Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Daytonerd, A Better World Cup Tournament

NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:03:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Daytonerd is just being stubborn and ruining his good idea because of that.

1- No ELO Restriction. Choose members you think will debate reasonably well, based on one of their sample debates.

2- 8-10 member tournament. Don't be unrealistic.

3- No three simultaneous debates. Go for one debate per stage.

If such conditions are met, the sign-ups will fill up quickly and we would have an interesting tournament going on.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:17:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 6:48:37 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
How about no. That would ruin the entire point of it.

I think 16 people is fine, and so is the elo requirement since there are only like 4 users I can think of with less than 2500 elo yet being decent debaters, but I do think you should take into consideration the thing about not doing 3 debates simultaneously.
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:18:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:17:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/23/2014 6:48:37 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
How about no. That would ruin the entire point of it.

I think 16 people is fine, and so is the elo requirement since there are only like 4 users I can think of with less than 2500 elo yet being decent debaters, but I do think you should take into consideration the thing about not doing 3 debates simultaneously.

The reason why I added it is because otherwise, it would take an ETERNITY to finish. And, based off my observances of the community, it doesn't have that long of an attention span.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:18:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:17:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/23/2014 6:48:37 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
How about no. That would ruin the entire point of it.

I think 16 people is fine, and so is the elo requirement since there are only like 4 users I can think of with less than 2500 elo yet being decent debaters, but I do think you should take into consideration the thing about not doing 3 debates simultaneously.

But his requirement is an ELO of 3000. Heck, I'm about 50 or so off because I'm too busy to debate lol.
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:20:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:18:47 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 7:17:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/23/2014 6:48:37 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
How about no. That would ruin the entire point of it.

I think 16 people is fine, and so is the elo requirement since there are only like 4 users I can think of with less than 2500 elo yet being decent debaters, but I do think you should take into consideration the thing about not doing 3 debates simultaneously.

But his requirement is an ELO of 3000. Heck, I'm about 50 or so off because I'm too busy to debate lol.

I've already established that it was lowered to 2500. So, yes, you may indeed sign up, if you so please.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:21:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
no elo restriction? That's unfair. I could go against, say, bluesteel if he chooses to join.
Nevertheless, since no one else is joining, I join for now.
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:22:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:21:44 PM, 9spaceking wrote:
no elo restriction? That's unfair. I could go against, say, bluesteel if he chooses to join.
Nevertheless, since no one else is joining, I join for now.

But if you intended to win the tournament, you'd have to eventually debate someone with a high ELO, right? So why does sequencing matter?
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:23:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:22:42 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 7:21:44 PM, 9spaceking wrote:
no elo restriction? That's unfair. I could go against, say, bluesteel if he chooses to join.
Nevertheless, since no one else is joining, I join for now.

But if you intended to win the tournament, you'd have to eventually debate someone with a high ELO, right? So why does sequencing matter?

Well, not THAT high!!
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:26:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:18:33 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 4/23/2014 7:17:00 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 4/23/2014 6:48:37 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
How about no. That would ruin the entire point of it.

I think 16 people is fine, and so is the elo requirement since there are only like 4 users I can think of with less than 2500 elo yet being decent debaters, but I do think you should take into consideration the thing about not doing 3 debates simultaneously.

The reason why I added it is because otherwise, it would take an ETERNITY to finish. And, based off my observances of the community, it doesn't have that long of an attention span.

It won't take an eternity to finish. Probably 5-7 months which will make it coincide I think with the actual world cup and stay a trend. Don't be too stubborn. It's better long than never. No?