Savant

Yes, when I get home I will remove Nyxified from the queue and have the other matches start first, then you can start on Monday.

I wasn't trying to single you out there, just not sure exactly how many of the users are viewing Discord vs. here.

For any who aren't on Discord, matchups are as follows:

whiteflame vs. Savant

Hyper vs. Nyxified

LancelotDuLac vs. GreatfulGoy

Thoth vs. Kohai

Hyper and Nyxified are up next to enter the queue.

You are assigned a side.

The cost of food for one person, assuming only cheap food is bought, is less than 4000$ for whole life

That seems pretty low, I'm not finding any sources that give anywhere near that number. Plus you have to factor in the logistics of transporting all that food. Not necessarily against a food-oriented charity (there might be ways to improve nutrition cost effectively), but is there any charity that hands out food and says it can save a life for that low cost? Should be easy to find one if it's as simple as $4,000 to feed a starving person for life.

Another thing to take into account is that even if you feed someone for life, you don't know for certain they'd have died otherwise. It's a bit like nets (which are more cost effective), but you help a lot of people and then estimate how many would have died without your help.

That wasn't an insult, sorry if it came across that way. I approved all your topics.

I'll just put "more" and let the debaters haggle over the details...don't want to be too confusing.

Topic isn't totally clear...I will rephrase but want to confirm. "Both sides must prove that on balance, the correlation between the rise in technology has or has not impacted sociability of humans either negatively for Pro or positively for Con. Neither side can take pure neutrality." Is Con arguing that tech has made people more sociable, or just that it hasn't made them less sociable?

food saves a life if given to person that would otherwise starve without it

Sure but then you have to feed them again and again, so the costs add up significantly. And giving food might cause people to lose motivation to work, but donating medicine doesn't really hurt their motivation, since they still have to eat. And if they are super sick they might be unable to work.

But you must check the charity organization really good. Like, it must be top charity organization in your country and not some randomly selected organization.

Top charity orgs by cost-effectiveness:

https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

Take topic/vote quizzes, then propose topics that meet the criteria. If you click to earn vote badges, you should just get 3 temporary badges for free, since no ultrarated debates are in the voting queue.

Please go to your profile > badges, and earn 3 vote badges and 3 topic badges (if you already have 3 of each, don't worry about it). That will be required before we can start the debates.

You are only doing one debate at a time. Sorry if there was confusion about that.

There's only one rubric, it's for ultrarated. But it was updated.

This might seem like a pain, but the voting rubric and rules have been updated, so I switched everyone's perms so they need to take the quiz again. (Should be easy though.) I discussed this with whiteflame, and the reason for this is frameworks and formatting. Basically, different debaters take different approaches to debate and frameworks, meaning that voters will often penalize debaters who have a different view of how frameworks should work (either negating them entirely or punishing debaters who don't use one). Basically, winners can effectively be decided by who is lucky enough to have voters that agree with their school of thought. If one side argues with a Lincoln–Douglas format and someone else with a Public Forum format, getting two Lincoln–Douglas judges will decide the winner.

So, new rules on voting will basically standardize the format somewhat in that frameworks will be defaulted to as a weighting mechanism. Decided to err on the side of favoring frameworks in ultrarated because (a) they make it easier for voters to judge objectively, and (b) having a standard gets everyone on the same page and will hopefully reduce "format bias," so to speak. Debaters are still allowed to pick any framework they want, but they should use a framework and defend it. All it does in my view is change the order debaters put their arguments, but if that means that the expectations for each side are more clear up front, I think it's worth trying out. This will only apply to ultrarated, though. Everywhere else, it's still the wild west.

Also, if everyone hates this change, we can roll it back. Just explaining the logic behind it.

1. Anyone can propose topics, but there are strict criteria for fairness. Mods approve proposed topics that meet said criteria.
2. When you start a debate, you are matched with a random opponent of similar ultrarated elo level. Topic and sides are randomly assigned, but it's a topic neither of the debaters proposed, to avoid a huge knowledge advantage.
3. For this tournament structure, we're making it more fair by having a large number of participants so that matches correlate more with skill and it's less feasible to noob snipe.
4. There are strict voting criteria to try to avoid bias.
5. Every debate gets 3 votes. You have to vote on a few debates to start a debate. Voters are randomly assigned.

