The Instigator
Zealous1
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
wolf44
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,089 times Debate No: 15395
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (6)

 

Zealous1

Pro

First off I'd like to thank whoever is my Contender for accepting this debate.


I will expand the resolution by showing exactly how it should be:


The leaderboard (top debaters) should be calculated by an integer that is produced by the following formula:


(Amount of debates) + (2 X wins) – (2 X losses) – (ties)



I’ll take myself as an example.




I’ve debated 8 times, won 8 times, lost 0, tied 0.



8 + 2(8) – 2(0) – 0 = 24



The higher the result number, the better of a debater you are. Let’s take a debater who has debated a hundred or so times, won most, lost a minority, and tied a couple.



115 + 2(79) – 2(26) - 10 = 115 + 158 – 52 – 10 = 273 – 62 = 211




Of course he has a way higher number since he’s debated more. The win ratio isn’t TOO important. If it was calculated by win ratio, then the top debater, Danielle, would be several pages down and members who have 1 debate will be at the top.




But multiplying the wins by two and the losses by two makes sure it isn’t all by numbers. If someone debated 500 times and lost 400 times, that would give the person 100 points which wouldn’t be fair for those who have debated 150 times and won almost all of them.

It’s overall a balanced system. Previous formulas have been hard to understand and end up with random results, sometimes.




I’ll take myself as an example again. I saw several people in the 90% who have 5 debates in all, lost two, won three. I’m in 88.94 percent. Now how is it that I am under that person? I have 8 debates (more experience there), all 8 wins (better win ratio). There’s no reason that he/she should be over me.



That’s the case with a lot of people. Therefore I stand resolved the debate.org should change their formula to the one I have proposed.



That would give the person with 5 debates, 3 wins, 2 losses, a lower score. (7)



Con will argue that it is not net beneficial to have this new, improved formula. The rules will be like policy debate. Con may start with his/her arguments in Round 1.



Thank you, and I look forward to the rest of this debate.

wolf44

Con

Hello,
This is my first debate, and I would like to wish good luck to the opponent.

I need to question this resolution however. Are we debating that your formula is better, or just whether the formula should be changed?

I will be debating against your formula for the meantime.

First of all, why would the amount of debates matter? This just gives the experience the advantage. For example, if two debaters both have a .500(50%) record, the person with the more debates would win. For example,

200 debates

200+(2X100)-(2X100)-0
=
200

While a person with 100 debates

100+(2X50)-(2X50)-0
=
100

The amount of debates would throw off the numbers. The experience would put the person with 200 debates way above the person with 100 debates. So clearly, the higher the number does NOT mean the better the debater. It could be the more experienced debater.

The current system for rankings is good.

The more debates you win, the higher you go up.
The percentile keeps people that have won 1 out of 1 debates from being at the top.

I look forward to the rest of the debate, and thank my opponent for hosting the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealous1

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting and responding.

1. Con is to argue against changing the system to fit my formula. (He did so correctly).

Moving on to his sole point about experience:

1.My opponent said it himself. "This just gives the experience the advantage." Now, I would change that to say "an advantage" rather than "the advantage", but it still applies. My formula basically stresses wins and losses, but allows experience to have a slight advantage.

The way it does this is by adding the amount of debates (basically experience) to double the wins, subtracting double the losses, and subtracting ties. This is important because let's take Danielle for example. She has debated basically 345 times, and won almost all of them. She's tied 6 and lost 27. Her win ratio is around 92%. She's at the top of the leader board, and rightfully so.

My opponent is trying to say experience shouldn't reign. Therefore an 100% win ratio would be the top. That would mean Danielle, someone who has worked and debated for so long, would be pages behind. Obviously experience matters.

2.My opponent then moved on to do some math of two people, one with 200 debates, and one with 100. That's exactly my point. The one with 200 has won half, which is 100, rather than 50. That debater (I'll call him debater A), deserves a higher spot than someone who has debated only 100 times. Experience SHOULD rule.

3.Lastly, the current system is also based on experience somewhat. That's why Danielle is at the top, even though her win ratio isn't 100%. So this argument is non-unique. It's like saying "YOU'RE CAUSING DEBT!" when the status quo causes just as much debt. Of course, debt has nothing to do with this debate.

