[eDebate] Debate it Out, Don't (Speaker) Point it Out

[Joel Rollins]

28.5

> From: rgallo at arches.uga.edu
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:21:05 -0500
> To: "Mizzou Debate" <mizzoudebate at hotmail.com>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: [eDebate] Debate it Out, Don't (Speaker) Point it Out
> 
> I think it is time we change the way we assign who gets to participate
> in elimination debates.  I will make the following claims: 1) speaker
> points are too arbitrary a method to determine who should get ?cut off?
> in elimination debates, 2) this past year provides examples of teams
> with a low seed who do well at tournaments, illustrating either that a)
> there is a ton of parity this year and/or b) speaker points are not an
> accurate predictor of how a team will do if given the opportunity to
> debate in elimination debates, 3) alternative methods should be explored
> and/or implemented to determine the highest quality of competition in
> elimination debates.
> 
> 1) Speaker points are an arbitrary method of determining the cut off in
> elimination debates.  I think J.P. Lacy has done an excellent job in
> past years illustrating how different scales of speaker points are for
> judges.  The fact of the matter is that Jon Bruschke?s web page
> illustrates that a 27.9 is the average speaker points given to a debater
> in the country, and last year?s Dixie results illustrate that a 27.5 was
> the amount of points given to the average debater at the Dixie.  Yet
> judges give highly differential points to the same debater at any given
> tournament.  To take the top speaker at WGA as an example, Tejender
> Singh got everything from a 28 to a 29.5 at the tournament (4 orders of
> magnitude range).  Are we to assume that the top speaker at the entire
> tournament was only .1 better than the average debater at the tournament
> when he got a 28?  Or is the more logical explanation that different
> judges have differing point ranges?  Now, of course, there will always
> be a range of debating and a range of speaking for any debater at any
> tournament, but I think it is ignoring reality to believe that judges
> evaluate performances very differently, and speaker points often range
> heavily because of the judge?s ?internal? point scales.
> 
> 2) This year illustrates that teams with a low seed can do well at
> tournaments.  Georgia PR won West Georgia from the 16th seed slot. Half
> a point less in the 4th tie breaker and we would have packed up to go
> home.  Beckley and Liu also won their Octas debate from Harvard from the
> 16th slot.  Thorpe and Smith got cut off at WGA by an opposition win in
> the 3rd tie breaker slot--.5 more in the double high low would have
> gotten them in, yet this team beat UGA PR in the preliminary debates.
> Does it seem fair that one team should get to go on while the other
> stays behind on such a minimal difference?  The point behind this is
> that teams have shown this year the possibility to win even when their
> speaker points are below what other teams in elimination rounds receive.
> Perhaps the reality of the situation is that there is a significant
> disjuncture between the ability to get high points and the ability to
> get the job done in terms of winning.  In many ways, the idea that
> someone may ?speak eloquently? does seem fairly distinct from the idea
> that they can actually win debates.  It is most likely true that judges
> give points for a variety of reasons some of which have to do with
> speaking well and others that have to do with arguing well (certainly
> true in my case), but if it is the case that there is a disjunct between
> whatever is causing people to give debaters high points and the ability
> to win debates then it seems that the purpose of speaker points as a
> ?tie breaker? is a flawed concept.  If speaker points don?t represent
> who can actually do the best debating in elimination rounds, perhaps we
> should look to another method.
> 
> 3) Alternatives.  Easiest one: Clear all 5-3's.  Even it means you go to
> a full triples or quads some places, or have a partial doubles at
> Harvard, WGA, and Kentucky, give teams with a winning record a shot to
> clear.  It doesn?t take a genius to look at the list of teams that
> didn?t clear at WGA and see that a lot of great teams didn?t get a
> chance to ?debate it out? on elim day.  Yes, it may suck to make the
> days that much longer and that much harder, but at least teams don?t get
> the door slammed in their face on elim day.  2) Eliminate lag pairing.
> Lag pairing makes sense in a world where turn around time on pairings is
> slow?but technology has caught up to the system.  Rich Edwards can turn
> around pairings at the Baylor tournament in 3-5 minutes after he gets
> the last ballot in during a given round.  Eliminating lag pairing would
> help smooth the bracket out and make it to where achieving a winning
> record would be more difficult, hence less 5-3's cut off.
> 
> Other alternatives would involve coming up with better ways to
> distribute speaker points.  I?m not sure how that can be done.  I have
> looked at my points over time and noticed that there are numerous
> occasions where there are substantial deviations (both directions) from
> what other judges that I tremendously respect give to debaters.  I?ve
> even noticed this on panels at the NDT, to help deal with the argument
> that ?it was a different debate round, they debated differently in that
> round.?  I?m about ready to throw in the towel on speaker points as an
> anachronism that should go the way of pairing on index cards in terms of
> who should and should not clear at a tournament.  If we want an
> individual award to give to people, speaker awards seem fine to me.  I
> know I?ll always treasure my top speaker mint julip cup from the Clay in
> ?93.  But in terms of who should get to go on in a tournament, I would
> prefer to have the debaters ?debate it out.?
> 
> Looking forward to others ?debating it out? on this issue.
> 
> RYAN
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate