what is a rebuttal in a persuasive speech

• Mar 17, 2021

How To Deliver A Rebuttal Speech

For many young debaters, the rebuttal speech is the toughest speech. It is the longest speech that is not pre-written and you’ll have to get it right to put your partner in good shape to deliver a strong summary speech.

The goal of the rebuttal speech is to respond to your opponent’s arguments; it is not uncommon for a novice debater to start her rebuttal saying “In this speech I will respond to my opponent’s points and then if time permits I will return to my own.” This isn’t necessary and is probably not a good use of time, but it does provide the judge a roadmap of your speech so they can follow along.

If you are just starting to learn debate, your first priority will be to make sure you are filling the entire four-minute speech with relevant content. However, it takes much more than that to win rounds.

Follow these Ten Tips to improve your rebuttal speeches and destroy your opponent’s initial arguments.

Tip #1 : Don’t Be Afraid to Read From Your Block File.

For novice debaters, one of the most challenging aspects of the activity is coming up with what to say on the spot. You will get better at this with time and practice, but if you can pre-write strong, concise, round-ready responses, you can limit the amount of brain power you have to expend on the simple stuff and free your mind to focus on advanced strategic considerations.

That said, you should not come off as monotone or dispassionate. The same way a good politician or late-night-show host will read from a teleprompter with passion, emotion, and humor, you should always deliver your speech like a human, not a robot. Your goal is to connect with the judge and make them want to vote for you.

Note that we do not recommend you exclusively read from your block file – you need to adapt your words to the specific ways they make their arguments and should incorporate logical responses that you think of in-round as well. But if you are struggling to fill your speeches or to phrase things well in-round, pre-writing can be very helpful.

Tip #2 : Always tell the judge where you are on the flow.

If the judge does not know where you are on the flow (meaning what argument you are responding to and where they should write that response in their notes, also known as their “flow”) you might as well not deliver the response. The judge will spend their time trying to figure out what you are talking about

This means using very clear language. Using the UBI example from our case-writing post, “I am going to start on their first contention about Making Americans Smarter, where they argue a UBI would increase the intelligence of most Americans.”

If your opponent’s contention is not very clear and it is hard to really understand what they are saying, that is even more reason to clearly re-explain their argument. If you can explain your opponent’s article better and quicker than they can, the judge will appreciate it greatly and will want to vote for you

Tip #3 : Always number your responses.

We at Debate Resource believe every response that you make to each contention should have a number. This allows the judge to take clear notes and to understand what you are doing much more easily. Remember that it’s not about what you say; it’s about what the judge hears and understands.

Even if one of your responses is short and has no evidence attached to it, give it a number. This starts to get a bit complicated when you’re responding to your opponent’s numbered links or impacts; you can start back at 1 for each subcomponent or just keep listing your responses and letting the numbers increase. The precise way you do it is up to you but remember that every response should be numbered for the best results.

Tip #4 : Always tag your responses.

Tags are one of often overlooked but incredibly important aspects of responses. In the same way that the topic sentence of a paragraph in an essay succinctly summarizes the content of that paragraph, a tag succinctly summarizes your response. It is the “claim” of the response, which you will then substantiate with logic and evidence. In fact, you can view a strong response as a mini-contention that clearly states its intention in the topic sentence (the tag).

Tip #5 : Empower your Turns

Rebuttal offense generated through turns is one of the best (and sneakiest) ways to win rounds. Your opponents have very little time to respond, and if they drop a turn in summary you may be able to win off that turn alone in final focus. However, this requires you to make it very clear that your turns are turns! Don’t read them just like any other response, clearly state to the judge that this is a turn and that it actually means the judge can vote for your side off your opponent’s argument. Give your turns the time and energy they deserve and they will give back in the form of W’s.

Tip #6 : Quantity is Power

In the rebuttal speech, it is important to have a large quantity of responses. It makes it that much harder for your opponent to respond to your responses and you can highlight any response that they forget to address. Having 4-5 responses per contention makes for a strong rebuttal and sets you up well for the later speeches.

Tip #7 : Quantity Without Clarity is Useless

There is an important caveat to Tip #6 , which is that you must speak clearly. Any response that your judge doesn’t understand (you can often tell by the quizzical look on their face) might as well not have been read. So a balance must be struck – you are trying to maximize high quality responses.

A high-quality response must have clear logic. Ideally it will have evidence as well but the logic and explanation is the most important part. A response that consists of a claim and evidence with no logic/warrant is a bad response.

Tip #8 : Do not go back to your case if you’re speaking first

It is common to see novice debaters return to their own case in the first rebuttal. This is by and large a bad idea. Your case should be designed to get everything you need into that 4-minute speech, so you shouldn’t be finishing the case in rebuttal.

You also shouldn’t rehash your points if you are giving the first rebuttal speech; spend all of your time on your opponent’s case. There may be certain exceptions to this, like if you need to clarify something that was discussed in crossfire, or if your case is directly relevant to the opponent’s arguments and can be “cross-applied.” But what you don’t want to do is summarize all of your contentions again in the rebuttal; it looks bad and is not a productive use of time. Instead, the first rebuttal should be spent entirely on responding to the opponent’s arguments.

If you want to tack on offense in the rebuttal, be smart about it by making them into turns on your opponent’s case. Future posts will go deeper into how to do this effectively, but for now just know

Tip #9 : Do not attempt to respond to all their responses if you’re speaking second

The second-speaking team in debate has a substantial advantage: the last word. In rebuttal, this means you will get the opportunity not just to respond to your opponent’s case but also to your opponent’s responses to your case.

If you try to do it all – to respond to their whole case and also respond to all their responses on your case, you’ll end up doing nothing well. There’s just not enough time if you’re debating a good team. Instead, pick out the opponent’s most consequential / strongest responses (their turns, for example), and respond to those.

Another approach is to choose 1-2 contentions or subpoints that you know you will be going for later in the round and to worry only about responding to responses on those points. This is another great approach, and you can do this whichever way makes the most sense for you. But be cognizant of your limits, specifically the rebuttal speech’s 4-minute time limit.

Tip #10 : Always Adapt to the Judge

If your judge is a flow judge – for example someone who just graduated high school after debating 4 years and is now in their first year of college – you can probably speak fast. This may mean you can read all 7 of the responses you pre-wrote to both of their contentions and still have time to get back to your own case.

If your judge is a lay judge, you are going to need to triage – prioritize only the important responses. You will have to speak much slower and to make eye contact whenever you can to keep yourself and the judge on the same page.

The difference between a good rebuttal for a flow judge and a good rebuttal for a lay judge is very large. But the best debaters always adapt and can weave through flow and lay debate seamlessly.

Recent Posts

How Should I Research for Debate?

Ten Tips To Improve Your Crossfire Skills

What Questions Should I Ask To Win Crossfire?

• All Insights
• Top-Rated Articles
• How-to Guides
• For Parents

Rebutting Arguments: A Skill Every Debater Should Master

If you're a debater, no matter your experience level, you've probably heard of rebuttals. Although critical to a good debate, you may not know how the best rebuttals work or how to employ them on the field. In this article, we'll share some valuable insights to help you in your next round.

What Is a Rebuttal?

A rebuttal is a way to counter your opponent's arguments . You can disprove them, qualify them, or turn them against your opponent, whether to strengthen your own arguments or to weaken your opponent's case.

Rebuttals comprise one of three major parts of a typical debate: introduction, rebuttal, and summary. If you're interested in more complex debate structures, you might be interested in BP debate .

In an introduction, you give an overview of the case you are making, and in the summary, you recap your main ideas and analyze how the debate went. The rebuttal section, which we'll be focusing on, is where you provide additional evidence to support your case and address the arguments of your opponents .

The key to a good rebuttal is to have clear logic and reasoning behind your counterargument. You don't want to get caught up in attacking your opponent personally. That would be a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy !

Why Are Rebuttals Important?

Although you may not think of it this way, debate is a competitive sport. Rebuttals are your team's defensive moves .

In tennis, you can't just make offensive shots. You need to return your opponent's moves. After all, it wouldn't be a very fun sport if every point was simply determined by a single player's serve! What makes tennis engaging to watch and play is the way the ball moves back and forth over the net until one of the players misses or makes a mistake.

Think of rebuttals the same way. You want your rebuttal to be a shot your opponent misses, one that targets their weak spots, or one that forces them to make a move that leaves you an easy opening.

Before a debate, put yourself in your opponent's shoes. Think of what arguments they are likely to make . Then start looking for holes in their reasoning, evidence, or impact.

If that sounds hard, don't be afraid. Rebuttals may not be easy for every debater, but that's exactly why it's important to practice them. A good rebuttal can win a debate!

Types of Rebuttals in Debate

• Offensive Rebuttal: This rebuttal directly attacks your opponent's arguments, usually by challenging their logic or evidence. It can be the hardest to pull off, but can secure your victory!
• Defensive Rebuttal: This rebuttal defends yourself from the opponent's attacks, usually by providing explanations and clarifications as to why their arguments are wrong or irrelevant. Although it may not win you the debate, it will strengthen your case.
• Turning Rebuttal: This rebuttal does not aim to disprove your opponent's argument, but rather tries to show that their argument somehow supports your side of the debate.
• Counter Rebuttal : This rebuttal is a specific type of defensive response in which you address the points your opponents brought up during their opening statement with new information that refutes those claims, such as statistics or expert testimony.
• Closing Rebuttal : This rebuttal is your last chance to persuade your audience before they vote on who won the debate. Don't be afraid to pull out all your best emotive language and persuasive techniques !

Now let's take a look at the two most common types of rebuttals.

The Art of the Offensive Rebuttal

This classic rebuttal is a tool every debater should learn. It's an argument that you make to counter your opponent's main point and undermine their argument. The primary goal of this rebuttal is to show that the opponent is wrong . It can also serve to lower their credibility.

For this rebuttal to work, it should be based on your opponent's arguments and using the same kind of reasoning. Try out this simple structure for size:

• "Our opponents stated that..." Summarize your opponent's argument.
• "However, this is flawed because..." Explain their flaw in reasoning, evidence, or impact.
• "We say that..." Pose your counterargument and reinforce your case.
• "Therefore..." Therefore their argument is flawed and should not be considered in this debate.

The Art of the Defensive Rebuttal

This rebuttal is an opportunity for you to defend your position, but it can also be used to counter your opponent's arguments.

To use this strategy effectively, think about what their argument was and how they presented it. Did they make any claims? What were those claims? Most importantly, how were those claims wrong or misleading ?

In addition to defending yourself against your opponent's claims, keep an eye out for any logical fallacies your opponent may have tried to use against you. You can find a list of common fallacies here , with more guides on how to address them in debates.

How to Use the Opening Affirmative Point Effectively

The first affirmative point is a way to frame the debate's topic in a way that supports your case. By paying attention to it, you can get an idea of how your opponent may respond, which will help you figure out what rebuttals and counterarguments to make.

The first negative point should respond directly to this framing by either challenging it or building on it with another framing device, for instance "we still need X because Y." This will help set up your rebuttal by allowing you to show how your opponent's argument has failed based on the framing of their own arguments.

Rebuttals are an important part of debate, and they can be used in many different ways. The best way to learn how to use rebuttals effectively is to practice and experiment. If you're looking for an opportunity, LearningLeaders might just have the right program for you !

Related Insights

The art of impromptu speaking: how to maximize your seven-minute speech (part 2), how to prep quickly and effectively in impromptu speaking competitions (part 1), learn to create a persuasive speech: how to apply these tools to investigate your topic (part 2).

• 5 Prep Tips for BP
• Top Speech Introductions
• Public Speaking and Debate Competitions
• Incorporating Humor
• Logical Fallacies
• How-To: Prepare for Debate Tournaments
• How-To: Judge a Debate
• How-To: Win a BP Debate
• How-To: Win An Argument
• How-To: Improve at Home
• Team China Wins World Championship
• Ariel Wins Tournament
• Jaxon Speaks Up
• Tina Improves

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

A Guide to Rebuttals in Argumentative Essays

4-minute read

• 27th May 2023

Rebuttals are an essential part of a strong argument. But what are they, exactly, and how can you use them effectively? Read on to find out.

What Is a Rebuttal?

When writing an argumentative essay , there’s always an opposing point of view. You can’t present an argument without the possibility of someone disagreeing.

Sure, you could just focus on your argument and ignore the other perspective, but that weakens your essay. Coming up with possible alternative points of view, or counterarguments, and being prepared to address them, gives you an edge. A rebuttal is your response to these opposing viewpoints.

How Do Rebuttals Work?

With a rebuttal, you can take the fighting power away from any opposition to your idea before they have a chance to attack. For a rebuttal to work, it needs to follow the same formula as the other key points in your essay: it should be researched, developed, and presented with evidence.

Rebuttals in Action

Suppose you’re writing an essay arguing that strawberries are the best fruit. A potential counterargument could be that strawberries don’t work as well in baked goods as other berries do, as they can get soggy and lose some of their flavor. Your rebuttal would state this point and then explain why it’s not valid:

Read on for a few simple steps to formulating an effective rebuttal.

Step 1. Come up with a Counterargument

A strong rebuttal is only possible when there’s a strong counterargument. You may be convinced of your idea but try to place yourself on the other side. Rather than addressing weak opposing views that are easy to fend off, try to come up with the strongest claims that could be made.

In your essay, explain the counterargument and agree with it. That’s right, agree with it – to an extent. State why there’s some truth to it and validate the concerns it presents.

Step 2. Point Out Its Flaws

Now that you’ve presented a counterargument, poke holes in it . To do so, analyze the argument carefully and notice if there are any biases or caveats that weaken it. Looking at the claim that strawberries don’t work well in baked goods, a weakness could be that this argument only applies when strawberries are baked in a pie.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Step 3. Present New Points

Once you reveal the counterargument’s weakness, present a new perspective, and provide supporting evidence to show that your argument is still the correct one. This means providing new points that the opposer may not have considered when presenting their claim.

Offering new ideas that weaken a counterargument makes you come off as authoritative and informed, which will make your readers more likely to agree with you.

Summary: Rebuttals

Rebuttals are essential when presenting an argument. Even if a counterargument is stronger than your point, you can construct an effective rebuttal that stands a chance against it.

