Point of information (competitive debate)

Last updated

In competitive debate, most commonly in the World Schools, Karl Popper, and British Parliamentary debate styles, a point of information (POI) is when a member of the team opposing that of the current speaker gets to briefly interrupt the current speaker, offering a POI in the form of a question or a statement. This may be as a correction, asking for clarity, or just a plain question. As in some debating styles, such as World Schools Style, they often may not be offered in the first or last minute of any speech (known as protected time), or during reply speeches. Points of information may never be offered to a member of the same team.

Contents

Points of information are an important part of any debate that includes them, as they offer a much greater degree of engagement between teams. In some styles of debate, such as British Parliamentary Style, they take on an even greater importance, as teams are forced to use them in order to maintain their relevance during a debate. Furthermore, they allow speakers to demonstrate greater wit and presence of thought than is generally possible in a speech, as they are required to respond instantly to prepared points from their opposition in a logical way.

A point of information is also a request for information from the current speaker, in Robert's Rules of Order . The 11th edition of Robert's Rules, published in 2011, changes the name to request for information to clarify its purpose. [1]

Etiquette

In all competitions that allow points of information, their use is restricted by a number of rules to allow the speaker to maintain control of their speech. Generally, the procedure for offering a point of information is as follows:

  1. The opposing team member stands, and offers the point.
  2. The speaker then either accepts or declines the point, or else offers to accept it at the end of the sentence. The speaker is required to accept in a short statement such as "Taken", "Yes sir/ma'am", and so on. If the speaker wishes, they have the right to decline by saying "No, thank you", "Not taken", and so on
  3. If accepted, the debater that offered the point may then briefly interject a point, question or statement. Generally, this must be done in fifteen seconds or less, and the speaker may cut the opposing offer off at any point.
  4. The speaker must then immediately answer the point of information.
  5. You must not have a conversation with the member of the opposing team when asking or answering a point of information.


A rule of thumb for points of information is that each speaker should accept two during the course of their speech, and offer two to every opposing speaker. Taking fewer points may be interpreted as cowardice when plenty were offered, while speakers that accept too many risk losing control of their speech. Similarly, it is generally frowned upon for speakers to offer excessive POIs in rapid succession, a practice known as badgering or barracking that usually results in the adjudicator calling the debate to order.

Points of Information, as with any other debating technique, are subject to each speaker's own personal style. For instance, while it is broadly accepted that a debater should stand when offering a point of information, there is no set wording or format for the offer itself. Examples of valid offers, that may be combined with any of several common hand gestures, are:

Similarly, there is no set way of dealing with a point of information. While a speaker would ideally refute or otherwise deal with it on the spot, it is also acceptable for them to refer the opposing member to another part of their speech (i.e., "I will be dealing with this in greater detail later in my speech."), or to refer the entire point to another of their speakers (i.e., "This point is clearly incorrect. My second speaker will argue..."). While speakers are not explicitly marked for the quality of their points of information or responses to them, they often help to create the impression of skill and improve their overall mark.

Types

Points of information may be offered in several forms, depending on the style of debating being used. The two most common of these are:

Related Research Articles

The Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate is the national organization which governs all English language competitive university debating and public speaking in Canada. It sanctions several official annual tournaments and represents Canadian debating domestically and abroad. Its membership consists of student debating unions, sanctioned by their respective universities, from across Canada. CUSID has been described as "a student-run, parliamentary debate league with close ties to the American Parliamentary Debate Association".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debate</span> Formal conversation, often between opposing viewpoints, on a topic

Debate is a process that involves formal discourse, discussion, and oral addresses on a particular topic or collection of topics, often with a moderator and an audience. In a debate, arguments are put forward for common opposing viewpoints. Debates have historically occurred in public meetings, academic institutions, debate halls, coffeehouses, competitions, and legislative assemblies. Debates have also been conducted for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments and debating societies. These debates emphasized logical consistency, factual accuracy, and emotional appeal to an audience. Modern forms of competitive debate also include rules for participants to discuss and decide upon the framework of the debates.

Lincoln–Douglas debate is a type of one-on-one competitive debate practiced mainly in the United States at the high school level. It is sometimes also called values debate because the format traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy. The Lincoln–Douglas debate format is named for the 1858 Lincoln–Douglas debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, because their debates focused on slavery and the morals, values, and logic behind it. LD debates are used by the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) competitions, and also widely used in related debate leagues such as the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association, the National Catholic Forensic League, the National Educational Debate Association, the Texas University Interscholastic League, Texas Forensic Association, Stoa USA and their affiliated regional organizations.

Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech where each person tries to rebut the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to persuade the judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to persuade the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.

Congressional Debate is a competitive interscholastic high school debate event in the United States. The National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA), National Catholic Forensic League (NCFL) and many state associations and national invitational tournaments offer Congressional Debate as an event. Each organization and tournament offers its own rules, although the National Speech and Debate Association has championed standardization since 2007, when it began to ask its districts to use one of a number of procedures for qualification to its National Tournament.

