The Final Rankings Report

I would like to thank all the coaches who participated in the little discussion.

 

Resolution C seems to be the clear winner.

Resolution H seems to have come in second and Resolution B seems to have come in third.

Resolution F earns an honorable mention.

 

A. Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations

that pose a military threat.

 

Make’s Mike’s final cut

Is on Travis’s back-up list.

Jen does not like it

Leo hates it

 

B. Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.

 

Make’s Jon’s, Travis’s, Gina’s, and Leo’s final cut

Jen seems to like it

Mike doesn’t like it

 

C. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic

freedom.

 

Make’s Ron’s, Jon’s, Travis’s, Gina’s, Leo’s, and Jen’s final cut.

Mike likes it for a November/December Topic

 

D. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

 

Make’s Gina’s final cut

Mike likes it for a November/December topic

Is on Travis’s back-up list

Jen has serious concerns about it.

Leo hates it

 

E. Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.

 

Is on Jen’s “intrigued” list

Is on Leo’s back-up list

Mike hates it

 

F. Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions

rather than through criminal prosecution.

 

Make’s Jon’s and Leo’s final cut.

Is on Travis’s and Mike’s back-up list.

Jen likes the fact that it’s a new idea

 

G. Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.

 

Is on Leo’s back-up list.

Mike seems ambivalent about it

 

H. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

 

Make’s Jon’s, Travis’s, Gina’s, Mike’s, and Jen’s final cut

Is on Leo’s back-up list

 

I. Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

 

Make’s Ron’s final cut

Jon, Mike, and Jen do not like it

Leo hates it

 

J. Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

 

Make’s Gina’s final cut

Mike hates it.

 

2007 LD Resolutions

I love technology when it allows me to be lazy. Anyway, it seems to me that instead of waiting for an LD committee report at the SD Speech Convention, coaches can comment on and debate about the 2007-2008 resolutions here.

First, the rules have changed. In the past, we just checked 5 topics and mailed in the ballot. As in the past, there are 10 topics. The rest of the ballot is different. I think the following 4 points are key. (They may not be key to hedge, however.)

1. Indicate your first, second, and third choices for each time slot.
2. Repeating topics within a given time slot is not acceptable. However, a topic may be reselected for another time slot.
3. A minimum of five different topics must be listed on the entire ballot.
4. Fill in all blanks for your ballot to be valid.

This change probably means that South Dakota coaches should vote for the three best options in both November/Decemeber and January/February. We can put in whatever we want on the other options. Frankly, I think it's a bit risky for the NFL to allow people in states that don't compete during a particular resolution to vote those resolutions, but I probably am just a natural skeptic and conspiracy theorist.

I suggest that each coach rank the resolutions 1-10 and give some reasons for each ranking. I'll tabulate stuff before the convention and do another full post with the results.

Anyway, the topics are listed below. You can find the ballot here. The comments are now open.

List of topics:

A. Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

B. Resolved: Governments ought to make economic reparations for their country’s historical injustices.

C. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.

D. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

E. Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government.

F. Resolved: Successor governments ought to pursue transitional justice through truth and reconciliation commissions rather than through criminal prosecution.

G. Resolved: International lenders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries.

H. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

I. Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

J. Resolved: Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Questions We Have

Cory, Travis, and Jon started a good discussion in comments section, but some others may not have access to comments section from school. I don’t. We realize that this is the track, prom, and thank-god-debate-is-finally-over season, so we thought a cyber worksheet might be in order.

Question 1. Can you live with two judge panels? Why or Why not

Question 2. If we go to two judge panels, what should we use as tiebreakers? Please list them in order.

Question 3. If you are a class A coach, when does a separate Class A tournament cease to be a viable option? Should it be decided on an event by event basis? Do we need to write rules establishing a contingency plan if we suddenly don’t have enough entries to warrant a separate tournament?

Question 4. Last season, the SDHSAA Board of Directors voted to waive the mandatory two team rule in policy debate. We will probably endorse the permanent elimination of that rule at our meeting. If there is no longer a two-team mandate, do we need to change the sweepstakes formula back to best entry?