We hope this guide helps you to structure and format your argumentative essay . And once you’ve finished writing, send a copy to our expert editors. We’ll ensure perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, referencing, and more. Try it out for free today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a rebuttal in an essay.

A rebuttal is a response to a counterargument. It presents the potential counterclaim, discusses why it could be valid, and then explains why the original argument is still correct.

How do you form an effective rebuttal?

To use rebuttals effectively, come up with a strong counterclaim and respectfully point out its weaknesses. Then present new ideas that fill those gaps and strengthen your point.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template (2024)

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

How to Write a Rebuttal Speech

How to write an essay with a thesis statement.

Rebuttal speeches are one of the last speeches in a debate. A rebuttal speech is an important part of debate. If well written, it is a powerful tool, because it devalues your opponent's arguments while reinforcing your stance on the chosen issue.

Research and anticipate your opponent's main points and arguments. Write down any other positions that may be offered against your argument.

Begin writing. Make your claim, and present your thesis. What is it that you are arguing, and why? Make your opening interesting, catching the audience's attention.

Include the data to support your claim. When presenting your data, create a "warranty," stating why and how your data supports your claim. Present any evidence to support the warranty. This ensures your argument has several layers of defense.

State the claims of your opposition and their supporting data. Address any further objections or counterarguments that may arise against your proposal.

After each objection or argument against your proposal, write your own argument against that objection, using data to support your claim.

Form your conclusion, making sure to reiterate your thesis, while summarizing the evidence presented during your speech.

• Focus your speech on the people who are neither for nor against your position. Do not focus solely on those who disagree with you. Your argument will persuade more effectively if it is focused on those who are undecided. You are more likely to influence those who have not made a decision.

Related Articles

How to Outline a Case for Legal Studies

How to Write a Thesis Statement for "Robinson Crusoe"

Should a Thesis Statement Be Included in an APA Style Outline?

How to Write a Good Closing Argument

How to Write Research Papers From Start to Finish

How to Write an Anecdotal Essay

The Parts of an Argument

What Are Two Types of Research Papers?

Definition of Rebuttal

Features of rebuttal, examples of rebuttal in literature, example #1: the founding foodies: how washington, jefferson, and franklin revolutionized american cuisine (by dave dewitt).

“A writer in your paper comforts himself, and the India Company, with the fancy that the Americans, should they resolve to drink no more tea, can by no means keep that resolution , their Indian corn not affording ‘an agreeable, or easy digestible breakfast .’ Pray let me, an American, inform the gentleman, who seems quite ignorant of the matter, that Indian corn, take it for all in all , is one of the most agreeable and wholesome grains in the world; that its green ears roasted are a delicacy beyond expression; that samp, hominy, succatash, and nokehock, made of it, are so many pleasing varieties; and that a johny, or hoe-cake, hot from the fire, is better than a Yorkshire muffin.”

Example #2: Fahrenheit 451 (By Ray Bradbury)

Example #3: editorial rebuttal in the washington post (by eugene joseph dionne), example #4: speech on 50th anniversary commemoration of bloody sunday in selma (by president barack obama).

“For we were born of change. We broke the old aristocracies, declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline, but endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people. That’s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction, because we know our efforts matter. We know America is what we make of it.”

Function of Rebuttal

Post navigation.

Encyclopedia

Writing with artificial intelligence, counterarguments – rebuttal – refutation.

• © 2023 by Roberto León - Georgia College & State University

Ignoring what your target audience thinks and feels about your argument isn't a recipe for success. Instead, engage in audience analysis : ask yourself, "How is your target audience likely to respond to your propositions? What counterarguments -- arguments about your argument -- will your target audience likely raise before considering your propositions?"

Counterargument Definition

C ounterargument refers to an argument given in response to another argument that takes an alternative approach to the issue at hand.

C ounterargument may also be known as rebuttal or refutation .

Related Concepts

Audience Awareness ; Authority (in Speech and Writing) ; Critical Literacy ; Ethos ; Openness ; Researching Your Audience

Guide to Counterarguments in Writing Studies

Counterarguments are a topic of study in Writing Studies as

• Rhetors engage in rhetorical reasoning : They analyze the rebuttals their target audiences may have to their claims , interpretations , propositions, and proposals
• Rhetors may develop counterarguments by questioning a rhetor’s backing , data , qualifiers, and/or warrants
• Rhetors begin arguments with sincere summaries of counterarguments
• a strategy of Organization .

Learning about the placement of counterarguments in Toulmin Argument , Arisotelian Argument , and Rogerian Argument will help you understand when you need to introduce counterarguments and how thoroughly you need to address them.

Why Do Counterarguments Matter?

If your goal is clarity and persuasion, you cannot ignore what your target audience thinks, feels, and does about the argument. To communicate successfully with audiences, rhetors need to engage in audience analysis : they need to understand the arguments against their argument that the audience may hold.

Imagine that you are scrolling through your social media feed when you see a post from an old friend. As you read, you immediately feel that your friend’s post doesn’t make sense. “They can’t possibly believe that!” you tell yourself. You quickly reply “I’m not sure I agree. Why do you believe that?” Your friend then posts a link to an article and tells you to see for yourself.

There are many ways to analyze your friend’s social media post or the professor’s article your friend shared. You might, for example, evaluate the professor’s article by using the CRAAP Test or by conducting a rhetorical analysis of their aims and ethos . After engaging in these prewriting heuristics to get a better sense of what your friend knows and feels about the topic at hand, you may feel more prepared to respond to their arguments and also sense how they might react to your post.

Toulmin Counterarguments

There’s more than one way to counter an argument.

In Toulmin Argument , a counterargument can be made against the writer’s claim by questioning their backing , data , qualifiers, and/or warrants . For example, let’s say we wrote the following argument:

“Social media is bad for you (claim) because it always (qualifier) promotes an unrealistic standard of beauty (backing). In this article, researchers found that most images were photoshopped (data). Standards should be realistic; if they are not, those standards are bad (warrant).” 

Besides noting we might have a series of logical fallacies here, counterarguments and dissociations can be made against each of these parts:

• Against the qualifier: Social media does not always promote unrealistic standards.
• Against the backing : Social media presents but does not promote unrealistic standards.
• Against the data : This article focuses on Instagram; these findings are not applicable to Twitter.
• Against the warrant : How we approach standards matters more than the standards themselves; standards do not need to be realistic, but rather we need to be realistic about how we approach standards.

In generating and considering counterarguments and conditions of rebuttal, it is important to consider how we approach alternative views. Alternative viewpoints are opportunities not only to strengthen and contrast our own arguments with those of others; alternative viewpoints are also opportunities to nuance and develop our own arguments. 

Let us continue to look at our social media argument and potential counterarguments. We might prepare responses to each of these potential counterarguments, anticipating the ways in which our audience might try to shift how we frame this situation. However, we might also concede that some of these counterarguments actually have good points.

For example, we might still believe that social media is bad, but perhaps we also need to consider more about 

• What factors make it worse (nuance the qualifier)?
• Whether or not social media is a neutral tool or whether algorithms take advantage of our baser instincts (nuance the backing )
• Whether this applies to all social media or whether we want to focus on just one social media platform (nuance the data ) 
• How should we approach social standards (nuance the warrant )?

Identifying counterarguments can help us strengthen our arguments by helping us recognize the complexity of the issue at hand.

Neoclassical Argument – Aristotelian Argument

Learn how to compose a counterargument passage or section.

While Toulmin Argument focuses on the nuts and bolts of argumentation, a counterargument can also act as an entire section of an Aristotelian Argument . This section typically comes after you have presented your own lines of argument and evidence .

This section typically consists of two rhetorical moves :

Examples of Counterarguments

By introducing counterarguments, we show we are aware of alternative viewpoints— other definitions, explanations, meanings, solutions, etc. We want to show that we are good listeners and aren’t committing the strawman fallacy . We also concede some of the alternative viewpoints that we find most persuasive. By making concessions, we can show that we are reasonable ( ethos ) and that we are listening . Rogerian Argument is an example of building listening more fully into our writing. 

Using our social media example, we might write: 

I recognize that in many ways social media is only as good as the content that people upload to it. As Professor X argues, social media amplifies both the good and the bad of human nature.

Once we’ve shown that we understand and recognize good arguments when we see them, we put forward our response to the counterclaim. In our response, we do not simply dismiss alternative viewpoints, but provide our own backing, data, and warrants to show that we, in fact, have the more compelling position. 

To counter Professor X’s argument, we might write:

At the same time, there are clear instances where social media amplifies the bad over the good by design. While content matters, the design of social media is only as good as the people who created it.

Through conceding and countering, we can show that we recognize others’ good points and clarify where we stand in relation to others’ arguments.

Counterarguments and Organization

Learn when and how to weave counterarguments into your texts.

As we write, it is also important to consider the extent to which we will respond to counterarguments. If we focus too much on counterarguments, we run the risk of downplaying our own contributions. If we focus too little on counterarguments, we run the risk of seeming aloof and unaware of reality. Ideally, we will be somewhere in between these two extremes.

There are many places to respond to counterarguments in our writing. Where you place your counterarguments will depend on the rhetorical situation (ex: audience , purpose, subject ), your rhetorical stance (how you want to present yourself), and your sense of kairos . Here are some common choices based on a combination of these rhetorical situation factors:

• If a counterargument is well-established for your audience, you may want to respond to that counterargument earlier in your essay, clearing the field and creating space for you to make your own arguments. An essay about gun rights, for example, would need to make it clear very quickly that it is adding something new to this old debate. Doing so shows your audience that you are very aware of their needs.
• If a counterargument is especially well-established for your audience and you simply want to prove that it is incorrect rather than discuss another solution, you might respond to it point by point, structuring your whole essay as an extended refutation. Fact-checking and commentary articles often make this move. Responding point by point shows that you take the other’s point of view seriously.
• If you are discussing something relatively unknown or new to your audience (such as a problem with black mold in your dormitory), you might save your response for after you have made your points. Including alternative viewpoints even here shows that you are aware of the situation and have nothing to hide.

Whichever you choose, remember that counterarguments are opportunities to ethically engage with alternative viewpoints and your audience. 

The following questions can guide you as you begin to think about counterarguments:

• What is your argument ? What alternative positions might exist as counterarguments to your argument?
• How can considering counterarguments strengthen your argument?
• Given possible counterarguments, what points might you reconsider or concede?
• To what extent might you respond to counterarguments in your essay so that they can create and respond to the rhetorical situation ?
• Where might you place your counterarguments in your essay?
• What might including counterarguments do for your ethos ?

Recommended Resources

• Sweetland Center for Writing (n.d.). “ How Do I Incorporate a Counterargument? ” University of Michigan. 
• The Writing Center (n.d.) “ All About Counterarguments .” George Mason University. 
• Lachner, N. (n.d.). “ Counterarguments .” University of Nevada Reno, University Writing and Speaking Center. 
• Jeffrey, R. (n.d.). “ Questions for Thinking about Counterarguments .” In M. Gagich and E. Zickel, A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing. 
• Kause, S. (2011). “ On the Other Hand: The Role of Antithetical Writing in First Year Composition Courses .” Writing Spaces Vol. 2.
• Burton, G. “ Refutatio .” Silvae Rhetoricae.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). “The Dissociation of Concepts”; “The Interaction of Arguments,” in The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (pp. 411-459, 460-508), University of Notre Dame Press.

Mozafari, C. (2018). “Crafting Counterarguments,” in Fearless Writing: Rhetoric, Inquiry, Argument (pp. 333-337), MacMillian Learning

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Recommended

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing

Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing

Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact

Suggested edits.

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Other Topics:

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

• Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning,  rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

Debating For Everyone | Debating Training for Schools | Set up Debating Club at School | Debating Advice School Students

The 1992 comedy My Cousin Vinny is not perhaps the greatest movie ever made. It does, however, have one memorable scene. The main character, Vinny, is a lawyer, hired to represent his cousin, who has been falsely accused of involvement in an armed robbery. Vinnie isn't, it's fair to say, at the top of his profession; he's failed his law exams six times. However, he is cheap. So cheap that the only hotel he can afford is next to a railway line that keeps him awake all night. As a result, he falls asleep during the prosecution's opening submission. Prompted by the judge to respond on behalf of his client, Vinny stirs himself, strides confidently towards the bench, and says, 'Everything that guy just said is garbage.' (Actually, he doesn't say, 'garbage'. He says something else. You can see what he really says in the original clip here ). Vinny's response is a very good example of how not to do rebuttal. Unfortunately, the Vinny technique is still all too common, both in debating and in life. So, let's do rebuttal better than poor old Vinny. This week we're going to learn: 1. What rebuttal is. 2. Why you should do rebuttal. 3. When you should do rebuttal. 4. How you should do rebuttal.

1. What is 'rebuttal'?

Rebuttal is when you challenge, criticise or find fault with your opponent's argument with reason. I'll say that again: with reason. It is different from simply saying someone is wrong. This is the Vinny approach, which itself is the mirror image of simple assertion of an argument, our Bad Argument #1, covered in an earlier post here. No reason, no rebuttal; but the better your reason or reasons, the better your rebuttal.

2. Why do rebuttal?

Without rebuttal, a debate becomes a series of performances: one free standing speech after another, none of them having any connection with each other. No matter how well composed the speeches are, they might as well have been written down, photocopied and handed out to the audience. In fact, you might as well not even be in the same room. A debate without rebuttal is like someone who behaves as if there is no one else there. Have you ever met anyone like that? They're not much fun to be with. With rebuttal, however, a debate becomes a conversation; a conversation where people actually listen to each other. It becomes dynamic, unpredictable, unsafe. In other words, it comes to life. A debate with rebuttal is a lot harder, but it's also a lot more interesting and, ultimately, more fun.

3. When should you do rebuttal?

a. At the beginning of your speech Unless you are first proposition, you are always speaking just after someone on the other side has spoken. You need to show you have actually listened to that speech by responding to what has been said, and by saying, with reason, why you disagree with it. b. In points of information Despite their name, points of information are essentially forms of rebuttal. They are your chance to engage with the other side's argument in a targeted way and to find fault with it. See more about how to do points of information in our earlier post here. c. When discussing the point of clash Once you've identified the point of clash, you then have to show you have won the debate by rebutting the other side of the clash. See more about the point of clash in our earlier post here.

