A rebuttal is an explanation of why an opposing view is incorrect.
For example, if I am arguing that school uniform should be banned, one opposing argument I might try and discredit is that school uniform stops bullying.
If I am to rebut this argument effectively I must explain why this is not true or, at least, not a good enough reason to keep school uniform.
First I must understand what the opposition is trying to say, in this case they are saying because all students where the same clothes there is no chance of poorer students being bullied for not having the latest designer gear. How can I discredit this argument?
Well, can poor students still be singled out by bullies if they are wearing school uniform? Yes. They could be bullied for wearing second hand uniforms or because their uniform looks tattered and worn.
Is bullying only ever about school uniform? No. More often than not it is to do with friendship groups and status with in social groups.
Here we have two reasons why the argument that school uniform presents bullying is very convincing. The key to a good rebuttal is clear explaining why a particular argument is not valid. It is not enough to simply present the opposing view.
Only presenting the opposing view:
Some people say school uniform should remain because it prevents students from being bullied for what they wear; this is wrong.
Rebutting the opposing view:
Some people say school uniforms should remain because it prevents students from being bullied for what they wear; this is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, poor students can still be singled out by bullies for wearing second hand uniforms or because their uniform looks tattered and worn; the problem is the bully, not the clothes of the victim. Secondly, bullying isn’t only ever about school uniform; more often than not it is to do with friendships and status with in social groups. Banning school uniform will not solve bullying, but it isn’t claiming to; banning school uniform is about allowing students to be seen as individuals.