Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Imabench does an experiment?

imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

Heres what I found:

Votes on 1 round debates:
1, 4

Votes on 2 round debates:
6, 0, 1, 6, 11, 17, 2, 2, 3

Votes on 3 round debates:
8, 0, 1, 3, 4, 3, 1, 7, 1, 4, 1, 6, 2, 0, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 5, 2

Votes on 4 round debates:
2, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 0, 4, 2, 8, 7, 7, 6, 4, 3, 8, 14, 1, 5, 5, 3

Votes on 5 round debates:
3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 2, 1, 3

Data used in study:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

RESULTS OF DATA

Average votes on a debate according to number of rounds:
1 round = 2.5 votes on average
2 rounds = 4.5 votes on average
3 rounds = 2.75 votes on average
4 rounds = 4.4 votes on average
5 rounds = 2.2 votes on average


Conclusion: 3 round debates for some weird a** reason receive far fewer votes on average compared to 2 round and 4 round debates, and I believe that this may be due to the fact that 3 round debates are usually done between people who very recently joined the site. Debates between new people received far fewer votes then debates between veterans (for all lengths of debates), and since the default length of a debate is set at 3 rounds, a lot of new people who make debates use 3 rounds in their debates. Since new people use three round debates a lot, and since veterens get far more votes on their debates on average then new people, this may explain why the average number of votes on 3 round debates is no where close to that of 2 or 4 round debates.

Other then that, there is a massive dropoff in the number of votes that debates get when they are 4 rounds long compared to when they were just four rounds long. It drops by half actually even though final rounds are usually just a summary of the first four rounds.

Also, even though 2 round debates got a lot of votes, this may be incorrect since one of the debates had a much larger number of votes then the rest of them did. If you eliminate the 1 2-round debate that had 17 votes, the average number of votes on 2 round debates drops down to 3.9, placing it well below what 4 round debates usually get.

Final Conclusion:

If you want to get a lot of votes, then go with two round or four round debates. If youre a veteren though, you can go with three and still get a good amount of votes. Just for the love of all things holy do NOT have a 5 round debate if you want to get votes.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:53:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Good work on collecting the data. My interpretation of your results is provided below:

1 round debates: Tend to be joke debates and aren't really even debates. Not of much interest on a debate site.

2 round debates: Even with 8000 characters, they are short and actually qualify as debates. Relatively easy to vote on.

3 round debates: An excess of new users start these debates and either don't finish them or take some other action that is sure to cause readers to lose interest.

4 round debates: Tend to be taken by "popular debaters" and/or regard attractive topics.

5 round debates: Tend to be boring snooze fest that hardly anyone feels like reading.

Still, I theorize that competent debaters have a higher chance of maintaining a sufficient volume of votes provided that they do not forfeit and that their debate rounds have character limit restriction well below 8000 characters.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:54:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
tl;dr. I read only the final conclusion.

This is IMHO more evidence that a "no voting" option makes sense. The underlying vote is simply not meaningful in a statistical sense. There's no definitive conclusion one can reach about the substance of any debate by looking at the numerical results of any vote, or any amalgam of votes - most people that vote aren't exactly voting on the substance of a debate.

Your analysis, while certainly painstaking and I'm certain laudatory in the sense of demonstrating diligence, is IMHO meaningless.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:54:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
tl;dr. I read only the final conclusion.

-_________________________-

This is IMHO more evidence that a "no voting" option makes sense. The underlying vote is simply not meaningful in a statistical sense. There's no definitive conclusion one can reach about the substance of any debate by looking at the numerical results of any vote, or any amalgam of votes - most people that vote aren't exactly voting on the substance of a debate.

Im not saying they are, Im just showing that sheer amount of substance in a debate does correlate to whether or not people will vote on it

Your analysis, while certainly painstaking and I'm certain laudatory in the sense of demonstrating diligence, is IMHO meaningless.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:05:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:54:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
tl;dr. I read only the final conclusion.

