It's just a number.
Is a low efficiency rating a bad thing? Not neccessarily. If someone has a very high efficiency, they're playing it safe. My efficiency just dropped to 60 percent, but that's because I engage in controversial subjects in my debates. The way I see it, if you have a high efficiency, you're not debating. You're agreeing. This is a DEBATE site. Stop agreeing, and start debating. You're efficiency rating is just a number. It doesn't really mean anything.
|
Is a low efficiency rating a bad thing? It’s not a matter of bad or good, it’s meant to be a measure of a person’s competence in terms of their ability to make good arguments. This isn’t to say that it’s accurate all the time, a lot of times it serves as a measurement of a person’s popularity instead. My efficiency just dropped to 60 percent, but that's because I engage in controversial subjects in my debates. There are many people who debate controversial subjects and still have high efficiency ratings. If I were to guess I would say your embarrassing score is a result of your poor reasoning and incessant trolling. The way I see it, if you have a high efficiency, you're not debating. You're agreeing. This is a DEBATE site. Stop agreeing, and start debating. Disagreements occur in debate, but they don’t define it. You're efficiency rating is just a number. It doesn't really mean anything. I agree, but probably not for the same reasons as you. Well, I generally don't downvote unless their argument is idiotic. Downvoting is more than just saying you disagree. Anyway.. you have to bare in mind that the voting system isn't really working yet. There is guy that keeps creating accounts here. He is creating multiple accounts to upvote and downvote random people. It's his sexual fetish. He must has spent hundreds of hours doing it over the last year. Really pathetic. I Don't understand it personally but it makes me laugh (I know I'm a bit cruel laughing at the less fortunate than me but nevermind..). On the contrary... 1. Here are some regular debaters here who have high efficiency ratings (90% and up) and are often found on our recent controversial topics: http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ 2. These users were well known regulars who engaged in controversial topics (who seemingly dropped off of the face of the earth) and might come back: http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ http://www.createdebate.com/user/ 3. Regulars (like group 2) who've recently made comebacks: 2
points
1
point
|
