The ELO ranking system is bad

Con points out the the full resolution doesn't contain the word "bad". This is true, but "not beneficial" and "defective" are essentially the same thing for the purposes of this debate, so I'm not sure what his point is here.Case 1: My opponent insists that the Elo system causes everyone to avoid noob debates, not just noob-snipers, which makes it difficult for noobs to get debates. This is not true. Clicking over to the voting period page, we can see that most debates started by noobs were also accepted by noobs [1]. I know this debate isn't meant to be heavy on sources, but this is the sort of thing that is either true or false, and requires a source to prove one way or the other.Pro asserts that the amount of debates in the challenge period have gone up significantly since he joined. There is still only two pages in the challenge section right now, but it's worth noting that the rate of debates in general has constantly been going up: Clearly there is no lack of debating going on around here. We also have to take into account that since DDO is online and free to join, the user base is constantly expanding. Therefore, it is expected that the amount of open debates will gradually be increasing over time. This isn't a problem, this is expected.Pro states that expired debates can be re-instated, which doesn't help noobs one bit. Actually, it does. The ability to re-issue a debate increases the chances of an interested party finding it and taking it. Once again, the rate of debating has gone up, not down. The problem Pro is mentioning doesn't exist.Case 2:Pro's point lacks impact. He states that a user with an Elo of >5000 would avoid a user with an Elo <2000. This is true, but it isn't a problem. He goes on to state that a user with an Elo of 4750 would receive slightly more Elo from beating a user >5000 than said user would get from beating the user with an Elo of 4750. This is true, but once again it isn't a problem. The user with the lower Elo score should gain more from winning. A higher risk gives a higher payoff and a lower risk gives a lower payoff. This is the point of a relative system.Case 3:Pro says that Elo gives preferential treatment to noobs by giving them a higher payoff for beating non-noobs. Pro has argued this same point over and over again in this debate. Look, We all know that low-Elo users will gain more from beating high-Elo users than vice-versa. This isn't a problem -- it's the entire purpose of Elo. This is the way it ought to be. The Elo system was meticulously formulated to do just this. Pro states that Elo gives preferential treatment to noobs by giving them 2000 Elo after their first debate. 2000 is the default Elo. You have to start some where. The exact point is arbitrary. It just so happens that for the DDO Elo formula, 2000 was chosen to be the default. Every single new user got this default Elo after winning their first debate and every single old user had this factored into their current Elo score. Since everyone got this benefit, it can be said that everyone is getting preferential treatment, and if everyone is getting preferential treatment, no one is. Pro gives an example of what could happen if vote-bombers vote for a user with lower Elo. This is a non-sequitur. It is still the case that vote-bombing is irrelevant to Elo. Vote-bombers vote in-line with their own beliefs on whatever the topic being debated was. This has nothing to do with Elo. Once again, it is true that a high-Elo user will lose more Elo against a low-Elo user than vice-versa, but (also once again) this is they way it's meant to be. Vote-bombs or not, the user with the higher chance of losing should stand to gain a higher amount of Elo. Yes, vote-bombing is awful, but it was awful pre-Elo too and removing the Elo system won't remove vote-bombing, so this point is moot.ConclusionPro has failed to defend his original position in the face of my R1 counter argument. Most of his points have converged into a single argument -- low Elo users stand to gain more than high-Elo users; a point I turned in R1 and reiterated now in R2. As such, the resolution is still negated. I turn the debate over to Pro.1. http://debate.org...