Rebuttals

[Kiddo]

Rebuttals are a dangerous thing to write. You have to be very logical in presenting your arguments, arguing from emotion will convince no one. (I learned that the hard way *cough*Sabreur*cough*)

[Tdyans]

Sensei said:

Or are you guys a little too... erm, mad about each other's opinions?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not angry about anyone's opinions that have been posted on this board... I can understand each point of view and agree with it to a certain degree. I don't think we're so much writing rebuttals to each other's posts as discussing a topic-- maybe that's the difference...

[Deleted]

Rebuttals, are well, rubuttals. I personally find them very useful, since I have done debating in the past. I find that having a rebuttal is a good way of clearly reviewing your points, and a good way to finish off an arguing article.

However, I find that a rebuttal is a perfect waste of time if it is not well-written. If the article has little value itself, and has few points, then the rubbutal is an even bigger waste of time. In order for a good rebuttal to be made, there must be an adequate number of points in the article itself.

Rebuttals now seem...a little inexperienced. The writers seem to be having trouble with the proper form for a rebuttal.

A good rebuttal? As I've said before, you need to re-state your points. Using strong, strategic methods for restating will add to your rebuttal. Remember, a rebbutal is a summary of what you've previously stated in your article. Adding new information in your rebuttal will just get tedious, since rebuttals are meant to be fairly brief, and a new point mentioned in a rebuttal will not be able to be explained fully. Ending off with a strong statement about your beliefs is a must. Using formal language is a necessity, if you want to sound formal and authoratative. Using persuasive language is another big thing. Actually, I disagree with what Kiddo said, about your neeed to be logical. Well, I disagree with what she said about arguing from emotion ("will convice no one"). Logical: Necessary. I think it's okay to add a little bit of emotion into it, ,and opinions are okay, I think. However, facts and out-and-out fault finding in the other person's article are much better ways to make your points. But, lastly, remember, you are trying to make it so that, once you finish your article, readers will have no doubt in their minds that your point of view is THE point of view.

That's about all I have to say.

[Leb]

I think "response" articles in the Times would be better than the shabby material that goes for a rebuttal now. A good response would start off something like: "I can see where many people could view the issue this way, but I've found some points contrary to it...." As long as it's followed up with good, nonbiased information, it could be good. A real rebuttal would show a flip-side to the situations. But most of the stuff I see in the Times is "I am right and everyone else is wrong, and if you don't agree with me, you're wrong."

My three cents.

[calvinseviltwin]

I'll chip a few shots in

-I find rebuttal articles are rather pointless. I'm paranoid that these are probably put out just to damge the org. author's repuation. A nice juicy peice of hate mail would do the trick.

-Hate mail's more fun to reply too anywas

[epk]

I'm planning a Rebuttal if I see another article about a certain topic.

edit: I JUST SENT ONE IN! ;D