Proposed AIDA constitution changes

[patwall]

As a matter of interest, who are you, tinfoilhat?

[Tom]

I think its more than a coincedence that the one university that supported introducing POIs three years is ago is apparently the one university that supports it now. They might be different people, but obviously there's something specific about the Sydney debating society that makes them prefer styles with POIs.

The length of time isn't really the issue. The issue is what's changed in that time to make this worth bringing up again. As you've seen from the Australs list, we had a pretty good discussion on it back then and it was rejected overwhelmingly. To be honest, I didn't go to council that year, but I was told it got very little support. If someone knows the numbers of the vote maybe they could post them.

Tournament rules need permanence. WUDC figured that out when they switched from the indigenous style of the host country for each year to british parliamentary for all championships. If you want to change the style I think you should have to identify a substantial problem with the status quo or a widespread groundswell of support. I can't see any evidence for either, frankly.

[patwall]

Well of course the substantial problem and the widespread groundswell are really one and the same thing. If enough people agree with the problem you've identified, then you get the support. We think the fact that Australs could be a lot better than it is now is sufficient grounds to make a change, but if there is no groundswell of support for that position at the present time, then so be it.

[tinfoilhat]

If POIs don't make the competition "better" then why do Australian internal and school comps almost all have POIs, and why do so few have replies? The answer is pretty obvious...

[smartarse]

The Victorian Schools Comp, which is considered one of the largest in the world, does not have POIs, and about half the internal comps and mini IVs in Victoria don't have POIs and it doesn't seem to harm the quality or enjoyment of Victorian debaters.

Whether that situation is typical or not of the broader Australian (and Australasian) debating community i honestly don't know, but from our perspective Australs is not aberrant on account of a lack of POIs.

But lets just settle one thing. POIs don't make a debate "better". They emphasize some elements of the debate, at the expense of other elements. AUDC debates are not "better" or "worse" than Australs debates on account of their style. They focus on different skills.

So the real question should be whether we want a diversity of styles, which facilitate the development of a wider variety of skills, or do we want to narrow the range of styles and therefore narrow the range of skills that we promote and develop.

It might be the case that some people would prefer the later - obviously the Committee of USyd for one - and thats fine. But thats the choice. The 'better/worse' discussion is a distraction.

[patwall]

The issue of whether POIs make the debate 'better' is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You may believe that they don't (and that's a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold), but the fact that you believe it doesn't make it an undeniable fact. We think that they would make the style better (which, obviously, is why we're proposing them).

The issue of whether POIs "narrow the range of skills" is also a matter of opinion. The explanatory memoranda to our proposal makes it clear that we believe it doesn't.

We're all for people having a chance to express their opinions, but asserting that all of your opinions are undeniable facts is a little dishonest. You can't reshape the question and the facts to suit your answer.

[smartarse]

Fair enough Pat. You and Sydney have made the effort to make the case through your explanatory memorandum, so I'm happy to make the opposing case (and as i said at the start of this thread, i published an article in the Monash Debating Review the last time this issue was raised, which made the case for diversity of styles, so at best this will be a summary of that explanation).

Each style of debating , whether its parliamentary or policy, or sub-categories within those groupings (such as BP, Australs, AUDC, etc) are really all trying to do the same thing - how can we establish a system where arguments can be made and assessed fairly and objectively. There is no definitive answer because there are too many variables to balance - audience knowledge, audeince interest, intellectual depth, responsiveness and engagement (manner) of speakers.

Each style of debating strikes its own balance. Policy (or sometimes called 'academic' or 'forensic') debating puts a premium on accuracy, in a way that parliamentary debating doesn't (the analogy is academic writing versus journalism - one places a premium on sourcing and referencing - to provide greater accuracy, and the other is more interested in engagement with a general audience, which necessarily means a degree of simplification). Perhaps i shouldn't have simply asserted the point that all styles have their merits and that generally speaking none is 'better' than the other, but nevertheless the existance of multiple styles and the popularity of multiple styles and the fact that people can be very good at one style and less good at another, is all evidence in support of the claim.