The American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) is the oldest intercollegiate parliamentary debating association in the United States. APDA sponsors over 50 tournaments a year, all in a parliamentary format, as well as a national championship in late April. It also administers the North American Debating Championship with the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate (CUSID) every year in January. Although it is mainly funded by its member universities, APDA is an entirely student-run organization.

Individual events in speech include public speaking, limited preparation, acting and interpretation are a part of forensics competitions. These events do not include the several different forms of debate offered by many tournaments. These events are called individual events because they tend to be done by one person unlike debate which often includes teams. This distinction however is not entirely accurate any more given the addition of duo interpretation events and forms of single person debate. Competitive speech competitions and debates comprise the area of forensics. Forensics leagues have a number of speech events, generally determined by geographical region or league preference. While there are several key events that have been around a long time, there are several experimental events around the country every year that can be limited to individual tournaments. Forensics leagues in the United States includes the National Speech and Debate Association, the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, the American Forensics Association, the National Forensics Association, the Interstate Oratorical Association and Stoa USA. Organized competitions are held at the high-school and collegiate level. Outside of the rules for each event provided by the individual leagues, there are several cultural norms within each region that are not written into law but are almost always followed. Rules for time limits vary by event and by individual tournaments, but there are penalties in every event for exceeding the time limits though the severity of the penalty widely varies.

The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is one of the two national intercollegiate parliamentary debate organizations in the United States. The other is the American Parliamentary Debate Association. Its membership is national with participating schools throughout the country. In 2015, NPDA was the largest debating organization in the United States with around 200-250 participating schools in any given year.

The World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) is an annual English-language debating tournament for high school-level teams representing different nations.

Parliamentary style debate, colloquially oftentimes just Parliamentary debate, is a formal framework for debate used in debating societies, academic debate events and competitive debate. It has its roots in parliamentary procedure and develops differently in different countries as a result.

In all forms of policy debate, the order of speeches is as follows:

In a policy debate competition, evidence consists mainly of two parts. The citation contains all relevant reference information. Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically cited in a speech. Some teams will also read the author's qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. The body is a section or portion of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of a card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tagline is read first, followed by the body and citation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Parliamentary Style</span> Style of competitive debate

British Parliamentary style is a major form of academic debate that originated in Liverpool in the mid 1800s. It has gained wide support globally and is the official format of the World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC).

World Schools Style debating is a combination of the British Parliamentary and Australia-Asian debating formats, designed to meet the needs of the World Schools Debating Championships tournament. Each debate comprises eight speeches delivered by two teams of three members, representing the Proposition and Opposition sides. The first six speeches are eight minutes in duration, with each team then finishing up by giving a four-minute concluding reply speech. Teams are given 30 to 60 minutes to prepare for their speeches.

Australia–Asia Debate, sometimes referred to as Australasian Debating or Australs Style, is a form of academic debate. In the past few years, this style of debating has increased in usage dramatically throughout both Australia and the Asian region, but in the case of Asian countries including Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines, the format is also used alongside the British Parliamentary Format. The context in which the Australia-Asia style of debate is used varies, but it is commonly used in Australia at the primary and secondary school level, ranging from small informal one-off intra-school debates to larger more formal inter-school competitions with several rounds and a finals series which occur over a year. It is also commonly used at university level.

<i>The Arena</i> (TV series) Singaporean TV series or program

The Arena is a debate-style television show produced by Mediacorp Channel 5 in Singapore. Season 1 of the show was broadcast from January–March 2007. A second season, known as The Arena II, was aired from March–May 2008. The show involves teams of students from secondary schools in Singapore debating against each other on issues of topical interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Scholar's Cup</span> International team academic program

The World Scholar’s Cup is an annual international academic program. More than 15,000 students from over 65 countries participate every year.

Public debate may mean simply debating by the public, or in public. The term is also used for a particular formal style of debate in a competitive or educational context. Two teams of two compete through six rounds of argument, giving persuasive speeches on a particular topic.

This is a glossary of policy debate terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competitive debate in the United States</span>

Competitive debate, also known as forensics or speech and debate, is an activity in which two or more people take positions on an issue and are judged on how well they defend those positions. The activity has been present in academic spaces in the United States since the colonial period. The practice, an import from British education, began as in-class exercises in which students would present arguments to their classmates about the nature of rhetoric. Over time, the nature of those conversations began to shift towards philosophical questions and current events, with Yale University being the first to allow students to defend any position on a topic they believed in. In the late nineteenth century, student-led literary societies began to compete with each other academically and often engaged in debates against each other. In 1906, the first intercollegiate debate league, Delta Sigma Rho, was formed, followed by several others. Competitive debate expanded to the secondary school level in 1920 with the founding of the National Speech and Debate Association, which grew to over 300,000 members by 1969. Technological advances such as the accessibility of personal computers in the 1990s and 2000s has led to debate cases becoming more complex and to evidence being more accessible. Competitors and coaches have made efforts to reduce discrimination in the debate community by introducing new arguments and recruiting debaters from underprivileged communities.

References

  1. Robert, Henry M. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed., p. 294–295 (RONR)