, if you
31:39look at the argument, think of what kind
31:41of responses could you provide?
31:44So, have a think and then feel free to
31:46unmute yourself and just say or um, you
31:48can type in the chat, uh, but please do
31:50something so I don't have to like look
31:52at like empty Zoom because that's
31:53depressing.
32:26Okay. Anyone has any ideas?
32:40Okay, well, is it so hard? I don't know.
32:42Maybe that was too that was too hard
32:44one.
32:45Um,
32:46okay. You're making me feel like a
32:48lecturer that like tries to ask someone
32:50and then no one's responding. It's
32:51really sad.
32:52Um, okay. Anyway,
32:54um,
32:54if no one knows, then let's have the
32:56next slide and see.
33:00Okay. So, um, two examples of rebuttal
33:04that can be given to the previous claim.
33:05So, the previous claim was that women
33:07are forced by society to adopt those
33:10behaviors, so they tend to resent them
33:12and you need to have culture that allows
33:14them to kind of um, get away from it
33:17without being judged. So, an alternative
33:19rebuttal that is rebuttal that
33:22explains that something else than what
33:25the other side said is true can be
33:26something like, "Look, uh, many women
33:28opt into and hold these behaviors dear,
33:31for example, women in beauty careers,
33:32women who celebrate their contributions
33:34as housewives, uh, and many women choose
33:36these, uh, as valuable in their lives.
33:39These are not forced."
33:41So, if you notice this, this rebuttal
33:44doesn't like explain why any of the
33:46claims that PM made are untrue. It's
33:49just pointing out that there are other
33:52versions of that claim. So,
33:55like in the end, the conclusion of this
33:58would probably be there are some women
34:00where it is forced, there are some women
34:02who are opting out voluntarily.
34:05Um,
34:06this is an alternative rebuttal. Now,
34:08contradictory rebuttal would be
34:10explaining very clearly why what they're
34:12saying is actively not true. So,
34:15um, for example, by saying there are no
34:17clear mechanisms for why exactly women
34:20would be forced into these behaviors.
34:22So, there might be like some soft
34:24societal pressure, but opt out is
34:26ultimately possible, which is why we see
34:28many women who don't wear makeup, who
34:30are actively pursuing their like
34:33their careers. So, therefore, many women
34:35do buy into these norms and consider
34:36them valuable for themselves. So, the
34:39the uh hi there sweets.
34:41Um,
34:42so the the difference here is that the
34:45contradictory rebuttal is actively
34:47explaining why the claim that women are
34:49forced into these careers or of why
34:53these behaviors are forced onto women is
34:55untrue by pointing out that those forces
34:57don't necessarily exist or if they do
34:59exist, they are very soft. Um,
35:02does everyone understand the difference
35:03between these two types of rebuttal?
35:10I'm going to assume that means yes.
35:12Uh, cool. So,
35:14the point of this does not mean that I
35:17want to say that one of these is worse
35:19than the other.
35:20Both of those should be used, but they
35:22should be used as complementing each
35:24other. So, the best idea you can do it
35:27is to forward the contradictory rebuttal
35:29first, so first explaining why what they
35:32said is actively not true,
35:34and then you are giving the alternative
35:37rebuttal, so you are saying why there is
35:39an alternative thing that is true. So,
35:42you are actively explaining why your
35:44thing is more likely than theirs through
35:46those two steps.
35:48Cool. I hope that makes sense.
35:50So, if that does, then can I have next
35:53slide?
35:56So, that should be all about the
35:57practical concepts in terms of rebuttal.
35:59Um, if there are any questions before I
36:01start talking about POIs, um,
36:04give them to me now.
36:08No? Cool. Great. Okay.
36:10Um, so in terms of POIs,
36:13uh, there is such thing as a point of
36:15information, uh,
36:17but okay. So, in terms of giving POIs,
36:19the first thing is that very often what
36:22you see, especially with newer teams,
36:23but it sometimes happens with more
36:25experienced speakers as well, um, do not
36:27be reactive in giving POIs, so don't
36:29just listen to their speech, hear the
36:31first stupid thing they say or first
36:33thing you have some sort of response to
36:35and immediately jump up and ask a POI.
36:38Usually these POIs might be effective to
36:40take down that one sentence they said or
36:42the one start of the point they said,
36:44but they're not going to be effective in
36:45total in helping you win. So, instead,
36:48what you want to do is to usually what
36:50we tend to do is to write your POI down,
36:53uh, in detail. Um, I actually recommend
36:55word by word, uh, especially if you're
36:57an ESL speaker, you don't want to kind
36:59of like stumble over your words and then
37:01get cut off at like 7 seconds because
37:03the speaker decides that you are like
37:04stuttering too much. So, actually having
37:06it written literally word by word is
37:07very helpful. And then you want to check
37:09with your partner, um, consider your
37:12strategic plan in mind and check what
37:13you are actually achieving with that
37:14POI. So, you want to pick the POI that
37:16helps your case the most possible.
37:19Um, note also that the POIs can target
37:22different teams, not just the speaker
37:23currently speaking. So, you do not have
37:25to if you are if you are OG and giving
37:27POI to CO, you do not have to
37:29necessarily target the material the CO
37:33member is giving.
