So, this still feels unfinished somehow. There's a lot of nuance that I left out, but I think it gets down to the key issues of how to judge a given debate, at least from my perception. Not sure I'm completely happy with the point totals, but they're a start. Let me know what you think.
Breakdown of evaluation -
Pre-evaluation:
Is the argument parsable? (i.e. can I understand it after one or two read-throughs/watch-throughs?)
If yes, move on to the next question
If no, the argument that is most understandable is most likely the winning one. If both aren't understandable, default is to Con.
Is the argument supporting the correct side of the debate?
If yes, move on to the next question
If no, the opposition likely takes it. If both sides did this, treat the sides as flipped and continue onto the next question.
Pre-burdens:
Has either debater attempted to set the burdens in the debate? Are those burdens reasonable after reading through the resolution?
Establish who has the burden and what that means. This will change the point system. If one side holds the sole burden in the debate, for example, then the other side winning a single argument could be sufficient to win the debate as a whole. If such is the case, then the person with the burden of proof must both earn a positive score, and ensure that their opponent earns a 0 or negative score (based on the values detailed below).
Burdens:
Read through the arguments, and determine which side is garnering each one (factor in turns). The goal is to have a general tally to start, but even the side that's winning the most arguments may not be winning the debate. There are two features to how these will be weighted, with each aspect being weighted on a 0-5 scale. The features are multiplied by each other for each individual argument (making for a minimum score for each argument of 0, and a maximum of 25), and then the points for each argument are added together to produce a final score.
1. How strongly are they winning the argument/How well supported is it? These are two separate facets, but they both factor into this same aspect. The first is based on the responses they receive, and the second is based on how the argument is presented. If an argument goes dropped, then they are completely winning that argument, but they may still get a 1 if the argument is entirely an assertion. Adding warrants and evidence strengthens the argument. These both increase the likelihood of a given impact occurring, and are therefore a large part of why any given argument matters.
2. How strong is the argument? This is a balance of both defense and offense – what's the impact of the argument? This is pretty basic – a very big impact (global nuclear war) is a 5, a very small impact (someone's less happy) is a 1.
Given the 0-5 scale, both of these factors are extremely important. If, for example, global warming is the impact, but there's no reason to believe it's any more likely as a result of the case, the argument as a whole is worth 0. Meanwhile, a very low impact argument that is certain to occur is worth 5. Depending on the resolution and burdens analysis, a tie may prefer one side of the debate, and this is where that would take place. Similarly, if the burdens stipulate that one side must meet a specific burden above just having the best arguments (words like “substantially,” for example), the point totals may have to be evaluated differently, requiring a larger point separation for victory.
Post-burdens:
There are two other factors that play a role in any given debate:
Conduct: How do the debaters act towards one another? How do the debaters treat others who are not involved (i.e. do they lob insults at any given community)? A conduct violation should be pretty blatant, with extremely limited subjectivity involved in its evaluation.
This is rated on a -1 to -10 scale, where a -1 is calling your opponent's argument stupid, and a -10 is cursing them out directly or making blatantly anti-semetic comments. Each individual conduct violation would stack upon the next.
Readability/Watchability: As this is slightly different depending on if it's a written or video debate, this must be evaluated differently. Even if it's possible to understand the arguments being made, are they being made well? How organized are those arguments? Does the debater speak too rapidly, or use too much technical language? Do they often misspell words or use strange syntax? The goal here isn't necessarily to punish someone for a nervous tic or a stutter, nor is it to punish non-native English speakers for difficulties in translation – these are all things that should be kept in context. Rather, this is meant to evaluate those things that are within the control of the debaters on a simpler level.
This is rated on a -1 to -10 scale, where a -1 is minor but common writing mistakes or common, but light speaking issues, and a -10 is bordering on the unintelligible. If there are multiple small problems, they can be added together. This is added to the final total.
Participation: This is a lesser issue, one that solely involves cross-examination. Debaters get as much as 2 points per cross-examination round.
0 points are awarded to those debaters who either completely fail to participate or use it to attack their opponent directly.
1 point is awarded to those debaters who participate to a minimal extent (i.e. 1 or 2 posts and then no response to their opponent), or seek to dominate the discussion, as this is counter to the purpose of cross-examination.
2 points are awarded to those debaters who actually ask questions, engage with their opponent's questions, and make cross-examination an actual discussion of the issues involved.
whiteflame:
This looks pretty good. The only area I'd like clarification on is "debaters who dominate cross examination" - personally, I think this is a good thing, but even if you disagree, I think its a tricky thing to judge.
If I'm asking my opponent questions and then challenging their answers, but they are not doing the same in return, then I look like I'm dominating the CX. How is that my fault though?
Can you please clarify what would constitute CX domination to the extend that the dominator would be penalised?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but plagerism would constitute one of highest categories of conduct wouldn't it? Should a side lose the debate automatically for plagerising, or do they only nullify the value of those points?
nzlockie:
I don't get that either. You can ask as many questions as you like, as long as you give your opponent a chance to respond to them. See the epic cross examination in the OPIC debate.
