The topic is TBA

<"My opponent fails to assert the reasoning for as to why "is" prescribes a normative statement."> I don't need to, because I made what I meant hilariously clear in round one -- I meant that Albert Pujols, *in the present,*contributes more to his team than Casey Kotchman does -- not that Pujols has always bee, and will always be, better than Kotchman. Also, dude, the word "is" indicates that I'm referring to the present -- when you say"the grass is green," that means hat the grass, as of this moment, has a greenish color to it. When someone says "my name is Earl," that means that their name, as of them saying so, is...well, Earl. So when it's said that Albert Pujols is better than Casey Kotchman, the meaning is "Albert Pujols currently has an advantage is the field of playing baseball over Casey Kotchman." http://dictionary.reference.com... "1. 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of be." Notice where it says "pres."? Yeah. So even if you want to continue to try and distort what I said into "Pujols > Kotchman...forever and always!" it doesn't matter, because "is" refers to the present, by definition. But that barely even matters, since I meant that Pujols' contributions to his team > Kotchman's, which I clearly stated multiple times. <"his contribution has not always been more than Kotchman, he does not provide you evidence indicating that this is so."> ...because I don't have to. Why would I have to prove that Kotchman has always been inferior to Pujols when my point was that Pujols contributes more to his team than Kotchman? You're moving the goal posts. <"At this point you are to vote CON because the topic is not "Albert Pujols is (sometimes/usually/typically/generally) a better player in major league baseball than Casey Kotchman", but rather a statement of a normative truth."> Sigh. Again, I made it clear that I meant that Pujols contributes more, which makes your whole second point utterly useless. If my point was that Pujols was forever superior, then this would be worth addressing, but I didn't at all come close to saying that -- again, I said this: By "better," I mean "more valuable," by which I mean Pujols contributes more to his team, which I'll show using statistical evidence, which will show Pujols' ability to produce offensively and defensively, and his durability (playing time) is superior to Kotchman's. Your whole second point carries no relevance, and is just another red herring. The argument is over which player contributes more to his team, which isn't close to what you're attempting to twist it into. <"In reality, I have proven that the usage of statistics don't even matter because A) the topic doesn't isolate when - ergo, the statistics are insufficient unless they indicate that this is "always" how things were AND B) the topic can be dismissed as merely an opinion of "who is more valuable" and thus yields to perspectivism."> Your first point is irrelevant. I've explained ad nauseum why showing why Pujols always has been better isn't anywhere close to necessary, or even relevant. Your second point is another way of saying "but this is just your opinion," which is meaningless; you're simply rehashing something you said in round 2. You've given nothing to back yourself up; you've only fancily said "but that's what *you* think," which isn't even an argument. It's the support you give an opinion that gives it stock; I've supported myself. You've given...nothing. <"Remember, the last point essentially states that because of the multiplicity of statistics, my opponent must prove HOW these statistics were taken and why we give them cred."> Shifting of the burden of proof. You claim my stats are invalid, so you back it up; the onus is on you. I've give a counterargument to the points you made about my stats, so really, you don't have anything here, either.