[eDebate] Judge side bias
Wed Apr 29 17:34:59 CDT 2009
I'm going to openly admit that I really don't care about this all that much, but I'm bored waiting for students to turn in final exams...
First, thank god we have scientific data to tell us that Greta Stahl and Dave Strauss err negative. That mystery is now unraveled. Now if we could scientifically measure the number of times John Katsulus has voted negative on multiple conditional counterplans...
Your conclusion is: "I have calculated
some historical judge side bias." But have you? Actually, have you found anything significant at all? For instance, how can you reach your conclusion when your poster children of Aff bias in 2007-2008--Toni Nielson--voted 24-25 this year? Or, Delong--your neg bias--who voted 23-25 last year? It's not "historical judge bias"; it's bias on a given topic. Mine enough data and you'd likely find that is true for the majority of judges given the particularilities of a given topic over many years.
Acutally your observation that the voting ratio for the courts topic was 50% suggests two things: First, I can't really believe that the aff won 50% of the time on that topic given that they were sitting ducks for the negative; Second, who care about historical side bias? If judges seem to vary widely in this bias from year to year (as both your calculations and my random couple demonstrate) yet the overall balance is 50%, is there even a concern about side or judge bias? Seems like there really isn't.
Kelly M. Young, Ph.D.
Director of Forensics/
Wayne State University
585 Manoogian Hall
Detroit, MI 48201
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman