|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 23, 2008 13:38:45 GMT 10
It is factually incorrect to say that most comps don't have POIs. The Sydney school comps mostly have POIs I believe, the school comps in Queensland, ACT, Tasmania, WA and South Australia all have POIs. I don't really understand the basis for that claim. It's also the format at the National comp. In addition, the majority of internal university 3 on 3 comps from my understanding have POIs. So this claim just strikes me as odd: .
|
|
Duncan
Going to Easters
Posts: 5
|
Post by Duncan on Jun 23, 2008 17:04:17 GMT 10
Looks like Mr Hat agrees with everything else you wrote, Fi. Well done For what it's worth, I debated in the DAV schools competition, and now debate at university, but I had never heard of a 'POI' until we started BP in second semester. Regardless of who uses POIs and who doesn't in their internal competitions, we should be considering the benefits and harms of such a proposal for Australs. Simply saying 'everyone else does it so we should too' is silly.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 23, 2008 18:17:28 GMT 10
Looks like Mr Hat agrees with everything else you wrote, Fi. Well done For what it's worth, I debated in the DAV schools competition, and now debate at university, but I had never heard of a 'POI' until we started BP in second semester. Regardless of who uses POIs and who doesn't in their internal competitions, we should be considering the benefits and harms of such a proposal for Australs. Simply saying 'everyone else does it so we should too' is silly. No, Expressio Unius est exclusio alterius does not apply, I'd just rather keep it to one issue at a time, less wiggle room and distracting side issues. In that vein, it is fairly obvious I am not suggesting "everyone does it, so we should", there have been many nuanced arguments offered for POIs, I am simply refuting the factually incorrect claim that POIs would disadvantage people because they're "rare" and "confusing and complicated". If anything Fiona's remarks make it fairly clear this is largely about novices and ESL debaters. I don't think the format is adjusted at worlds to help novices, and if someone suggested it was I doubt they would be taken seriously (certainly not if they proposed something that was felt to make the format worse). I don't think Australs is really a forum for novices, and nor do I think it would be hard to learn it, especially as Tim claims that POIs are predominant in Asian style debating. If school students can manage it, I guess I don't see why Uni level australs debaters can't. Particularly since there is power pairing. Chances are a team which is more experienced will trounce with or without POIs. If anything, your own situation is a case for Victoria moving into step with the rest of Australia (and apparently Asia too), rather than trying to bring their format to everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 23, 2008 20:15:19 GMT 10
In that vein, it is fairly obvious I am not suggesting "everyone does it, so we should", I think one issue at a time might be a little too much for you.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 23, 2008 20:18:06 GMT 10
I can't believe I missed that chance to poke fun of Julian, for making that contradiction. Thanks for letting me make fun of him for it now. I assume I don't need to explain "arguments in the alternative" and the meaning of phrases like "if anything" to a debater of your standing. Keep it up big guy.
|
|
|
Post by Fiona Prowse on Jun 23, 2008 21:52:13 GMT 10
I don't think it's necessary to categorise a tournament as being for 'novices' or for ESL debaters or for highly advanced speakers. The reality is that a tournament is diverse by virtue of the difference within the region and amongst debaters. Not only that, but the vast majority start off as novices so surely their development should be a consideration.
I think this diversity is reflected in the difference between Worlds and Australs and just because Worlds is cut-throat doesn't mean that Australs should be. The absence of AA at Worlds is a clear difference. I don't think I need to go into the substantial benefits this differential treatment has delivered the region.
Tinfoil, fine if you don't want to disclose your name; but stop being so needlessly rude. There are several people on this forum who would like to have a calm and non-aggressive discussion about this matter. Having a debate about a debate is hardly productive and slaging off people over inconsequential issues is a waste of all of our time.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 23, 2008 22:39:19 GMT 10
I agree, but of course that "debate within a debate" hasn't been caused by me. I know it's awfully hard for people here to be objective, but when the actual chronology is as follows, I find it hard to feel like a pest: 1) Fiona makes an argument for POIs. 2) I point out part of that argument is factually incorrect 3) 2 people make pithy, irrelevant posts which do not address anything I said.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 24, 2008 9:36:35 GMT 10
Aw, boo hoo.
