On Debate.org debates, there is, on balance, a net Contender advantage.

For this, I will focus mostly on general trends, since the resolution is "on balance" and "net" advantages, but I will also make sure to address the specific examples. Remember, Pro must show, 1)There is, on balance, a net advantage, for the contender. 2)That the advantage is due to them being the contender and not some other factor (such has being a higher skilled debater). General Trends This alone would appear to be a very damning piece of evidence. It is not a sample size, it is all debates, so one cannot argue that it is not an accurate representation of the whole. However, there are some things that are left out. The first is looking into alternative hypothesizes to explain the difference. Should other hypothesizes, logical and statistical tests must be done to find out which is accurate. So here is my alternative hypothesizes. The difference is caused, not by a natural bias in the system, but by the different average skills of the debaters. For that, I'd like to give my first piece of evidence. Different average ELO scores. Of those 13,285 debates, the instigator has a weighted average ELO score of 2,230.95 and the contender has a weighted average ELO score of 2,847.49 [1, you can see the formula as well as the result]. This indicates that based on the skill difference, an average of .5 wins per debate for the instigator would not be expected, and so the stats that were run in my opponent's R2 no longer prove anything. As such, this evidence does not prove, nor disprove either theory, for that, please continue reading. We should also remember that my opponent said "This assumes that neither debater is acting naive or forfeiting any rounds. " Now, I don't think it is a stretch to claim that many debates have instigator forfeits, and I hope that wasting time and space gathering evidence will not be needed for that assumption (but if needed, I'll gladly prove it), that said, I believe it would be better to look at a selected population, where such issues (like forfeiting) is less likely to occur, and so have less of an effect. For this, I looked at 2 different groups (all based on ELO rankings, which the top 150 have been made public). The first that we'll look at is "3k v 3k," and "4k+ v 4k+" (or top 29). 1)3k v 3k What this is, is looking at all the debates of members with ELO rankings around 3,000 (+- 200) verse other members of the same ELO ranking. All in all, there are 32 debates which fall in this category, 9 of them since 2010 (when the voter tab became public and vote bombing because less common, though not extinct) [2]. With these debates, the ELO difference has been mostly negated, we find that the average instigator is within 100 ELO points of the average contender. We also find that the instigator has won 16 of the 32 debates (a dead split). Should there be an "on balance" contender advantage, this would not be expected, and must have some explanation as to why this differs from the theory. I would also like to take this opportunity to show the significance of the Null hypothesis (meaning that the 50% win is not a fluke), much like my opponent did in his round. We find a z-value of 0, and we can conclude with 100% certainty that this is not random [3]. 2)4k+ v 4k+ Much like the 3k v 3k, this was done on all debates of which members with ELOs of 4,000 or above debated other members of 4,000 and above. Here, we actually see somewhat of a halfway between the 3k v 3k, and the total debates. Among these members, there were 121 debates, which ended in a 55 – 66 record for the instigator (or 45.45% wins). However, like with the total debates, we do see a difference of average ELO rankings between the instigators and contenders. This time of about 300 points (5318.12 v 5608.93). Like my theory would predict, the higher ELO score would give them an advantage, however less significant do to the scores being closer. Prediction abilities This actually starts to fall on a rather linear relationship between instigator ELO scores vs contender ELO scores and instigator win%. Simply the deviation from 50% is (I-C)/2I (where I = Instigator ELO and C = contender ELO). With the standard group, we find that the large difference in ELO would estimate that the Instigator wins 36.18% of the time (real numbers are 34.46%), the difference between real and predicted numbers is easily explained through the forfeits which are bias against instigators. When looking at the 4k+ debates, it predicts a 47.26% win for the instigators (real numbers are 45.45%), this is well within the margin of error and is not rejected by any significance level [4]. With the 3k debates, this would predict that a 51.08% win for the instigators (real numbers are 50.00%). This, too, is well within the margin of error so that it passes all significance levels. Simplicity For the prediction, we can see that it is pretty darn close. Now, of course, it is entirely possible that I tried to force some equation to fit these various tests (in which case, one could not claim prediction, since that would be circular). However, the simplicity of (I-C)/2I would indicate no forcing was involved. When you see forcing, you'll often see a number of coefficients whose only purpose is to make it work. Here we have no coefficients at all. Specific Examples My opponent goes on and lists 5 specific examples which he believes shows a particular advantage to the contender. Oddly enough, on these, every opposing debater has a higher ranked ELO, and in one example, despite the "contender advantage" the instigator still won. Now, I'm not going to get into debating every little feature of every debate that my opponent feels the instigator should have won. Even with 800,000 characters, that would never be enough. However, while there are some advantages to being the contender, there are also advantages to being instigator, such as setting the resolution and definitions to best suit your arguments (can be very effective if your opponent does not see how the definitions aid you). Cherry picked examples cannot possibly show that, on balance, the contender has the net advantage. Thank you [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://www.debate.org... [3] . http://www.wolframalpha.com... [4] . http://www.wolframalpha.com...