Jump to content

coach_hanes

Member
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

coach_hanes last won the day on May 19

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
  1. coach_hanes

    Article on Running Tournaments

    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!
  2. coach_hanes

    Article on Running Tab

    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!
  3. coach_hanes

    Logit score, part deux

    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.
  4. coach_hanes

    Logit score, part deux

    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.
  5. coach_hanes

    Why we're doing side assignment wrong

    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!
  6. coach_hanes

    Why we're doing side assignment wrong

    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
  7. coach_hanes

    Logit score, part deux

    I ran an experiment on the logit score. It performed well. Here's the article.
  8. 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.
  9. coach_hanes

    written debate activity for debate class

    Thanks for the suggestions!
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. coach_hanes

    Debate Pedagogy

    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
  13. coach_hanes

    debate tabulation methods

    I just published a really interesting, important analysis of debate tabulation methods on my blog. The summary results: Speaker points are just as accurate a measure of true team strength as win-loss record. Power-matching as practiced in the 2006-07 college debate season does not give equal strength teams equal schedules. (This method is probably still in use in many high school tournaments.) Unequal schedule strengths are highly correlated with discrepancies in the two ranking methods, point ranks and win ranks. Please go to my blog and comment!
  14. coach_hanes

    Free policy debate textbook

    Well, I updated The "How to" of Debate. I decided to make the kindle version free! I think it's a really good textbook, plus free is a hard price to beat. Click here to gain access.
  15. coach_hanes

    policy textbook

    Well, I updated The "How to" of Debate. I decided to make the kindle version free! I think it's a really good textbook, plus free is a hard price to beat. Click here to gain access.
×