Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball.

I apologize. I forgot to source my definition. Here it is: 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now, for starters, I'd like to point out that my opponent has never actually affirmed the resolution. His entire conclusion was about how he refuted my arguments, which would only stop the negation of the resolution. The burden of proof is on him, as PRO and the Instigator. Because he doesn't address any affirmation in his conclusion, he can't affirm the resolution. Therefore, you can't vote PRO, but you can vote CON, as I'm about to show you. "My statement did not imply that." You said that it would help minimally. That implies help. "How much longer? How much effort?..." I sourced this in Round 1: "Reports indicate that use of anabolic steroids produces increases in lean muscle mass, strength, and ability to train longer and harder." It seems that any training would be eased, including baseball training and sit-ups, which strengthen the core-abs. "How do they impact life after baseball..." No, not life after baseball. Life during their baseball career, but off of the field. For example, liver tumors that are caused by steroids don't appear until a while after the steroids were taken, at which point the player can no longer play baseball. Additionally, baldness and infertility don't affect one's baseball-playing skills, but they do affect one's social life. So, the baseball players on PEDs decide that it isn't worth it after using them for a while. "If it was at an expense they couldn't pay..." It helped them for a short time, but then they quit steroids and baseball. You don't see any drop in performance until then. "This, to me, seems like nit-picking..." You're the one who is claiming that it doesn't help the core-abs. The burden of proof is on you. It has an effect on core-abs. You're the one who's making up statistics. "So you agree..." However, I don't want to see everybody using PEDs, because then it forces everybody to suffer the side-effects. "No, you cannot..." You argue that everybody could use PEDs to balance everything out. I argue that forcing people to take PEDs to play in MLB is immoral. "Sorry, but this is irrelevant..." Calling their statistics illegitimate discourages usage of PEDs, which is largely a good thing. "Like I said, this is a ridiculous distinction." That is because you misunderstood. "Yep, irrelevant to the statistics." If something is immoral, it should not be done. "Significant is basically the same thing as massive..." Significant [1] - having or likely to have influence or effect That isn't even close to meaning "massive." "I said that in such a high level of competition, athletes will do anything to gain any edge, no matter how small..." Exactly. They're using PEDs to get a significant edge, which is why the statistics become flawed. "Glorification is irrelevant to the debate..." You didn't answer the question. Plus, if you think that all of the students are cheating, do you let them continue, or do you crack down on them and teach them discipline? You teach them discipline. That's the only way to help discourage cheating. "There's no reason for that moral logic to be extended to the legitimacy of statistics..." I always thought that the athletic drive involved sportsmanship and playing by the rules. "Wow, appeal to emotion. These few MLB players are, at this point, outliers..." That's nice. Kill the outliers. Squash them, because they're doing the right thing. Somehow, that doesn't make sense. "General muscle strength doesn't necessarily help baseball. You haven't even shown that it's general muscle strength..." You haven't shown that it isn't. Plus, you didn't address the workout argument. You asked more questions. "The rest of your statement doesn't make any sense to me, unless you're basically just outright saying that you only think a PED's positive effects affected performance..." That's the only factor of life in which they have a positive impact. Do you think using steroids helps you when you go to the doctor? When you're trying to be a responsible parent? 'Roid rage really doesn't help there, in addition to the infertility and all. "Yep. Thanks. Refutations and straw man labels above." Refutations and straw man labels removed. "In the world of statistics, this would mean that the statistics are not skewed by factors outside of the player's own natural ability." Well, PEDs are far from a player's natural ability, given that they enhance perfornamce beyond normal [2]. Thus, if a player uses PEDs, then his statistics are skewed, and therefore illegitimate. "The whole reason I started this was to argue that even though they broke the rules, their statistics were legitimate." That's kind of hard to do, given that to be legitimate, they have to have not broken the rules in the first place. "You're simply saying that the fact that they broke the rules makes their statistics legitimate. You can't just say that. You're supposed to argue that. You have not negated the resolution." Alright then, I will. Again, the resolution: "The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who... were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs, should still be held as legitimate..." And again, with the definition of "legitimate" [3]: "The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who... were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs, should still be held as [conforming to accepted rules]..." And now, given that PEDs are illegal in Major League Baseball [4]: "The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who... were known [breakers of the rules], should still be held as [conforming to accepted rules]..." This is obviously contradictory. The statistics of players who broke the rules should he held as if they didn't break the rules. The resolution contradicts with itself [5]. Thus, it is negated. "You have not negated the resolution." Now I have. Happy now? My opponent's conclusion seems to ignore the most important argument about legitimacy making the resolution impossible to affirm. It only deals with rebuttals of other arguments. In conclusion, because the use of the word "legitimate" in the resolution, the resolution becomes self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be affirmed. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...