My advice is to harden up.
You're not exactly a bastion of accuracy and honesty yourself. You said IIU got in in place of Monash in 2003, which isn't true. You said I was incorrect when I assessed that you'd never broken at Australs, which of course means nothing but you still felt the need to lie and deny it. You've been happy to let people assume you're from Sydney Uni which isn't true. You've tried to use other people's words from other mailing lists against them even when you're not prepared to be accountable for your own past words. You've thrown out bits of information about yourself when you think it helps your own argument (living in Japan, for example) even though you guard any information that might hurt your own credibility.
And you deliberately try and have this discussion in the most mean-spirited way possible, believing that it won't reflect back on yourself.
There are plenty of people who didn't have the patience, ability or the luck required to become successful debaters, but you're the only one who feels the need to express their sour grapes by posting angry, anonymous diatribes on the forums of other debating societies.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 24, 2008 16:52:58 GMT 10
Tom continues his contemptible record of being an intellectual coward who wants it all ways. It's really incredible that you feel you're in a position to lecture me on manners. If you feel I've misrepresented a relevant argument about POIs or Team Caps by accidentally producing an incorrect fact, such as the IIU one, feel free to bring it to my attention, perhaps by private message since your record on not trainwrecking the thread is not good. I won't cry Tom, honest. The rest is either not really worthy of a reply, has been covered already in some depth, or both. If you want an answer to some of your slander, I invite you to push me for it, I'm happy to get into it. Otherwise I'm going to try and be the bigger person for probably the 4th time in this thread and try and let it return to the issue at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 25, 2008 17:38:21 GMT 10
Bigger person? Probably better if someone else says it, mate.
But you're right. We should get back to the issue at hand. The issue was which style is most used, right? Thats how you figure out which is better, yeah?
Perhaps you should consider a little more carefully the opinions of the people who've actually attended the tournament in question, instead of basing your view on which style is preferred by the Tasmanian schools competition.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 25, 2008 21:45:39 GMT 10
The style is not just used in places like Tasmania, it appears from what I can tell to be the predominant style within Australia, something I pointed out rather clearly. Tim now tells me it is in Asia too. I'm pretty sure NZ has POIs come to think of it. I know Tim would like to frame this debate about which one is more preferable for Australs, and not which one is "better", but sometimes the answer is the same. There is probably a good reason the majority of comps and unis use POIs in 3 on 3 style. I suggest it is because they prefer that style in 3 on 3 debating, and flowing from that I suggest the reason they prefer it is because they feel it is the better style. It's not like they're locked in after all, they don't have constitutional hurdles, they can change style however they like. If you have an alternative explanation for why the style is predominant, I am listening. It just seems to me like it makes little sense to use one 3 on 3 style for schools and most internal comps, then another for the main shows. There are other arguments for POIs of course, but just sticking with this one for now, it seems quite a sensible implication to draw. The reasons for it have been enunciated already by proponents of the change. If it was really too difficult then it wouldn't be the style of choice. That doesn't make it right just because everyone is doing it, but it seems important to establish this given: a) it has been claimed that POIs are rare in 3 on 3 style (in Australia) b) thus, it has been argued POIs are too hard to get a grip on and hurt novices, etc, and c) I suggest there is probably a reason this style is prefered, a reason that supports what has been argued by the proponents of the changes, that they enhance the debate as a whole, and argumentation specifically.
|
|
|
Post by n on Jun 26, 2008 13:44:41 GMT 10
From Malaysia, so I'll be brief.
Tinfoilhat - the only intellectual coward here is you for attacking people and not having the guts to put your name to your arguments.
The purpose of Australs is not novice, but that does not mean that it should not also be considered. In a show of highly sophisticated argumentation - the anti POI camp has argued that:
1. For the top debaters, Australs style is the style which allows the best and most sophisticated analysis to develop in debates and the deepest engagement. No other style allows this (even if they have their own benefits).
