The Instigator
darkkermit
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

The DDO leader board does not accurately list the top debaters

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 9/26/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,996 times Debate No: 13224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (58)
Votes (14)

 

darkkermit

Pro

Definitions:
DDO - debate.org, this website
leader board- The leader board can be found on this website under www.debate.org/people/leaders.
accurately- depicting the truth
top debaters - debaters that are the best on DDO

If one to look at the leader board, one would realize that the leader board bases the top debaters on the number of wins. This is inaccurate for many reasons:

1) The leader board is dominated mostly by people who have been here for 2 years. If a new member won debates at twice the rate of the best debater, it would take that member 2 years to become the best debater. If a new member won debates at the rate of the best debater, the new member would never become the best debater. This is obviously bias towards older member and unfair towards new members.

2) The leader board does not take into consideration the win ratio, but only the amount of wins. There are people on the front of the leader board that have only won less than half their debates. Win ratio should be taken into consideration.

3) The leader board does not take into consideration who one is debating. If one is able to win a lot of debates by constantly winning against bad debaters, that does not make one a good debater but an average debater. If one goes up against good debaters constantly, then he/she will be less likely to make it on top of the leader board since
(a) One is more likely to lose.
(b) Going up against the best debaters requires much more thought and time into one's debate. This will harm ones chances of getting into the leader board, since he or she could spend his or her time entering other debates. More debates= more chances to win = higher ranker on leader board
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

Let us begin by analyzing one of the definitions that have been put forth.

"top debaters - debaters that are the best on DDO"

What exactly is there to define "top debaters?" Why exactly is the definition that my opponent provided the right one, and better than the one the official leader board? In fact, his definition is rather weak because it does not elaborate on "top debater(s)" at all. A top debater can refer to many things. It can refer to a debater with most debates. It can refer to a debater with most wins. It can refer to a debater with best in ratio. It can refer to a debate that has received most votes overall on his debates. It can refer to lots of things. Just saying "top debaters" is void.

Moving on, my opponent claimed that the leader board bases the top debaters on the amount of wins, but that it is inaccurate - and for many reasons. What is wrong with the leader board doing that? Let us analyze the reasons, though

1. The first page of the leader board is "dominated" by the members who joined about two years ago, that is correct. However, there are literally over 100 pages of the leader board, and you can find members who have been here for less than two years, and still have good ranks on specific pages. For more in-depth rebuttal on this point, please read the next one, too.

2. My opponent claimed that the leader board does not take the win ratio into consideration, only the amount of wins. This is a mendacious claim. If you look at the leader board,[1] you will realize that there is a category called "Win Ratio." If you click on it,[2] you will realize that the debaters on from the overall wins are not dominating the first page of "Win Ratio." This directly negates my opponent's argument. In fact, these debaters that are listed have barely got 20 debates, which makes it evident that you do not need two years to have a good rank of win ratio.

3. A very weak argument has been put forth by my opponent. He essentially claimed that "the leader board does not take into consideration who one is debating." No, but neither does it prevent any member from debating with whomever he/she wants. As can be read from the rest of the argument, my opponent believes that it is unfair of the leader board not to take into consideration who one is debating.

There are a few points to be made against this:

o He does not specify "bad debaters." Who are the good debaters that keep debating the bad ones? What about the bad ones debating with the even more bad ones, and ad infinitum? Where do we draw the line?

o Everyone here has a right to debate freely. It would be unfair if the site did not allow all members to debate with whomever they wished to so that they could win, but that is, however, not the case. It would only be unfair if only specific people had the right to debate so-called "bad" debaters. You also have the right to do the same. Nothing is unfair in those terms.

Also, if someone is really good but has no good official rank, then why is he more likely to lose, as my opponent stated? If indeed he/she is very skilled with regard to debating, then beating a high-ranked debater should not be exceptionally hard. And if that were the case, then the leader board is accurate in describing the best debaters, contrary to what my opponent claimed.

