Celtics vs. Lakers - The Final Chapter: michaeljohn wins by concession and logic

[rexhamer]

It all begins with this statement:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

What really constitutes an internet debate? Side A makes a point, side B offers a rebuttal. Eventually, one side comes out on top on each point when the other side has no answer or concedes that issue

I am here to point out that, for the umpteenth time, you are completely wrong. But this statement now explains so much of what you have said previously. Debates are not conducted in the manner that you describe, in which two opponents go at it continually ad infinitum until one concedes. I will call this the “Last Man Standing” theory. Debates are made with presentations by each side, and then the presentations are judged.

And I will take a brief moment to note a refrain that you have used in a number of forms:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Once again, rexhamer wants to set the rules for the debate

We know already know you are not the least bit hesitant to practice hypocrisy, but what you have done here is an attempt to actually define the rules of the debate yourself – and you are completely wrong with that.

The most common and popular debate that we are familiar with is the Presidential Debate. It is also possible that significant local debates are televised, but the point is that the format is relatively standard. Some agreement is made on presentations, questions, answers and rebuttals ahead of time. But what is common to these debates is that they come to an end. In all my years I have never seen a Presidential Debate that continued until one candidate threw up his/her arms, conceded, and walked off the stage. Following these debates, the media is full of people declaring a winner. These may be pundits and spin-meisters who are not necessarily objective, but the media is full of many that are objective. The point is that the debate is completed and people express their judgment as to who is the winner. It can also be concluded that the ultimate judges of the debate are the voters. But at some point, by somebody, the debate is judged.

The next most common form of debate is probably the high school or college team debate. In some form or other each team makes a case for a particular pro or con position on an issue. The merits of their argument are evaluated by a judge or a panel of judges. They may rate a number of aspects of the debate (presentation, preparedness, etc.), but ultimately select a winner. Here is a site that offers a number of formats for a debate

Debate

One thing you will note - nowhere does it suggest the “Last Man Standing” approach. In fact, there is an entire section on ‘Judging’ debates. More evidence to confirm that my approach to a debate is the correct one.

But maybe Internet debates are different. Let’s take a look at an Internet site that is specifically dedicated to Internet Debates. It is elegantly named Debate.org | Debate, Online Debates, Internet Debates, and Debating Community.
You will note the following at this site:

1. There is no “Last Man Standing” procedure.
2. There is a time limit on presentation of cases.
3. There is a mechanism for members of this site to vote (make a judgment) on the merits of the debate, and - you’ll love this – those judgments are tabulated!

There can be no doubt that your entire perception of what constitutes a debate, and how a winner is determined, is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, your approach to a debate is strikingly similar to Argumentum ad Nauseum. You should remember this from when I schooled you on logical fallacies. It is the practice of continually presenting the same points over and over again. Therefore, your entire approach to a debate is a logical fallacy in and of itself!!

[rexhamer]

But as I noted before, this statement is such a revelation. First of all, it can now be said that neither of us was intentionally lying about who won, considering our differing positions on winning a debate. But what is really more intriguing is this:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Sorry, I told rexhamer ages ago that I always win internet arguments.

With this revelation, it is quite possible that you have NEVER actually won an Internet debate, but merely outlasted all of your opponents with Argumentum ad Nauseum!

It also explains why you have been practically begging me to refute Blog 5(MJ), because you realize that, despite all the evidence supporting the Celtics, you can keep your hopes of winning (in your estimation) alive just by continuing the debate endlessly. It also explains so many of your statements. I will only note a few.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

“I am looking for someone to refute me.”

“If no one refutes me, then I am correct.”

“You fight or you quit.”

“I am also winning because your entire blog has been refuted …”

Thus, now that Blog 5(MJ) has been refuted along with your objections to the tabulations, in summary we have the following irrefutable facts:

1. We have both made our presentations through five lengthy and comprehensive blogs.
2. We have both rested our cases.
3. The debate has been judged. If we only take neutral judges from Blog 5(MJ) the tally is 5-1 for the Celtics. Overall votes are even greater.
4. I have shown this is the proper way to determine a debate winner.

You have lost this debate – learn to deal with it!

If you want to continue in some fashion with the most recent events and new figures under consideration (i.e., 17-15 as opposed 17-14), you must first concede that while the numbers were “17-14”, etc., the Celtics were the most successful NBA franchise of all time. That is what OUR debate was about.

If not, this discussion is over.

Now, on to the Hollinger and the ESPN poll!

[michaeljohn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This will be so easy....

I simply cannot believe you are stupid enough to let yourself get owned on this site like this. Actually, I can. It's been evident in your posts ever since we started. Ok, let me start tearing up this massive failure apart, post by post.

You really do want a Big Baby avatar don't you?

