A common misconception about defense in debate is the assumption that defense simply means you are “defending your own arguments”, ie extending your own arguments and defending them, which is correct, in a sense. However, it is better to think of defense as arguments that swat away your opponent’s arguments and prevent them from scoring a point. Think of your opponent’s argument like a mosquito; defensive arguments are the flyswatter swings that swat the mosquitoes [their arguments] away from you so they don’t get your blood [score a point]. Some examples of defensive arguments are: 

• “There are alternate causes for these problems”
• “This argument is non-unique”
• “This doesn’t happen that often”
• “This is not true in all cases” 

For defensive arguments, you are trying to poke holes in your opponent’s logic and explain why your opponent’s arguments don’t stand. 

Offense gives the judge a reason to vote for you. Defensive argumentation is reactive- it is what you say in response to an opponent to tear down the credibility of their arguments. Offensive argumentation, on the other hand, is what is used to create contentions; these are arguments that give weight to your side of the debate. Some examples of offensive arguments are:

• “My case solves the problems in your case”
• “You make the impacts worse”
• “My case outweighs”

Let’s analyze some refutation on a topic using offense and defense. 

If we look at the motion “This house would ban homework’,  proposition could say that “homework causes stress”. 

In response, the opposition could say:

1. Not all students have a lot of homework that causes them stress. And even if they do have a lot of homework, it is their responsibility to get it done and manage their time wisely [defensive].
2. However, if students do their homework and figure out how to manage their time in the short term, it can benefit them in the long run. For example, when they get to college, they will be better equipped to deal with the workload [offensive].

Notice how the first argument just swats away the opponents claim and says “not all” students have a lot of homework. This claim manages to mitigate the scope of the opponents arguments, but it does not completely take out the argument or give a reason why homework is good. What about the students who do have a lot of homework? Even if there are some that do not struggle with stress from homework, some do- which means there are still people that the proposition team would benefit if we banned homework. 

Now take a look at the second argument. This argument takes the logic of the opposition team and uses it to their benefit. By saying that stress from homework in the short term is good because of long-term benefit, team proposition can now use the argument to prove why homework is beneficial and should not be banned. 

This last step is a bonus; as long as you provide offense and defense, any extra weighing just pushes the point home. You can use any weighing mechanism for refutation weighing. 

For the example above, we might say:

 “The long term benefits of homework outweigh the short term harms due to the timeframe- you will gain long term skills from homework, while stress is short term and motivates better habits.”

By weighing the arguments in refutation, you can give the judge a clear view of how your arguments interact with your opponent’s arguments. 

Practicing full refutation with these three steps will bring your arguments to the next level. Remember, debate is a game; it is not about who is right and who is wrong- it is about who is more strategic. However, in order to be strategic enough to pull off full refutation, you also need an organized gameboard.