37:34Um, you can be giving POIs that are kind
37:36of actually responding to opening up
37:38because you didn't have because they are
37:40stronger and you didn't have like actual
37:41chance to engage with something that the
37:43DLO said or um, if you are really
37:46sneaky, you can you can maybe like
37:48try to weigh over your closing, so
37:50you're POI-ing CO, but you're actually
37:52explaining why your opening government
37:53material is better than your closing
37:56government's material. So, do not feel
37:58the pressure of having to address like
38:00exactly the point the speaker is
38:02currently talking about. You can give a
38:03POI that is addressing different teams,
38:06different speakers or is just like a
38:08reminder of your own case. So, just to
38:09walk through different types of POIs
38:11that you can give.
38:12Um, the first one,
38:14um, that is helpful, uh, technically is
38:17basically just used from closing, um, is
38:19kind of a trap {slash} binding POI. Um,
38:22so that's the sort of, um, POI that you
38:25might have, um,
38:27encountered before, the idea of do you
38:29support XYZ as well? So, like if you if
38:31you are for this motion, would you also
38:33support and then they ask some like
38:34weird thing that like sounds principally
38:37consistent with it and trying to force
38:38you to support it. Or, um, just like why
38:41do you think something XYZ happens?
38:44Trying to get a concession from you so
38:46they can then use it in their own
38:48analysis and point out like, uh, like
38:49remember when we asked the POI like they
38:51actually conceded that line of analysis
38:53that we are just giving you.
38:54So,
38:55those are useful POIs if you are in
38:57closing and you want to ask you you want
38:59to get your opening to defend things
39:01that they might not want to defend. Um,
39:03to give an example, um, there was a
39:05debate there was something about uh, I
39:08don't remember the exact wording, but it
39:09was basically that this house would
39:11allow, um, members of Jewish diaspora to
39:15vote in the in the in the Knesset, so in
39:19the in the like Israeli parliament for
39:22in in elections for Israeli parliament.
39:24So, um, I remember the POI that was
39:26asked by the OP team to the GOV team,
39:29um, was asking, "If you support this,
39:31would you also support, um, conscription
39:34of the people in the diaspora?"
39:36Um, which can be kind of tricky because
39:38then you have to figure out if you do
39:40not, why is it different? If you do, you
39:43have to be prepared to like defend
39:45things that you might not want to defend
39:46and a much larger burden. So, this is
39:48why like these POIs can be quite useful
39:51um
39:51if for nothing just to like confuse them
39:53and make them talk about something
39:55random for like 2 minutes and it waste
39:57their time.
39:58Um the second um is just basic
40:00re-re-rebuttal POI. So, just pointing
40:03out that the point that they are making
40:04is untrue for XYZ reason. Um note that
40:07this must be concise. You probably are
40:09not going to be able to give proper
40:11rebuttal in 15 seconds. So, it must be
40:13something very very concise. Make sure
40:15you are doing that correctly. You are
40:17checking the wording properly. Um one
40:20thing you never should do and it's
40:21better to give no POI than this one is
40:24just pointing out they didn't prove
40:25something. So, for example, and I've
40:27seen like good speakers do this and it's
40:29a really bad idea is say things like ah
40:31but like you are saying uh this but you
40:34didn't give any structural reasons for
40:35it.
40:36Um so, the reason why this is bad is
40:39because you are not rebutting anything
40:40or you are not weakening anything.
40:42You're just reminding them of something
40:43they didn't do. So, the response you're
40:46going to get from the speaker is
40:47probably ah thank you. I'm going to give
40:48the structural reasons right now.
40:50Um so, you are technically helping them
40:52by pointing out what they didn't do. So,
40:54never do this if you are if you want to
40:57point out they didn't didn't give
40:58structural reasons, just give the
41:00opposite. So, explain why the thing that
41:02they didn't prove is untrue and give
41:04your own alternative in the POI but
41:06don't remind them what they that they
41:08made a mistake without contradicting
41:09them. Um thirdly,
41:12you can give a reminder POI. So, that's
41:14again more that's more useful in
41:16opening. So, for example, if you are OG
41:18um and you want to make sure that
41:20everyone remembers what your case was
41:22and you want to point out that maybe
41:23causing opposition is absolutely not
41:25engaging, you can just kind of smoosh
41:27your case and POI the case to make it
41:30clear to judge again how your case
41:32interacts given that maybe it was
41:34implicit, you want to make it explicit
41:36by giving that reminder POI. Or lastly,
41:39you can just weigh. Um so, in the same
41:42way as you would weigh in your speech,
41:43you can weigh in a POI. Just say your
41:44material XYZ is less important than ours
41:47because ABC. Um again, useful in
41:49opening. Uh for example, if you do not
41:51have the opportunity to weigh your weigh
41:53your um argumentation to that um in in
41:57directly, you can do it via POI.
41:59Cool. Um hope all this is cool and
42:02clear.
42:04Okay, then um can I have the next slide?
42:09Oh, can you use analogies in POI?
