Although only one of them is labeled “Refutation” in the model brief in the sixth lesson, both types are illustrated there.

There the negative, believing that the first argument of the affirmative would be, “Inter contests are open to abuse,” makes its first point a counter-assertion.  It uses as the first issue:  “Contests between the high schools of northern Illinois are not subject to such abuses as will warrant their abolition.”  Which side would gain this point in the minds of the judges would depend on which side supported its assertion with the better evidence.

If one side wished to raise this question again in the refutation speeches, which close the debate, it could do no better than to repeat and re-emphasize the same material which it used in its construction argument.

The second method of refuting, i.e., showing an argument to be faulty, is also illustrated in the brief in the sixth lesson.  It is marked “Refutation.”  This material was introduced because the negative felt sure that the affirmative would attempt to use the experience of Shortridge High School as evidence of the successful working of this plan.  It was shown to be faulty in that the experience of this school would not apply to the question here debated.

The student’s study of what makes good evidence for his own case will enable him to see the weakness of his opponents’ arguments.  Apply the same tests to your opponents’ evidence that you apply to your own.  What is there about the evidence introduced that should make the audience hesitate to accept it?  Point these things out to the audience.  It may be that prejudiced, dishonest, or ignorant testimony has been given.  It may be that not enough evidence has been given to carry weight.  Whatever the flaw, point out to the audience that, upon a critical examination, experience shows the evidence to be weak.

In every debate there is a regular time allowed for rebuttal.  This is, however, not the only time at which it may be introduced.  In the debate, put in refutation wherever it is needed.  One of the best plans is, if possible, to refute with a few sentences at the opening of each speech what the previous speaker of the opposition has said.

In all refutation, state clearly what you aim to disprove. When quoting the statement of an opponent, be sure to be accurate.

Something like the following is a good form for stating refutation: 

Our opponents, in arguing that labor unions have been harmful to the commerce of America, have stated that they would use as support the testimony of prominent men.  In so doing, they have quoted from X, Y, and Z. This testimony is without strength.  X, as a large employer of labor, would be open to prejudice; Y, as a non-union laborer, is both prejudiced and ignorant.  The testimony of Z, as an Englishman is applicable to labor unions as they have affected, not the commerce of America, but the trade of England.