1. Know the rules of the debate format you are participating in, including timings and etiquette for offering points of information (POIs).
2. Have a clear purpose for your POI, whether it is to challenge, clarify, or rebut an argument made by the speaker.
3. Consider the timing of your POI and read the room to gauge its impact and reception from the audience, judge, and speaker.
The article titled "How to Offer Effective Points of Information in Debates" provides some tips on how to strategically and effectively use points of information (POIs) during a debate. While the article offers some useful advice, there are a few areas where it could be improved.
One potential bias in the article is that it primarily focuses on parliamentary and British parliamentary debate formats. While these formats are certainly common, there are many other debate formats used around the world that may have different rules and norms for POIs. It would have been helpful if the article had acknowledged this and provided some guidance for other debate formats as well.
Additionally, the article relies heavily on the opinions and insights of one individual, Connor Campbell, a Litigation Associate at McMillan LLP. While Campbell's expertise in litigation may be relevant to the topic, it would have been beneficial to include perspectives from other experts or practitioners in the field of debating to provide a more well-rounded view.
Furthermore, the article lacks evidence or examples to support its claims about when and how to offer POIs effectively. For example, it suggests that offering a POI during a crucial or weak argument can expose or undermine the speaker, but it does not provide any evidence or examples to illustrate this point. Including real-life examples or studies on effective POI strategies would have strengthened the article's credibility.
The article also fails to explore counterarguments or potential risks associated with offering POIs. While it mentions that POIs can backfire if used poorly or if one interrupts too often or rudely, it does not delve into specific examples or discuss how debaters can mitigate these risks. Providing more comprehensive guidance on avoiding pitfalls and addressing potential drawbacks would have made the article more balanced.
Additionally, there is some promotional content present in the article. The inclusion of links to Connor Campbell's LinkedIn profile suggests self-promotion rather than providing objective information. It would have been better if the author had included links to other reputable sources or experts in the field.
Overall, while the article offers some useful tips on offering effective POIs in debates, it could benefit from a more balanced and evidence-based approach. Including perspectives from multiple experts, providing examples and evidence to support claims, exploring counterarguments and risks, and avoiding promotional content would have improved the article's credibility and usefulness.