A content of insistence in a debate closely connects with utterance, a propositional content and a state of affairs of the world. It is the connection that there are various ways to contradict the content of insistence. In this thesis I have intensely studied how to contradict the content of opponents` insistence, in particular, the state of affairs of the world related to the propositional content. Both insistence and a contradiction in a debate can be classified according to direct nature. For instance, whether or not the direct nature exists, is a factor which is classified as a direct contradiction or an indirect contradiction. Each contradiction has three ways to deny opponents` insistence. Regarding the direct contradiction; first, a debater can make a claim about the existence of a state of affairs or its occurrence in an opponent`s content. Second, a debater can deny a correspondence between a content of insistence with a state of affairs. Third, a debater can oppose the value of a state of affairs. Concerning the indirect contradiction; first, a debater can deny an essential precondition for an occurrence of a state of affairs in an opponent`s content. Second, a debater can claim that the idea of time of an opponent`s content is inconsistent with its notion of space. Third, a debater can rebut an implication of a content.