This is IMHO more evidence that a "no voting" option makes sense. The underlying vote is simply not meaningful in a statistical sense. There's no definitive conclusion one can reach about the substance of any debate by looking at the numerical results of any vote, or any amalgam of votes - most people that vote aren't exactly voting on the substance of a debate.

Your analysis, while certainly painstaking and I'm certain laudatory in the sense of demonstrating diligence, is IMHO meaningless.

What do you think of jury voting (selecting three+ competent and agreed upon voters to vote; all other voting is discourages or countered) and Wild West (both debaters pick one person to vote; those two mutually agree on a third; all other voting is discourages or countered) options?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, when you say 2 rounds, 3 rounds, etc., are you talking about the actual number of rounds in the debate, or are you talked about the number of debated rounds? I ask because in most cases, the first round is for acceptance, and I'm wondering if you're counting that or not.

I think subject has something to do with it, too. Not based on a careful study, but based on my cursory observation, debates on the kalam cosmological argument seem to get a lot of votes, whereas any kind of theological debate doesn't get much if any votes.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:25:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:05:19 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:54:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
tl;dr. I read only the final conclusion.

This is IMHO more evidence that a "no voting" option makes sense. The underlying vote is simply not meaningful in a statistical sense. There's no definitive conclusion one can reach about the substance of any debate by looking at the numerical results of any vote, or any amalgam of votes - most people that vote aren't exactly voting on the substance of a debate.

Your analysis, while certainly painstaking and I'm certain laudatory in the sense of demonstrating diligence, is IMHO meaningless.

What do you think of jury voting (selecting three+ competent and agreed upon voters to vote; all other voting is discourages or countered) and Wild West (both debaters pick one person to vote; those two mutually agree on a third; all other voting is discourages or countered) options?

I myself have pressed this idea before and am welcome to it, but I think there are multiple demons to be slain here. The cold hard fact remains that a big problem with this site is the lack of interest in voting. For the most part, this seems to be a result of length and complexity of the debate. As a law student, I've learned this lesson first hand from professors and judges. Nobody wants to read a 50 page essay (especially when they don't have to or lack the incentive to do so). There are some people nice enough to read them anyway (and I salute those people), but most people would rather not put up with all of that.

Thus, to deal with this issue head on, I think we debaters should be encouraged to give shorter and concise arguments. By encouraging this practice, debaters themselves will become more skilled in crafting their arguments and voters will be more likely to read debates in the first place.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:05:19 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:54:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
tl;dr. I read only the final conclusion.

This is IMHO more evidence that a "no voting" option makes sense. The underlying vote is simply not meaningful in a statistical sense. There's no definitive conclusion one can reach about the substance of any debate by looking at the numerical results of any vote, or any amalgam of votes - most people that vote aren't exactly voting on the substance of a debate.

Your analysis, while certainly painstaking and I'm certain laudatory in the sense of demonstrating diligence, is IMHO meaningless.

What do you think of jury voting (selecting three+ competent and agreed upon voters to vote; all other voting is discourages or countered) and Wild West (both debaters pick one person to vote; those two mutually agree on a third; all other voting is discourages or countered) options?

I think that would be completely disastrous in terms of debates getting votes.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:36:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:18:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
So, when you say 2 rounds, 3 rounds, etc., are you talking about the actual number of rounds in the debate, or are you talked about the number of debated rounds?

Actual number of rounds.

I ask because in most cases, the first round is for acceptance, and I'm wondering if you're counting that or not.

All debates usually have some acceptance round though so it doesnt really change anything.

I think subject has something to do with it, too. Not based on a careful study, but based on my cursory observation, debates on the kalam cosmological argument seem to get a lot of votes, whereas any kind of theological debate doesn't get much if any votes.

The title of a debate certainly impacts whether it gets votes or not. The more unique or interesting the debate the more votes it usually gets.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 5:52:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Good work professor. What is your next paper going to be on? You should start a series called the science of DDo
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!
Tsar of DDO
G6
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:19:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All of this is very great.