My opponent stated, "Going up against the best debaters requires much more thought and time into one's debate. This will harm ones chances of getting into the leader board, since he or she could spend his or her time entering other debates. More debates= more chances to win = higher ranker on leader board"

o One is on the leader board after one debate only. He just is not on the first page.

o Why does my opponent call the high-ranked debaters "best debaters" when he seems to disagree with the theory that they are, in fact, the best debaters? Throughout this round, he talked about the fact that it is hard to beat them, etc. Yes, then do they not deserve their ranks?

Furthermore, it is not possible for the leader board to ever list the "top debaters" accurately, technically speaking. However, it can officially. We can keep defining a "top debater" forever to come, and instead of wasting time on that we should have a simple system - which we already do - that can list the official top debaters. There is amount of debates, debate wins, and win ratio. That is certainly sufficient. Just because it may be hard for new members to reach the top ranks shows no unfairness whatsoever. You need to strive throughout life.

-- Conclusion --

As I explicated, my opponent's arguments are weak because they provide no alternatives to the current leader board, they are false at some points (e.g argument about no win ratio), and they are sort of self-defeating. If the best debaters (i.e. the high-ranked ones) are hard to beat for new members, then new members do not deserve the same ranks.

I thank my opponent once more.

-- References --

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
darkkermit

Pro

Mirza first begins the debate by criticizing my definition of ‘top debater'. Since I provided a definition of ‘top debater' and he has failed to provide a different definition, his point is moot. It is not appropriate or sportsmanlike to reject a definition without providing a well defined alternative definition with a legitimate reason. Furthermore

1)Dictionary definition:
a.Top - Of the highest degree, quality, rank, or amount
It is quite clear that, for example, when one states ‘the top restaurants' or ‘top athletes' one is referring to the best restaurants or best athletes. One can also look in the thesaurus to find the synonym of ‘top' is ‘best'. This makes my definition legitimate through both dictionary and thesaurus.
While it is true that the definition of ‘top' has alternative meanings, and semantic debates are perfectly legitimate, the mere fact that I DEFINED ‘top debater' in the 1ST ROUND makes this semantic debate unnecessary and ill-spirited. CON accepted the debate, which means CON also accepts PROs parameters of the debate, including definition. If CON wanted the definition changes, CON could have posted it in the comment section or messaged me.
For a further analyze of my definition, there are always people that are considered to be the ‘best'. Tiger Woods is considered to be the best golfer. Muhammad Ali at his prime was considered to be the best boxer. It is clear why these people are considered to be the best. The reasons are as followed:
1)They have a high probability of winning their matches
2)They compete against others who are also very good

The ‘best' is easily defined. The ‘best' is someone who is better than all the others. The best debater on DDO is someone who is better than all other DDO debaters. If one can take a debater from DDO and not find an opponent from DDO that he or she is more likely to lose against, then this person is the best debater on DDO.
Now for my opponent's rebuttals:

1)CON admits that the leaderboard is dominated by members who have been here for two years. This is enough evidence to show that the leaderboard discriminates against newer members of debate.org. It is not enough to say that good, new debaters can still obtain an ‘adequate' position when the debater should receive much more than just adequate. That debater should be TOP on the leader board. Why should these members settle for less than what they deserve? The fact of the matter is that these members, even if they win at the same ratio as those that have been here for years, will NEVER be able to reach the same status as the older members.

2)It is quite clear from my definition of ‘leaderboard' that I was referring to this leaderboard:
http://www.debate.org...
I was not referring to the win ratio board, which by definition is based on win ratio. Furthermore, the top percentile on DDO is determined by number of wins, not by win ratio. However, even the win ratio board is not an accurate depiction of the best debaters. Win ratio is an important consideration, but not an absolute consideration. I have stated many reasons why the leader board was inaccurate, win ratio was just one. Many with a 100% win ratio have not participated in many debates, thus their high win ratio could have just occurred by chance and is statistically insignificant. When I first started debating at DDO my win ratio was 100%, now it is at 44.44%. I only won my previous debates because most of them either forfeited or were bad debaters. Just because I had a good win ratio before, and now my win ratio has fallen does not mean by debating skills have plummeted.

