How can you execute refutation in debates? What are ways to undermine your opponent’s facts?
According to Trey Gowdy, knowing your opponents is an important part of debating because it allows for an easy refutation of their argument. This means fully understanding what their arguments are, what facts they’re relying on, and what it would take to convince them to abandon their position.
Check out how to get a good sense of who your opponents are so you can chip away at their argument.
Refuting an Argument
While much of your argument will be dedicated to articulating and defending your position, you can use your understanding of your opponent’s perspective and facts to gradually undermine them. Refutation in debates manifests in attacks on their credibility, their conclusions, and even their language.
Attacking your opponent’s credibility means questioning the viability of their facts or their ability to interpret them. In the same way that you should question where your own facts came from and how they were discovered, Gowdy suggests questioning where your opponent got their facts, how reliable those sources are, and whether the conclusions drawn come from those sources (for example, from the expert author of a scientific paper) or from the opponent themselves (who may be invested in the topic, but not an expert). Facts that come from a single source whose process can’t be reproduced, such as from a personal experience or eyewitness account, are particularly vulnerable to attack.
| Vetting the Evidence In Bad Science, doctor and science journalist Ben Goldacre discusses how to vet scientific studies by examining their methodology and the connection (or lack thereof) between data and claims. For example, studies without proper experimental controls can’t actually prove that the thing being tested created the change observed. Studies commissioned by drug companies seeking to promote a new product may also push “surrogate outcomes”— concluding that the drug may work even when the data provides no clear evidence either way. Without further testing, that claim isn’t conclusive. When it comes to questioning personal accounts, studies have shown that human memory is incredibly fallible and subject to change over time. While eyewitness accounts are given a lot of weight in criminal investigations, the famous 1974 Loftus and Palmer experiment showed that the wording of the questions investigators ask can cause people to misremember key details only minutes later. This is true even for dramatic, seemingly unforgettable events. |
If the facts aren’t easily undermined, or if you or your opponent are working from the same facts, Gowdy suggests targeting the conclusions they draw instead. Wherever your opponent makes a logical leap—for example, by suggesting that high crime rates are caused by a weak police response—you can introduce doubt by providing alternative explanations for the same evidence; for example, that high crime rates are actually caused by a surge in unemployment. Gowdy also advises targeting hyperbolic language, such as “never,” “always,” “everybody,” and so on.
(Shortform note: One way to target your opponent’s conclusions is to identify logical fallacies in their thinking, such as the fallacy of the single cause, association bias, or hindsight bias. Entrepreneur Rolf Dobelli’s The Art of Thinking Clearly argues that people are fundamentally irrational and socially driven, leading them to accept false claims because they seem simpler, fit their pre-established worldview, or promise acceptance within a larger group. By pointing out the irrational motivations behind your opponent’s beliefs, you can reframe their entire argument as being irrational.)
Finally, says Gowdy, you can cast doubt on your opponent’s conclusions by suggesting bias on their part—for example, questioning a coal mining CEO’s ability to objectively evaluate the industry’s environmental impact. However, Gowdy warns that this kind of direct attack on your opponent may come off as overly personal and thus backfire, undermining your own claims to objectivity.
(Shortform note: In politics, an attack intended to damage the other person’s reputation or discredit their authority is known as “mudslinging” or (when the campaign is seen as inappropriately personal and unfounded) a “smear campaign.” While some such attempts at such “negative campaigning” have proven successful, others have backfired—particularly when the claims couldn’t be proven, were ultimately viewed as being irrelevant to the political issues at hand or not indicative of bias, or violated the target’s civil rights.)
