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.
The contradiction is the main difference between independent public speech and debate. Of course, it is important that each side presents its own persuasive arguments, but in the collision between these two lines of arguments, the discussion and confrontation takes place. As a speaker you must not only be able to present arguments in favor of your position that you have prepared in advance, but you must also be able to refute the arguments of your opponent as presented by him. In this way, it is customary to recommend that every speech be opened with a minute or two of contradicting the opponent's arguments. There are several ways to contradict the opponent, in general they can be divided into three types: a factual contradiction in which I challenge attacks on the information provided by the opponent, a polemical contradiction, in which I challenge the reliability of his arguments and the relationship between them and the facts agreed upon by both of us, and a procedural contradiction in which I use the rules of debate to show that the opponent did something wrong.
The construction of the contradiction
Creating a structure for the counterattack is as important as structuring your speech, especially if there is a serious amount of contradiction to be made. The weakest way to do this is called "automatic fire", starting your speech with a list of your opponent's claims that you contradict in random order. This situation leaves little time to emphasize the most important points or to deal with the more complex issues of the discussion. It can also lead to repetition of arguments, when the contradiction of a certain point is the same as the contradiction of another point.
A more efficient approach is to divide the response by topic. You can use the division of arguments that your opponents used. If they split the argument into three points, for example, you can use those three points as the structure of your contradiction, but a more sophisticated way is to use your own analysis of their arguments to build a new structure.
An example of different ways to organize the contradiction
Take for example the discussion that took place in one of the internal competitions in Cambridge that dealt with the proposal, "This house would introduce TV cameras to the courthouses". The definition was that the courts should appear on television, but only with the approval of the judge. Each party to the trial could ask the judge to limit access due to the particularly sensitive personal details involved or because he felt the cameras could create prejudice, and the judge would make the final decision.
The government's case was divided into three main points:
- that the trials filmed on television will be better for the public and for its "right to know",
- They will be better for the legal profession whose elitist image will be eliminated if the public can see how the professionals act in the public interest
- And they will be better for the accused when the scrutinizing public eye makes the perversion of justice (as in the case of the Guildford Four) less likely.
The contradiction of the opposition
The opposition focused on the last point. Citing America's example, she argued that television's pursuit of sensationalism would harm the accused. The cameras will prejudge the trial because the judge will present to the court as in the case of a trial or. J. Simpson. The cameras can intimidate some witnesses into not being willing to mention certain key pieces of information to millions of viewers. In addition, they will turn the accused into public figures, tarnishing their status for years to come if they are found innocent. In a way, the opposition described the manipulation of the images on television. O.G.'s hand The one that didn't fit the glove was considered "good TV" but the hours of scientific evidence that showed that the glove might have shrunk did not create an impression and were therefore invisible. They also questioned the right-of-the-public-to-know in a law that deals specifically with an individual and not with the public in general. Instead of simply contradicting it point by point,
Contradiction of the government
The contradiction of the government team focused on the issue. She claimed that the opposition's reasoning was based on four essential misunderstandings - one of which refers to the terms of the debate and the other three refer to the nature of the status quo.
- First, the opposition did not understand the proposal. The proposal team said the judge could remove the cameras in case of some sensitivity or if necessary. As a result, the arguments regarding threatened witnesses were misguided.
- The second misunderstanding was related to the nature of the British legal system. The American judges are elected and therefore they must "present" well in order to keep their positions, but this pressure does not exist on the British judges.
- The third misunderstanding had to do with the nature of the British courts. The meaning of the public law system is that by setting a precedent, the judge actually makes a law - therefore, the judge's decision will affect many more people than just the immediate parties.
- The fourth misunderstanding had to do with the nature of the British press. Although cameras are not allowed in the court, the journalists are allowed to enter there and the tabloid reports that deal with the trials are open to mass distortions. At least the cameras don't spoil the situation and will allow more people to see the trial in order to form an opinion. Moreover, the defendants are already becoming media stars today - the four suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case were tried by the newspapers and the population without being found guilty of any crimes.
This four-point structure lends considerable credibility to the contradiction and makes it easier to understand. He is also helpful by 'painting' the opposition team in a certain way. Characterization is a useful skill that can be applied when conflicting. Try to think of a serious flaw on the other side that demonstrates their basic approach to the debate. In this case, the other party misunderstood a number of key issues and seems to have a weak understanding of the situation. Opponents can be characterized, for example, as those whose heads are in the clouds, as those who talk about the theory but are unable to apply it practically. Some teams can misrepresent your case. They can claim that you failed to engage one of their points when in fact you have shown that point to be wrong or they can deliberately misinterpret your reasoning in order to present it in a negative light. Always try to improve these characterizations - they can be a very useful way to look at your opponents' arguments and they can undermine their position.
Even if contradiction is essential to debating and must be present in every speech (except for the first speaker, of course), advanced orators cannot afford to be content with devoting "time to contradiction" at the beginning of the speech. A novice orator may say, for example, "I will present a social argument, an economic argument, and a political argument, but before that I would like to comment on the words of my honorable opponents..." The problem is that all of this is rather artificial, and even more so in English, since the term "Rebuttal" is not used by anyone except debaters who have already chewed the same witness. Even in Hebrew, you should always approach the contradiction in a less obvious and more sophisticated way.
For the advanced - incorporating the contradiction in your arguments
The way to achieve this is not to limit the contradiction of your opponents to the beginning of the speech only. Clash between the parties is the essence of the debate, therefore every argument of yours should deal with your opponents, or at least be relevant to their words. If part of your speech does not directly refer to at least part of the other side's case, it is a sign that it is probably not relevant, or that you are the first speaker of the opening government. The more correct way to counterattack is by incorporating the opponent's contradiction into your material, while you present your group's arguments to show how they address and negate the opponent's arguments. By combining your arguments with your opponent's contradiction, you clarify the essence of the debate and especially the points of conflict between you and your opponents and thus improve the entire debate while strengthening your side and weakening your opponents. The judges will thank you if you do. An additional warning, however, lest this be interpreted as there is no room for attacking the opponent outside of your line of argument. It may always be necessary to treat an opponent's point or points separately from your material. This is especially important if there is a central argument that needs to be addressed as early as possible and does not yet relate to the case you will be presenting. Contradicting the opponent in the opening is an opportunity to attack the opponent with debate-theory arguments (to present him as truist, evasive, too specific, etc.) or a good opportunity to characterize your opponents, as mentioned earlier. Just remember that this should not come in place of a contradiction integrated into the speech, but in addition to it.
Three points to go
- Address also the contradiction of your partner's speech by the opponents, and defend his points which have been attacked. Remember that if you build arguments based on your partner's argument that was attacked by your opponents, you are trying to build on shaky foundations - strengthen them.
- Of course, the first speaker of the inaugural government is fully exempt from hiding the opponent.
- A slightly sensitive point is the defense of the third speaker on each side of the group that preceded him - apparently they are on the same side and he must base his claims on a solid basis, yet they are his rivals for first place. In practice, only better Be visible As if you are defending the starting group, and in practice defend only those points that are essential to your case.