42:13Um so, I'm not sure what exactly you
42:16mean by it. Um if you could give me an
42:19example of what you think what you like
42:21what kind of POI you think.
42:23Uh and then
42:24Ah yeah, yeah. Yeah, so yeah, so for
42:26example, if it's a classic like
42:28utilitarianism a debate about
42:30utilitarianism,
42:31can you sort of ask a POI about special
42:33relationships that exist in society by
42:36saying, "Hey, if Bill Gates let's say
42:37lost a Bugatti Veyron or somebody stole
42:39it from him,
42:40would you as a police give it back to
42:41Bill Gates or would you give it to the
42:43poor people?"
42:44To try and establish uh like a concept.
42:47Yeah. Yeah, so uh I don't think this is
42:49like a special kind of POI. I think it's
42:51this something like I think it falls
42:53under like the trap binding POI. So,
42:56like basically what you are doing is if
42:58a team is running a utilitarian case,
43:00you can POI them a thought experiment
43:02that could make them contradict their
43:04own like principled foundation of the
43:06case. So, I think that's that's fine.
43:08You can do that. Um and then you can
43:10point out in all like in op like oh like
43:12look at them like they actually conceded
43:15to us like they contradicted our
43:16principle by like making the concession
43:18to our POI. Yeah. So, um yeah, that's
43:20that's that's perfectly possible.
43:22So, um second and last on POIs um
43:26in terms of taking POIs and how you
43:28should be dealing with them. Um so, uh
43:31the first thing uh taking them earlier
43:33than 5:45 can be advantageous. So, what
43:36like usually speakers do uh especially
43:38right now is that they wait until 5:45
43:40and that's when they take the one POI.
43:42Sometimes it can be helpful not to wait
43:45until 5:45 uh and take it a bit earlier.
43:49Um I think the reason for it is A, you
43:51might have more time to respond in depth
43:53especially if you know you're going to
43:54be taking a POI from a strong team that
43:56might be asking you something that's
43:57actually going to hurt your case. You
43:59want to make sure you might have a
44:01minute and a half to really rebuild and
44:03deal with that POI if you know it's
44:04going to be really really strong. Also,
44:06they might have less information so
44:07might they might waste that POI on
44:09something
44:10stupid. Um so, again, it might be
44:12helpful not to wait until 5:45. Um that
44:15it doesn't mean you should take it at 1
44:17minute but um
44:18sometimes it can be helpful to take it
44:20around like four etc. Um second thing,
44:23always take clarifications. Uh I've seen
44:25teams refusing clarifications. Please
44:28always always take them. The reasons why
44:30team ask clarifications is usually
44:32actually because you are confusing or
44:34because it is unclear what you are
44:36standing for and the opposition team
44:38really needs that clarification to be
44:39able to run their case. So, if a team
44:41ask clarification, always take it. Um
44:44never refuse it. Um it's usually for
44:46your own interest because everyone might
44:48just be really confused about what
44:49you're doing. Uh or sometimes it might
44:51be something useful for like they're
44:52going to inform you that you are
44:53debating the opposite side of the
44:55motion. That also happens. So, do take
44:57clarifications. Um lastly, uh when you
45:00are choosing where to accept POIs from,
45:02uh make sure you're engaging with your
45:04diagonals. Um especially if you're
45:05opening, you do want to hear from your
45:07closing uh because they might be like
45:10putting their case forward a little bit.
45:12You might be able to deal with it. If
45:13you're a DLO, very often CG actually
45:16does POI DLO their case. So, make sure
45:19that you are taking diagonals. You're
45:20taking the chance to engage um
45:23ideally in both ways so that's easier
45:25judging um and um
45:27you have the opportunity to engage with
45:28that case. And uh take them from
45:30stronger teams. This might be
45:31unintuitive. You might be scared of like
45:33the really strong team. Uh but uh very
45:37often this might be a POI that's going
45:39to point you out to a weakness in your
45:41case. You might be able to rebuild it.
45:42If you do not take it, uh
45:45you might miss a crucial like a crucial
45:47link that maybe your closing is going to
45:49end up filling in. So, do take POIs from
45:51stronger teams. It tends to be helpful.
45:53Um
45:54Last thing, how to respond when you do
45:56not have a response. Um so, hopefully
45:58you usually do have a response but if
46:00you don't, here is a couple tricks that
46:02you can do. In terms of the binding POIs
46:04and the traps,
46:05um so, you want to make sure you are
46:08being vague enough and you are not
46:10binding yourself to anything.
46:13So, I think one response that I find
46:15quite useful if they ask you some like
46:18weird would you also support XYZ,
46:21um you case you can say something like,
46:23"Look, if you're going to prove that our
46:26um principle is consistent with this and
46:28it would lead to it, sure we're going to
46:30support that as well."
46:32What very often happens is that they're
46:33going to give up because they don't want
46:35to spend like 2 minutes in their speech
46:36proving why like those two situations
46:38are analogous. So, you're going to get
46:40away with it. Um
46:42and that was um if they end up proving
46:44they're analogous, um you didn't
46:45contradict yourself. Um so, that's a
46:47response I would recommend giving in
46:49case like they ask you some weird thing
46:50and you are not sure like if you should
46:51support or should not.
