The DDO leader board does not accurately list the top debaters

Thank you. Let us begin by analyzing one of the definitions that have been put forth. "top debaters - debaters that are the best on DDO" What exactly is there to define "top debaters?" Why exactly is the definition that my opponent provided the right one, and better than the one the official leader board? In fact, his definition is rather weak because it does not elaborate on "top debater(s)" at all. A top debater can refer to many things. It can refer to a debater with most debates. It can refer to a debater with most wins. It can refer to a debater with best in ratio. It can refer to a debate that has received most votes overall on his debates. It can refer to lots of things. Just saying "top debaters" is void. Moving on, my opponent claimed that the leader board bases the top debaters on the amount of wins, but that it is inaccurate - and for many reasons. What is wrong with the leader board doing that? Let us analyze the reasons, though 1. The first page of the leader board is "dominated" by the members who joined about two years ago, that is correct. However, there are literally over 100 pages of the leader board, and you can find members who have been here for less than two years, and still have good ranks on specific pages. For more in-depth rebuttal on this point, please read the next one, too. 2. My opponent claimed that the leader board does not take the win ratio into consideration, only the amount of wins. This is a mendacious claim. If you look at the leader board,[1] you will realize that there is a category called "Win Ratio." If you click on it,[2] you will realize that the debaters on from the overall wins are not dominating the first page of "Win Ratio." This directly negates my opponent's argument. In fact, these debaters that are listed have barely got 20 debates, which makes it evident that you do not need two years to have a good rank of win ratio. 3. A very weak argument has been put forth by my opponent. He essentially claimed that "the leader board does not take into consideration who one is debating." No, but neither does it prevent any member from debating with whomever he/she wants. As can be read from the rest of the argument, my opponent believes that it is unfair of the leader board not to take into consideration who one is debating. There are a few points to be made against this: o He does not specify "bad debaters." Who are the good debaters that keep debating the bad ones? What about the bad ones debating with the even more bad ones, and ad infinitum? Where do we draw the line? o Everyone here has a right to debate freely. It would be unfair if the site did not allow all members to debate with whomever they wished to so that they could win, but that is, however, not the case. It would only be unfair if only specific people had the right to debate so-called "bad" debaters. You also have the right to do the same. Nothing is unfair in those terms. Also, if someone is really good but has no good official rank, then why is he more likely to lose, as my opponent stated? If indeed he/she is very skilled with regard to debating, then beating a high-ranked debater should not be exceptionally hard. And if that were the case, then the leader board is accurate in describing the best debaters, contrary to what my opponent claimed. My opponent stated, "Going up against the best debaters requires much more thought and time into one's debate. This will harm ones chances of getting into the leader board, since he or she could spend his or her time entering other debates. More debates= more chances to win = higher ranker on leader board" o One is on the leader board after one debate only. He just is not on the first page. o Why does my opponent call the high-ranked debaters "best debaters" when he seems to disagree with the theory that they are, in fact, the best debaters? Throughout this round, he talked about the fact that it is hard to beat them, etc. Yes, then do they not deserve their ranks? Furthermore, it is not possible for the leader board to ever list the "top debaters" accurately, technically speaking. However, it can officially. We can keep defining a "top debater" forever to come, and instead of wasting time on that we should have a simple system - which we already do - that can list the official top debaters. There is amount of debates, debate wins, and win ratio. That is certainly sufficient. Just because it may be hard for new members to reach the top ranks shows no unfairness whatsoever. You need to strive throughout life. -- Conclusion -- As I explicated, my opponent's arguments are weak because they provide no alternatives to the current leader board, they are false at some points (e.g argument about no win ratio), and they are sort of self-defeating. If the best debaters (i.e. the high-ranked ones) are hard to beat for new members, then new members do not deserve the same ranks. I thank my opponent once more. -- References -- [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...