4. How do you do rebuttal?

Rebuttal is the work of analysing an argument and finding its weaknesses. It's really hard work, and it doesn't get any easier. You just have to keep practising it. The more you practise it, the better you will get at it. This will have benefits not just in debating, but in life, as you are less likely to be fooled by people who look as they're talking sense but aren't, really. There is a whole section of philosophy, called 'critical thinking', dedicated to analysing arguments and their strengths and weaknesses. You may have studied it at school. For now, though, here are some very simple tools for understanding how arguments work. Arguments consist of premises and conclusions. In a strong argument, the premises lead to the conclusion. So, for example:

• Anna is a person (Premise 1)
• All people are mortal (Premise 2)
• Therefore, Anna is mortal (Conclusion)

Or, to put it more like a mathematical formula:

• All Bs are C
• Therefore, A is C.

There are three main ways to challenge an argument: 1. One or more of the premises is weak. 2. The premises do not lead to the conclusion. 3. The premises are strong and do lead to the conclusion, but the conclusion is undesirable. Let's see how these would work in practice. We'll go back to that ever popular debate, 'This house would make all schools co-educational.' Someone puts this argument: 'All schools should be forced to be mixed, because when girls and boys attend the same school, they have to spend time with each other, so they learn to get on with the opposite sex, which is a vital life skill.' Let's analyse that argument.

• Premise 1: Mixed schools make boys and girls spend time together.
• Premise 2: Spending time with people teaches you to get on with them.
• Premise 3: Getting on with people is a vital life skill.
• Conclusion: Therefore, all schools should be mixed.

Now let's see how we could rebut it. Challenging Premise 1 'Mixed schools don't make boys and girls spend time together. They spend most of their time ignoring each other. At break time the boys play football, the girls talk. Students at single-sex schools spend much more meaningful time with the opposite sex, because when they do so, they do so out of choice.' Challenging Premise 2 'Putting boys and girls together doesn't make them get on with each other. Boys tend to dominate class discussion, intimidating girls into not giving their opinions. This establishes a very unhealthy dynamic for later life, where men make decisions and women listen; not a good way to "get on with each other". Girls in single-sex schools get the confidence to express their opinions in class much more easily, and are thus better equipped to interact with men on an equal basis in later life.' Challenging Premise 3 'Girls consistently achieve better exam results in single-sex schools. Making them sacrifice this achievement by forcing them into mixed schools so they can "learn how to get on with boys" is sending out the message that socialisation is more important than success; or, to put it another way, it's more important for a girl to be nice than to be clever. Is that how we should be bringing up our daughters?' Showing that the premises do not lead to the conclusion 'It may be true that boys and girls spending time together at school can teach them how to get on better in later life, but that doesn't mean all schools should be forced to be mixed. Not all children are the same; some thrive in single-sex environments, and shouldn't be forced into a "one size fits all" model.' Questioning the desirability of the conclusion 'Shouldn't schools be about academic education, not socialisation?' Or: 'What business does the government have telling us what sort of education we should choose for our children?' So, as you can see, there are many different ways you can rebut even a simple argument like the one above. We'll be covering more lines of attack as we continue with our series on Bad Arguments - how to spot them, and how to challenge them. But with five possible lines of attack (and often there will be more), you have to choose. You can't say all those things at once. How do you choose? Challenge your opponent where her argument is weakest. Look through the rebuttals above, and decide for yourself which exposes the most weakness in the original argument.

1. Rebuttal is essential for debate 2. Do it at the beginning of your speech; in points of information; and when summing up. 3. Simple denial is never enough. 4. Break your opponent's argument down to premises and conclusion, and challenge it at its weakest point.

The Debating Book

Written with authority, passion and wisdom, it will tell you everything you ever need to know about debating.

Get In Touch

To contact Julian Bell, please email him on [email protected] . Alternatively, send Julian a message here .

Do you want to start debating, but don't know what to do? Written with authority, passion and wisdom, it will tell you everything you ever need to know about debating. Buy Now

• Debating Training for Schools
• Set up Debating Club at School
• Debating Advice School Students

Website Design by Webfactory

• How It Works
• Prices & Discounts

A Student's Guide: Crafting an Effective Rebuttal in Argumentative Essays

Table of contents

Share this article

Achieve Academic Success with Expert Assistance!

Crafted from Scratch for You.

Ensuring Your Work’s Originality.

Transform Your Draft into Excellence.

Perfecting Your Paper’s Grammar, Style, and Format (APA, MLA, etc.).

Calculate the cost of your paper

Get ideas for your essay

Your version of Internet Explorer is either running in "Compatibility View" or is too outdated to display this site. If you believe your version of Internet Explorer is up to date, please remove this site from Compatibility View by opening Tools > Compatibility View settings (IE11) or clicking the broken page icon in your address bar (IE9, IE10)

Missouri S&T Missouri S&T

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty and Staff
• writingcenter.mst.edu
• Online Resources
• Writing Guides
• Counter Arguments

Writing and Communication Center

• 314 Curtis Laws Wilson Library, 400 W 14th St Rolla, MO 65409 United States
• (573) 341-4436
• [email protected]

Counter Argument

One way to strengthen your argument and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the issue you are discussing is to anticipate and address counter arguments, or objections. By considering opposing views, you show that you have thought things through, and you dispose of some of the reasons your audience might have for not accepting your argument. Ask yourself what someone who disagrees with you might say in response to each of the points you’ve made or about your position as a whole.

If you can’t immediately imagine another position, here are some strategies to try:

• Do some research. It may seem to you that no one could possibly disagree with the position you are taking, but someone probably has. Look around to see what stances people have and do take on the subject or argument you plan to make, so that you know what environment you are addressing.
• Talk with a friend or with your instructor. Another person may be able to play devil’s advocate and suggest counter arguments that haven’t occurred to you.
• Consider each of your supporting points individually. Even if you find it difficult to see why anyone would disagree with your central argument, you may be able to imagine more easily how someone could disagree with the individual parts of your argument. Then you can see which of these counter arguments are most worth considering. For example, if you argued “Cats make the best pets. This is because they are clean and independent,” you might imagine someone saying “Cats do not make the best pets. They are dirty and demanding.”

Once you have considered potential counter arguments, decide how you might respond to them: Will you concede that your opponent has a point but explain why your audience should nonetheless accept your argument? Or will you reject the counterargument and explain why it is mistaken? Either way, you will want to leave your reader with a sense that your argument is stronger than opposing arguments.

Two strategies are available to incorporate counter arguments into your essay:

Refutation:

Refutation seeks to disprove opposing arguments by pointing out their weaknesses. This approach is generally most effective if it is not hostile or sarcastic; with methodical, matter-of-fact language, identify the logical, theoretical, or factual flaws of the opposition.

For example, in an essay supporting the reintroduction of wolves into western farmlands, a writer might refute opponents by challenging the logic of their assumptions:

Although some farmers have expressed concern that wolves might pose a threat to the safety of sheep, cattle, or even small children, their fears are unfounded. Wolves fear humans even more than humans fear wolves and will trespass onto developed farmland only if desperate for food. The uninhabited wilderness that will become the wolves’ new home has such an abundance of food that there is virtually no chance that these shy animals will stray anywhere near humans.

Here, the writer acknowledges the opposing view (wolves will endanger livestock and children) and refutes it (the wolves will never be hungry enough to do so).

Accommodation:

Accommodation acknowledges the validity of the opposing view, but argues that other considerations outweigh it. In other words, this strategy turns the tables by agreeing (to some extent) with the opposition.

For example, the writer arguing for the reintroduction of wolves might accommodate the opposing view by writing:

Critics of the program have argued that reintroducing wolves is far too expensive a project to be considered seriously at this time. Although the reintroduction program is costly, it will only become more costly the longer it is put on hold. Furthermore, wolves will help control the population of pest animals in the area, saving farmers money on extermination costs. Finally, the preservation of an endangered species is worth far more to the environment and the ecological movement than the money that taxpayers would save if this wolf relocation initiative were to be abandoned.

This writer acknowledges the opposing position (the program is too expensive), agrees (yes, it is expensive), and then argues that despite the expense the program is worthwhile.

Some Final Hints

Don’t play dirty. When you summarize opposing arguments, be charitable. Present each argument fairly and objectively, rather than trying to make it look foolish. You want to convince your readers that you have carefully considered all sides of the issues and that you are not simply attacking or caricaturing your opponents.

Sometimes less is more. It is usually better to consider one or two serious counter arguments in some depth, rather than to address every counterargument.

Keep an open mind. Be sure that your reply is consistent with your original argument. Careful consideration of counter arguments can complicate or change your perspective on an issue. There’s nothing wrong with adopting a different perspective or changing your mind, but if you do, be sure to revise your thesis accordingly.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Rebuttal Sections

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

In order to present a fair and convincing message, you may need to anticipate, research, and outline some of the common positions (arguments) that dispute your thesis. If the situation (purpose) calls for you to do this, you will present and then refute these other positions in the rebuttal section of your essay.

It is important to consider other positions because in most cases, your primary audience will be fence-sitters. Fence-sitters are people who have not decided which side of the argument to support.

People who are on your side of the argument will not need a lot of information to align with your position. People who are completely against your argument—perhaps for ethical or religious reasons—will probably never align with your position no matter how much information you provide. Therefore, the audience you should consider most important are those people who haven't decided which side of the argument they will support—the fence-sitters.

In many cases, these fence-sitters have not decided which side to align with because they see value in both positions. Therefore, to not consider opposing positions to your own in a fair manner may alienate fence-sitters when they see that you are not addressing their concerns or discussion opposing positions at all.

Organizing your rebuttal section

Following the TTEB method outlined in the Body Paragraph section, forecast all the information that will follow in the rebuttal section and then move point by point through the other positions addressing each one as you go. The outline below, adapted from Seyler's Understanding Argument , is an example of a rebuttal section from a thesis essay.

When you rebut or refute an opposing position, use the following three-part organization:

The opponent’s argument : Usually, you should not assume that your reader has read or remembered the argument you are refuting. Thus, at the beginning of your paragraph, you need to state, accurately and fairly, the main points of the argument you will refute.

Your position : Next, make clear the nature of your disagreement with the argument or position you are refuting. Your position might assert, for example, that a writer has not proved his assertion because he has provided evidence that is outdated, or that the argument is filled with fallacies.

Your refutation : The specifics of your counterargument will depend upon the nature of your disagreement. If you challenge the writer’s evidence, then you must present the more recent evidence. If you challenge assumptions, then you must explain why they do not hold up. If your position is that the piece is filled with fallacies, then you must present and explain each fallacy.

Improve your practice.

Enhance your soft skills with a range of award-winning courses.

Persuasive Speech Outline, with Examples

March 17, 2021 - Gini Beqiri

A persuasive speech is a speech that is given with the intention of convincing the audience to believe or do something. This could be virtually anything – voting, organ donation, recycling, and so on.

A successful persuasive speech effectively convinces the audience to your point of view, providing you come across as trustworthy and knowledgeable about the topic you’re discussing.

So, how do you start convincing a group of strangers to share your opinion? And how do you connect with them enough to earn their trust?

Topics for your persuasive speech

We’ve made a list of persuasive speech topics you could use next time you’re asked to give one. The topics are thought-provoking and things which many people have an opinion on.

When using any of our persuasive speech ideas, make sure you have a solid knowledge about the topic you’re speaking about – and make sure you discuss counter arguments too.

Here are a few ideas to get you started:

• All school children should wear a uniform
• Facebook is making people more socially anxious
• It should be illegal to drive over the age of 80
• Lying isn’t always wrong
• The case for organ donation

Read our full list of  75 persuasive speech topics and ideas .

Preparation: Consider your audience

As with any speech, preparation is crucial. Before you put pen to paper, think about what you want to achieve with your speech. This will help organise your thoughts as you realistically can only cover 2-4 main points before your  audience get bored .

It’s also useful to think about who your audience are at this point. If they are unlikely to know much about your topic then you’ll need to factor in context of your topic when planning the structure and length of your speech. You should also consider their:

• Cultural or religious backgrounds
• Shared concerns, attitudes and problems
• Shared interests, beliefs and hopes
• Baseline attitude – are they hostile, neutral, or open to change?

The factors above will all determine the approach you take to writing your speech. For example, if your topic is about childhood obesity, you could begin with a story about your own children or a shared concern every parent has. This would suit an audience who are more likely to be parents than young professionals who have only just left college.

Remember the 3 main approaches to persuade others

There are three main approaches used to persuade others:

The ethos approach appeals to the audience’s ethics and morals, such as what is the ‘right thing’ to do for humanity, saving the environment, etc.

Pathos persuasion is when you appeal to the audience’s emotions, such as when you  tell a story  that makes them the main character in a difficult situation.

The logos approach to giving a persuasive speech is when you appeal to the audience’s logic – ie. your speech is essentially more driven by facts and logic. The benefit of this technique is that your point of view becomes virtually indisputable because you make the audience feel that only your view is the logical one.

• Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Pillars of Public Speaking and Persuasion

Ideas for your persuasive speech outline

1. structure of your persuasive speech.

The opening and closing of speech are the most important. Consider these carefully when thinking about your persuasive speech outline. A  strong opening  ensures you have the audience’s attention from the start and gives them a positive first impression of you.

You’ll want to  start with a strong opening  such as an attention grabbing statement, statistic of fact. These are usually dramatic or shocking, such as:

Sadly, in the next 18 minutes when I do our chat, four Americans that are alive will be dead from the food that they eat – Jamie Oliver

Another good way of starting a persuasive speech is to include your audience in the picture you’re trying to paint. By making them part of the story, you’re embedding an emotional connection between them and your speech.

You could do this in a more toned-down way by talking about something you know that your audience has in common with you. It’s also helpful at this point to include your credentials in a persuasive speech to gain your audience’s trust.

Obama would spend hours with his team working on the opening and closing statements of his speech.

2. Stating your argument

You should  pick between 2 and 4 themes  to discuss during your speech so that you have enough time to explain your viewpoint and convince your audience to the same way of thinking.

It’s important that each of your points transitions seamlessly into the next one so that your speech has a logical flow. Work on your  connecting sentences  between each of your themes so that your speech is easy to listen to.

Your argument should be backed up by objective research and not purely your subjective opinion. Use examples, analogies, and stories so that the audience can relate more easily to your topic, and therefore are more likely to be persuaded to your point of view.

