This article is part of the chapter that explains how to refute an opposing speaker's arguments. In chapter 6 articles: What is a contradiction?, counter arguments, Contradiction using logic, Contradiction with facts, Contradiction using the rules of speech, and how to organize a speech and a contradiction.

A contradiction based on the rules of the debate

Another way to attack your opponents is not to look only at what they said but at the way they said it. For the most part, this will only be useful when there are multiple secondary comments. For example, it might be worth mentioning that the first speaker spent four minutes defining the proposition or that the previous speaker did not receive interjections or that a new main argument was introduced in the last minute of the speech. These flaws set the stage for your speech and for your attacks, but they do not have a strong meaning of their own, and it is appropriate not to rely on them as a main line. One of the areas that can actually be used as a real contradiction in the discussion is the identification of an inconsistency, or a real internal contradiction between the arguments of your opponents.
One of the basic principles of debate is that the speaker must continue to defend the points raised earlier. In British parliamentary debates, however, it is very easy for the line of reasoning to get lost between the two teams on the same side. There is also the possibility that a certain speaker will contradict his partner or even the other parts of his speech. A contradiction between different speakers from the same side is almost always fatal for that side (since it is impossible for two opposing interpretations to be correct), and an opponent who does not attack internal contradictions of his opponents simply gives up bonus points. Of course, the opposite is also true: you must be careful of contradictions on your side. They can result from a simple mistake or from the lack of understanding of the previous speakers or from the fact that you did not hear a certain point. They can be the result of an inflexible speaker's failure to move from a prepared argument even though the argument is intended for another debate. Contradictions can even be intentional. The second group that is on a certain side can try to "stick a knife" in the back of the first group that presented a bad reasoning or bad arguments. In all these cases, the internal contradictions are open to attack. Even if the second argument is better than the first, the rules of debate require that there be agreement between the speakers on a particular side and the inability to achieve this facilitates the contradiction.

Join the public speaking course now