Why you (really) shouldn't judge motion balance by win ratios.
1: Intuition vs Data
There are two ways we determine whether a motion is balanced. One is intuitive. We think of the arguments for both sides and how they interact, whether there is enough material to allow for a second half etc... The problem with this method is that it's not objective or measurable. Everyone has an opinion and those opinions inaccuracies aren't random, they're structural, resulting from the biases we hold. Because of this, we turn more and more to the second method: using win ratios as a measure of balance. From Sheng Wu to Warsaw EUDC, there seems to be a consensus that this is good. The logic is simple. Balanced motions are those where no position is more difficult to win from than another. Hence symmetric win ratios indicate balance. It's easy to think that assessing motions based on hard, objective, publicly available data is better than relying on haphazard armchair reasoning. It isn't
2: Balance among trump supporters
Imagine we set up a debating tournament and we only invite trump supporters. They're all lifelong republicans, pro-life, anti-welfare, pro-gun etc... Then we have a few debates. We sit down after round 1 and look at the stats.
---------------------------------------------------
Round 1: THW legalise Abortion
proportion of 1st's
OG: 8%
OO 41%
CG: 11%
CO: 39%
---------------------------------------------------
Obviously, it's almost impossible to argue for making abortion legally available and the CA's were idiots to set a motion which was so unbalanced. Clearly if they wanted to have a discussion on abortion they should have set a reasonable motion like "THW reduce the punishment for abortion from 10 years to 5 years" or "THW legalise abortion in cases of child rape".
Don't think so? Neither do I. At the very least It's obvious that committed republicans would have a far easier time arguing for their own beliefs rather than against them. It's also likely that judges who are republican, especially worse judges in lower rooms, would give more credit to arguments which correspond to their own beliefs. Beyond even that, if we assume that these people have all been debating for a while in their own republican circuit, then the argument ecosystem in that circuit is likely to be skewed far to the right as people use, develop and pass on the right wing arguments which worked for them. The problem isn't that the motion is biased. The problem is that the debaters are. A system of judging balance which fails to recognise this leads to a circuit which reflects our beliefs rather than challenges them.
3: The lesser evil
Think back to section 1. "A balanced motion is one which is equally winnable from any position". It seems so natural and reasonable to define balance this way. It's not because what is arguable depends to no small extent on the biases of those doing the arguing. What's the alternative? We go back to the intuitive method of assessing motion balance from the perspective of the politically neutral AVI, with a greater emphasis on the last part. Is this perfect? No, but it is probably better. Why?
- I think most debaters are very unlikely to make right wing arguments or make them well. I also think most judges are biased against these kinds of arguments. Hence, I believe the results of debates generally trend strongly against the "right wing" position in a debate, where there is one. Hence balanced win ratios can indicate a far from neutral motion.
- I think CA's are generally among the best debaters/judges. I would wager that better judges can more fully occupy the position of the AVI and hence better set their own biases aside. CA's also consciously try to strip themselves of their left wing bias (or at least they should), and have far more time to overcome those biases when searching for potential arguments which could be used in their motion.
Member discussion