46:53Similarly, if they ask you about some
46:55weird context. Like once I was asked a
46:57POI that was um why do you think the
47:00University of Comeias is doing XYZ
47:03thing? Obviously, I had no idea because
47:04I've heard about University of Comeias
47:06like once.
47:07Um
47:08so, in those cases, they just want you
47:10to panic and say something that ends up
47:12like biting you later on. So, like it's
47:15very often useful to just say uh like I
47:18don't know, you tell me and let them
47:19explain because otherwise you might just
47:21unnecessarily like get stuck at
47:23something that you actually can't
47:25literally have a response to.
47:27Um
47:28second, you can make it irrelevant. Um
47:30you can just point out um you can just
47:32say that this doesn't sound relevant at
47:34all. Give some reasons um and miss that
47:37POI out. If you don't have a response,
47:38that might be a useful thing. You can
47:40weigh your own material. So, if you
47:42don't know how to respond to the thing
47:44that they pointed out and it sounds
47:45legit, you can just explain, "Yeah, but
47:48okay, our thing XYZ weighs over this
47:50anyway." Um
47:52Also, if it was confusing,
47:55you might be correct and it was
47:57confusing for everyone. So, it was
47:58confusing for the judge, too. So, if
47:59someone give you a POI and you have
48:01absolutely no idea what this meant,
48:04don't get stuck. Don't try to think for
48:06a minute and try to respond to some
48:08weird thing that you generally didn't
48:09understand. Just say, "I'm sorry. I
48:11really didn't understand." and move on.
48:13Um very often no one understood and you
48:16would just be wasting time. Um the last
48:17thing that you should not be doing and
48:19this is the absolutely last resort. Um
48:22if you really really don't know when the
48:23POI was really good, you can just say
48:25you just about to address it in your
48:26next point and then you like don't. Uh
48:29but don't do that very often. That's
48:31like the last thing that you can do to
48:32avoid like looking bad because you just
48:34got absolutely destroyed by a POI. But
48:37all of these things can help you in
48:38cases of POIs that are just weird and
48:40you don't have a response. Hopefully, uh
48:44you are going to have responses.
48:47Uh Yusuf says, "Don't at me." I actually
48:49didn't at anyone. I think I've done that
48:51myself sometimes. Like it's sometimes it
48:53just has to.
48:54Okay. Um
48:56Cool. Um so, this is all about POIs. Um
48:59so, are there any other questions about
49:01POIs before we go to a short exercise?
49:05Can I thought you respond by telling a
49:07joke? Um
49:08I don't know.
49:10Uh okay. So,
49:12unless there are any actual questions
49:15beyond the funny stuff that you are
49:17sending, um
49:18then I'm going to I think that's it uh
49:22before the exercise. Can you just check
49:24out the next slide?
49:25Yep, I think that's it.
49:27Yeah, cool. Okay, then I'm going to give
49:29it back to you and do the exercise.
49:32Cool.
49:33Um so, here we're doing a role playing
49:35exercise where you're up with um and you
49:38have the entire debate before you, and
49:40you need to decide what you're going to
49:41prioritize uh in rebuttal. So, the
49:44motion is quite simple. This house would
49:46require all legal guardians to prove
49:48their competence competency in raising a
49:50child to the state. So, here are quick
49:52summaries of everyone's case. So, let's
49:54go through them one case by case. So, OG
49:56has a pretty simple case, you know, like
49:58uh
49:59the way that we would mechanize this is
50:01that you're going to have a minimum
50:02baseline of parental competency and
50:03skills. So, you need to know about, you
50:05know, child nutrition, how you should
50:07discipline your child, you should know
50:09like hygiene and health care, etc. So,
50:11all the basic child-rearing skills, um
50:14and you need to prove that you have
50:15these skills to maybe a government
50:17official specialized in child care uh
50:19before you are allowed to raise a
50:20family. Um and so, you almost need to be
50:22licensed by the state to raise a family.
50:24Um and their main case after they come
50:26up with this model is that, you know, it
50:27really prevents instances of child abuse
50:29and neglect before harms accrue.
50:32Um so, you can say that, you know, like
50:34uh so, like right now in status quo, the
50:38way that we deal with this is that, you
50:40know,
50:41uh a families already dysfunctional and
50:43they're already shown to be incompetent
50:45when raising a child. The problem is
50:46with that is that the harm has already
50:48been done to that child. They've been
50:49malnourished, they've been beaten, uh
50:51they've been neglected, and because of
50:54that, that's irreversible harm that
50:55could really, really damage a child's
50:57ability to grow up in the future. And
50:59so, you can like OG's case is like,
51:00"Look, we'd rather just prevent this
51:01harm from ever, ever accruing to this
51:03child." And uh because of that, this
51:06child would never need to suffer or
51:07would never have to grow up into a adult
51:10who is dysfunctional in their life
51:11because of something they had no control
51:12over as a child. So, that's the main
51:14case. Opening opposition uh comes up
51:17with a lot of arguments. They come up
51:18with like, "Uh this infringes upon the
51:21rights of individuals to have children.
