In the previous lesson we learned how to develop arguments And in particular we learned that an argument should include four parts:
- Main argument - the conclusion and the bottom line of the argument
- Logic - the principle explanation behind the main claim
- Facts - quantitative or narrative information that illustrates and demonstrates the claim and logic
- Closure and leveraging - linking logic and facts to the argument and the main purpose of the speech
In the same way, in this lesson we will see that in order to effectively contradict the opponent, each of the four elements below can be contradicted (for more information about contradiction within debate competitions, please refer to the articles How to organize an argumentative speech and on Procedural contradiction). A famous example of a great contradiction speech is Menachem Begin's Chachachim speech The one responding to the words of his uncle Topaz.
Contradicting the main claim (counterargument)
The most powerful way to counter the main claim is to present your own counterargument. Such an argument, even if it does not disprove the correctness of the opponent's main claim, brings reasoning to the other side. It can be said that a counterargument is actually not a contradiction but your own content.
For example: it is possible that watching violence encourages violent impulses, but it is also known that watching violence provides an outlet for violent urges and therefore it should be welcomed"
The contradiction of explanation and logic
You can confront the logic that the other side offers by pointing out holes in his logic (for example: "The connection between watching violence and committing violence is real but reversed - the people who enjoy watching action movies are the ones who enjoy it in the first place, so it makes sense that they are more involved in violence"), or by Offering your own alternative explanations (for example: "If watching television violence really encourages violence, we should see it in news viewers more than in violent movie viewers").
The contradiction of the facts
There are three main ways to contradict the facts - to doubt their correctness and the source from which they came, or to bring contrary facts.
- Appeal on the correctness of the facts - The 'not true' contradiction is for many the most basic contradiction. The idea here is simply to challenge the correctness of the facts. This is not a very strong contradiction, of course, but it is very short and quick. It is very useful when there is a large amount of things to contradict and it is impossible to justify the contradiction of all of them. For example, "There is no evidence of more violence in children who watch violence, there is no evidence of violence in adults who watch violence, and there is even no evidence of more violence in animals who watch violence. It's all bullshit."
Alternatively, you can use an appeal on the correctness of the facts when we are in a position of authority - professional or organizational - and can impose our opinion without appeal. For example, in the contradictions "You can't go out until late tonight", "You will not answer your neighbor until it is cold" or "I would not leave the tent without the weapon" there is a reasoning that should not be said such as "Because I am your mother and I said so" or "In order to prolong your days The land that I gave you" or "because otherwise you remain Shabbat". All three reasons are not very relevant, but it is very difficult to argue with them. - Bringing counterfactuals – A slightly more advanced stage of is to bring your own counterfactuals. This is actually the technique that is most natural to all of us from the moment we grow up and go through the "yes right - wrong" stage. It is important to understand that this technique is stronger and more convincing, but of course requires prior knowledge. On the other hand, it is also important to remember that if you search enough on Google you will find statistics that support any idea. For example: "Throughout the 1990s, we saw a continuous decrease in the rate of violence in the West, while the amount of violence on television only increased." Or alternatively "Violent television broadcasts arrived in those countries a very long time ago. It is impossible to draw conclusions from what happened in the sixties with what is happening today."
- Appeal on the source of the data - No body is completely neutral and every data source has interests, and most of them have been wrong or missed in the past. For example: "I would not compare data on violence in reformed countries in the West with third world countries in Africa. What do we even know about the Central Bureau of Statistics? She must be working in a tent with an invoice of beads."
The closing and leveraging contradiction ('you exaggerate' contradiction)
At this point the speaker may usually exaggerate or make a proposition that is not really supported by the facts he has brought. Therefore the contradiction here does not mean "you are wrong" but "you are exaggerating". This is of course a weaker contradiction, but sometimes it's all we have...
For example: "Even if I would agree that there is some harm in violent series, it is excessive to suggest that we start censoring television just for this. What are we, China?”
Disrespectful contradictions
- Changing the topic - sometimes you can deal with a good argument by changing the topic. For example, "How can you waste time on the marginal issue of violence in movies when the occupation brings these children to a situation where they are really abusing flesh and blood Palestinians?"
- Contradiction to a person's body (ad hominem) - sometimes it is possible to attack the speaker's personal integrity instead of dealing with the content of his speech.
For example: "How do you Guy Yariv talk about preventing violence when it was published on your website An article that supports the return of corporal punishment to schools?” - Physically obstructing the speaker from speaking - it is possible to prevent the speaker from presenting his claims through incessant questions or creating noise and disturbances.