156
10
Refutation
CHAPTER
KEY TERMS
faction, p. 156
processes, p. 157
cooperative, p. 157
framework, p. 159
assessment, p. 159
critical decision making, p. 160
decision makers, p. 163
goals, p. 163
presumption, p. 164
burden of proof, p. 164
viable constructive position, p. 166
framebreaking, p. 168
momentum, p. 169
support, p. 169
probing, p. 171
questioning, p. 171
defense of the status quo, p. 166
defense of the status quo with minor
repair, p. 166
counterplan, p. 166
flowsheet, p. 172
Criticism is inherent in critical decision making, and refutation is the term we use
to describe the process through which one person or faction (group of people)
involved in a decision criticizes arguments advanced by another person or faction.
The criticism may be addressed to other members of the same faction, to members of
other factions, or to decision makers who are not a part of any faction.
THE PROCESS OF REFUTATION
Although it is often useful to say that every issue has two sides, our concept of refutation
embraces the idea of many factions subscribing to some point of view or advocating one
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 156 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 156 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 157
a constructive process. Just as the sculptor must chip away stone and smooth over rough
places to produce a work of art, critical decision makers must put their arguments to the
most severe tests possible to make the best decisions. Gordon R. Mitchell, in a study of at-
tempts to improve intelligence reports through a form of competitive debate, describes the
CIA process as seeking to “scrub the arguments” (160). This is a metaphor for refutation.
It is in this vein that Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede characterize debate as
FIGURE 10.1
1. All interested parties are given fair notice of an impending decision so that
they can prepare their responses.
2 . Each faction has an equal opportunity to be heard.
3 . Each faction grants the others the right to examine and criticize its arguments,
including access to supporting persons and materials.
4 . Decision makers hear arguments only in the presence of other interested parties.
In Chapter 11 , we will discuss a view of fallacies that is based on rules such as these.
The theory is that any action that impedes progress toward a critical decision is a fallacy,
and violating such rules does impede progress.
The constructive and ultimately cooperative character of refutation is evident in some
spheres such as legislation, law, and science. People often become impatient with legislative
decision making as Democrats and Republicans debate each other, constantly finding weak-
nesses in the other’s positions, but they accept that such delay is a price well worth paying
in the interest of making critical decisions. Totalitarian government operates much faster,
but most people prefer the “agreement to disagree” that characterizes partisan legislation.
In law, attorneys are instructed to disagree and criticize each others’ claims in the
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 157 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 157 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
158 PART 2 Tools
with examples of governments silencing the opposition by putting leaders in jail, exile, or
graves. McCarthyism denotes uncritical rejection of opposing ideas through accusation
and intimidation. A criticism of current politicians suggests they are more interested in se-
curing their jobs, their political power, and their political philosophies than making deci-
sions that best serve the nation and its citizens. When this happens, when even a minority
of members in, for example, the U.S. Senate can prevent a critical decision being made for
uncritical reasons, they behave much like totalitarian leaders.
Refutation can be most unpleasant when it identifies weaknesses in ideas you believe
in fervently, and many people lack the courage to listen to it. That is uncritical behavior.
In this chapter and the next, we set out basic processes of critical behavior. We can-
not provide a “manual,” and there are no litmus or pH tests of argument available, but
we do provide a sequence of considerations and potential strategies from which to draw
and adapt to each decision.
APPROACHING REFUTATION
Refutation requires the open expression of disagreement with an argument made by
someone else . Social rules in force in many cultures discourage such expressions. It is
commonly considered impolite to question or challenge others, and linguists say people
have a preference for agreement. Scott Jacobs and Sally Jackson say that in interpersonal
argument this preference for agreement operates like a presumption in favor of the valid-
ity of what others have said. Because of this, “disagreement requires some compelling ra-
tionale, something definite enough and significant enough to overcome this presumption”
(235–236). Jacobs and Jackson say that refutation is not a general attitude of skepticism,
but the application of a specific argument to a specific decision.
I found this method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it but
gradually [I] left it. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing
your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention. (25–26)
Franklin concludes his discussion of this phase of his childhood with this quote from
Alexander Pope: “Men should be taught as if you taught them not, And things unknown
propos’d as things forgot.”
