Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ELO and Debates

400spartans
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:54:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

Or ele will see this and respond to it as well, he made the formula. I am actually quite interested to see the response lol.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this
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
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:57:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM, imabench wrote:
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this

I think the formula in general is wacky. When i beat roy , i got like 15, and then i beat a buy that was at 2500 and got 35. Non instigator on both
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:01:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:57:46 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM, imabench wrote:
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this

I think the formula in general is wacky. When i beat roy , i got like 15, and then i beat a buy that was at 2500 and got 35. Non instigator on both

Oh I like the system a lot. Its way better than the percentile system we use to have where whoever had the most wins was number 1.
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
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:02:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:01:01 AM, imabench wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:57:46 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM, imabench wrote:
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this

I think the formula in general is wacky. When i beat roy , i got like 15, and then i beat a buy that was at 2500 and got 35. Non instigator on both

Oh I like the system a lot. Its way better than the percentile system we use to have where whoever had the most wins was number 1.

No i love the system, I just think the math is messed up lol XD
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:04:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:02:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:01:01 AM, imabench wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:57:46 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM, imabench wrote:
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this

I think the formula in general is wacky. When i beat roy , i got like 15, and then i beat a buy that was at 2500 and got 35. Non instigator on both

Oh I like the system a lot. Its way better than the percentile system we use to have where whoever had the most wins was number 1.

No i love the system, I just think the math is messed up lol XD

ALL math is messed up, its why nobody likes it
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
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:06:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:02:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:01:01 AM, imabench wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:57:46 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM, imabench wrote:
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this

I think the formula in general is wacky. When i beat roy , i got like 15, and then i beat a buy that was at 2500 and got 35. Non instigator on both

Oh I like the system a lot. Its way better than the percentile system we use to have where whoever had the most wins was number 1.

No i love the system, I just think the math is messed up lol XD

It is. They programmed it wrong. But now you're President, you can lobby Juggle to get it fixed!!
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 12:07:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 12:06:44 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:02:01 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 12:01:01 AM, imabench wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:57:46 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM, imabench wrote:
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this

I think the formula in general is wacky. When i beat roy , i got like 15, and then i beat a buy that was at 2500 and got 35. Non instigator on both

Oh I like the system a lot. Its way better than the percentile system we use to have where whoever had the most wins was number 1.

No i love the system, I just think the math is messed up lol XD

It is. They programmed it wrong. But now you're President, you can lobby Juggle to get it fixed!!

There is a lot i want to lobby juggle for, but we need prayer and community support lol
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:43:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.

By your own admission, the elo is reflective of a person's win and loss record and those wins and losses are entirely subjective. "You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc."

Therefore it is merely an indication of popular OPINION and nothing more.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:46:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:43:18 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.

By your own admission, the elo is reflective of a person's win and loss record and those wins and losses are entirely subjective. "You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc."

Therefore it is merely an indication of popular OPINION and nothing more.

The actual elo system itself , is a system that is mathematical designed to calculate elo based on wins , loses, and your score. The formula is above. The argument you are making is a non sequitur.

Judging has and always will be subjective, that does mean the system that is used to score you is wrong.

Elo System = / = subjective voting.

Voting makes the elo system occur, the actual system itself has been proven to be correct time and time again. It's used in chess and a great many other sports. You are trying to fix the wrong issue.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:53:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:46:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:43:18 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.

By your own admission, the elo is reflective of a person's win and loss record and those wins and losses are entirely subjective. "You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc."

Therefore it is merely an indication of popular OPINION and nothing more.

The actual elo system itself , is a system that is mathematical designed to calculate elo based on wins , loses, and your score. The formula is above. The argument you are making is a non sequitur.

Judging has and always will be subjective, that does mean the system that is used to score you is wrong.

Elo System = / = subjective voting.

Voting makes the elo system occur, the actual system itself has been proven to be correct time and time again. It's used in chess and a great many other sports. You are trying to fix the wrong issue.

I'm not trying to fix anything and I agree with you on the technical (intended) aspect of the elo formula and system. If debating wins and losses were as objectively discernible as chess games are, I would have no qualms with it at all.

However, as you just acknowledged yourself - It's not.

It (the input data) is entirely subjective and it is easily corrupted to-boot.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:57:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:53:23 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:46:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:43:18 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.

By your own admission, the elo is reflective of a person's win and loss record and those wins and losses are entirely subjective. "You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc."

