There is nothing like a good rebuttal.
For debaters this skill is one of the most crucial in ensuring a win. Debate is not just about pushing forward constructive cases to promote your side’s main contentions. It’s also important to show the adjudicators that you have the mettle to react and dynamically respond to the constructive arguments that the other side would present. Unfortunately, in the Philippine blogosphere, a lot of people resort to really bad rebuttals (those that do a grave disservice to their own brains).
Rebuttals do not necessarily nullify the value of a point, but when it’s done properly and competently, it can diminish the value of an argument to a level that the opponents’ point loses weight relative to your own team’s own cases.
To make an effective, believable and compelling rebuttal, you must debunk the idea on the basis of principle. You must deal with the point head on and not skirt to other details that are 1) not related or 2) peripheral to spirit of the main argument.
How do you rebut on principle:
Example 1:
Opponent’s point: We must allow foreign investors to take control of the Philippines’ mining sites to jumpstart the country’s mining industry. This would in turn allow for great economic gains in the form of taxes from these multi-national corporations. Such funds would allow for the building of infrastructure in the rural communities, where most of these mines are located. With infrastructures that benefit the public, a more holistic way of economic development through all social classes would be more palpable.
Bad Rebuttal #1:Â Â There is corruption in government at all imaginable levels so the promised infrastructure will not be built. Therefore, we shouldn’t allow MNCs to take control of the mining industry.
Bad Rebuttal #2:Â The people don’t want MNCs to take charge of the mining industry. Since there is clamor against something, it should not be done by the government.
Though concepts of corruption and clamor could be compelling to some people, those two issues don’t talk about the very problems with having MNCs around to control the mining industry. In principle, the idea still stands because criticisms to the proposal merely deal with the government (this has nothing to do with the foreign investors) and the clamor (something that is not a rigid measure of what is right and wrong).
What could be a good rebuttal then? 
StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 2815 times by 1018 viewers
Here's one
From the country's historical experience MNC's that have been given control over the mining industry have often if not always resulted in major environmental disasters (such as the Marcopper incident) primarily due to the fact of the lack of teeth and reach by local government institutions to employ strict environmental standards and to police such activities of mining companies.
Hehe, can't resist, I'll give this a shot. Kaso medyo mahaba:
Mining operations are, in terms of area, very specific. Prospectors identify which specific places contain a certain amount of resource that can be efficiently and profitably exploited; investors move in to the area and build their operations and facilities. These operations usually involve chemical processes that have adverse effects on the environment. The population within that area will directly suffer any and all of these potentially adverse effects of the mining operation.
However, taxes don't work that way — taxes are consolidated either at the national or local government unit level. Infrastructure projects are usually decided upon, written down, bidded out, awarded, and commenced at those levels.
This usually means that the taxes will take a long route, and consequently, a very long time, before it reaches the directly affected communities, if the money ever gets there at all. While it is possible that the tax money will benefit the public, there are no assurances that that would happen, nor would there be assurances that any of these projects will directly benefit the very specific communities — those that are affected by mining — that need them.
On the other hand, the fact that the mine operators would be multi-national corporations adds a new dimension. First and foremost, it is clear that these mine operations would produce raw and unrefined ores which will leave our country at a very low cost and very likely return to the Philippines in a refined, and thus, more expensive form. In essence, we have given up non-renewable resources for a low price, only to get them back at a greater expense.
Second, while any investment from MNCs may mean an inflow of dollars, all transactions that occur in terms of duties and taxes will be in pesos, which will mean that the government will not essentially benefit from the higher values of the dollar.
Finally, the refined, and as previously stated — more expensive, form of the resource will be sold to the country in foreign denominations, usually also in dollars.
With everything taken into account it is not impossible that the balance of payments — that is, the net flow of high-value foreign currency, can and will likely be a deficit. This translates to an overall loss to the country — the non-renewable resource has been lost and consumed, and dollars are spent buying these resources back in a more expensive form.
Rebuttal #1: The argument assumes too many things. There is no direct link between foreign investment and immediate jumpstarting, which would put all the other assumptions into limbo. Even if there is, most foreign investments on priority industries like mining are given with tax incentives, meaning the benefits from taxation would not necessarily occur.
Rebuttal #2: Assuming that all the assumptions of the argument works, this is not exclusive to foreign mining companies. Local companies can and do inject the necessary technologies either through indigenous development or procurement from overseas and provide the capital necessary for exploiting the mine. Finally, even with the presence of ownership restrictions, there is no problem with a minority stake by a foreign company over a mine which should incentivize technology/capital transfer.
Rebuttal #3: Even if all the flaws of the argument are ignored and everything the other side says can be considered true and perfect, it does not answer the question of strategic development. The minerals of a country, being exhaustible and necessary for economic development, should be left in the hands of citizens and juridical persons over which the government has complete control to insure that the national patrimony is used in such a way that allows for consistency with government goals for national development. Almost all nations on earth have strategic mineral reserves used to defray the costs and to sustain industrial development. Providing foreigners with access to our minerals might provide good short-term sources of foreign exchange, but limits the number of options for development paths by the country.