Basically it is designed to address the biggest issues people had with the leaderboards on DART and ddo. I'm hoping this becomes as solid as chess elo, or as impartial as it is possible for debate elo to be, but we shall see.

I think ultrarated should just be a regular rating bonus for winning

How would that work? The whole point is that it prevents gaming the system by randomizing topics and skill matching opponents.

Well the idea is to power match with some randomness, so it helps to have everyone in before starting. Shouldn't take long to get the last three, and tbh I still need to do a few things for YouTube and update the voting rubric.

Judges are randomly assigned and anyone can be one. Only difference from regular is they have to pass a quiz showing they understand how to be objective. If you do a dozen ultrarated debates, you will get dozens of different judges.

cushioned by many riles and judge biases or the street brawl mosntrocity that has a high winrate on the streets

Everyone has biases though. Tournament is designed to eliminate them as much as possible. How is the high winrate on the streets calculated and how does it guard against bias? Mikal had the highest winrate on ddo and you weren't happy with that either.

Um yes, that's why we need multiple rounds.

So who won the first one?

It's still going, it's a multi-round tournament. But some people dropped out. If you want to see who is winning right now, check the leaderboard.

See above

Please sign up here to participate in the second round of the ultrarated tournament. I'd like to have 8 participants ideally.

1. Savant

2. whiteflame

3. Kohai

4. GreatfulGoy

5. LancelotDuLac

6. Hyper

7. Thoth

8. Nyxified

you continue to conflate everyone with viewpoints on the political left as if they’re a hive mind playing the same game

I think it's clear I'm specifically talking about the political strategists in the Democratic party that are trying to win elections, as well as others on the left working to that end. The same way you are describing "the right" to describe many people on the right even though we know not everyone on the right is a hive mind.

the right excels at buzzwords because that’s what their constituency has the capacity to understand. I find that embarrassing as well, but for very different reasons.

So I actually agree with this. The issue is that the left is playing to their weaknesses by playing this game. I think that memes and slogans and mocking nicknames are a bad political strategy, but the left clearly is trying to play this game even though they aren't very good at it. For whatever reason, there's a strong desire by many on the left to "beat Trump at his own game." I'd rather they not take that route, but here they are, taking it. So I think critiquing the left's well-acknowledged messaging problem is fair game.

Which, in a way, makes it even worse.

It's a worse sign for Democratic support that two Democrats split the vote? It would indicate to me that people in New York still support Democrats a great deal. If anything, it shows that the far left is more popular than the center left, assuming Cuomo represents the center left here.

In contrast 2021's election Adams beat Silwa by almost 40 points (66% to Curtis 27%).

But that was a Democrat beating a Republican, this was a Democrat beating a Democrat.

The people who were using the term “woke” were doing so because it was a way to signal/convey their values and priorities to others

Some would call it virtue signalling, but let's suppose that it was used sincerely.

not because they thought it was a great way to get ignorant people to vote for candidates of their persuasion.

Which is something that is typically useful when you want to win elections. Also, the left absolutely does try to do this. They absolutely have talking points, those talking points just fail to stick. Drumf, weird, orange, TACO, etc. And those are just for Trump. What's embarrassing is that the right is able to use the left's own buzzwords against them. Maybe you are above this kind of thing, and that's probably a healthy mentality to have. But a lot of Dems are trying to play this game and aren't very good at it. It's like the right trying to win on celebrity endorsements, either they have to really change their strategy or give up and play to their strengths.

You keep acting like it was the job of “the left” to maintain “woke” as a positive phrase, why? It’s just a word.

The right spinning that word has been politically useful for them. Is it the job of the left to be politically strategic? Maybe not, but it would probably help them accomplish more of their goals.

The idea that they were supposed to “fight back” to preserve the word is just silly.

So once woke is in common parlance, they can't use it positively? The political machine on the left tried oh so very hard to turn "weird" into a thing, but they failed with "woke" even though they had a head start. Even small segments on the far right were able to spin terms to mean things opposite their original intent, like "modern woman" or "black fatigue." I'd much rather the far right was losing many of those fights, but for whatever reason, they are able to spin buzzwords more than you'd expect from their numbers alone.