3. Addressing counter-arguments

Any balanced theory or thought  addresses and disputes counter-arguments  made against it. By addressing these, you’ll strengthen your persuasive speech by refuting your audience’s objections and you’ll show that you are knowledgeable to other thoughts on the topic.

When describing an opposing point of view, don’t explain it in a bias way – explain it in the same way someone who holds that view would describe it. That way, you won’t irritate members of your audience who disagree with you and you’ll show that you’ve reached your point of view through reasoned judgement. Simply identify any counter-argument and pose explanations against them.

• Complete Guide to Debating

4. Closing your speech

Your closing line of your speech is your last chance to convince your audience about what you’re saying. It’s also most likely to be the sentence they remember most about your entire speech so make sure it’s a good one!

The most effective persuasive speeches end  with a  call to action . For example, if you’ve been speaking about organ donation, your call to action might be asking the audience to register as donors.

Practice answering AI questions on your speech and get  feedback on your performance .

If audience members ask you questions, make sure you listen carefully and respectfully to the full question. Don’t interject in the middle of a question or become defensive.

You should show that you have carefully considered their viewpoint and refute it in an objective way (if you have opposing opinions). Ensure you remain patient, friendly and polite at all times.

Example 1: Persuasive speech outline

This example is from the Kentucky Community and Technical College.

Specific purpose

To persuade my audience to start walking in order to improve their health.

Central idea

Regular walking can improve both your mental and physical health.

Introduction

Let’s be honest, we lead an easy life: automatic dishwashers, riding lawnmowers, T.V. remote controls, automatic garage door openers, power screwdrivers, bread machines, electric pencil sharpeners, etc., etc. etc. We live in a time-saving, energy-saving, convenient society. It’s a wonderful life. Or is it?

Continue reading

Example 2: Persuasive speech

Tips for delivering your persuasive speech

• Practice, practice, and practice some more . Record yourself speaking and listen for any nervous habits you have such as a nervous laugh, excessive use of filler words, or speaking too quickly.
• Show confident body language . Stand with your legs hip width apart with your shoulders centrally aligned. Ground your feet to the floor and place your hands beside your body so that hand gestures come freely. Your audience won’t be convinced about your argument if you don’t sound confident in it. Find out more about  confident body language here .
• Don’t memorise your speech word-for-word  or read off a script. If you memorise your persuasive speech, you’ll sound less authentic and panic if you lose your place. Similarly, if you read off a script you won’t sound genuine and you won’t be able to connect with the audience by  making eye contact . In turn, you’ll come across as less trustworthy and knowledgeable. You could simply remember your key points instead, or learn your opening and closing sentences.
• Remember to use facial expressions when storytelling  – they make you more relatable. By sharing a personal story you’ll more likely be speaking your truth which will help you build a connection with the audience too. Facial expressions help bring your story to life and transport the audience into your situation.
• Keep your speech as concise as possible . When practicing the delivery, see if you can edit it to have the same meaning but in a more succinct way. This will keep the audience engaged.

The best persuasive speech ideas are those that spark a level of controversy. However, a public speech is not the time to express an opinion that is considered outside the norm. If in doubt, play it safe and stick to topics that divide opinions about 50-50.

Bear in mind who your audience are and plan your persuasive speech outline accordingly, with researched evidence to support your argument. It’s important to consider counter-arguments to show that you are knowledgeable about the topic as a whole and not bias towards your own line of thought.

Hill Street Studios/Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

In rhetoric, refutation is the part of an argument in which a speaker or writer counters opposing points of view. Also called  confutation .

Refutation is "the key element in debate," say the authors of The Debater's Guide  (2011). Refutation "makes the whole process exciting by relating ideas and arguments from one team to those of the other" ( The Debater's Guide , 2011).

In speeches, refutation and confirmation are often presented "conjointly with one another" (in the words of the unknown author of Ad Herrenium ): support for a claim ( confirmation ) can be enhanced by a challenge to the validity of an opposing claim ( refutation ).

In classical rhetoric , refutation was one of the rhetorical exercises known as the  progymnasmata .

Examples and Observations

"Refutation is the part of an essay that disproves the opposing arguments. It is always necessary in a persuasive paper to refute or answer those arguments. A good method for formulating your refutation is to put yourself in the place of your readers, imagining what their objections might be. In the exploration of the issues connected with your subject, you may have encountered possible opposing viewpoints in discussions with classmates or friends. In the refutation, you refute those arguments by proving the opposing basic proposition untrue or showing the reasons to be invalid...In general, there is a question about whether the refutation should come before or after the proof . The arrangement will differ according to the particular subject and the number and strength of the opposing arguments. If the opposing arguments are strong and widely held, they should be answered at the beginning. In this case, the refutation becomes a large part of the proof . . .. At other times when the opposing arguments are weak, the refutation will play only a minor part in the overall proof." -Winifred Bryan Horner, Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition . St. Martin's, 1988

Indirect and Direct Refutation

• "Debaters refute through an indirect means when they use counter-argument to attack the case of an opponent. Counter-argument is the demonstration of such a high degree of probability for your conclusions that the opposing view loses its probability and is rejected... Direct refutation attacks the arguments of the opponent with no reference to the constructive development of an opposing view...The most effective refutation, as you can probably guess, is a combination of the two methods so that the strengths of the attack come from both the destruction of the opponents' views and the construction of an opposing view." -Jon M. Ericson, James J. Murphy, and Raymond Bud Zeuschner,  The Debater's Guide , 4th ed. Southern Illinois University Press, 2011
• "An effective refutation must speak directly to an opposing argument. Often writers or speakers will claim to be refuting the opposition, but rather than doing so directly, will simply make another argument supporting their own side. This is a form of the fallacy of irrelevance through evading the issue." -Donald Lazere,  Reading and Writing for Civic Literacy: The Critical Citizen's Guide to Argumentative Rhetoric . Taylor & Francis, 2009

Cicero on Confirmation and Refutation

"[T]he statement of the case . . . must clearly point out the question at issue. Then must be conjointly built up the great bulwarks of your cause, by fortifying your own position, and weakening that of your opponent; for there is only one effectual method of vindicating your own cause, and that includes both the confirmation and refutation. You cannot refute the opposite statements without establishing your own; nor can you, on the other hand, establish your own statements without refuting the opposite; their union is demanded by their nature, their object, and their mode of treatment. The whole speech is, in most cases, brought to a conclusion by some amplification of the different points, or by exciting or mollifying the judges; and every aid must be gathered from the preceding, but more especially from the concluding parts of the address, to act as powerfully as possible upon their minds, and make them zealous converts to your cause." -Cicero, De Oratore , 55 BC

Richard Whately on Refutation

"Refutation of Objections should generally be placed in the midst of the Argument; but nearer the beginning than the end. If indeed very strong objections have obtained much currency, or have been just stated by an opponent, so that what is asserted is likely to be regarded as paradoxical , it may be advisable to begin with a Refutation." -Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric , 1846)​

FCC Chairman William Kennard's Refutation

"There will be those who say 'Go slow. Don't upset the status quo.' No doubt we will hear this from competitors who perceive that they have an advantage today and want regulation to protect their advantage. Or we will hear from those who are behind in the race to compete and want to slow down deployment for their own self-interest. Or we will hear from those that just want to resist changing the status quo for no other reason than change brings less certainty than the status quo. They will resist change for that reason alone. So we may well hear from a whole chorus of naysayers. And to all of them, I have only one response: we cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to let the homes and schools and businesses throughout America wait. Not when we have seen the future. We have seen what high capacity broadband can do for education and for our economy. We must act today to create an environment where all competitors have a fair shot at bringing high capacity bandwidth to consumers—especially residential consumers. And especially residential consumers in rural and underserved areas." -William Kennard, Chairman of the FCC, July 27, 1998

Etymology: From the Old English, "beat"

Pronunciation: REF-yoo-TAY-shun

• Confirmation in Speech and Rhetoric
• Usage and Examples of a Rebuttal
• What Is the Straw Man Fallacy?
• Elenchus (argumentation)
• Definition and Examples of Progymnasmata in Rhetoric
• Arrangement in Composition and Rhetoric
• The Parts of a Speech in Classical Rhetoric
• Definition and Examples of Procatalepsis in Rhetoric
• Narratio in Rhetoric
• Reductio Ad Absurdum in Argument
• Oration (Classical Rhetoric)
• What Is Digression?
• Learn How to Use Extended Definitions in Essays and Speeches
• What Is a Compound Verb?
• Invention (Composition and Rhetoric)
• listeme (words)

25 Rebuttal Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Rebuttal is the process of presenting a counterargument to someone else’s claims or debate points. It is an essential element in the realm of debate and negotiations.

To rebut is not merely to disagree. It needs to be a thoughtful, factual, and logical response to the argument presented.

Some common methods of rebuttal include:

• Fact-checking: Go through the opponent’s fact claims and analyze each one to see if it’s accurate.
• Counterexamples: Provide real-life examples that demonstrate flaws in the opponent’s arguments.
• Ethical dispute: Counter the opponent’s perspective on ethical or moral grounds.

I’ll explore some more methods below.

Rebuttal Examples

1. fact-checking.

Fact-checking simply refers to looking at the series of claims presented by an opponent and seeing if they are factually accurate. You’ll do this by scrutinizing the accuracy of the information presented by the other side. If your opponent’s argument rests on incorrect or inaccurate facts, exposing these inaccuracies can quickly dismantle the structure of their argument.

Example: Suppose your opponent states, “Global warming is a hoax; last winter was extremely cold!” Your rebuttal could be, “Weather and climate are different. Despite a cold winter, long-term data supports global warming.” Here, you’ve used fact-checking to debunk the misleading statement.

2. Counterexamples

Counterexamples involve providing your own examples that challenge the claims made by the opponent. The goal is to offer a scenario or instance that directly contradicts or disproves the opposing argument argument, This can undermine the validity of your opponent, showing how it doesn’t hold up in all real-life circumstances.

Example: If an adversary argues, “All rich people are successful because they have money”, you could provide a counterexample such as, “John is wealthy due to inheritance, but he has not achieved any personal or professional success.” Through this demonstration, you’ve effectively countered the claim being made.

3. Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is all about using a systematic series of analytical steps to see if each point logically follows from the one before it, with no leaps or gaps. Often, this does require you to look at the points step-by-step, trying to find instances where one point does not logically lead to another. By demonstrating that the opponent’s stance lacks logical coherence, and yours is logical, you can effectively nullify their argument.

Example: Let’s say someone asserts, “Eating ice cream makes you happy. Therefore, if everyone ate ice cream daily, there would be no sadness in the world.” Your rebuttal could involve logical reasoning: “While ice cream might provide a temporary boost, it doesn’t address complex causes of sadness or depression.” In this example, you’ve pointed out the simplistic and illogical nature of the original claim.

See More: Reasoning Examples

4. Highlighting Inconsistencies

This method of rebuttal zeroes in on contradictions within the opponent’s argument. The objective is to capture instances where they have made one point in one instance, and another in the next instance, and those two points contradict each other. Recognizing and pointing out these inconsistencies can demonstrate a weakness in their viewpoints and invalidate their overall argument.

Example: Suppose an opponent argues, “Cutting taxes stimulates business growth and should be applied universally,” but then contradicts themselves by stating, “Government services like healthcare and education need more funding.” By calling out the inconsistency between wanting lower taxes but more public services, you successfully weaken their argument.

5. Reductio ad Absurdum

Reductio ad Absurdum means “reducing an argument to absurdity”. This method involves taking the opponent’s argument to its most extreme logical conclusion and pointing out how irrational or implausible that conclusion would be. By doing so, this makes the other side’s argument appear unreasonable or nonsensical.

Example: Assume an opponent’s claim is, “Everyone should be allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want, as an exercise of free speech.” Your rebuttal using reductio ad absurdum could be: “By that logic, should someone be allowed to falsely yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater because of free speech? Surely that would lead to unnecessary panic and potential danger.”

See More: Reductio ad Absurdum Examples

6. Empirical Evidence

Empirical evidence puts forth real-world, verifiable data as a counterpoint to an opponent’s argument. It involves using objective facts, measurement, or observations to directly contest a claim. The strength of this form of rebuttal is that it appeals to tangible and measurable information that is difficult to refute, especially if it’s based on the scientific method.

Example: If an opponent argues, “Schools with standardized uniforms perform better academically,” you could counter with empirical evidence: “Many top-scoring countries in international education ranking, such as Finland, do not mandate school uniforms.”

See More: Empirical Evidence Examples

7. Expert Testimony

Calling on expert testimony as a form of rebuttal means citing a specialist or a professional to disprove the opponent’s argument. This could be a scientist, an academic, a historian, or any acknowledged authority on the topic being discussed. Their words typically carry weight due to their expertise in the field and can debunk the opposing argument, adding credibility to your own. But be careful of the appeal to authority fallacy – make sure the expert is actually an expert in the field, with strong evidence backing them.

Example: In a debate on climate change, if someone claims that “Climate change is cyclical and not significantly impacted by human activities,” you could rebut with expert testimony from reputable climate scientists: “Overwhelming consensus in the scientific community supports the fact that human activities, particularly carbon emissions, play a major role in accelerating climate change.”

8. Precedent

When using precedent as a rebuttal, your goal is to demonstrate that past events do not support the opponent’s claims. This might refer to exemplar events, past rulings in courts, past research, and any other established facts that could counter an opposing argument. If an opponent’s point is unprecedented or contradicts what has worked before, pointing out such an inconsistency can be an effective rebuttal.

Example: If an opponent argues that “The death penalty is an effective means to control crime,” you could rebut based on precedent: “Numerous studies based on precedents, such as states without the death penalty experiencing lower crime rates, indicate that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime.”

An analogy is a form of rebuttal where you draw a parallel with another situation to demonstrate flaws or absurdity in the opponent’s arguments. By pulling in an example that’s easy for audiences to understand, you can clearly show why the contrasting argument might not hold water.

Example: If your adversary insists, “We shouldn’t take action on climate change unless all countries agree to work together,” you could illustrate the weakness of this argument with an analogy: “If your roof was leaking, would you wait for your neighbors’ roofs to leak before you fixed yours? No, you’d take action immediately.”