2. For novice speakers, and potentially ESL/EFL speakers (although we have noted that we're not necessarily representative of their opinions on these forums, although many contributors have coached ESL/EFL speakers in both styles) POIs can also add an extra layer of complexity to the style which makes for more opportunity to mess up the debate, or just to feel uncomfortable against more aggressive teams.
This shows that at both ends of the tournament (and novices matter because getting novices to learn and improve and come back again is what makes the next generation of champions) POIs would not be an improvement.
In terms of the argument that 'everyone in Australia does POIs' so school students get it. Several people have pointed out that Victoria doesn't, and I think since Melbourne and Monash are two pretty large and established debating unis, we count for something. I would also be highly surprised if every other uni ran their internals with POIs since Easters doesn't have POIs and neither does Australs. Doesn't sound like the most effective training. In terms of the Australian debating circuit, no IVs or invitationals in first semester have POIs (Easters, ADAM, Australs) so I don't think that argument stands.
But even if it did - the point is that new debaters can learn to accept and offer POIs but they don't do it well. It creates a more intimidating atmosphere (part of the reason why we have womens to help women get introduced to BP is a less intimidating and aggressive atmosphere) and lots of newer debaters simply don't stand up and ask the questions. Don't see what we're achieving there.
I think the real issue however is what you lose by adding POIs. As Fi and many others before her have said - you lose development of manner, of depth, of analysis and of the ability to construct an 8 minute speech that doesn't need anything else to keep it interesting.
In my opinion, that would be a travesty for Australasian debating.
N
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 26, 2008 14:22:59 GMT 10
From Malaysia, so I'll be brief. Tinfoilhat - the only intellectual coward here is you for attacking people and not having the guts to put your name to your arguments. The purpose of Australs is not novice, but that does not mean that it should not also be considered. In a show of highly sophisticated argumentation - the anti POI camp has argued that: 1. For the top debaters, Australs style is the style which allows the best and most sophisticated analysis to develop in debates and the deepest engagement. No other style allows this (even if they have their own benefits). 2. For novice speakers, and potentially ESL/EFL speakers (although we have noted that we're not necessarily representative of their opinions on these forums, although many contributors have coached ESL/EFL speakers in both styles) POIs can also add an extra layer of complexity to the style which makes for more opportunity to mess up the debate, or just to feel uncomfortable against more aggressive teams. This shows that at both ends of the tournament (and novices matter because getting novices to learn and improve and come back again is what makes the next generation of champions) POIs would not be an improvement. In terms of the argument that 'everyone in Australia does POIs' so school students get it. Several people have pointed out that Victoria doesn't, and I think since Melbourne and Monash are two pretty large and established debating unis, we count for something. I would also be highly surprised if every other uni ran their internals with POIs since Easters doesn't have POIs and neither does Australs. Doesn't sound like the most effective training. In terms of the Australian debating circuit, no IVs or invitationals in first semester have POIs (Easters, ADAM, Australs) so I don't think that argument stands. But even if it did - the point is that new debaters can learn to accept and offer POIs but they don't do it well. It creates a more intimidating atmosphere (part of the reason why we have womens to help women get introduced to BP is a less intimidating and aggressive atmosphere) and lots of newer debaters simply don't stand up and ask the questions. Don't see what we're achieving there. I think the real issue however is what you lose by adding POIs. As Fi and many others before her have said - you lose development of manner, of depth, of analysis and of the ability to construct an 8 minute speech that doesn't need anything else to keep it interesting. In my opinion, that would be a travesty for Australasian debating. N Other styles allow analysis, nobody has claimed the contrary. I just don't think those styles are as good, and hurt analysis in other ways. Obviously alot of people agree with me, because non-POI formats are apparently few and far between. It wasn't me who started the "what is everyone else doing" argument, but since it's been raised (incorrectly) by the other side of the argument, I think the observation that pretty much everyone does have POIs is probably a pretty important one. Much like the team cap argument, there has been alot of assertion as to benefits, but when someone actually tries to look at some way of measuring it there has been alot of evidence is the other way, and pretty much none is in favour. I doubt UQ or Sydney, two uni's who have both been pretty successful at Australs and Worlds would really claim they've been hurt by POIs at their school and internal comps. Much like the team cap argument, where nobody could really point to an ESL institution this was really helping, but there is just a vague, fuzzy feeling associated with it. I don't really see the point of raising 2 novice comps (one of which