Debate.org should redo the formula for calculating the leaderboard and percentile

Thank you for responding. I have yet to see a reason why experience should not rule in ties. If two people have won and lost the same ratio of times, but one has more experience, the person with more experience should win. That person is much more likely to be a better debater. "The opponent explains this is why his equation is better. However, isn't the same statement true of the current leader board?" Actually, no. Con has not shown a reason for why there are such oddities in the leader board as I explained in round 1. People with less experience and a bad win ratio are above people with more experience and a better win ratio. Go ahead, check page 17 of the leader board. That's where I am. http://www.debate.org.... I have 9 debates, 8 won, 1 lost. The four people above me have 7 debates, 3 wins, 4 lost. Now who should OBVIOUSLY be above, me or those people? There's no reason for them to be above me. They've been there for the past week, so it's not a problem of updating the board. Another guy, InfraRedEd. 54 debates, 3 wins, 49 losses, 2 ties. Here's an example for Con to munch on. This is a severe example of misusing the "experience" part in the status quo. This guy is above people who have 100% win ratios and more than ten debates. 3 wins and 49 losses: that's really bad. Despite his experience, it's obvious to see that he is not a good debater. That is how my equation is balanced. Experience doesn't RULE, it just breaks ties. 1. "Not completely based on win ratio- Neither is the current system." The current system is not based on completely win ratio, obviously. That's not what I was arguing. What I was arguing is that Con was suggesting that it should be based off wins and losses, not experience. That would mean someone with 1 debate and 1 win is above Danielle. Yes, that's not the status quo. But since Con keeps trying to put down experience as nothing, he obviously wants a win ratio based sytem. There's no other away around that besides experience. What THAT means is that Con doesn't even agree with the current system. He's agreeing it needs to be changed. He is not fulfilling his duty. 2. "The current system allows people with less experience to be above those with more experience" Yes, it does. So does mine. Cross-apply the examples in round 3 of debater A and debater B. Even though one had greater experience, it was very possible for him to lose. Again, my formula is well balanced. Let's use InfraRedEd from page 17 again. Yes, he has lots of experience. But 49 losses means he'll have a score of -40. That will put him way down compared to a fresh debater who has won all of his rounds. If experience was not a factor, that would give poor InfraRedEd -94, which is unfair. 3. "As mentioned before, experience is not a major factor, and wins and losses count more." I believe my opponent is referring to the status quo's formula. Cross-apply my example of InfraRedEd. He's on page 17, way above where he should be, just because of his 54 debates. He obviously does not deserve such a position. "How is the opponent's system better when they are very similar?" The only difference is that my formula is drastically improved and doesn't have major problems with it. Just use all my examples of how the current formula is failing and providing inaccurate results. "Also, why does experience rule in ties? Although the more experienced person did win more, they lost more also. Obviously, the opposition is false in saying that the system is not biased against experience,when the experienced will get the upper hand in ties." Con is trying to suggest that we shouldn't try to break ties. As I explained before several times, if you have debated 100 times and lost half of them, you're almost certainly better than someone who debates 6 times and loses half. You've debated more, and you've probably debated harder people. My formula is not only based on accomplishment, but also skill. That is important. Please vote Pro because there is no reason to stick with the current flawed formula. Note to voters: please cast aside personal bias when voting. If you want to show your opinion, you can do so with the top two radio buttons asking who you agree with, and with your comment. Also, I would encourage you to read over this post again after you've read my opponent's response. It will refresh your mind with my responses and allow you to determine whether he really responded adequately or not. Thank you, Con, for this debate, and thank you voters for voting. (Also thank you all who have read this whether or not they voted).