Tips for Attack Speeches

I. General Principles.

The ultimate purpose of the attack (rebuttal) speech in debate is to show that the constructive arguments are not good enough. There are many ways to achieve the purpose but in the HEnDA debate, the attack speaker usually give point-by-point responses to each of the constructive arguments. Suppose that one argument consists of a claim, evidence, and reasoning (connection between the claim and evidence). You can say:

A. There was no evidence.

B. The evidence is not good, e.g., too old, not authoritative, or biased.

C. The evidence does not support the claim, i.e., the reasoning/warrant between the evidence and the claim is wrong.

D. The opposing team's analytical argument (without external evidence) is faulty. You can explain why their analysis is wrong with or without your citing evidence.

E. You have evidence to deny the claim. And quote it.

You do not need to attack every subpoints (Present Situation, Effects, and Importance) to deny the Advantage or Disadvantage.

II. HEnDA Rules.

There are some specific rules in the HEnDA debate and so you should be aware of them.

Tournament Rules (English).

• 2.1.3 Negative Attack (5) https://storage.googleapis.com/studio-design-asset-files/projects/BRO3B2KpWD/s-1x1_c411b21d-a7c9-44a7-bc61-4196a95bec00.pdf#page=7.73

• 2.1.4 Affirmative Attack (7) https://storage.googleapis.com/studio-design-asset-files/projects/BRO3B2KpWD/s-1x1_c411b21d-a7c9-44a7-bc61-4196a95bec00.pdf#page=8.17

There are notes about the difference between "attack" arguments and "constructive" arguments.

The "Judges' Manual" in English (uploaded here) may also be of some help about how the decision is made.

"2. How to Decide the Winner" 

III. Tips for the attack speaker, when you do not have prepared responses.

Use the questioning to understand constructive arguments and try to find weaknesses. Use the responses or lack of responses in the attach speech.

1. Clarify the advantages/disadvantages.
   The cross-examination should be used to confirm the advantage or disadvantage. Ask, e.g.,

"Is Advantage One about methane emmision?"
"What's Disadvantage One" and other open-ended questions are not good because it allows the other team to explain their arguments.

2. Minimize the effects/importance.
   If you eliminate tariffs, are there enough suppliers overseas?  Will they export rice at the same price or increase the price? Will Japanese retailers increase their margins?
   If the rice import increases, will farmers quit farming? Will they try to compete with imported rice?
   When farmer quit rice farming, will they quit farmin? Will they switch to other crops?
   How many farmers quit farming?
   How likely a global/domestic rice shortage happen?
   What happened at the worst crop failure in Japan? Was the yeild halved?
   Are methanes emissions from rice paddies more serious than those from cattle farms?

3. Identify evidence to support the point. Point to the lack of evidence if none. Attack the evidence if any.
   Did you read evidence to support XXX?
   When was it published? Although it was published in 2024 online, was it already published in 1993 in print?
   Who wrote it? Is the author expert? Is the author biased?

Debate Judges’ Manual by All Japan High School English Debate Tournament (Below is a downloaded PDF from an archived page https://web.archive.org/web/20260215234536/http://henda.global/english/#_Toc58098596#_Toc58098596)