The ranking system should be abolished

Rebuttal: Pro's round 1 argument; "it encourages criminal minded people and other devious individuals to manipulate the system to boost their ranking by artificial means" I assume by "artificial means", you mean votes, right? Explain how votes are bad. Also, explain how the top 100 people are criminals, and with evidence, of course. Just 1 debate as evidence of 100 people being criminals. .. that's too big of a step to be reasonable. "The ranking system is more likely to be a indication of criminal behaviour, than it is of debating skill" This is a grand statement, which needs valid evidence and logic to be accepted as true. Pro hasn't proven much of anything, which I will get into in my Conclusion at the end of my round. "The ranking system should be abolished because it is not working and is being abused by people with no moral or ethical values. " How do you know people aren't being moral or ethical in their votes, and positions? You've only brought up 1 debate as an example, but I would like a few more. Pro's round 2 argument; "This debate by Mikal is a good example of how top ranking debaters get massive points. " Can you show other examples, if you don't mind? We're referring to 100 people, and this is only 1 example. Pro needs at least 5 more examples, and explain those briefly as well. I present Mikal's argument (which the cupcake recipe was just filler, since he knew the Instigator was just going to leave): "Con makes a bunch of flawed statements by stating that you need a God in order to create a religion. A religion not does necessitate belief in a deity. Scientology is just one example of this A religion is a set of beliefs and practices that people follow So yes you can create a religion and it has been done numerous times throughout history. Every religion has been created in that sense. " - Mikal Again, the cupcake recipe is just to fill in the extra 9,000 characters, since the Instigator abandoned the debate starting round 2. Now let's continue the rebuttal! "Mikal replies with a irrelevant and nonsensical response which causes the opponent to give up in disgust. " Prove the Instigator abandoned the debate because he face palmed too much. "His opponent has at least stated his position on the topic. " Which was refuted by Mikal, as I've shown. "Mikal is awarded 22 points for doing absolutely nothing" Actually, I guess you didn't see the first part of Mikal's argument, which I copy/pasted above. "This is serious abuse of the system and should have been reported by the voters. " If you disagree with a vote, you yourself can report it, and a staff will check it out. Now for why Mikal won: The Instigator abandoned the debate, which all 4 votes pointed out ("FF"/"Forfeiture"). Of those 4 votes, one pointed out that Mikal refuted the Instigator's position, which he did. Now that I've finished my rebuttal, I'll present my argument. Argument: Point 1; Rankings and top 5's. Elo Rankings: Elo are points you gain when you are voted in a debate (my assumption, anyways). Top 5 are: Mikal (9,000), RoyLatham (7,849), bsh1 (7,724), Danielle (7,240), Kleptin (6,887). Debates Won: The debates which you have won. Top 5 are: imabench (441 won / 589 total), Danielle (374/531), 16kadams (296/352), lannan13 (281/452), Mikal (270/279) Percentile: Not sure what this is, but I think it's a proud achievement to have a high percentile. Top 5 are: imabench (100%), Danielle (100%), Mikal (99.99%), lannan13 (99.99%), 16kadams (99.99%). In these lists I've made, Danielle and Mikal are in all 3. lannan13 and 16kadams are both in Debates Won, and Percentile. Pro's suggesting these people are criminals. Explain how they are criminals, and give evidence, whether it be a debate, proof that they're using dual accounts, hacking, etc. Conclusion: In my opinion, Pro hasn't given sufficient evidence of the top 100 people using this site are in any way criminals. Pro said it, he needs to back it up. If he was exaggerating, he'd better say so (I think he might be serious, though). Pro's case is running on the "Fallacy of Division". He basically says "since Mikal appears to be a criminal, everyone in the rankings must be a criminal". Sure, someone may have cheated into the rankings, but it isn't logical to assume everyone is a criminal. In order for Pro to win this debate, he must do the following: - Pro must prove Danielle, lannal13, and Mikal are criminals and have cheated into the rankings. - Pro must successfully defend himself from my rebuttal against him. If he fails, his Burden of Proof remains unfulfilled. - Pro must also explain his reasoning in great detail. Don't let those 8,000 characters go to waste!