has POIs- ie, Womens, and isn't even 3 on 3) and a pre-Australs IV, as though this is somehow an argument in favour. Easters doesn't have POIs for 2 reasons: a) it's a novice comp, and b) institutional rules are hard to change. Women's is neither here nor there since it has POIs, which given the experienced nature of alot of the participants would if anything undermine your argument. It seems disingenous at best to think some of the winners of Womens over the last few years would be "less scary" than the average team a novice BP team will see at Worlds, and obviously the organisers of womens have, in their wisdom, decided the poor, vulnerable novice women are tough enough to handle the Liz Sheargold's and Julia Fetherstone's going at them with POIs. Pre-Australs/ADAM has no POIs because it's pre-Australs, and it'd be pretty stupid to go to a tournament designed to train for Australs, but which used a different format. If Australs had POIs, so would ADAM. There's all this talk about scaring weaker teams, but I don't see it to be honest. Good teams will scare a weaker one anyway, and power pairing will soon sort it out either way. Given POIs are apparently standard in Asia as well, I'm pretty sure they'll be fine. I pointed out that it didn't really make sense why school comps manage POIs fine, but ESL teams will find it just all too confusing. Though it doesn't really seem relevant either way, since that's something for local ESL comps to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 26, 2008 15:26:41 GMT 10
It wasn't me who started the "what is everyone else doing" argument, Oh really thats just too much. It's also telling that the Australs style is not used in (I think) any school comps across Australia, nor at University internal comps, where the predominant styles in 3 on 3 comps feature POIs. I think that alone is basically a concession as to what the "best" style is, I think the observation I made about our domestic comps is self-explanatory. Australians can easily change styles for school or internal comps. Almost every schools or internal comp at Uni closely resembles the Sydney proposal, not the actual format of Australs. I think this makes it very clear what the prefered style is, or "the best one" as it were. 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... 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). Not only were you the first person to raise that argument, its pretty much the only thing you've said on this issue. Australs is not a schools competition. What we are aiming for is the highest possible standard of analysis, and for the many, many, many reasons given on this board and on the Australs list, none of which you have responded to, that is best provided without POIs. Of course, you're probably right that ADAM would be held with POIs if Australs was. The same is probably true of a lot of internal competitions in universities in Victoria and other states. But the fact that debating at those institutions has grown so strong, and the standard of analysis has gotten so high at Australs in the current style, tells us there is no problem with the status quo. Pat has told us that Australs is about analysis, and he's right. But its not like anybody sat down one day and said 'right, lets have a tournament about analysis, and another tournament about tactics'. Australs has evolved into filling that role because the way to do well in Australs style is by having the strongest possible analysis. Changing the style causes the tournament to start to evolve in a different direction. Not necessarily a 'better' or 'worse' direction but a different direction. Given that it is currently by far the greatest expression of good analysis in a debating tournament it seems unlikely that changing the style to make it more like other styles would improve that aspect. But tinfoilhat conceded something important when he acknowledged the significance of analysis to Australs (how he could know that without having been to one I've no idea, but anyway...). Everyone in this discussion is in furious agreement that that is one of the primary unique functions of Australs (I would also add representative and combining different worldviews and principles). But of course the significance of analysis is greatly less in all the other competitions tinfoilhat has cited as examples. Schools comps aren't aiming for a detailed understanding of international issues and theory. They don't demand critical analysis from their students. They don't expect debates to move in such varying and interesting directions. They're not trying to merge Western and Eastern philosophies. They're a far more basic educational tool, more focussed on public speaking, presentation, and the kind of basic political theories that are taught in high schools, as opposed to university. I still maintain that not having POIs is more likely to encourage participation from a greater range of people. I think there's possibly some confusion about which styles are used in which states, but the predominant style in Victoria is 3 on 3 without POIs, and this is the state with the most high school debaters in interschool competitions across the greatest range of schools, both public and private. In fact, the size of the DAV schools competition dwarfs that of other states by some distance, or so I'm led to believe. I don't actually think that proves anything. I certainly don't think it means anything significant for the style we should have at Australs. But I hope we can finally move off this incredibly stupid question about what the most common styles used at Australian high schools means for the one of the highest standard debating competitions in the world.
