The Instigator
Zerosmelt
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
numa
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Debate.org Should Have A Stats Page.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,878 times Debate No: 4888
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (9)

 

Zerosmelt

Pro

As of right now these are the only stats that this website offers:

"Debate.org Stats
Days Online: 293
Members Online: 4
Total Members: 5,599
New Members: 49
Total Debates: 4,070
New Debates: 30
Challenge Period: 1
Debating Period: 64
Voting Period: 4,005"

I am arguing that it would useful for the users of the website if an entire Stats page with detailed Stats were to be created.

a page containing details such as:

- total number of members adhering to a given faith
- average win ratio of total members of a given faith
- total number of members in a each age bracket
- average win ration of members in each age bracket
- total males verse total females
- total number of members in a given area
- average faith of members in a given area
- average win ration of members in a given area
- total debates in each topic; from arts to technology
- total users in each level of education and the respective average win ratios.
- total users in each bracket of the political spectrum and the respective average win ratios.
- Total users agreeing and disagreeing with each of the issues posed in our profiles from abortion to welfare and the respective average win ratios of members agreeing/disagreeing with each issue.
- Also providing stats (but not the identities) of everyone voting pro/con in a given debate.

There are several reason why such information would be useful to the users of this website. For example lets suppose that you are a muslim. You keep posting debates about why Islam is the only true religion and your arguments and consistently better than your opponents'. Far, far better in fact. Yet for some unknown reason you keep losing these debates. Well the stats page might just tell you that all the members on this website are right wing, close-minded, bible belt christians. These people probably won't even read your arguments and this is probably why you are always loosing your debates.

Likewise if you are trying to argue that videos games corrupt the minds of our youth and everyone on this website is under 18 then you'll immediately know why everyone is voting against you.
numa

Con

i'm against this topic because it will have a few negative impacts.

1- first and foremost, it would delay the launching of the new version of the site. it has been consistently pushed back and the last we heard, it was supposed to definitely come out by the end of july. now it is mid august and we still have nothing. to add more features would only be time consuming and further prevent the new highly anticipated version from coming out already!

2- people can change their information at any time, for any reason. for instance, someone can go from being a christian to being an atheist. or someone can really be straight but list themself as gay for a "joke" (which sounds retarded and it is but i know someone who's done it). so, if these stats aren't reliable, then there is no point to it and therefore not worth the time/energy.

3- if 90% of the people on this site are listed as christian and debates favoring christianity always win, people might say "oh it's only because everyone on this site is christian" when really maybe the christian side legitimately won. it's a scapegoat excuse.

4- privacy. this kind of goes along with point 2. people may not want to disclose personal information and therefore this is not useful or reliable.

5- people may be scared off by all of the overwhelming stats (for instance, if 90% of the people are against abortion, people may be scared to start pro-abortion debates). this isn't cool because it deters people from speaking their true mind or starting an interesting debate, because people care more about what will get them the most votes.

6- and finally, i think there are way more cool things that can be added to the site instead of the stat page. so, i would rather that the owner implement other features first, including a way to make voting more fair, instead of working on this one seemingly time-consuming project that has little to no value. and again my #1 point is my biggest.

thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Zerosmelt

Pro

Hi numa and thank you.

You make some good points which i will address.

1. - I never said we should delay the launching of the 3.0 Debate.org
I just said that a stats page would be good. It could be including in the 4.0 version.

2. - I admit that the stats wouldn't necessarily be 100% accurate but they would still be useful. Just think, if we hold onto your opinion then what is the purpose of debate.org asking any personal information about an individual? According to your logic the fact that debate.org even provides info about people's ages/faiths/political parties/ etc,.. etc... is useless b/c they might not be totally accurate.
-My point is that even if some people lie the vast majority have no reason to.

3.- Sure but we'd have to analyze the debate itself to determine that. I think the stats could only help us understand what the voting logic is, and no one can deny that ther is a ton of biased voting on this site. What happens now is that many individuals win without even providing arguments. In such a situations you should be able to use the "scapegoat" response and it would be justified. Plus those kind of debates completely distort peoples' win ratio.

4.- Same as point 2.

5.- It may deter them, or it may provoke someone who otherwise had no interest in debating abortion to debate it. It would provoke people to try and actually persuade people as opposed to merely trying to win a debate. Neither of us no what would happen so you can't say a stats page would be bad on these grounds.

6. - I agree, but i never said that they shouldn't add those other features first. By all means add them. I think that a stats page would be one feature that could make voting more fair, especially if you could see the stats (but not the identity) of the people who voted for and against you.
If the majority of the people voting don't have any stats at all then you might assume that they were just a bunch of bogus accounts.

thats all.
numa

Con

numa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Zerosmelt

Pro

Tisk Tisk... what a shame.

I extend my arguments^.

i will simply say that a Stats page would help the voting problems. It doesn't have to delay the new version of the site, it could be implemented in an even later version.
numa

Con

sorry for the missed round. here we go...