3)CON states that this system is fair because anyone can debate whoever they want. However, some debaters might opt against debating bad debaters since he or she might want a challenge. Others might want to debate only bad debaters, since he or she might like the joy of winning or want to get a higher rank. However, just because a good debater refuses to exploit the system to get a good page on the leader board, does

If one basketball team (team A) wins all their games, however the basketball team plays against children. Another basketball team (team B) loses all their games, however this team loses against professional basketball teams. Which team is better, team A or team B? One could not infer that team A is better than team B, since team A plays against basketball players. It clearly makes a difference who one is playing in a match.

CON makes the continuum fallacy stating ‘where does one draw the line' between good debaters and bad debaters. Vagueness does not imply invalidity. Professional basketball players, Professional soccer players are clearer better than those who failed to make the team.

It might be difficult to determine the order of rank between debaters, but it is easy to know the difference between a good debater and a bad debater.
Also here is a system to differentiate between good debaters and bad debaters.
1+sum(wins*(percentile/100))
1+sum(loses*(1-percentile/100))
If, for example, we assume that everyone's percentile is 50 on DDO and utilize this equation above multiple times (in a loop), an equilibirium will be established, in which one can deterimine the good debaters from the bad debaters. Granted, this procedure above might not be a perfect system and may need to be corrected. However, by creating a correctional factor based on who one is debating, this clearly system works better.
If one wins a debate against a good debater, it is weighted more than winning against a bad debater.
If I won a boxing match against an average strength girl, one would not be impressed. However, if I won a boxing match against mike Tyson, clearly one would be impressed. Therefore rank should be taken into consideration.

CON also mentions that "it is not possible for the leader board to ever list the "top debaters" accurately"
Since the resolution is "The DDO leader board does not accurately list the top debaters", CON automatically conceited the debate. If CON's statement is true it follows that.
1)It is not possible for the leader board to ever list the "top debaters" accurately.
2)The DDO leader board lists the "top debaters"
3)Therefore, "The DDO leader board does not accurately list the top debaters.

The ‘DDO leader board' is a subset of all possible leader boards. Therefore the resolution is affirmed.
Mirza

Con

I thank my opponent for replying, although I do not appreciate the semantical arguments from his side.

My opponent began the second round by criticizing my problem with the definition of "top debater(s)." He said that that I did not provide an alternative definition. I gave a perfectly valid argument of why the definition is weak. If he claims that the atmosphere is colored, I cannot say, "No, it is not." However, it is weak to say that it is colored. It would be more correctly to say blue. But it is not always blue either. That is why if he says it is colored, I cannot simply come with a "better" definition. It would not bring us anywhere.

He went further on to provide the definition of "top." I know very well what it means. However, "he himself" disagreed with the leader board's definition of "top debater." That is why I am telling him that his definition is no more important than the one of the leader board. Moreover, I accepted the debate and yes, I agree with the definition. No fair-minded person doubts the definition of "top debater." However, it can refer to "many things." A top debater can be one that wins most debates, gets most votes on his debates, accepts most debates, and so forth. That is why I ask why my opponent thinks that he is right and the leader board is wrong. I will ultimately explain why the leader board is fine as it is.

"1)They have a high probability of winning their matches
2)They compete against others who are also very good"

Thanks, that does nothing but help my case. If the debaters here are, in fact, the ones that have the highest probabilities of winning debates and they compete with others who are also very good, then by the definition of my opponent, they are top debaters. Most debaters on the leader board fit well with point 1) and 2).

"The ‘best' is easily defined. The ‘best' is someone who is better than all the others. The best debater on DDO is someone who is better than all other DDO debaters. If one can take a debater from DDO and not find an opponent from DDO that he or she is more likely to lose against, then this person is the best debater on DDO."

We are discussing "top debaters" which is a) plural, and b) not exclusively "best of the best." Moreover, my opponent 'once more' refutes himself. The leader board shows debaters who usually beat most others, and are more likely to win against others. Then how can the leader board not accurately describe them, since my opponent makes this claim about the "best debater?" What is the fuss?

-- Rebuttals of paragraphs --

1. "CON admits that the leaderboard is dominated by members who have been here for two years. This is enough evidence to show that the leaderboard discriminates against newer members of debate.org."