So what about POIs?

Well POIs exist for two reasons. Firstly, in case of 4-team styles (such as BP) POIs are necessary (or at least highly useful) because they bind the two halfs of the debate together. Without them it would be much easier for closing teams to pick and choose which issues (and teams) they felt like engaging with, which would massively disadvantage opening teams. So as a matter of proceedual fairness, POIs make sense in that case.

3-on-3 styles don't need POIs, because a team can't be ignored or cut out of a 2-team debate. Thats just a fact, not an argument.

The argument is about whether we would want POIs, and that comes back to the second reason why POIs exist - to place greater emphasis on 'on-the-spot' thinking. Obviously this is a very useful skill to develop for a range of reasons. But its not obviously a better skill to develop than the capacity for more considered and detailed arguments (which is by necessity the trade off that is made when you have POIs - you need uninterrupted time to lay out more complex ideas, and POIs interupt speakers).

So finally, since both 'on the spot' thinking and deep analysis are both worthy and useful skills, but no style of debating is optimal to promote both simultaneously, it is reasonable to encourage a diversity of styles to accomodate opportunities to learn both.

At the risk of Tom making fun of me, i'll make a sporting analogy - since there is no perfect sport that is the epitome (for either athletes or spectators) of physical prowess, we have a range of sports, which challange athletes in different ways. There are obviously overlapping skills in many cases, but also emphasis on some and not others.

I'm sure theres a lot more to be said by a lot of people about this, but i think its important to take this opportunity to thank Pat for coming on the forum to discuss it. I think its a shame that this amendment is being proposed so close to Australs, given how important a question it is, but Pat could have ignored his discussion but he didn't and thats worth recognising.

[patwall]

Thanks smartarse, I appreciate it. (Constantly posting on this thing really is exam procrastination, though) Who are you, by the way?

Your arguments are, of course, perfectly legitimate ones to hold. As explained in the memoranda, however, we think that POIs improve the analytical quality of a 3-on-3 debate. It is true that they don't allow uninterrupted speeches, but we don't think that they will threaten the diversity of the two formats. This is mainly because they will be used differently. As you say, POIs are mainly used in BP to tie the two halves together. In Australs, there's no need to do that, so POIs will be used purely to challenge arguments and analysis. We think that, given the way that they will be used, they make good analysis more important for two reasons.

First, they make analysis accountable. Analysis is immediately open to challenge, and so it will be even more important for speakers to be completely on top of their stuff. It may be well and good to make a good analytical speech, but if you can't answer a simple question about it, then how good is your understanding?

Second, it allows good analysis to have an even stronger effect on the debate. Too often teams ignore or dismiss the best analysis of their opposition. But if teams can press their opposition for an answer to their good arguments, it gives their good analysis the strength it deserves.

So that's why we think the concerns about analysis are misplaced. But, as I said, it's a matter of opinion.

[tinfoilhat]

Took the words out of my mouth, though more patiently expressed I'm sure. Name 1 australian comp without POIs (and with replies), and I'm sure there's 10 that have them (and don't waste time on replies). There is a reason for this, there doesn't seem to be much dispute about which is better in that sense, there just seems to be some sort of political sensitivity about saying so, and some sort of "but it'd be unfair to the non-Australian unis" sentiment, or so I read from Tim's earlier post, which pretty much said as much.

[smartarse]

I'll respond first to the previous post, and then come back to Pat.

Being for or against POIs at australs is not a matter of "political sensitivity". The last time this was raised at AIDA Council it was equally unpopular amongst Asian and Australian unis (proportionally speaking - there were a greater number of Asian unis at the council however).

