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

"It naturally follows that unless otherwise stated, this training is restricted to the upper body, because that's the part of the body that steroids affect. " Ah, but who has the burden of proof? You. Also, you said that the core-abs is the "key muscle group," which implies that there are other groups that make a difference in baseball. All statements you made assuming that any effect made to the upper body does nothing are irrelevant because you never really proved them to be irrelevant. "Just because it's statistically significant, does not mean it's important enough to make the statistics UNABLE to reflect a player's true natural ability. " We're talking about comparisons. If two guys would have had the exact same batting average, but one guy's batting average went down because he weighed more, and therefore couldn't reach first base as quickly, I win. "I'm picking factual phrases. You're picking opinions. " However, your factual phrases do not eliminate steroids as a factor. They only show that it could have been a combination. The guy you cited though so. Why can't you? You have BoP, after all. "If one article says that 2 2=4, and then ALSO says that all non-Caucasian people should be murdered, does that mean I can't cite the factual 2 2=4 part without agreeing with the later opinionated part that non-Caucasian people should be murdered. " It would obviously mean that the narrator is unreliable, and you should get a more reliable source to confirm that 2+2=4. There are plenty out there. "It says in the ESPN source, [3] in the R2 argument. "Of the last dozen seasons. " The article was written in 2005. So, about 1993-2005. That's exactly my time frame. " Your factors don't exclude steroids. They could have all worked together. "Uh, I'm not going to counter that example by quoting it because you used it as a clarification. .. " "Other factors" does not mean "only factors. " "This is a completely irrelevant argument. .. " Where have you shown that steroids have no effect? You assume that they have no effect, and you have the Burden of Proof, and the BoP alone loses you this debate. "You haven't come close to winning that first contention. You'd have to show that steroids have an effect, and that the effect resulted in a few extra home runs. " Extra home runs? Because guys who use steroids weigh more, they would be slower. Therefore, they would score fewer singles, and perhaps more home-runs. However, the fewer singles would be a significant change in statistics. Even the negative effects mess things up. "You still haven't provided any evidence that it would lead to an increase in home runs. Your whole argument here lacks any basis in fact. " You haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. Let's go with the BoP. Which is on you. "Because they're straight, and because they're easy to throw, and because the hitter will know what's coming. .. " In that case, they'd throw change-ups. Why fastballs instead? Because they're fast. It's physics. "Throwing hard is good. Throwing hard is good because it makes it hard to hit. Faster pitches are harder to hit. " In that case, pitchers would have more strikes. Steroids don't have any effect on a player's reaction time, so the playing field wouldn't be even. It would be lopsided, and all of the statistics would change up or down in some way. "First of all, quit with your [sic]s. It's called the subjunctive tense. .. " See my evidence locker for why this is incorrect. . http://www.debate.org... "You haven't shown anything that says a faster ball is hit for home runs more often that a slower ball. " Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A fast ball bounces off of the bat with more power. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "IRRELEVANT. The rules don't matter. " Yes, they do. Playing by the rules is considered to be natural ability at using the rules to one's advantage. Breaking the rules is not. "Sorry, but you've just misunderstood your source. The source OUTRIGHT SAYS that a 'statistically significant' difference IS NOT the same as a 'significant' difference. " Yes. It says that any difference is statistically significant so long as it is consistent. That goes my direction, not yours. "You haven't shown it's significant IN TERMS OF MAKING THE STATISTICS ILLEGITIMATE. " If a guy is weighed down by his steroid use and is called out at first more often, his number of singles is no longer correct. Although, you've never shown anything about the statistics being legitimate in the first place. "1. No, because I cited a factual statement from the article, and you're citing an opinionated statement. " What makes it an opinion? You never established that. "2. Statistically significant does not mean that it is significant enough to change the statistics. " Actually, that is basically what statistically significant means. Read it out loud. Statistically significant effects have significant effects on statistics. "3. No, because you haven't shown that steroids have an effect. " You haven't shown that steroids don't have an effect. "4. You have not shown this. " The rest of his step rebuttals seem to count on the above points being rebutted, so. .. "He did not show that steroids affected a player's performance, misinterpreting his own source. " I could say the same about you, except with the lack of an effect. "Then, his other arguments were easily refutable, and often based off nothing. " Your arguments don't even exist. "His arguments regarding the even playing field either reflected a lack of understanding of baseball (specifically, his arguments about the fast pitches being easier to hit for home runs). " Not only does this sentence need another clause, but I never said that fastballs are easy to hit. They just fly further. "His arguments about statistical significance displayed a lack of understanding of what statistically significant means. " My opponent seems to be looking in a mirror. "His own source says that statistical significance does not equate to actual significance, meaning importance. " All I've needed is a statistically significant source. I don't need it to be important. I need it to be statistically significant. After all, this is a statistical debate. Nowhere have I said that it was actual significance. You've just assumed that it takes actual significance, which it does not. "I have refuted all of his arguments. The resolution has been affirmed. Vote PRO. " He's forgetting something again. He thinks that by refuting all of my arguments will win him the debate. He is wrong. He may be able to attack my arguments, sure. But after that, we have nothing. He has not affirmed the resolution. He has only tried to stop it from being negated. As the Instigator and PRO, and having said nothing earlier, he has the Burden of Proof.