The Instigator
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
mongoose
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

My opponent can easily explain these stats

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/10/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,398 times Debate No: 8199
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

InfraRedEd

Con

Lawsonishere is a fine person and I am just using his record to make a statistical argument.

Lawsonishere, with an 0-1 record, is still in the 48.43 percentile. What is going on here?

http://www.debate.org... with a 5-0 record, is only in the 92.4 percentile, so at least (7.6% x 5 =38%) of the wins go to this group, and you have to be over the 48.43th percentile to get any wins at all.

Presumably this was calculated after first removing all members with 0 - 1 records and calculatihg the percentile based on the remaining debaters

Everyone below him has to have no wins and at least two losses. They have not lost any debates to one another because that is not who they are debating. There is not a single completed debate between any two of them.

So about half the debaters in debate.com (without 0 - 1 records) are consistently debating and losing to the other half, and 38% of the time it is to the top 7.6%.

By "consistently" I mean always, without any exception.
mongoose

Pro

"Lawsonishere is a fine person and I am just using his record to make a statistical argument.
Okay.

"Lawsonishere, with an 0-1 record, is still in the 48.43 percentile. What is going on here?"

Everything. Anyone who has not debated is in the 0th percentile. Anyone who has debated gets to go above these non-debaters, even if their only debate was a loss. This means that about 48.43% of all members have not completed a debate.

"Presumably this was calculated after first removing all members with 0 - 1 records and calculatihg the percentile based on the remaining debaters"

Nope.

"Everyone below him has to have no wins and at least two losses. They have not lost any debates to one another because that is not who they are debating. There is not a single completed debate between any two of them."

Naturally, they have completed no debates, because then 1 of them would have to win.

"So about half the debaters in debate.com (without 0 - 1 records) are consistently debating and losing to the other half, and 38% of the time it is to the top 7.6%."

Not necessarily. Almost half of the debaters have never debated. They could be debating anybody who would beat them, not just the top 7.6%.

This is how the system works:

Those with no debates go at 0%.
Those with only one loss go next at whatever it is that they are the percentage of.
Next come those with no wins, at least one loss, and one tie.
Then come the rest with no wins, at least one loss, and two ties, etc.
Then come those with one win, no ties.

So first it checks if you have debated. Then it checks the number of wins you have. Then it checks the number of ties you have. It does not ever check losses.

'By "consistently" I mean always, without any exception."

Okay.

That was easily done.
Debate Round No. 1
InfraRedEd

Con

These two explanations do not agree:

Those with no debates go at 0%.
Those with only one loss go next at whatever it is that they are the percentage of.
Next come those with no wins, at least one loss, and one tie.
Then come the rest with no wins, at least one loss, and two ties, etc.
Then come those with one win, no ties.

The scheme above leaves out those with no wins, some ties, and no losses.
The scheme above checks losses.
The one below does not.
Both adequately explain neither the system nor the logic behind it.

So first it checks if you have debated. Then it checks the number of wins you have. Then it checks the number of ties you have. It does not ever check losses.

Anyway you appear to be attempting to describe a system that rewards the one who takes the most debates since no matter how bad your win percentage is, if you take enough debates you can pass anyone no matter how good a win percentage they have, without really improving at all, since it is wins that count. Two wins and a million losses is still better than just one win.

That explains a lot already.
mongoose

Pro

"These two explanations do not agree:
my example blah blah lies lies blah blah my other example"

They both explain it. I just forgot the people with only ties. So insert "Next come those with no wins, and one tie, and however many losses, etc." For the second one, I mentioned that it first checks if you have debated. This means that it doesn't matter if you have one loss or one hundred losses, it only matters if you have debated. They both make sense. They are both valid explanations.

"Anyway you appear to be attempting to describe a system that rewards the one who takes the most debates since no matter how bad your win percentage is, if you take enough debates you can pass anyone no matter how good a win percentage they have, without really improving at all, since it is wins that count. Two wins and a million losses is still better than just one win."

http://www.debate.org...

I never said the system was fair. I just explained how it works.

NEWSFLASH: Life is not fair.

"That explains a lot already."

You never said I had to explain it all in the first round, or that I had to explain it so it made sense.
Debate Round No. 2
InfraRedEd

Con

Perhaps once a computer programmer set about writing a program to calculate team standings for football, baseball, hockey and basketball leagues their win ratio.

He (or she) discovered that he (or she) could do this without actually calculating the win ratio, using the following algorithm:

Sort the teams by most number of wins, then within that by least number of losses, and within that by least number of ties.

This I believe is the system you were trying to describe.

It works quite well under the following circumstances:

Each team has played approximately the same number of games at any point during the season, and there are no never-ending games.

These assumptions were pretty much valid at the time.

This algorithm was never intended to be applied to situations such as debate.com where neither of these assumptions hold.

That is my explanation.

You may or may not be aware that I have issues with your [body part] twin brother, or even whether you have one, so if you wish to comment on that or not I would understand, especially since he is such an [body part beginning with a vowel].

It certainly must be trying having such an [body part beginning with a vowel] brother.

You probably chose the name first and he just copied as usual.

I note with some surprise that there is no comment on who might be monkeyrocks and monkeyrocks2 since it would be quite unusual to have two sets of teenage twins in the same town and not know of each other's existence. You might ask around.
mongoose

Pro

You... offered no argument, just reasons why it shouldn't be what it is. True, it should not have been applied to this site, but it was nonetheless. It is not fair.

"You probably chose the name first and he just copied as usual."

Yes.

"I note with some surprise that there is no comment on who might be monkeyrocks and monkeyrocks2 since it would be quite unusual to have two sets of teenage twins in the same town and not know of each other's existence. You might ask around."

Eh, that might be a duplicate file, with the same stats as well and all, which explains why the accounts are closed. Besides, it is extremely likely that we woudn't know them even if they were twins, because its a big city, not a town.
Debate Round No. 3
InfraRedEd

Con

Spring, Texas is neither a city nor a town nor nothing.

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk...
mongoose

Pro

???

The link is irrelevant. Spring, Texas is irrelevant to the debate, as well.

My opponent has made no attempt to prove me wrong.

All previous arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
mongoose

Pro

"m"

Er....

Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Default to Pro.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
...why did you post this in the comments section?
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
Perhaps once a computer programmer set about writing a program to calculate team standings for football, baseball, hockey and basketball teams based on their win ratio.

He (or she) discovered that he (or she) could do this without actually calculating the win ratio, using the following algorithm:

Sort the teams by most number of wins, then within that by least number of losses, and within that by least number of ties.

This I believe is the system you were trying to describe.

It works quite well under the following circumstances:

Each team has played approximately the same number of games at any point during the season, and there are no never-ending games.

These assumptions were pretty much valid at the time.

This algorithm was never intended to be applied to situations such as debate.com where neither of these assumptions hold.

That is my explanation.

You may or may not be aware that I have issues with your [body part] twin brother, or even whether you have one, so if you wish to comment on that or not I would understand, especially since he is such an [body part beginning with a vowel].

It certainly must be trying having such an [body part beginning with a vowel] brother.

You probably chose the name first and he just copied as usual.

I note with some surprise that there is no comment on who might be monkeyrocks and monkeyrocks2 since it would be quite unusual to have two sets of teenage twins in the same town and not know of each other's existence. You might ask around.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
They get 0% of the losses, 0% of the wins, and 0% of the ties.
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
So the bottom 48.43% account for 96.86% of the losses and the top 7.6% get 38% of the wins.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 pewpewpew 7 years ago
pewpewpew
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
InfraRedEdmongooseTied
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