Question 5. How may preset rounds are too many? When should the elimination process start?

Question 6. Are two IE rounds enough? Is what happened this past year better than the one and done.

Essay Question A. Do you want to see major changes at the state tournament? For example, Paul Harens claims that one proposal that was made in the distant past involved each school bringing only 5 students to the tournament. Those students would enter in all the debate and IE events. I only remember the wooly mammoth and saber tooth tiger; those of you who remember pterodactyls and the t-rex will have to vouch for the veracity of Paul’s memory. Anyway, what major changes would you like to see?

Essay Question B. If you don’t want major changes, what changes do you want to see happen in the state tournament?

Please post your answers in the comments section. Neatness counts. We can’t give late answers full credit.

Jon's Initial Observations

I will say this, the more I look at Brent's software for tournament use the more I feel that:

 

1. It can be customized to individual tournaments like invitationals, but it cannot be customized to fit a very specific set of pairing rules like NFL or like our state tournament works now. Furthermore, I believe no software will be able to do this consistently.
2. I believe it can be used to schedule, section and enter results for IE's with little to no headaches.
3. I think we need to consider using the software for ballot entry and strength of opp reports, but in the end, hand pairing will likely be the only way to ensure a specific set of rules is followed during a pairing procedure. I'm becoming a believer that a computer cannot be trusted to do this consistently.
4. While I still support the use of computers to tabulate the tournament and generate the reports at the tournament's end, I do not support the use of computers to schedule and pair the tournament.

 

Leo's Initial Observations

Here's what I think I know about the state tournament

1. The one day tournament should only be done in emergencies.
2. We need to be sure that people get out the door on time.
3. The current situation with people bye-ing in to quarters has the appearance of unfairness and has too many students and coaches sitting and doing nothing.
4. The judging problems will not go away, but we need ideas on how to ameliorate them.
5. No one really likes the current state tournament, but no one really wants major changes.
6. The schedule that we hashed out last August needs to be tried
7. I want tabulating software to make the math go faster, especially if we're trying to figure strength of op and/or opponents' strength of op as tie breakers.
8. We need to change the state PF ballot to a points system.
9. Someone is going to have to change the tournament again within 2-4 years because the SD debate world is going to continue to change.

A Modest Proposal to Start Discussion

A Modest Proposal for the State Tournament Format

Prelims: Four guaranteed randomly paired. It will be the goal to avoid school hitting same school in prelims, but it will not be guaranteed. The top 8 in AA will break to quarters; the top 4 in A will break to semis.

If there is a tie in ballot count, the following tie breakers will be used:

1. strength of opposition (opponent’s total ballots)
2. head-to-head (if applicable)
3. speaker points
4. drop hi/low speaks

Quarterfinals: Once the top eight are seeded in the brackets, care will be taken to preserve that a school cannot hit itself until finals by breaking brackets to preserve this rule.

Judge strikes?: We're open to suggestions. Late in a tournament, it may be difficult to find enough quality judges. Further, it takes up time. However, strikes allow teams who have reached semis or finals some control over the final round

Entry Limits: Two teams or contestants in all events.

Judge Requirements: One school provided judge per debate event entered, even if the school is only entering a single debater or team in the event.

1. One judge cannot be used to conver an entry consisting of 1 policy team and 1 L-D debater.
2. Individual event judges must be designated.
3. It is preferred that each judge be able to judge all three events.

Some Quick Math: 14 AA schools = 28 entries teams and 6 A schools = 12 entries/teams. Therefore, we need 40 judges to cover 20 rounds of debate with 2 judges in each round.

Schools would provide 20 / SDHSAA would provide 20 who should be able to judge both policy and L-D.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

We Need Your Help

Jon, Kristin, and I stole this idea from Cory. He set up a page for state one-acts, and we thought that we could borrow his idea to get your comments about changes that we should make at the state debate tournament.

During the next few days, we will be posting some of our concerns about the state debate tournament and perhaps an idea or two that we believe will make the tournament better for both students and coaches.

Please post your concerns and questions in the comments sections. Also, please offer your own suggestions. We need all the information and ideas that we can get.