Similar to debate, the refutation pattern of arrangement addresses each main point and then refutes (disproves) an opposing claim to your position. The aim here is to bolster your own position by disproving the opposing claim. This pattern can effectively address competing arguments (see Chapter 25). Refutation is a favorite tool of political candidates, who use it to strengthen their position on an issue and debunk the position taken by the opposing candidate.
If done well, refutation may influence audience members who either disagree with you or are conflicted about where they stand. Note that it is important to refute strong rather than weak objections to the claim, since refuting weak objections won’t sway the audience.3 Further, it is probably best to use this pattern when you are confident that the opposing argument is weak and vulnerable to attack.
Main points arranged in a refutation pattern follow a format similar to this:
| MAIN POINT I: | State the opposing position. |
| MAIN POINT II: | Describe the implications or ramifications of the opposing claim. |
| MAIN POINT III: | Offer arguments and evidence for your position. |
| MAIN POINT IV: | Contrast your position with the opposing claim to drive home the superiority of your position. |
Consider the speaker who argues for increased energy conservation versus a policy of drilling for oil in protected land in Alaska:
| THESIS: | Rather than drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), we should focus on energy conservation measures as a way of protecting the environment. |
| MAIN POINT I: | Proponents claim that drilling in the Arctic refuge is necessary to decrease dependence on foreign oil sources and hold down fuel costs while adding jobs, and that modern drilling techniques along with certain environmental restrictions will result in little negative impact on the environment. (Describes opposing claims) |
| MAIN POINT II: | By calling for drilling, these proponents sidestep our need for stricter energy conservation policies, overlook the need to protect one of the last great pristine lands, and ignore the fact that the oil would make a negligible dent in oil imports—from 68 percent to 65 percent by 2025. (Describes implications and ramifications of opposing claims) |
| MAIN POINT III: | The massive construction needed to access the tundra will disturb the habitat of caribou, polar bear, and thousands of species of birds and shift the focus from energy conservation to increased energy consumption, when the focus should be the reverse. (Offers arguments and evidence for the speaker’s position, as developed in subpoints) |
| MAIN POINT IV: | The proponents’ plan would encourage consumption and endanger the environment; my plan would encourage energy conservation and protect one of the world’s few remaining wildernesses. (Contrasts the speaker’s position with the opposition’s to drive home the former’s superiority) |