The topic is TBA

"The implication is that, even if Albert Pujols is better now, he may not have been ten years ago, or he might not in the future. So, then, to say that he "is" better is logically inconclusive at best due to a lack in specificity and thus an inaccurate time-placement." This is obviously nothing more than a semantical ploy. But anyway, I think you ignored this: Me: "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." So when I say Pujols is better, I mean Pujols contributes more to his team than Kotchman does -- not that Pujols has always, at every stage, been better than Kotchman. I made myself pretty clear on this. "All I have to do is posit that there is at least one person who "perceives" this baseball player as someone who is not "better", I believe that Casey Kotchman is a better baseball player." Well, no. Simply because one perceives something doesn't at all mean it's true. Opinions, in and of themselves, are meaningless and wishy-washy. It's how you support that opinion that matters and solidifies your position. So far, you've just said "well, I think Kotchman is better, so go me!" which is hilariously nonsensical, since you're offering nothing other than a mere thought. To show that Pujols isn't better, you'll need to *back-up* you opinion with something...something that isn't, as I put it, "wishy-washy." <"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."> Nah, the topic is, in essence, that Pujols contributes more to his team than Kotchman does. I made this incredibly clear in round 1. <""It's like putting Bill Gates down in Ethiopia and saying the country has a pretty high average income.""> This makes no sense, since you're trying to discredit the statistics I'll use by showing how a certain statistic is fallacious. Thing is, not all statistics are the same; the quote you posted is using a statistic which is more susceptible to outliers than the one's I'm using. The stats I use have a rather large sample size. It's also an invalid comparison of statistics, since I'm using stats that are much different than measuring the income of a country. Albert Pujols' stats over the past 4 seasons (batting average/on base percentage/slugging percentge/on base + slugging percentage): Pujols: '06: .331/.431/.671 /.1.102 -- 634 plate appearances. '07: .327/.429/.568/.997 -- 679 PA. '08: .357/.462/.653 /.1.114 -- 641 PA. '09: .327/.443/.658/.1.101 -- 700 PA. Kotchman's best season over the last four years was 2007, when he hit .296/.372/.467./.840 with 508 PA, which doesn't even come close to Pujols' worst season out of those four years, and even his whole career in MLB. For defense, I'll be using +/-, though '06-'08 is all I can get without paying. Pujols was +82 in those years; Kotchman was +32. Pujols was first in MLB; Kotchman was actually second. So Pujols beat every first basemen in those years by an insane margin. And really, since we can get a decent idea of how good they are defensively since this is over a number of years, we don't really have any reason to think Kotchman could've overtaken Pujols with his '09 season. Even if that somehow happened, Pujols did best him in all but one of those years. And my opponent's last point is nothing other than a red herring, so yeah. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.fieldingbible.com... -- a explanation of +/- is there; I can't link it directly.