College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 07:56:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Trivia, or debate history, or argument history, or something  (Read 2029 times)
DoyleSrader
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


« on: February 05, 2016, 07:09:37 PM »

Four-step refutation: where did it first see print? Is it an Austin Freeley or George Ziegelmueller legacy, or does its provenance stretch back even further than that?
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2016, 07:44:28 PM »

Four-step refutation: where did it first see print? Is it an Austin Freeley or George Ziegelmueller legacy, or does its provenance stretch back even further than that?

William Trufant Foster's Second Edition of Argumentation and Debate (2nd ed.) (1932) has the following:

"In attacking an argument, one should make clear at the outset, as a rule, exactly what he purposes to refute; he should explain as he proceeds just how his refutation is accomplished its purpose; and, finally, he should state precisely the effect of his destructive work and the consequent status of the controversy."

I'm not sure if this is the oldest reference to how to deliver refutation, but flipping through a few texts in my office from the 1930s (courtesy of George Z), this was the first one to include any discussion of the delivery of refutation.
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
CouldaBeenaContenda
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73


« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2016, 07:15:18 AM »

1. State it
2. Relate it
3. Refute it
4. Restate it  

That's the way I learned it, from the annual, topical debate handbooks published in the late 1960s.  Those manuals commonly referenced Mr. Freeley's text, but just as they ushered in the cut-and-paste era of accumulating debate evidence, they, themselves, surely had simply copied it from one another.

By 1980 it was:  
1. State an outline header number or letter (i.e. "1" , "C", "small b", etc.). A paraphrase of the contention, claim or warrant that the preceding speaker may have indexed to that outline header is optional
2. State a person's name and a calendar year
3. Rapidly read aloud a stream of words attributed to the aforenamed that include at least two nouns that are relevant to the outline-referenced contention, claim or warrant, and a verb that can be construed to establish a relationship between those two nouns.
4. Double-gulp inhale

- Michael W. Toland
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 12:55:45 AM by CouldaBeenaContenda » Logged

Dover (New Hampshire) High School debate team, 1967-1970
Dover High School Debate Coach, 1970-1971
University of New Hampshire debate team, 1970 (when we still spoke like human beings)
University of New Hampshire debate team, 1980-1981 (and when we didn't)
UNH assistant debate coach, 1980-1981
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2016, 11:54:41 AM »

Kelly is right--even William Trufant Foster's first edition in 1908 (Argumentation and Debating, New York: Houghton Mifflin) has a couple of in-depth chapters on refutation.  P228 is the most concise advice where he basically says you have to know what you are refuting and how you plan to refute.  In other words, say what they say, say why they are wrong and build your argument, say why their potential response is not sufficient, and say why it matters.  Pretty standard even if actual implementation falls short at times.  You could also look at Charles Irvin (1939) in the QSJ (ďAn Intelligent Guide to RefutationĒ), but itís not all that good and a bit condescending.  Iím sure if you are mostly looking for a chronological origin, the Greeks have a few claims as does ancient China.  See Lu, X. (1998). Rhetoric in ancient China, fifth to third century B.C.E.: A comparison with classical Creek rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Kevin Kuswa
Logged
DoyleSrader
Newbie
*
Posts: 31


« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2016, 02:34:19 PM »

Thanks much, Kelly & Kevin. Toland, go away.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!