A Brief Guide on Refutations

There are 3 main categories of refutations. I try to use all 3 categories to refute each major point my opponent makes... this gives me a lot of extra room to breathe, as even if one refutation fails, the others can prop up my argument.

what's the difference between a rebuttal and a refutation?

according to grammarist, "Rebut means to argue against something, to offer a counterargument. "(https://grammarist.com/usage/rebut-vs-refute/) It's basically a weaker version of Refutation.

alr

Nice Guide. I think there's a fourth, trickier refutation (Framework Refutation) where you use emotional ideals situated towards the audience, shifting goals and ideas. But it's harder to pull off in online debating. For example, in I can I BB the con side of "press button to revive most loved one" shifted the framework, saying that we must doubt the gift given to us, and consider the question of possible problems. He cleverly did a strawman where he said it's not about getting the loved one back, it's about moving on (instead of impacts of getting your loved one, he talks about the impacts of letting them die peacefully). Because Pro failed to assert the value of a human life, Con was able to assert the value of freedom and love, the power of the memories overcoming the need to physically have your love by your side.

Framework is the "lens through which the debate should be viewed" or what the judge should prioritize... i.e. it is a way to set up an outweigh argument or a way to mitigate impacts pre-emptively. So if there is another category I don't think it would be based on framework... maybe kritiks are their own category but I don't think framework arguments are. 

As for that debate, I would have to read it in more detail to figure out what strategy he used.

They are functionally synonymous. Like Seldiora said tho, one totally beats the argument (refutation) while one just offers a counter-position (rebut).

His big speech went something like this:

At first it seems obvious, revive your loved one, why not do it, it's in our prime nature. But since this is my most loved one, I must think carefully about it. There are many questionable ideas. Does an old and sick person come back young and healthy? Does a criminal come back rehabilitated? All these questions have not been answered, only the most ideal has been presented, "your loved one". When faced with a situation like this one, I feel like the problems we missed, is not god's blessing, but rather the question of evil. Today, is the topic truly whether you should revive someone? No, it's whether you can let go of someone or not.

What philosophy does this sci-fi situation present? I've been on this show for quite some time, I've seen some come, I've seen some go. Some people were forced to go, they respect the rules. Some go by their own volition, they respect their decision. Some want to challenge the world. On top of that mountain of ambition is the "best model" trophy. Some people want to go on a vacation, their journey is called the space and the ocean. Some people already left this planet, but are still in another universe. Some people are here, some people are here (points to heart). Because, some people are here. Everyday, every year, I listen to the pressing of the button, people want to revive their loved one, why bother even asking, you are meeting your loved one after all? No, I don't press. Because they told me, they lived a whole life of warmth, and the only thing they can't give up is love, and freedom. There are not here, so you think they are gone. But they are here (points to heart), so they have never truly left.

One Piece's Hiluruk used his life goal to create in his mind memories represented by pink snow, everyone beside him laughed at his stupidity, insanity, dumbness, but he succeeded. He let the entire world see his powerful message. Before dying, he said: "You will not die to bullets penetrating your chest. You will not die to an incurable disease. Only being forgotten, is the true death." Those that you truly loved, and left, those men and women who lived on this planet, will never die, because they lived in your heart, as your own pink snow, falling still.

(also in his conclusion, he moved the goalpost to saying that it's about who to press for, since only one most loved one is revived, which concedes that you should press for someone lol)

I remember briefly going over these sorts of things while I was studying for Cross-X, but these paraphrased and easier to understand versions were very helpful references! 

Glad to hear it! If you utilize each category your refutations will be very strong. 

I'll be trying to implement it into my style of debating, which hasn't actually been solidified quite yet, I'm still trying to find a good format that's concise and comprehensive enough to work. I guess my style is being flexible? Idk, but the link (warrant) to the impact refutation actually helped me reframe a refutation I made in my debate against RationalMadman. 

That's great. And yeah, breaking down an argument under each category is a great way to start poking holes in a seemingly impenetrable argument. Like for example, maybe the impacts are too solid to refute. Well, you can cast some doubt on them and then move on and take down the warrant.

I think this website helps too. So taking my anti-smoking argument, Direct Clash would be, individually counter the Environment point with cars. A global clash would be Personal Autonomy weighted against health harms. While Core Clash would be, asking me to show why prohibition is superior to regulation.

yeah, they are basically telling you different ways to defeat warrants. Some good advice in there

I already do these without noticing lol, though I rarely do what they call "global clash" or something like that.