No, it does not discriminate. First of all, I said that the first page was dominated by the oldest members. Second of all, it is perfectly justified that the leader board places the older members on top. Why? They have a lot of debates, activity in the forums, etc. They have "struggled" for two years to actually get these spots. How is it unfair that they are listed as top debaters? In fact, logically speaking, the new members do more debates than the older ones because that would only mean that they struggled just as much as they did. Why should we ever let a member spend one month getting the first spot in preference over an old member who has struggled much more to get the first spot? What kind of justice is that? What kind of accuracy is that?

So, the older members have been here longer, have spent much more time getting the spots, therefore they deserve the good ranks. If someone thinks it is fair that he gets a better spot than them in a month, he can think again. He can strive as much as they, then. He can accept 10 debates per day and maybe get a good spot in a month.

2. "It is quite clear from my definition of ‘leaderboard' that I was referring to this leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...;

The leader board is exactly the same. Just because the categories are different does in no way refer to different leader boards. As can easily be seen, the leader board shows e.g. amount of debates and amount of debate wins. If someone has 500 debates, then he is under exactly category. If someone has 400 debates but 400 wins, then he is best in the category of amount of wins. Where is the problem?

"Many with a 100% win ratio have not participated in many debates, thus their high win ratio could have just occurred by chance and is statistically insignificant. When I first started debating at DDO my win ratio was 100%, now it is at 44.44%. I only won my previous debates because most of them either forfeited or were bad debaters. Just because I had a good win ratio before, and now my win ratio has fallen does not mean by debating skills have plummeted."

And how does this negate the fact that my opponent said that there was win ratio? Whether it is good or bad is a different discussion.

Also, my opponent still gave no good alternative. All he said is that the ones of high rank should not debate those of low rank. I will explain why, again, it is vague.

"CON makes the continuum fallacy stating ‘where does one draw the line' between good debaters and bad debaters. Vagueness does not imply invalidity. Professional basketball players, Professional soccer players are clearer better than those who failed to make the team."

I am merely asking where do we draw the line between who must debate who? There are always people who are worse at debating than others, so why even spend energy and time thinking about "good" debaters not being able to debate "bad" debaters? The bad debaters can debate the even more bad ones.

My opponent argued semantically.
Debate Round No. 2
darkkermit

Pro

"I thank my opponent for replying, although I do not appreciate the semantical arguments from his side."

Instead of CON giving specific examples of my semantic arguments, justifying his claim,
He uses the first and last sentences stating that I argue using semantics. This is an unfounded ad hominem attack used to support opposition against me. It is also hypocritical considering CON's main contention is that my definition of ‘top debater is vague'.

Rebuttals:
1) Weak definition "I gave a perfectly valid argument of why the definition is weak."

Nobody cares how many wins one has or what one's win ratio is. People want to know which debaters are 'better' than the other. I have clearly defined why the leader board does not determine which debater is better than the other. If debater A is ranked higher than debater B, then debater A is more likely to win a debate the debater, assuming it is a fair debate topic. The leader board does not do this. RoyLatham has defeated theLwerd in all debates he had with her. RoyLatham has also defeated brian_eggleston multiple times in debates. However, RoyLatham is ranked lower than both of them.[1][2][3]

CON states that people on the leader board have a high probability of winning AND compete against others who are also good. On the first page of the percentile category of the leader board, there are 6 debaters who have lost over 30% of their debates, 3 debaters that have lost over 40% of their debates, and 1 debater that has lost more than half of his debates. Clearly not all the debaters on the first page of the leader board are the best.[1]
If one were to look at the win ratio category of the leader board, there are debaters on the first page who have only won one debate. I won my first debate. The debater forfeited. My win ratio is now only 60%. This category of the leader board does not show the best debaters either.

Contentions:
1.Discrimination against those who discovered the website later.