And thats quite interesting really because Asian debaters do have debating circuit that is dominated by POIs (whether in preparation for All Asians or Worlds they do POIs) so you would think that if POIs were just 'better', Asian debaters would be strong advocates for the change because they have put many of Pat's arguments into practice.

However it seems that those who have the greatest experience of including POIs in multiple styles seem to be more closely aligned to my argument - that a diversity of styles is worth protecting.

But let me respond to Pat's comments, which have a great deal of merit in principle.

POIs do have the capacity to hold speakers to account and force them to engage arguments they might which to ignore, but in practice it rarely works that way.

The majority of POIs are reactive to whatever the speaker is currently saying. So speaker makes argument A, and opposition speakers jump up to attack argument A, but when the speaker moves on to argument B, most opposition members will formulate a new POI to attack argument B.

Thats not always a bad thing, but in the majority of cases its not adding much to the quality of engagement that isn't offered by the opportunity to perform rebuttal in the next speech of the debate.

But ok, what about those minority of speakers who are disciplined enough and smart enough to mostly use their POIs to really put the blow torch on their opponants for seeking to ignore arguments?

Thats a fine thing, but even the average Australs judge knows to penalise teams that ignore important arguments, and in Australs style the judge is never more than a few minutes away from being reminded by the opposition of when they have been ignored.

Ignoring your opponants best arguments is a poor strategy that rarely yeilds positive results for those who do it, so we don't need POIs to deter or compensate for that tactic. Thats why they are needed in BP, because teams can profit from ignoring individual teams and arguments, and so POIs are an insurance policy against that.

But i am happy to concede in a tiny number of cases, a speaker will accept a POI, the POI will be the 'perfect' question and really nail the speaker, the speaker will fumble unsucessfully for an answer and do great damage to their team in the process. Thats the best case scenario right?

So given that the best case scenario is quite appealing, why not introduce POIs?

A) its very, very rare (see analysis above)
B) while the biggest benefits occur very rarely, the biggest harms occur in almost every case.

Those harms are constant interuption and harrassment of speakers, reduced time to make detailed arguments and rebuttal, and diversion onto often tangential issues.

So on balance, its better to avoid a commonly occuring harm, even at the expense of a rarely occuring benefit.

Thats not to say that POIs should be banished from debating. They do teach people important skills. But we need opportunities to debate without them to develop those skills which are reduced in POI-inclusive-debates.

If you want to hear the views of someone who has excelled at both Australs style and All Asian styles, then read the comments in the archive of the Australs e-group by Logan (from the last time this change was proposed), who admitted that debates at All Asians did not have the analytical depth of debates at Australs.

And thats what makes this discussion so difficult, because the analysis from Pat is reasonable, but in practice it just doesn't work out like that (or not nearly often enough to justify the change).

p.s. yes i'm aware i've ignored the issue of replies. I think while we're having such a constructive discussion on POIs its best to stay on topic. If people are super-keen to discuss the merits of replies i suggest a new thread.

[tinfoilhat]

POIs create an enhanced intimidation factor, which unfairly
disadvantages less experienced speakers and many ESL speakers.

Australs format enforces respect - no one is allowed to interrupt you and
in the vast majority of debates that respect is present. This is good for
newer debaters, they get a chance to make mistakes

groups.yahoo.com/group/australs/message/879

If this isn't partly about catering to novices and less advantaged speakers, a premise I reject at Australs, then there wouldn't be comments like these.

I said it before, and it isn't meant to be facetious this time either, but when you say something like this:

Those harms are constant interuption and harrassment of speakers, reduced time to make detailed arguments and rebuttal, and diversion onto often tangential issues

, it's just hard not to say that people with a problem should "harden up". This is Australs, not a novice comp, and this sort of attitude just seems totally out of place here. Even most school debaters in the firsts are of enough ability to avoid being "beaten down" with POIs. If you can't manage it at Australs, it's just tough luck. The only "diversion" it should cause a speaker who deserves to win the debate is probably because the POI is a devestating one, not because "it's just all too much", because the speakers are all inexperienced or ESL speakers (the two categories Tim note above) and need paternalistic protection from mean people. What sort of Australasian championship, a tournament which is one of the top 2-3 in the World, designs the competition to cater for a small % of teams, at the expense of the majority?

