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

"The ability to train longer and harder. There is no reason that sit-ups would be excluded from this training. All training is included. " Of course there's a reason. If I have strong biceps but weak quadriceps, I should be able to do many bicep workouts but not many quadriceps workouts. As I've shown, steroids affect the upper body. As you've shown, steroids give the ability to train longer. 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. As I've shown, the upper body doesn't help in baseball. "I already have. It said 'training' for a reason. " And you're assuming that it just applies to all training, but there is no reason to think so. If steroids affect the upper body, like I have proven, then if a source just says "training," it's logical to conclude that it only refers to upper body training. You need to provide a source that says steroids SPECIFICALLY help training the abs and lower body, or else you concede all of these points. "As long as there is a difference, it is significant. A minimal difference is still significant. " Statistically significant DOES NOT MEAN it is important. 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. "You're picking and choosing your phrases? " I'm picking factual phrases. You're picking opinions. "Therefore, steroids were a factor in the increase in offense, and therefore, steroids have a significant effect, and therefore, the resolution is negated. " NO. Can't you see what you're doing? I quoted a fact from the article. You're just quoting something it says as an opinion, and trying to pass it off as fact. You're basically saying that "oh, this article says this outright, so it must be true. " 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. "Ah, but can you cite when these factors came into play? " 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. "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. " Uh, I'm not going to counter that example by quoting it because you used it as a clarification. I already countered the argument above. I said there were other factors. Bats. Stadiums. "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? " This is a completely irrelevant argument. Complete straw man. I hope that everyone who reads the debate sees this complete appeal to emotion. We aren't talking about whether they're illegal. We aren't talking about whether they're immoral. Oh, if it's a rampage, aren't you helping my point that the overwhelming majority of players used PEDs? Thanks for conceding that point. Where have you shown that those players would be "unable to keep up"? You haven't. Where have you shown that it would be "overrun"? You haven't. You're falling into the same arguments you did last time. Stay away from that. "If I manage to win the first contention, then this contention clicks into place. " 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. "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 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. "Why do you think they throw fastballs in the Home Run Derby? " Because they're straight, and because they're easy to throw, and because the hitter will know what's coming. This is a horrible argument. Do you realize that there has, for all time, at every level, been an emphasis on throwing hard? Seriously? Do I even have to explain this? Throwing hard is good. Throwing hard is good because it makes it hard to hit. Faster pitches are harder to hit. "Yes, it would. By physics, the faster ball would fly further. " First of all, quit with your [sic]s. It's called the subjunctive tense. "IF your argument WERE legitimate. " The IF clause creates a subjuntive mood, which means one uses "WERE" instead of "WAS. " Second, I'm not talking about the physics. I'm saying that a faster ball is harder to catch up with. You haven't shown anything that says a faster ball is hit for home runs more often that a slower ball. "The other minor faults don't break the rules. " IRRELEVANT. The rules don't matter. "By the definition of 'statistically legitimate,' any difference would be significant, as long as it is a difference. " 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. "And what difference does that make? A significant outside change that makes the player seem better than he actually is invalidates the statistics. " You haven't shown it's significant IN TERMS OF MAKING THE STATISTICS ILLEGITIMATE. Statistically significant means that something exists. It doesn't have anything to do with the importance of any change, if the change even exists. You haven't provided any source regarding the invalidation of statistics. "No, you've misunderstood what statistical significance is. " I have not. Read your Wikipedia source. Let me refute my opponents points by numbers: 1. No, because I cited a factual statement from the article, and you're citing an opinionated statement. 2. Statistically significant does not mean that it is significant enough to change the statistics. 3. No, because you haven't shown that steroids have an effect. 4. You have not shown this. 5. You have not shown this. 6. No. Ladies and gentlemen. I offered this debate to mongeese once, and he didn't understand the argument. I have offered this debate to him again. Fortunately, he cut down on his number of straw man arguments. However, this time, he did not provide any sources that actually backed up his contentions. He did not show that steroids affected a player's performance, misinterpreting his own source. Then, his other arguments were easily refutable, and often based off nothing. 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). His arguments about statistical significance displayed a lack of understanding of what statistically significant means. His own source says that statistical significance does not equate to actual significance, meaning importance. I have refuted all of his arguments. The resolution has been affirmed.