Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/26/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    You should always focus faaaaar more on work experience and skills and flag just a couple of notable debate achievements in your resume. Being on a college squad and having hs debate experience as a subpoint on your education section should be sufficient to show that you know how debate works. Your goal for those people is to show that you're responsible and professionally accountable. If you're hired through an admin who knows little about debate, putting a huge list of tournament results and speaker awards is meaningless. It'll look like overcompensating. If you're being hired directly by an experienced coach, it makes more sense to flesh this out with a conversation. We've all done debate and know just as well what types of debate people exist. If you want to be hired in a real position, you should focus on selling yourself as a real employee that is #1 reliable and #2 knowledgeable. Example: there's the person who is bad at debate theory but does a lot of block work to compensate and have success, they're prompt, on time, and always looking to prove themselves. Then there's the debate savant who is brilliant at debate and they know it, making them tremendously lazy when it comes to things that they deem less important to them, sleeps in, doesn't finish assignments because they're doing their own thing. Who would you hire? And who would you rather present yourself as?
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    Over the past few months I have been analyzing the voting histories of over 400 active judges on the College Policy Circuit, covering just about every judge who has been to a major national or large regional tournament in the past year and a half. I have posted publicly about some of the insights this brings on which judges have judged the most rounds, and what this can show about how judges behave and the question of judge predictability. For my latest project I’ve been investigating school bias in judges, testing to see if judges can be biased towards teams from a school (or set of schools) when compared to other judges. That analysis is still in its embryonic stages, but in the meantime I felt that there might be interest in what the raw data tells us about the successes of various schools. I will make a separate, longer, post going deeper into the methodology behind this data, however the basic process was scouring through the Tabroom judging record of 416 Judges, analyzing the over 48,000 ballots that they had between them, parsing which schools were involved and who won, and then compiling that data. While this isn’t a complete history of the tabroom era it does give a relatively representative understanding of the past six years of debate history. Below I present three relatively basic metrics for school success: Percentage of ballots won (the data treats each ballot as a separate decision as opposed to analyzing panel decisions holistically), the total number of ballots won, and the most ballots contested. This data explicitly excludes swing-teams but does count the rounds of teams who were debating swing teams. There was no differentiation made between Novice, JV, or Varsity divisions in the compiling of this data. The top ten most successful teams* by percentage of ballots that they’ve won are: 1. Harvard – 63.0% of ballots 2. Northwestern – 62.1% of ballots 3. Towson – 60.7% of ballots 4. UC – Berkeley – 59.2% of ballots 5. Georgetown – 58.8% of ballots 6. University of Michigan – 57.8% of ballots 7. Oklahoma – 57.3% of ballots 8. Rutgers-Newark – 57.3 % of ballots 9. Kansas – 56.6% of ballots 10. Wake Forest – 56.2% of ballots The top ten most successful teams by won ballots are: 1. Liberty University – 2,583 Ballots 2. George Mason – 2,268 Ballots 3. Kansas – 2,186 Ballots 4. Wake Forest – 1,777 Ballots 5. Emory – 1,562 Ballots 6. University of Michigan – 1,556 Ballots 7. Harvard – 1,509 Ballots 8. Oklahoma – 1,346 Ballots 9. Northwestern – 1,189 Ballots 10. James Madison University – 1,181 Ballots Honorable mention goes to Binghamton University in a very close 11th place. The top ten most successful teams by ballots contested are: 1. Liberty University – 4,681 RBallots 2. George Mason University – 4,090 Ballots 3. Kansas – 3,860 Ballots 4. Wake Forest – 3,162 Ballots 5. Emory – 2,844 Ballots 6. University of Michigan – 2,693 Ballots 7. James Madison University – 2,625 Ballots 8. Harvard University – 2,394 Ballots 9. Binghamton University – 2,393 Ballots 10. Oklahoma – 2,347 Ballots * Not including teams with under 40 ballots in my data set. Apologies to Columbia, SUNY Broome, and City College who would otherwise have places on this list.
  5. 0 points

    Version 1-25

    5 downloads

    This is a basic impact turn to nuclear war. The argument is that, as population levels increase, the biosphere begins to collapse through things like overconsumption. Nuclear war lowers the population, and returns us to a sustainable level, saving the biosphere. All cards in the file are highlighted and have been found through original research (in other words, nothing was pulled straight from a backfile, this was all cut from scratch), and are newer than most backfiles regarding this argument. Includes a 1NC, 2NC overview, negative answers to affirmative arguments, and affirmative answers to negative arguments. This file is a generic must have for any aff you're unprepared for that claims a nuclear war impact, and the evidence is not specific to this year's resolution, meaning it can be carried from year to year. Like this file? Leave a review! Have questions? Shoot me a message! TOC 2/11/2019 - Price update

    $7.50

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use