REBUTTAL
Sometimes, the motivation to write comes not from an original idea so much as it comes from reading another work. On a regular basis we encounter those that we disagree with, and expressing that disagreement is an essential part of intellectual discourse.
Overview:
Unlike many other approaches to writing, rebuttals are directly shaped by another work—the work that they seek to counter. A rebuttal consists of reviewing the claims made by an argument and then responding to those claims in a reasoned, careful fashion. To prevent a rebuttal from turning into a playground contest of “yes it is/no it’s not,” those seeking to rebut an argument need to do more than list their own reasons for opposition. Instead, they need to understand the motivations and reasons of those who accept the “rival” argument, and then they need to respond to those motivations and reasons with logic, evidence, and empathy.
Application:
Many college instructors make use of a type of assignment where the student is given an article or essay to read. The student is then asked to respond to this reading with either agreement or disagreement. Often, students will be lead to disagreement, or the assignment itself will ask for such disagreement (e.g. “pick one of the readings and counter the claims made by the author” or “find a part of the reading you disagree with and explain why”). This type of assignment is, essentially, a rebuttal.
Students will also find themselves writing rebuttals even when that is not, explicitly, the assignment. Imagine a student in an ethics class confronted with the task of writing a paper about the death penalty. With thousands of years of recorded history, hundreds of cultural traditions, and modern politics clouding the issue, many students could get lost. However, by finding someone else who takes a stance on the death penalty, and then by explaining reasons to disagree with that person, the student has a place to start.
As an invention strategy, rebuttal works because it involves students opening themselves up to the views of others, and those others inform what comes next.
What to Avoid:
A lot of student writers make the mistake of overreacting in the course of a rebuttal. Borrowing from the example above, when writing a paper on the death penalty, students might be tempted to fill the screen with a rant about all of the moral and logical failings of their “opponents.” This isn’t a rebuttal anymore. It’s a metaphorical shouting match. After all, who is the audience for such a screed? It’s not those who agree with the students; they don’t need to read it, as they already agree! It’s not those who disagree with the original author being countered; they are offended by the tone of the attack.
Rebuttal writers need to give their readers the benefit of the doubt and assume that those who agreed with the original author did so for reasons that made sense to them. As a consequence, the claims that are made should be analyzed, evaluated, and countered. The people should be respected. Ideally, this could lead to common ground being found.
Sometimes, the motivation to write comes not from an original idea so much as it comes from reading another work. On a regular basis we encounter those that we disagree with, and expressing that disagreement is an essential part of intellectual discourse.
Overview:
Unlike many other approaches to writing, rebuttals are directly shaped by another work—the work that they seek to counter. A rebuttal consists of reviewing the claims made by an argument and then responding to those claims in a reasoned, careful fashion. To prevent a rebuttal from turning into a playground contest of “yes it is/no it’s not,” those seeking to rebut an argument need to do more than list their own reasons for opposition. Instead, they need to understand the motivations and reasons of those who accept the “rival” argument, and then they need to respond to those motivations and reasons with logic, evidence, and empathy.
Application:
Many college instructors make use of a type of assignment where the student is given an article or essay to read. The student is then asked to respond to this reading with either agreement or disagreement. Often, students will be lead to disagreement, or the assignment itself will ask for such disagreement (e.g. “pick one of the readings and counter the claims made by the author” or “find a part of the reading you disagree with and explain why”). This type of assignment is, essentially, a rebuttal.
Students will also find themselves writing rebuttals even when that is not, explicitly, the assignment. Imagine a student in an ethics class confronted with the task of writing a paper about the death penalty. With thousands of years of recorded history, hundreds of cultural traditions, and modern politics clouding the issue, many students could get lost. However, by finding someone else who takes a stance on the death penalty, and then by explaining reasons to disagree with that person, the student has a place to start.
As an invention strategy, rebuttal works because it involves students opening themselves up to the views of others, and those others inform what comes next.
What to Avoid:
A lot of student writers make the mistake of overreacting in the course of a rebuttal. Borrowing from the example above, when writing a paper on the death penalty, students might be tempted to fill the screen with a rant about all of the moral and logical failings of their “opponents.” This isn’t a rebuttal anymore. It’s a metaphorical shouting match. After all, who is the audience for such a screed? It’s not those who agree with the students; they don’t need to read it, as they already agree! It’s not those who disagree with the original author being countered; they are offended by the tone of the attack.
Rebuttal writers need to give their readers the benefit of the doubt and assume that those who agreed with the original author did so for reasons that made sense to them. As a consequence, the claims that are made should be analyzed, evaluated, and countered. The people should be respected. Ideally, this could lead to common ground being found.
