How to Attack and to Rebut

LABEL

DESCRIPTION

RESPONSE

AD HOMINEM, NEEDLING

Someone from the other team is attacking you personally, using irony, sarcasm or even abusive terms. Here, it’s advisable to stay calm or react in a humorous way.

· Let me remind you that debating is about fairness.

· You seem to misunderstand the idea of debating. We take roles.

AD IGNORANTIAM

Does the other side show disbelief or ignorance?

“I can’t imagine...”

“I haven’t heard of....”

· You should have prepared yourself more effectively.

· I’m really surprised you haven’t heard of it.

· It’s actually pretty common. It’s a well-established fact.

AD POPULUM

The other team points out that most people agree with their arguments.

“The majority of this country...”

“Millions of people...”

· Most people agreed with some of the biggest crimes in history.

APPEAL TO GOD

The other team refers to God’s will.

· How comes you know God’s will so well?

· This is about reasons, not about religion.

APPEAL TO NATURE

The other side suggests X is natural and Y isn’t.

· We’re on a certain level of civilization – we don’t follow the laws of the jungle.

· Imitating nature is not always the best choice.

APPEAL TO TRADITION

The other side assumes they’re right because they defend the status quo.

· If we stick to tradition, will we ever see any progress?

· We don’t want to change the whole system. We want to make it better.

ARROGANCE

The other side appears arrogant (and the audience).

· Being a bit too stupid for your clever case – can we please get a version the common man in the street can understand?

BAD INTENTIONS

The other side blames you to have bad intentions.

· Who cares about your intentions as long as the outcome is good?

· This is debating. Our only intentions are to prove we’re right.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The other side claims their point is true but doesn’t present any evidence. 

· Can you prove this?

· Is there any piece of evidence for your case?

· You’re shifting the burden of proof! It’s your job to prove you’re right!

CATEGORIZING

The other team puts you in a bad category (fascists, communists...).

· You seem to misunderstand the term “...”.Let me explain...

CHERRY PICKING, STECKING THE DECK

The other side uses only the facts that support their position.

· This is cherry picking.

· You seem to ignore a number of facts.

CONTRADICTION

The other speaker contradicts himself or his fellow team members.

· I see a major contradiction in your speech: ...

· Just to point that out: Your first speaker said ... . Now, you come along and say ...

· There’s a problem with your team line.

CRITICISM WITHOUT EVIDENCE (APPEAL TO THE STONE)

The other side dismisses your argument as wrong, absurd or ridiculous without giving evidence.

· Can you explain why this should be wrong?

· It isn’t as silly as it seems once you’ve got the point.

CUI BONO ARGUMENT

The other side assumes you argue in favor of a specific group you don’t want to be affiliated with.

· Lots of other and more important groups will profit as well.

DEFINITION PROBLEMS

The other side doesn’t keep to the definition. The opponent offers his own private definitions of the terms in question.

· Your definition has nothing to do with what A really means.

· We have agreed on exact definitions. Please keep to these definitions!

EMOTIONALIZING

The other team comes up with a sentimental, emotional appeal.

· It’s a cheap trick to appeal to emotions.

· Let’s rather look at facts.

EUPHEMISMS

The other team uses fine-sounding words to cover up a problem with their arguments.

· Let’s call a spade a spade. You’re saying that...

EXAGGERATION & GENERALIZATION

Does the opponent exaggerate or generalize?

· Don’t exaggerate.

· You’re generalizing.

· Come on, that’s a cliché!

· There are a number of exceptions: ...

EXCEPTIONS

The other side comes up with exceptions and special cases.

· We’re trying to find a way for a majority of people. There will always be exceptions.

· You can’t please everyone.

FALSE ANALOGIES

The opponents compare things that can’t really be compared.

· A has nothing to do with B.

· You can’t compare As and Bs.

· This comparison just doesn’t work!

FALSE DILMMA

The other side proposes two possible solutions – but no other way to solve the problem.

· You’ve only given two alternatives. What if we accept a third possibility?

FAR-FETCHED FACTS

The other team comes up with far-fetched examples and obscure facts.

· Where did you get that from?

FAST TALKERS

The other team talks incredibly fast.

· Can we as the other side to slow down? Nobody is getting your point.

· Just reminding you: If you don’t slow down, that’s bad style.

GENETIC FALLACY

The other side traces back a current affair to its historical roots.

· You fail to recognize that things have changed.

· In a modern society, this is no longer true.

INFLATION OF CONFLICT

The other side suggests your data are wrong because academics still argue about it. 

· You don’t seem to see that science is always a result of dispute.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

The other team indicate there is already a law that ...

· Laws are not for eternity. This debate aims at values that can change the law.

LOGICAL FALLACY

Is there a chain of reasons that are not really connected? Or is there some kind of confusion between cause and result? Does the other side claim A is the effect of B – while they only occur at the same time?

· A does not really follow from B.

· A has nothing to do with B.

· There’s no connection between A and B.

MISTAKES WITH FACTS AND FIGURES

The examples, facts or numbers used by the other team are wrong.

· Your numbers are wrong.

· Your data are wrong.

· Where did you get these figures from?

PLAYING DOWN

The other side tries to play down the effects a decision might have.

“This is a First World Problem.”

“This is not a big issue.”

· It’s a small problem with effects.

· If we don’t deal with it now, other problems will follow.

POISONING THE WELLS

Your opponent tries to discredit your sources.

· Well, I didn’t make that up. My claim is backed by ...

PRIORITIES PROBLEM

Instead of solving problem A, the other side suggests we should solve problem B which has a much higher priority or urgency. 

· If we don’t start at some point, we won’t start at all.

· We should only deal with problems we can handle.

PROBLEMS WITH PRACTICABILTY

The other team comes up with solutions that are difficult or impossible to implement.

· Can you please explain how...?

· How will you ever pay for that?

· Who is supposed to do that?

PROBLEMS WITH ROLE FULFILMENT

The other team does what they’re not supposed to do in terms of role fulfilment.

· Let me remind you that you’re proposition and it’s your job to ...

· As opposition, you should ...

· This wasn’t a reply speech.

QUESTIONS

The other side asks you questions that are difficult to answer.

· We’ll come to that in a minute.

· Our next speaker will deal with that.

RED HERRING, LACK OF RELEVANCE

The other team use arguments that aren’t relevant for the case.

· Let’s get back to the motion.

· You seem to wander off the topic.

· Can we please focus on A instead of wasting time on B?

· This argument doesn’t apply here.

REPETIVENESS & REDUNDANCY

Is the other team’s argumentation redundant or repetitive?

· You seem to repeat yourself.

· You’re repeating the same thing over and over – but that doesn’t make it right.

SCARE TACTICS

The other team tries to make the audience believe your plan will have terrible consequences.

· If we don’t do anything, the consequences will be even worse.

SHOTGUN ARGUMENTATION

The other side comes up with lots of different arguments.

· Let me focus on your main points.

· You were supposed to giver only three arguments, not thirty.

SIMPLICATION

The other side simplifies the whole problem, e. g. by tracing back the whole issue to just one cause.

· You’re simplifying.

· It’s not as easy as it looks ...

STRAW MAN

The other side suggests you’ve said something you haven’t said at all! Or: The other side attacks a distorted version of your case.

· Let me once again read out what I said: ...

· You don’t seem to get our point.

WISHFUL THINKING

Instead of plausible consequences, the other side presents the pleasant results they would like to see.

· That’s wishful thinking.

· That’s a bit naïve.