"The current system is good"

Sadly, no it isn't. Cross-Apply my examples of people who are higher than me even though they have less wins, more losses, and less debates. I looked just yesterday and the five people right on top of me have 7 debates, 3 wins, 4 losses. How do they get on top of someone with 8 debates (more experience) and 8 wins (better win ratio)? The status quo is simply flawed.
wolf44

Con

Thank you to the opposition for responding quickly.

"My opponent is trying to say experience shouldn't reign...Experience SHOULD rule."

This is not the main point presented. I am saying that experience should not be a a major factor, especially in your equation. A person with less experience could be a better debater than an experienced debater. However, the equation would most likely favor the more experienced. The experienced, like Danielle, work their way to the top, with hard work, and not because of a faulty equation. My opponent is trying to present the idea that experience is what should make you on top. This is not the actual truth. Debaters get to the top by winning more, or getting a better winning percentage.

Although the current system is not perfect- nothing is, including the opposition's equation, but the current system is equal.
Debate Round No. 2
Zealous1

Pro

“My opponent is trying to present the idea that experience is what should make you on top.”



Con has a flawed view of my equation. He conceded that Danielle should be on the top.



Let’s look at my equation.



(Amount of debates) + (2 x wins) - (2 x losses) – (ties)



A person who has debated 54 times and lost 40 of them will lose to a debater who has debated 10 times and won all of them, for example. Yes, the person with 54 debates has more experience. But obviously despite the experience he/she is still not a good debater.


The equation is balanced because it’s not completely based on win ratio, and it’s not biased towards experience. Wins and losses do weigh in as MORE than experience, but in a tie, experience wins.



Let’s take debater A and debater B. Debater A has twenty debates and all of them won. Debater B has ten debates and all of them won. Debater A wins because he/she has won more and has more experience. The score my equation gives them (I programmed an application to automatically compare debaters with this formula):



Debater A: 60


Debater B: 30



That’s fair. Debater A has twice the wins and experience. Now let’s tweak it a bit. Debater A has 20 debates, but has lost 7 of them and tied 1. Debater B still has the same amount.



Debater A: 29


Debater B: 30



Debater B wins although debater A has more experience. Let’s change it to a lot of ties. Debater A has 10 ties and 10 wins. Now they’re equal at 30. You see, experience is a part of the equation, but not nearly as much as winning or losing. My opponent’s argument crumbles. Lastly, my opponent did not address my second and third responses adequately. They also flow to me.



As of now, Con has no arguments against this formula. Experience is a factor (my opponent concedes it SHOULD be), but it’s not too much (just what my opponent wants). It’s a balanced formula.



As you are voting, please cast aside personal bias. If you hate my formula and like the Status Quo, then only show that through the “agreed with” votes. Please vote with absolutely no bias on the other points.



Thank you, and I eagerly await my opponent's response.

wolf44

Con

Thank you for responding. On to the debate!

"The equation is balanced because it's not completely based on win ratio, and it's not biased towards experience. Wins and losses do weigh in as MORE than experience, but in a tie, experience wins."

The opponent explains this is why his equation is better. However, isn't the same statement true of the current leader board?

1. "Not completely based on win ratio- Neither is the current system." This is why Danielle is on top, and not a person that has won 1 out of 1 debates.

2. "Not biased toward experience"- The current system allows people with less experience to be above those with more experience

3. "Wins and losses do weigh in as MORE than experience"- As mentioned before, experience is not a major factor, and wins and losses count more.

How is the opponent's system better when they are very similar.

Also, why does experience rule in ties? Although the more experienced person did win more, they lost more also. Obviously, the opposition is false in saying that the system is not biased against experience,when the experienced will get the upper hand in ties.

Vote con for equality.
Debate Round No. 3
Zealous1

Pro

Thank you for responding.

I have yet to see a reason why experience should not rule in ties. If two people have won and lost the same ratio of times, but one has more experience, the person with more experience should win. That person is much more likely to be a better debater.

"The opponent explains this is why his equation is better. However, isn't the same statement true of the current leader board?"