CON stated that the leader board 'does not discriminate against newer members'. His words state otherwise. He justifies this discrimination stating that older members have 'struggled' to get where they are by participating in debates. The same is true with new members. There are new members who debate well. For examples, Sieben who has been here for only 1 month has won almost all his debates against good debaters[4]. New good members probably spent years debating, learning about complex issues, and developing good researching, reading, writing, and reasoning skills yet did not discover this website until later. Just because these members did not discover the website sooner does not mean these members have not struggled. Also, CON does not answer the main problem. Those that were the first to discover the website will always have an advantage against those who have discovered it later. Even if those who discovered the website later win at a ratio as fast as those who discovered it earlier, those who discovered it earlier will always be ahead. Even if members who just recently discovered the website stay for years, these members will never be able to make it onto the DDO leader board. How is that fair?

2) Factoring in win ratio

While I will accept the mistake that I did not realize that the leader board had a win ratio category, that does not negate my argument. CON does not negate the inaccuracies with the win ratio board. That is the resolution we are discussion, that the leader board on DDO does not inaccurately list top debaters. I have stated many inaccuracies with the leader board, win ratio is just one. However, having a category that separates this factor does not accurately list the top debaters on the DDO leader board. There are multiple variables one must consider to determine the best debater. Factoring one variable alone does little. For example, force is determined by two variables, mass and acceleration. However, mass or acceleration alone does not determine force but a combination of both variables.

3) Factoring in who one is debating

I did not state that only good debaters should face bad debaters. I stated that winning against a good debater should be factored into consideration compared to against a bad debater. Not only did I state this, but I also came up with a rough algorithm to do this. It is show below:
[1+sum(wins*(‘percentile of opponent'/100))] / [1+sum(loses*(1-‘percentile of opponent'/100))]
Rank in order from highest to lowest number based on equation above. [[# of people-Rank]/[total amount of people]*100 = percentile.
Start with everyone's percentile = 50%, loop until change in percentile approaches 0.

Here is a list of topics that CON has failed to make a rebuttal against in round.

CON has no rebuttal against many of my reasons for problems with the leader board. I claimed that wining against a good debater should be taken into greater consideration than debating against a bad debater. He did not directly challenge the claim, only the definition of ‘good' and ‘bad' debater.

CON has no rebuttal against my claim that the leader board for the win ratio board is also inaccurate. He merely claims that one exists.

CON has no rebuttal against the claim that the leader board discriminates against newer members. He has no rebuttal against the claim, only that this discrimination is fair. I have shown otherwise.

CON admits that "it is not possible for the leader board to ever list the "top debaters" accurately"
He has no rebuttal against the following logic argument:

1)It is not possible for the leader board to ever list the "top debaters" accurately.
2)The DDO leader board lists the "top debaters"
3)Therefore, "The DDO leader board does not accurately list the top debaters.
Conclusion:

When we see the leader board, we want to see who the best debaters are. The leader board provides little system of doing that. Can you imagine if the most wins or win ratio determined the best golfer, regardless of one is competing against. If this was the case, Tiger Woods would not be the best golfer, but some guy who only competes against little kids. What a terrible system!

Although I do not know the most accurate way to consideration the COMBINATION of the following factors: win ratio, who one is debating against, and how many debates one has been in, I have provided unrefuted examples of why this system is better than the current system. Through some tinkering and trial and error, all these factors can be implemented to create a leader board that is more accurate than the previous one.

I thank CON for accepting this debate and await your response.

Sources
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

My opponent began the last round by stating that I put forth an ad hominem attack to support my case against him. This is a very untrue statement without any form of doubt. If someone argues semantically, I have every moral right to speak out against it. I will stick to what I said. When you say one thing and then sneak around it by talking about something else to defend yourself, that is not appropriate. That is not good conduct either.

Furthermore, a definition of a word does in and itself not necessarily serve us well. It can turn subjective in its deep meaning. When we say "top debater" we need a deeper definition than that. We need to ask ourselves what a top debater is. What if one debater wins all his debates, but another debater wins many more debates? Who should we call "top debater?"

-- Rebuttals --

1. Wins and win ration

My opponent said, "Nobody cares how many wins one has or what one's win ratio is. People want to know which debaters are 'better' than the other. I have clearly defined why the leader board does not determine which debater is better than the other."

That is [his] opinion, dear readers. He said that nobody cares how many wins one has or what the win ratio is. It seems like he has not read my arguments thoroughly, then. I clearly support a leader board defining top debater with win ratio or debate wins.

