Refutation
​
The three-step refutation method below provides an infallible way to knock down your opponents’ arguments. You need to respond to each and every argument that the other team presents: if you leave one argument unrefuted, the other team can win based on that argument alone. The table below elaborates on each part of the three-step refutation method and provides examples based on the topic “The United States should implement a single-payer healthcare system.”
They said. . .
State the assertion of the other team and what number argument you are addressing. Respond to each of the arguments in order and number them clearly.
“In their first argument, the proposition team stated that single-payer healthcare would decrease healthcare costs.”
What they said is wrong because . . .
Explain why the other team’s argument is faulty by undermining their reasoning and evidence; if possible, provide multiple reasons and number each reason.
“We have three responses. First, if the government does not face any competition, then it will operate inefficiently. The United States government’s programs are often wasteful in their bureaucratic processes, and healthcare is no exception. Second, guaranteed healthcare coverage by the government would result in moral hazard: as people know that their healthcare costs are covered, they will have less incentive to protect themselves and take preventative measures. As a result, healthcare costs would increase. Third, any statistics provided by the proposition team are purely speculative, and some estimates find that single-payer healthcare would increase costs. Indeed, Kenneth E. Thorpe of Emory University, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute all find that single-payer healthcare would increase total healthcare spending, according to The New York Times in 2019.
Even if . . .
After refuting the other team’s reasoning and evidence, you should mitigate their impacts by explaining to the judge how, even if their argument is true, it’s irrelevant.
“Even if you disregard the three refutations that I have just provided, this argument lacks impact: at best, the taxpayers will save a few hundred dollars each year, an impact that pales in comparison to the lower healthcare quality that people receive under single-payer systems.”
​
Advanced Refutation
In addition to pointing out the issues with the other team’s arguments’ reasoning, evidence, and impact, there are three specific and technical types of refutations that you can take advantage of.
​
-
Non-uniqueness
If a problem or benefit exists in the worlds that both teams present, then you can describe the other team’s argument as “non-unique.”
For example, if one team argues that standardized tests are biased in favor of affluent students, you could respond: “This argument is non-unique since the measures that the proposition team supports are just as if not more biased than standardized testing. Privileged students have better access to extracurricular activities, can hire tutors to boost their grades, attend private schools with counselors that can help them with essays, and typically have more inflated grades”
-
Link turn
A link turn refers to when you argue that the other team’s policy or position would lead to the opposite impact than the one they claim.
For example, if one team argues that increasing the minimum wage would harm the economy, you could reply: “Increasing the minimum wage would actually benefit the economy since it would redistribute money to low-income individuals, who tend to spend a higher fraction of their income. As recipients of higher wages spend more money, the spending cascades through the economy and triggers growth.
-
Impact turn
In an impact turn, you argue that the impact that the other team claims has the opposite quality; if they claim the impact is bad, you state it is good, and if they claim the impact is good, you state it is bad.
For example, if one team argues that imposing sanctions on Iran would harm the people, you could respond: “Although sanctions would inhibit Iran’s economy, imposing sanctions would encourage the country’s citizens to overthrow their oppressive government since doing so would result in lifting sanctions. As a result, by harming Iran’s economy, sanctions would ensure democratic governance and individual liberties.”
**You cannot do both a link turn and an impact turn; by doing so, you shoot yourself in the foot! If you prove that the plan leads to the opposite impact AND the impact has the opposite quality, then the plan has the same overall effect that the other team claims, although through a different mechanism. Therefore, choose one or the other; never do both.