The ELO ranking system is bad

Thanks to RyuuKyuzo for accepting.Con defined bad, but the full resolution was "The ELO ranking system is, on balance, not beneficial to the DDO Community. " as stated in the beginning of the debate."The elo system is bad" was only used because the full resolution didn't fit.My opponent's quotes are in bold.Point 1This is true, but this the point of the Elo system -- it discourages noob-sniping. This is not a "bad" thing, in fact it was one of the main reasons why Elo was introduced in the first place.However, this still does not refute the fact that it makes all debaters avoid newbies, not only n00b snipers. If debates from newbies are not accepted, then they will never be able to work their way up the ladder. There are currently two pages of open debates, most of which are instigated by new members . This is the same as it was before the Elo score was introduced.Actually, no. I am also going off memory, and when I joined (before ELO was introduced) there are only 3 open debates: Whether Frostedwits is better than DDO, Whether the benefits of individuals should be sacrificed for the benefit of the goup, and another debate I don't remember. Then, as ELO was introduced, the open debates rose to 5, then 10, then 12, then fluctuation between 5-10, then up to two and three pages right now.What my opponent has failed to take into consideration is that after a week, if no-one takes the debate, the challenge expires -- so debates are constantly cycling through either way.However, expired challenges can still be reinstated, and the challenge expiring won't help the newbies one bit.Point 2Pro states that Elo is unfair because people with already high Elo don't gain as many Elo points from winning a debate. This is true, but once again this is the point. Just as it is unimpressive for a pro-boxer to punch-out a four year old, so too is it unimpressive for someone with an Elo of 5000+ to beat a user with an Elo score <2000. The accomplishment is lesser, so the gain is lesser. This is the way it should be under a logical ranking system.However, remember how the 5000+ debater avoids the 2000 one? The 5000 one is more likely to challenge a user with 4750 or so elo. The problem is, even though their debating skills are relatively similiar, the 4750 one is STILL going to get more even though there is only a small difference.Pont 3Pro states that the Elo system contains loopholes, such as users deactivating their old accounts and creating new accounts to start with a fresh-slate. This is not a loophole, because these users aren't getting away with anything. They remove all their old loses, but they also remove all their old wins, and since most of the active user-base has an Elo above 2000 (the default Elo after completing 1 debate), most users would actually be lowering their own Elo. However, con ignores the fact that ELO will treat them as a "newbie", resulting in the "noob" to get more benefits from winning debates. Also, sorry I forgot to mention that if anyone completes their first debate, they will get 2000 elo. So they get benefits because the system treats them as "noobs".Pro states that the Elo system doesn't take into account vote-bombing. This is a non-sequitur. Vote-bombing was an issue before the Elo update as well. Elo wasn't meant to solve vote-bombing. Vote-bombing is an issue distinct from the issues Elo was made to solve, and so Vote-bombing is irrelevant to this resolution.Lets say there are debators A (5000 elo) and B (2000 elo) in a debate. If the vote bombers vote for one side, then the A debator will only get like 20 elo. However, if the vote bombers vote for B, then the B debator will get like 200 elo. This means that vote bombers can easily bring down strong debators who are against their opinions. If there was no elo, then vote bombers cannot bring down the strong debators easily through the benefit given to B.