Therefore it is merely an indication of popular OPINION and nothing more.

The actual elo system itself , is a system that is mathematical designed to calculate elo based on wins , loses, and your score. The formula is above. The argument you are making is a non sequitur.

Judging has and always will be subjective, that does mean the system that is used to score you is wrong.

Elo System = / = subjective voting.

Voting makes the elo system occur, the actual system itself has been proven to be correct time and time again. It's used in chess and a great many other sports. You are trying to fix the wrong issue.

I'm not trying to fix anything and I agree with you on the technical (intended) aspect of the elo formula and system. If debating wins and losses were as objectively discernible as chess games are, I would have no qualms with it at all.

However, as you just acknowledged yourself - It's not.

It (the input data) is entirely subjective and it is easily corrupted to-boot.

The thing is it's not really input data. Input data would be something that altered the equation. The equation is absolute.

The method that you arrive at the win is subjective (again that does not mean it's flawed)

You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters. There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it. Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job.

That is true in reality. There is no argument that you can make that is objectively correct in every possible mind, because its all perception based.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:12:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Where did my post go?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:57:16 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:53:23 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:46:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:43:18 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.

By your own admission, the elo is reflective of a person's win and loss record and those wins and losses are entirely subjective. "You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc."

Therefore it is merely an indication of popular OPINION and nothing more.

The actual elo system itself , is a system that is mathematical designed to calculate elo based on wins , loses, and your score. The formula is above. The argument you are making is a non sequitur.

Judging has and always will be subjective, that does mean the system that is used to score you is wrong.

Elo System = / = subjective voting.

Voting makes the elo system occur, the actual system itself has been proven to be correct time and time again. It's used in chess and a great many other sports. You are trying to fix the wrong issue.

I'm not trying to fix anything and I agree with you on the technical (intended) aspect of the elo formula and system. If debating wins and losses were as objectively discernible as chess games are, I would have no qualms with it at all.

However, as you just acknowledged yourself - It's not.

It (the input data) is entirely subjective and it is easily corrupted to-boot.

The thing is it's not really input data. Input data would be something that altered the equation. The equation is absolute.


Garbage in equals garbage out - no matter how 'absolute' the equation is.

The method that you arrive at the win is subjective (again that does not mean it's flawed)

I disagree. I especially disagree with that when voter bias is allowed to persist.

You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters.

Then we agree that the elo score is not reflective of a members actual / OBJECTIVE wins and losses.

There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it.

Isn't that what I've been saying?

Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job.

The same is not true of chess matches - is it?

That is true in reality. There is no argument that you can make that is objectively correct in every possible mind, because its all perception based.

Yep. And that is why the elo score is nothing more than a reflection of the (often biased and unbridled) opinions of the voters.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:50:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Whatever happened to us doing this debate for real? You keep forum-warrioring about it but whenever I ask you to debate about it for real you say no. Why?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 9:26:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:57:16 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:53:23 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:46:24 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:43:18 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.

By your own admission, the elo is reflective of a person's win and loss record and those wins and losses are entirely subjective. "You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc."

Therefore it is merely an indication of popular OPINION and nothing more.

The actual elo system itself , is a system that is mathematical designed to calculate elo based on wins , loses, and your score. The formula is above. The argument you are making is a non sequitur.

Judging has and always will be subjective, that does mean the system that is used to score you is wrong.

Elo System = / = subjective voting.

Voting makes the elo system occur, the actual system itself has been proven to be correct time and time again. It's used in chess and a great many other sports. You are trying to fix the wrong issue.

I'm not trying to fix anything and I agree with you on the technical (intended) aspect of the elo formula and system. If debating wins and losses were as objectively discernible as chess games are, I would have no qualms with it at all.

However, as you just acknowledged yourself - It's not.

It (the input data) is entirely subjective and it is easily corrupted to-boot.

The thing is it's not really input data. Input data would be something that altered the equation. The equation is absolute.


Garbage in equals garbage out - no matter how 'absolute' the equation is.

The method that you arrive at the win is subjective (again that does not mean it's flawed)

I disagree. I especially disagree with that when voter bias is allowed to persist.

You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters.

Then we agree that the elo score is not reflective of a members actual / OBJECTIVE wins and losses.

There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it.

Isn't that what I've been saying?

Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job.

The same is not true of chess matches - is it?

That is true in reality. There is no argument that you can make that is objectively correct in every possible mind, because its all perception based.