51:22You shouldn't need to be licensed by the
51:24state to have a child. This is your free
51:26That's your own right as a human being.
51:28You should be able to have children.
51:29That should never be infringed upon." Uh
51:31second argument they said they talk
51:33about is that these barriers are likely
51:34going to be set too high.
51:36Um and so, lots of couples are going to
51:39not be able to have children because the
51:42the test will be too hard. Like, it's
51:43too hard to get a license. Um and third
51:45argument they said that children will be
51:48torn from their parents or birth rates
51:50are going to
51:51going to plummet. So, just like uh if
51:53you're going to have like such a high
51:54barrier of entry, children are going to
51:56be wrongly taken from their parents or
51:59like people will just choose not to have
52:00children at all or be unable to have
52:02children, and birth rates are going to
52:04go down massively. So, those are their
52:06arguments. Um then CG comes up and says
52:09like, "Look, it's not just about, you
52:11know, the It's not just about the test
52:13itself. It's about how this changes
52:15incentives of actors." And so, you can
52:17say like, "Because parents know they
52:19have to do a test, they're going to be
52:20more prepared for child care. So,
52:22they're more able to, for example, like
52:24like going to more likely going to buy
52:25books to read up on child care, um where
52:28they learn a plethora of skills that you
52:30need to become a parent. Furthermore, um
52:32lots of the problem in lots of status
52:34quo situations is that often parents
52:36don't know what they're supposed to know
52:38before they have their first child. And
52:40now like you as a state provide them
52:41almost with like a syllabus they have to
52:43know. Um so, you provide them with a
52:44checklist of requirements, which will
52:46help them prepare for maybe unexpected
52:48challenges. So, for example, like
52:49parents maybe um don't know how to deal
52:52with sex education when it comes up
52:54until it comes up. And so, now you have
52:56like a checklist that prepares you for
52:58all these challenges before you actually
53:00encounter them, making you much more
53:01able to be a good parent to your child
53:03and not accidentally, you know, ruin
53:06your child's life life because you
53:07handled that challenge uh badly. Um
53:10third argument they say is that you're
53:11going to have better familial bonds
53:13because again, parents learn how to
53:15communicate and nurture children when
53:17they have more like explicit and
53:19tangible guidelines about what is
53:21acceptable that is licensed by the
53:23state. So, you know, the problem is that
53:25in status quo, you know, your your
53:27relatives tell you something, you know,
53:29your
53:38like maybe you have like a conservative
53:39family that tells you you should hate
53:40your children all the time. Um and then
53:42you have like mom's net telling you that
53:44vaccines are evil. So, you always have
53:46this contradictory information um that
53:49leads you to maybe sometimes have
53:51developed toxic or destructive bonds
53:52with your children because you do things
53:54that are not good for them. Uh because
53:57like, for example, like shouting at
53:58small children. Now that you have a
54:00syllabus and, you know, the a government
54:03saying that this is the correct way,
54:05like the officially correct way to raise
54:07a child, you have more assurance that
54:09this is going to be a good way to
54:10communicate with your child, more likely
54:12going to be less harmful than all the
54:14comparative avenues of information
54:16you're going to get. Because of this,
54:17you're going to have better familial
54:18bonds. You're just going to have a more
54:20functional family. So, that's what CG is
54:21going to talk about. Now, you're in CO,
54:23right? Your amazing extension speaker
54:25has gone out there and going has given
54:28the case that, you know, it's likely
54:29that these government officials are
54:31going to be mostly white. So, um
54:34um there's there's a potential for lots
54:36of cultural minorities who have very
54:38valid methods of child-rearing to be
54:40discriminated simply because they seem
54:41alien to maybe a a more Caucasian
54:44culture. So, uh for example, like on
54:46child nutrition, uh raising your child
54:49in a purely vegetarian household, um if
54:52you're, for example, like you come from
54:53a religious minority that believes in
54:55that, or maybe it is something to do
54:57with discipline. So, like maybe you are
54:59you you come from a black and minority
55:01ethnic background, and you believe that
55:02in order to succeed, your children need
55:04to be like doing loads and loads of
55:06pushed to strive for the absolute best,
55:08like that kind of tiger parenting men-
55:10mentality that loads of, for example,
55:12more privileged families see to be as
55:14too extreme. And so, it's likely that
55:16lots of these kind of more like equally
55:19legitimate ways of child-rearing are
55:22going to be wrongly discriminated,
55:23meaning that uh ethnic ethnic minorities
55:26or other sorts of minorities are going
55:28to be prevented from having children. Um
55:31So, that's that's the main case in CO.
55:33So, you're now upwind. What kind of
55:35prioritize first of all?
55:38So, who like can anyone just shout out
55:40who is the best team in this room?
55:46CG.
55:47Yep. Yep. So, I I would agree. I think
55:49CG is probably the stronger team in the
55:52room, and then you should prioritize
55:54rebutting them. Who Who's next? Who's
55:55next?
55:57After you deal with CG, who's Who should
55:58you deal with next? I was going to
56:00mention OG cuz like you could co-opt a
56:02lot of what CG says into your case.
