Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball–II.

"Where's your source saying that steroids help train the abs? Your earlier source gave a blanket statement that steroids help training. What training? " The ability to train longer and harder. There is no reason that sit-ups would be excluded from this training. All training is included. "It seems to me that if steroids affect the upper body, but also supposedly improve training, that they would specifically help upper body training, not total body training. " Then why doesn't the source say "upper body training"? Training includes sit-ups. If I can do more sit-ups than you because of steroids, that's an unfair advantage right there. "You need to provide a source. " I already have. It said "training" for a reason. "If there is a minimal effect, that does not make it significant–or, IMPORTANT–enough to change the statistics. That's the argument. " Read it again: "It does not mean the difference is necessarily large, important, or significant in the common meaning of the word. " As long as there is a difference, it is significant. A minimal difference is still significant. "It doesn't matter. .. ." You're picking and choosing your phrases? I quote from the source that my opponent calls reliable: "While steroids were obviously a factor in the offensive explosion of the last dozen seasons. .. " Therefore, steroids were a factor in the increase in offense, and therefore, steroids have a significant effect, and therefore, the resolution is negated. "Ok. I think you're misunderstanding the graph, but regardless, I've shown you other factors. " Ah, but can you cite when these factors came into play? "Uh, so? The first graph doesn't show that there wasn't any change in power levels. You can't just disregard one graph because it doesn't show the same thing as another one. " The graph I'm using is the bigger picture. It shows that something suddenly took a very steep decrease in power levels and suddenly almost flattened it. What was this event? PEDs. You didn't counter the example about the national debt. "Yes, we can, if the non-using population is miniscule compared to the using population. " So, you're going to let the rule-breakers continue on with their illegal, immoral rampage of drugs, while the few who actually maintain the dignity of baseball by refusing to cheat find themselves unable to keep up? Is that what you want to happen to the noble sport of baseball? Have it overrun by cheaters? "You haven't shown anything to support that the steroid user would end up with more home runs due to his usage. Sorry, but this is the same thing you did in the last debate. You can't just say something is true when it's what we're arguing. " Okay, I have to argue that PEDs have an effect and that the "even playing field" doesn't work at the same time. If I manage to win the first contention, then this contention clicks into place. If I focus everything on the significant effect of PEDs, then you'd concede by Round 4, but then point out that I've said nothing about the "even playing field. " "If you want to hit a baseball farther, you might do so if the pitch is faster, but a faster pitch would also make it harder to catch up with. " So, it might lead to an increase in home runs, but a large decrease in singles and doubles, which would actually explain the power levels. "You're basically saying that a faster pitch would make it easier to hit home runs, which contradicts uh, everything that common sense can tell us about baseball. " Why do you think they throw fastballs in the Home Run Derby? "So, were[sic] your argument even legitimate in that its premises, that steroids increase speed, were correct, the conclusion wouldn't even work. " Yes, it would. By physics, the faster ball would fly further. "Understand that these are statistics created from what is first a game, not an experiment, and understand that minor faults already exist. " The other minor faults don't break the rules. "Steroids, IF the effects exist, which you haven't shown, DO NOT create enough of a difference to make these statistics illegitimate. " By the definition of "statistically legitimate," any difference would be significant, as long as it is a difference. "A statistically significant change is not necessarily an important change. " And what difference does that make? A significant outside change that makes the player seem better than he actually is invalidates the statistics. "Refuted above. You've completely misunderstood your sources and distorted my argument. " No, you've misunderstood what statistical significance is. Again, to explain how the resolution is negated: 1. My opponent's reliable source says that steroids have made a difference on offensive performance. "While steroids were obviously a factor in the offensive explosion of the last dozen seasons. .. " . http://sports.espn.go.com... 2. Any effect that makes a difference is statistically significant. "A 'statistically significant difference' simply means there is statistical evidence that there is a difference. .. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. The effect of steroids is statistically significant. (Steps 1, 2) 4. The effect of steroids has changed the statistics of players to no longer reflect their natural ability. (Steroids aren't part of a player's natural ability. ) 5. If the statistics of players no longer reflect their natural ability, then those statistics are no longer legitimate. "In the world of statistics, this would mean that the statistics are not skewed by factors outside of the player's own natural ability. " . http://www.debate.org... 6. The effect of steroids makes the players' statistics no longer legitimate. (Steps 4, 5) The resolution is negated.