Rounds 1 and 2: results and thoughts
Today the competition started for everyone, following the "warm-up" of adjudicator training sessions and Round 0. All storms had passed and the sky was back to Washington blue. Those who arrived on Friday night to brooding clouds and the edge of the hurricane could not believe the complete weather change overnight. So in bright sunlight we travelled to George Mason University or GMU for Rounds 1 and 2. We didn't know where we were going and neither did our bus drivers. It could have been worse - we could have disappeared along some stretch of Route 66 never to be seen again. Fortunately, we had volunteers with cellphones and savvy. A few calls later, we arrived at the Student Union building...No 2.
After some refreshments and threats not to return on the bus (and one team didn't)we were into the prepared round. I was fortunate enough with my fellow adjudicators Gaurav from Singapore and Eva from the Netherlands to watch an outstanding debate between Pakistan and Wales. People know I like alliteration so try this: the debate was classy and clever, stylish and sophisticated, poised and professional. What a privilege.
Could I be treated to two great debates in one day? In this case,yes.England and Hong Kong put on another impressive show, this time in the impromptu round. I dissented - but can only say that it was very close and hard fought. Our debaters are all wonderful young people and it was a fantastic first day.
And the results? Here they are:
ROUND ONE: TH SUPPORTS MILITARY INTERVENTION TO DELIVER EMERGENCY AID IN HUMANITARIAN CRISES.
PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM
Israel 1 South Africa 2
Philippines 0 Singapore 3
Romania 0Hong Kong 3
Slovenia 1 England 2
Greece 1New Zealand 2
Bermuda 1Slovakia 2
Scotland 2 South Korea 1
Czech Republic 0 Argentina 3
Mongolia 0Peru 3
Pakistan 3 Wales 0
Sri Lanka 3 Lithuania 0
Canada 3 USA 0
Japan 0 Montenegro 3
Qatar 2 Botswana 1
Netherlands 2 Mexico 1
Bangladesh 2 Swing 1
Indonesia 0 Ireland 3
Estonia 0 Australia 3
Germany 3 Kuwait 0
ROUND 2: IMPROMPTU: THW BAN STRIKES BY THOSE WORKING IN ESSENTIAL STATE SERVICES
South Africa 3 USA 0
Singapore 3 Slovenia 0
Canada 2 Greece 1
England 2 Hong Kong 1
New Zealand 3 Estonia 0
Montenegro 0 Netherlands 3
South Korea 2 Romania 1
Argentina 0 Pakistan 3
Peru 2 Sri Lanka 1
India 0 Bermuda 3
Israel 2 Scotland 1
Wales 3 Germany 0
Lithuania 1 Bangladesh 2
Kuwait 1 Czech Republic 2
Swing 0 Botswana 3
Mexico 3Mongolia 0
Japan 0 Qatar 3
Australia 3Indonesia 0
Ireland 2 Philippines 1
posted by Kiwi Claire @ 4:57 am
14 Comments
14 Comments:
Thanks for the updates claire! They're great for debating tragics like me! 2 awesome motions too, shown by a really even spread of prop & opp wins.
Jeremy from Aus
Hi Claire,
Greetings to you and everyone in DC. Very sad not to be there. Thanks again for blogging though.
Just one question: What happened to England in the afternoon?
James (Acton)
Hi Claire,
I share James' wish that I could be there in person - nonetheless, your blog always paints a very vivid picture, and of course includes those essential results! Keep up the brilliant work. GO TEAM WALES!
Sorry James - England 2, Hong Kong 1.
Hey Jeremy- good to hear from the debating tragics. BTW, Australia won round 3 this morning 3-0.
It's great to see Australia downing powerhouses like Estonia. I like a comp whose draw and make up effectively negates the need for power pairing.
Thanks for keeping us updated, claire. It's nice to be able to track this from the other side of the world. My parents like about 2 mins away from GMU... maybe I'll send them by to check out the rounds. ^_^
(I assume this is a typo in round 2: South Korea 2 Romania 0)
justin from S Korea
Hi Claire,
Thanks for the updates, impossible to get to Washington, but spending time online at work instead living vicariously through your blog!
for the anonymous person who has a problem with the draw, you should read further.
