ELO doesn't make you a good debater
Debate Rounds (5)
First round acceptance
Elo, along with its system, does indeed make you a better debater. Go ahead and try to disprove. I'd like you to try and give arguments that infer the elo system is useless and does not really make good debaters.
First of all, there is plenty of factors leading to the loss of a debate including bias, forfeits, vote bombing, etc.I would say based on the votes i had in the past, many members have misinformation on certain subjects such as the Bible. Secondly, there are troll debates and rap battles which really aren't debates.
Here's an example of a debate i had when i first started titled "Is there evidence for Adam and Eve?":
One vote goes as follows:
"The existence of Adam and Eve is one of the most feeble Christian assertions. It has the very least possibility of ever being remotely true"
That's a complete vote bomb. No reason is given to support that. Now true i may have lost due to plagiarism, but it rarely scratches the surface of a debate.
What is a debate?
A debate is basically an argumentative discourse in which both sides use factual arguments to support their view points (1).
What makes someone the best debater?
Someone who uses effective communication, logic, facts, understands other arguments, and is well prepared by doing their research. Someone who does not resort to logical fallacies, but exposes their opponent's logical weaknesses. The best debaters analyze both arguments, coming up with every single possibility that could potentially affect the outcome of the debate. They don't just cite a bunch of sources and/or look arguments online, they create their own and show that they mastered logic by being able to use what they know to come to a sound conclusion.
Who is the best debater on DDO in my opinion?
No one, including myself has reached the status of "best debater." This is because we all have something lacking. I consider myself a good debater though and i also consider people who have an ok ELO which are also good. A few examples are: ShadowKingStudios, Envisage, Jellon, BladeofTruth, 1Devilsadvocate, ThoughtsandThoughts, and others. While they may not be well known, the quality of their debates is enough to show that they are good debaters.
There are alot of factors in debating such as people not voting, vote bombing, biased voters, forfeits, etc. which could potentially cause debaters to lose debates. Now does that mean that they are bad debaters? No. There are also debates voted on because a debater fulfilled their burden of proof and "made the most convincing arguments. " Does that make them the best debaters? No. It's simply because voters rarely do a thorough analysis of each user's arguments. Fulfilling the burden of proof doesn't imply much if you have committed tons of fallacies before you finally are able to reach a logical conclusion.
I'm willing to try out this experiment (maybe you can help). In order for us to say that ELO has an affect on debating performance, we would need to compare those who have the highest ELO ranks with those who have very low ELO ranks and see a difference in arguments on the same topics. I don't think we will see a difference. I will do that next round.
-It's an encouragement system, like a game. You win, you gain elo. You lose, you lose elo. Because you need to keep on winning to get more elo, you become a better debater to adapt and win against strong debaters in order to gain more elo.
I believe that is enough to prove how the elo system works and why it encourages people to get more elo, gain reward, and as a result become better debaters. There's a reason video games increase critical thinking skills as well as reflexive thinking and hand-coordination.
Lets compare a debate that Sargon had with a debate that UndyingHarmony, a person with lower ELO had to see if there's a difference.
Sargon argues using the Kalam Cosmological argument and so does UndyingHarmony. What's the difference between these two debaters?
Lets now look at another person who uses the same argument.
These are only a few examples of people who use the Cosmological argument. If you argue that Sargon is a better debater because he argued his position better then you already agree that ELO has no relevance to whether or not a person is a good debater.
My opponent appears to argue that ELO like a video game enables you to be better at debates by critical thinking, but there's nothing to go by.
You can look at Blade of Truth's profile and check his debates, did he make any improvement from debating a lot? Probably not. He showed a consistent amounts of wins throughout his debates.
ELO does nothing but boost your rank and increase competition, but as far as debating goes, it doesn't benefit you.
" With video games, you need practice for your body and mind to adapt to the pace. With a debate, you don't. You can research and plan your arguments ahead of time and do just as well as or even better than others."
And you can plan your video game strategy early by watching walk-throughs and ask others who've played the game.
The point is, people are encouraged by the system of elo.
Why are games addictive? Playing games gives a sense of achievement, and has many "hooks" that make your brain want to play the game more.  Just like games, debating has many of these elements that video games has. Always, you can improve debating, going from an easier opponent to a more difficult opponent, always striving to make it to the front page of the leaderboard, then beat the Elite Four, then beat the troll masters, then Rap-battle masters....the possibilities are endless. As long as you're not the best in debating, you are always trying to improve, looking for better ways to word your arguments, thirsting to win and obtain a better "elo", a sense that it measures your skills. Of course, it is not always accurate, but it gives a sense of achievement and encourages you to go on. Not only that, with debating, you make new discoveries. You find out what the Cosmological Argument is. You get to know how to avoid committing the No-true-Scotman fallacy, as well as finding your opponent's flaws and arguments. As you research on, you find more interesting information, and as you gain more elo, you become a better debater, a good debater capable of explaining their topic deeply with great critical thinking skills.
In conclusion elo makes you want to go on and see how good you really are, or how good you really can be. It is a goal, a sense of achievement, and even though it might not extremely accurately represent how good you are, it gives a vague sense of how good you are, especially the elo gained from defeating highly-skilled debaters. We should keep the elo system, there was a reason it was invented.
"easier opponent to a more difficult opponent"
What defines an easier opponent and what defines a difficult opponent? Their approaches to arguing topics, their knowledge of how logic works and the evidence they give.
" beat the troll masters, then Rap-battle masters"
Since these are completely subjective, these aren't considered "Debates." That being said, ELO would be inconsistent if you want to intellectually debate someone on topics which require logic and evidence such as "Is the big bang a scientific theory?"