10. Reframing the Argument

Reframing your opponent’s argument involves changing the perspective or emphasis of the conversation in order to challenge their standpoint. According to this tactic, you contest not necessarily the points made by your opponent, but the way they’ve chosen to present it. By putting the argument into another context or highlighting a different aspect of the problem, this method offers a fresh viewpoint to the audience.

Example: If an opponent asserts, “Cutting down on meat consumption hurts the farming industry,” your reframing could be: “We should be focusing on how the farming industry can adapt and grow more sustainable practices, which is a more reasonable solution to this problem.”

11. Pointing Out Fallacies

This rebuttal technique involves calling attention to logical fallacies—an error in reasoning—in the opponent’s argument. Logical Fallacies can often sound persuasive, but they tend to crumble under close scrutiny. By pointing them out, you show the audience that the argument being made is not as sound as it appears to be.

Example: If an opponent claims, “Most famous writers were heavy drinkers, so drinking must enhance creativity,” you could counter by highlighting the fallacy of the argument: “That’s a correlation-causation fallacy. It incorrectly assumes that being a heavy drinker leads to creativity, neglecting other factors like hard work or innate talent.”

See More: The Types of Fallacies

12. Historical Context

This form of rebuttal invokes history to challenge an opponent’s argument. Here, you draw examples from past events or periods to refute their claims or show that their argument is not compatible with historical accounts. It emphasizes how understanding context can change the meaning or implications of an argument. This is similar to precedent , outlined above.

Example: If someone posits, “The colonization period allowed for the spread of civilization to other parts of the world,” you could challenge this with historical context: “Your claim overlooks the many atrocities, human rights abuses, and cultural erasures that also took place during colonization.”

See More: Historical Context Examples

13. Ethical/Moral Grounds

This rebuttal method involves challenging the ethical or moral stance taken by the opponent in their argument. It is often used when the debate revolves around issues of moral judgement or ethical choices. The key here is to show that the opponent’s argument contradicts widely accepted moral or ethical standards.

Example: If an opponent declares, “It’s acceptable to test cosmetics on animals because it ensures the safety of the product for human use,” you could respond on ethical grounds: “Animal testing relies on causing harm to sentient beings, which many consider to be an unethical practice, regardless of the intended outcomes.”

See More: Ethical Dilemma Examples

14. Clarifying Definitions

This rebuttal strategy aims to disprove an opponent’s argument by clarifying or disputing the definitions of terms or concepts they have used. The goal is to expose any incorrect or misunderstood use of these terms, which may be the basis for their contention. Establishing a shared understanding of the terms being used often leads to generating more precise arguments.

Example: If an opponent argues, “Homeschooling is neglectful because it isolates children,” you could challenge their definition of homeschooling: “This contention is based on a misconception. Homeschooled children often interact with peers in community activities, cooperative learning endeavors, sports teams, and volunteer work.”

15. Challenging Assumptions

Challenging the assumptions of your opponent’s argument involves exposing and addressing the baseless or unsupported claims they have made. Such assumptions often underpin the core of their argument, and tearing them down can effectively challenge their stance.

Example: In a debate on public transport, if an opponent asserts, “Public transportation will always be less efficient than private cars,” you could challenge the underlying assumption, stating, “Your argument assumes all public transit is inefficient. Many cities globally have efficient, well-managed public transport systems.”

See More: Assumptions Examples

16. Demonstrating Bias

Demonstrating bias is a form of rebuttal where you show that your opponent’s argument may be rooted in personal or institutional bias. The bias could skew the evidence they present or the way they interpret it. Providing evidence of these biases may discredit your opponent’s argument, illustrating that it’s not derived from balanced analysis.

Example: If an opponent cites an article from a known politically biased journalist, arguing, “According to this article, cutting environmental regulations promotes industrial growth,” you can rebut by demonstrating bias: “We should consider the source of this article, the journalist has a record of arguing for deregulation and could be presenting the information with an inherent bias.”

See More: A List of Types of Bias

17. Questioning Sources

Questioning sources involves examining the credibility and reliability of the information that your opponent presents in their argument. In the era of rampant misinformation, it has become increasingly necessary to verify sources of information. By questioning the legitimacy of your opponent’s sources, you can potentially undermine their argument.

Example: If an opponent uses a social media post to support their argument, “A post on Facebook revealed that vaccines cause autism,” you could question the source, asserting, “Social media posts are not credible sources of health information. Reputable scientific studies repeatedly confirm that there is no link between vaccines and autism.”

See More: Best Sources to Cite in Essays

18. Comparative Analysis

Comparative analysis as a rebuttal involves comparing the opponent’s argument or case to another scenario or instance where the outcomes were different, thus disproving their claim. It’s about taking a similar but not identical situation and drawing relevant conclusions.

Example: If your opponent insists, “A strict dress code in the office improves productivity,” you could employ a comparative analysis: “Tech companies like Google and Facebook, known for their relaxed dress codes, have consistently ranked high in productivity.”

19. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis revolves around using empirical data, numbers, and statistics to disprove an opponent’s argument. Well-conducted research yields statistics that represent factual, quantifiable evidence which can be persuasive in a debate.

Example: If an opponent claims, “Children who watch more TV perform worse academically,” your rebuttal could involve statistical analysis: “A recent large-scale study showed no significant correlation between time spent watching TV and academic performance, once controlled for other factors like socioeconomic status and parental education level.”

20. Exposing Oversimplifications

Oversimplifications often occur when an opponent reduces a complex problem into an overly simple cause and effect relation. Tackling such oversimplifications requires you to expose the inherent complexity of the issue, highlighting that reality is more nuanced than the opponent’s portrayal.

Example: If an opponent posits, “Unemployment is simply due to laziness”, your rebuttal could be, “Such a claim dramatically oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. Unemployment can be caused by various economic factors such as automation, outsourcing, and economic downturns.”

See More: Oversimplification Examples

21. Highlighting Missing Information

Missing information, or gaps in information, can weaken an argument. If you can identify and point out this missing information, it can undermine the validity of the opponent’s argument, leading to a powerful rebuttal.

Example: Should your adversary argue, “Banning soft drinks in schools will solve the obesity problem,” your counter-argument could highlight missing information: “This argument overlooks other more significant aspects of diet and lifestyle, such as the foods parents put in children’s lunch boxes.”

22. Demonstrating Irrelevance

Demonstrating irrelevance involves showing that the opponent’s argument or a part of it is not relevant to the issue at hand. This can be a formidable rebuttal strategy as it invalidates the opponent’s argument without necessarily proving it wrong. This is related to pointing out the red herring fallacy in an opponent’s argument.

Example: If someone argues, “Solar energy will never work because it’s not always sunny,” you could demonstrate irrelevance: “Modern solar energy systems store power for use during cloudy days or nights, making this argument irrelevant.”

23. Pointing Out Contradictions

Pointing out contradictions involves identifying and spotlighting points in an opponent’s argument that contradict each other. This approach is potent because it shows a lack of coherence in the other side’s argument, which undermines its strength and credibility.

Example: If an opponent argues, “We should focus on developing green energy to combat climate change, yet we must continue to support coal industries for job preservation,” you could expose the contradiction: “Your argument contradicts itself because promoting coal industries undermines the push towards green energy, which you acknowledge is crucial for combating climate change.”

See More: Contradiction Examples

24. Challenging the Significance

This technique disputes the importance or relevance of the points presented by your opponent. Even if their facts are correct, you may argue that they are insignificant in the broader context of the issue at hand, thus deflating the impact of their argument.

Example: In a debate about healthy diets, if someone states, “Quinoa is expensive, so eating healthy is not affordable,” you could counter by challenging the significance: “While quinoa may be costly, there are many affordable healthy eating options, like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. So, the cost of quinoa is not representative of a healthy diet’s overall cost.”

25. Using Humor or Satire

While this method requires a careful touch and a responsive audience, using humor or satire can be an effective way to disassemble an opponent’s argument. By making light of the situation or the argument, you can create a connection with the audience and subtly chip away at the integrity of the opponent’s case.

Example: Suppose an opponent argues, “People should stop using the internet because it’s filled with false information.” In response, you could say, “Well, if we avoided everything with a little bit of false information, we’d never be able to watch a superhero movie or read a fairy tale again.”

The skill of rebuttal is essential for good debaters. But be careful to ensure your rebuttals are sound and foolproof. You don’t want to fall into the same traps as your opponent, but engaging with logical fallacies or flawed arguments. Select rebuttals that steelman your case while helping to cast doubt and uncertainty in the points of your opponents.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

1 thought on “25 Rebuttal Examples”

Another helpful and simple to understand publication by Chris. I have learnt so much from reading Professor Chris numerous articles online and I love this latest article with examples. Thank you.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• How to Cite
• Language & Lit
• Rhyme & Rhythm
• The Rewrite
• Search Glass

How to Write a Rebuttal for a Debate

Debate provides an excellent opportunity for students to analyze various viewpoints and encounter course material collaboratively. Although students often come across formal debate as its own activity, instructors can integrate debate into classwork to give students a chance to discuss issues in a structured, equitable setting. Each side of the debate gets a chance to offer a rebuttal to the arguments presented by the other side. Writing a convincing rebuttal is a crucial part of formal debate.

Listen carefully to the other side’s opening arguments. Take notes in a clear and concise manner. Make bullet points of the key arguments and evidence presented. Write down the specific vocabulary that the speaker uses for key terms.

Examine whether the speaker’s arguments and evidence support his or her position. Consider whether the arguments are logical or the evidence is factual. Look for any unsupported claims in the speaker’s thesis.

Write bullet points for your rebuttal according to the notes you took. Bring up each argument the speaker presented. Provide details for the audience of why that argument either is not credible or does not relate to the thesis. Counter any factually incorrect evidence that the speaker provided. Use your assessment of each argument to support your own points.

Conclude your rebuttal by breaking apart how the speaker’s arguments and evidence fail to support the thesis. Point out claims in the thesis that your opponent failed entirely to support, if possible. Restate your thesis as the alternative to the speaker’s unsupported thesis.

• University of Pennsylvania; The College of Arts and Sciences; Communication within the Curriculum; Why Debate In Class?

Sean Butner has been writing news articles, blog entries and feature pieces since 2005. His articles have appeared on the cover of "The Richland Sandstorm" and "The Palimpsest Files." He is completing graduate coursework in accounting through Texas A&M University-Commerce. He currently advises families on their insurance and financial planning needs.

Persuasive Speeches — Types, Topics, and Examples

What is a persuasive speech.

In a persuasive speech, the speaker aims to convince the audience to accept a particular perspective on a person, place, object, idea, etc. The speaker strives to cause the audience to accept the point of view presented in the speech.

The success of a persuasive speech often relies on the speaker’s use of ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos is the speaker’s credibility. Audiences are more likely to accept an argument if they find the speaker trustworthy. To establish credibility during a persuasive speech, speakers can do the following:

Use familiar language.

Select examples that connect to the specific audience.

Utilize credible and well-known sources.

Logically structure the speech in an audience-friendly way.

Use appropriate eye contact, volume, pacing, and inflection.

Pathos appeals to the audience’s emotions. Speakers who create an emotional bond with their audience are typically more convincing. Tapping into the audience’s emotions can be accomplished through the following:

Select evidence that can elicit an emotional response.

Use emotionally-charged words. (The city has a problem … vs. The city has a disease …)

Incorporate analogies and metaphors that connect to a specific emotion to draw a parallel between the reference and topic.

Utilize vivid imagery and sensory words, allowing the audience to visualize the information.

Employ an appropriate tone, inflection, and pace to reflect the emotion.

Logos appeals to the audience’s logic by offering supporting evidence. Speakers can improve their logical appeal in the following ways:

Use comprehensive evidence the audience can understand.

Confirm the evidence logically supports the argument’s claims and stems from credible sources.

Ensure that evidence is specific and avoid any vague or questionable information.

Types of persuasive speeches

The three main types of persuasive speeches are factual, value, and policy.

A factual persuasive speech focuses solely on factual information to prove the existence or absence of something through substantial proof. This is the only type of persuasive speech that exclusively uses objective information rather than subjective. As such, the argument does not rely on the speaker’s interpretation of the information. Essentially, a factual persuasive speech includes historical controversy, a question of current existence, or a prediction:

Historical controversy concerns whether an event happened or whether an object actually existed.

Questions of current existence involve the knowledge that something is currently happening.

Predictions incorporate the analysis of patterns to convince the audience that an event will happen again.

A value persuasive speech concerns the morality of a certain topic. Speakers incorporate facts within these speeches; however, the speaker’s interpretation of those facts creates the argument. These speeches are highly subjective, so the argument cannot be proven to be absolutely true or false.

A policy persuasive speech centers around the speaker’s support or rejection of a public policy, rule, or law. Much like a value speech, speakers provide evidence supporting their viewpoint; however, they provide subjective conclusions based on the facts they provide.

How to write a persuasive speech

Incorporate the following steps when writing a persuasive speech:

Step 1 – Identify the type of persuasive speech (factual, value, or policy) that will help accomplish the goal of the presentation.

Step 2 – Select a good persuasive speech topic to accomplish the goal and choose a position .

Step 3 – Locate credible and reliable sources and identify evidence in support of the topic/position. Revisit Step 2 if there is a lack of relevant resources.

Step 4 – Identify the audience and understand their baseline attitude about the topic.

Step 5 – When constructing an introduction , keep the following questions in mind:

What’s the topic of the speech?

What’s the occasion?

Who’s the audience?

What’s the purpose of the speech?

Step 6 – Utilize the evidence within the previously identified sources to construct the body of the speech. Keeping the audience in mind, determine which pieces of evidence can best help develop the argument. Discuss each point in detail, allowing the audience to understand how the facts support the perspective.

Step 7 – Addressing counterarguments can help speakers build their credibility, as it highlights their breadth of knowledge.

Step 8 – Conclude the speech with an overview of the central purpose and how the main ideas identified in the body support the overall argument.

Persuasive speech outline

One of the best ways to prepare a great persuasive speech is by using an outline. When structuring an outline, include an introduction, body, and conclusion:

Introduction

Attention Grabbers

Ask a question that allows the audience to respond in a non-verbal way; ask a rhetorical question that makes the audience think of the topic without requiring a response.

Incorporate a well-known quote that introduces the topic. Using the words of a celebrated individual gives credibility and authority to the information in the speech.

Offer a startling statement or information about the topic, typically done using data or statistics.

Provide a brief anecdote or story that relates to the topic.