"As in previous years, the draw was done blindly. Firstly, teams were placed into four groups or quartiles, based on their performance over the last three WSDCs or based on their being at WSDC for the first time. Next, codes were assigned to teams based on those quartiles. After that, the draw was prepared. The only thing the codes told those preparing the draw was which quartile a coded team was in. They did not know which specific team a code represented. Finally, the codes were swapped for nations' names only after the entire draw was formulated.
This process helped to check against potential bias and it guaranteed a randomness of the pairings within the constraints of ensuring that teams meet a good cross section of opponents, and as far as possible, given the constraints of the number of teams, the need for a bye round and the different venues, have approximately equal numbers of Prop and Opp rounds, for both prepared and impromptu debates."
Go Australia!
I commented on that earlier. Beneath the long post and references to fairness is a fairly blatant admission that the draw is effectively rigged. No, not rigged in the sense that debates are handpicked, but when the draw is done "randomly" only after having the teams sorted into 4 categories (good, bad, awful and worst) then it makes claims of randomness a little silly.
I don't disagree with rigging the draw in this way per se, I think it's a sign the organisers actually have a real understanding of what World Schools is, a junket dominated by a handful of teams who could beat 85% of teams with their 3rd string team. I just object to the pretense that the draw is in some way "blind" or "impartial". It clearly isn't, who are we kidding here? There is a reason all the prelims are debates like "Australia v Slovenia" or "Australia v Japan". The real debates begin in the finals.
Anonymous: What you're saying doesn't make much sense. Teams are in four pools. Each team debates two from each pool over the eight preliminary rounds. Who they debate is assigned randomly. I don't understand how that is "rigged"? If so, in what way is it rigged, and to whose benefit?
Your later statements are just fautuous. You say, "There is a reason all the prelims are debates like "Australia v Slovenia" or "Australia v Japan." First, not all the debates are of that character. That is by definition, since traditionally strong teams like Australia, England, Singapore etc (all in Pool A) must also meet other good teams in Pool A. That is why Pakistan is meeting Australia, Scotland is meeting NZ, NZ is meeting Singapore, England meets Canada etc.
Second, obviously since there are a limited number of "top echelon" teams at WSDC, those debates will only ever be of a small number throughout the rounds. But you seem to be implying "the reason" (in your words) why many mis-matched debates occur is because of draw-rigging - for which you have provided no proof.
You next say that "The real debates begin in the finals." With respect, that is of course the case, and no different from any tournament.
Well said Chris.
Also, I don't think it's correct to say that worlds is dominated by a 'handful' of teams. In 2006, and 2007 you saw the 16th breaking team (South Korea and South Africa) take out the 1st breaking team (Pakistan and Ireland) in the octo-finals. This year you see new nations like Mexico beating the defending champions Scotland!
Anonymous is just getting a bit upset by terminology. It is not a random draw, it's a seeded draw. (As is the World Cup, or Wimbledon etc.) Most people would infer different things by 'seeding' and 'rigging' though.
Rigged is probably a bad word, given it implies that some dishonesty is involved. There isn't, the participants have clearly opted into this system. I don't disagree this system gets to "right" results, I just object to it being characterised as some sort of "blind" draw. It clearly is a very controlled draw, because you carefully arrange exactly what sorts of opponents each team will face (two A teams, two B teams, two C teams and 2 D teams).
It's a draw the recognises the unfairness of having a truly random draw (which might unfairly place good teams against each other too often, and give less good teams an easy road through), while understanding that in a tournament like WSDC, which is very top heavy and has prepared motions, power pairing would also be unfair.
That's fine. But it's pretty ridiculous to suggest the draw is one you can characterise as particularly random in nature. It isn't. The beneficiaries of this system will vary each year depending on a number of outside factors, I particularly don't care to speak on it.
Thanks a lot for keeping us posted, I haven't had contact with our Dutch team yet, so it's great to know how they're doing!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home