Taking both POIs towards the beginning of your argument will get them out of your way, allowing you to focus on the substance of your idea for the rest of your time without worry of being interrupted. However, taking both POIs early can delay getting into the substance of your ideas and may create problems if you don’t manage your time well for the rest of your speech. Waiting until the end of your speech to accept both POIs can be an advantage because they will come during the strongest times in your argument, giving you a position to answer them. However, delaying acceptance of any POIs until the end may discourage your opponents from asking them, leaving you with no POIs to answer. Spreading POIs out between the first and last parts of your argument will demonstrate to the judges that you are comfortable addressing POIs at any point in your argument. However, don’t forget to address the second POI in the latter half of your time.
You will usually have a period of time at the beginning and the end of your argument during which your opponent is restricted from raising POIs. The amount of time is determined by the style of debate you’re using.
To decline a POI, you can verbally tell them you will not accept a POI at this time by saying, “No, thank you,” or “Not at this time, thank you. ” Alternatively, you can wave them down by waving your hand in a gesture towards the ground. How you decline a POI is determined by your personal preference, but waving an opponent down may be less disruptive to the flow of your argument.
Pushing the premise of your argument to its logical extent. This strategies tries to force you to defend extreme examples. For example, “If you approve of advanced interrogation techniques, then you must approve of the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture. ” Questioning the credibility of a fact. In instances where your argument is dependent on certain facts, a POI that undermines the credibility of that fact could undermine your entire argument. This type of POI may be structure like this one: “You argue that lowering tax rates is effective in increasing a state’s overall tax revenue, but Smith showed that states which lowered tax rates had diminishing tax revenue. ” Proposing a baited contradiction. Common practice of this strategy takes the form of an opponent asking you to take a stance on an issue that he knows will be contradicted in his own or one of his teammate’s upcoming speeches. Such as, “Are you okay with lifting the embargo on Cuba?”
When you’re attacking the shortcomings of the POI, you could structure your response like this: “Your implication that extended interrogation hours is equivalent to waterboarding is ridiculous and totally blown out of proportion. We’re not talking about torture. We’re talking about giving police the necessary tools to acquire the most information about a crime as possible in a timely fashion. ” Don’t appear flustered by stalling with phrases like “Um” and “Uh, well, maybe. ” Even a faulty POI can look strong if you become nervous and agitated while trying to respond.