Starting a speech with a humorous statement often makes the audience more comfortable with the speaker.

Provide information on how the selected topic may impact the audience .

Include any background information pertinent to the topic that the audience needs to know to understand the speech in its entirety.

Give the thesis statement in connection to the main topic and identify the main ideas that will help accomplish the central purpose.

Identify evidence

Summarize its meaning

Explain how it helps prove the support/main claim

Evidence 3 (Continue as needed)

Support 3 (Continue as needed)

Restate thesis

Review main supports

Concluding statement

Give the audience a call to action to do something specific.

Identify the overall importan ce of the topic and position.

Persuasive speech topics

The following table identifies some common or interesting persuasive speech topics for high school and college students:

Persuasive speech examples

The following list identifies some of history’s most famous persuasive speeches:

John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address: “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do for You”

Lyndon B. Johnson: “We Shall Overcome”

Marc Antony: “Friends, Romans, Countrymen…” in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Ronald Reagan: “Tear Down this Wall”

Sojourner Truth: “Ain’t I a Woman?”

A UC Berkeley linguist explores what Kamala Harris’s voice and speech reveal about her identity

"When we talk about Kamala Harris as a modern candidate, she is in some ways embodying all of the ways the country has moved on from the idea that you can only be one thing at once."

By Jason Pohl

Lawrence Cooper/Sipa USA via AP

August 6, 2024

Every now and then, a scholar’s niche expertise lines up with a cultural or political moment and finds an audience hungry for the details. Nicole Holliday is having one of those moments. 

Holliday is an acting associate professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley who studies what politicians say, how they speak and what their speech reveals about their identity. Perhaps more than any other scholar, Holliday has spent years examining the speaking style of a politician who is also having a moment: Kamala Harris.

What does Harris’s enunciation of vowels say about her California roots? How do a few choice words on the debate stage speak to her background as a Black woman? And how does that all change when she’s working a crowd in Georgia or delivering a policy statement in Washington? 

“I’m really interested in what happens with the voice, with the body, to inhabit these different parts of a person’s style,” said Holliday, who has also researched Barack Obama’s speaking style. “Politicians are the best people to study this on because you know what their motivations are — they’re all trying to get elected, or they’re trying to get money, or they’re trying to get voters.”

Journalists and the general public have become increasingly interested in Holliday’s work ever since President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid and Harris soared to the top of the ticket as the Democratic presidential nominee. Holliday’s TikTok videos describing the science of Harris’s tone, style and word choice have gone viral, as have her explanations on why linguistically it’s problematic when people intentionally mispronounce her name. (It’s “comma-la.”) 

Individuals shifting how they speak based on their goals isn’t reserved for politicians, and it shouldn’t be viewed as inauthentic, Holliday said. Regular people vary their tone and word choice from their workplaces to their homes. Those variations fascinate Holliday.

“Most of the stuff that I’m talking about happens way below the level of consciousness,” Holliday said, “It would be really hard to control, even if you were trying.”

Berkeley News asked her what her research on Harris says about Harris’s culture and identity, why it matters that some people — including Donald Trump — continue to mispronounce her name, and what language can teach us about the current political moment. 

Berkeley News : Can you give me the 30,000-foot assessment of what your research has found especially interesting or special about the way Kamala Harris speaks? 

Nicole Holliday: She has a really unique style that reflects her biography. She sounds like an African American woman. She sounds like she’s from Northern California. She sounds like a charismatic political figure. But these are different identities that one person would have to inhabit all at once, and they’re traditionally seen as in conflict.

Our stereotype of a persuasive politician is not a Black and Indian woman. If you ask somebody to draw a picture of an American politician, they’re not drawing Kamala Harris. So she’s got to be a politician and, at the same time, sound like herself: a woman and Black and Indian American. And rep her hometown because she is a hometown girl, which can be a little bit of a liability for her now on a national stage because of the way that California is painted. 

But damn, she is so California.

Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons

Say more. As a linguist, what do you hear in her speech that signals her California roots? 

When people describe the features that are geographically unique to California in the linguistic literature, they focus on a few things. There is this thing called the California vowel shift , where the back vowels move forward, and this is something that we see Harris do. 

@mixedlinguist VP Harris is sociolinguistally awesome, and fortunately I already wrote a paper about that! #linguisttok My website with all my research: https://nicolerholliday.wordpress.com ♬ original sound – Nicole Holliday

She doesn’t say “cool.” She says “kewl.” She doesn’t say goat. She says “gewt,” with the tongue far forward in the mouth. This is also a change that’s been in progress across America, so a lot of young people, even in the Midwest, will pronounce their back vowels far forward like this. But it started in California. It would be very strange if she had those vowels and she was her age and she was from New York. This is not something that they do over there. 

Another example: She has this interesting thing going on with what we call the low back vowels. Her low back vowels are distinct, which is not the case for most Californians, but they’re both kind of shifted up.

What that means is that words that are like “cot” and “caught,” those for me, a person from Ohio, are the same. But for her, they’re slightly distinct, but higher than we would expect. That’s a really interesting interplay, because I think that has to do with her being a Black woman from California. 

If she were a white woman, or if she were a Black man, we might not see this exact pattern.

You also say she’s embodying what’s called African American English. What do you mean?

I looked at her debate speech from when she was running as a primary candidate for the 2020 nomination. And when she talks about things that have to do with her biography, specifically about race or about immigration — these things that she can speak on from personal experience —  she uses a set of tones that is more what we would characterize as an African American charismatic style. So she kinda sounds more like Obama. 

When she talks about things like the economy or gun control or the climate, she uses a more typical, average white politician style, in terms of her tone. It is very interesting. And in this situation, it’s not a function of talking to different audiences, because she’s just in the same debate. It’s really what she’s talking about.

Lastly, she has this very occasional strategic use of casual features that are, for white Americans, just seen as really casual, but can also be what we call “camouflaged features of African American English.” This is my favorite thing. African American English is stigmatized. People call it “bad English.” They say it’s “improper.” All of this kind of stuff. But as a result, middle class and upper middle class Black people have found a way to kind of index their Blackness — highlight this part of their identities — without getting chastised for using “bad grammar.” 

And she does this even in the super formal debate speech.

She uses “gotta” and “gonna” in these particular ways. And of course, yes, white people say “gotta” and “gonna.” Everybody in America says “gotta” and “gonna.” But in a debate context, that is a little bit surprising, given how formal the rest of her style is. 

Is there an example of her doing this that comes to mind?

My favorite quote from her is from Oct. 15th, 2019, in the fourth primary debate. She said, “This is a crisis of Donald Trump’s making, and it is on a long list of crises of Donald Trump’s making. And that’s why dude gotta go.” 

When she has these strong zingers, particularly against Trump, they tend to go viral. Nicole Holliday, UC Berkeley

“Dude. Gotta. Go.” Not “Dude’s gotta go.” No. For a while, her primary campaign was selling T-shirts that said, “Dude gotta go.” It became a catchphrase. When I say that she’s doing this as part of a stylistic performance, that’s what I mean. Maybe it wasn’t premeditated. She didn’t think about it ahead of time. But that became a zinger, a one-liner. And when she has these strong zingers, particularly against Trump, they tend to go viral.

The last one is with “I’ma,” which is actually the most distinctively African American of these features. She says, “Cause I’ma tell you as a prosecutor” and “I’ma tell you what I saw.” 

We hear her do it now, too, once in a while. This is her being able to be like, “Look, look, look. I have these fancy degrees and I’m a prosecutor. And yes, I’m the vice president of the United States. But don’t forget that I’m from Oakland, and I’m Black.”

How much of this is conscious? And how much of this is just the deeply ingrained way we speak that’s been honed from decades of talking? 

@mixedlinguist Is Kamala Harris code-switching? What do we even mean by that? #linguistTok #kamala My website: https://nicolerholliday.wordpress.com ♬ original sound – Nicole Holliday

Political figures have debate coaches, speech coaches, things like that. But my sense is that the stuff that she’s doing in this case would be really hard to control. Maybe you can make a little argument about the “I’ma” and the “gotta.”

But the vowels? I’m a professional linguist, and if someone was like, “Make your vowels more California,” I don’t think I could do that. Especially not when I’m trying to, like, deliver a policy position. The cognitive load is too high. 

That holds even more for what I’m saying about the stuff that she does with her tone. It’s not really possible to do this at the level of consciousness. We choose our words, for sure, but even those in a debate kind of context are a little bit difficult. Those are the things you prep. 

But your speech coach is never gonna be like, “All right, so you need to raise the pitch by exactly 50Hz on the first syllable of prosecutor.” It doesn’t happen. It may be that she has a style in mind, but controlling the specific features that are attached to it is not really possible, 

I could see some people with a cynical reading of all of this being like, “Nothing is real, everything is prepared, they’re all politicians, and they’re all trying to manipulate us.” It sounds like you’re saying, “Yeah, maybe.” But also that it’s unlikely because of the more technical parts of speech that linguists spend their careers studying.

I would actually maybe turn that on its head and say, “Yeah, that’s every human.” We notice them doing it because we know that they’re selling something to us.

And this isn’t just her. This is Trump. This is J.D. Vance. This is Pete Buttigieg. It’s everybody who has that job, because selling the brand is part of the job. That’s how they keep their jobs.

Do you think that highlighting your New York-ness if you call the New York DMV is going to get you further than if you sound like you’re from California? Sure it is. And nobody had to tell you that. It’s not a conscious process. But arguably, we all do it. 

It’s just that with the politicians, because we know what they want, it’s clearer that they’re doing it. And the line between a politician doing something as a cynical ploy and doing something that really is part of their biography that I actually connect with as a voter is very fine.

As a linguist, what do you make of the deliberate mispronunciations of “Kamala” that have continued, despite her being a prominent national politician for many years now?

The right way to say anyone’s name — anyone’s name — is how they tell you to say their name. Period. That’s the first point. 

@mixedlinguist What’s up with the differences in how people say “Kamala”? Her name has become a shibboleth that tells us about the speaker’s alignment! #linguistTok #kamala ♬ original sound – Nicole Holliday

I know a guy named Christopher. People call him Chris. He doesn’t want to go by Chris. It’s disrespectful. The third time that he tells you, “My name is not Chris,” and you keep doing it, unless you have some kind of really good excuse, it’s disrespectful. 

For years, Kamala Harris has been putting out videos saying, “My name is Kamala,” and the stress is on the first syllable.

Yes, there are many reasons that regular people can get it wrong in conversation, especially if you’re a person that hasn’t heard her name very much, you’ve only read it. Some people have trouble hearing stress differences. If English isn’t your first language, that might be interfering with your ability to hear the way that she’s pronouncing her name with the stress. I’m not at all saying that your pronunciation of her name as an everyday person is an indication of your politics. I’m not making that claim.  

What I am saying is, if you’re the former president of the United States, or a U.S. Senator, or a media personality with extensive training who’s had to say her name thousands of times in your life and you’ve never bothered to try to say it the way that she says it, that’s on purpose.

You’ve also studied Maya Rudolph’s portrayal of Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live. What makes that parody so good?

My first published Kamala Harris paper was about Maya Rudolph. She takes literally the exact phrases and the tone of those phrases that Kamala Harris uses, and then she dials them up to 11. I’m sure that Maya Rudolph doesn’t actually know how to do this the way that I would coach her as a linguist. She’s not looking at the waveform and the pitch up and down and being like, “All right, well, I need to raise myself by 50Hz here.” We don’t do that. But it’s like she really hears what Kamala Harris is doing. She internalizes it. And then when she goes to put on the Kamala Harris costume, it’s like a caricature. 

This is why parody is funny. Everybody that plays a politician on SNL does this to varying levels of effectiveness. But I would argue that Maya Rudolph is just a really skilled comedian anyway. I’m so glad that they just announced that she’s going to play Kamala Harris for the next year. I was really worried that we wouldn’t get more Maya Rudolph. 

But now I have to write another paper.

There are going to be a lot of speeches in the months ahead. There are going to be a lot of campaign stops. What’s next on your list of things to study?

What I didn’t have in the earlier analysis was her in different situations. Now, I hear her being different in Atlanta than in Philadelphia than in Los Angeles. And I want to know: Where is the California-ness? Where is the Black woman-ness? Where is the politician? I think she’s doing all of these things all the time. But I’m also interested in how people respond to her.  

What’s your sense of that response, so far? 

Speaker Mike Johnson said to members of Congress that they should not leverage racist and sexist attacks against her, that it would not help their cause. And they cannot seem to stop doing it.  

I’m interested in how she responds… She’s got a really fine line to walk.  Nicole Holliday, UC Berkeley

So if she gets portrayed as inauthentic by her opponents, I’m interested in how she responds. Does she shift something about her language in that response, or does she not? Maybe she shouldn’t. Maybe the way is to just let this roll off. I’m not a political consultant. But I do think she’s got a really fine line to walk. 

And there’s something really challenging for her, too. With Barack Obama, he did get the criticism that he wasn’t really Black. But in his case, the only other option was that he was white, and that didn’t work. His opponents were not going to go around saying he was white.

For her, because she has all of these identities at the same time — she is Indian American, she is Black American, she’s Jamaican American — there can be a little bit of a whack-a-mole where everyone will always accuse her of not being X enough.

This is disconcerting because it comes from a cultural and linguistic assumption that people can only ever be one thing. But that’s not the world we live in. So when we talk about Kamala Harris as a modern candidate, she is in some ways — with her biography, her ethnicity, her gender — embodying all of the ways the country has moved on from the idea that you can only be one thing at once. 

So I’m very interested to see how she manages to stay true to herself to respond to those never-ending critiques, and what she does with different audiences. 

share this!

August 7, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

A linguist explores what Kamala Harris's voice and speech reveal about her identity

by Jason Pohl, University of California - Berkeley

Every now and then, a scholar's niche expertise lines up with a cultural or political moment and finds an audience hungry for the details. Nicole Holliday is having one of those moments.

Holliday is an acting associate professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley who studies what politicians say, how they speak and what their speech reveals about their identity. Perhaps more than any other scholar, Holliday has spent years examining the speaking style of a politician who is also having a moment: Kamala Harris.

What does Harris's enunciation of vowels say about her California roots? How do a few choice words on the debate stage speak to her background as a Black woman? And how does that all change when she's working a crowd in Georgia or delivering a policy statement in Washington?