Edit Friday, 10 AMish.
When rexhamer started this thread, he continued his continual path of flawed logic, many instances of which I have demonstrated in this and the smack talk thread this forum. First, he spun this new angle in an effort to avoid the fact that his arguments have been beaten. 2 months later he still ignores the fact that I clearly and decisively defeated his main aruments of 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15. He won't even address what I said, yet he claims they belong as relevant categories. They were also clearly refuted because I proved they were speculation on his part, a concept he is dead set against. However, he does address my speculation argument below with what? More speculation! Apparently he can speculate but no one else can. This will all be demonstrated as I shred this failed continuance of the argument to shreds.

Now, on the first page of this thread, his new argument of claiming he won the debate was thoroughly clobbered. What does he do? He ignores most of the information I beat him with here and continues with his naivety of statistics and fails yet again. He also tries to pawn all of his failed argument traits off on me! His posts below finally do address some of my points that he ignored from my last blog 5 (MJ), but he fails again, particularly because he commits self-ownage and destroys his own case right in front of our eyes!

What on earth do they put in the New England Clam Chowder, reshamer, it's made you nuttier than a fruitcake. My biggest gripe with him seems to be caused by his lack of reading comprehension. He simply can't seem to read and recognize where I clearly point out facts that refute him, and commits the same errors all over again! I hope if he wishes to keep arguing, he follows my advice laid out earlier, to argue what's in Blog 5 (MJ) and get off these failed tangents.

He is one of the easiest people to beat in an argument because he simply won't fight. He has had stuff on the table for 2 months he won't address, which is why my case is not rested as he thinks and claims it is. Offers to others to step in have been made already. It's not my fault no Celtics fan wants to step in and admit that rexhamer is beaten and that his primary arguments have been permanently laid to rest.

reshamer also knows this debate takes my priority, so I can never quit it until I see an admittion of defeat, or him or his "replacement" to walk away. As explained, I have a blog Boston fans will love and want to see. He is depriving them of this! I can't write that until this argument is over. What a great supporter of Boston teams and fans rexhamer is. He is a fool and should hope Boston fans don't ever see this part of the argument that has migrated back to this site from the other one. He is certanly selfish. Again, he is a nobody here at Webrats, no one cares he got whipped. They probably will care at the other site, so let's for his sakes, end it here.

Read on. All of his new posts from yesterday are repeated below, with my individual responses. You will see he is clearly and decisively beaten, once again.

End Edit.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

Let’s begin with an acknowledgement – since we both “rested our cases” prior to the completion of the 2009 NBA playoffs, I will refer to the numbers we have been debating for a year now; i.e., “17-14”, etc. We can deal with new numbers later when I address the Hollinger rankings and the ESPN poll.

First – some housekeeping items to note.

1.

Actually this is factually incorrect. What you said on 4/18/09 was:

I never accepted this offer, and never would as I will always contend that it was an exaggerated boast to attempt to embellish your case. Like many others, this statement will come back to haunt you.

I would point out that purposely stating factually inaccurate information is considered by many to be a ……..lie! But I will cut you some slack on this one – maybe it was an honest error.

Whoah! hold on there! Resting a case doesn't mean we quit arguing, we both have done this since then. I look at it as a way to say "done for now". If you don't like that explanation tough, I was mimicking you as you said you rested your case. I have already shown how you mimick me. Besides, there is a lot on the table that you have ignored, plenty of it as will be shown. Also, you know I have said repeatedly I will argue this case until doomsday if need be. This is especially true since once again, you have failed to acknowledge my refutations to your blog.

Actually, your words come back to haunt you, as I have shown already. Let's see what happens when we get to what you refer to.

Meanwhile, I have to decide if I want to tear your latest failure complete with its flawed logic to shreds individually, or in summary.

[michaeljohn]

My replies inseterted in purple font.

Originally Posted by rexhamer

2. Two other curious statements:

and

Why would you claim victory on a point that was never in dispute? I conceded that the Lakers have made up ground on (but have not surpassed) the Celtics over the last twenty years in the very beginning of Blog 2(Rex). This would be akin to me claiming victory because I demonstrated that the Celtics were the most dominant team of the 60’s! Duh!

You can only be desperate for any straw to grasp in this debate.

I am not desperate at all. Obviously you just don't get it and don't read what's in front of you. As I have said in this debate, before my article, almost everyone of all people asked would pick the Celtics as the most successful. My article changed the numbers among those that saw it. Hollinger's changed them more. More on Hollinger when you get there.
3.

Sorry – but when these accusations were made the thread was an NBA thread. You created the smack talk thread later. This is another clear example of purposeful factually inaccurate information. Once can be an error, twice it becomes a pattern.

Ummm...Look at the twist you are making here. You came here and lied. It doesn't matter the NBA and Smack thread were still together as one when you lied. I was refering where to find it so anyone could if they wanted. You lied in that thread!

4.

What a surprise – you would rather fight here, where no one cares. Why would you want to take the fight to the blog site, where you have an 83% DIS-approval rating!