My problem with your judging system is why I designed LGS differently.
The scale for each argument is 1 through 25. Mine was 1-5 for each argument.
Allowing such a huge scale, especially since there is no mathematical way to calculate the value of an argument, can lead to inaccurate judgements.
1. How strongly are they winning the argument/How well supported is it? These are two separate facets, but they both factor into this same aspect. The first is based on the responses they receive, and the second is based on how the argument is presented. If an argument goes dropped, then they are completely winning that argument, but they may still get a 1 if the argument is entirely an assertion. Adding warrants and evidence strengthens the argument. These both increase the likelihood of a given impact occurring, and are therefore a large part of why any given argument matters.
I'm confused. So you calculate the impact and how well done the argument was? Or do you only calculate the impact, and bolster it based on how well done it was? Doesn't this dilute who filled the BOP with other things like sources and word play?
Besides that it is pretty good.
nzlockie:
Yeah, I realize that that's not entirely clear. By "dominate," I mean people who make the conscious decision to produce several questions at a time in cross-examination rather than abiding by the basic etiquette of you get a question, I answer it, I get a question, you answer it, etc. I think that cross-ex can be dominated reasonably by someone who plays by the basic rules, but at the point that you're just showering questions on your opponent or otherwise giving them no room to talk, I'd say that is harmful. So no, if you're challenging the answers of your opponent, that would not count as dominating. It's not really a matter of what your opponent is doing as much as it's a matter of what you are doing, which is something I think is simple enough to judge.
I agree with you on plagiarism, I just didn't include that in my list of conduct violations. That would be a part of it, and it would likely anywhere between a 5 and a 10 point loss, depending on how much is plagiarized.
Blackflag:
As I said, I'm amenable to changing the points scale here, as it's really something I came up with on short notice. I'm not sure that shrinking it so dramatically is the best way to go, though. Some arguments are going to be massively more important than others, and I'd like to represent that adequately. It would be very difficult to come up with an argument that gets so little response that it's deemed a 25, though - realize that would include a practically apocalyptic impact, an insanely solid link story with evidence, and get little to no response. Most arguments would range between a 1 and a 10 in my system.
Blackflag:
I thought I made this clear, but I'll elaborate. This is really an evaluation of likelihood, so evaluating the links, warrants, evidence in the argument, as well as the rebuttals to those pieces, to determine how likely a given outcome is. This piece actually has nothing to do with the level of impact, just how likely we are to reach that impact.
I don't think it dilutes anything regarding BoP. I'm not evaluating word play, so I'm not sure where that's coming in, but sources are important to establish likelihood, so yes, they would play a role. If anything, I'd say sources are incredibly important to many debaters meeting their BoP, since they need more than just their assertions and logic to validate their logic.
whiteflame:
I actually disagree on the role sources should have in justifying an argument. We made a thread on it before, perhaps its time to revive it. In professional judging, everything is affirmed until negated, so you only provide sources when someone...
1. Counters your point
2. Your point is likely to be taken skeptically without a source.
Respond here...
http://www.edeb8.com/forum/EDEB8.com+Site/400
I actually think our systems are strikingly close. The only difference is that your's has a larger grading ladder, and bolsters arguments based on sources.
Blackflag:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious I disagree. For one thing, that's tabula rasa, or blank slate type judging. Yes, certain professional judges do that (though from my experience, anyone who says they do that isn't being honest with you). Certain ones don't. In my style of debate, which is British Parliamentary, judges are allowed to call someone out on their BS. More importantly, if you're talking about real world facts, supporting them with sources is the surefire way to ensure that that link stands solidly. I'm not saying you NEED evidence to support every argument you make - I'm saying that the evidence definitely makes your warrants/links stronger.
whiteflame:
In judging Vegito's debate, there was something obviously wrong with what he said, but I didn't deduct points from the ladder because Admin didn't refute it. Which is how I believe debates should be judged. Making the judge a participant in a debate isn't respecting its integrity.
Blackflag:
I don't think it's reasonable to call every argument made in any given debate gospel until proven untrue. That sets the burden on the opponent every time an argument is made. By your view, a debater is best served by putting out as many arguments as possible with as large impacts as possible. If their opponent fails to cover even one of them, then they have an argument which is high impact and should be regarded as extremely important within the debate, even if they only spent a sentence on it. You might say that the opposition can engage in the same behavior, but I think that just ruins debate, where both sides present the worst case scenarios with as little substance as possible behind them in order to win on magnitude alone.
Blackflag:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious I disagree. For one thing, that's tabula rasa, or blank slate type judging. Yes, certain professional judges do that (though from my experience, anyone who says they do that isn't being honest with you). Certain ones don't. In my style of debate, which is British Parliamentary, judges are allowed to call someone out on their BS. More importantly, if you're talking about real world facts, supporting them with sources is the surefire way to ensure that that link stands solidly. I'm not saying you NEED evidence to support every argument you make - I'm saying that the evidence definitely makes your warrants/links stronger.
whiteflame:
Lol, you refreshed the page, right?
Blackflag:
Yeah, not sure why it decided to do that...
