14. Questioning in Debate

Objectives

‍

• Understand advanced questioning techniques in debates.
• Develop skills in posing strategic questions during Points of Information (POIs).
• Identify and expose logical fallacies through targeted questioning.
• Enhance critical analysis and rebuttal skills.

1. Introduction (15 minutes)

‍

Objective: Engage students and introduce the topic.

Activities:

‍

1. Open-ended Questions with Flashcards (5 minutes):

• Divide students into pairs and distribute flashcards with open-ended questions.
• Each student answers the question and then asks a follow-up question to clarify or challenge inconsistencies.
• Example question: "Should the state force companies to pay employees equally regardless of merit and experience?"
• After discussions, highlight the role of questioning in deepening understanding and identifying inconsistencies.

‍

2. Discussion on Types of Questioning in Debate (10 minutes):

• Explain the different types of questioning as a debate strategy, focusing on:
• Points of Information (POIs) that can be in nature: 

1. Exploratory Questions
2. Rebuttal Questions

• Points of Clarification: Provide clarification of something opponent speaker said or misrepresented 

‍

2. Core Lesson: Questioning Techniques (25 minutes)

‍

Objectives: Teach students effective questioning strategies (points of Information/POI strategies)  and how to expose logical fallacies.

‍

Activities:

‍

Strategies for Effective POIs

• Explain the strategic timing of POIs and their function.
• Teach concise questioning techniques to:
  
  • Weaken the opponent’s argument.
  • Highlight contradictions.
  • Introduce new perspectives.

‍

Points of Information (POIs) in World Schools Debate

A Point of Information (POI) is a brief question or statement offered by the opposing team during a speaker’s speech in a World Schools debate. POIs are used to interact with the speaker, challenge their arguments, or clarify key claims.

POIs generally serve two main purposes:

‍

1. Challenging POIs
These POIs aim to weaken the opposing team’s case by:

• challenging arguments or assumptions;
• exposing contradictions or inconsistencies;
• questioning logic, evidence, or impacts;
• testing the coherence of the opponent’s overall strategy.

‍

2. Clarification POIs
These POIs aim to clarify or reframe arguments by:

• asking for clarification of unclear or vague claims;
• highlighting missing explanations or definitions;
• offering a new perspective on a statement made by the speaker.

‍

Timing and use of POIs

In World Schools debates, POIs may be offered from the 1st to the 7th minute of an opposing speaker’s speech. They are not allowed during the protected time at the beginning and end of the speech.
Good POI practice includes:

• Each speaker on the opposing team should attempt to offer 2–3 POIs during an opponent’s speech.
• Each speaker should accept 1–2 POIs during their own speech to demonstrate engagement and confidence.

Effective POIs are short, precise, and well-timed. They should be offered when the opponent makes a key claim, presents weak reasoning, or leaves an argument underdeveloped.

POIs are used strategically to:

• weaken the opponent’s argument;
• highlight contradictions or logical gaps;
• introduce alternative perspectives the speaker has not addressed.

A strong POI does not aim to make a full argument,  its purpose is to apply pressure, test the opponent’s case, and create doubt for the judges.

‍

Examples of Effective POIs:

1. A question exposing a logical fallacy.
2. A request for clarification.
3. A controlled provocation forcing justification from the opponent.

‍

Techniques to Expose Logical Fallacies:

• Show how well-structured POIs, clarification, and rebuttal questions can reveal common fallacies such as:
  
  • Hasty Generalization
  • Ad Hominem Attacks
  • False Causality (Correlation vs. Causation)
  • False Dilemma

‍

Demonstration with Examples:

• Hasty Generalization
  
  • Fallacy: "All young people today are addicted to social media."
  • Challenging Question: "Can you provide precise statistics proving this claim for ALL young people? Have you interviewed every single one?"
• Ad Hominem
  
  • Fallacy: "Your proposal isn’t credible because you lack direct experience."
  • Rebuttal Question: "Does a lack of direct experience automatically invalidate an argument? Have experts ever contributed without personal experience?"
• False Causality
  
  • Fallacy: "Since I started using a smartphone, my grades have dropped. Therefore, smartphones cause academic decline."
  • Exploratory Question: "What other factors might have influenced your academic performance? Have you considered study habits, effort, or learning methods?"
• False Dilemma
  
  • Fallacy: "Either you support total technological innovation, or you’re against progress."
  • Clarification Question: "Are there positions between complete acceptance and total rejection? How do you assess the nuances in this debate?"

‍

3. Practical Exercise (35 minutes)

‍

Objective: Allow students to practice and refine their ability to ask strategic questions in debates.

Activity: Role-Playing Debate

• Divide the class into groups for a simulated debate.
• Focus Areas:
  
  • Strategic insertion of POIs.
  • Responding to POIs.
  • Identifying and refuting fallacies.

‍

Debate Topic: "Gender Gap: Do women truly have the same opportunities in the workforce?"

• Each student prepares:
  
  • Three possible POIs
  • Analysis of potential fallacies

Example POIs:

1. "When you claim that women earn less, have you considered sectoral differences?"
2. "Can you provide precise statistical data on career progression?"
3. "How do you explain leadership disparities?"

‍

Potential Fallacies to Identify:

• Hasty Generalizations
• False Causality
• Ad Hominem Attacks
• False Dilemmas

‍

4. Conclusion & Reflection (15 minutes)

‍

Objective: Reinforce learning, awareness, and encourage self-evaluation.

Discussion Topics:

• Challenges encountered during questioning.
• Most effective techniques used.
• Awareness of strategies employed.

‍

Evaluation Criteria for Questioning:

• Precision
• Conciseness
• Strategic Impact
• Logical Accuracy

‍

Homework / Further Exploration:

• Analyze a real debate to:
  
  • Identify questioning techniques used.
  • Write a critical report on observed strategies.

