The ranking system should be abolished
Debate Rounds (3)
I'll give a brief summary of how this debate will work out.
Pro must prove that the people in the top 100 rankings are either hacking, creating multiple accounts and voting for themselves, or some other method to cheat into the top 100.
Con must show the top 100 aren't cheating into the top 100, and show why cheating is highly unlikely, if not flat out impossible.
This debate is highly controversial to this entire website, and will be taken seriously by Pro, Con, voters, and maybe even the staff. Let's hear Pro's argument.
Mikal replies with a irrelevant and nonsensical response which causes the opponent to give up in disgust. Then, Mikal claims victory by default without giving or offering any argument or defence. His opponent has at least stated his position on the topic. Thus, the instigator should have won. Mikal is awarded 22 points for doing absolutely nothing, other then cutting and pasting the recipe for a cup cake. This is serious abuse of the system and should have been reported by the voters. The failure of the voters to point out Mikal's omissions is a clear indicator that the voting is rigged and that they are all Mikal's friends who have posted their biased opinions.
Also, the points system is faulty. 22 points for doing nothing? This should be considered an abuse of the system.
Pro's round 1 argument;
"it encourages criminal minded people and other devious individuals to manipulate the system to boost their ranking by artificial means" I assume by "artificial means", you mean votes, right? Explain how votes are bad. Also, explain how the top 100 people are criminals, and with evidence, of course. Just 1 debate as evidence of 100 people being criminals... that's too big of a step to be reasonable.
"The ranking system is more likely to be a indication of criminal behaviour, than it is of debating skill" This is a grand statement, which needs valid evidence and logic to be accepted as true. Pro hasn't proven much of anything, which I will get into in my Conclusion at the end of my round.
"The ranking system should be abolished because it is not working and is being abused by people with no moral or ethical values." How do you know people aren't being moral or ethical in their votes, and positions? You've only brought up 1 debate as an example, but I would like a few more.
Pro's round 2 argument;
"This debate by Mikal is a good example of how top ranking debaters get massive points." Can you show other examples, if you don't mind? We're referring to 100 people, and this is only 1 example. Pro needs at least 5 more examples, and explain those briefly as well.
I present Mikal's argument (which the cupcake recipe was just filler, since he knew the Instigator was just going to leave):
"Con makes a bunch of flawed statements by stating that you need a God in order to create a religion. A religion not does necessitate belief in a deity. Scientology is just one example of this
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices that people follow
So yes you can create a religion and it has been done numerous times throughout history. Every religion has been created in that sense." - Mikal
Again, the cupcake recipe is just to fill in the extra 9,000 characters, since the Instigator abandoned the debate starting round 2. Now let's continue the rebuttal!
"Mikal replies with a irrelevant and nonsensical response which causes the opponent to give up in disgust." Prove the Instigator abandoned the debate because he face palmed too much.
"His opponent has at least stated his position on the topic." Which was refuted by Mikal, as I've shown.
"Mikal is awarded 22 points for doing absolutely nothing" Actually, I guess you didn't see the first part of Mikal's argument, which I copy/pasted above.
"This is serious abuse of the system and should have been reported by the voters." If you disagree with a vote, you yourself can report it, and a staff will check it out.
Now for why Mikal won: The Instigator abandoned the debate, which all 4 votes pointed out ("FF"/"Forfeiture"). Of those 4 votes, one pointed out that Mikal refuted the Instigator's position, which he did.
Now that I've finished my rebuttal, I'll present my argument.
Point 1; Rankings and top 5's.
Elo Rankings: Elo are points you gain when you are voted in a debate (my assumption, anyways). Top 5 are: Mikal (9,000), RoyLatham (7,849), bsh1 (7,724), Danielle (7,240), Kleptin (6,887).
Debates Won: The debates which you have won. Top 5 are: imabench (441 won / 589 total), Danielle (374/531), 16kadams (296/352), lannan13 (281/452), Mikal (270/279)
Percentile: Not sure what this is, but I think it's a proud achievement to have a high percentile. Top 5 are: imabench (100%), Danielle (100%), Mikal (99.99%), lannan13 (99.99%), 16kadams (99.99%).
In these lists I've made, Danielle and Mikal are in all 3. lannan13 and 16kadams are both in Debates Won, and Percentile. Pro's suggesting these people are criminals. Explain how they are criminals, and give evidence, whether it be a debate, proof that they're using dual accounts, hacking, etc.
In my opinion, Pro hasn't given sufficient evidence of the top 100 people using this site are in any way criminals. Pro said it, he needs to back it up. If he was exaggerating, he'd better say so (I think he might be serious, though). Pro's case is running on the "Fallacy of Division". He basically says "since Mikal appears to be a criminal, everyone in the rankings must be a criminal". Sure, someone may have cheated into the rankings, but it isn't logical to assume everyone is a criminal.
In order for Pro to win this debate, he must do the following:
- Pro must prove Danielle, lannal13, and Mikal are criminals and have cheated into the rankings.
- Pro must successfully defend himself from my rebuttal against him. If he fails, his Burden of Proof remains unfulfilled.
- Pro must also explain his reasoning in great detail. Don't let those 8,000 characters go to waste!
And with that, I wish luck to Pro.
2. On inspecting your debating history; I can see that the vast majority of your debates are about on-line gaming. Thus, you are not a serious debater of serious matters, but just a debater of silly topics of little moral or social importance. Thus, can we take your concern about this issue seriously? What are your motives for defending this matter? Are you here to protect your ranking?
