The DDO leader board does not accurately list the top debaters

Thank you. My opponent began the last round by stating that I put forth an ad hominem attack to support my case against him. This is a very untrue statement without any form of doubt. If someone argues semantically, I have every moral right to speak out against it. I will stick to what I said. When you say one thing and then sneak around it by talking about something else to defend yourself, that is not appropriate. That is not good conduct either. Furthermore, a definition of a word does in and itself not necessarily serve us well. It can turn subjective in its deep meaning. When we say "top debater" we need a deeper definition than that. We need to ask ourselves what a top debater is. What if one debater wins all his debates, but another debater wins many more debates? Who should we call "top debater?" -- Rebuttals -- 1. Wins and win ration My opponent said, "Nobody cares how many wins one has or what one's win ratio is. People want to know which debaters are 'better' than the other. I have clearly defined why the leader board does not determine which debater is better than the other." That is [his] opinion, dear readers. He said that nobody cares how many wins one has or what the win ratio is. It seems like he has not read my arguments thoroughly, then. I clearly support a leader board defining top debater with win ratio or debate wins. "If debater A is ranked higher than debater B, then debater A is more likely to win a debate the debater, assuming it is a fair debate topic." But then it [is] true that the leader board defines "top debater" in a correct way. If debater A is ranked higher than debater B and is more likely to win, then what is wrong about the leader board? "RoyLatham has defeated theLwerd in all debates he had with her. RoyLatham has also defeated brian_eggleston multiple times in debates. However, RoyLatham is ranked lower than both of them." That is because the leader board [accurately] lists top debaters [as it defines them]. It places ranks with e.g. wins and amount of debates. What is wrong with this? If my opponent does not have a good taste for it then that is his subjective view. The leader board accurately lists top debaters as it defines them. Also, what I meant by the leader board never being able to being fully accurate is that because we all have different views on what a top debater should be, it can never be accurate in the sense that nobody sees something being with flaws. Somebody will always object to whatever system it is. Therefore, my argument is entirely valid and does not negate my stance on the issue. "Clearly not all the debaters on the first page of the leader board are the best." They are "top" according to the leader board. If you disagree, you disagree subjectively, not objectively. "If one were to look at the win ratio category of the leader board, there are debaters on the first page who have only won one debate. I won my first debate. The debater forfeited. My win ratio is now only 60%. This category of the leader board does not show the best debaters either." The category exists, contrary to what my opponent negated entirely. We still have a 100% accurate win category of wins. Ditto for amount of debates. 2. Discrimination against those who discovered the website later. "His words state otherwise. He justifies this discrimination stating that older members have 'struggled' to get where they are by participating in debates. The same is true with new members. There are new members who debate well. For examples, Sieben who has been here for only 1 month has won almost all his debates against good debaters." Where have my words "stated otherwise?" There is [no discrimination]. The older members deserve their spots because they have struggled to have many debates and debate wins. The newer ones can do the same and get the se ranks. And the member mentioned won four debates. Top debaters won 100+. "Just because these members did not discover the website sooner does not mean these members have not struggled." Of course not. One has been here 2 years other 1 month. Clearly the latter has struggled mostly. And that is sarcasm. "Those that were the first to discover the website will always have an advantage against those who have discovered it later." No, others can debate quickly if they want. "Even if members who just recently discovered the website stay for years, these members will never be able to make it onto the DDO leader board. How is that fair?" It is fair. They can do it by doing many debates. 3. Factoring in win ratio I have two other fully accurate categories to support my case. My opponent has not negated my arguments. 4. Factoring in who one is debating The mathematical equation does not seem to make sense. People should be able to debate whoever they want. Anyone is free to do so and that is very good. The bad debaters can become good by being challengedby the good debaters. Why is this negative? The rest of the arguments are simply void. The leader board is accurate in describing top debaters. Win amount and debate amounts count for it. My opponent disagrees, but subjectively. Thank you.