‍

WORKSHEET 1 – STIMULUS QUESTION FLASHCARDS

‍

Instructions: Cut along the edges and distribute one card to each pair of students.

CARD 1

Should the State force companies to pay their employees equally regardless of merit and experience?
Category: Economics and Labour

CARD 2

Do social media do more harm than good to modern society?
Category: Technology and Society

CARD 3

Should artificial intelligence be regulated before it becomes more widespread?
Category: Technology and Ethics

CARD 4

Should students have the right to evaluate their teachers?
Category: Education

CARD 5

Is it right to limit freedom of expression in order to protect vulnerable groups?
Category: Rights and Freedoms

CARD 6

Should voting be compulsory in a democracy?
Category: Politics and Citizenship

CARD 7

Should universities be completely free for everyone?
Category: Education and Economics

CARD 8

Should personal privacy be sacrificed to ensure greater security?
Category: Security and Freedom

‍

WORKSHEET 2 – LOGICAL FALLACIES CARDS

‍

Guide to identifying and exposing common fallacies in debate

1. HASTY GENERALIZATION

Definition: Drawing general conclusions from specific cases or non-representative samples.

Fallacious example:
“All young people today are addicted to social media.”

Question to expose it:
“Can you provide precise statistical data proving this applies to all young people? How did you manage to survey every single young person?”

How to recognize it:
Look for absolute words such as all, none, always, never without comprehensive evidence.

‍

2. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT

Definition: Attacking the person instead of addressing the argument presented.

Fallacious example:
“Your proposals are not credible because you have no direct experience.”

Question to expose it:
“Does the lack of direct experience necessarily invalidate the logical soundness of the argument? Are there experts who have contributed meaningfully without direct experience?”

How to recognize it:
The argument focuses on personal characteristics rather than the substance of the issue.

‍

3. FALSE CAUSE (POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC)

Definition: Assuming that if A comes before B, then A caused B.

Fallacious example:
“Since I started using a smartphone, my grades have dropped. Therefore, smartphones cause academic decline.”

Question to expose it:
“What other variables might have influenced your academic performance during this period? Have you considered factors such as study habits, effort, or learning methods?”

How to recognize it:
Look for claims of causation without evidence proving a causal link.

‍

4. FALSE DILEMMA (BLACK-AND-WHITE THINKING)

Definition: Presenting only two options when more alternatives exist.

Fallacious example:
“Either you fully support technological innovation, or you are against progress.”

Question to expose it:
“Are there intermediate positions between total acceptance and complete rejection? How do you account for nuance in this debate?”

How to recognize it:
Watch for either…or structures that artificially exclude middle-ground options.

‍

WORKSHEET 3 – POINT OF INFORMATION (POI) ASSESSMENT GRID

‍

‍

WORKSHEET 4 – DEBATE ANALYSIS CHECKLIST

‍

☐ Identify the main debate topic
☐ Identify the positions of each side (Pro / Con)
☐ Record all Points of Information (POIs) used
☐ Classify each POI (clarification, exploratory, rebuttal)
☐ Evaluate the effectiveness of each POI using the given criteria
☐ Identify any logical fallacies
☐ Analyze how questions influenced the debate
☐ Reflect on the most effective strategies observed

‍

WORKSHEET 5 – TYPES OF QUESTIONS IN DEBATE

‍

1. CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS

Purpose: To obtain more details on a specific point.

Example:
“What exactly do you mean by ‘wage equality’?”

‍

2. EXPLORATORY QUESTIONS

Purpose: To open new analytical perspectives.

Example:
“Have you considered the impact of this policy on self-employed workers?”

‍

3. REBUTTAL QUESTIONS

Purpose: To highlight weaknesses or contradictions in an argument.

Example:
“How do you reconcile this claim with the data you presented earlier?”

‍

4. POINT OF INFORMATION (POI)

Purpose: To strategically interrupt an opponent and weaken their argument.

Key features: brief (max 15 seconds), relevant, well-timed.

‍

STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE POIs

STRATEGIC TIMING

• Appropriate moment: when the opponent makes a weak or contradictory claim
• Inappropriate moment: during the opponent’s introduction or conclusion
• Frequency: no more than 2–3 POIs per speech to avoid appearing aggressive

FORMULATION TECHNIQUES

1. Use direct interrogative sentences
2. Be specific, not vague
3. Avoid long rhetorical questions
4. Focus on one point at a time
5. Maintain a respectful but firm tone

SAMPLE POIs – GENDER GAP

Debate motion: “Do women truly have equal opportunities in the workplace?”

• “When you say women earn less, have you considered differences across sectors?”
• “Can you provide precise statistical data on career progression?”
• “How do you explain disparities in leadership positions?”

Potential fallacies to identify:

• Hasty generalizations
• False causation
• Ad hominem arguments
• False dilemmas

CRITICAL REPORT TEMPLATE (HOMEWORK)

Recommended structure:

• Introduction – description of the debate (title, date, participants, context)
• Analysis of POIs – transcription and classification of at least 5 POIs
• Identification of fallacies – specific examples with explanation
• Effectiveness evaluation – based on precision, brevity, impact, and soundness
• Personal reflection – what you learned and would apply in future debates
• Conclusion – most effective strategies observed and recommendations

Recommended length:
2–3 pages (approx. 800–1200 words)

‍

QUESTIONING ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (SUMMARY)

Criterion

Description

PRECISION

The question is clear, specific, and unambiguous

BREVITY

The question is concise and efficient (max 15 seconds for POIs)

STRATEGIC IMPACT

The question weakens the argument or highlights contradictions

ARGUMENTATIVE SOUNDNESS

The question is logically valid and follows ethical debate rules

‍