© 2006, Colm Flynn. All rights reserved.
Page design by GetTemplate
MMU Guide
What part do POIs play in a debate?
To give and take Points of Information is the role of every speaker. Not doing
either is failing to fulfil your role. POIs contribute matter to the debate, and
the way in which they are given or taken is a reflection of manner. Thus not
taking any POIs means a failure to fulfil your role and potentially lower
contribution in matter (however that does not mean an automatic last place).
How long should POIs be?
POIs are not a place to make an argument, just a point, an example, an
accusation or to ask a question. Typically Points Of Information are about 2
sentences long or 15 seconds in length. If a POI is too long, it eats into the
time allocated for the speaker and the adjudicator may call order and request
the person asking the POI to quit.
How many must I take?
It is recommended that each speaker takes 2 points of information, 1 from the
opening team and another from the closing team. This is fairest and most optimum
for interactivity in the debate.
Are speakers who do not take 2 points of information automatically
punished?
No. However it is a consideration when discussing if teams have fulfilled their
roles in the debate. Also speakers who take effort to engage with other speakers
and encourage interactivity should be rewarded. While this will not guarantee
win/loss, it might make a difference in close debates.
The context of the debate should also be taken into account. It is
understandable to not take a POI if no POIs are offered, or if the speaker is
fulfilling his/her role in some other aspect.
Can I take more than 2 points of information?
Yes, there is no limit to the number of POIs one can take, but while POIs are an
important part of a speech and should become the speech itself.
Can I interject into someone else’s speech or offer my point of
information by saying something colourful (verbalising), instead of just “on
that point”?
Interjections, heckles, comments whether in the process of giving POI or
otherwise, are not automatically punished unless they interrupt the speech of
the speaker on the floor. Then the debater is exhibiting bad manner and the
chair can instruct him/her to maintain order. While contributing to the dynamism
and interactivity of the debate, interjections etc do not count as matter
points.
Are adjudicators then supposed to explicitly ignore everything that
is offered through interjection or heckles?
If someone says what you were thinking in your head, that does not
subjugate your intelligence and your ideas remain valid. It is important however
to protect the integrity of the speech of the speaker on the floor. The debate
format has to be maintained and if interjections were treated as valid points,
no one would bother with making speeches.
Nevertheless there are situations where the context of the debate may deem the
interjection legitimate. For example, if the speaker is not taking any points of
information or trying to shut out one of the teams. In those situations, the
person offering the interjection is not trying to interrupt the speech before
him but bring attention to the fact that the speaker is not being dynamic and
engaging his ideas. The adjudicator then assesses if this is true, decides if
action is necessary and acts accordingly.
What is an extension?
An extension is matter contribution from the closing team, other than rebuttals.
It is an extension of the position of the opening team, and thus should be
consistent with them. An extension can be new arguments to support the case,
further developments of previous arguments, analysis of previous arguments in a
wholly different yet still relevant context or specific case studies that
further argue the case of the opening team. However it has to be significantly
different from the arguments run by the opening team, enough to distinct the
case of the closing and opening.
Is it absolutely necessary for closing teams to have an extension?
It is the role of every team to further their case in the debate, and
extensions are part of that role. Not extending the case is to not fully fulfil
your role. Therefore while not having an extension doesn’t mean an automatic
last, it means a difficult first.
In a negative case, do you still need an extension?
It becomes more difficult to because there isn’t a positive direction
that can be extended, but closing teams are still expected to distinct
themselves from their opening and offer a unique contribution to the debate.
What if the extension contradicts the position of their opening team?
The closing team can choose to ditch their opening team (to shaft them
so to speak) if they feel their approach to the debate is not acceptable. They
risk being cut out of the debate, if no one else engages their approach, but it
is a tactical call and is not an automatic loss.
However if the closing team unwittingly contradicts the opening team, then their
matter is not consistent and becomes less relevant.
What is a “good” definition?
A definition that is in the spirit of the motion and clearly explains the
contention of the debate. Definitely not a definition that wins the debate, as
that means no debate occurs.
How much of freedom does the Government have in defining the motion?
A team can define the debate in any way they choose and it is up to the other
teams in the debate to question their approach. Adjudicators cannot compare the
definition to what they think the definition should be. Instead, adjudicators
should evaluate the effect of the definition. If Govt defines too narrowly and
cannot develop matter to prove their self-proving case, then they contribute
little to the debate. If Govt defines poorly and creates too many holes, then
defending their case will be difficult.
Can team parameterise definitions?
Yes. Teams are allowed to set parameters to limit the grounds of the debate, as
long as those parameters are fair. For example, in a debate about child labour,
restricting it to legal occupations. If it helps to clarify the area of debate
and leads to a good debate happening, the action of setting those parameters
should be rewarded.
However these are not set in stone and up to question from the opposition. If
the Government unfairly restricts the parameters of the debate, it is fair for
Opposition to expand the area of debate. Thus Govt cannot limit a child labour
debate to discussing the right to earn allowance by shovelling snow if the Opp
argues that is unfair and expands it. On the other hand if the Opp likes to
discuss snow shovelling, that is also their right and they should not be
punished for not expanding the parameters.
Do you have to include every word in the motion during the
definition?
You do not have to define every word, but the words in the motion define the
potential scope of the debate and the onus of the teams. If the motion reads
“this house will condemn people who encourage suicide”, the focus of the
debate is on people who encourage, not commit suicide and not taking that into
account could seriously affect the direction of the debate. However you do not
have to define people and perhaps can even assume what suicide means.
On what basis can you challenge a definition?
A definition can be challenged on the basis that a definition is: (take
definitions from rules)
a) time set/place set
b) truistic/tautological
c) wholly unreasonable/squirrel
Who can challenge and who can’t?
Any team in the debate can challenge the definition, because each team is a
unique entity. Thus, a debate could have 4 definitions.
What happens during a definition debate?
To challenge the definition, one has to
a) explicitly state that you are challenging the definition
b) state why (time or place set, truistic, unreasonable) and explain
c) provide a new definition
You still maintain your positions in the debate and have to argue appropriately.
Thus the Opening Opposition, after challenging the definition and providing a
new one would then proceed to oppose the motion, not support it.
Once you challenge a definition, other than to show why the previous definition
is inaccurate, you do not have to address the issues/arguments that fall under
it. One basically ignores that definition.
What is good matter?
Good matter is matter that is logically developed, relevant to the case at hand
and substantiated.
What is good manner?
Good manner is manner that is effective in strengthening the argument/case, is
entertaining.
Which is more important?
They are both equally important (check section on scoring). Thus a team could
win on manner just as easily as a team could win on matter.
| Matter | Manner | Total | Range |
| 25-30 | 25-30 | 50-59 | poor |
| 30-35 | 30-35 | 60-69 | below average |
| 35-40 | 35-40 | 70-79 | average |
| 40-45 | 40-45 | 80-89 | break worthy |
| 45-50 | 45-50 | 90-100 | good (semi-finals level) |
Is there such a thing as an automatic last in a debate? What most
horrible sin must a team commit to immediately earn a last position?
No. There is nothing in a debate that you can do to get an automatic last short
of not showing up. If a first prop team squirrels the motion into a tautology
and then the second speaker knifes the first, they probably won’t win the
round but should not receive an automatic last, they just set a very high
threshold for what some other team in the round would have to do in order to
take last place away from them (perhaps wetting themselves during their speech
or something).