[patwall]

I agree that "political sensitivity" isn't really an issue. I have no idea who tinfoilhat is (I asked him and he refused to say on the basis that he wanted to remain anonymous), and while he is welcome to contribute to this discussion, he doesn't speak for the Sydney Debates Committee. (It would appear that he does/did go to Sydney, but I don't even know that much).

I have to disagree when you argue that POIs don't add much to the level of engagement. Rebuttal is far less effective because it cannot stop an argument dead in its tracks. It's still important, because you don't have the time to properly analyse the flaws of an argument in a POI, but it doesn't have the potential for the level of engagement that POIs have.

Ignoring an argument is, of course, a poor strategy. But far too many teams get away with employing a pithy comment or scoffing incredulously to dismiss the importance of an argument. They don't deal with it properly, and the debate suffers from it. And sometimes, the adjudicator is won over by it too. We should, I think, be giving teams a huge deterrent from doing anything except properly dealing with opposition material. This is a real and recurring problem, and POIs are the best way to deal with it.

As for the "constant" harms, I'd say the following:

- Keeping a clear argument over interruptions is a skill. I'm not sure that doing so without interruptions is a different skill. It's the same skill, just easier.
- Harassment is against the rules and, of course, should be.
- You've got 28 minutes to speak. If you can't make your arguments with a few POIs thrown in, your analysis needs to be better.
- A POI that takes the debate in a 'tangential' direction is not a good POI and won't be rewarded as such.

And to your constant harms, I'd add my own constant benefits:

- All speakers are involved all through the debate until the replies
- The debates are more interesting and entertaining because they're more lively
- And, as discussed above, I believe that they lead to a higher standard of debate because they allow a team to strengthen their own analysis and weaken their opposition's far more quickly

I think keeping diversity is fine - but for the reasons outlined above, I think that having POIs would retain that diversity. You still have an analysis-centred format. But it's an analysis-centred format that's more interesting, more engaged and more fun. It requires more discipline and more understanding of the issues.

[Tom]

I have a pretty good idea who tinfoilhat is, and he never went to Sydney or Monash. Not going to say more than that, cos its not up to me to decide whether someone has the right to post anonymously, but his words shouldn't reflect on any particular debating society.

Anyway, I think four things need to be said here.

I think there's a bit of a tension in Pat's analysis about how POIs will work. He states that too often debaters get away with dismissing a good argument, rather than engaging with it. To be honest, I've never seen a lot of evidence for that at Australs. Its a big problem at Worlds though, where speakers tend to fob off tough POIs even more dismissively than tough arguments. I think we can all agree that for an adjudicator not to penalise a team for being simplistic in their response to an argument is bad adjudication. But Pat, your proposal places even more pressure on adjudicators, because now you require them to identify and penalise teams for asking tangential POIs or using them to harass the opposition. Bad adjudicators are just as likely not to penalise teams for abusing POIs as they are for ignoring good matter. Bad adjudicators can still be suckered into rewarding a pithy response over a reasoned argument, but now there are even more ways they can screw up.

Secondly, the difference I see between Tim and Pat's constant changes is that all of Tim's are unique to Australs. Pat's benefits were involvement, liveliness and better analysis from being challenged.

Involvement from all speakers is something we get from BP, which we practice for 6 months of the year. I don't think its important enough to prioritise it for any longer than that.

I don't for one minute concede that debates with POIs will be more entertaining and interesting, but they'll certainly be more lively. But probably still not as lively as BP, which again, we do for 6 months of the year. That's plenty of opportunity for those people who really do believe that the more lively a debate is, the more interesting it is.

