Brunell vs. Bledsoe

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

PSUSkinsFan21
Nice try ...but you have only added further claims to the original. You've proven nothing.

I've proven that you have no way of arguing the merits of any player in the NFL. I've made assertions regarding a certain player. Those assertions must be taken as admitted by you since you have nothing to counter my argument.

See if you want to argue "proof", you've really picked the wrong guy to argue with. You've mentioned "burden of proof", which I will take as a legal term of art. In our legal system, when one party makes a factual averment to another party, and that second party does not dispute the factual averment made by the first, then that factual averment is taken as admitted by the second. So you see, I've made my assertions. You've offered nothing to counter those assertions. In our system of jurisprudence my assertions would be deemed admitted and my assertions would be taken as established, thereby constituting the requisite level of "proof" to win my case. So by refusing to dispute my claims, you have essentially admitted that Aaron Brooks is the best QB in the NFL. Congratulations.

See, you keep trying to skirt the real issue here. You have backed yourself into a corner that you can't get out of. If statistics can't be used to argue a point regarding players in the NFL, then you can offer nothing to me to dispute my assertions. If we were to accept your views on statistics and their propriety in professional sports discussions, then all of us would be left making unsupported claims about players that simply could not be refuted. Hence the reason you cannot offer any argument against my statement. Statistics make the difference between bald, unsupported assertions and reasonable arguments regarding players.

[Huddle]

PSUSkinsFan21

I've proven that you have no way of arguing the merits of any player in the NFL. I've made assertions regarding a certain player. Those assertions must be taken as admitted by you since you have nothing to counter my argument.

You didn't make an argument. You made a claim about a player that you cannot prove. Nor can you prove that you have any valid way of comparing one player to another using statistics.

See if you want to argue "proof", you've really picked the wrong guy to argue with. You've mentioned "burden of proof", which I will take as a legal term of art.

You can take it any way you like, but it doesn't work that way in debate and this isn't a legal issue.

If we were to accept your views on statistics and their propriety in professional sports discussions, then all of us would be left making unsupported claims about players that simply could not be refuted.

Nah. Luckily, outside of the courtroom, logic prevails. It is simply illogical to say that you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Huddle

PSUSkinsFan21

You didn't make an argument. You made a claim about a player that you cannot prove. Nor can you prove that you have any valid way of comparing one player to another using statistics.

You can take it any way you like, but it doesn't work that way in debate and this isn't a legal issue.

Nah. Luckily, outside of the courtroom, logic prevails. It is simply illogical to say that you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right.

You know what, I'm done with this ridiculous argument. You're being difficult because you know you're wrong. Everyone here sees that. Everyone here disagrees with you. I'll take that as a win and walk away.

You can think whatever you want about your argument and your point, but the fact is you refuse to make any affirmative statement about Aaron Brooks right now because you know that the minute you do you argument will come crashing down. We would go round and round with our opinions, and you would never be able to prove me wrong because you've taken away the one thing that could prove me wrong: statistics.

Just know this: the minute you ever make an affirmative statement about any player in the NFL, I'm going to be all over it ...... because by refusing to back down from this absurd argument, you've essentially prohibited yourself from ever being able to support any argument you want to make about a player's abilities or whether one player is superior to another.

To the rest of you: good luck.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

You didn't make an argument. You made a claim about a player that you cannot prove. Nor can you prove that you have any valid way of comparing one player to another using statistics.

he most definately DID make an arguement and you have absolutely no way of disproving it. Nice try, but it works both ways. There's no magic Huddle immunity, and yet you don't see this is exactly what you've been saying the entire time. "Your wrong, I'm right, and its true cause i said so." That just doesn't work.

As for filtering out co-variances, that's been covered and played out. It can be done, its done all the time, and just cause you might be lazy or unwilling to pursue such endeavors most certainly does not mean it cannot be done. Logic and math specific to such study (engineering and statistics) go into these things in great detail.

You can take it any way you like, but it doesn't work that way in debate and this isn't a legal issue.

so now you not only get the benefit of one way arguement (your opinions are evidence, others' opinions are just opinions), you also get to frame the rules on the fly to suit your needs as well? convenient.

Nah. Luckily, outside of the courtroom, logic prevails. It is simply illogical to say that you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right.

you've been proven wrong on every point, yet you still continue. I'd definately say there's something illogical alright.