Actually, no. Con has not shown a reason for why there are such oddities in the leader board as I explained in round 1. People with less experience and a bad win ratio are above people with more experience and a better win ratio. Go ahead, check page 17 of the leader board. That's where I am. http://www.debate.org.... I have 9 debates, 8 won, 1 lost. The four people above me have 7 debates, 3 wins, 4 lost. Now who should OBVIOUSLY be above, me or those people? There's no reason for them to be above me. They've been there for the past week, so it's not a problem of updating the board.
Another guy, InfraRedEd. 54 debates, 3 wins, 49 losses, 2 ties. Here's an example for Con to munch on. This is a severe example of misusing the "experience" part in the status quo. This guy is above people who have 100% win ratios and more than ten debates. 3 wins and 49 losses: that's really bad. Despite his experience, it's obvious to see that he is not a good debater. That is how my equation is balanced. Experience doesn't RULE, it just breaks ties.

1. "Not completely based on win ratio- Neither is the current system." The current system is not based on completely win ratio, obviously. That's not what I was arguing. What I was arguing is that Con was suggesting that it should be based off wins and losses, not experience. That would mean someone with 1 debate and 1 win is above Danielle. Yes, that's not the status quo. But since Con keeps trying to put down experience as nothing, he obviously wants a win ratio based sytem. There's no other away around that besides experience.
What THAT means is that Con doesn't even agree with the current system. He's agreeing it needs to be changed. He is not fulfilling his duty.
2. "The current system allows people with less experience to be above those with more experience" Yes, it does. So does mine. Cross-apply the examples in round 3 of debater A and debater B. Even though one had greater experience, it was very possible for him to lose. Again, my formula is well balanced. Let's use InfraRedEd from page 17 again. Yes, he has lots of experience. But 49 losses means he'll have a score of -40. That will put him way down compared to a fresh debater who has won all of his rounds. If experience was not a factor, that would give poor InfraRedEd -94, which is unfair.
3. "As mentioned before, experience is not a major factor, and wins and losses count more."

I believe my opponent is referring to the status quo's formula. Cross-apply my example of InfraRedEd. He's on page 17, way above where he should be, just because of his 54 debates. He obviously does not deserve such a position.

"How is the opponent's system better when they are very similar?"

The only difference is that my formula is drastically improved and doesn't have major problems with it. Just use all my examples of how the current formula is failing and providing inaccurate results.

"Also, why does experience rule in ties? Although the more experienced person did win more, they lost more also. Obviously, the opposition is false in saying that the system is not biased against experience,when the experienced will get the upper hand in ties."

Con is trying to suggest that we shouldn't try to break ties. As I explained before several times, if you have debated 100 times and lost half of them, you're almost certainly better than someone who debates 6 times and loses half. You've debated more, and you've probably debated harder people. My formula is not only based on accomplishment, but also skill. That is important.

Please vote Pro because there is no reason to stick with the current flawed formula.

Note to voters: please cast aside personal bias when voting. If you want to show your opinion, you can do so with the top two radio buttons asking who you agree with, and with your comment. Also, I would encourage you to read over this post again after you've read my opponent's response. It will refresh your mind with my responses and allow you to determine whether he really responded adequately or not.

Thank you, Con, for this debate, and thank you voters for voting. (Also thank you all who have read this whether or not they voted).
wolf44

Con

Well, it's been a great debate.
I would like to compliment the pro for great debating, and here is my final stance.

"I have yet to see a reason why experience should not rule in ties. If two people have won and lost the same ratio of times, but one has more experience, the person with more experience should win. That person is much more likely to be a better debater...another guy, InfraRedEd. 54 debates, 3 wins, 49 losses, 2 ties. Here's an example for Con to munch on. This is a severe example of misusing the "experience" part in the status quo. This guy is above people who have 100% win ratios and more than ten debates. 3 wins and 49 losses: that's really bad."

Clearly, experience does not equal, "the better debater". The pro, argues that the more experienced debater is, "more likely to be a better debater." As shown by the opponents other argument, about InfraRedEd, this is clearly not true. More debates does not constitute, "the better debater".

