Four-point refutation

Four-point refutation is a method of structuring responses to arguments. It is widely considered the most effective way to deliver a refutation, in any circumstance, and can be used in any type of debate.

This structure can actually be adapted to any type of argument, not just refutations; for this reason, it may be known by other names, such as the "apocalypse structure".

Structure
As the name implies, four-point refutation divides the argument into four points. The four parts may be known by many different names:


 * Link, Response, Warrants, Impact
 * Identify, Point, Support, Impact
 * Identify, Claim, Support, Impact
 * Restate, Refute, Support, Conclude
 * Name, Explain, Support, Conclude
 * You say, We disagree, Because, Therefore

Because the choice of names is essentially arbitrary, this article will identify each point by its purpose, rather than a specific name. In practice, debaters rarely name each point in-round; a typical four-point refutation will flow smoothly from one point to the next, without saying "point 2" or something similar.

Point 1: Identify the argument in question
The speaker indicates what argument is being refuted. This may be an simple reference ("Under their argument about taxes...") or a short restatement ("They said our case required invading Canada.") The more concise, the better - the goal is to help the judge connect the response to the original argument, not to re-state the entire argument for the other team.

Point 2: Summarize the response
The speaker briefly summarizes the central idea of the response. Again, the more concise, the better - the purpose of this point is to present the central idea and give the judge something to write down, not to explain the entire argument. The speaker does not provide support in this stage, unless the response is so simple that the support is self-contained in the summary.

Point 3: Support the response
The speaker explains the response in more detail and, if necessary, supports it with logic, evidence, or both. Common knowledge may also be referenced.

Point 4: Explain the implications
Finally, the speaker shows why the response matters. What is the real-world impact - how does this response affect the judge's life? How does this response fit into the overall context of the team's position?

Strategic advantages
Four-point refutation has a variety of possible benefits:


 * 1) Flow: By having a consistent pattern for delivering arguments, the speaker doesn't have to worry about what to say next: once they are finished with one point, they move on to the next. All the core points of the argument will be automatically covered without having to think about it too much. This can make the flow of the speech much smoother.
 * 2) Clarity: Arguments that use four-point refutation are generally much easier to follow. By explaining the context and general claim first, and then moving on to the details, the judge hears information in the order their brain can most naturally process it. This makes the argument much easier to follow (and flow) than a disconnected series of facts.
 * 3) Completeness: Four-point refutation automatically includes all the key elements of an argument, so the speaker is less likely to forget any of them.