Another potential objection to breaking 18+ is that the size of the break would remain too small. Given tournaments the size of those in 2009 and 2011, only 36 teams would break, which some would argue is too meagre an expansion. On average, this method will break 11.7% of the field, regardless of the size of the field. But some may argue that breaking 15% or even 20% is preferable. There seems little more to say about this issue, given what we have said already. People have very different intuitions about it. But, if you are committed to breaking a higher percentage of the field, then you probably will want to advocate for a fixed break system where the size of the break adjusts to the size of the field. Of course, it is also possible to advocate for an analogous system that breaks all 17+ teams (about 18.5%), but we expect that fairly few would advocate for such a system. The main virtue of breaking 18+ is that it appears to offer a method of drawing a principled line in the tab, not relying on something as imprecise as speaker points (or worse, Article 4.a.iii) to decide who breaks. In making any decision regarding how many to include and exclude from some award, it is ideal to find the point where there is the most precipitous drop in the qualifications curve. The sharper the downturn, the more clearly justified one is in drawing the line at that point. A variable break gives us the chance to break at such an ideal place on the tab. But, what appeared to be the main advantage of breaking 18+ may actually be its greatest problem. That is because the top ranked team with 17 points is almost certainly a higher quality team than the bottom ranked 18 point team, and often by a significant degree. Call this “the discontinuity objection�. Consider this data from the tournaments since points were standardized (fig 5). On average, the top 17 point team has 83 more speaker points than the bottom 18 point team. That is more than 4 speaker points per partner in every round. So, it is implausible to say that the one extra team point is better evidence of team quality than this small mountain of speaker points. Although breaking 18+ seems to choose a principled place in the qualifications curve, the curve actually goes up at the point where it needs to go down to justify it as a place to draw the line. Consider the following two charts created using the team tab from 2010, which is a typical year.
FIGURE SIX
Monash Debating Review
37