[eDebate] re speaker points

Tue Feb 12 17:54:46 CST 2002

it seems to me that there is never going to be a way out of this at least in
the sense that the scale seems to keep moving up and will probably always
vary year to year as customs change.

perhaps, tournaments should break all winning teams (eg all 5-3's) and have
partial rounds. this might force 7 round tournaments so that the extra round
could happen on the second day.

i'm not really convinced that the speaker variance is as big an issue (you
should see it in parli debate) but the variance is there and if you think it
is a big issue, then don't use it to determine who breaks.

jim :)

-----Original Message-----
From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com]On
Behalf Of Joshua Hoe
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:18 PM
To: jrollins at sbcglobal.net; SSbauschard2 at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Speaker Points

Honestly, I think that the problem breaks down a little something like this:

There is a period in every debaters development when they get mediocre to
poor points.  As they are getting more experienced their points tend to
fluctuate greatly from critic to critic.  Once they are experienced they
will usually have their points start to average out at a higher level as
they learn to be consistant from round to round and tournament to
tournament.  In addition, there is a reward process that occurs, probably
subconciously, once a team reaches a certain level of success.  This is all
a normal process that all debaters go through from the beginning to the end
of their careers in college debate.

However, there is a second problem occurring and that is point inflation.
Some people think it is not a problem that every debater now averages a
27.5.  Some people feel it is unfair for people like me to start my scale at
a 27 and move up only as the round justifies it.  I have tried to take the
criticism of some of these people very seriously and have tried to move my
scale up a half a point lately but I still have problems with the
consistency of the majority of the pool being in the 28 or above range.  I
miss the days when debaters relished the challenge of getting great points
and adapting to judges in order to obtain them.  I always loved the
challenge of trying to apply all I had learned about a judge to the
particular situation AS A SPEAKER not just as a debater.  I guess I will
continue to try to adjust my scale because the sad result of point inflation
is that me giving a 27 or 27.5 can mean the difference between a good team
clearing or not clearing but it makes me sad because I think there was
somthing good about learning to adapt to judges.  It just seems more and
more like one of the great tools of encouragement that judges can use to
motivate debaters is going by the way side because now "EVERY SPEECH IS AN
A+."

I guess I am finally realizing what a crumudgeon I really am LOL

Josh
UNT

>From: Joel D Rollins <jrollins at sbcglobal.net>
>To: <SSbauschard2 at aol.com>, <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] Speaker Points
>Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 09:32:49 -0600
>
>Who is to say that the best 32 did not clear at northwestern?  what are you
>saying to 32?  That they did not deserve to clear?  A bit presumptuous, i
>would say.  but by the same token, much of this has to do with the judge
>preference system that we use.  the preference sheet is a disciplinary
>tool,
>of sorts.  you don't give high speaker points, the "good" teams don't pref
>you.  you even note that the closer you get to your prefs, the higher your
>points will be. perhaps we need to think about how we assign judges.
>perhaps 15% of the pool should be strikes and the rest assigned randomly.
>
>joel
>
>From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com
>Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 09:03:07 EST
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] Speaker Points
>
>
>I think we need to try think outside the box a little and come up with a
>better way to clear than speaker points.
>
>A couple examples:
>
>1.  I had one debater get a 26.5 in one debate at NW and a 28.5 in
>another!!!!  This is the SAME debater.  No comment that he was rude or
>incomprhensible, just 26.5,  Then, 28.5!!!  While this debater has only
>gotten a few 28.5s in his 2 years at BC, I'm quite certain this was his
>only
>26.5.
>
>2.  Another one of our debaters was docked AN ENTIRE SPEAKER POINT for
>making new arguments in the 2AR.  They still won the debate. It was just
>kind of like a penalty.  An entire speaker point is huge.  I'm not really
>complaining so much -- I think this person is a fine judge -- but it's
>really out of touch with much of the rest of the pool.
>
>3.  These are just a couple of examples, but our points are generally all
>over the board -- usually anywhere from 27-28, but reall with not much
>consistency.  SOme tournaments -- lots of 27s, other tournaments, lots of
>28s.  And, I'd say a huge factor is how close were get to our 1-3s who like
>our style of debate.
>
>4.  In at least one debate at NW, all FOUR DEBATERS were given 30s.  4
>30s!!!!  Were they all perfect, or simply rewarded for doing a particular
>style of debate? (That's a rhetorical question)
>
>5. I give at least 28s to anyone who does traditional policy debate.
>Certainly a questionable practice, but when people are getting 4 30s...
>
>I used to still think that despite problems, the best 32 would generally
>clear.  I don't know about that anymore.  Certainly no one who is getting
>good points and clearing is bad, but I'm starting to see teams I think are
>simply just better not clear.  NOw, that may be due to my preference for a
>particular style of debate, but maybe that is what is driving this speaker
>point controversy.
>
>Other question:  In a 8 round tournament with 2 presets should you coach
>your 44-/5-3 debaters to make a deal with the other team and the judge to
>get 29s as long as they forfeit.  They'd start out 0-2, but with 29s, I
>think we could hang pretty well in the high-lows for the rest of the
>tournament and end up 5-3 at worst with damn good points.
>
>Is there an alternative?  Should we move to double high-low to establish
>who
>clears?
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate