Debate.org should use Elo based rating system for leaderboard

Thanks for you post.In my post I had asked con to take a position so that we may debate accordingly. In reality - XimenBao has taken three different position! I will suggest that the three positions are unlikely to simultaneously reflect his true opinion. He is not sure of any of his argument and is just hedging his bets - hoping I will fail to defend Elo system against at least one of the propositions. The drawback of this approach is that he has not been able dedicate himself to any the arguments. This has also changed this into a lengthy debate (so much so that my opponent had to post references in comments section). The debate would have been more interesting and intense had he chosen his most preferred option from the three and argued it thoroughly. Still, I will do my best in this 3 in 1 debate.==Rebuttals==Status Quo: 'To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are' [1].1. The goal of debate.org: Con has referred to the purpose of debate.org to argue that 'there is an absence of any language suggesting that ranking or competition is a goal of the site.' However as the leaderboard already exists and users can check their ranks or percentiles (even if on flawed basis), this argument is irrelevant. I am asking for an improvement of an existing feature - not addition of a completely new feature.2. Kinds of debate: Troll debates and inconsistent voting are areas of concern in this community[2][3]. All other kind of debate do have a win-loss feature over them - which ultimately contributes to their rank and are taken quite seriously. The joke debates actually needs lots of skill. Since these results already contribute to the ranking, they cannot be used to justify status quo.3. Motivation for long term membership:My opponent belives that 'high ranking requires long-term membership and frequent visits to the site'.a) High rank is not based on number of debate - but number of win. So obviously that is not the whole purpose.b) My opponent concedes - it is not accurate method about skill. Since this is not an accurate measure of skill - it fails as a tool of motivation for the best debaters.c) I have explained why Elo based system is better for motivation and the current system can be abused. My opponent has conceded all my arguments by not countering them.To add another small point, the current format encourages debaters to accept troll challenges. This is because a win against a top 10 debater is equal to a win against troll. This act encourages trolls. Is that the goal of debate.org?No system: Here I will be arguing that any system is better than no system1. Not sport: My opponent argues that debates are not sports like chess. A debate on debate.org has following feature. a) Each debate ends in Win/Loss or tie. b) In general - a better debater is likely to win against a worse debater.If you agree with two statements above, consistent rankings can be prepared, just like chess. If you disagree with them, then you should start a separate debate arguing that debate.org should do away with win/lose concept. If that happens - my guess is only trolls would remain here.2. Vote bombs, No votes, Biased votes: I admit these are problems. However these are the problem with debate.org voting system. Debate.org community is concerned about problems like this and is trying to combat it. You can see several discussion on this issue in debate.org forum. If you think these issues render debate.org results totally meaningless, you should argue to abolish win/loss concept as such.All the problems that the pro has highlighted are with the concept of winning and losing in debate.org - not with a ranking system. So I think we will gain nothing by debating it here. You are welcome to challenge me to a separate debate about that.I agree with Pro that debates provide lots of opportunity to learn new things and interact with people apart from win/loss. However I do not see why having a good statistical ranking system will end that.Glicko-2 system: As per Prof. Mark E Glickman author of Glicko and Glicko-2 system (from the link provided by you)"I created the Glicko rating system in response to a particular deficiency in the Elo system which I describe below..."and further,The Elo system, coincidentally, turns out to be a special case of my system.The Glicko system is just a variant of Elo system. The original Elo system is a special case of Glicko system. In my original resolution I had not said 'Elo system' but rather 'Elo based rating system'.Interestingly I provided a reference to topcoder (It is an online forum for Programmers who compete with each other and also collaborate to solve industry problem). They don't really use pure Elo system. They have an in-house variant[4] which is far more sophisticated than either pure Elo or Glicko. They don't really have 2 player matches. The programmers have to submit some tasks which are then awarded points based on correctness + time taken to submit the task. These points are then compared to top scores and average scores to calculate ratings (They have volatility feature also).Debate.org can also modify Elo system to consider number of votes polled. For example if the result of this debate is 1200 to 1000 votes - both should gain points as both performed better than expected. However going for this approach may be more expensive. Elo system is available for free and can be implemented easily.==Conclusion==In my opening round I built a case for Elo based rating system.My opponent conceded those points and presented miscellaneous untenable alternatives - which I exposed.Vote ProI would like to wish Best of luck to XimenBao for future debates.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://apps.topcoder.com...