|
|
lizzie
Watched Regressive
Posts: 14
|
Post by lizzie on Jun 27, 2008 2:10:00 GMT 10
So, I have a tonne of work to finish in the next 24 hours, and in a bid to do anything but that work, I drifted back to this forum. And, for a change, I choose to actually have an opinion about a substantive issue and state it. Here it goes: I am against the introduction of POIs into Australs. Maybe, as a Victorian, that isn't all that suprising, but last time this was brought up at Australs (and I am one of those sad old hacks that has been around long enough to remember that Council meeting) I acutally personally supported POIs being introduced. From memory, I was the MUDS rep at that Council and we voted againt the proposal (I could be wrong there though, if so it is not deliberate!), but that was because of what the club felt, not what I felt. Anyway, with age comes wisdom, and I have changed my mind... There seem to be three arguments floating through this thread about why POIs are or are not good at Australs, so I'll go through each in turn, in reverse order of how important I think they are as arguments: 1. Who does/doesn't use POIs? Is something a good style simply because other tournaments are in that style? I think the question answers itself, just because most schools comps use POIs or most IVs use POIs doesn't means Australs should. If Australs did then ADAM would, but likewise, probably part of the reason that most schools comps in Aus use POIs is because Nationals does (and Nationals does because World Schools does, and World Schools does because InterGalactic Schools does etc... actually from my understanding World Schools uses POIs because it was started by Australians - which is why it is 3 on 3 - but working with colleagues from the UK and North America, which is why POIs and replies got introduced, and then it filtered down to Nationals etc...The DAV comp never used POIs, and has held that stance, even after Nationals added them). TFH is right I think, most or even all states/territories outside of Victoria do have POIs in their schools comps. But Tom is also right that in terms of participation levels, the DAV comp is huge, and in terms of people involved, may be comparable to the others put together. But then again, who cares? I agree with Tom, this issue of what comps use POIs and whether that proves anything should really end now. I apologise for dragging it out anymore, I just wanted to explain why so many of the schools comps use that style. Perhaps the more interesting question than to comapre how many competitions use any given style, is to actually consider the quality of those competitions, and even more than that, consider if that quality would be as high with or without the POIs. Which leads into the next two arguments... 2. Novice participation: I think it is pretty well accepted that the first few times (or even twenty times, or hundred times) you debate with POIs it is scary, and that their inclusion in Australs would make the tournament more intimidating for novices. TFH used me as an example (so if it wasn't clear to anyone, I am Liz Sheargold) of how at Women's the organisers seem to think it is not scary for novices to debate against experienced people with POIs in the mix. Apart from the fact that I would claim that my POIs really aren't that scary, normally they are just verbose and spoken too quickly for anyone else to understand - at the last women's I debated at I got accepted like twice in the rounds when I offered POIs. Only twice. Now while I can hypothesise a range of reasons for this, the most obvious seems to be that people were intimidated by my age/freckles/height/glasses/fashion sense. Please do not get me wrong, I am not trying to say that women's shouldn't have POIs - just that it is scary for novice debaters to offer and accept POIs, especially in tournaments where they can have people who are in their 4th or 5th year of attending that tournament. But I actually don't think that this alone is enough of a reason to keep POIs out of Australs. As I am sure TFH and Pat and other supporters of the plan have mentioned, Australs is power paired, and that should help to even the playing field for novices. IF POIs increased the standard of debating at Australs I would still support them being introduced, in spite of the potential harm to novices, because I think that Australs like Worlds is a tournament that should have the primary aim of reaching the highest standards of debating. But if POIs were NOT going to radically increase the standard/quality of debates at Australs, then I think novice participation is certainly a valid factor to consider in this argument. But this all