I wanted to make a minor observation about this comment. I can’t post in the thread because it is a dedicated debate thread. I don’t expect this post to merit a long discussion or anything.
I just wanted to stress that the Leaderboard-style is a really important type of competition. If you consider how even something like Olympic sports are conducted, lots of them are effectively leaderboard style. You often do not have teams or individuals going head-to-head. You have people trying to achieve some specific athletic goal (time, distance, etc.) and then they get put on what is basically a leaderboard to figure out who wins gold, silver, and bronze.
So I think it is important to consider this type of competition in your debate.
Idk what’s a dedicated debate thread. Is it cuz we’re having a debate, we should keep it on topic? Or does that mean we should mostly debate on there? Or mostly the participants should discuss there?
I think I see how olympic sports are conducted. Like, people do their best and it shows up as a stat and the people that get the best stats get medals.
Olympic sports are usually about people being the best at something. I think that’s important cuz a lot of people watch it and it matters a lot.
I didn’t think to apply the idea of Leaderboard-style competition to something like the olympics. Also, I don’t think I still see how Leaderboard-style competition is a really important kind. I could analyze more.
Im thinking that Leaderboard-style competition applies to many things. Maybe more than people going head to head.
No, it just means I literally cannot comment on that thread. Like, I do not have the option to reply or post there, period. Presumably due to settings on the forum.
By “really important” I just mean… it comes up a lot. It is a major, common type of competition. Probably just as common or more common than direct head-to-head competition such as a sports game.
The term “leaderboard” is associated with a specific niche (especially video games I think) and not really used when discussing the Olympics, so I figured it might not occur to you to think of it that way. But as far as I can tell it fits.
I know @anonymous105 already said what they meant by “really important” but a part of me doesn’t get it. I haven’t analyzed as much but the meaning is not that intuitive to me. “really important” makes me think it’s important for the debate to be successful. Idk if thats true but using the determiner “a” to modify “really important” makes me think about leaderboard-style competiton coming up often. Like that it’s common.
I don’t think I know what “even” means, but the fact it’s there is significant. Like, you would think all the sports in olympics aren’t relevant. But they are. A lot of them are effectively leaderboard-style. That kind of competition seems to happen a lot.
I see “Olympic sports” and “lots” are italicized. That makes me think about leaderboard-style competition being really important. Do both being italicized mean that kind of competition is common? It seems that the italicization means something.
Also, those sports being effectively something makes me think they’re achievimg a purpose. It’s the same purpose of things that we know are leader-board style competition. Olympic sports may be slightly different but they still use the same idea.
I don’t think I could name a lot of sports from olympics. If I look at a list tho I may be able to tell. I asked gemini and I got a list of 35 sports:
A lot of them are not team based going to head to head. Idk about individuals going head to head, but it seems a lot are based on making records by yourself and winning medals.
I see aquatics(swimming?), cycling, rowing, sport climbing(rock climbing?), and triatholon. I bet those have the athletic goal of fastest time.
Idk if gemini is giving me the correct list of sports
I don’t think I see how often each type of competition happens in olympic sports. I tried using Gemini but a lot of sports come up for each. I don’t think im searching for stuff well. Like, how do I know each sport listed actually happens in the Olympics? What source do I use to count how many there are for each type of competition? Would it help to have experience watching Olympic sports online or on TV?
A part of me thinks since you can literally make a competition out of a metric, then there would be many sports that use leaderboard-style competition. Like, you can have a soccer game, but literally make it a competition about who scores the most shots.
When I tune on the tv, this is what I see often. I see people racing on a track for olympic medals. There’s people shooting at targets with guns or bows. Other times I see contestants swimming to win. Idk if they’re going head to head directly or if they’re using a leaderboard.
I think it would be good to see how contestants are placed on a leadeeboard. What’s the difference between that and individuals/teams going head-to-head?
I don’t know why it’s important to consider that type of competition. Is it cuz if we’re talking about debate being good or bad, then it would be better to talk about most sports? Not just a small subset? Or is it important so we can figure out why competition is good or bad? Maybe learning about leaderboard climbing helps us come to a conclusion.
That makes me think about trying to come up for a cure to cancer. I think it would be better to cure a common cause rather than a rare one. If the rare one barely happens then a lot of people might pass away. I think it would be good to help with the common cause. I don’t know what the idea of this analogy is or if it’s a good one.
Is it significant that leaderboard-style competition happens often? Can we make a mistake not bringing up that kind of competition in the debate? @Eternity what do u think?
Wait, I was thinking is leaderboard-style competition common outside of the olympics? Does the first mention of the olympics in the quote show how common that kind of competition is? Like, we’re not just talking about leaderboard-style competition in the olympics but also outside of them.
Here’s @anonymous105 saying what “really important” means:
If it’s a major, common type of competition doesn’t that mean we’ll see it often outside the olympics?
I dont think I know what “major” means btw. That’s like it happens most of the time. That or it means it makes up a big portion of competition. Like, if head-to-head made up 60% of competition while leaderboard-style made up 40%, both are major types of competition.
Me questioning “major” makes me question “common”. They seem like they mean the same thing. If something is common, doesn’t that make it major? I need to look up these words.
Oh, really? I didn’t know that. Or, a bit more accurately I guess, I didn’t pay attention to the leaderboard style of it? I just knew the Olympics had people who placed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (gold, silver, and bronze) and just assumed they were all in a race against each other or something. However, now that I think about it they usually aren’t competing head-to-head in the Olympics, right?
That’s fair. Hmm.
Idk, what a leaderboard style would add. Mmm. Instead of straight up winners and losers (though I guess 1st could be considered the ultimate “winner”), its a ranking. You compete to get better ranks instead of just either winning or losing.
Speedrunning is a leaderboard style thing. As far as I can tell, speedrunners are generally more comfortable with not being number one on the board (though people do cheat because they feel like they “deserve” a certain time so idk).
If they’re not competing at the same time, then how would a contestant know how good someone else would do? Maybe they have an intuitive sense about it or hear some infos/rumors of the other opponent’s performance. But I dont think people going for athletic goals would focus a lot on beating someone else. They would try to compete against themselves in a way.
This all makes me think how ideas can fail at goals and that there’s idea goal context triples. Does learning about leaderboard competition change the context? Does context change whether an idea would fail at a goal? Do we need to review what we said to check if anything is wrong? How thorough is checking supposed to be?
Besides that I don’t know either what leaderboard competition would add. Would it be good to look over our claims to make sure?
Yeah, if leaderboard competition happens more often then there’s less of just winners vs. losers. Did we claim something general? Did we claim stuff about a large number of people? Did we make a mistake somewhere?
Also, how is a ranking different than straight up losers and winners? You could have winners and losers in a ranking but if you’re 2nd place then you’re better than like 5th place. You’re a winner in a certain respect. How often do people fall for the trap of not appreciating what they’ve accomplished in a ranking?