"If debater A is ranked higher than debater B, then debater A is more likely to win a debate the debater, assuming it is a fair debate topic."

But then it [is] true that the leader board defines "top debater" in a correct way. If debater A is ranked higher than debater B and is more likely to win, then what is wrong about the leader board?

"RoyLatham has defeated theLwerd in all debates he had with her. RoyLatham has also defeated brian_eggleston multiple times in debates. However, RoyLatham is ranked lower than both of them."

That is because the leader board [accurately] lists top debaters [as it defines them]. It places ranks with e.g. wins and amount of debates. What is wrong with this? If my opponent does not have a good taste for it then that is his subjective view. The leader board accurately lists top debaters as it defines them. Also, what I meant by the leader board never being able to being fully accurate is that because we all have different views on what a top debater should be, it can never be accurate in the sense that nobody sees something being with flaws. Somebody will always object to whatever system it is. Therefore, my argument is entirely valid and does not negate my stance on the issue.

"Clearly not all the debaters on the first page of the leader board are the best."

They are "top" according to the leader board. If you disagree, you disagree subjectively, not objectively.

"If one were to look at the win ratio category of the leader board, there are debaters on the first page who have only won one debate. I won my first debate. The debater forfeited. My win ratio is now only 60%. This category of the leader board does not show the best debaters either."

The category exists, contrary to what my opponent negated entirely. We still have a 100% accurate win category of wins. Ditto for amount of debates.

2. Discrimination against those who discovered the website later.

"His words state otherwise. He justifies this discrimination stating that older members have 'struggled' to get where they are by participating in debates. The same is true with new members. There are new members who debate well. For examples, Sieben who has been here for only 1 month has won almost all his debates against good debaters."

Where have my words "stated otherwise?" There is [no discrimination]. The older members deserve their spots because they have struggled to have many debates and debate wins. The newer ones can do the same and get the se ranks. And the member mentioned won four debates. Top debaters won 100+.

"Just because these members did not discover the website sooner does not mean these members have not struggled."

Of course not. One has been here 2 years other 1 month. Clearly the latter has struggled mostly. And that is sarcasm.

"Those that were the first to discover the website will always have an advantage against those who have discovered it later."

No, others can debate quickly if they want.

"Even if members who just recently discovered the website stay for years, these members will never be able to make it onto the DDO leader board. How is that fair?"

It is fair. They can do it by doing many debates.

3. Factoring in win ratio

I have two other fully accurate categories to support my case. My opponent has not negated my arguments.

4. Factoring in who one is debating

The mathematical equation does not seem to make sense. People should be able to debate whoever they want. Anyone is free to do so and that is very good. The bad debaters can become good by being challengedby the good debaters. Why is this negative?

The rest of the arguments are simply void. The leader board is accurate in describing top debaters. Win amount and debate amounts count for it. My opponent disagrees, but subjectively.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
1. Stop coming with excuses. People can understand it very well. If you cannot, then let it apply to you only. I have no need of reading it through.

2. His argument about discrimination is extremely nonsensical. Just because a top debater loses debates against one who has a lower rank does in no way "discriminate" the one who has a lower rank. He may not even be better. We cannot know for sure who is "better." Is better defined by beating another opponent all the time? If so, what if debater #1 always loses to debater #50, but always wins against everyone else on the first page, while debater #50 can always beat debater #1 but never the other debaters from the first page? What do you say to that? Who is better? This is also not accurate and is, in fact, much less accurate than how the current system works. Therefore, even if e.g. RoyLatham can beat theLwerd 100 times, it does not mean that he can beat one other debater in any way, while theLwerd can easily beat him. This is simple logic.

3. I proved it 100% that the leader board [is] accurate. There are no flaws in wins and amount of debates. Many people will say nothing but that whoever wins most debates is the best debater, so just because he disagrees makes the leader board no less accurate in any possible way. It is nonsensical to claim that it is inaccurate. See the pattern.

4. It is just circular. He needed to prove that the leader board is inaccurate, and he did not. He argued subjectively about how inaccurate it is, which breaks his argument in pieces. He needs to prove that it is not valid to say that the best debater is the one who won most debates. He needs to prove that there are other leader board on different websites that are far more accurate and actually support his stance. However, he did [none] of it. None.