Analysis I'll get to in a second, but contrast the above two with Tim's constant harms: "Constant interruption and harassment of speakers, reduced time to make detailed arguments and rebuttal, and diversion onto often tangential issues". All of these are harms that have to be endured in BP as well. So without Australs, there are no international tournaments that are free of them.

The third point to deal with is analysis. Again, I would say that there is a kind of analysis that works better with POIs at Worlds, and another kind (a better kind, in my view) that works at Australs. Pat says there's no greater skill in speaking without interruption than with interruption. I disagree. You have to prepare eight full minutes of material and then keep the adjudicator interested for all of that time.

More importantly, there's a huge amount of skill in listening to an intelligent person build a rock solid argument, citing several examples, making counter-intuitive points you've never heard before, and you have to sit there and listen for eight full minutes while they make that point as perfect as it can be, and then get up there and try to pick it apart from scratch.

When you have eight uninterrupted minutes you get a level of freedom you don't get in other styles. At Australs you can choose to run points that you think are important, even if you know it'll be a hard sell, or that it runs contrary to conventional wisdom. This is because you know you get a whole chunk of time to take adjudicators through every step of the argument and leave as little as possible to common assumptions or perceptions. Interjections, whether they get answered or not, break the focus of an adjudicator from the speaker, break the flow of the speaker as they're talking and make it harder to maintain the measured, reasoned manner that seems to be the most successful for delivering counter-intuitive material. These are some of the many reasons why they're generally considered impolite and counterproductive in the real world.

POIs make a fundamental change to the type of analysis that works best in a given style. Its naive to think that making Australs speeches structurally more similar to Worlds speeches won't also make their content more similar.

And this brings us on to the fourth point. What is the most appropriate style for a tournament that actively tries to merge the approaches of a wide range of countries and institutions from two totally distinct continents and cultures? I would argue that in this environment, giving speakers the ability to make points and explain concepts that challenge common perceptions of a topic is of paramount importance, given that those common perceptions will be very different across the region.

To take an example, Asian and Aussie/Kiwi debaters tend to have very different views about the most basic building blocks of analysis: individual rights. Western societies tend to prioritise liberty rights that guarantee freedom, whereas Asian political theorists usually (although this is starting to change) favour benefit rights that provide sustainance. For Western debaters, you'll see that freedom and liberty are natural endpoints to their analysis, and an assumption is shared between the speaker and the judge that these are of primary importance. Asian debaters are more likely to assume that a strong state that can dole out a lot of welfare to the poor is an inherent good. Australs speeches need the full eight minutes so speakers can go further than these common assumptions in their own societies and explain, on the one hand, why liberty ultimately makes it easier for everyone to get economic benefits, and on the other hand, why guaranteeing basic living conditions is an important step to making sure people can pursue political rights.

Tim mentioned that Asian debaters feel they have to adopt something of a liberal Western worldview to succeed at Australs. I actually think Australs does a remarkably good job at encompassing Western and Eastern views given the gulf between them. And I don't believe Sydney's proposal could possibly make it better.

I maintain that giving the best possible chance for Western teams and judges to have Eastern views explained to them and vice versa is one of the more important goals of Australs, and I think the style we use should reflect that.

[n]

Hey All

Just a brief comment about the idea that POIs allow all debaters to be 'involved' in the debate (until the replies) and hence it being more interesting.

I think that this is a strange view to have. I feel in Australs debates all speakers are actively involved - at least until the aff reply speaker gets up to give the last speech of the debate. Not since school debates where (most) debaters wrote out their entire speech in advance and communication between team mates was rare have I felt the debate ended for speakers after their speech. Especially since your own team members are the ones who continue to speak (unlike BP for opening teams) I think that most debaters are actively communicating and engaging in the debate right until the end.

I think Tom addressed most of the other things I wanted to raise, so I won't repeat those ideas.