I am not suggesting that ties should not be broken. As I mentioned previously, the Pro claims that their system does not favor the experienced, when in ties, the experienced get a free pass up. I suggest that a way to break ties is by number of votes ahead of opponent. If there is a ti, and one person beat their opponents by an average of 15 votes while the other the average was only 10, then the person with the 15 vote average should be ahead.

"You've debated more, and you've probably debated harder people."

There is no way to prove this statement. Debating more does not mean debating harder people. For example, a new debater with only 10 debates could have versed Danielle 6 times, while a person with 100 debates and all their debates are people on page 17 of the leaderboard.

As mentioned before, the current system is not perfect. The rankings are obviously based on an unknown formula.

Vote co for equality for everyone.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
Lol @ Haasenfeffor's vote bomb.

@Cliff: Not all voters are that fair. I understand you are, but others are not.

Secondly, it did not prove the inadequacy of my equation. If you want to talk about that, PM me.
Posted by Sottaceti 6 years ago
Sottaceti
Good debate; I like the potential outcomes of this movement.
Posted by KRFournier 6 years ago
KRFournier
Now that the debate is over, my recommendation would be to use the Elo rating system employed in chess rankings. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In this system, experience still matters, but more accurately so. Winning 200 debates against weak debaters would not affect one's rank as much as winning 50 debates against strong debaters. The K values could be 32 for weak or new debaters, 24 for intermediate debaters, and 16 for the highest debaters. Thus, newer and weaker debaters can advance quickly as their skills improve and better debaters have to work harder to advance further.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Zealous1
Thanks for posting that right here where the voters can see it."

The voters vote by the arguments presented in the debate, while that comment completely destroyed your formula, it is not relevant to the voting.
Posted by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
Oh wow. Misunderstandings, all of them. Wolf basically proposed a NEW formula, rather than sticking with the status quo. (He said it should be based on how far ahead by votes one guy is). Tut tut.

"As mentioned before, the current system is not perfect. The rankings are obviously based on an unknown formula."

He's conceding that the current system is bad and that mine is better...
Posted by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
Thanks for posting that right here where the voters can see it.

Anyways, it doesn't matter. Everyone is being judged by that, so it's not like it's biased or anything. If it was W-L, it probably wouldn't matter anyways because everyone is being judged by that. The problem with the current formula is how unpredictable it seems. Just look at my examples: 3W-L is a lot better than people with 3 wins and 49 losses above people with 9 wins and 1 loss.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
Zealous, did you even do the algebra for your equation.
let W=#wins
let L=#losses
let T=#ties
W+L+T=# of debates

Score=(W+L+T)+(2W)-(2L)-T
Score=W+2W+L-2L+T-T
Score=3W-L

You don't see a problem with that?
Posted by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
Well, you're logged on right now. We can have a fast debate. I'm almost finished typing mine out.
Posted by wolf44 6 years ago
wolf44
It's okay Zealous, not going to forfeit.

Can you post your argument as late as you can Friday?

Probably won't be able to log on the weekends.
Posted by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
Well, wolf accepted the debate.

Secondly, I know some arguments against this new formula of mine. They're possibly superior because the system is like this already.

I just hope wolf will not forfeit.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Haasenfeffor 6 years ago
Haasenfeffor
Zealous1wolf44Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: win
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Zealous1wolf44Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments made more sense; but I disagree with this system. Pro's stance never takes forum posts into account. I really wish Con would have argued about this; I would have loved to see Pro's response. Also conducts goes to Pro because of Con's inconsistency in length.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Zealous1wolf44Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: While I think that the equation given by Pro is not the best equation. I feel that he did a much better job supporting his equation. Not to mention that Con didn't seem to really get the different types of equations and probably would have been better off arguing an ELO system.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Zealous1wolf44Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "As mentioned before, the current system is not perfect. The rankings are obviously based on an unknown formula." - no they are not, the formula has been posted on the forums.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 6 years ago
KRFournier
Zealous1wolf44Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Con conceded status quo is not perfect, the debate is whether or not Pro's formula is better than the status quo. Convincing argument goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
Zealous1wolf44Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proves major flaws with voting system, and offers perfectly fine new system. Con lacked good argumentaton in round 2.