Still using those statistics that I proved were erroneously attained? I see later in this thread you are at it again. I'll deal with that when it comes in. Also, you haven't dealt with the fact that:

1) My blog before the debate has about 4 replies favoring the Lakers that were meant for the current debate. You haven't added those in.
2) Also, a neutral fan who selected the Celtics switched over to the Lakers side when we won #15. I posted evidence of that in your last blog. Your flawed statistics are even more off base!
3) Most importantly, you are getting your ass whipped here and decisively. You don't want Celtics fans to see this. Perhaps you do. Note, I still haven't added my last rebuttal in this thread to the other site, I just summarized it in the replies to my blog, which no one has read. It's ready to drop in at a moments notice. My replies here will be as well in due time. That depends on you and how long you want to fight over this.
5.

No, I have used all 60 years to create primary categories. Once again, factually incorrect information.

And you used "Cherry Picking" to select the best years from the 60. "Cherry Picking directly contradicts your centention that you are examining the entire history of the NBA because it ignores all the unfavorble seasons. Besides, I refuted "Cherry Picking" already, and you still haven't replied to that. There is much you haven't acknowledged, you just rely on switching the argument and throw more flawed logic at me!

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

Now, on to Blog 5(MJ)

I noted that in Blog 5(MJ), you introduced the notion that you will use IEttR to refute many of my statements. I gave you a chance to provide some specific examples and all you offer is Mark Furman, which was the example to explain what IEttR meant. Therefore, your recent reply acknowledges that you don’t actually have ANY examples to offer relative to our debate. It doesn’t serve much purpose to announce that you will demonstrate “exceptions that disprove the rule” when you don’t have any exceptions! And thus, much of what you claim refuted 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 is now out the window.

No, no, no and no. More flawed logic on your part. You are stating that most championships means the best, always. I repeat, you said ALWAYS. That is something you have to prove, not me. Since you obviously lack a sound mathematical background, you don't realize how vital it is for a mathematician to back up his theorem with a proof. If not, the IEttR will embarass him in front of his peers when his therom is proven wrong. If you can't prove it's always the case, the IEttR beats you down when it pops up. Therefore, you can't make an ALWAYS claim unless you can prove it. Your counter claim is easily and permanently disposed of, until you prove it is ALWAYS the case. At least you finally realized I discussed Mark Fuhrman, you didn't ignore it again, like many of my points you still haven't addressed

I will note here your attempt at what I will call “the old switcheroo”. You have been repeatedly frustrated in your efforts to find real world examples of “most successful” teams with fewer championships and a sub-.500 record in their championship round. So you have tried to turn this around and make me find some.

First of all – the Lakers are YOUR team and it is your contention that they can be “more successful” with the negatives noted above. The burden of proof remains on YOU to provide supporting evidence. Your attempt at “the old switcheroo” isn’t fooling anyone. You also weaken your case with the following contradictory statement:

If there are “many cases”, why couldn’t you find them? Why would it take “exhaustive research” to find any of these “many cases”? Besides, what would prevent me from simply stating, “I have done a thorough investigation and have found none”? Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to find these examples.

As explained above, your attempt to twist things has already been proven to be flawed logic. You excel at that I must say!

And then you tried this:

Sorry – but the notion of national championships and bowl games does not hold. The formal system of BCS national championships has only been around a few years. And how would you determine most successful? Princeton has the most mythical championships based on the very early days of college football, and they have never been to a bowl game.

Equating bowl games with finals? I think not, as any prominent program with a winning record gets to go to a bowl game these days and most all of these games have absolutely nothing with the national championship.

Well, among the major contenders for the claim of being #1 college team, most bowl games need not be examined, unless they play in one. Pre BCS they did have polls, even though the results weren't always in agreement. Result? Two schools claim a championship! So, a college comaprison including bowl games as finals appearances could be done, but it is beyond the scope of this argument.
Your erroneous approach to IEttR is summarized with this statement:

You could not be more wrong about IEttR – the whole point is for YOU to find the exceptions! My generalizations about 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 were backed up by a comparison of the Celtics, Yankees and Canadiens. If you want to dispute that generalization, find the exception!

You can't equate the Celtics to the Yankees and the Canadiens. Their domination in titles over their rivals isn't even close. The NBA is. Give that part up, it's refuted. 17-15 is close enough to take another look, the Yankees and the Canadiens advantages in titles aren't. Something I have already said, but you choose to ignore, and as I sadi above, you have to prove the IEttR, not me! Your flawed logic continues.

But again – you are the self-proclaimed king of Internet research – why can’t YOU find examples to make your case? The answer – they don’t exist. And we’re all waiting with bated breath for the big secret of your claim to have found one.

Gee, this is the rest of your defense? Since you say they don't exist, that means you have proved they don't. Remember, I proved it's you that have to back up your words, not me. So, we are waiting for you to prove it, still. You have now put yourself in an unenviable position of countless years of research. your attempt to turn the IEttR around has clearly exploded in your face.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

The scorecard – I gave you a chance to explain the obvious hypocrisy of including conference finals wins & losses, while counting only championship finals wins (where are the Lakers’ 15 finals losses?). Your response:

But what about the Lakers Finals losses? When you don’t like a rebuttal, you just ignore it. (We will see more of this as we go along.) You offered no answer to my question, confirming that your scorecard is biased. It is all based on YOUR opinion of what constitutes a relevant category. Or should I say you have “Cherry Picked” the categories?

