Monash Association of Debaters


Types of rebuttal


Something their argument relies upon (premise) is empirically false.


Logical links in their argument don’t stand up

Non sequitur

Accept the first part, but not the second. ‘It does not follow that’


Lack of analysis to back up their points


If an argument is true, it harms something else in their case. CAREFUL, don’t just point out tension, point out why it's harmful.


Depends on them proving something else. (Weak, has to be used with something else usually)


Yes, your attack/argument may be true, but look at the comparative. Better on our side

Hard Comparative

Pot, Kettle, Black: yes, this thing is bad, but it happens more under your side

Shrinking circles

Who cares? Minimize the scale of their argument.

Worst case scenario gaming

Same as above but defending your own argument from attacks.


The opposition is using the wrong and often simpler version of your argument.

Credit: The immutable Will Cook