5. Excuses. If you think his sources had any more credibility than mine, then you need to re-think about it.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
ohhhh K debate. When K's are run they usually: 1) aren't warranted or well connected to the resolution, most of the are generic and not tailored specifically. 2) The people that run it usually has no idea what the the hell they are talking about, and when they try to do extensions they just re-read the evidence word for word. 3) The K usually never has an argument that tests the desirability of the plan/topic. They claim some nebulous link leaving people more confused than when they started out. 4) K's usually suck when drawn into a weight vs. the criticism. Well overall, don't run K's on this site because they definitely wont be warranted sufficiently enough to make an impact. Plus, its more effective to run an Alternative or Counter-Plan which would take up even more characters and is probably an alt to an unwarranted K anyway. So yeah, too many problems with K's here.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
At any rate I am done arguing with two opponents who avoid topics they are losing, and shift to new topics which they also lose. The issues here should be clear to any lurkers. If anyone wants to press the issue further, PM me or challenge me to a debate over it.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
m93sammam

1) I didn't say kritiks are always abusive, but it is possible to run abusive kritiks, as in Mirza's case.

3) ""Ideally". No debate is ideal" Oh man I didn't think of that /sarcasm. Except you didn't address the broader analysis. I gave a clear explanation of what happens ideally (or really, what should happen if anyone at DDO had any formal debating experience), and then what happens if debaters fail to make extensions etc.

4) Saying its a false dichotomy doesn't make it so! Again, you didn't address anything I said.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
1) Your grammar is CONSISTENTLY bad. 2) You're one person. Considering that, what, maybe 10 people will read your text? You can spend 2 extra minutes proof reading even if Firefox delays text when you type it :(

2) Uhhh, his argument from discrimination is that if I beat everyone on the front page, I'll be better than all of them, but I won't be ranked because that would only give me like 20 wins. He doesn't say high ranked debaters will always beat lower ones, he is pointing out that the system advantages people who debate others much weaker than they. And even if the leader board did get SOME debaters right, it still obviously makes mistakes like he pointed out.

3) You accepted the definition only in the vaguest sense of "oh, top means best". Obviously he meant rank to reflect the probability that a certain debater will win against another. So, on average, #25 should beat #58.

And even if you think that his alternative is subjective, or even if it were downright stupid and way worse than what we have now, it STILL doesn't negate the resolution because ALL he has to do is prove that the current leaderboard isn't accurate, even if it is the best possible system.

4) Err, I'm saying that he supports a system WITH points. And you say "bad debaters can debate the good ones", which would actually help them get ahead under HIS system, but under the status quo, even if someone wins against AAALL the top debaters 3x, they still wouldn't be ranked in the top 10 because it wouldn't be a high enough number of wins.

5) Ah yeah. Its more than you did. Like I said, it didn't rock my world, but this example is pertinent to the resolution.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
1) Kritiks are debatable; I know people who have ran them and suffered miserably at the hands of prepared opponents. They aren't abusive.

3) "Ideally". No debate is ideal

4) I did. It's a "false dichotomy", which is untrue. It's called a FALSE dichotomy for a reason.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
1. We did not talk about grammar. You made it pop up to insult and feel better about yourself. Also, 1) I had about 17 minutes to post 90%+ of the last round because some guests came, and 2) Mozilla Firefox delays text when I type it.

2. And I was defending the leader board and saying that there is no need of making it impossible for good debaters to debate bad ones. Ultimately, my opponent found it to be "discriminating" against bad debaters. His arguments are extremely self-contradictory. He says that the high ranked debaters will always beat the low ranked ones. But then the leader board [does] list the high ranked debaters accurately!

3. I accepted the definition, however, the broad usage of it was not accepted neither by myself nor my opponent. He ultimately attacked it first with another subjective term, no more valid than the one that is applied. That makes his case 100% void.

4. Please explain the point of a formal debate without points. Moreover, I negated exactly that view by saying that the "bad" debaters can debate the even more bad ones, and so forth. A bad debater can accept the debates of very bad debaters and win them all. He can get a good rank. Is this "accurate?"