Oh my oh my. Your failure to even follow this argument and demonstrate you even know what you are talking about is simply amazing. You claim I ignore stuff? You do! My last blog addressed everything and I even pointed this out in this thread! I already pointed out I gave a refutation to 14-15 in my blog, and most likley in several places in this thread that you still haven't answered!

Here's my reply in my blog rexhamer, go look for yourself and see it. Then my refutation that follows what I show below in quoting myself. That's yet another thing you have ignored, you never argued with my refutation. I even advised you there to pay attention, something you clearly have trouble with, and something that is causing you to commit self-ownage here over and over again:

Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again!
Yep, it's you who are the hypocrite, your arguments are guilty of it. Thanks for helping me point it out to everyone.
This is certainly in conflict with this statement:

My scorecard isn't biased, your statements are erroneous. Let's have a look at it:

There is nothing in this scorecard that is biased at all. Every category is relevant as the facts are cumulative totals over the entire history of the NBA. The last two are simply added, with proof in my blog, to answer anyone who objects to those statements. Note, Point 9 no longer applies! The categories you want to add are clearly biased, More on that as needed.

Now let’s look at your attempt to remove 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 from the scorecard by speculation.

Let’s take this in pieces.

Since I have already shown that you have no actual exceptions, this statement, and any references to your use of this, are refuted.

Wow, what a weak response. I clearly destroyed your arguments above about the IEttR. So, two things. Remember, they remain speculation and you still haven't addressed my independant refutations of them! You love to ignore everything I beat you with don't you. You want to call the fight off in the first quarter as I have stated already.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

The words “any fan” presumes “every fan”. The words “so prominent in any fan’s discussion”, means I can pick “any fans” or you can pick “any fans” and interview them to see what they talk about! ……. Furthermore, since he claims it will happen and be “prominent in any fan’s discussion”, he is determining their relevance by…drum roll please…..SPECULATION!

Originally Posted by rexhamer

You claim my use of the terms “any’ and “all” is speculation as there is no proof that any and all fans agree with me. You are confusing a speculative statement with a generalization.

Quit twisting things. You said they are prominate in any fans' discussion. Any fan, means every fan, and that's why they belong as relevant categories in the scorecard. That means you are speculating. Look above where I quoted your reply to my blog, that your first has evidence to restore them as primary categores? Where is this proof? You just love to duck the questions, don't you? You are guilty of speculation and hypocrisy. You can speculate but I can't. You owned yourself again by calling it a speculative statement. A speculative statement is still speculation, and that's what you call it. you admit you are a speculator! 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15 are now forever removed as speculation. You don't have to refute my refutations of them now.

It would not be speculation for me to say “Any fan would rather be a champion than a runner-up”. Nor is it speculation to say “All fans would prefer to defeat their traditional rival in a playoff series than lose to them”. I do not have to go to forums to prove these statements. These are logical generalizations that do not need backup evidence. Same with my statements.

I have previously noted that Lakers fans near-automatic response to which team was better in the 80’s has always been “Lakers, 5-3 in championships and 2-1 head-to-head.” You don’t think when fans of the Giants, Cowboys and 49er’s get together to determine who has been more successful, the subject of their respective head-to-head playoff meetings does not come up? You don’t think the Steelers are extremely proud of their 6-0 record in the Super Bowl and the Bills are a little embarrassed about being 0-4? Logical generalizations such as these matter when developing relevant categories.

I am sure you have read through the replies to the Hollinger article. There are numerous references to 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15. I would say that refutes this statement:

It refutes it? LOL, you are an idiot! That's one example. According to you, it will be in every discussion. I already pointed out I saw several sites that listed titles and few if any talked about 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15.

Tell me the last time you were at a basketball forum that talked about a year-by-year analysis of the performance of two teams? Yet you include this in your scorecard. This is just more evidence of the bias of your scorecard. You have based the relevant categories on YOUR opinion. Once again we note the hypocrisy of a statement of yours.

I'll tell you the last time a forum talked about it. Actually, I won't, but let me say this, there are a huge number of unhappy Celtics fans right now because they now realize it's 37-24 Lakers, not 9-2 Celtics. The creation of the topic 37-24 is my "invention" and it's time the world sees it! 9-2 is unfair "Cherry Picking". Your stubborness has caused me to spread the word! It's all your fault I am smacking Celtics fans around quite a bit now. Such a great fan you are. I noted above I need a new arguing foe, you just don't have what it takes to best me.

Your scorecard categories have all been determined by YOUR opinion!