Some former championship college debaters, in response to a survey conducted by
the American Forensic Association in 1981 concerning the National Debate Tournament,
said debate had merely reinforced what they now consider to be antisocial behaviors.
They describe a tendency “to turn every conversation, whether social or academic, into
a contest [in which they] always had to have the last word.” “Truth, logic, tact, and
just good manners were more often than not sacrificed for the sake of argument.” They
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 158 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 158 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 159
describe “mindless, knee-jerk” argumentation as an “insidious habit of pushing infor-
mal discussions to the argument stage,” ego gratification gained by winning, showing a
superiority over others. One person says, “Debate made me over argumentative, always
finding problems with others’ ideas. It took a long time to get over it. It [debate] may have
increased my inability to work well with people on an interpersonal level.” They found
themselves seeking to conquer opponents rather than work out decisions through negotia-
tion. One former debater concludes this way:
opponent’s case. The main points are enough, and humiliation is costly.
Approaching refutation requires finding a working point somewhere between these
extremes: a preference for agreement and silent acknowledgment of the validity of what
others say; and the brash, hypercritical, competitive, and destructive practices described
by Benjamin Franklin and some former college debaters. If you keep in mind that refu-
tation is a cooperative part of the critical process, rather than a noncontact sport, you
should fare well.
SETTING A FRAMEWORK FOR REFUTATION
Each decision and the arguments related to it require a new analysis from which to con-
struct refutation. There must always be an inextricable link among the goals sought in
decision making, the specific decisions proposed to meet the goals, and the arguments
Assess the Argumentative Situation
Refutation is a response to the argumentative situation, an assessment ; unless you under-
stand the situation at hand, you are not ready to participate in refutation. Even though
people tell stories about talking the police out of tickets, for the most part interactions
with police do not represent an argumentative situation. It is better to present your refu-
tation of the charges to a judge. Dinner parties in which your politics or religion differ
dramatically from everyone else are probably not the place to launch into an attack on
their views. Conversely, when you are part of an impregnable majority, there is little point
in refuting the minority arguments when those arguments stand no chance of influencing
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 159 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 159 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
160 PART 2 Tools
resting your case on an assessment of the state of mind of the decision makers. If your
judgment proves to be wrong, you will probably kick yourself for not speaking out. It’s
a tough choice because speaking out can sometimes do more harm than good. Only the
most insightful have the courage to use silence as a refutation.
Identify the Question or Claim. Keep your eyes on what the decision process is all about,
the ultimate purpose—what are we trying to accomplish with the decision? When peo-
ple lose sight of the key issues, bring them back. Constantly look at issues in relation to
the proposition, and the proposition in relation to the ultimate purpose. If the issues are
decided, will the proposition follow reasonably? If the proposition is adopted, will the
ultimate purpose follow reasonably?
Ask about the status of the discussion. Where does the present argumentation stand
in relation to deciding the proposition? During the preliminary interactions around any
topic or decision, the focus of decision makers is likely aimed at gathering information
and identifying and sorting relevant values. They are tuning in, paying attention, com-
prehending, generating relevant cognitions, and acquiring relevant skills (Trenholm, 56).
This is probably not the time to start refutation. It is possible that the search for a deci-
As alternative decisions begin to emerge and compete for the decision makers’ at-
tention, as the attractiveness of the alternatives approaches parity, forcing decision
makers to struggle with discriminating among them, the time for refutation has arrived
(Festinger, 154–155). If you advance your refutational points too soon, the effect may
be lost because the decision makers are too early in their search to appreciate your
points. If you wait too long, the opportunity to reduce adherence to other positions may
have passed.
Survey Objectives and Values. Inherent in each sphere are overall objectives sought from
argumentation and the values that will control the process. For example, find out about
the rules of procedure. Different spheres prescribe different procedures of argumentation.
In law, for example, refutation is restricted to specific stages in the trial and attempts
to use refutation outside those limits may be denied. In business settings, criticism of a
presentation is usually restricted to questioning rather than direct attack, and often this is
limited to people in a high position. A lower-level person attacking a colleague may have
what they call at IBM a “career-limiting experience.” Before launching into your refuta-
tion, you are well advised to know the procedures.
