Speaker points

This week the Harpo, Groucho, Chico and Zeppo discuss speaker points in all their glory. The problem is, of course, that there are no objective criteria. We also raked MJP over the metaphoric coals in light of Big Bronx. The episode is here.

And this is the Bietz speaker point scale that I found a little stingy:

This scale is what a judge should use based on the ROUND itself, not the person's potential or reputation.

30= Perfect. Judges should think REALLY hard before giving a thirty.

29= Nearly perfect - Debated well enough in the round to win every tournament they attend. No mistakes.

27-28= Very good. Debated well enough to break and make it to deep outrounds. Could have beat 90% of the pool.

26= Good. Should end up with a winning record.

25= Average. Should be somewhere between 2-4 or 3-3.

24= Not good. Made a lot of mistakes. Spoke poorly.

23= Awful. Shouldn't win more than 1 round based on what you saw here.

22 and lower = offended you.

TFVT launches War on Drugs

So the Four Corners of the Debate Earth tackled the Nov-Dec resolution last night, with decidedly mixed results. Find out which word in the resolution ultimately drove us into the wall. Episode 30

During the discussion I mentioned some material I had picked up from Filip Spagnoli's blog (which you may not be aware of, if you don't follow the Coachean Feed, which you also may not be aware of, which is a tragedy of epic proportions).

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-freedom/statistics-on-prisoner-population-rates/#4

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/human-rights-facts-193-does-being-tough-on-crime-reduce-crime/


http://www.economist.com/node/16636027?story_id=16636027

Oh, yeah. The feed. I've plugged it in there over on the right. The best thing to do is follow it through RSS.

You heard it here first

That is, you heard Menick retching when discussing what is now the Nov-Dec topic. Hear what the Four Feathers (Menick, Cruz, Bietz and Palmer) have to say about all of the potential resolutions in Episode 29.

We are not alone

Well, we weren't alone already because of 3NR, but now the PFDebate Blog folks are in the podcasting business. If you care about PF, and have a chance, check it out.

MJP at Yale

I've posted an account of what, exactly, happened at Yale at coachean.blogspot.com, if you're interested in the end of the story.

MJP in the tabroom

The Five Marx Brothers (including Gummo Vaughan as well as Menick, Bietz, Cruz and Palmer) talk about how, exactly one can do mutual judge preferences, and how, exactly, they will do it at Yale and, it would seem, at the New York City Invitational. If you're not subscribing to the podcast on iTunes, you'll have no choice but to click here to get it. Unless you don't want it. But admit it. You know you do. (The Seaver memo referred to is a couple of entries down from this one.)

Episode 27 - Case Disclosure after Greenhill

The Four Gabbers of the Apocalypse—Menick, Cruz, Bietz and Palmer—tackle disclosure in the light of Greenhill last weekend, plus they propose a change to the system. Resistance is futile, so you might as well listen to it. Episode 27.