When you refute an argument, you respond to it--you
argue against it.
Here’s the step by step process of doing this:
STEP ONE (State the number and label of the
argument):
STEP TWO (Transfer--transition into your arguments):
STEP THREE: Respond and Counterargue
(Respond--“Press” the argument--point out it’s
flaws)
(Respond--“Counterargue”--use evidence against the
argument)
STEP FOUR: (Sum up and transition to your responses to the next opponent argument)
EXAMPLE
STEP ONE (State the
number and label of the argument):
Her second argument was “SELF
REGULATION WILL NEVER PREVENT INTERNET PRIVACY VIOLATIONS”
STEP TWO
(Transfer--transition into your arguments):
I disagree.
STEP THREE:
(Respond: “Press”
the argument--point out it’s flaws)
First, THE EVIDENCE NEVER PROVES THAT PRIVACY VIOLATIONS
WILL NEVER BE PREVENTED.
The evidence just
says that there is an incentive to violate privacy.
(Respond:
“Counterargue”--use evidence against the argument)
Second, THE MARKET IS ALREADY GIVING THE INCENTIVE TO
PREVENT VIOLATIONS
FORBES, April 17,
2000, p. 40.
The market is also
making it possible for people to surf the Internet anonymously. Consumers today
can block the "cookies" many Web sites send out by making simple
changes to their Internet browsers. As well, vendors will enable Internet users
to send e-mail anonymously. The market will provide more privacy, if that's
what consumers want. The nannies worry that those on the wrong side of a
"digital divide" won't know what they want. For the moment the FTC
has concluded that self- regulation by the industry is sufficient to address
whatever privacy concerns currently exist. That's good news. Regulations tend
to outlast their usefulness. If there is a privacy problem, technology -- the
market -- will solve it. If there is regulation, it will be on the books for a
lifetime.
STEP FOUR: (Sum up
and transition to your responses to the next opponent argument)
So, the market does encourage privacy protection and
there is no proof it will never prevent violations, contrary to my opponent’s
claim. Now, let’s go to her third argument . . .