Point deduction

Intro Thanks again to Cliff for the reply. He has made some good points as before. Let’s return to the debate.Student Complications I answer based on Con’s numbers from before (which follow on from my points) 1) Okay, I agreed that is was somewhat more complex under point deduction. I should note while Con says it is 6 times more complex, this is wrong. Merely, Con eliminates a variety of steps through things like 10*1 being simplified to 10. Now, naturally *2.5 is tougher than *1, but the difference is required for other things (the whole differentiation between incorrect and no-attempts for example). Also, if 2.5 was just simplified to 2, this would be no problem. However this is a separate issue and I’ll leave it to voters as to whether modifications can be made. Also important is whether it is my specific proposed system vs. the current system, or that mine should be implemented despite small problems, because those problems can be fixed nearly instantly. I’ll let voters decided and understand that Con believes I should not change here. Con raises 2 issues with this point (replied to as a and b) a) I would ask that readers reread my example about guessing in R1 to get the context correct here. On the 30% point, I think it’s reasonable that guesses below that percent do not really constitute firm knowledge. I’ll address this in greater depth later in this round. b) Con contradicts himself somewhat here. In his previous round he claimed one need only know 20% of the content and now says one needs to know 85% of the content. Con can not hold on to both examples together. I understand Con’s point, but until this is resolved I see no need to answer this. 2) Unanswered by itself. It ties in with some themes of 3 though. 3) Okay, this is a key point. While my opponent may be a teacher, I must kindly state that he is teaching students who, if they do have problems, are at least genuinely trying and such, being a post secondary teacher. Point deduction is particularly geared towards eliminating gains from guessing, which is more likely at lower levels of testing and lower levels of student effort, both of which are less common with post secondary teaching. The point is not that point deduction may be more complex (see 1) , but that under neither system the students with lower achievement will test probabilities, and therefore, this is a non-issue (issue – students testing probabilities in only 1 system) . Meanwhile, point deduction attacks unjustly gained marks. Marking Imbalance I addressed this partially above (1) and so state that I understand my opponents stance and such with arguing about the ease of change to the system for overall benefit. I’ll let voters decide what is fair. I have to admit my aim was more based upon a general debate at first, but that is irrelevant. I would also note that Con doesn’t address those 4 points I made, so I see no need to expand on them. Basically, the main argument here is whether it should be allowed to argue for change, with the point that the system could be changed easily or whether I must strictly stick to the system proposed. Also, my opponent says that if a student answers every question wrong they get a negative mark, which is incorrect. The total mark is total rank (ie. Ranks added together) * 2.5 . The total losable marks = 2.5 * total rank. Teacher Workload Firstly, I don’t believe that Con rebutted my point 1) here, so I don’t need to speak on that this round. Let’s address Con’s points. Con states that more effort is put into developing balanced tests than marking them. Fair enough, and I don’t have the knowledge to argue against this, except to merely question the assertion. I also agree that in point deduction one may have to revise ranks as they continue the creation of a test. However, this is no different to the current system! Teachers simply revise the ‘marks’ given in a question vs. ‘ranks’. If a teacher finds a 2 mark question from the start of a test at the end of a test’s creation and deems it only worth 1 mark in hindsight (due to other questions and such) , they will change it! Or if they don’t, there is no reason they would change it in point deduction instead! Con’s second paragraph just puts both systems on par (excluding 1, which was not addressed), which is fine. Other points 1- Guessing This is perhaps the key point of the entire debate. So I’ll address this a little more deeply than the other points. Con’s counter example is the one with the million dollars. Con claims that I support only doing things with 100% certainty. This is not true. Rather, I advocate improving one’s chances where I can, instead of acting upon lower percentage chances. In this specific example, it can easily be seen that the rewards from a potential win and the percentages involved far outweigh a loss. Also, it is likely that a person would not be crippled by the loss of $10 and would be smart to retake the offer again if they could. This is different from my example in that my example works with larger amounts of money to be lost, given the same income. Also, in my example, it is quite likely that the odds could be improved through doing things other than random guessing (just like a test, you could take a good guess, or through better preparation, know it for sure). Also, assuming one could retake Con’s offer they probably would. In my example, the amount mentioned could not be attempted a second time. These are key differences. Let me clarify these below. My main point above is simple. While David has x chance based upon a guess with his current knowledge, through research and such, David can improve upon x chance and make it more likely that he will make a profitable investment. Obviously, it would be ludicrous to say that one has to be 100% sure of something to do it. Merely, in situations that can have a profound impact (ie. Impact assets), it is better for a person to have a stricter mindset towards guessing. Since point deduction is anti-guessing, it follows that point deduction has an advantage in the preferred mindset towards serious decisions. Also, importantly, guessing becomes more allowable when the consequences of a wrong decision are lessened. For example, if David were to instead only invest $100 (forget about brokerage fees and such here), there would be little reason for him to research because the time spent outweighs the likely gain from extra research. What point deduction attempts to do is create a mindset where guessing is discouraged in major decisions. Instead, knowing is valued far higher and guessing, discouraged. Also, although I’ve already said it, a key thing about my scenario is that it cannot be repeated due to lack of funds. Con said in response to the below issue that guessing multiple times is preferable. 1, he is not defending such a system and 2, does not apply in this case. 2- Feedback Con’s system definitely has a variety of strengths and such, and I consider it a marked improvement on the current system. Unfortunately, Con is not defending such a system, although I believe such a system would also do to be implemented if point deduction was not. Nevertheless, since a debate is about learning, I urge voters to read his points, as they are pertinent to test scoring. Also, I believe my point about additional feedback (through less correct answers) remains firm (except for indirect attacks, like guessing). Conclusion While Con has attacked the specifics of my scheme, I urge voters to read my defence of that case and decide. Also, having defended my other points and expanded where needed, and mentioned unaddressed points; I believe I have upheld my case.