Yep. And that is why the elo score is nothing more than a reflection of the (often biased and unbridled) opinions of the voters.

Last poss sorry lol, I'll do a debate with you on this if you want but its fruitless to keep discussing it here as we are dancing in circles lol. Chess =/= debate. There is an objective winner in chess because they are no judges. Chess is an objective win and loss because there is an objective way to win, you have an objective. Debate is not the same way. Your objective way to win a debate is persuade the voters, but the voters will always judge based on their perception which is subjective. Meaning there is no way to objectively say who wins a debate or not.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:54:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:55:23 PM, imabench wrote:
The minimum Elo someone can get is 1000
6 x 1000 is 6000, and there are only 7 people who have Elo's north of 6000

I don't very often see any of the top 7 debaters on the site accept a debate from someone who has the lowest possible Elo. If we look at debaters with a 1500 Elo, which is still pretty bad, then 6 x 1500 is 9000, and only Mikal has that high of an Elo.

So while what you found is an interesting fact, I dont see how it has any implications or what to take away from this

The inverse of this is why the contender penalty exists. If a debater with 1000 Elo can't lose any points by debating someone with 6000 Elo, then someone with 6000 Elo can't *gain* any points by contending against someone with 1000 Elo. There's no reason to n00b snipe someone with such a low Elo.

Your feelings on the system will depend on how you feel about n00b sniping. If you think it's a bad thing because n00bs should debate people with really low Elo so it's even and they can learn, you'll like the Elo system. If you think it's bad because more established members will never accept debates from people with remotely low Elo's, making it harder for them to find quality opponents, you'll think the Elo system is a bad thing.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:41:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:43:18 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:38:31 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:33:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:48:54 PM, 400spartans wrote:
The formula for ELO change is D = 100*(W+9L)/10W where:

W = winner's original ELO
L = loser's original ELO
D = change in ELO

And, the instigator gets +25, while the acceptor gets -25.

Using these two facts, I have deduced that if you are the instigator, and you debate a person with an ELO 6 times more than yours, you can't lose any ELO.

Any responses?

As the judging of our debates is subjective at best and corrupt at worse, the ELO scores don't mean anything anyway. I wish we had the option of "opting" out of the ELO ranking system entirely.

I still would debate you on this because every time you state that, you are asserting a false accusation. You are blaming the elo system for being bad due to conformation bias, both of which are separate issues from each other.

People lacking voter awareness does not mean the system is wrong, it means the rules that surround them system need to be adjusted.

But even with that , the rules are perfectly fine. Debate is always subjective, and people vote on what they perceive is a better argument. You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc.

Every time you assert your opinion is objectively right, you are setting yourself up as the gauge for which the opinion is weighted. Again that is a mistake and it undermines the intent of a judged debate.

By your own admission, the elo is reflective of a person's win and loss record and those wins and losses are entirely subjective. "You cannot objectively say one argument is better than the other, because it lies with the voters, judges, etc."

Therefore it is merely an indication of popular OPINION and nothing more.

False dichotomy. You're on a debating site. Please refrain from the more obvious logical fallacies. The dichotomy occurs in your reasoning and in your response.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 1:40:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:50:05 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Whatever happened to us doing this debate for real? You keep forum-warrioring about it but whenever I ask you to debate about it for real you say no. Why?

When even the "president elect" of this site says "You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters. There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it. Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job." - I feel the point has already been made.

We all agree that the voting by the judges in a debate is not objective and not ever completely without bias. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the conclusion about how that fact affects the credibility / validity of the elo scores.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:31:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 1:40:13 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:50:05 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Whatever happened to us doing this debate for real? You keep forum-warrioring about it but whenever I ask you to debate about it for real you say no. Why?

When even the "president elect" of this site says "You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters. There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it. Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job." - I feel the point has already been made.

We all agree that the voting by the judges in a debate is not objective and not ever completely without bias. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the conclusion about how that fact affects the credibility / validity of the elo scores.

This is because you're a) misinterpreting what that says to construe it to say that every voter on the site is a horrible voter and only votes based on their personal beliefs and b) even if you were interpreting that correctly, it still doesn't lead you to the conclusion you're advocating for.

But stop forum warrioring it. If you feel like the point is already made and I have no possible way to refute it, it should be a piece of cake to beat me.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 3:38:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:31:37 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:40:13 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:50:05 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Whatever happened to us doing this debate for real? You keep forum-warrioring about it but whenever I ask you to debate about it for real you say no. Why?