56:05Mhm. So, like OG and CG seem pretty
56:07similar. So, I think that Yeah, you're
56:09right. I think OG comes quite close to
56:11CG in terms of like high impact um
56:13because that impact is quite huge.
56:15Uh
56:16and I think and people obviously
56:18identify that OO is not a good team. Uh
56:22cool. So, how do you actually deal with
56:24these teams? So, like I think people
56:25correctly identify this is probably
56:26closing half debate, probably. Um you as
56:29an upwind never truly know whether or
56:31not this is Unless it's like super
56:33obvious, like unless like both top half
56:35teams kind of like go up there and not
56:37They they they just speak about
56:39deliberation on some other motion.
56:40Unless it's something like that, then
56:42you kind of like rough only roughly
56:44approximately know who the other strong
56:46team you should be identifying. So, in
56:47this debate, it's kind of close between
56:49some teams. I think CG is marginally
56:51stronger uh because of that nuance and
56:53analysis. Um and I think a lot of the
56:55impacts are also quite high in terms of
56:58like getting a functional family,
57:00uh having parents be more prepared to be
57:02good parents to their children, for
57:04example, being able to give them a good
57:06sex education that is hugely impactful
57:08in their adult life and stuff like that.
57:10Um
57:11And so, how like let's talk about like
57:14How do we Let's
57:16I don't want to go through every
57:16argument, uh
57:18but let's say like how do we outweigh CG
57:20maybe?
57:22How do we maybe prove that Gov's clash
57:24about like preventing abuse or like, you
57:27know, preventing like uh familiar like
57:30bad familial bonds is irrelevant
57:32uh in the context of your case?
57:38I think I phrased that really badly. Um
57:40Yeah, go ahead, Yusef.
57:41Okay. Um can you just provide like a
57:43bunch of alternatives?
57:45Um And that like if the main claim from
57:47CG is that this provides them with like
57:49checklists and resources which they can
57:51use to inform themselves in educating,
57:53you can just give those to them anyway.
57:55Yeah. Yeah. So, you can prove that Okay,
57:56number one, you can put that all the
57:58impacts are non-unique. So, you can say
57:59that, "Look, all the harms that we
58:01brought you are unique to this motion
58:03because they talk about setting clear
58:05guidelines by government officials, um
58:08but however, Gov's benefits are
58:10non-unique to the motion. So, if it's
58:11about like preventing abuse or it's
58:13about like, you know, making you more
58:15prepared and able to be a parent, you
58:18can already probably give that support
58:20as a state. So, you can probably teach
58:22parents how to be good through PSA
58:23programs or something like that. You
58:25can, you know, when they go to a
58:26pediatrician for the first time, have
58:28lots of materials ready for them at the
58:29GP or something like that. Uh and so,
58:31because of that, you can prove the
58:33non-uniqueness of a lot of their
58:35benefits. Anything else? So, note that
58:38what's really like
58:40up like if you're upwind speaker or if
58:42you're just any second speaker, your
58:43goal in life is to love your case. It's
58:45to love your first speaker. And the
58:47special thing that your first speaker
58:49has done in this debate is that they've
58:50questioned a really critical thing that
58:52underpins all of Gov's arguments. And
58:55that is
58:56whether or not the model actually is
58:59good. Uh so, like with that in mind, can
59:02anyone take that further up by how to
59:05rebut all of Gov's bench?
59:08Yeah. So, like especially CG, given the
59:11fact that their um extension mainly
59:13relies on the fact that these these um
59:15guidelines are going to be good for
59:17parents and parents are easily able to
59:18access them. And your extension is about
59:20like minorities. A lot of them are going
59:22to speak like a different language or
59:23just outright reject the norms and just
59:26resent the people who are forcing them
59:27into this. So, they'll just hate your
59:29government and not do these things and
59:31just not be able to have kids. Yeah, I
59:33think the solution argument um or a
59:34legit rebuttal. I think um I
59:37So, like building on this idea. So, I
59:39think it's definitely true. You have to
59:40repeat what uh was said. So, you can say
59:43that it's probably even if these
59:45government guidelines are really good,
59:46highly likely that it seems very foreign
59:49to lots of the most vulnerable
59:50communities or the most disenfranchised
59:52communities. Because of that it they
59:54won't probably even if your your
59:56benefits exist, it won't accrue to the
59:58most vulnerable in your society.
1:00:00society, the most disenfranchised
1:00:01because they they don't trust the
1:00:02establishment. The their ways of
1:00:04parenting seem quite foreign and alien
1:00:06um and slightly that they're not able to
1:00:08access it because they're
1:00:09disenfranchised from the governmental
1:00:11systems. Uh anything else?
1:00:14I would check chat. Uh I think Tom and
1:00:16Vicky are talking in the in the chat. Uh
1:00:18it's so hard for me to screen share and
1:00:19then and then see the chat at the same
1:00:21time. Yeah. Okay.
1:00:22Uh attacking the premise. So, most
1:00:23parents don't want to neglect their
1:00:25children. You know that not providing
1:00:26adequate Yep.
