I'll add you to the queue manually.
I'll add you to the queue manually.
I guess after a few rounds, whoever is at the top of the leaderboard. No prizes planned, sorry. Was thinking 3 rounds at the start but if more people keep joining we might add a few. The goal is to get people into ultrarated debating.
You two are next. You can join whenever.
Are you down to start in a few hours? Looks like Lancelot is already in the queue.
You find out when it's assigned but you have 3 days for your argument.
Okay, queue is empty. You can both select start ultrarated debate and it will start.
Once I get home, I'll remove Nyxified from the queue and let you know to enter.
You find out the topic when it starts, it will be randomly assigned from the list of ultrarated topics. Can't start it anyway without confirmation from Lancelot though.
Please propose 3 topics under your profile > badges > earn topic badge. I may need to start one of your debates next, but you need badges first.
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:
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.
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.