The following motion was proposed by the University of Sydney Union:

Proposal One – Points of Information

The constitution currently reads:

28.2 Points of information, points of personal privilege and points of order are not permitted.

Proposed amendment:

28.2 Points of Information may be asked of the speaker between the first minute mark and the six minute mark (both of which shall be signalled by a
warning bell).
28.2.1 Points of information shall not be asked during either of the reply speeches.
28.2.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member of the speaker’s opposing team should stand, place one hand on their head and extend the other hand towards the speaker. The member may announce that they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.
28.2.3 The speaker may accept or decline to answer the Point of Information.
28.2.4 The asking of Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.
28.2.5 The speaker may ask the person offering the Point of Information to sit down where the offeror has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.
28.2.6 Speakers should attempt to answer at least two Points of Information during their speech.
28.2.7 Points of Information should be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the speaker answering the point of information and the person offering the point of information
28.2.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.

Explanatory memorandum:

The Debates Committee of the University of Sydney Union will be both proposing and supporting the above change to the AIDA Constitution because we feel that it will make Australs-style debating more dynamic and engaging for debaters, adjudicators and spectators. We believe that debate is more interesting where there is direct and immediate engagement between the teams’ arguments and rebuttal.

Further to making the debate more interesting, it also allows teams to hold their opposition to account. Too often, teams ignore strong material or rebuttal from their opposition and thereby try to deny the argument ‘air time’ in the debate in order to minimise the damage done to their case. Points of Information help in focusing the debate on the real issues of contention by allowing teams to press for a response to their strong material. They also allow teams to demonstrate that they understand the issues of the debate and aren’t just repeating something that was written in The Economist a few weeks earlier.

There are two major criticisms of POIs at Australs:
• POIs will make Australs too much like BP
We don’t feel that the major distinction between BP and Australs is POIs. We feel that the dynamic created by having four teams in the room who are trying to defeat the opposition and distinguish themselves from the team on the same bench is what is responsible for the major differences. Australs is about analysis, Worlds is about tactics. If we introduce POIs into Australs, the focus will still be on analysis because teams will still be trying to support their own arguments and defeat those of their opposition, not strategically position themselves. POIs will actually strengthen the need for good analysis because the speaker will be liable to immediate challenges to his or her analysis. POIs will also strengthen the effect of good analysis on the debate because teams can be pressed to respond to strong analysis.
• POIs will disadvantage ESL teams and inexperienced teams
We don’t think that this is the case. With POIs, Australs will become more like Asians and World Schools, which we do not feel unfairly disadvantage ESL competitors. Further, we think that the tabbing rules of the Australasian constitution ensures accurate power-pairing between teams of similar strengths.

We are well aware that this amendment was proposed (by us) in 2005 and was defeated. We are also well aware that there is every chance that it will suffer the same fate this year. However, we are keen to maintain our support for it because of the huge benefits that it will bring to Australs-style debating.

Further, we are mindful that some within the AIDA community may be unhappy that this issue is being raised again, so soon after the last time it was proposed. We do not wish to create resentment within the AIDA community by wasting Council’s time with fruitless argument so, if Council is still overwhelmingly opposed to this change, we are happy for the motion to be voted on with minimal discussion.