1:00:29Yeah, you can see Yeah. So, you can say
1:00:30like um so, I think this is
1:00:33uh undermining the necessity. So, this
1:00:35is a different way of rebutting a case
1:00:37is that So, you sort of talked about uh
1:00:40proving the non-uniqueness of benefits.
1:00:42Vicky is talking about proving uh the I
1:00:45guess
1:00:46the How do you How do you say it but
1:00:48like
1:00:50it's also kind of non-uniqueness. So, um
1:00:54or just proving there's a
1:00:55problem-solution mismatch. Um so,
1:00:57Vicky's rebuttal is just to say like
1:00:59look, parents already are incentivized
1:01:01to care for their children when they are
1:01:03born. So, it's highly likely that they
1:01:04don't want to neglect their kids. Uh
1:01:07and just because of this you're not
1:01:08actually making a meaningful change. Uh
1:01:11so,
1:01:12you often Yeah.
1:01:14Yeah, so like so often like parents end
1:01:16up being dysfunctional parents or they
1:01:18end up being inadequate parents simply
1:01:20because they have a
1:01:21lack of resources to things like food or
1:01:24things like social security. And what
1:01:26you're doing is like you're actively
1:01:27dis- like dis- like disallowing them to
1:01:30have any children. So, you can prove
1:01:31that there's a problem-solution mismatch
1:01:33um which is another way of showing you
1:01:35know uh of of rebutting a case.
1:01:39So, Tom says a consideration of
1:01:41characterization government seems to
1:01:42rely on government doing a good job.
1:01:43Yeah, exactly. So, this is the thing
1:01:45that I was trying to point towards. So,
1:01:47Tom has hit the nail on the head which
1:01:49is to say um so, reading out Tom's
1:01:52comment a consideration of the
1:01:54characterization, government's case
1:01:56seems to rely on the government doing a
1:01:58good job at this which clashes with CO
1:02:01quite strongly. Um and so, the entire
1:02:03crux of your case from CO is that these
1:02:06guidelines are not fair. Um they're not
1:02:07even considered universally good
1:02:09parenting. These are not objective
1:02:11standards that you can hold everyone to.
1:02:13Um and maybe even like if you come from
1:02:15a dis- like if you come from a poor
1:02:16minority background, they kind of just
1:02:18like oh chill, do what you want in you
1:02:21know school, do like you be your
1:02:23individual like trying to cultivate your
1:02:25child's individual spirit or whatever um
1:02:27that may be good for maybe children who
1:02:30come from a privileged backgrounds who
1:02:31have stable households and have very
1:02:33good education systems. Maybe that kind
1:02:35of parenting is good for them, but maybe
1:02:36it doesn't truly apply to for example
1:02:38immigrant communities um that may
1:02:40struggle and may feel compelled to have
1:02:44their kids strive to be excellent in
1:02:46order to succeed as adults in the
1:02:47future. Um and so, because of that you
1:02:50can question whether or not these
1:02:51guidelines are actually like do they
1:02:54actually constitute good parenting?
1:02:56Because if these guidelines are actually
1:02:58actively detrimental to a lot of
1:03:00communities and their specific needs and
1:03:02what their children need, they can say
1:03:04like then all of gov's impacts fall,
1:03:05right? Because at best if these
1:03:08standards are set by the privileged um
1:03:11and they only benefit the privileged,
1:03:13then the the impacts are really really
1:03:15minuscule um and they and if you force
1:03:18like more disenfranchised communities to
1:03:21conform to those actively bad standards
1:03:23that don't suit their communities' needs
1:03:26then that's actively bad parenting that
1:03:28you're enforcing within that community.
1:03:30Um so, that's taking what your extension
1:03:33member has proven that these standards
1:03:35are not objective and not applicable to
1:03:37every community and weaponizing it to
1:03:39hurt all of gov's case more. So, not
1:03:41that I'm not just repeating what my
1:03:43extension speaker has said. So, I'm not
1:03:45just saying yeah, like I'm not just
1:03:46saying ah my but my extension speaker
1:03:48already told you that loads of
1:03:50minorities will be disenfranchised. Um
1:03:52I'm taking that premise which is that
1:03:54these argu- like these uh
1:03:58uh like these standards are not
1:03:59objective and I'm using it and flipping
1:04:01it to flip all of gov's analysis about
1:04:05like instead of accruing benefits
1:04:07enforcing these standards
1:04:09would actually accrue harm in lots of
1:04:11communities because maybe parenting
1:04:13wouldn't be good. Maybe parenting
1:04:14wouldn't be possible um under like under
1:04:17uh the government standards.
1:04:19Um Tom has a question. So,
1:04:22why am
1:04:23Question why the Okay, so question why
1:04:25the mechanism of stop child abuse.
