[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

The whole big time limits thing - my 2 cents (kinda long)

Well, I wrote this last night when there were few responses to the time 
limits discussion, and now it seems the L has exploded with peoples' posts. 
 Still, I want to add my input, unfortunately I have not gotten the chance 
to read the 30 or so posts, so I'm not really sure if my points have been 
already raised or if my comments seem to be a bit behind the times - but, 
hey, if you don't want to read this, don't!  Otherwise.. Enjoy.  (BTW: when 
I ramble, as I've clearly done here, I tend to oppose the use of separate 
paragraphs.  It's kinda hard to read, but please bear with it - most of it 
seems to make some sort of sense eventually - at least it did last night)

Philip G Kerpen wrote:

I think that his reasoning is indicative of a misplaced bias academic
debate currently gives to the affirmative.  While the wins 65-70% of
debates at most tournaments, the accepted impact analysis justifying
potential format changes is the need to help the affirmative.  Well, I'm
tossing out the impact flip; 9-3-6 is a poor format precisely because is
gives the 1AR too much time.  It leads to, in many debates, 1ARs who go
for nearly every 2AC arg, leaving it for 2AR to pick and choose.  The
8-3-5 format exhibits a similar phenomenon, but to a lesser extent.  I;m
told that back in the day of 8-3-4 (or, presumably 10-3-5, or even 10-5
for old-school NDTers, which is the same 2:1 ratio) debates were much more
even in terms of side win percentage.  They were also better, because 1ARs
had to choose args and win them cleanly, instead of blipping through
everything.  Now, there are a number of factors that cause the skew other
than time format, such as the typical locus of debate being chosen
exclusively by the aff (affplan focus) but format plays a crucial role
because it FORCES change in practice much more sharply than evolving
community norms of argument

I'm hoping we can critically reflect on the ``must help 1AR'' mentality;
after all, 2NR is a much tougher speech, and being aff sure beats being
neg...

--------
Philip G Kerpen



Ok, actually, the ratio of 13:5 (in 8-3-5) is 2.6, while the ratio of 15:6 
(in 9-3-6) is 2.5.  This means that in 8-3-5, the neg block has 2.6 times 
the amount of time as the 1AR, and in 9-3-6, the block has 2.5 times the 
amount of time as the 1AR.  While this translates into a slight advantage 
for the 1AR in the 9-3-6 format, the advantage is highly insignificant. 
 Further, I don't know the stats for aff wins in CEDA's 8-3-5 format, but I 
doubt it is much different, meaning that the time format has nothing to do 
with the aff win %.  On the other hand, if there is a difference between 
CEDA's and NDT's aff win %, I still maintain there is no causal link 
between time format and wins.  The first reason is the above comparison. 
 It wouldn't logically follow that a tiny difference in time limits would 
cause something so radical as a noticable difference in aff win %.  The two 
are out of proportion.  Next, the claim that back in the day of 
8-3-4/10-3-5/10-5, aff/neg wins were more even, also does not logically 
follow, for the very simple reason of "back in the day".  There was likely 
a different mindset in both the judges and debaters, as well as different 
types of topics.  Which reminds me: wouldn't it make more sense to blame 
the resolution, not the time limits, as the res. is designed to divide 
ground between aff and neg.  Hopefully, the res. will evenly divide it, 
which should mean aff/neg wins are roughly equal.  It may not be that the 
resolution is completely to blame for 70% aff wins, but at least that 
argument has logic on its side, while blaming the time limits seems to make 
no sense, because there should be no logical causal connection.  Well, 
actually there is one possible logical explanation.  With limited 1AR time 
the 1AR will not go for every argument, but instead choose args to win 
clearly as opposed to offering blippy answers.  Umm... well, this isn't 
true for a few reasons.  First, this goes back to the significance of the 
ratio difference.  In 9-3-6, the 1AR theoretically must go 2.5 times faster 
than the block (of course this isn't actually true, but bear with me for 
the example).  The assumption is that when the 1AR has 5 minutes instead of 
6 s/he has one less minute.  While this may be true, it is important to 
keep in mind that the block loses 2 minutes, so the 1AR actually has one 
less minute to cover two less minutes of the block.  This is why we must 
again look to the ratios, which show us there is no significant difference. 
 For example if we used a 3-1-2 format, while the 1AR would only have 2 
minutes, the block would be only 5 minutes long, and the ratio would also 
be 2.5, same as in 9-3-6, and darn close to that of 8-3-5.  The second 
reason this is not true is that changing time limits will not cause the 
debaters to change, unless there was a HUGE change in aff win % because of 
a mindset change by the judges (1ARs who used to win/get away with blippy 
answers will now get dropped MUCH more frequently for those blippy answers, 
while the few who realize blippy answers win, will win).  Just for the same 
reason we can't expect debaters to change, we also can't expect judges to 
change, but even if this did happen, it would have to happen on such a 
scale that caused the aff win % to go down to something like 30-40%, which 
doesn't solve the problem of evening out aff/neg wins, (1) becuase now the 
neg wins too much, and (2) because when we get down this far in aff win %, 
and the all the 1ARs do decide to change their style to be more selective 
and less blippy, they will start winning again, which will push them back 
up around 70% - not solving anything, because there was no causal 
connection to time limits.  The third reason it is not true, actually 
empirically denies the scenario.  The example suggests that something like 
8-3-4 or 10-3-5 have in the past caused less blippy 1ARs.  That might be 
great if someone proposed an 8-3-4 or 10-3-5 format, but its between 9-3-6 
and 8-3-5.  It can't be inferred that since 8-3-4 and 10-3-5 lead to 'good' 
1ARs in the past, that 8-3-5 would also = 'good' 1ARs especially since we 
currently use 8-3-5 in CEDA, and 1ARs are blippier than ever.  In fact, 
I've been to a few NDT tournaments this year, and I can't honestly say I 
notice a difference in 'quality' between CEDA's 1ARs and NDT's 1ARs.  Why 
try to speculate and make inferences about situations as if they don't 
exist, when they do and have for a long time - isn't it just alot easier to 
look at the situations that exist in practice and make evaluations based on 
that observation?

Now, let me echo all the praises of 9-3-6 and breifly explain why it is 
better.  With the ratios roughly the same for the transition from the block 
to the 1AR, the only real siginificant difference between 9-3-6 and 8-3-5 
is total time.  When each constructive and each rebuttal gets an extra 
minute to speak, they get that much more time to discuss issues.  I think 
it makes sense that a particular debater who goes exactly the same speed 
whether in a 9-3-6 round or a 8-3-5 round, will get to talk for an extra 
minute in both their constructive and rebuttal, which means more analysis 
or more cards, but either way, more argumentation.  I think this makes a 
difference in both argumentational quality (more time to discuss/analyze 
the issues), and education (the more we get to discuss the issues the more 
we will learn about them).

Well, it's late, and I'm tired...

Scott

Meta-disclaimer: Below is meant as humor only:

I think I still have to put the following disclaimer on my ceda-l posts:

The views presented here do not necessarily represent the views of the 
University of Richmond, the UR Debate Team, the City of Richmond, Henrico 
County, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America, North 
America, the Western Hemisphere, the Planet Earth, the (only known) Solar 
System, the Milky Way Galaxy, the Universe, or anyone else.  Not 
responsible for any typos, nor the implied nor express meaning suggested by 
such typos.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page