Rebuttal Strategies

Rebuttal Strategies for Argument Writing

Here are some strategies you can use to rebut counter-arguments. They are not ranked in order of what is most effective. Effectiveness differs depending on the arguments made.

Learning common rebuttal strategies will also ensure your arguments are logically stronger.

• • Wrong in Principle: The argument contradicts a basic principle that society acknowledges is right. You will need to explain why upholding that principle is more important than whatever gain the argument is trying to achieve

    • Counter-argument: Others may say keeping a murderer in prison for life will cost many millions of dollars, claiming that sentencing murderers to death saves the state money which can then be used to help society;

    • Rebuttal: however, the state must always preserve life, and life is always more important than money. Even if that money can be used to help other people, the state cannot justify killing one person to help others.

  • Generalization: This means assuming every situation is the same because of one example of one small sample. To be more effective, you should try to show why this situation is different.

    • Counter-argument: Critics argue that the US-Mexico FTA lead to exploitation of Mexico; therefore, the Korea-US FTA will lead to the same.

    • Rebuttal: Nevertheless, just because Mexico wasn’t able to take advantage of the FTA with the US doesn’t mean Korea cannot do the same. Korea is in a different position from Mexico and can learn from their mistakes. Korea already has a positive trade balance with US.

  • Has the Same or Worse Effect: You argue that what the argument is trying to achieve does not happen or instead it becomes worse!

    • Counter-argument: While some say keeping a murderer in prison for life will cost many millions of dollars, and sentencing murderers to death saves the state money, which can then be used to help society,

    • Rebuttal: the death penalty doesn’t save money. In fact, the state has to spend lots more money on appeals as most prisoners sentenced to death spend many years on death row.

  • Not Practical: The argument is not practical - no money, no willpower, no person to do, no time etc.

    • Counter-argument: Others believe the unemployment problem in Korea should be solved by forcing companies to hire more people; however,

    • Rebuttal: this is impossible. Companies will not cooperate, and even if the government can force all companies to do this, companies will lose money and will go bankrupt.

  • Not Their Role: Different actors in society have different roles or obligations - just like jobs. These expectations help society function. Imagine is parents or politicians or firemen or teachers didn’t do the things we expect of them, then society will fail. However, these roles are not fixed and keep changing. Is it the role of students to just study? How much freedom do parents have to do things to or for their children?

    • Counter-argument: A common argument is that schools should require students to wear uniforms because they are there to learn, not play or express themselves.

    • Rebuttal: Despite this, schools also develop creativity, discipline, morale, and personality of students. That’s why they play games, take art classes and so on, so the role of schools is not just academic teaching, but overall development.

  • Not Logically Consistent: Just does not make sense! Attack the logic behind an argument! Try to stretch the logic to apply to a different situation. If it cannot be applied, then the logic is not true.

    • Counter-argument: Others claim that the state cannot remove life because the state cannot create life, believing the state can only take away what it can replace,

    • Rebuttal: yet the state removes things it cannot replace all the time - like time, or the environment. Saying that the state can only remove things it can replace, is not logically consistent with the other things the state does.

  • Contradictions: Often different parts of an argument might contradict each other. Pointing out contradictions is an incredibly effective rebuttal, as it is the worst logical mistake

    • Counter-argument: It is thought that the death penalty discourages serial killers because serial killers are crazy psychopaths who do not care about living or dying

    • Rebuttal: ; however, if serial killers don’t care about dying, why will they be discouraged by the death penalty? In order for someone to be deterred, they need to be rational, if you argue serial killers are not rational, then they will not be deterred.

If you cannot directly rebut an argument, you can concede it, but only if it’s not a major argument!

• • Strategic Concession: You concede the argument, but argue that something else is more important.

    • Counter-argument: Critics argue that an embryo is a form of life and destroying it is killing, but

    • Rebuttal: while the idea that an embryo is a form of life is true, the life of the mother (quality of life) is more important than life that is not yet independent.