[Fwd: [Re: Aff Bias]]

[Randal Pittelli <pittelli@ehsct7.envmed.rochester.edu>]

Bear,
You're trying to over-simplify our stance.

1) The resistance to your claim has been due to a lack of presented
evidence. Should one accept theories based on anecdote and personal
`feeling` alone (still unanswered) ?

2) So CEDA Nats says it all, eh? Have any idea what the (statistical)
significance of those numbers are, in terms of how well one can use
those numbers to talk about CEDA debates/tournaments in general ? If the
overall CEDA numbers are then 52% aff with 98% sig., or 70% aff with 50%
sig., then your argument does not carry weight.

2) The cause of the perceived bias is not irrelevant. If the cause
was/has been the resolution, then the solution also lies there (and
arguably has been addressed this year). If the cause was the particular
tournament(s), in particular region(s), or with particular judge(s),
then your proposed solution would be a bandaid, not addressing the cause
but rather exacerbating it in alternative circumstances.

3) Does it truly matter is there is an aff bias? Judge selection is
about as random as a coin toss, but certainly we're not discussing
whether to throw out any judges who have an aff bias. Maybe we should
get rid of the coin toss!

-Randy



MWBRYANT@aol.com wrote:

> Dove and Pittelli refuse to acknowledge that there is an aff bias in
> debate.
> Up is down until you prove it empirically. Jamey Dumas just wrote me
> to
> suggest that I refer them to his statistical study that found almost
> 70% aff
> wins at CEDA Nats. I don't think it'll matter - I'm sure their
> anecdotal
> stories from local tournaments will overwhelm Jamey's effort. Who
> wants to
> bet that they'll now shift to indicting the methodology of the Dumas
> effort?
>
> My part in this thread is over. Hey, guys, does it take an empirical
> study to
> conclude that debate has a diversity problem?
>
> Bear
>
> In a message dated 97-08-04 01:58:13 EDT, you write:
>
> << Bear,
>  Are you suggesting that your 'affirmative bias' assertion should be
>  accepted as common knowledge???
>  And to make the argument relevant...that the statistical significance
> is
>  common knowledge, and the *cause* of the bias is common knowledge
> (lest
>  advocacy merely be a bandaid), and the relative importance of a 50/50
>
>  `chance` in any given debate is common knowledge?
>
>  Who's advocating change here?
>  -Randy
>  BTW I have a 'good feeling' much of the time, about many things, but
>  surely wouldn't vote policy on that alone...
>   >>



--
<----------------------------------------->
| Randal Pittelli                         |
| Dept of Environmental Medicine          |
| Univ of Rochester Medical Center        |
| Rochester, NY 14642                     |
|                                         |
| TEL: (716) 275-0797                     |
| FAX: (716) 256-2591                     |
| http://www.envmed.rochester.edu/wwwrlp/ |
<----------------------------------------->

---

• Prev by Date: [Re: 9-3-6 no! 8-3-6 yes!]]]
• Next by Date: Re: [Re: 9-3-6 no! 8-3-6 yes!]
• Prev by thread: Re: [Re: 9-3-6 no! 8-3-6 yes!]]]
• Next by thread: [Re: 9-3-6 no! 8-3-6 yes!]]]]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page