Cheers

Nicole

PS: Pat - I'm sure you worked out from the other posts that smartarse is Tim Sonnreich, but just in case you didn't - there you go. (I'm sure he wasn't intending to ignore your question and just got carried away by the debate!)

[Fiona]

Hi all,

With regards to the introduction of POI's, I think that not only is the 3-on-3 format with POIs rare in the Australian context, but also very confusing and complicated.

From my experience (although not as substantial as some of the contributors to this discussion), BP and Australs provide two very distinct formats of debate. I think it's important for reasons previously considered and others I will explain, that there is variety within the Australasian region. POIs would merely bring the two formats closer together. Forgive me if I reiterate previously expressed ideas as this thread is so long, I'm bound to have missed some detail!

Firstly, I know I personally and others I have debated with in the past, enjoy the variety and contrast that the difference brings! Few people would probably enjoy POIs more than me (based on my insufferable desire to interrupt all the time..) but I still appreciate that the variety keeps debating interesting. Moreover, I think POIs whilst they might be easy for experienced school debaters, are incredibly difficult for the vast majority of new debaters. I remember vividly being attacked by coaches because I was too shy to ask questions and I see that occurring when debaters are learning BP in semester 2.

Whilst I appreciate that Australs isn't a novice tournament, that doesn't mean that there should be no regard had for the legitimate capacity of individuals to compete. Australs should not merely be for the debaters who are confident and experienced enough to use and handle POIs. Whilst some people think that kids getting the shit smacked out of them by scary teams like Sydney 1 is a good way to improve, I think that this has to have limitations. As Tom expressed, Australs at its heart is about the fostering and development of debating in the region whilst allowing the strongest teams to compete against each other. I think at the end of the day, the latter part of that statement is the least important aspect as it benefits the fewest.

The idea of answering POIs is incredibly intimidating, even for experienced debaters. As mentioned by someone else, the frustration and challenge of rejecting unwanted questions often interrupts the flow of a speech and I imagine would be especially difficult if you were also negotiating speaking in a Second language. I don't think anyone on this Forum has claimed to be able to speak on behalf of ESL/EFL debaters, but logic dictates that answering an unknown question would be even more intimidating if you first had to process it in your own language, and then translate. God knows my French wouldn't last 10 seconds after the first knock.

POIs in my experience tend to bring superficial attacks to the floor. Rarely do they stop arguments dead in their tracks and even if that was the case, I don't think there's a substantial benefit to a one-liner that does that in a speech as opposed to developed rebuttal a few minutes later that does the same thing.

The final benefit I think that exists re: Australs style is the development of strong analytical skills. Sure, you could probably, broadly, make the same point with POIs, but necessarily because you dedicate at least a minute to answering POIs and the rest of your speech is disjointed because of interruptions, it is of a substantially lower quality. I believe that the strong analysis that Australian and Asian debaters engage in serves them well for competing at tournaments such as Worlds, where rhetoric and one-liners often drown out proper debate. Moreover, POIs can undermine the development of disciplined and comprehensive rebuttal skills, as points are often dealt with on an ad hoc basis. The ability to deliver a speech in which all elements of the opposing case are thoroughly addressed and rebutted is a vital, and often underestimated skill in debating, not only in terms of developing the reasoning process, but also in simply winning debates.

These skills are not only good from a self-interest perspective, but is also incredibly persuasive. An uninterrupted 8 minute speech allows speakers to really hone their manner skills in different ways. As a generalisation, most successful BP debaters are aggressive by necessity because of POIs and the 4-team nature of the style. There is greater diversity in Australs style. I know that I personally found Sayeqa's speech in the Semi-final at Australs last year to be quite incredible and I think the speech would have been very different if we could have badgered/interrupted her.

I think sentiments such as 'tough luck' are inconsiderate and inconsistent with what I think is a general desire of most debaters, to help not only yourself improve, but others. Debating is meant to be fun and enjoyable at the end of the day and I think maybe that perspective has been lost by some.