1:04:26Parents who abuse their children
1:04:27probably know how to care for their
1:04:29children. They abuse their children
1:04:30because of stress in their lives or
1:04:31because they're bad people. So, again
1:04:33Yeah, so this is good. So, this is kind
1:04:34of like Vicky's argument which is to say
1:04:36like you can do more sorts of like
1:04:38problem-solution mismatch. So,
1:04:40the problem with abusive parents is that
1:04:41they is not that like they're like kind
1:04:44of stupid or incompetent or unable to
1:04:46pass a test but maybe they are just kind
1:04:48of terrible people who like to take out
1:04:51stress on children. Um and so, because
1:04:53of that this wouldn't really prevent any
1:04:55of the more extreme cases of abuse from
1:04:57actually happening. So, yeah, that's a
1:04:58good rebuttal. Um
1:05:01Could you maybe try and prove that the
1:05:03metric with which parents try and raise
1:05:06children are community
1:05:08are community or cultural more than
1:05:10visual? Yeah, you can. For example,
1:05:12Indian parents are more likely to
1:05:14fail American guidelines or Scandinavian
1:05:15guidelines in parenting which will cause
1:05:17stuff like
1:05:18which like that will prevent stuff like
1:05:20tiger parenting meaning minority
1:05:21parenting will be even more
1:05:23non-exclusive.
1:05:25I'm not too sure what that's trying to
1:05:27prove. It seems like Yeah, I think
1:05:29that's just an example of um closing
1:05:31opposition's case. If you want it like
1:05:32maybe clarify and maybe I can respond to
1:05:34it. Um could you also make a model
1:05:37resource allocation case in rebuttal?
1:05:39What's the What does this mean, Chris?
1:05:44If it's something like don't do like I I
1:05:47I Oh, no, dude. No. So, like okay. So,
1:05:51if your rebuttal is just something like
1:05:53uh but if you implement this motion,
1:05:55that means you're wasting time that you
1:05:57could be using to solve poverty. Like
1:05:59okay. So, like don't like trade-offs are
1:06:02rarely ever like that, right? Um so, I
1:06:04would say 99.999%
1:06:07of the time running a resource
1:06:09allocation rebuttal is not going to be
1:06:11effective. Uh
1:06:13because like it's just unless you can
1:06:15prove that there is a strict and
1:06:16necessary trade-off from the most
1:06:18important things. Like if you can prove
1:06:20without a shadow of doubt that running
1:06:22this license system means that a bunch
1:06:25of other things are neglected
1:06:27necessarily that are would that you
1:06:29would rather spend time on, then maybe
1:06:31you can run it. But I think in this
1:06:32specific scenario you can't because it's
1:06:34just like you know, you'll just be like
1:06:35oh but you know, like you're spending
1:06:38time and money that could be going
1:06:40towards solving global poverty and
1:06:42starvation. And then the other side's
1:06:44just going to be like nah, it's fine.
1:06:45It's fine. We're going to take it out of
1:06:47the war budget. We're going to take it
1:06:48out of like all the minister We're going
1:06:50to tax the rich and then give it to the
1:06:52poor. Oh, there's some stuff like that.
1:06:53So, you you never want to engage in that
1:06:55stupid clash. Uh so, I would say 99.999%
1:06:58of the time don't introduce a resource
1:07:00allocation rebuttal in a debate. Um
1:07:02cool. So, I think Okay, so like broadly
1:07:04we've done the
1:07:06So, we've done good in this exercise, I
1:07:07think. We've correctly prioritized the
1:07:09correct teams. Um You Do you see how we
1:07:12utilized our own case and made our
1:07:14rebuttal coherent to our case? So, it
1:07:17wasn't just like this independent thing
1:07:19where I tried to just rebut all the
1:07:20arguments from CG and OG and then OO um
1:07:24using rebuttals that that my extension
1:07:27speaker never said but rather I used the
1:07:29direction and logic of my constructive
1:07:32case to beat all other teams. So, that's
1:07:34what I mean when uh we say that rebuttal
1:07:36has to be coherent and dependent on the
1:07:39constructive case. It needs to form one
1:07:41coherent world view in order to make it
1:07:43super persuasive. Um and so, that's how
1:07:45you can make rebuttal really really
1:07:47powerful in a debate because it seems to
1:07:49link really nicely to your extension. Um
1:07:52and that's how you also correctly
1:07:53prioritize the correct teams. Um
1:07:57Yeah, like quickly just going through
1:07:58why like if anyone is just confused
1:08:00about why OO is obviously the worst team
1:08:02in this debate um they just don't
1:08:05explain why their impacts matter. Like I
1:08:08don't know why birth rates falling
1:08:10matters or is negative. I don't know why
1:08:13couples not being able to have children
1:08:14is a negative. I I don't also know why
1:08:16like why having children is an inherent
1:08:18right that people get to have especially
1:08:20when OG has already talked about all the
1:08:23harms that could accrue if you're a
1:08:24dysfunctional parent. Um so, yeah. So,
1:08:27that's why OO uh it's not the the
1:08:29greatest team in the debate um and
1:08:31that's why CG or OG would be the one
1:08:34that you would prioritize more. Uh cool.
1:08:37Um so, I believe that's all we have for
1:08:40the exercise.
1:08:42Uh I think now we have a debate. Uh
1:08:45Lucy, do we have a draw?
1:08:47Uh yeah, we do. Um I think we can stop
1:08:50the recording at this point. Mhm.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Rebuttal & Engagement - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 5 by Manchester Debating Union, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 13,356 words across 2,023 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 translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

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, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.