When even the "president elect" of this site says "You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters. There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it. Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job." - I feel the point has already been made.

We all agree that the voting by the judges in a debate is not objective and not ever completely without bias. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the conclusion about how that fact affects the credibility / validity of the elo scores.

This is because you're a) misinterpreting what that says to construe it to say that every voter on the site is a horrible voter and only votes based on their personal beliefs and b) even if you were interpreting that correctly, it still doesn't lead you to the conclusion you're advocating for.

But stop forum warrioring it. If you feel like the point is already made and I have no possible way to refute it, it should be a piece of cake to beat me.

*gets popcorn*
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:46:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 3:31:37 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:40:13 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:50:05 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Whatever happened to us doing this debate for real? You keep forum-warrioring about it but whenever I ask you to debate about it for real you say no. Why?

When even the "president elect" of this site says "You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters. There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it. Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job." - I feel the point has already been made.

We all agree that the voting by the judges in a debate is not objective and not ever completely without bias. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the conclusion about how that fact affects the credibility / validity of the elo scores.

This is because you're a) misinterpreting what that says to construe it to say that every voter on the site is a horrible voter and only votes based on their personal beliefs and b) even if you were interpreting that correctly, it still doesn't lead you to the conclusion you're advocating for.

a) It doesn't require EVERY voter to be a biased (horrible?) voter for the elo results to be skewed. It only takes enough to give a voter who maybe should have lost - a win instead. So, you are wrong about that.

b) Yes. It does.


But stop forum warrioring it. If you feel like the point is already made and I have no possible way to refute it, it should be a piece of cake to beat me.

If I could count on our debate being OBJECTIVELY judged, I probably would accept that debate. As it is, I can't count on that being the case. Also, how am I "warrioring?" when the topic of this thread is "ELO and Debates" and I am merely engaging in a discussion on the same.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 2:33:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:46:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:31:37 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:40:13 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:50:05 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Whatever happened to us doing this debate for real? You keep forum-warrioring about it but whenever I ask you to debate about it for real you say no. Why?

When even the "president elect" of this site says "You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters. There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it. Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job." - I feel the point has already been made.

We all agree that the voting by the judges in a debate is not objective and not ever completely without bias. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the conclusion about how that fact affects the credibility / validity of the elo scores.

This is because you're a) misinterpreting what that says to construe it to say that every voter on the site is a horrible voter and only votes based on their personal beliefs and b) even if you were interpreting that correctly, it still doesn't lead you to the conclusion you're advocating for.

a) It doesn't require EVERY voter to be a biased (horrible?) voter for the elo results to be skewed.

Just the ones you personally disagree with, right?

It only takes enough to give a voter who maybe should have lost - a win instead. So, you are wrong about that.

So how many votes is that? One? Five? One hundred?

Moreover, what is this skew we're talking about? I win one debate that I shoulnd't have won? I start rocking 9000 elo when I deserve 1000?

Furthermore, what is a "biased" vote anyway? How can we tell when someone just hasn't payed attention close enough and makes a bad vote or is actually voting off of bias?

To continue, I'd actually even argue that this "bias" you talk about doesn't exist. Good judges know how to personally detach themselves from the arguments being presented, which eliminates, or reduces to the point of irrelevancy, any kind of possible "bias" that they may bring to the debate.

Even more so that if there were bad judges on this site that voted off of their own biases, the current voting system already has tools that you can use to counteract this, such as setting elo limits on judges, or even hand-picking your own judges who you want to judge your debates. So if you don't like the bad judges on the site, then don't let them judge.

b) Yes. It does.


But stop forum warrioring it. If you feel like the point is already made and I have no possible way to refute it, it should be a piece of cake to beat me.

If I could count on our debate being OBJECTIVELY judged, I probably would accept that debate. As it is, I can't count on that being the case.

If you're right and I'm wrong, why is this a concern? If you're just right then you can show it and then objectively you'll win. What's the issue?

Also, how am I "warrioring?" when the topic of this thread is "ELO and Debates" and I am merely engaging in a discussion on the same.

Definition of forum warrior: someone who argues ferverently for an idea and when called to formally defend it declines. You, sir, are a forum warrior.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:13:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 2:33:54 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:46:25 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:31:37 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 1:40:13 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2014 3:50:05 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/16/2014 2:57:20 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Whatever happened to us doing this debate for real? You keep forum-warrioring about it but whenever I ask you to debate about it for real you say no. Why?