5. No, it has nothing to do with an alternative leader board. He just made it evident that RoyLatham beat theLwerd twice, end of story.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
m93sammam

I didn't vote based on conduct. I didn't vote down Mirza because he joined and debated like a 6 year old.

1) Wow, and you were asking me if *I* knew what debate terms meant. "Abusive" doesn't refer to rudeness. It refers to ability to argue... equal ground and stuff. So, if we are debating the resolution "pineapples are as good as oranges", and you just define apples and pineapples to be the same, that leaves me no ground to argue.

Similarly, with what Mirza did, was to completely ignore the clear intended meaning of the resolution, and just take AALL the ground for himself by saying "subjective subjective". Which, if you want to get really critical into judging the debate, he doesn't provide any brightline between subjective and objective, so we can ignore those arguments. Oh and even if we don't, he never links his kritik back to the resolution, and it is in all obviousness really a PRO argument, so... I don't see any way you can vote for him.

3) No. Debaters have to explain why they win and why their opponent loses. Ideally. They didn't do that this time so I had to use my own judgment, which caused me to ignore 90% of the arguments in the round and vote off the only few paragraphs that directly address the resolution.

4) Aww you don't explain why it isn't true.

I already argued that if you accept a debate, you are implicitly agreeing to the instigator's framework and definitions. Like I said before, it wouldn't make much sense just to join a debate with the term "ought" in it, just to turn around and say "well ought can ALSO mean a prediction about the future, and since the US probably won't help africa, the resolution is negated". Its egotistical trolling. I didn't vote based on this issue but Mirza is a douchebag for ignoring the obvious intent of the resolution.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
1) Grammar is not off topic. We vote on it. Furthermore, it is quite difficult to understand you sometimes. Still furthermore, it is rude to your opponent and audience to not even be able to proof read or spell check your work.

2) "Yes it is. It is perfectly valid because there is nothing inaccurate in how it already defines a top debater."

Duh. A definition is consistent with itself. Whether the definition of "top debater" from the boards conforms with other concepts of "top debater" is what you're supposed to be arguing.

3) "And what does that change about my case? Moreover, what does it help my opponent with?"

Well, if you look at the resolution instead of just finding things you think are wrong with your opponent's case and having a slap fight over them, by proving that the concept of "top debater" is subjective and arbitrary, you make it impossible for a leader board to successfully define "top debater". According to you, it is a nebulous and fraught concept.

4) "Why on earth should we not let "the good debaters debate the bad debaters?"

He NEVER said that. He's saying that if someone has a lot of skill, they shouldn't get tons of points from beating someone who isn't as skilled. He still thinks anyone should be able to debate anyone...

5) "It is not a study or an example of an alternative leader board in any way. He just made it easier for people to see that he is not lying about RoyLatham beating theLwerd twice."

Actually, it is an illustration of how he might go about formulating an alternative leader board. And "making things easier for people to see" is what sourcing is all about!
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
So all that you're getting at is conduct, in that accepting a debate for the sake of arguing a kritiik is "frivolous". I don't see how that merits the points you gave DK, especially the "more reliable sources". But aside from that,

1) It isn't abusive if it's an argument, as arguments are meant to be refuted.

2) ~ whatever

3) As a judge, sometimes you have to do some work. You can't expect him to spoon feed you the impacts of nuclear war, just as you can't expect him to explicitly detail the link between a kritik and the resolution.

4) You're making it seem as if kritiks are only usable in a debate you HAVE to take. That's a false dichotomy, and clearly, it is not true.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
darkkermitMirzaTied
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 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
darkkermitMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
darkkermitMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con doesn't address most of pro's arguments until the very end. Pro is the instigator so the definition of top debater is whatever Pro said it was in the first round.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
darkkermitMirzaTied
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 launilove 6 years ago
launilove
darkkermitMirzaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by HEADPHONEGUY 6 years ago
HEADPHONEGUY
darkkermitMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
darkkermitMirzaTied
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 CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
darkkermitMirzaTied
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 FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
darkkermitMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by TallIndianKid 6 years ago
TallIndianKid
darkkermitMirzaTied
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