All you've been saying is that yes, I've only had 10 hard debates on this site, but its not as bad as it seems! You're saying what im saying but making it look better by naming out the 10 debaters in the last 6 years or so.
Three and half years with a two year hiatus between debates 99 and 100- so one and half years of active debating on this site.
I'm saying you are drawing false conclusions from superficial analysis, just as you tried to correct how many top debaters I've sparred with. There's plenty of junk debates of necessity but I think you give far too little consideration to a lot of hard engagements with talented and tenacious debaters. I don't think you've been on this website long enough to know how smart and challenging debaters like Athias or Fauxlaw or Jeff_Goldblum or Mharman or PressF or twenty others can be. I've won the longest and shortest debates on this site. I think I've engaged on the widest range of subjects by a significant margin- shit I know absolutely nothing about artificial intelligence, plane engines, boxing, etc. I'm very proud of winning many difficult engagements that you ignorantly blow off as foregone conclusion.
Take that recent "abortion is immoral" debate that just ended. Vici taunted me like you did until I accepted a debate but I'd gone to bed before I realized that he made the debate argument time 2 hours and had submitted his canned debate right after acceptance. I had less than hour to wake up and write an argument good enough to make him forfeit the rest of the debate. You look at that superficially and say, "Oh Oro beat some guy on his first day on the site who didn't even bother with his second round" but in fact, that was a very difficult test that I'm proud to have won, even if novices' don't appreciate the degree of difficulty.
I guess that's what I'm saying- I'll match the degree of difficulty in those debates against any other debater here and care not a fig for your uninformed opinion regarding that degree of difficulty.