Instigator / Pro
4
1596
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#2131

It is Impossible For 100% of People in a group to be Above That Group Average at Anything

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

BoP on pro.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument: Pro's round 3 buried him with flawed logic, and statistics, because after demonstrating that 3 x 3-year olds, plus 3x 4-year-olds yield an average of 3.5, he then argues that just 3x 3-year-olds also yield an average of 3.5. Not only is the latter calculation obviously flawed, the former is flawed because Pro has just arbitrarily changed the sample group a size from three to six; an invalid statistical maneuver. Sorry, I happen to be a Six Sigma Black Belt; I have professional expertise in these matters which cannot be ignored when the debate point turns on the misunderstanding. One doesn't arbitrarily change the sample group size in the midst of a statistical sampling calculation. Con also argued a valid point in his r2 with his example of the observed sexiness of men wherein all samples of the group exceeded the mean. Statistically, that outcome is very rare. one expects most statistical outcomes to represent a bell curve with the mean approximately at the mid-point of the curve. However, one-sided results do occur; that is, a curve that is entirely tp one side of the mean. Rare, but it invalidates Pro's proposition as demonstrated by Con in r2. Points to Con.

Sourcing: Neither participant used sources. Tie

S&G: tie

Conduct: Con forfeited r1. Pro passed on r2. Tie.