At the rate he's going, I think he will. It's been a while since we had an actual competition for the #1 spot. Should be interesting to watch.
Will Novice Pass Oromagi?
Posts
Total:
31
Supadudz sure tried his level best to stop it happening (corrupt vote moderation last minute).
-->
@RationalMadman
I haven't been following that controversy, so I have no input there. I don't think it will matter either way, though. Novice has ten debates in the voting period and is ahead in all of them. His rating is so high that it will probably take more than that to push him over the top, but I think he'll get there.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Oromagi legit voted him into a loss on a debate with less than 2 hours left and it went through!
He tried the same RFD on another debate and the vote mods got it removed in time.
He basically voted that because the debate says 'pick a topic, I will make it work' or 'do my best' etc, that Mall had proven that part true or false depending if Mall was Con or Pro.
Had Oro not done that, it would be even closer right now.
-->
@RationalMadman
To be honest, I don't want to touch that kind of controversy with a 39 and a half foot pole. I'm not on this site enough anymore to make it worth reading through it all and taking a side.
-->
@oromagi
@SirAnonymous
@Novice_II
Maybe. He's pulled within 100 elo.
I hope they have a championship debate when Novice gets close enough. It would be sick if they got within 10 elo of each other and then duked it out for the #1 spot.
-->
@Mharman
That would be fun.
-->
@Mharman
The fault is yours "Hillary Clinton.... could cause a war with us" would only be correct grammar if you were Russian, right? and I did not accuse, only asked with some expression of doubt.
- I think we have already had it. I think Novice lost badly by any objective standard for rational debate but he won the popular vote anyway. As I've long predicted, quantity must eventually outpace quality given the present ratings system but that doesn't give me any motivation to engage in debates in future, does it?
Does the leaderboard MEAN anything?
Not really. All it means, at least it seems, is how willing or ambitious one is to gain points and to achieve that by any means. To be fair, at this point with all the involution and stuff the top spot belongs to someone who can debate full-time and has an environment to do so. Elo in chess and pretty much anything signifies both how good you are and how often you play but you have to play often in order to be good in the eyes of the Elo. Surely, how much you play and how good you are have a positive correlation, but the Elo treats the "playing often" condition as possibly one necessary to measure skill itself, especially in the later stages where every good player is grinding wins.
As an 11th grader typing this inside a dorm with 7 people whilst simultaneously preparing for my AP Statistics exam, I have collected data about how fast my growth was back then in June-September. I don't remember the exact number but I believe the data concludes that I am able to topple Oromagi in about 4 months if the growth is linear. June-September is the time where all the big exams are out and school is not so important anymore and the time is all on the table for me --- a jerk with no life --- to spend, likely on something like debating. That is when the rate skyrocketed. I remember gaining 10 points in 24 hours in the 1750-1800 range. Now that I don't have enough attention as before to type responses this long nor do I have a concentrated environment long-term, I simply stopped going up. For people with a job or with a "life" in general, it is entirely understandable that the "top debaters" may even be outside the top ten.
We have enough people grinding wins enough so that it is needed in order to gain a considerable position on the board but also enough people NOT grinding wins despite also being good(such as 3ru7al, whiteflame, Bones) so that we don't just look at the leaderboard. In fact, we probably arrived at a point where we can conclude that the top debaters noobsnipes for sure. Top 10, maybe nah; top 3, I think the answer is affirmative.
My opinion? It doesn't matter. Were "yes" or "no" mandatory, I would say yes. The previous post by Oromagi clearly illustrates that even the present top-1 barely grinds anymore. Does gaining positions make you intrinsically better? Not exactly. Despite being at #3(#2 formerly) I would say my current form is MUCH WORSE than what I had in August, when I was still just like 6th or so. I don't think either Oromagi nor Novice will intrinsically get better apart from marginal additions of experience, but neither of them need any anymore as they are skilled in such extents. That is what I will say about it.
-->
@oromagi
You were purely hoping for a semantics-based win. Which a lot of the more prominent voters on the site seem to prefer (which I think is awful for intellectual progress in discussion). I'm actually glad most people looked past the semantics of that debate and instead decided to vote on whether it should be considered slavery. Most debates are won on semantics. People just run to definitions and discussions never really get off the ground, even when the opposing side makes more sense. In ancient Greek debates, if they found a contradiction, or a definition outside the norm made more sense than the primary definition, both parties would agree to use the new definition to find a more sound conclusion. That doesn't happen on this site, it seems. That's the core of Socrates's method of finding truth, poking holes in commonly held beliefs and usages of language.
-
If people refused to consider enslaving black people as slavery because they were black and not white (as in we made that the definition of slavery when one is only white), you would have a permanent semantic pivot to never consider enslaving black people as an equal wrong as a white person. Based on semantics alone, this is an issue.
This doesn't mean Novice is a good debater. I could be top 2 if I just went onto Mall's debates and took them
I would add, If we were to clarify my argument, I did not even ague that animal farming ought to be considered slavery fundamentally (although proven through my arguments). I argued that not labeling animal farming as slavery would produce a logical contradiction if we label certain treatment of humans as slavery so long as there is no ethically relevant distinction between them and we are deliberating a concept of personhood. I think the peculiar moderation intervention (to help my opponent win) is only indicative that the right decision occurred, and finally, might I add, given that the user in question had been dodging me for a while before that point (similar to how Barney is currently).
If by trajectory I become number one on the leader board, simply look at the number of debates I have, and the number of debates the user I pass has at that given moment. By estimation, I will have around 40 fewer—and this will tell you all you need to know about the respective quality of opponents we face.
Otherwise, I am not concerned with making the positive claim that I am a good debater; I am sure others will come to their own conclusions on that—I am only interested in beating people who are running away from me. That, on the face of it, seems like a humble mission.