My opinion? Yes, and as I pointed out, an unbiased one at that! My opinion of the historical categories is unarguable fact. You can only argue #8 with a few years of research.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

But to be fair, I will concede that one should avoid the use of “any/all/always/never” in a debate. So let’s try this. Wherever you see “any” or “all”, substitute any one of the following phrases: “the vast majority of”, “virtually all” or “most every”. This more accurately describes a generalization. In this way the thrust of my statements will remain the same. Because I guess it is possible that a certain minority number of fans (Lakers, Bills?) do not see finals records as relevant!

Oh wow, you have commited the ultimate self-ownage here. Since you are now saying to replace uses of "any/all/always/never" with something uncertain in a debate, ie, your blog, you are now admitting it's possible for a team to have fewer championships and be the most successful. Congratulations on sharing this for all to see. You have just stated that it's possible for a team with fewer championships to be the most successful, and that having the most titles doesn't ALWAYS mean being the best franchise. You no longer have to start searching for a team with fewer championships that is the best team. Point 8 in the scorecard is justified by you.

So, in summary – you have already removed the following from your scorecard - the fewer championships theoretical scenario, the Olympics analogy,

That was an interesting topic and thanks to Hollinger's article, it deserves another look. It shows how success short of a championship have merit by awarding "Gold, Silver, and Bronze" medals to teams that make it at least to the conference finals. It was based on a 5 3 1 point system, which is commonly used in the NBA for other annual awards. You got egg on your face over that when you tried to apply an NBA formula to another sport! Also, when comparing the Bulls to the Spurs, you claimed it didn't work, totally missing my point that other successes beyond the medal count come into play. So, it works! However, still no need to try to put it back in play, I don't need it to prove my case.

and financial value (I loved that one. After presenting it at least four times and getting refuted at every turn, you tell us you were only kidding all along! LOL!).

Yeah, I loved that one too. I set you up on purpose to make you answer the same type of ridiculous questions you ask me. Since you didn't like it one bit, my tactic worked far beyond my expectations. Dealing with Cherry Picking is easy to refute, isn't it? LOL, Owned.

Thus, the rebuttal above pretty much refutes Blog 5 (MJ) in its entirety. And I didn’t even break a sweat!

Woah, hold your horses boy! I refuted everything you posted today, above. Everything. I also have your most recent blog entirely refuted and exposed for hypocrisy and flawed logic point by point. You still haven't addressed my refutations of your blog. Still! How many times have I asked you to deal with those? Too many. I have made countless posts referring to my refutations of your blog that you claim you already refuted. Again I ask, how can you refute something by ignoring it? Impossible, except in your world I suppose. You are the master of flawed logic, and don't know how to debate.

And I will also take this opportunity to point out another curious habit of your debate technique. I first addressed your “fewer championship theoretical scenario” in Blog 2(Rex) by crafting an equally simple theoretical scenario that showed a team with championships over consistency was more successful. You completely ignored that point in Blog 3(MJ), once again presenting your theoretical scenario as a Lakers’ advantage. I pointed the fact that you had ignored my theoretical scenario in Blog 4 (Rex), expecting some type of reply. But in your Blog 5(MJ), in which you claim to have cut and pasted my entire Blog 4(Rex), this section is again purposely missing! I can only presume that your debate technique includes ignoring an opponent’s points that refute one of your points. I will touch on this again later.

Hold on again! What you are referring to are my uses of speculation in earlier blogs. If it has to do with speculation, it isn't needed, period. I beat your arguments without it in Blog 5 (MJ).

And finally:

Not only have I put them back in the argument above, to contend that 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 don’t belong in the argument, but 29-9 and 20-11 do is pure hypocrisy. Oh, that’s right – you don’t care about hypocrisy.

On to the replies’ tabulation and your response.

You are the hypocrite here. 9-2, 17-3, and 14-15 are both refuted independantly (which you have NEVER addressed. along with a ton of other stuff you ignore), and proved above again, they are specualtion. Two seperate and decisive defeats.

29-9 and 20-11 are the Lakers and Celtics conference finals records over the entire history of the NBA. They are not biased results and clearly belong in the scorecard. The fact that the Lakers now have 10 extra conference finals wins, a tremendous advantage over the Celtics, is not so easily dismissed by you. Your flawed logic never ceases, does it?

[michaeljohn]

your post above, #41 is a duplicate of post #36 in this thread. I removed my reply to it from above, and repost it here:

Originally Posted by rexhamer

6.

Improve your case? I guess that is evidenced by the decreasing number of supporting replies for your case as the blogs went on!

Yes it has allowed me to improve my case. The Lakers historical 37-24 was added later! You also ignore what I pointed out already, my last and most powerful blog had no shelf life on the Lakers page! Check the dates yourself. Since you don't want me drumming up Lakers support on the main page, few saw it. Besides, the replies are unreliable as I already proved, and now you want to construct another flawed case for bringing them back! LOL!

7.

