The shape of a rebuttal
Six lines of a rebuttal, out of order. Put them into the order that concedes before it attacks.
- So the finding is real, and much narrower than it has been reported as being.
- It is not the evidence I dispute — the trials found what they say they found.
- It is not that I think they are wrong; it is that I do not think they have shown it.
- I want to start by conceding the thing we are expected to fight about.
- Every trial in that list was run by an organisation that volunteered.
- What I dispute is what the numbers are of.
A rebuttal that locates before it argues
Two minutes in reply
I want to start by conceding the thing we are expected to fight about, because I do not think it is where the disagreement is.
It is not the evidence I dispute. The trials found what they say they found, and I have no quarrel with the numbers.
What I dispute is what the numbers are of. Every trial in that list was run by an organisation that volunteered, and organisations that volunteer for this are not a random sample. They are the ones who already suspected it would work.
So the finding is real, and its scope is far narrower than it has been reported as being. It tells us what happens when a confident employer tries something. It tells us nothing about the case my opponents’ argument actually depends on, which is the reluctant employer with thin margins.
What would change my mind is one trial in a setting where the hours are the work — a ward, a warehouse, a school. Until there is one, this is an argument about offices being conducted as though it were an argument about work.
It is not that I think they are wrong. It is that I do not think they have shown it yet.
Three questions about how the rebuttal is built.
1. Why concede the evidence in the second paragraph?
2. What is the actual objection?
3. What does the last line do?
Four moves of a rebuttal
The rebuttal made four moves: concede the expected battleground · locate the disagreement with a cleft · give the evidence for that location · say what would change your mind.
The fourth move is the one that separates argument from position-holding, and it is the one nobody makes.
Eight phrases. Match each to the move it makes.
Two minutes of assembly
Seven gaps. Clefts where they are earned, plain sentences where they are not.
I will concede the evidence. the numbers I dispute. I dispute is what they are numbers of. Every trial by an organisation that volunteered. not a random sample. So the finding is real, and narrower than reported. would change my mind is a trial in a setting where the hours are the work. I think you are wrong; it is that you have not shown it.
Five sentences of the kind that appear when somebody is rebutting at speed.
1. It is not the evidence what I dispute.
2. What I dispute are the numbers.
3. It is really absolutely the sample that is the problem.
4. Is not that you are wrong, is that you have not shown it.
5. What would change my mind is if there was a trial in a hospital.
The debate, and then the one sentence
How the twenty-six minutes run. Four minutes alone, fourteen in fours — a structured debate, two a side — six for the last stage, and two to move.
Stage 1 · Alone · 4 minutes
Take a side on a question the group agrees on: four-day week, cars in city centres, university admissions, whether return migration is a success.
Four minutes. Three claims and one anticipated objection.
- Three claims, each in one sentence, each with the evidence named.
- The strongest objection to your case, written at full strength.
- The concession you are prepared to make — the thing you will not fight about.
- What would change your mind. Write it before the debate starts, not after.
Stage 2 · Fours · 14 minutes · Structured debate
Two a side. Opening cases, rebuttals, responses — with one rule about how a rebuttal starts.
Two minutes each for the openings, two each for the rebuttals, one each for the responses.
- Openings (2 min each side): the three claims, with evidence.
- Rebuttals (2 min each side): must begin with a concession and then a cleft locating the disagreement. It is not X that we dispute; what we dispute is Y.
- Responses (1 min each side): answer the located objection, not the opening case.
- Anybody may call "where is the disagreement?" once per side. The speaker must answer in one sentence.
Stage 3 · All four together · 6 minutes
Stop debating. Produce one sentence that all four of you would sign, naming where the disagreement actually is.
One sentence, agreed by all four, in the form of a cleft.
- It is not X that we disagree about; it is Y. Or: What we disagree about is whether…
- It has to be a real disagreement — something that could in principle be settled by evidence or by a value you can name.
- If you cannot agree on the sentence, that is the finding: say which two candidates you were choosing between.
- Read it out. The other groups say whether it names something worth arguing about.
What the one sentence found
Two questions.
1. When you tried to write the sentence, what did you find?
2. What did the cleft do that ordinary sentences had not?
Locate, then argue
Two questions. Twenty seconds.
1. What is the strongest opening move in a rebuttal?
2. What does "what would change my mind" add?
Next. The errors this area produces — including the one that makes a cleft weaker rather than stronger.