1- the 3.0 version is already delayed and has been for months and months. if we want this new expanded feature even in v 4.0, we will probably have to wait even longer for THAT.

2- "According to your logic the fact that debate.org even provides info about people's ages/faiths/political parties/ etc,.. etc... is useless b/c they might not be totally accurate." and yep, that's pretty much exactly what i'm saying. it's useless now and it would be useless in the future to have even more focus on these matters (beliefs). i agree with you that voting on this site is biased, but i think it will be hard to notice these "trends" you speak of because i think the bias supercedes the trends. in other words, it'll be hard to pin point any "trends" because it has more to do with whom on this site likes whom and who wants to down vote whom. so if you can't find trends, again, there is no point to this.

3- if you're agreeing with me that people may not want to start debates for certain reasons, then how can you respond with "sure but we'd have to analyze the debate itself to determine that" ? if there's no debate then there's nothing to read/determine. and you have agreed with me on this point, so.

4- well, point 2 indicated that people can change their POV at any time. my pt. 4 was saying that people may not want to list their beliefs at ALL and that it's a privacy issue. so what happens if the debate.org owner spends all this time money and research or whatever and implements this whole thing, but then nobody actually USES it and just leaves it blank...? it'll be even more pointless and in fact a hinderance.

5- to this pro has responded "neither of us know what would happen so you can't say anything against it" BUT according to that logic you don't know that it would be a good thing either so why should we take your word over mine? also based on the debates that are around, i think it's fair to say that a lot of people do in fact care about winning debates on this site.

6- "especially if you could see the stats (but not the identity) of the people who voted for and against you.
If the majority of the people voting don't have any stats at all then you might assume that they were just a bunch of bogus accounts."

ok first of all, if someone could see everyone's stats and just not their username, well that'd be pretty pointless because it would be very easy to figure out who was who. like, "ok well i know zerosmelt is against abortion and the death penalty but favors medical marijuana..." (just an example) so basically people would be able to figure out who was who based on analyzing the states of the voter. second, you can't assume that someone who chooses not to include their states (for reasons such as privacy amongst other things) are fake accounts. i've already expressed why people might not want to disclose this information. and how even if they did, it's not reliable. what if a lot of bogus accounts were created but it DID include this stat information? that would pretty much make your argument invalid.

so anyway, in conclusion, i actually think that the less voters know about who they're judging, the better. there is so much bias on this site that knowing more about people can only make it worse. consider some nasty people (that certainly do exist on this site!) down voting others specifically for their nationality, race, religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc. it's bad enough that this site allows for people to be exposed to others jobs and income brackets (which most people probably lie about anyway). having someone's entire background on display only INCREASES voting bias on this site, not DECREASE. and it only HINDERS open and honest debate, not promote. thus you should vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"And I agree fully Rezzealeaux, though the technical term I prefer is "Active minded" (after all it is POSSIBLE to get through the border security, if it's doing it's job, but only if an idea proves it's worthiness."

Oh.
Never heard of that before.
*DING DING DING*

NEW PHRASE OF THE DAY! :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Also, it's announced new changes on multiple different occasions, sadolite. The first time, it actually did change.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"hat Christians are VERY close minded and Atheists are not, at all"

I already made it clear somewhere else that Christians are in fact universally open-minded, that is there exact problem.

And I agree fully Rezzealeaux, though the technical term I prefer is "Active minded" (after all it is POSSIBLE to get through the border security, if it's doing it's job, but only if an idea proves it's worthiness.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I would consider this a change. I had a debate that Debate .com has not changed at all since it announced that there would be new and exacting changes. There hasn't been any.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
LOL, it is always good to question things before they become a part of you, by being in your head. Religious people believe what they believe and think it is worth them thinking and having faith in, atheists, think it is not logical and should not be part of them.

(Sorry if i offended anyone, feel free to correct me on any part of that.)
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Of course you can't REALLY speak for anyone else, but close-mindedness is very common, especially on this website, and for the purpose of debating, isn't ALWAYS a bad thing. For voters on a debate that is how we get people voting on personal oppinions, not giving the other person a chance and reading through everyone's arguements, but when debating a close mind is VERY helpful.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm "closed minded".

I question ideas before they can enter my processes.
Think of it as "border security" for the psyche.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
That Christians are VERY close minded and Atheists are not, at all.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"i agree with Rezzelaux, whoever, i must add, that most of the close minded people on this site are atheists. I am not saying that Christians can't be close minded. I understand you prolly didn't mean to say it like that, but had it been Ragnar Rahl, he would have made sure it sounded like that.
"

What would I have made sure what sounded like?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
There are two kinds of atheism, the difference is subtle but look carefully:
1. Those that believe there is no God. << that is a faith. - get rid of it!"

It's not a faith. It's based on evidence.

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
ZerosmeltnumaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30