I can only guess that these “people” are the “17” out of “37-17”, or the “4” out of “18-4” or the “1” out of “5-1”! No, it must really hurt to see people choose the Celtics over the Lakers.
Not at all, aside from the fact I proved those numbers are in error, (See my last post), I also stated before my article that almost everyone would choose the Celtics. You lack reading comprehension. you are the one that is hurt, don't push your anguish off on me.

8.

Again, I guess that explains why other Celtics fans at the blog site fans showed consistent support for my argument while Lakers fans abandoned yours. In fact, looking back at your five desperate pleas for support, I would note that not only did Lakers fans fail to come to your aid with blog replies, they didn’t even acknowledge your request on the Lakers’ pages. Not even a “You know we support you” or a “Thanks, but no thanks.” You were being shunned like an Amish adulterer.

Or better yet, it was like the scene near the end of ‘Animal House’ where John Belushi tries to rally the Delta frat boys into action (“Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!”). At the end of his speech, Belushi shouts’ “Let’s go!”, and bounds out the door, only to return disheartened when nobody follows him.

Talk about twisting the facts! I already stated there were countless replies of support on the main Lakers page. PM's I had many. There is more evidence of support I will reveal later. Why should I when you don't even want to acknowledge the positives I did receive? Oh, because they didn't reply to my blog itself, that is lack of support and thus they don't count. You are so stupid it's incredible.

Yep, you are an embarrassment to the fanbase of the Celtics. You are getting your clocked clean for a second time in this thread! Your blog was flawed, your first argument in this was flawed, and your posts today are flawed. You simply want to debate everything under the sun except for my refutations of your blog! That's a loser strategy; When losing the debate, attack something else, anything, and hope you throw enough shit on the wall it sticks.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

So you know a little about the field of Statistics! I emphasize the word “little” as in “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. You attempt at the use of statistics in this way will turn out to be painful for you. But did you think this was going to impress me? Intimidate me? Haven’t you figured out by know that I am not the average Internet rube you must be used to dealing with?

You need to get ready for the pain. As to who I am dealing with, you are very foolish. You use flawed logic. You lack reading comprehension thus forcing me to repeat myself constantly. You don't face the issues on the table. You commit self-ownage over and over. You are a hypocrite and try to pass this failure of yours off on me. Shall I go on?

Apparently you know only a little about statistics, and do not understand the difference between Inferential Statistics and Descriptive Statistics. Or do you know the difference and were attempting to be intentionally misleading? Either way, this will be fun. I will get to the difference between Inferential and Descriptive later.

You claim my tabulation fails due to a lack of randomness and sample size. Let’s take sample size first.

1. Since you know a little about statistics, you know that sample size refers to the required number of examples to ascertain a certain standard deviation. The most commonly accepted standard deviation is ± 5%. You see it in numerous polls. The required sample size to assure that standard deviation is four hundred (400).

So, since you know about statistics and required sample sizes, and are knowledgeable about internet discussions (a Super Moderator!), particularly at the blog site, you know perfectly well that a sample size of 400 would never be achieved. And yet, knowing this, you repeatedly offered your case up to be judged. Here are some of your statements that I will lump together for brevity:

Note the use of the phrases “to decide”, “make a choice”, take my side”, and “to determine”.

You now are claiming that the sample size is not large enough to draw any conclusion about judgments. You know quite well that this is an example of an ex post facto argument. And don’t try to say that legal parameters of an argument are not pursuant here as, on 4/14/09, when you first introduced the notion of IEttR, you gave us:

Sorry, but you already set the standard for judgment of this debate relative to expected sample sizes. You cannot change the rules now.

What do you mean I can't change the rules? I am not even trying! You have been trying to change them all along! As I tear apart more of your latest garbage this will be further evident. For the record, I placed a ton of doubt on all of your arguments, well beyond reasonable and very convincing! If you don't have reasonable sample sizes, you can't introduce the evidence, Period. This has nothing to do with my quote about reasonable doubt and you know it. You are really something else, that's for sure. Congratulations on being my fall guy here. ex post facto indeed, get real. I could really take you to the cleaners on that. As a matter of fact, I already have. Read and learn what's been said.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

2. In addition, none of the above statements comes with any conditions about sample size. Had you said something to the effect of, “Then, as my last blog stated, it will be left to the reader to decide, providing a statistically significant sample size is achieved”, we may have a different discussion. In the absence of any such conditions, you have essentially waived your right to impose them after the fact.

3. Many months ago you proclaimed:

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “consensus” as “The judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.” Note the term “judgment”. Therefore, you were claiming by this statement that a judgment had been rendered, knowing full well that the sample size fell far short of 400.

Whoh, this is something we agreed to disagree on. There you go trying to change the rules again! You can't bring it up. Just considerit smack talk on my part, and more flawed logic and avoidance of the real issues on your part.

4. In the aftermath of tabulating the replies at the blog site, I have recently countered that there is overwhelming consensus on the Internet that the Celtics are the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA. This statement is clearly made with an even larger sample size than when you made yours. So if you were setting the standard for sample sizes with your original statement, mine (with a much larger sample size) carries far more weight.

