Many a speaker has gained power in reasoning by having his views attacked by members of his family who would individually and collectively try to drive him into a corner.  In actual amount, perhaps you will never deliver as much refutation of an opponent as you will conjure up in your mind against your own speeches.  Perhaps, also, this great amount advanced by you in testing your own position will prevent your opponents from ever finding in your delivered arguments much against which they can pit their own powers of refutation.

In judging your own production you will have to imagine yourself on the other side, so the methods will be the same for all purposes of self-help or weakening of an opponent’s views.

Contradiction Is Not Refutation.  In the first place contradiction is not refutation.  No unsupported fact or statement has any value in argumentation.  Such expressions as “I don’t believe, I don’t think so, I don’t agree” introduce not arguments, but personal opinions.  You must, to make your refutation valuable, prove your position.  Never allow your attempts at refutation to descend to mere denial or quibbling.  Be prepared to support, to prove everything you say.

Three Phases of Refutation.  In general, refutation consists of three phases: 

1.  The analysis of the opposite side. 2.  The classification of the arguments according to importance. 3.  The answering of only the strongest points.

Analysis of Opposing Side for Accuracy.  In the first analysis, you will probably examine the opposing statements to test their accuracy.  Mere slips, so evident that they deceive no one, you may disregard entirely, but gross error of fact or conclusion you should note and correct in unmistakably plain terms.  The kind of statement which gives insufficient data should be classed in analysis with this same kind of erroneous statement.  A shoe dealer in arguing for increased prices might quote correctly the rising cost of materials, but if he stopped there, you in refutation should be able to show that profits had already risen to 57%, and so turn his own figures against him.  Another class of refutation similar to this is the questioning of authorities.  Something concerning this has already been said.  In a recent trial a lawyer cast doubt upon the value of a passage read from a book by declaring its author could never have written such a thing.  In refutation the opposing lawyer said, “You will find that passage on page 253 of his Essays and Letters." Public speakers, realizing that errors of statement are likely to be the first to be picked out for correction, and recognizing the damaging effect of such conviction in error of fact and testimony, are extremely careful not to render themselves liable to attack upon such points.  Yet they may.  We are told by Webster’s biographers that in later periods of his life he was detected in errors of law in cases being argued before the court, and refuted in statement.  To catch such slips requires two things of the successful speaker.  He must be in possession of the facts himself.  He must be mentally alert to see the falsity and know how to answer it.