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 160 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 160 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 161
A young negotiator going up against a seasoned veteran was determined to get the
What are the operative cultural values? If you are familiar with film and television
characterizations of lawyers at work, you may believe it is common to trash and brutal-
ize the other side and then go out for drinks. If you have been a debater in high school or
college, you may believe that tough, uncompromising attacks on others are appropriate
behavior. Loud talking, rapid speech, ridicule, and other tactics make for good drama,
In most business settings, professional interactions, and even government sessions,
restrained language, quiet voices, courtesy, and consideration for the “face” of oppo-
nents are demanded (Lim, 75–86). You may deliver a devastating refutation of another’s
position only to find you have alienated the decision makers. In countries other than the
United States, this is often even more the case. Refutation, to be successful, must not ex-
ceed the cultural boundaries of the decision-making situation.
Weigh the Costs and Risks. Proposals may seem attractive on their face but lose support
when the costs or risks are made clear. There are plenty of government services people
would support if they did not require increased taxes. Many people who believe that more
Search for New Information. Refutation does not mean merely expressing your opin-
ion. If you have not done your homework, you’re not ready for refutation. In 1999, the
Kansas Board of Education decided to change the status of teaching on evolution in its
public schools. Immediately, outraged refutation was leveled at the board on the charge
that their behavior was an ignorant attack on modern science and a step toward mix-
ing religion with public education. Robert E. Hemenway, chancellor of the University
of Kansas, wrote an essay entitled “The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows
Why Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth.” Hemenway devoted his argument to
criticizing the board for eliminating the teaching of evolution. By failing to do his home-
work, however, he set himself up for refutation by Phillip E. Johnson, a professor of law
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 161 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 161 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
162 PART 2 Tools
at the University of California at Berkeley. Johnson merely noted that the board had only
removed evolution from mandatory state standards and did not insist that students be
taught biblical or creationist interpretations. By attacking the wrong issue, Chancellor
Hemenway allowed his arguments to be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
Note Biases Underlying Positions. Identifying biases is an important part of refutation in
critical decision making. Roadblocks can often be pushed aside by exposing preconceived
notions and biases.
The ongoing debate about reducing unemployment reveals many biases. On the sur-
face, conservatives inevitably claim that private business must be allowed to create jobs
because of their inherent bias in favor of free enterprise. By contrast, liberals inevitably
claim that re-training grants, support for education, funding for infrastructure projects
Make Plans to Implement the Decision. Often, the best refutation is to take other pro-
posals seriously and set out precisely what will be needed to implement them. The act of
implementation often proves so complex, costly, or plagued with onerous side effects that
enthusiasm for the decision vanishes.
Enthusiasm for national health programs frequently starts out high only to dissipate
as problems associated with implementation become clear. The American people gener-
ally favor a program of insurance, but there is wide variance in what kind of program is
favored. When The Affordable Care Act of 2010 required people to have some form of
health insurance, there was outrage over this as the federal government exceeding its au-
Analyze the Decision Makers
How will the decision be made? The tone of refutation varies with the proximity to the
decision and the likelihood of opposing points being stated after yours. If you are making
the last statement, after which the decision makers will immediately make their choice, a
more flamboyant, exhortative, and arousing style of refutation may be appropriate. If the
decision will not be made for months or years after your refutation, as in congressional
hearings, appellate courts, or businesses, the style and content of your refutation should
be geared toward lasting impressions and specific recall that decision makers can use dur-
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 162 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 162 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 163
refutation. If these conditions do not apply, however, you will probably be more effec-
tive if your refutation takes a multisided approach resembling an objective analysis of the
alternatives (Trenholm, 242).
Who Are the Decision Makers? We are constantly amazed to discover people debating
each other without knowing who ultimately are the decision makers . In academic debate,
courts of law, and other highly formalized decision systems, this does not occur, but in the
vast majority of decisions made each day, who finally decides may be obscure.
The police union was negotiating with the city government over their new contract.
The city’s negotiating team included a professional negotiator, the city attorney, a per-
sonnel officer, and a major of police. The union side included a professional negotiator,
the president of the police union, and members of the executive committee of the union.
