Refuting an Argument

 

When you refute an argument, you respond to it--you argue against it.

 

Here’s the step by step process of doing this:

 

STEP ONE (State the number and label of the argument):

 

STEP TWO (Transfer--transition into your arguments):

 

STEP THREE: Respond and Counterargue

(Respond--“Press” the argument--point out it’s flaws)

(Respond--“Counterargue”--use evidence against the argument)

 

STEP FOUR: (Sum up and transition to your responses to the next opponent argument)

 

EXAMPLE

STEP ONE (State the number and label of the argument):

Her second argument was “SELF REGULATION WILL NEVER PREVENT INTERNET PRIVACY VIOLATIONS”

STEP TWO (Transfer--transition into your arguments):

I disagree.

STEP THREE:

(Respond: “Press” the argument--point out it’s flaws)

First, THE EVIDENCE NEVER PROVES THAT PRIVACY VIOLATIONS WILL NEVER BE PREVENTED.

The evidence just says that there is an incentive to violate privacy.

(Respond: “Counterargue”--use evidence against the argument)

Second, THE MARKET IS ALREADY GIVING THE INCENTIVE TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS

FORBES, April 17, 2000, p. 40.

The market is also making it possible for people to surf the Internet anonymously. Consumers today can block the "cookies" many Web sites send out by making simple changes to their Internet browsers. As well, vendors will enable Internet users to send e-mail anonymously. The market will provide more privacy, if that's what consumers want. The nannies worry that those on the wrong side of a "digital divide" won't know what they want. For the moment the FTC has concluded that self- regulation by the industry is sufficient to address whatever privacy concerns currently exist. That's good news. Regulations tend to outlast their usefulness. If there is a privacy problem, technology -- the market -- will solve it. If there is regulation, it will be on the books for a lifetime.

STEP FOUR: (Sum up and transition to your responses to the next opponent argument)

So, the market does encourage privacy protection and there is no proof it will never prevent violations, contrary to my opponent’s claim. Now, let’s go to her third argument . . .