Still at it with the flawed logic I see. Let's remember, some votes weren't counted. Let's remember one neutral Celtics supporter switched sides. Let's remember that you decided only to count votes from the blogs when I told you clearly there were plenty of comments on the main Lakers page. Shades of the dimpled chad and voters intent! Let's remember my last and most powerful blog didn't appear on the Lakers main page as five more blogs quickly followed and displaced it. Let's remember that your blogs were sent to team pages that hate the Lakers, and so were mine! Let's remember that the sample population was not random! Last of all, you are attempting to claim victory when the debate is still in the first quarter and still haven't addressed my refutations. Except for a statistical justification you attempt and I will shortly refute, YOU IGNORED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS PARAGRAPH THAT REFUTED THIS THREAD ALREADY! YES FOLKS rexhamer HAS NO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS AND SIMPLY WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY POINT I OUTLINE THAT REFUTED HIS ENTIRE BLOG AND EVERY PART OF THIS THREAD. HE WANTS TO SPIN THE ARGUMENT IN TOTALLY UNRELATED DIRECTIONS, ANYTHING TO AVOID ADMITTING DEFEAT

5. Look, this is an Internet debate, not a graduate course in Statistics. Your attempt to refute my tabulation in this manner indicates you have no legitimate response for the figures themselves.

As for randomness, all the same points apply.

As I said, I never tried to gather statistics, you did. I have every reason to point out your flawed statistical analysis including randomness. More on that when it's time.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

Now back to Inferential Statistics vs. Descriptive Statistics. Inferential Statistics refers to making claims or conclusions about a population based on sample data from that population. Descriptive Statistics refers to summarizing and displaying data so we can quickly obtain an overview of that data. You have attempted to impose the rules of Inferential Statistics on to my use of the tabulation, which is an example of Descriptive Statistics.

For further clarification, inferential statistics are most commonly used in election polls. A Gallup Poll, for instance, of likely voters a week before an election may show one candidate with a 60-40 lead. Within the framework of the standard deviations (usually ± 5%), this poll is making a prediction that the general election results will mirror the poll.

First off, using Descriptive Statistics is a cop out and riddled with flawed logic. It is fine to use Descriptive Statistics when testing a closed population, such as test scores culled from an exam a professor gives. One could compare sexes, majors, etc. and draw findings from those scores. The Gallup polls are indeed pure random samples. Our blogs did not generate random samples of replies by any means! This has been explained. You are right, this isn't a statistics course, it's a debate. Your use of statisitics is a proven failure.

I have made no such claims in my tabulation. I would never contend that the quantity of replies allows us to make any prediction as to how all sports fans, or even all NBA fans, or even fans at the blog site feel. I merely presented that results that we have available to examine. And those results indicate the Celtics have been judged to be the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA.

Now you say you would never be able to make a conclusion from the quality of replies, first right thing you have said. Yet you did make this claim before. Now you back off a bit. While the results of your statistics show Boston ahead, they are not reliable and accurate scores. Yet you want to continue to argue with the theories laid down by the mathematical geniuses of our time.

I would like to say nice try, but it really wasn’t.

Uhh...You just got refuted, again. Learn to read. Statistics owns you. Not a nice try on your part by any means.

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

A few other points about your reply.

1.

It is curious how you determined what would not be needed, because an entire section missing – the part where I introduce the notion of a trend towards the Celtics with my introduction of Blog 2(Rex), and of “neutral” replies.

It doesn't matter it's missing, the statistics were refuted then, and they're refutated again above.

Hmmm. Ignoring an opponent’s valid point. Haven’t we seen that somewhere before?

Yep, you do it all the time. See my most recent example two posts up when I replied to your point 4 about all the things you ignored. You still continue to self-own yourself. Webrats, where Amazing happens!

2.

What you’re implying is that we should only tabulate the replies of everyone who has seen and read all five blogs. First of all, even if someone replied to Blog 5(MJ) there is now way to know with certainty they read all five. Secondly, if we limit the tabulation to those replies posted after Blog 5(MJ), the count is 8-1 overall, and 5-1 neutral in favor of the Celtics. (Ah! Now we know why you omitted this portion of my post!). And before you try to dispute 5-1 with “Treya’s” change of heart, he has done so after the recent championship, which is a different set of circumstances. When evaluating OUR debate, he chose the Celtics.

As I have pointed out, we shouldn't be tabulating any replies. Treya is now on the Lakers side, and the debate continues. Of course, you still have the faulty notion your statistics should be used, which explains your post.

But if we were to take your objection a bit further with your Orlando analogy, you would have us only count points scored in the fourth quarter. Last time I checked, the outcome of a basketball game was determined by the CUMULATIVE score from the entire game. Therefore, 37-17 is the cumulative score. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone’s mind was changed from one blog to another (with the exception of “Bleed”).

More flawed logic. The cumulative score analogy fails. Your entire blog stands refuted. We don't have a true cumulative score because the debate stopped. All we have is a frst quarter score and you know it. Not to mention few people saw my last blog. Besides, the score is not statistically reliable, I proved it above and in the early parts of this thread.