After months of talks, the issues were narrowed to one: salary. It proved impossible to
reach agreement on this issue, and at that point, the question of who would really make
the city’s decision on pay raises became salient. The union asked for a conference with the
In many business settings, decisions are addressed and arguments exchanged with
none of the participants knowing who will ultimately decide. People are asked to at-
tend meetings without knowing their role or the purpose of the meeting. Curiously, our
experience is that often the participants themselves are expected to decide, but they do
not know it . Unless you know who will actually make the decision, you cannot generate
useful refutation.
In legislation, the decision makers can be quite difficult to discover. On the surface,
it is the elected representatives, senators, or members of Congress, for example, who
vote and thus decide. But a glance beneath the surface says the real clout may be in the
What Are Decision Makers’ Goals? Refutation must not focus solely on the particular
strengths and weaknesses of alternative decision proposals; it must relate ultimately to
what is sought from the decision, the goals —ultimate purpose. It is possible that alterna-
tives can be rejected as a whole rather than criticized point-by-point simply by showing
that they fail to address the objective of the decision making. In law, the defense may
reject the opponent’s entire position by successfully arguing that no prima facie case has
been advanced. What this means, simply, is that the judge could accept everything claimed
by the prosecution and still not grant a decision in their behalf. In the midst of refutation,
it is easy to lose sight of what the debate is about. Tit-for-tat argumentation may obscure
what it is that constitutes the objective of all involved.
In legislation, for example, the overarching objective may be to manage the national
economy, and opposing bills may call for deficit reduction, tax relief, controlling costs in
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 163 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 163 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
164 PART 2 Tools
Medicare or Social Security, or reducing the size of the military. Although each of these
proposals has specific strengths and weaknesses that need attention, the ultimate goal,
an effective national economy, must be the primary criterion by which they are assessed.
What Are the Presumptions of the Decision Makers? In the chapters on making sense of
argumentation and on case building, we discussed the concepts of presumption, prob-
ability, and burden of proof. These concepts are also crucial to refutation. There may be
formal statements of presumption , such as that of innocence in U.S. criminal law, and
there may be widely accepted presumptions, such as that in favor of the status quo, but
each decision must be analyzed for the actual presumption in place.
In law, jurors who can truly accept the presumption of innocence of a particular ac-
cused may be so hard to find that the court will grant a change of venue. Time may be
expended on behalf of proposed legislation that seems widely popular when the real deci-
sion makers have a strong negative presumption. After years of experience with television
interviews of the leaders of a state legislature, we learned to ask off camera about specific
The character of your refutation must be responsive to the status of presumption. If
your decision carries the weight of presumption, then your refutation should consist pri-
marily of two components: (1) constantly demanding that all other positions accept the
burden of proof and defining the nature of their burden and (2) constantly showing how
they have failed to meet their burden of proof. The other side of that coin is this: If your
position carries the burden of proof you may attempt a refutation that shifts the burden
to the others.
After the uprising in Egypt in 2011 that caused the removal of the president, the mili-
tary created what was expected to be an interim government pending a new constitution
and elections. After time passed with no apparent progress, the people demanded that the
temporary government prove it was moving in the right direction. The people successfully
shifted the burden of proof to the government leaders who had to satisfy the demands.
Remember, both of these approaches rely on the fact that you know the presumption
Are Involved Factions Trying to Act as Decision Makers? The problem about arguing
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 164 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 164 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 165
such as “Our policy is that . . .” Instead of trying to refute the policy, ask to talk with a
person who has the authority to make an exception to the policy.
Finally, you need to get around what Tom Wolfe calls “the flak catchers.” These are
people in organizations whose job it is to listen to complaints (take the flak) and send
people away. They are often programmed to mislead: “I wish I could help you, but there
is nothing I can do.” Instead of trying refutation on such people, you must get around
them to real decision makers.
A woman allowed a teenage neighbor to repair her car in the high school shop class,
and with the teacher’s help he managed to cause US$600 worth of damage. She went to
the school district and spoke with the person in charge of all shop classes. He said, “I’m
sorry, but the law does not allow us to carry insurance for this sort of problem. We are
legally unable to help you.” The woman asked a professional negotiator to go back to
Analyze Opponents
Law provides “discovery” procedures that inform opponents in advance of a trial what
witnesses or evidence will be presented. Opposing counsel have a chance to talk to each
other’s witnesses at length and to review documentary or physical evidence. The principle
SELECTING A POSTURE FOR REFUTATION
One of the most common mistakes of inexperienced debaters is the use of a “the more
you throw, the more will stick to the wall” theory of refutation. It’s the same theory we
spoke of earlier in relation to students writing essay exams: not enough courage to stop
when you’ve said enough; not enough knowledge to know when enough is enough. This
is a tactic used by the inexperienced or the desperate. We will suggest a variety of postures
from which refutation can be conducted, in the hope of convincing you to think before
you refute and to quit when you have done what you planned, even if you still have time,
space, or arguments unused.