When even the "president elect" of this site says "You will never find a way to objectively win a debate or objectively prove you won. As the point of debate in judging style is to sway the thoughts of the voters. There will always be a degree of subjectivity to it. Nothing will ever change that, as that is the entire principle of debates that are judged. It's routed in whom *the judge thinks* did the best job." - I feel the point has already been made.

We all agree that the voting by the judges in a debate is not objective and not ever completely without bias. The only thing we seem to disagree on is the conclusion about how that fact affects the credibility / validity of the elo scores.

This is because you're a) misinterpreting what that says to construe it to say that every voter on the site is a horrible voter and only votes based on their personal beliefs and b) even if you were interpreting that correctly, it still doesn't lead you to the conclusion you're advocating for.

a) It doesn't require EVERY voter to be a biased (horrible?) voter for the elo results to be skewed.

Just the ones you personally disagree with, right?

It only takes enough to give a voter who maybe should have lost - a win instead. So, you are wrong about that.

So how many votes is that? One? Five? One hundred?

Moreover, what is this skew we're talking about? I win one debate that I shoulnd't have won? I start rocking 9000 elo when I deserve 1000?

Furthermore, what is a "biased" vote anyway? How can we tell when someone just hasn't payed attention close enough and makes a bad vote or is actually voting off of bias?

: To continue, I'd actually even argue that this "bias" you talk about doesn't exist. Good judges know how to personally detach themselves from the arguments being presented, which eliminates, or reduces to the point of irrelevancy, any kind of possible "bias" that they may bring to the debate.

Even more so that if there were bad judges on this site that voted off of their own biases, the current voting system already has tools that you can use to counteract this, such as setting elo limits on judges, or even hand-picking your own judges who you want to judge your debates. So if you don't like the bad judges on the site, then don't let them judge.


This


b) Yes. It does.


But stop forum warrioring it. If you feel like the point is already made and I have no possible way to refute it, it should be a piece of cake to beat me.

If I could count on our debate being OBJECTIVELY judged, I probably would accept that debate. As it is, I can't count on that being the case.

If you're right and I'm wrong, why is this a concern? If you're just right then you can show it and then objectively you'll win. What's the issue?

Also, how am I "warrioring?" when the topic of this thread is "ELO and Debates" and I am merely engaging in a discussion on the same.

Definition of forum warrior: someone who argues ferverently for an idea and when called to formally defend it declines. You, sir, are a forum warrior.

You guys could debate and just do judge voting. I think it's pretty hard that argue that raisor, thett, whiteflame, or I are biased judges. I could give a f**k what position either side takes, if their arguments are better. I've voted against mikal twice now, even though he's my friend, because I thought he lost. It's silly to argue that training and experience cannot eliminate judge bias. When we're aware of how biases affect our reasoning, we're able to counteract the effects of bias. And people who have had to do switch side debate for forever know that it's not about what side of the topic you get stuck with that should determine the winner; it's the *skill* of argumentation. It's the same as with skilled dance judges. On shows like So You Think You Can Dance, they judge the skill of the dancers, not how pretty or popular they are. I've seen those judges be BRUTAL to competitors who made it really far just because they were really popular. I appreciate skill, not the ability to pick a side on a topic that I happen to agree with in my personal life. Judging is a professional responsibility, not an invitation for me to vote my own personal views.

Put up or shut up. Whether it's forum warrioring or not, a refusal to defend a position you believe in when you're on a debate site is pretty lame imo.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:23:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why are you guys being so kind calling him a forum warrior. Just tell him what you really think. Tell him he's a pvssy.

This is the first and the last time I'll say this concerning that word and apparently people are too stupid to realize it but the term is in no way implying anything about women. It's like calling somebody a d1ck, when they're being a d1ck.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:26:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 3:23:04 AM, Wylted wrote:
Why are you guys being so kind calling him a forum warrior. Just tell him what you really think. Tell him he's a pvssy.

This is the first and the last time I'll say this concerning that word and apparently people are too stupid to realize it but the term is in no way implying anything about women. It's like calling somebody a d1ck, when they're being a d1ck.

I disagree about the language thing. You may not mean it in a gendered way, but the origins of the terms have gendered roots. Calling a man a pvssy is implying that he has woman-like qualities and needs to man up.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)