Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


coach_hanes last won the day on May 19 2018

coach_hanes had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About coach_hanes

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/03/1978

Profile Information

  • Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
  • Occupation
    math teacher

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi everybody, We're launching the Portland Urban Debate League this coming school year! We're looking for schools, coaches, judges, and volunteers for PUDL tournaments. If you're over 21, I'd like to invite you to our first meet-and-greet on June 30th at Lagunitas. Just message me for the details! And if you'd like to help out PUDL in any way next year, please message me. I am looking forward to meeting you. Feel free to forward this to anyone who you think might want to participate! Russell Secretary, PUDL
  2. Hi folks, I just put together a new blog post about the scheduled-elimination tournament. I would love to hear feedback, thoughts, concerns... https://art-of-logic.blogspot.com/2019/03/scheduled-elimination-tournament.html
  3. Hi all, I put together a full description of software for debate tabulation, including all the formulas I've developed over the years: https://art-of-logic.blogspot.com/2018/12/tabulation-software.html Best wishes, Russell
  4. A few mathematically inspired ideas on running tab more efficiently and fairly, in the National Journal of Speech and Debate. I'm happy to clarify or provide details for programming software if anyone is curious. Cheers!
  5. A few mathematically inspired ideas on running tab more efficiently and fairly, in the National Journal of Speech and Debate. I'm happy to clarify or provide details for programming software if anyone is curious. Cheers!
  6. The type of statistics you're talking about is called cluster analysis. You could use scores judges give teams to cluster judges into types, or you could use the scores to cluster teams into types. You might want to use adjusted scores to do it so every judge is on the same scale, but I don't believe you need to go as fancy as logit scores to do that adjusting. (Anyway, the logit score is an adjusted strength for each team, but it does not adjust for individual rounds one by one to calculate it. In other words, the logit score is an average that doesn't let you work backward to the individual data points.) The real problem you'd run into is the sparseness of the data set. Each team might have six or eight or whatever judges in prelims, giving scores. The likelihood they share any judge with another team is quite small. Even looking over the entire season, it's only going to be a couple of shared judges. It's probably too little raw data for the cluster analysis to mean much of anything. Ideally, I'm thinking I'd want any two teams to share 10 judges for comparison. Given that teams might only have 60 or 70 judges over an entire season, it's a huge amount of overlap to have 10 shared judges. It might happen in a really small league but not for any bigger circuit. The better way is probably just to ask judges in a survey to rate different arguments. I'm sure most people would be honest.
  7. Hi Chaos, I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean using the logit score to figure out which judges give low or high speaker points? You could, but that's kind of unnecessary. An easier way to calculate a judge's bias is comparing the judge's scores for teams {x1, x2, x3, ... } he/she judged to those teams' average or median scores from all judges. An average difference that's negative indicates the judge is too harsh; positive, too easy. It's also possible to compare a judge's spread of speaker points to other judges in this way. A too-small spread shows the judge gives too many mediocre scores; a too-big spread shows the judge gives too many high and too many low scores.
  8. Thanks! I appreciate your feedback. I put my thoughts to your questions below. Byes -- yeah, I'd just pull the bye team first before starting any part of side assignment or pairing; otherwise it shouldn't be an issue. Maybe the only limitation is that a team with a +2 or -2 aff differential (aff - neg) shouldn't get a bye. They should debate to even their schedule out. Schools not hitting themselves / avoiding repeat match-ups -- those same restrictions should be maintained, of course. Power-matching -- my method would actually make it easier to do power-matching as it increases the flexibility in pairing. Two 3-0s that are both due aff could hit. Side bias -- it's less dramatic than people think. It's maybe a couple of percentage points of advantage. Is it enough to worry that one team has 4 affs and 3 negs and another team has 3 affs and 4 negs? Probably not. Software -- I do plan to use this method in our league tournaments, yes, in our little Excel sheet. The real question is whether the big tab software packages pick it up!
  9. I did a bit of math on it, and holy smokes, we're making it way harder to pair prelims than it has to be. http://art-of-logic.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-debate-tournaments-have-been-doing.html
  10. I ran an experiment on the logit score. It performed well. Here's the article.
  11. coach_hanes

    The Ivy's

    If you're really interested in finding scholarship money for doing debate in college, I would post on http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/ to find out which programs still can offer that money. Very few can afford it any more.
  12. coach_hanes

    Logit score

    I wrote an article on the logit score, which is a new way of rating/ranking debate teams at tournaments. Click here for more info on what the logit score is, how it works, and to get the link to the article.
  13. I'm thinking of doing a written debate activity in the debate class I teach. I'm looking for feedback. My main goal is to get students to intensively focus on one single issue. I want them to move beyond tag-line debating and get into the details. For example, instead of just saying, "Economy is good now," I want them to wade into specific indicators of economic well-being and what economists actually infer from them. Here is my thought: Aff. writes three arguments of its choosing on a narrow topic, maybe two pages, double-spaced, with no direct quotations; the Neg. gets the paper and chooses one aff. argument to respond to--getting to write three responses, two double-spaced pages; the process repeats for a couple of cycles. The idea is that only getting to respond to one opponent argument narrows down the debate quickly. If they can't respond with breadth, they've got to respond with depth. Oh, one other detail is that we'll be bouncing two topics back and forth. While the students are waiting for their opponents to write their responses, they'll be working on writing their own responses on a different topic. Has anyone used a written debate activity in their class? Any feedback or thoughts on my activity? Thanks!
  14. You're welcome to the free textbook I wrote: https://www.academia.edu/6327837/Debating_Policies_The_skills_and_theories_of_Cross-Examination_and_Public_Forum_debate Or I have an improved version for sale: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/coach_hanes
  • Create New...