Like I said, ELO doesn't imply that you are a good debater. Many factors have not been ruled out for why someone has low rank. Even though I have a low rank, there are several people who consider me a pro debater.
"Not only that, with debating, you make new discoveries. You find out what the Cosmological Argument is. You get to know how to avoid committing the No-true-Scotman fallacy, as well as finding your opponent's flaws and arguments. As you research on, you find more interesting information, and as you gain more elo, you become a better debater, a good debater capable of explaining their topic deeply with great critical thinking skills. "
You should be doing that before the debate starts, not during. The problem is not debating, it's simply that most of the time, users fail to make a thorough analysis of the debate and that leads to poor voting.
"In a game, you cannot cheat and expect no consequences."
Actually, you CAN cheat and expect no consequences. I've cheated plenty of games by going on their hack websites, and I beat the game easily with no consequences.
"The problem is not debating, it's simply that most of the time, users fail to make a thorough analysis of the debate and that leads to poor voting."
Then hire good judges.
My opponent has not managed to show that the elo system does not encourage people to debate better, and as a result become a better--a good--debater. I think he meant to show the elo system's inaccuracies and how elo does not show whether you're a truly good debater or not, but that was not part of the resolution. Truth has failed completely to show that elo does not make you a debater, and I've shown that, similar to a video game, this "Elo" is similar to the score, and the system of debating is such like gaming, there is no way it can't encourage you to debate better and better.
Maybe for single player, now what about multi-player?
"Then hire good judges"
The problem is that con failed to show exactly what a good judge is. I hired good judges based on high rank and i found that a few were biased. In my debate "Belief in Christianity is rational" (1), i hired Ragnar who has an ELO rank of 4,438 to vote on it and called him out for making a logically invalid vote. He changed his RFD about 2 or 3 times. The following is his reason for voting against me:
" I do agree with pro that people can accurately repeat long poems through memory, but depending on decades (or longer) of a game of Chinese Whispers to give the truth of what happened, then write it down, well it seems highly dubious (not rational), even more so when we see clear evidence of overlapping (yet different) material resulting from it. If said game of Chinese Whispers had no flaws, than there would have been no need to ever write it down, if it has flaws than it's not rational to trust the results after 40+ years."
Not once did i ever say that oral transmission has no flaws as Ragnar claims. Furthermore, i already addressed that even if it was flawless, there would be a reason for the disciples to write it down. I presented evidence for why oral transmission is not like the game of Telephone, but Ragnar still holds to his view that it is.
This is an example of a person with high ELO but exhibited poor voting. This is proof that ELO does nothing to boost your experience as a debater and as a thinker.
"My opponent has not managed to show that the elo system does not encourage people to debate better, and as a result become a better--a good--debater. I think he meant to show the elo system's inaccuracies and how elo does not show whether you're a truly good debater or not, but that was not part of the resolution."
The resolution at the top is "ELO doesn't make you a good debater", this refutes Con's claim that the resolution is that ELO does not encourage people to debater better.
"Maybe for single player, now what about multi-player?"
Exactly, with multitudes of debaters of DDO, you can't possibly hope to cheat and get away.
My opponent tries to give an example with Ragnar's poor voting. He votes bad does not mean he is bad at debating. What a straw-man fallacy.
I win, you lose. I proved that elo does indeed not only measure your skill in some way, but also encourage you to become better at debating. It should remain, regardless of how inaccurate it may be. It can be fixed to be more accurate, and more encouraging to everyone so that they can all become even better debaters.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jellon 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: There seems to be a debate between the two over what the resolution of the debate is. To be honest, I'm left wondering what is trying to be proved. Pro's arguments don't seem to match either the resolution I get from the title or the resolution I get from Round 1. If the resolution (from the title) is that high elo doesn't mean you are good at debating, then Pro's examples of ways to get elo (such are rap battles) is sufficient to prove debate skills aren't required for high elo. If the resolution (from round 1) is elo isn't a good measure of debate skills, then this is partially shown by low elo debaters having good elo skills, even if the examples given are debatable. This in conjunction with the fact one can get high elo without good debate skills shows that elo isn't always associated with good debate skills, although Con shows that it often is. I don't believe often is enough for Con to win. Both debaters got off topic.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Normative resolution; equal burden. PRO has to show that ELO does not make debaters good. CON has to show that ELO does not not make debaters good. Said in a way without employment of a double negative, that ELO might make debaters good. PRO presented an argument that didn't affirm the resolution. Instead, he argued the issue of whether ELO is sufficient to show that a debater is good. He made a compelling case to that end -but that issue is extraneous to this debate. CON, alternatively, argued that ELO might make some debaters good by encouraging them to debate. That sufficiently negates the resolution. Therefore CON wins.
Vote Placed by RevL8ion 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: I'd much prefer it if it was the 7-point system, but Pro hasn't been able to counter Con's analogies of ELO, although Con hasn't mentioned anything specific. Con wins, albeit it's a close shave.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: A vote on this debate hinges on the topic, and I think Pro made it more vague than he had to. Pro's definition appears to be "HAVING MORE ELO doesn't make you a BETTER debater THAN SOMEONE WHO HAS LESS." Con's isn't perfect either, as it appears to be "THE ELO SYSTEM doesn't ENCOURAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT make a good debater." In both cases, it appears you have to add extra words to the resolution. The reason why I'm voting Pro is that his resolution was conceded by accepting the debate, since he wrote it out in R1 without rebuttal by Con, who simply presented his perception. Con proceeded to concede on this resolution as the debate went on, and as such, I vote Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.