When you are rebutted...

The preceding thought I posted in this column has come under rebuttal by an individual.  His written objection gives me an appropriate opportunity to respond in a generic way.  I do not choose to refute the particular points he made, but I defend his right to disagree with me.  I do want to  talk about the composition of an effective rebuttal.  

An effective rebuttal needs to take the context of the article or speech into account.  Ignoring the context in which a person’s point was made can easily lead to false assumptions and making statements that appear ludicrous.  Certain points I made, for example, were drawn from my cultural experience in the UPCI that others in the organization would readily recognize.  Had the article been written to non-members, I would have explained some things more thoroughly.  Also, the context and history of the issue itself should have been understood before launching a critique. 

An effective rebuttal needs to be expressed in the same tone as the original article.  I tried to write my article in a respectful, persuasive manner.  I may not have succeeded, but that was certainly my intent.  When the objection is put in harsh, sarcastic terms, it fails to unseat the contentions made in the article.  I have no idea what the intent of the rebuttal’s author was, but it seemed more reactionary to me than a sincere attempt to correct any problems in my article.

An effective rebuttal should engage the main points of the article and provide solid evidence that they are wrong.  It is not enough to simply criticize them, as though they should never have been made in the first place.  It is not enough to try to discredit the author.  It is not enough to make fun of the subject and hold it up for ridicule.  Dismissing contentions as silly without proving exactly why they are silly will never be effective.

An effective rebuttal should demonstrate that the writer truly understands the subject in its entirety.  An outsider’s view, a bird’s eye view, a hearsay view or the view of a preconceived notion all fail to negate the points.  The communists, for example, routinely misunderstood the culture and fiber of America during the cold war.  Their criticism came off as inane to American citizens who were a part of this country. 

An effective rebuttal should not advance new arguments that were not a part of the original article.  If the one who objects wants to develop his own affirmative article, he needs to do exactly that.  Otherwise, he flings out quick-hitters that he hopes will score points, but they have no effect on the original article.  If someone has legitimate criticisms of the UPCI, for example, let him write it out fully, document his points, provide proper examples, complete his thoughts and open his work up for others to criticize.

All this being said, I still defend anyone’s right to launch a rebuttal on anything they wish.  They should remember, however, that their writing will come under the same scrutiny that they placed on the work of others.   I learned a long time ago that I had better make sure of my thinking when I write something for the reading consumption of others.  I know that my work will be judged.  I never resent the process.  I do intend to be a part of the process, from beginning to end.  I find it all extremely enjoyable.  -JMJ