brings me on to what I think is the most important issue here - that is whether or not POIs will lead to a better standard of debating or not. 3. Will POIs improve Australs debates:Will POIs enhance the style at Australs? Will it lead to better debates? This is where I used to think that it would,and why I used to support the introduction of POIs to Australs. I think partly that was due to my background with National Schools. But having attended more IVs now, and having had the privelege of adjudicating a Worlds and really comparing the australian style with other styles of debate (admitting that such generalisations are hard to make), I have changed my mind. I think that Pat and the USyd debates committee did a good job of putting the case for including POIs in their initial email to the Australs group, and I have a lot of sympathy with their arguments about making debates more dynamic, forcing people to deal with arguments, killing arguments dead in the water etc... (sorry if it sounds like I am oversimplfying these arguments or misrepresenting them, I am not intending to, and genuinely have a lot of sympathy with where they are coming from). The reason that I no longer agree with this argument is two fold: a) When POIs are used badly:I think that in a perfect utopian world, that POIs could enhance australs debates. if they were only ever used to bring up a pertinent point or to call attention back to a forgotten but critical argument. But sadly I don't think that is how they are used all the time. They will become used to deliberately throw off someone's method/structure, to bring up an argument that was quite rightly forgotten or deprioritised by the other team, or simply to nitpick. Every time a POI is used badly, it takes time away from the speaker on the floor, and disrupts their structure. And detracts from the quality of the debate as a whole. It does lead to less respectful and more raucous debates (and I say this as someone that partly loves that element of BP, but I know that a lot of people don't). I think it is fair to say that POIs detract from debates as often as they add to them, because they are not always used as well as they can be used. b) When POIs are used well:As I admitted above, I think that POIs could have some good uses in an Australs debate. Particularly when you have get postive material at second neg that gets ignored by the other side. But even when they are used well, they take time from the speaker on the floor. Why does that matter? Because I think a real skill that australasian debaters develop is to analyse material in a lot of depth. Lets say it takes 15 seconds for a POI to be offered, 15 seconds to answer it. That happens twice per speech, so we are up to a whole minute lost. Then there is all the time you waste saying " no thank you" to the other team. I would guess in total you lose about 1.5 minutes of your speech to POIs. When you don't deal with that many arguments in a debate (say 3 issues at third speaker, the classic structure), that is 30 seconds per issue. And it isn't the summary of the other sides argument that you lose. It isn't the basic response from your team. It is 30 seconds spent on the most specific, but also the most important, deep analysis. The extra example, the more detailed case study, the why the why is true. Learning to get to that analysis is something that I think makes Australasian debating great. The other functions of good POIs, such as calling attention to missed issues or attacking obvious flaws in arguments, are things that adjudicators should be taking account of themselves, and that can also be pointed out in rebuttal. Those aims can be filled by other means; but the time you lose, the damage to the structure and flow of a speech cannot be regained in some other way. This is my key reason why I don't like the idea of POIs in Australs. Now this is not meant to imply that i think POIs are bad in all styles of debating. I love BP. I love the ability to stand up and say "give me one example of where that happened" and watch your opposition sweat. But I think Australs style has other virtues in the strength of analysis it generates. Variety is the spice of life, so I think we should try to preserve what makes Australs style great now. Well that is my 2 centimes. Sorry for the rant - but it is fun to contribute an opinion on these things! Disclaimers: If anything I have said here misrepresents someone else's argument (I have tried to avoided referring to people to avoid that) or seems to belittle the case for POIs, that was never my intention, and I apologise. Similarly I apologise for any errors of fact. I think no one here is racist.
|
|