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 165 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 165 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
166 PART 2 Tools
simply because the obvious victor could not remain silent. Continued refutation actually
moved decision makers to change their minds.
Refute from a Constructive Basis
Whether you are defending an established position with the protection of presumption or
attacking it, refutation is most powerful when it comes from the perspective of a viable
constructive position . It is one thing to hammer away at the prevailing policy, but its de-
fenders are unlikely to abandon it without an alternative. In fact, defenders of the status
quo will probably not even perceive your refutations for what they are because of selective
perception.
Thomas Kuhn reports on what he calls scientific paradigms (subsets of spheres) such
as Ptolemaic astronomy, Newtonian physics, and quantum mechanics. Kuhn argues that
“Once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if
an alternative candidate is available to take its place” (77).
Defend Your Position
If you have constructed a viable alternative position or if you are defending the presumed
position, stick with it. Generally speaking, defenders advance one of three positions: de-
fense of the status quo , defense of the status quo with minor repair , or counterplan .
Defense of the Status Quo. When you defend the status quo, you put attention on the
refutation of the arguments advanced against it. By showing that the arguments do not
stand up to criticism, you leave yourself standing on unchallenged ground. This is some-
Defense of the Status Quo with Minor Repair. Often, there are legitimate problems with
the policy you are defending, and you may as well acknowledge them. However, you reject
any claim of inherency—that the problems are so great and so much a part of the present
system that the only solution is to make significant changes. Instead, you argue that an
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 166 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 166 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 167
form of Medicare and Medicaid could be adopted without essentially changing the private,
fee-for-service system in place.
Counterplan. When the challenges to the present policy seem overwhelming, defenders have
to choose: accept the arguments and support the proposed new policy, or argue for another
new policy. If you decide there is clearly a need for a change in policy but the proposal being
presented is unacceptable, then you have the option of arguing for a counterplan. So, you do
not try to refute the arguments claiming there is harm in the present policy that presents a
need for a change. You stipulate (acknowledge) the need. Then, you argue that the proposed
Too often, the heat of debate draws attention away from your home position as you
level criticisms at others. We suggest that every communication you produce in the de-
bate begin with a restatement of your position and a discussion of how it remains intact
despite the refutation of other factions. This may require some repairs. Your position
may have been damaged by refutation, so your first priority is to put it back together.
Remember, other factions will be trying to pull you away from your position and get you
to debate on their ground. If they have the burden of proof, they will be trying to shift it
to your shoulders.
Keep the Focus on the Goals of Decision Making
The highest conceptual level toward which refutation can be aimed is the goal of deci-
sion making. Constantly return the focus of the discussion to the goals sought from the
decision to be made—the ultimate purpose—and demonstrate any point at which other
factions fail to generate those goals.
In debating the U.S. deficit, arguments go back and forth about whether cutting
spending and/or increasing revenue is the proper policy. One side claims that any tax in-
crease is unacceptable because it will put a burden on the people who are “job creators,”
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 167 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 167 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
168 PART 2 Tools
Argyris proposes framebreaking as the response to this problem. Helping others
break their typical frame of reference in considering decision proposals allows them to
see, for the first time, the problems with their positions.
Similarly, decision makers who are not otherwise involved in the argumentation need
help breaking their frames of reference to see the problems you are pointing out in your
refutation. Under pressure to decide, says Argyris, people disconnect from their reasoning
process. These are the usual characteristics: people do not understand when their premises
Michael Fernandes, in a letter to the editor of The New York Times , on June 2, 2011,
talks about how to measure success in cancer treatment. He says the traditional frame of
reference is the size of the tumor and success is measured by how much reduction in the
size of the tumor is achieved. Fernandes claims this overlooks the fact that the real danger
in cancer is “invasion and subsequent metastases, which are unrelated to tumor size”
(A22). He argues that “progression” must be redefined to include invasion. Continuing in
the usual frame of reference will overlook critical aspects of cancer treatment.