Your rating is also catching up to him faster because of when he lost his debates versus when you lost yours. All three of oromagi's losses occurred after he passed 1900, which caused him to lose a lot of rating. You have two losses, one of which occurred early in your account history when your rating was lower. That loss was to oromagi, so you would have lost very few points due to the rating disparity. You have had one loss more recently, but have had about 15 debates finished since then.
This has nothing to do with who is a better debater, but it does impact the elo rating.
This is all cute talk and all but neither of them has fully refined to the general voter here or understood how to take fullest advantage of the format available here.
I use everything now, recently that is. My experience here gives me an edge here that I think will even securely lead to me defeating them under the right circumstances (more so then the other way around, them beating me with the edge). I have a very deep understanding of what the voters here value vs don't now and how the calculate who 'won' a debate. I have aimed to capitalise on it every single debate I make in the past month and a bit.
I have bit by bit experimented so many styles, lazy vs active approaches and all of that.
I know how to debate here at true efficiency, not wasting any effort and getting consistently good results. I only have done that by the errors and experiments gone wrong.
You just wait, I will overtake them both, it will happen before you expect it to.
You just wait, I will overtake them both, it will happen before you expect it to.
[Naruto music intensifies]
68% win ratio, btw.
68% win ratio, btw.
You poor thing, you're focusing on the stat that's irrelevant to the discussion.
I said I experimented, which you will reply with more nonsense to. So let me help you out here, you're a nobody with no wins here, all you can do is watch from the sidelines and commentate, so do what you do best, just please make it commentary that isn't so cringe.
You know the ties that should be wins? they don't only lower my winrate because they aren't wins, they actively take from winrate as non-win data.
Learning what people will vs won't vote on and how to make debates appealing to voters was part of my experimentation, which I needed the failed debates to know, i needed the losses and the ties as nobody else was experimenting like me about precisely how little effort to put in and the styles that work best vs worst to get voters bothering to show up and then vote for you.
Since you vote on almost nobody's debates except novice's randomly, I have to just tell you that your angle here is irrelevant unless you'd like to tell us that you are novice, that would be an interesting reveal.
-->
@oromagi
I think Novice lost badly by any objective standard for rational debate but he won the popular vote anyway.
ohhh so when the biased votes go in your favour, you are fine, but when they swing against you, suddenly they are in proper? for someone who always clowns on those who disagree with the US election being a democractic process, thhis complaint about the veracity of voting is quite funny
tell me exactly what you found wrong about Bones (better than you in debating) and Undefeatable (better than you in debating)'s vote. otherwise, shush up with your complaint
-->
@Novice_II
I did not even ague that animal farming ought to be considered slavery fundamentally.
Top stuff.
Sorry, but within the context of this thread the above statement made me smile.
I'm sure that you are a terrific debater.
-->
@Vici
From my view, I considered Bones vote to be perfect, and Undefeatable's to be, in essence, just as strong. I think that most people will agree that Barney's vote was logically incoherent, similar to whiteflames. Understanding that some people don't vote explicitly with logic and inferences is imperative to denoting those you should ban from voting on your debates in the rules. My current listing is as follows: Barney, Oromagi, Shila, and FLRW. Is there anyone else you recommend?
-->
@Novice_II
You are acting like a spoiled entitled brat. Notice how you only put people that voted with you as people with the correct votes. This is shameful entitleness. Stop acting like you are the best debater and can decide who is a good voter and not. Ragnar was a great debater in his time and still. Most of this site disagrees with how you view yourself, as feeling you are better than those around you which you are not. You have won 3/4 off of sniping mall and that is why your ELO is so high. The only skill that takes is clicking the mouse fast enough to take that debate.
Stop acting so entitled and acting better than people who have had more experience, respect, and class than you.
-->
@SirAnonymous
I don't remember the exact ELO formula, but in theory the Novice/Mall team can trade points until they claim the top and bottom spots.
While it will take a lot of really pointless debates, they have persistence.
-->
@Vader
You are acting like a spoiled entitled brat. Notice how you only put people that voted with you as people with the correct votes.
novice and I for the matter could easily say why bones and undefeatables votes are good - that they address the given arguments. On the other hand, it is also easy to say that barney's vote, which digresses into "abortion" and "personhood", neither of which were pivotal in the debate to hinge their vote.
-->
@Vici
'Personhood' was pivotal in that debate.
'Personhood' was pivotal in that debate.
no it wasn't the debate was about whether slavery can include animals, or at least that was 95 percent of orosadmis' case
-->
@Vici
It was actually Novice's main point that animals qualify for personhood, so whichever debater you voted for, 'personhood' was very important to consider in your vote.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Does the leaderboard MEAN anything?Not really. All it means, at least it seems, is how willing or ambitious one is to gain points and to achieve that by any means.
We have enough people grinding wins enough so that it is needed in order to gain a considerable position on the board but also enough people NOT grinding wins despite also being good(such as 3ru7al, whiteflame, Bones) so that we don't just look at the leaderboard.
Exactly. Well stated. I'm not surprised many members look to the leaderboards to determine who the "best" debaters are, but by my estimation--and this is my opinion--there are just three in the top 10 who are adept at constructing coherent arguments (e.g. oromagi's being at the top isn't just for show given that he's really good.) I've come across members who neglect the other sections besides "Debates" and are oblivious to the adept debaters in the forums like 3RU7AL, Greyparrot, Danielle, etc. who may avoid the regimental style of the Debates section, as it concerns discourse, merely out of preference.
In fact, we probably arrived at a point where we can conclude that the top debaters noobsnipes for sure. Top 10, maybe nah; top 3, I think the answer is affirmative.
I agree.
11 days later
Did Novice Pass Oromagi?
-->
@zedvictor4
Not yet. Twenty points to go.