Wasting one's life on worthless experiments is always a very admirable hobby. :)
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:39:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:19:54 PM, G6 wrote:
All of this is very great.

Wasting one's life on worthless experiments is always a very admirable hobby. :)

At least I'm not one of those people who gets kicked from the site over and over and over......
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:49:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:44:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
please tell me your done w/ finals.

I am :3
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:49:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!

Jesus is pleased, everybody!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
G6
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:53:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:39:03 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:19:54 PM, G6 wrote:
All of this is very great.

Wasting one's life on worthless experiments is always a very admirable hobby. :)

At least I'm not one of those people who gets kicked from the site over and over and over......

What a coincidence! Neither am I! ;)
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:54:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:49:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!

Jesus is pleased, everybody!

I'm not Jesus, Ike.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:56:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:54:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:49:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!

Jesus is pleased, everybody!

I'm not Jesus, Ike.

Really?? Are you sure?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:57:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:56:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:54:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:49:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!

Jesus is pleased, everybody!

I'm not Jesus, Ike.

Really?? Are you sure?

Wouldn't Jesus be omniscient?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:57:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:57:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:56:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:54:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:49:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!

Jesus is pleased, everybody!

I'm not Jesus, Ike.

Really?? Are you sure?

Wouldn't Jesus be omniscient?

/ not lie
G6
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 6:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:57:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:57:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:56:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:54:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:49:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!

Jesus is pleased, everybody!

I'm not Jesus, Ike.

Really?? Are you sure?

Wouldn't Jesus be omniscient?

/ not lie

Argument won. :)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:00:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 5:05:19 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:54:20 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
tl;dr. I read only the final conclusion.

This is IMHO more evidence that a "no voting" option makes sense. The underlying vote is simply not meaningful in a statistical sense. There's no definitive conclusion one can reach about the substance of any debate by looking at the numerical results of any vote, or any amalgam of votes - most people that vote aren't exactly voting on the substance of a debate.

Your analysis, while certainly painstaking and I'm certain laudatory in the sense of demonstrating diligence, is IMHO meaningless.

What do you think of jury voting (selecting three+ competent and agreed upon voters to vote; all other voting is discourages or countered) and Wild West (both debaters pick one person to vote; those two mutually agree on a third; all other voting is discourages or countered) options?

If you absolutely insist upon voting of some sort, I think both approaches have some merit to them. It would depend upon how "competent" the juror/judges are. The vote would still be subject to rampant politicking as is commonplace on this website, and I'm not certain that would ever be avoidable.

One way I thought about to avoid the politicking problem is to hold elections on who could be a judge/juror, and to ensure that the turnout for these elections is significant. That's the only way I could deem it fair to have someone judge a debate, because the community overall deemed the judge worthy of doing so.

---

Having judges voting like this would IMHO only be preferable if the judges through their "expert" opinion was able to advance the discussion. Otherwise, I'd personally be much more disposed to a "no voting" debate structure to encourage more honest discussion, and less politicking.

---

And finally, I am advertising my sig, which is my first attempt at a "no voting" debate.

Cheers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 7:00:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 6:56:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:54:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:49:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/20/2013 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:27:28 PM, imabench wrote:
I went ahead and looked at a sh*t ton of legit debates to see if the number of rounds those debates had correlated to hoe many votes they received. 'Legit debates' being debates where both sides actually gave substancial arguments while debating and didnt post one or two lines as their arguments over and over

I'm impressed, Bench. Good work!

Jesus is pleased, everybody!

I'm not Jesus, Ike.

Really?? Are you sure?

I'm quite sure.
Tsar of DDO
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 1:19:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm using the same debates Imabench listed in the OP. But I'm counting the number of rounds differently. If there were five rounds, but round one was challenge and acceptance, I count that as four rounds.