Thomas L. Friedman, writing in The New York Times on July 13, 2011, claims that
politicians are framing their debate on how to reduce unemployment in their typical ways:
liberals calling for stimulus and conservatives demanding tax cuts. Friedman says that if
they do not break their old frames of reference and go after unemployment in a new
way, they will fail. “I think something else, something new—something that will require
our kids not so much to find their next job as to invent their next job—is also influenc-
ing today’s job market more than people realize” (A25). Friedman notices that the most
dynamic sector of our economy consists of such firms as Facebook, Twitter, Groupon,
Test the Credibility of Other Factions
Review the discussion of credibility in Chapter 9 , and think about how challenges to oth-
ers’ credibility might form the basis of refutation. The credibility of key proponents may
be used to damage a proposal. The credibility of evidence can be challenged by expos-
ing bias, exclusion of important reservations, outdatedness, imprecision, or other criteria
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 168 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 168 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 169
studies found only correlations, not causal connections. In return, when the tobacco com-
panies produce research that suggests smoking is not the cause of health problems, critics
note that researchers who are paid or otherwise supported by grants from tobacco inter-
ests are not reliable neutral scientists.
When a former lobbyist for the Tobacco Institute was diagnosed with cancer and de-
cided to speak openly about his work, his testimony was granted high credibility. He was
admitting he had participated in misleading the public by withholding information and
providing inaccurate information. A former insider “coming clean” in a way that reflects
badly on his own work has the highest credibility.
Understand Momentum
In decision-making groups, momentum describes a state of mind regarding critical atten-
tion to arguments. When a long and arduous debate has taken place over one proposition,
those to follow may well pass with little or no comment because the decision makers have
more or less exhausted their critical energy. The last proposition to come up just before
the usual time for adjournment may whip through easily because people want to leave.
It is said that during World War II, General Douglas MacArthur held back certain issues
until just before 5:00 p.m . when officers were anxious to get to “happy hour,” thus often
avoiding scrutiny.
In refutation, you must understand momentum. Trying to get people to listen to
objections when momentum is running in favor of the proposition may be futile. You
may need to find some way to stop action until another meeting. Proposing amendments,
Deny Support
The refutation aimed at the lowest conceptual level of analysis is a point-by-point criti-
cism of the support used by other factions. Review Chapters 7 , 8 , and 9 on the various
means of support, and consider how they can be the basis of refutation. Essentially,
you proceed by denying other factions’ support through challenges of authenticity, rel-
evance, or sufficiency and by producing countersupport that neutralizes or overcomes
their material.
The problem with this sort of refutation should be clear by now. You are concentrat-
ing on the lowest level of an argument—the individual pieces of evidence advanced in
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 169 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 169 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
170 PART 2 Tools
support. If you find fault with one reference, quotation, statistic, or example, the arguers
can usually replace the criticized item with other, maybe stronger, evidence. And the focus
of the discussion will be shifted away from the important levels that ask about what you
are trying to accomplish and how you intend to accomplish it and toward relatively insig-
nificant points of difference.
Sometimes debaters sandbag the opposition by presenting their weaker support first
to draw an attack that they then replace with secondary support so powerful that decision
COMMUNICATING REFUTATION
It is exciting to read about daring feats written in ways that make them sound easy; it
is quite another thing to try them yourself. Racing down a steep, powder snow-covered
mountain that has been untouched by other skis or boards sounds exciting. When you
are actually at the top looking down, it doesn’t seem so attractive. Refutation sounds like
more fun than it usually turns out to be.
What we often forget when reading about debates is that others will be trying to do
to you what you are trying to do to them. In a Walter Mitty fantasy, you may picture
yourself delivering a brilliant and powerful refutation to an opponent who cringes under
your eloquence and bows to your superior analysis. When you really try it, the opponent
will probably give you just as much in return.
The first time you are forced to hear or read what others think of your ideas, and
their comments are not complimentary, you may find yourself gravitating toward escape
from the process or giving an angry, flailing response. It will take considerable cool to
FIGURE 10.2
Steps in Refutation
1 . State the point to be refuted.