3. It appears that your main area of interest and concern is the fantasy world of gaming. In this world, you would accumulate points and ranking as you progress through the various levels. Thus, we could say that you are programmed to accumulate a form of 'cyber gold' called ranking points. Thus, your motives for defending this matter would be very suspicious and of doubtful integrity.
4. Most of my topics, on the other hand, are of a controversial nature which attracts heated discussion and personal involvement. This generates many prejudices and biasses which results in emotional responses to logical ideas. Thus, your ranking progression is irrelevant to this topic, because you have not used serious subject matter in your discussion topics. Therefore, it has to be questioned that your motives for defending this matter are likely to be of a personal nature and that you are only defending this case because of the prospect of losing your own ranking. Thus, your motives are of a selfish nature and are inappropriate considering your debating history.
Pro's 1st point: "Con is agreeing with Mikal on religion."
I said that Mikal refuted the Instigator's argument, albeit not thoroughly. I said nothing about religion being good or bad, nessicary or irrelevant. Pro has set up a "straw man" out of my argument and refuted said straw man. (In a debate, a straw man is when you over-simplify, or misinterpret an argument, and refute said misinterpretation)
"Thus, you can't use other previous posts as a defence on Mikal's behalf." Perhaps you didn't notice Mikal's actual argument? I pointed it out for you, and the readers of this debate, so it would be easier for everybody. And I'm not just "defending" Mikal, I'm refuting your source, and arguments.
Pro's 2nd Point: "Life ain't a video game, and it sure ain't political"
"On inspecting your debating history; I can see that the vast majority of your debates are about on-line gaming." Is that so? Let's see... "Science is False"... "If I am Oppressed, I am right, even when I'm wrong"... "Is God the Loving Creator of the Universe?"... "All drugs should be legalized"... I'm pretty sure those aren't video games.
"Thus, you are not a serious debater of serious matters, but just a debater of silly topics of little moral or social importance." Actually, contrary to Pro's remark, I tend to debate on controversial matters, or just matters I feel are downright incorrect. I would also point out Pro's ad homonym attack. "Con enjoys Nintendo, and debates about Five Nights at Freddy's. Therefore, he isn't taking this debate seriously." He attacks my personal characteristics instead of attacking my actual arguments.
Also, if you couldn't tell, I am taking this seriously. I even said in round 1 "This debate is highly controversial to this entire website, and will be taken seriously by Pro, Con, voters, and maybe even the staff."
My motive? You are against the Rankings of this site. More specifically, the top 10 users in the rankings. I'm not a top 50, but to accuse great people of being criminals? Not in my world!
Pro's 3rd Point: "High Score! Con's motive, it is."
"It appears that your main area of interest and concern is the fantasy world of gaming." Is it? I enjoy debating as well, and correcting people who have gone astray with nonsense.
"In this world, you would accumulate points and ranking as you progress through the various levels." This statement isn't relevant. Sure, I play my Super Mario Bros, and I do win. But what does this have to do with anything? Pro continues with "Thus, we could say that you are programmed to accumulate a form of 'cyber gold' called ranking points.". Have I been going for the top 50? No, I'm not. To the contrary, I'm making sure other users of this site know their logic isn't correct. Actually, that's almost the definition of "debating" isn't it? I simply debate because I enjoy it.
Are my motives suspicious? Let's run this through:
P1: Pro thinks the DDO rankings are filled with criminals.
P2: Con likes winning video games, and is a user of this debate.
C1: Therefore, Con is suspicious objecting to Pro.
This is an argument made out of an ad homonym, which never works.
Pro's 4th Point: "Pro defends his case"
"This (Pro's controversial debates) generates many prejudices and biasses which results in emotional responses to logical ideas." And my arguments aren't logical? Even when I debate on video games, it's still a valid argument, supported with evidence.
"Thus, your ranking progression is irrelevant to this topic, because you have not used serious subject matter in your discussion topics." Coming from his round 3 argument, which came from his round 2 ad homonym. I said nothing about how I wanted to be better than Danielle or anything, just asking you if the top 5's I listed contain criminals.
And he still goes on with his ad homonym, saying I don't want to lose my ranking, therefore I'm protecting the rights of the ranking system. This argument is 1) unsupported, and 2) an ad homonym.
Now, of course, with my final argument.
Point 2: Con's unrefuted arguments.
I have shown Pro some users, and asked him whether they're criminals or not, which Pro suggests. Pro just ignores it and attempts to draw suspicion to my accepting of this debate. Sure, I *could* be wanting to become a good debater and have the highest elo, but that doesn't change my arguments' validity. My arguments stand, and Pro left his Burden of Proof unfulfilled.
Point 3: No proof of criminals.
I asked Pro many times in round 2 to provide more examples of people winning debates by doing nothing. He never even addressed why everyone is a criminal, just that he thinks Mikal didn't deserve that 1 victory. Again, Pro was arguing something highly controversial, and never showed why he was right, except for that one debate, which I explained why it doesn't prove anything.
Conclusion: Pro had the Burden of Proof, but never fulfilled it. When I backed him into a corner, he resorted to ad homonym attacks, and claimed that I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was. To catch them is-- sorry. ;) But yeah, Pro claims that I an arguing against him because I want to win. This is not the case, as my motive is to prove Pro wrong.
And with that, vote Con!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.