If there are two rounds, and Firstguy says that round one is for challenge and acceptance, but Secondguy starts right in arguing in the first round, and also argues in the last round, then I count that as 1.5 rounds.

In one of the listed debates, somebody conceded early. Didn't argue his final two rounds. So I shortened that one up by a whole round at least (more if somebody didn't argue in the first round).

I found the average, and then threw out the fliers (the highest and lowest number) and calculated the average again. Call that the adjusted average. Some categories didn't have enough debates to survive the elimination of the high and low numbers. So they don't get an adjusted average (arguably, the sample wasn't statistically significant).

Here are the averages. I list the number of rounds first, then a triple hyphen, then the average:

.5---4
1---6.6
1.5---4
2---2.5
2.5---2.8
3---3.8
4---2.3
4.5---4
5---1

And here are the adjusted averages:

1---5.6
2---2.3
2.5---2.7
3---3.7
4---2.4

If we dismiss debates of fewer than two rounds as not worth our attention, then, the adjusted averages show the number of responses rising until we get to three rounds, and thereafter falling. The averages (unadjusted) shows the same thing, with an exception for the four-and-a-half round debates.

There were only two four-and-a-half round debates. I'd argue for dismissing them on two grounds: Not a large enough sample to be statistically significant, and any debate with X-and-a-half rounds is perverse.

If I'm allowed to dismiss either the debates with half rounds, or the debates or the debates with too few to have an adjusted average, and if I am allowed to dismiss debates with fewer than 2 rounds, then we get results that I like:

Three round debates get the most votes. The farther you get from three rounds, the fewer votes you are likely to get.

I don't want to overstate my case, so I'll just say that the results are consistent with this theory.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:22:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 1:19:38 AM, wiploc wrote:
I'm using the same debates Imabench listed in the OP. But I'm counting the number of rounds differently. If there were five rounds, but round one was challenge and acceptance, I count that as four rounds.

If there are two rounds, and Firstguy says that round one is for challenge and acceptance, but Secondguy starts right in arguing in the first round, and also argues in the last round, then I count that as 1.5 rounds.

In one of the listed debates, somebody conceded early. Didn't argue his final two rounds. So I shortened that one up by a whole round at least (more if somebody didn't argue in the first round).

I found the average, and then threw out the fliers (the highest and lowest number) and calculated the average again. Call that the adjusted average. Some categories didn't have enough debates to survive the elimination of the high and low numbers. So they don't get an adjusted average (arguably, the sample wasn't statistically significant).

Here are the averages. I list the number of rounds first, then a triple hyphen, then the average:

.5---4
1---6.6
1.5---4
2---2.5
2.5---2.8
3---3.8
4---2.3
4.5---4
5---1

And here are the adjusted averages:

1---5.6
2---2.3
2.5---2.7
3---3.7
4---2.4

If we dismiss debates of fewer than two rounds as not worth our attention, then, the adjusted averages show the number of responses rising until we get to three rounds, and thereafter falling. The averages (unadjusted) shows the same thing, with an exception for the four-and-a-half round debates.

There were only two four-and-a-half round debates. I'd argue for dismissing them on two grounds: Not a large enough sample to be statistically significant, and any debate with X-and-a-half rounds is perverse.

If I'm allowed to dismiss either the debates with half rounds, or the debates or the debates with too few to have an adjusted average, and if I am allowed to dismiss debates with fewer than 2 rounds, then we get results that I like:

Three round debates get the most votes. The farther you get from three rounds, the fewer votes you are likely to get.

but when you add the acceptance round, then it becomes four yes?

I don't want to overstate my case, so I'll just say that the results are consistent with this theory.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:34:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:22:25 PM, imabench wrote:
At 5/26/2013 1:19:38 AM, wiploc wrote:
Three round debates get the most votes. The farther you get from three rounds, the fewer votes you are likely to get.

but when you add the acceptance round, then it becomes four yes?

Yes, if there was also an acceptance round.