2 . State your claim relevant to the point.
3 . Support your claim.
4 . State explicitly how your criticism undermines the overall position of those you
are refuting.
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 171
These four steps make clear what is being refuted and why, and link your individual
refutation to a higher conceptual level. This approach makes clear how this refutation
weakens not only this one point but also the whole case. In the remainder of the chapter,
we will discuss refutation processes that fall within this general pattern of communicating
your refutation.
Probe Opponents
In debate, early refutation should send out tentative questions and challenges to discover
where other factions are weak, where they are sandbagging, and where they are loaded
for bear. Listen carefully for questionable support or repetition of original support rather
than secondary support. At the same time, use a continued analysis of the decision makers
to learn where they perceive weaknesses in other positions as well as your own.
Based on this probing , you can match your strengths against others’ weaknesses.
Choose your challenges to bring together your greatest strengths opposite others’
Use Questioning to Probe. In most decision-making situations, there is some opportunity
for interrogation, and if it is used properly, it can be powerful. The most frequent mistake
is to confuse probing questions with refutation itself. Rarely do you seriously damage
another’s position during actual questioning . Instead, you discover weaknesses, expose
contradictions, challenge credibility, and extract admissions that can then be used as part
of your refutation. This will strengthen your refutation because you can remind decision
makers that your point is based on what the opponents themselves have said. Follow
basic rules of questioning:
FIGURE 10.3
Basic Rules of Questioning
1 . Prepare and practice questions in advance.
2 . Phrase questions to allow a reasonably brief, preferably yes or no, answer.
3 . Ask questions to which you know the probable answers from prior research.
4 . Be courteous in tone of voice and content of question, unless you want a dog
fight.
The paradigm of ideal confrontation, according to Scott Jacobs, is for the ques-
tioner to elicit a declarative statement and then request a series of brief informative
172 PART 2 Tools
replies, followed by a rhetorical question that is, at once, a reply to the original declara-
tion and a demonstration of its contradiction. Here is an example:
FIGURE 10.4
Mother : I have a perfectly good will.
Daughter (a law professor): Will it have to go to probate?
Mother : I don’t know.
Daughter : Is it subject to estate taxes?
Prepare to Respond to Questioning. Answering questions well is a part of refutation,
though few prepare for it. Lawyers spend plenty of time preparing witnesses and politi-
cians prepare to answer the press, but few others do so. Follow these principles:
FIGURE 10.5
Principles for Answering Questions
1 . Never answer until you understand the question.
2 . Take your time.
3 . Recognize that some questions don’t deserve answers.
4 . If the questioner interrupts, allow it.
5 . Don’t elaborate if it won’t help you.
6 . Ask permission to elaborate if it will help you. (If permission is denied,
remain silent.)
Follow Good Communication Practices
The most fundamental rules of good communication should be used in refutation, even
though excitement often works against such clear practices. One way to keep yourself
together even under pressure is to take notes that keep you informed at a glance on what
arguments have emerged around each issue.
A flowsheet is a form of note taking or outlining that shows the progress of argu-
ments and their various refutations. Divide the paper in half. Put arguments for one side
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 172 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 172 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 10 Refutation 173
CONCLUSION
Refutation must come from a balanced posture that is neither too silent nor too brash. It
should be approached as a cooperative, critical process important to good decision mak-
ing. Before you can begin refutation, you need to assess the argumentative situation to
learn the way the argumentation is functioning in the particular sphere, including who the
appropriate decision makers are and what are their presumptions.
Before refutation begins, you should prepare yourself for it by assessing the situation
in light of the steps in critical decision making. You should also analyze the decision mak-
ers and your opponents to gain the necessary information to select a posture for refutation.
Once refutation begins, it should be aimed at the highest conceptual level possible.
EXERCISES/PROJECTS
2. Write an argument for a proposition that you truly support. Make it as strong as you can.
3. Within your team or in front of the class, engage in a debate over a topic you have agreed on.
Prepare to engage in refutation of the other arguments, and then present your refutation as well
as you can. After the debate, discuss what went well and what could have been done better in
the refutations.
M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 173 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501M10_RIEK0596_08_SE_C10.indd Page 173 1/18/12 8:12 AM user-f501 F-401F-401