"I'm really interested in what happens with the voice, with the body, to inhabit these different parts of a person's style," said Holliday, who has also researched Barack Obama's speaking style. "Politicians are the best people to study this on because you know what their motivations are—they're all trying to get elected, or they're trying to get money, or they're trying to get voters."

Journalists and the general public have become increasingly interested in Holliday's work ever since President Joe Biden dropped his reelection bid and Harris soared to the top of the ticket as the Democratic presidential nominee. Holliday's TikTok videos describing the science of Harris's tone, style and word choice have gone viral, as have her explanations on why, linguistically, it's problematic when people intentionally mispronounce her name. (It's "comma-la.")

Individuals shifting how they speak based on their goals isn't reserved for politicians, and it shouldn't be viewed as inauthentic, Holliday said. Regular people vary their tone and word choice from their workplaces to their homes. Those variations fascinate Holliday.

"Most of the stuff that I'm talking about happens way below the level of consciousness," Holliday said, "It would be really hard to control, even if you were trying."

Berkeley News asked her what her research on Harris says about Harris's culture and identity, why it matters that some people—including Donald Trump—continue to mispronounce her name, and what language can teach us about the current political moment.

Berkeley News : Can you give me the 30,000-foot assessment of what your research has found especially interesting or special about the way Kamala Harris speaks?

Nicole Holliday: She has a really unique style that reflects her biography. She sounds like an African American woman. She sounds like she's from Northern California. She sounds like a charismatic political figure. But these are different identities that one person would have to inhabit all at once, and they're traditionally seen as in conflict.

Our stereotype of a persuasive politician is not a Black and Indian woman. If you ask somebody to draw a picture of an American politician, they're not drawing Kamala Harris. So she's got to be a politician and, at the same time, sound like herself: a woman and Black and Indian American. And rep her hometown because she is a hometown girl, which can be a little bit of a liability for her now on a national stage because of the way that California is painted.

But damn, she is so California.

Say more. As a linguist, what do you hear in her speech that signals her California roots?

When people describe the features that are geographically unique to California in the linguistic literature, they focus on a few things. There is this thing called the California vowel shift , where the back vowels move forward, and this is something that we see Harris do.

She doesn't say "cool." She says "kewl." She doesn't say goat. She says "gewt," with the tongue far forward in the mouth. This is also a change that's been in progress across America, so a lot of young people, even in the Midwest, will pronounce their back vowels far forward like this. But it started in California. It would be very strange if she had those vowels and she was her age and she was from New York. This is not something that they do over there.

Another example: She has this interesting thing going on with what we call the low back vowels. Her low back vowels are distinct, which is not the case for most Californians, but they're both kind of shifted up.

What that means is that words that are like "cot" and "caught," those for me, a person from Ohio, are the same. But for her, they're slightly distinct, but higher than we would expect. That's a really interesting interplay, because I think that has to do with her being a Black woman from California.

If she were a white woman , or if she were a Black man, we might not see this exact pattern.

You also say she's embodying what's called African American English. What do you mean?

I looked at her debate speech from when she was running as a primary candidate for the 2020 nomination. And when she talks about things that have to do with her biography, specifically about race or about immigration—these things that she can speak on from personal experience—she uses a set of tones that is more what we would characterize as an African American charismatic style. So she kinda sounds more like Obama.

When she talks about things like the economy or gun control or the climate, she uses a more typical, average white politician style, in terms of her tone. It is very interesting. And in this situation, it's not a function of talking to different audiences, because she's just in the same debate. It's really what she's talking about.

Lastly, she has this very occasional strategic use of casual features that are, for white Americans, just seen as really casual, but can also be what we call "camouflaged features of African American English." This is my favorite thing. African American English is stigmatized. People call it "bad English." They say it's "improper." All of this kind of stuff. But as a result, middle class and upper middle class Black people have found a way to kind of index their Blackness—highlight this part of their identities—without getting chastised for using "bad grammar."

And she does this even in the super formal debate speech.

She uses "gotta" and "gonna" in these particular ways. And of course, yes, white people say "gotta" and "gonna." Everybody in America says "gotta" and "gonna." But in a debate context, that is a little bit surprising, given how formal the rest of her style is.

Is there an example of her doing this that comes to mind?

My favorite quote from her is from Oct. 15th, 2019, in the fourth primary debate. She said, "This is a crisis of Donald Trump's making, and it is on a long list of crises of Donald Trump's making. And that's why dude gotta go."

"Dude. Gotta. Go." Not "Dude's gotta go." No. For a while, her primary campaign was selling T-shirts that said, "Dude gotta go." It became a catchphrase. When I say that she's doing this as part of a stylistic performance, that's what I mean. Maybe it wasn't premeditated. She didn't think about it ahead of time. But that became a zinger, a one-liner. And when she has these strong zingers, particularly against Trump, they tend to go viral.

The last one is with "I'ma," which is actually the most distinctively African American of these features. She says, "Cause I'ma tell you as a prosecutor" and "I'ma tell you what I saw."

We hear her do it now, too, once in a while. This is her being able to be like, "Look, look, look. I have these fancy degrees and I'm a prosecutor. And yes, I'm the vice president of the United States. But don't forget that I'm from Oakland, and I'm Black."

How much of this is conscious? And how much of this is just the deeply ingrained way we speak that's been honed from decades of talking?

Political figures have debate coaches, speech coaches, things like that. But my sense is that the stuff that she's doing in this case would be really hard to control. Maybe you can make a little argument about the "I'ma" and the "gotta."

But the vowels? I'm a professional linguist, and if someone was like, "Make your vowels more California," I don't think I could do that. Especially not when I'm trying to, like, deliver a policy position. The cognitive load is too high.

That holds even more for what I'm saying about the stuff that she does with her tone. It's not really possible to do this at the level of consciousness. We choose our words, for sure, but even those in a debate kind of context are a little bit difficult. Those are the things you prep.

But your speech coach is never gonna be like, "All right, so you need to raise the pitch by exactly 50Hz on the first syllable of prosecutor." It doesn't happen. It may be that she has a style in mind, but controlling the specific features that are attached to it is not really possible,

I could see some people with a cynical reading of all of this being like, "Nothing is real, everything is prepared, they're all politicians, and they're all trying to manipulate us." It sounds like you're saying, "Yeah, maybe." But also that it's unlikely because of the more technical parts of speech that linguists spend their careers studying.

I would actually maybe turn that on its head and say, "Yeah, that's every human." We notice them doing it because we know that they're selling something to us.

And this isn't just her. This is Trump. This is J.D. Vance. This is Pete Buttigieg. It's everybody who has that job, because selling the brand is part of the job. That's how they keep their jobs.

Do you think that highlighting your New York-ness if you call the New York DMV is going to get you further than if you sound like you're from California? Sure it is. And nobody had to tell you that. It's not a conscious process. But arguably, we all do it.

It's just that with the politicians, because we know what they want, it's clearer that they're doing it. And the line between a politician doing something as a cynical ploy and doing something that really is part of their biography that I actually connect with as a voter is very fine.

As a linguist, what do you make of the deliberate mispronunciations of 'Kamala' that have continued, despite her being a prominent national politician for many years now?

The right way to say anyone's name—anyone's name—is how they tell you to say their name. Period. That's the first point.

I know a guy named Christopher. People call him Chris. He doesn't want to go by Chris. It's disrespectful. The third time that he tells you, "My name is not Chris," and you keep doing it, unless you have some kind of really good excuse, it's disrespectful.

For years, Kamala Harris has been putting out videos saying, "My name is Kamala," and the stress is on the first syllable.

Yes, there are many reasons that regular people can get it wrong in conversation, especially if you're a person that hasn't heard her name very much, you've only read it.

Some people have trouble hearing stress differences. If English isn't your first language, that might be interfering with your ability to hear the way that she's pronouncing her name with the stress. I'm not at all saying that your pronunciation of her name as an everyday person is an indication of your politics. I'm not making that claim.

What I am saying is, if you're the former president of the United States, or a U.S. Senator, or a media personality with extensive training who's had to say her name thousands of times in your life and you've never bothered to try to say it the way that she says it, that's on purpose.

You've also studied Maya Rudolph's portrayal of Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live. What makes that parody so good?

My first published Kamala Harris paper was about Maya Rudolph. She takes literally the exact phrases and the tone of those phrases that Kamala Harris uses, and then she dials them up to 11. I'm sure that Maya Rudolph doesn't actually know how to do this the way that I would coach her as a linguist.

She's not looking at the waveform and the pitch up and down and being like, "All right, well, I need to raise myself by 50Hz here." We don't do that. But it's like she really hears what Kamala Harris is doing. She internalizes it. And then when she goes to put on the Kamala Harris costume, it's like a caricature.

This is why parody is funny. Everybody that plays a politician on SNL does this to varying levels of effectiveness. But I would argue that Maya Rudolph is just a really skilled comedian anyway. I'm so glad that they just announced that she's going to play Kamala Harris for the next year. I was really worried that we wouldn't get more Maya Rudolph.

But now I have to write another paper.

There are going to be a lot of speeches in the months ahead. There are going to be a lot of campaign stops. What's next on your list of things to study?

What I didn't have in the earlier analysis was her in different situations. Now, I hear her being different in Atlanta than in Philadelphia than in Los Angeles. And I want to know: Where is the California-ness? Where is the Black woman-ness? Where is the politician? I think she's doing all of these things all the time. But I'm also interested in how people respond to her.

What's your sense of that response, so far?

Speaker Mike Johnson said to members of Congress that they should not leverage racist and sexist attacks against her, that it would not help their cause. And they cannot seem to stop doing it.

So if she gets portrayed as inauthentic by her opponents, I'm interested in how she responds. Does she shift something about her language in that response, or does she not? Maybe she shouldn't. Maybe the way is to just let this roll off. I'm not a political consultant. But I do think she's got a really fine line to walk.

And there's something really challenging for her, too. With Barack Obama, he did get the criticism that he wasn't really Black. But in his case, the only other option was that he was white, and that didn't work. His opponents were not going to go around saying he was white.

For her, because she has all of these identities at the same time—she is Indian American, she is Black American, she's Jamaican American—there can be a little bit of a whack-a-mole where everyone will always accuse her of not being X enough.

This is disconcerting because it comes from a cultural and linguistic assumption that people can only ever be one thing. But that's not the world we live in. So when we talk about Kamala Harris as a modern candidate, she is in some ways—with her biography, her ethnicity, her gender—embodying all of the ways the country has moved on from the idea that you can only be one thing at once.

So I'm very interested to see how she manages to stay true to herself to respond to those never-ending critiques, and what she does with different audiences.

Provided by University of California - Berkeley

Explore further

Feedback to editors

135-million-year-old marine crocodile sheds light on Cretaceous life

2 hours ago

Researchers discover new material for optically-controlled magnetic memory

3 hours ago

A new mechanism for shaping animal tissues

5 hours ago

NASA tests deployment of Roman Space Telescope's 'visor'

How do butterflies stick to branches during metamorphosis?

7 hours ago

Historic fires trapped in Antarctic ice yield key information for climate models

Hubble spotlights a supernova

8 hours ago

New technology uses light to engrave erasable 3D images

Seagrasses filter human pathogens in marine waters

3D laser printing with bioinks from microalgae

9 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better, favorite songs (cont.).

10 hours ago

Why are ABBA so popular?

Today's fusion music: t square, cassiopeia, rei & kanade sato.

Aug 7, 2024

Biographies, history, personal accounts

Aug 6, 2024

Bach, Bach, and more Bach please

Aug 1, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Q&A: How do presidential candidates embody ideas about race and national identity, including views of Latinos?

Q&A: Harris 2024? Here's what election and campaign finance laws say

Jul 23, 2024

X's AI chatbot spread election misinformation, US officials say

White House sets policies for federal AI use

Mar 28, 2024

The intonation biracial men use changes when they speak about race

Jul 22, 2021

Q&A: Researchers discuss how claims of anti-Christian bias can serve as racial dog whistles

Apr 15, 2024

Recommended for you

Potential terrorists can be identified from social media posts, new research shows

Aug 2, 2024

Beyond casualties: The enduring trauma of bereavement after armed conflicts

Jul 29, 2024

Communicating numbers boosts trust in climate change science, research suggests

Jul 26, 2024

Study finds most Afghans support women's rights, especially when men think of their daughters

Jul 17, 2024

New tools are needed to make water affordable, says study

Jul 10, 2024

Motivated to disagree: What can be learned about rapid polarization from the Israeli judicial reform?

Jul 5, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

‘I hope they take their time in their recovery’

Worried about violence, threats as election nears? Just say no.

Alone in the spotlight but not alone

Shawn Ginwright, Jerome T. Murphy Professor of the Practice, at the Graduate School of Education.

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

How to help urban young people progress? Nurture hope.

Harvard Staff Writer

Youth development specialist promotes holistic approach to healing, growth of individuals, communities amid poverty, drugs, trauma

A series focused on the personal side of Harvard research and teaching.

During his sophomore year at San Diego State University,  Shawn Ginwright  worked at a middle school. He befriended and mentored a student there named Michael, and on the day when the two were to visit Ginwright’s college, Michael didn’t show up. He had been killed in the driveway of his apartment building. He was 15 years old.

The young man’s death stunned all those around him, including Ginwright, who began to see how much trauma and hopelessness Black youth face amid the poverty and crime that plague many urban neighborhoods. He felt that he’d found his calling.

“What happened to Michael shaped how I thought about my career and how I wanted to spend my life,” said Ginwright, Jerome T. Murphy Professor of the Practice at  Harvard Graduate School of Education . “I realized that it wasn’t just the issues of poverty and the influx of drugs, but that young people were losing hope.” 

Ginwright went on to pursue a doctorate at the University of California, Berkeley, and become a scholar of youth development and social and emotional learning. With his wife, Nedra, he launched a summer camp in San Diego in 1989 for Black youth to offer resources for healing and growth, and later, he founded a  nonprofit  in Oakland, California, to empower marginalized youth. 

“I realized that it wasn’t only Michael, that there were thousands and thousands of Black young people who were losing hope, had no vision of their lives for the future, and no avenue or pathway to achieve it, except for drugs and so forth.” Shawn Ginwright

“I realized that it wasn’t only Michael, that there were thousands and thousands of Black young people who were losing hope, had no vision of their lives for the future, and no avenue or pathway to achieve it, except for drugs and so forth,” said Ginwright. “My work has tried to understand both the conditions and secondly, the solutions for young people to have pathways out of misery and hopelessness.”

