Post by shona on Dec 13, 2012 21:50:35 GMT
Debating is more than about just presenting your arguments. You have to be able to listen to your opponents arguments and respond to them.
POINTS OF INFORMATION !!!!!!!
Debating involves more than just the delivery of speeches: debaters are also expected to contribute Points of Information when their side does not have the floor. Points of Information play an important role in the marking of both Rebuttal and Strategy (See sections above on these categories). The quality of the Points of Information offered, and the way points are dealt with by the speaker who has the floor, can have a major influence on the judges’ decision.
Adjudicators will reward those who have effectively prepared and can react quickly when they spot a fact or argument they believe to be erroneous. Speakers who can accept a Point of Information and overturn it on the spot will also be rewarded.
There is no requirement to accept a Point of Information: indeed, it shows a good understanding of debating to decline at certain times. However, if a speaker does not take any Points of Information during their speech (providing, of course, that points are offered) they will be penalised. Accepting one or two points per speech is perfectly reasonable. Judges will mark down speakers who take too many Points of Information (any more than three will adversely affect your ability to put across your case). Speakers who fail to offer Points of Information when an opposing speaker has the floor will also be marked down.
To offer a point of information, you must stand up and say ‘on a point of information’, and remain standing until the speaker has indicated whether or not they wish to take your point. Points of information may not be offered in the first or last minute of a speech- this is known as protected time. You will be marked down if you (and your team-mate) repeatedly offer points, so preventing the speaker from giving their speech. This is known as ‘barracking’, and is considered an abuse of process.
REBUTTAL
Rebuttal is what distinguishes debating from public speaking. It means the challenging of your opponents’ arguments within your own speech. It is not enough to challenge a minor point, a slight factual inaccuracy or a verbal error – instead, the judges will reward speakers who can pick out the main arguments in an opponents’ case and overturn them by showing them not only that they are wrong, but more importantly, why they are wrong.
It cannot be overstated how important rebuttal is to good debating. If you make no attempt to rebut and refute your opponents’ arguments, you will not win the debate. Flaws in your opponents’ arguments will only lose marks if you highlight them.
For example, if the First Proposition team claims that ‘smoking is good for your health because it toughens the lungs’, then the adjudicators should accept this fact, unless the opposing team challenges the claim. If no challenge is made, then the information has to be accepted as true by the judges even if it patently is not true. In this instance, it would be problematic for the Opposition to allow a large part of the Proposition’s case to rest unchallenged on a highly dubious assertion.
Rebuttal, however, is not only about attacking your opponents’ arguments; it is also about presenting better arguments than theirs. If, for example, you feel that your opponents are presenting an inaccurate version of historical events, the adjudicators will reward you if you present a better interpretation, as long as you give relevant supporting facts.
You should certainly think ahead about the sorts of arguments your opponents may use but it is impossible to script rebuttal and judges will spot scripted rebuttal very quickly.
As you move further through the debate, rebuttal should play an increasingly large role at the expense of new arguments.
Rebuttal is not just about oral skills and the ability to win an argument. It is about listening to what the other teams say and picking out weak spots in their case. Listening and speed of thought are just as important to good rebuttal as elegant delivery. If you do not listen to what the other teams say you will not be able to rebut their arguments adequately.
The following sorts of weaknesses are things that you might spot in your opponents’ speeches, and which you should rebut:
- Arguments which are irrelevant to the motion.
- Inaccurate or deficient facts or statistics.
- Generalisations.
- Inconsistencies between partners’ arguments or between the two opposing teams’ arguments.
- The logic behind the arguments the opposing teams are putting forward.
Adjudicators will reward you if:
You offer tactically good Points of Information to the opposing teams.
You accept one or two Points of Information during your speech and respond to them adequately.
You rebut some or all of the opposing team’s arguments showing why they are irrelevant, inaccurate, generalised or inconsistent.
You compare your arguments with your opponents, and show clearly why yours are better.
You demonstrate flexibility in the use of your prepared speech. A good speech will blend rebuttal alongside pre-prepared arguments.
You use rebuttal to defeat your opponents’ responses to Points of Information.
Adjudicators will mark you down if:
You fail to offer Points of Information to your opponents, or you offer weak, irrelevant or nonsensical points.
You accept no Points of Information, more than three Points of Information, or fail to respond to points when you do accept them.
You fail to rebut some or all of the opposing team’s main arguments or you focus on minor points.
You give inadequate rebuttal: e.g. simply asserting that you are correct, using ‘scripted rebuttal’ or give rebuttal which does not fairly represent what your opponents have argued.
You are too rigid in the use of your prepared speech e.g. you cannot adapt the arguments put forward by your opponents or you devote too little time to rebuttal. You give rebuttal which is irrelevant, personally directed at your opponents, or rudely dismissive of their arguments.