Initiative One Submission: Csareo

I think this is the perfect system for judging, and it reveals a positive or negative rating depending on the impact of the arguments. I researched the concept all over the internet, and tried the system multiple times to see if it determines the perfect rating like I would expect it to. The cool thing, is that LJS shows a positive or negative scale showing by the individual numbers if the BOP has been filled or not, with a couple of special points which could swing incredibly close debates.

The submission went to the resource section for moderation.
The Legend System is a new and revolutionary judging design created by edeb8 user "Csareo". Legend follows the base equation....
(Arguments ---> Affirmed(solvency + PSP) - Arguments ----> Negatory(inherency + CSP)) - (CD - PD)
(AA(solvency + SP) - NA(I)) - D + SP
A - Arguments,
AA - Affirmed Arguments,
NA - Negatory Arguments,
S - Solvency,
I - Inherency,
SP - Special Points
PSP - BOP Holder Special Points
CSP - Non BOP Holder Special Points
D - Deductions
CD - Non BOP Holder Deductions
PD - BOP Holder Deductions
When using the Legend Judging System, you must first count the total # of arguments made by both debaters. If there are 10 arguments, then that would be recorded into step one. A = 10.

After recording how many arguments have been made, you must categorize them into two possible categories. Affirmed Arguments and Negative Arguments. Affirmed Arguments are those which have been proven to positively impact the argument of the BOP holder's case. Negative Arguments are those which have proven to negatively affect the BOP holder's case. AA = 6, NA = 4

After categorization, Affirmed Arguments will then be multiplied by the solvency (Positive Impact), plus special points.

Special Points will be points rewarded by the following categorizations
- Cross Examination Participation (2)
- Good Conduct (2)
- Presentation (2)
- Use of Strong Speech (2)
For the example, assume both debaters received the full 8 points. PSP= 8, CSP = 8

Special Points for the BOP holder

Solvency is how much the arguments positively impact the debater's case. If an argument is affirmed, it should be rated on a ladder of 1 to 5. S= 23
1. Barely Affected BOP holder's case
2. Lightly Affected BOP holder's case
3. Moderately Affected BOP holder's case
4. Greatly Affected BOP holder's case
5. Strongly Affected BOP holder's case

The same ladder is applied for inherency, or how much negative impact an argument has. I= 18

After Solvency, Inherency, and Special Points have been determined, proceed to calculate deductions, which are the opposite of Special Points.
- No CX Participation (2)
- Bad Conduct (2)
- Bad Presentation (2)
- Bad Speech (2)
Assume both debaters received a 2 point deduction. PD - 2, CD - 2

Once all factors are determined, plug them into the equation.
6(23 + 8) - 4(18 + 8)) - (2-2) = 82

If the final score is positive, then that means the BOP holder won. Alternatively, if the Score is negative in the following inverse example, the non-BOP holder wins the debate.
4(18+8)-6(23+8) - (2-2) = -82

Blackflag: I hate bumping threads, but I'm really proud of this one

nice.

Please stop burying....

Blackflag: Can you explain to me in simple terms what all the variables are that go into this? Like, presume I was a complete newbie to debating but had seen a debate and wanted to judge it. In this judging paradigm, what are all the things I would have to fill out on the form?

admin: Sorry, had a problem with the chat boxes not allowing me to select buttons again. Appears to be happening to both me and stalin.

Affirmed Arguments:
Overall Solvency:
Negated Arguments:
Overall Inherency:
Special Points...
- Cx participation
- Good Conduct
- Good Presentation
- Use of Strong Speecj
Deductions...
Same as Special Points.

Blackflag: But I have no idea what those titles mean or how they are scored (like, are they all rated 1-10? What does inherency mean?).

admin: Inherency is negative impact in economic policy debates, but I used it in the purpose of general debating.

The analysis is really simple. The hardest part is rating each argument on the 1-5 ladder. The equation probably makes it look harder than it is.