Ginwright has written four books on Black youth development, youth activism, and urban education. He is known for his theories of radical healing and healing-centered pedagogy, which embrace a holistic approach to addressing the challenges faced by American youth. His ideas also serve as a rebuttal to programs that focus on prevention through discipline and fear.

“Radical healing was a response to the dearth of programmatic ways of thinking about Black youth and to the belief that Black and marginalized youth are problems rather than possibilities,” said Ginwright. “It also came from the idea that you must understand what’s going on in young people’s lives and how they experience trauma. Some youths are not just thinking about suspensions or dropping out of school; they’re worried about being shot or killed.”

Ginwright’s approach seeks to overcome the limitations of a trauma-informed focus in youth development programs. His thinking sprang from a conversation he had with a young man who was participating in an initiative he was running in Oakland in the early 2000s. 

“This young man said to me, ‘I don’t like to always talk about the worst thing that ever happened to me; I want to talk about my dreams and hopes,’” said Ginwright. “That made me think about the gaps in trauma-informed approaches because naming somebody a trauma victim does not acknowledge their assets. You can be wounded but still have assets, dreams and hopes. Healing-centered engagement involves a more holistic way to support young people who experience trauma.”

“You can be wounded but still have assets, dreams and hopes. Healing-centered engagement involves a more holistic way to support young people who experience trauma.” Shawn Ginwright

Around that time, Ginwright also experienced something of a personal crisis as he was dealing with the pressures of pursuing a doctorate, raising money for youth programs, and caring for his young family. 

“I was so stressed, and one night I just woke up crying, uncontrollably sobbing,” he said. “I shared that with the young people one Saturday morning, and it allowed them to see me as a human being. Part of our journey working with young people is how we must be human with one another.” 

Through his work, rooted in more than 30 years of experience, Ginwright hopes to both broaden the concept of behavioral and mental health and shift the approach that considers trauma episodic and only experienced by individuals. Trauma can be also environmental, said Ginwright, and healing needs to happen at the individual, interpersonal, and institutional levels.

“Behavioral and mental health is also the fact that young people may have shame because their mother uses drugs, or they’re not sure where they’ll be living next week,” said Ginwright. “It’s racism and discrimination. The fact that young Black people walk into a store and are followed around also affects their mental health.” 

He noted that “part of what I’m trying to get people to understand is that we have to widen our understanding of what creates trauma to come up with responses that are holistic because while we need to treat individuals, the entire neighborhood, the entire ZIP code is experiencing trauma.”

Christina Villarreal is a lecturer at the Ed School who specializes in ethnic studies in education, teacher education, and trauma and healing. She says that Ginwright, who was her master’s thesis adviser at San Francisco State University and a member of her doctoral dissertation committee at Columbia, has helped bring about change in the field. 

“He is somebody who has pushed against pathology, which happens a lot in our field — a tendency to focus on the problem rather than solutions,” said Villarreal. 

“I’d say that at least over 10 years that I’ve known him, because of his work and research I’ve seen so many people move toward thinking differently about how we approach trauma, especially in schools, specifically that young people are more than the trauma that they experience.” Christina Villarreal

“I’d say that at least over 10 years that I’ve known him, because of his work and research I’ve seen so many people move toward thinking differently about how we approach trauma, especially in schools, specifically that young people are more than the trauma that they experience.” 

Working with young people to help them heal from trauma requires imagination, said Ginwright, who would like to see behavioral and mental health conversations taking place in basketball courts, beauty salons, or barber shops.

“Young people experience all kinds of trauma, and they have no way to talk about it,” said Ginwright. “When we created our first camp in San Diego, we were overwhelmed by the amount of sorrow, hopelessness, joy, and beauty that these young people brought in.” 

He also noted that transforming the lives of individual young people pays an additional dividend: It helps change entire communities. 

“I changed listening to their stories year after year after year, and [it] gave me a sense of compassion, empathy and joy,” said Ginwright. “Because when you see young people who have experienced trauma and still desire joy and want to be embraced and be hugged, that shifts you. What I’ve learned is that it’s not just what we do for young people, but it’s also what they do for us. There’s a relationship between our own healing and the healing of young people.”

Share this article

You might like.

Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, held for 544 by Iran, offers advice to three Americans just released by Russia

Key is for leaders, voters to stand in solidarity against it, political scientists say 

Cognitive neurologist sees lessons in age-focused conversations around Biden’s exit, but also a lack of nuance 

Garber to serve as president through 2026-27 academic year

Search for successor will launch in 2026

Finding right mix on campus speech policies

Legal, political scholars discuss balancing personal safety, constitutional rights, academic freedom amid roiling protests, cultural shifts

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR Public Editor

Provocative political speech, when does it merit more reporting.

When former President Donald Trump goes off script, as he frequently does during his campaign speeches, reporters have to figure out how much time and energy they should spend documenting and explaining his digressions. Those small side trips in his speeches offer a window into his thinking. But it’s rarely a clear view.

During a recent speech to a group of Christians, Trump had one such moment. He said something strange, and many news organizations reported it, including NPR. A small paraphrase of Trump’s words in NPR’s online story generated a number of letters to our inbox.

Readers told us they thought the paraphrase softened Trump’s statement, making it sound less alarming.

We dug into the decision-making behind the reporting. The audience members who wrote to us were concerned with accuracy: Was the paraphrased description faithful to the actual statement Trump uttered? After looking at the facts and the timeline, I added two additional questions: Did the formats that NPR selected — a short audio spot and a short online story — allow for enough context? Did Trump’s new statement merit additional reporting?

We also address a second audience question about anonymous sourcing. Read on to see what we learned.

Then, we spotlight an investigative story that originated in NPR’s Midwest Newsroom on the adequacy of the foster care system. It’s great to see accountability journalism focused on the geographic middle of the country. — Kelly McBride

Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. Letters are edited for length and clarity. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the  NPR Contact page . hide caption

What did former President Trump mean?

We received numerous comments about NPR’s coverage of Trump’s statements to a gathering of Christians. Here’s a sample:

Parker Morse wrote on July 27: (NPR) re-casts (Trump’s) words: “Christian-related concerns will be ‘fixed’ so much so that they would no longer need to be politically engaged.” This is distorting what he actually said. He said nothing about not needing to be politically engaged. He said they would not need to vote. These are not the same thing. One is a (fatuous and unbelievable) promise to solve complex problems so they’ll go away. The other is a promise to suppress opposition such that elections are a foregone conclusion. NPR should not be minimizing the import of these statements.

Christy Sanders wrote on July 27: Please, do not whitewash your reporting. Your post on Threads covering Trump’s speech at a Turning Point USA event is incorrect. He did not say that Christians wouldn’t need to be politically engaged after he gets reelected. Here’s the actual quote: “You won’t need to vote anymore.” Clearly different and clearly toned down.

Stephanie Vaupel-Juart wrote on July 29: He said nothing about politically engaged. Are you speculating that is what he meant? The words were very clear. The words “they would no longer need to be politically engaged” were never spoken. … 

Former President Donald Trump addressed the Believers Summit in late July in West Palm Beach, Florida. The summit, organized by the political nonprofit Turning Point USA, was designed to help evangelical Christians participate in civic life.

Trump’s hourlong speech was mostly his standard campaign speech as of late. But he modified it in places to appeal to Christians, promising to protect them in government-funded spaces like schools and the military. Several times during the speech, Trump pointed out that Christians vote at lower rates. They “do not vote proportionately,” he said. “They’re not big voters.”

In the closing minutes of his speech, he returned to that point, urging Christians to get out and vote. Here’s the entire quote, transcribed and punctuated by this team:

“If you want to save America, get your friends, get your family, get everyone you know, and vote. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on Election Day. I don’t care how, but you have to get out and vote. And again, Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” said Trump . “You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you. Get out. You’ve gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”

That statement received a lot of press coverage . It was new, a detour from his standard stump speech. It was confusing to many people, and alarming to some.

National political correspondent Sarah McCammon heard the comments from the late Friday evening speech and filed a short audio piece to be used in the newscasts, the quick roundup of news that airs at the top of the hour. In that piece, she recapped his familiar promises, pointed out that the audience was primarily Christians, and then said, “He also called on Christians to vote this year and seemed to suggest their votes would be unnecessary in the next election.” After that, she inserted the audio of Trump saying, “You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you. Get out. You gotta get out and vote.”

That audio spot for the newscast accurately represented what happened. It didn’t attempt to explain what Trump meant. Newscast stories are always very short and straightforward.

It was just before midnight on a Friday when she forwarded her script to her colleagues who would be working on Saturday and suggested that it would make a good story for NPR’s website.

The next day, NPR published the article that elicited so many letters to the Public Editor inbox. The headline, “Trump tells Christian voters they ‘won’t have to vote anymore’ if he’s elected,” is almost identical to what many other news outlets chose for their headlines. The article included a portion of Trump’s direct quote.

In the paragraph before the quote, the text describes Trump’s message about getting Christians to vote for him. Then the article sets up the Trump quote by paraphrasing the perplexing parts of his speech: Trump “added that if elected, Christian-related concerns will be ‘fixed’ so much so that they would no longer need to be politically engaged.”

The article then launches into a portion of the direct quote from Trump.

A promotion of the article on NPR’s Threads account also read: “Speaking at a gathering of religious conservatives, Donald Trump said if he’s reelected, Christian-related concerns will be ‘fixed’ so much so that they would no longer need to be politically engaged.”

Chief Washington editor Krishnadev Calamur told us that NPR’s Washington Desk is not usually staffed on the weekends, which is why the digital story was turned over to the staff on the weekend Digital News Hub team. “In an ideal world, somebody like me would have backread it and provided that context, and maybe that language should have been sharpened,” he said. “It’s a mea culpa, but I think our staff just doesn’t allow for us to be on every day.”

This story needed better editing, and not just to prevent the vague wording. The story itself needed explaining. What did Trump mean when he suggested that Christians should turn out once to secure his election and then never again? Other news organizations sought more clarity, and while the reporting was inconclusive, reading those stories allows news consumers to see the context of related statements and confirm that the former president is being deliberately opaque about what he meant.

McCammon’s news spot served the journalistic purpose of noting that Trump said something provocative. After all, a politician suggesting it won’t be necessary for voters to vote in future elections is undemocratic and worth reporting, just to get the statement documented.

The Saturday web story was always intended to be a reworked version of the newscast spot that was filed the night before, supervising editor Alina Hartounian told us via email. While there was some discussion about the story among editors via Slack, she said no one encouraged the reporter to follow up with the Trump campaign.

Although the plan was to do a short, online story, that wasn’t the best way to serve NPR’s audience. In addition to more reporting, news consumers needed context and analysis that would help people judge for themselves Trump’s commitment to democratic principles.

The logical follow-up story would quote sources from inside the campaign who can describe why Trump was repeating the assertion that Christians don’t turn out to vote and what he meant about showing up once and then never again. NPR was not alone in letting Trump’s statement stand alone. By the response in our inbox and to the NPR post on Threads, we can tell that listeners were dissatisfied.

Short and quick can often be the enemy of context and understanding. Breaking developments come fast and furious in this presidential election cycle. The first short story on a surprise statement from a presidential candidate is expected. The next story should bring more clarity, by asking questions and seeking answers. Most often those needs are identified in the editing stages, at which point the story is held for more information, or a third story is assigned. Neither of those options was exercised. That left the audience wanting more. — Amaris Castillo and Kelly McBride

Why use anonymous sources?

Alexander Hoffman wrote on July 28: This morning, the NPR newscast reports two (not at all juicy) tidbits about the Democratic VP search. 1) The Harris campaign is vetting something like a dozen people. 2) They are looking for someone with executive experience who can be a governing partner. These tidbits were cited to anonymous sources, who were provided anonymity “so they could speak about a secret process,” or something very much like that. Is this appropriate? I mean, does this follow NPR’s policy on providing anonymity? I’ve got to think not.

The facts in this short news spot, reported by senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, were meant to let the NPR audience know that NPR was on the case, reporting out the nagging question: Who was Vice President Kamala Harris going to name as her running mate?

Calamur told us that the information wasn’t particularly earth-shattering, but it did advance the story. That said, he understands the objection to using anonymous sources.

“One can say that is disingenuous and it’s not good for the real audience,” he said. “I won’t debate any of it,” and NPR has “a strong ethics rulebook on it.”

In this case, the reporter followed NPR’s guidelines . She revealed her sources to the managing editor on duty that day, who approved their use.

Calamur said he believes that if the audience doesn’t hear that story on NPR, they will go somewhere else looking for it. After all, it was the pressing political question of the day.

“It’s the cost of doing business in Washington, D.C.” he said. “A lot of the things that we learn from our sources are not things those sources are allowed to tell us. So we grant them anonymity to tell us that and verify it independently. Usually we do it with two sources.”

Fair enough. Harris’s search for a running mate was a story everyone was seeking. And NPR’s reporting told a different story than other journalists who were speculating on the existence of a short list. The transparency about the sourcing is valuable because it offers the audience some insight into the reason NPR is reporting the information. — Kelly McBride

The Public Editor spends a lot of time examining moments where NPR fell short. Yet we also learn a lot about NPR by looking at work that we find to be compelling and excellent journalism. Here we share a line or two about the pieces where NPR shines. hide caption

Scarce resources for at-risk girls in foster care

Facilities for girls in the foster care system with specialized needs in Iowa and Missouri don’t have enough beds available to meet demand, Kristofor Husted recently reported . Husted produced the story for the Midwest Newsroom, an investigative journalism collaboration between member stations and NPR. The story takes a 360-degree look at the issue. Husted interviewed a woman who found success after being placed in a specialized facility as a child. He also talked with experts about why girls with behavioral issues stemming from PTSD, bipolar disorder or other mental health issues have different needs than boys. The audio story and the accompanying digital story, with its compelling photos and graphics, help the audience understand why the issue matters . — Emily Barske Wood

The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo and Emily Barske Wood and copy editor Merrill Perlman make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on  Facebook ,  X  and  from our inbox . As always, keep them coming.

Kelly McBride NPR Public Editor Chair,  Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute

• journalism ethics