Note from Klaas:
These are the UNOFFICIAL results of the WUDC 2008.At least the following exception conditions apply (i.e. have happened in reality but are not reflected here). None of these conditions influenced the break:
- ESL Status of many teams is not recorded correctly
- Some speakers spoke for both the positions and speaker scores got recorded as normal
- Some teams converted to swing and decided to go with a different speaker for a few rounds
- The swing data is completely inaccurate.
thanks for the post!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to Oxford A!
On behalf of The Firm, Thomas P J Shinner and Stephen J Burn-Murdoch would like to congratulate Samir and Lewis on bringing it home.
ReplyDeleteGood job guys.
It may interest some of those posting earlier, that I have calculated the draw for round 7 for teams who opened for the Govt, and I have included the numbers of this below in case there has been an error. My initial calculations confirm my original belief that it was possibly the worst topic set at Worlds ever. A mere 2 first places out of 96, and 12 second places. Just unbelievable this got up. Yeh, there is always a margin for error, but the numbers clearly confirm common sense. The debates where teams did well appear to be pretty random ones too, not ones near the top half of the draw, suggesting the other guys choked, rather than a great debate was run.
ReplyDelete43- 4ths
39- 3rds
12- 2nds
2- 1sts
1. 4th
2. 3rd
3. 4th
4. 3rd
5. 3rd
6. 4th
7. 3rd
8. 2nd (Tokyo F.A)
9. 4th
10.2nd (Swinburne C)
11.4th
12.4th
13.4th
14.3rd
15.2nd (Wesleyan B)
16.4th
17.3rd
18.3rd
19.4th
20.4th
21.4th
22.3rd
23.4th
24.3rd
25.3rd
26.4th
27.4th
28.3rd
29.2nd (Korea A)
30.4th
31.4th
32.4th
33.3rd
34.3rd
35.3rd
36.3rd
37.3rd
38.3rd
39.1st (colgate C)
40.3rd
41.4th
42.2nd (UNSW B)
43.2nd (Composite A)
44.2nd (NSU B)
45.4th
46.4th
47.2nd (Thammast A)
48.3rd
49.4th
50.3rd
51.4th
52.3rd
53.3rd
54.1st (Thammast B)
55.4th
56.4th
57.3rd
58.3rd
59.4th
60.3rd
61.4th
62.4th
63.4th
64.4th
65.4th
66.3rd
67.4th
68.3rd
69.4th
70.4th
71.4th
72.3rd
73.3rd
74.4th
75.3rd
76.4th
77.4th
78.3rd
79.3rd
80.2nd (CUHK A)
81.3rd
82.4th
83.3rd
84.2nd (St Andrews A)
85.4th
86.3rd
87.3rd
88.3rd
89.4th
90.4th
91.2nd (Indonesia D)
92.2nd (LUMS A)
93.4th
94.3rd
95.4th
96.3rd
That is results for OG btw.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. You've been great help to folk like us who are home but were trying to keep an eye on the WUDC results as they unfold.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
Thank you for that analysis. Two things are important to bear in mind: (a) Opening Government is uusually the hardest position on just about any motion; and (b) many topics have biases and teams would prefer to be one or the other side of.
ReplyDeleteBut the statistics above are so lopsided that it paints a clear picture of a motion that should never have been set. 2 wins for Opening Governments out of 96 rooms is ridiculous and every team who was drawn at that position for the round and missed the break by 0-3 points has the right to be extraordinarily upset. Its disappointing because I think the other motions from the tournament were excellent: both original and debatable.
I wonder if the statistics are similar for Closing Government teams?
I couldn't be bothered doing the statistics for CG as well, and also I think it would probably be a tad less useful, because so many more factors feed into a debate regarding the second factions, they get more consideration for escaping their seemingly awful first faction, and so on.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the balance overall greatly favours the Opp though, and I agree an OG analysis has a few problems, but nonetheless this seems too huge a sample to ignore.
I agree, the topics overall were of a high standard, better than your standard worlds and from memory the last few years or so. It was just that this particular motion was awful, and I feel the people in the know should probably take a note of this. I have only ever heard of one debate with like statistical awfulness, and that was a semi-prepped debate at WSDC in 2007 on Civilian nuclear power. I seem to recall every single debate and every single adjudicator bar one went to the team in favour of civilian nuclear power (duh).
I have made an additional calculation, and that concerns the placement of the teams who were 2nd or 1st. they confirm my fears that the results where the OG did do well were largely random debates near the bottom of the tab where one team is more likely to have screwed up, or simply been less proficient. Only one breaking team managed a 2nd or better for this motion.
ReplyDeleteThe places for the teams were 328, 273, 214, 275, 105, 94, 306, 352, 278, 365, 266, 18, 373, 245.
Now, what this additionally shows is the way in which this debate was especially slanted against good teams. Teams who have a good understanding of geo-politics perhaps, or teams who have more experience framing a motion. The discovery that of the 14 teams with 2nd or better (out of 96), only 1 of them broke, 2 finished in the top 100, and only 3 of them finished in the top 213, makes the topic more unforgiveable still.
Actually, I think that last statistic is a little misleading since OGs have a notoriously bad winning percentage in high rooms no matter what the motion.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, seven of the teams in the break (as opposed to the eight you'd expect by random chance) were OG in Round 7 (Syd C, Auck A, Duke A, Vic E, St. Andrew's A, HH B & Queens B), so it doesn't seem to have affected the break all that much.
I would also point out that a ridiculously high percentage of OG's squirreled the motion because they "couldn't" debate it... which might account for some of their bad performance.
ReplyDeleteUm, 7 out of 32 teams that broke were OG...ok... but all of them bar one were 3rd or 4th, which affected where they broke. Who cares to calculate how many teams between 33 and 77 (the teams on 18-17 who didn't break) were OG and might have missed the break from this topic.
ReplyDeleteYou can never meaningfully be certain about how one topic would have changed things, but you can make a judgement about whether it was any good as a topic, which kinda feeds into the whole issue. I suggest common sense and the numbers back up the awfulness of the motion.
As for the OG point, it was addressed above, and if you don't believe it, go do your own statistical analysis of how the OG fared in other rounds. I'm guessing more than 2 wins and 12 2nds out of 96.
If teams who paid money to go to the most expensive debating tournament in the world felt they had to squirrel the motion, that tells you all you need to about it's soundness.
ReplyDeleteAgainst my better judgement I've wasted the time doing the 1st places for the CG teams. They total 14, making the grand total for both Govt factions (out of 96 rooms) to 16 firsts. That should basically settle it.
ReplyDelete