3.

Really? Where? Certainly not anywhere they could be tabulated.

I told you where to look, (Learn to read what I say for crying out loud, your weakness in this is a good part of your undoing). You still may look for them and they can be tabulated. However, it is irrelevant as you failed to justify the use of your flawed statistical interpretations.



That’s right – which is why the only accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the argument is to count those that do. It is a pretty sad commentary on your alleged support that not a single Lakers fan would make that tiny extra effort to post a reply after your five pleas.

There is no accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the argument. Maybe if we count up the instances of your proven flawed logic and all the times I had to repeat myself? That would be a knockout, you'll hit the canvas quickly! Again, the Lakers fans did reply on the main page, but you want to ignore that notion. Go look, they are all there. Oops, told you this already too!

No – a reply tells you that it has been read AND the reader may have been so moved by the points made to render a judgment and indicate such.

Actually, it may not have been read, many people replied and said they didn't read it. So whatever, we really have no argument here.

4.

But apparently enough of them saw it to reply 8-1 in favor of the Celtics!

Was that the score on my last blog? How about the notion I told you I invited several Celtics people to the blog to read it and reply. You have no answer for that refutation. Your name should be "Cherry Picker". Of course we already know we can't trust your statistics, or you to read what I say.

Now on to the real fun part – a revelation so to speak!

Yep, it's going to be very fun for me, and not for you!

[michaeljohn]

As I said, this is the fun part for me, because, well, it will be seen. First thing rexhamer has to agree on is, we never agreed to have the debate moderated, or called to a vote. NEVER! He also knows I will argue it until doomsday. That's given already. Yet once again, he wants to set the rules for the debate by ending it his way! FLAWED LOGIC and easy to exploit and refute.

Originally Posted by rexhamer

It all begins with this statement:

I am here to point out that, for the umpteenth time, you are completely wrong. But this statement now explains so much of what you have said previously. Debates are not conducted in the manner that you describe, in which two opponents go at it continually ad infinitum until one concedes. I will call this the “Last Man Standing” theory. Debates are made with presentations by each side, and then the presentations are judged.

And I will take a brief moment to note a refrain that you have used in a number of forms:

You got into a debate without rules. Maybe a moderated debate, in person, is conducted the way you say, but ours certainly isn't that way. You knew I would go at it forever. Now you want out with a victory when you are losing on all counts? LOL that is the stupidest thing you have done yet. I have refuted everything you have posted and all you do is ignore it and toss more flawed logic at me!

We know already know you are not the least bit hesitant to practice hypocrisy, but what you have done here is an attempt to actually define the rules of the debate yourself – and you are completely wrong with that.

Oh, sorry, I proved it's you who are the hypocrite, not me.

The most common and popular debate that we are familiar with is the Presidential Debate. It is also possible that significant local debates are televised, but the point is that the format is relatively standard. Some agreement is made on presentations, questions, answers and rebuttals ahead of time. But what is common to these debates is that they come to an end. In all my years I have never seen a Presidential Debate that continued until one candidate threw up his/her arms, conceded, and walked off the stage. Following these debates, the media is full of people declaring a winner. These may be pundits and spin-meisters who are not necessarily objective, but the media is full of many that are objective. The point is that the debate is completed and people express their judgment as to who is the winner. It can also be concluded that the ultimate judges of the debate are the voters. But at some point, by somebody, the debate is judged.

The next most common form of debate is probably the high school or college team debate. In some form or other each team makes a case for a particular pro or con position on an issue. The merits of their argument are evaluated by a judge or a panel of judges. They may rate a number of aspects of the debate (presentation, preparedness, etc.), but ultimately select a winner. Here is a site that offers a number of formats for a debate

Debate

One thing you will note - nowhere does it suggest the “Last Man Standing” approach. In fact, there is an entire section on ‘Judging’ debates. More evidence to confirm that my approach to a debate is the correct one.

All this applies to real life debates. It has no bearing on what we are doing.

But maybe Internet debates are different. Let’s take a look at an Internet site that is specifically dedicated to Internet Debates. It is elegantly named Debate.org | Debate, Online Debates, Internet Debates, and Debating Community.

You will note the following at this site:

1. There is no “Last Man Standing” procedure.
2. There is a time limit on presentation of cases.
3. There is a mechanism for members of this site to vote (make a judgment) on the merits of the debate, and - you’ll love this – those judgments are tabulated!

There can be no doubt that your entire perception of what constitutes a debate, and how a winner is determined, is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, your approach to a debate is strikingly similar to Argumentum ad Nauseum. You should remember this from when I schooled you on logical fallacies. It is the practice of continually presenting the same points over and over again. Therefore, your entire approach to a debate is a logical fallacy in and of itself!!

LOL, YOU FAILED BIG TIME AGAIN! First, as explained, this debate was began without rules. Now you want to suddenly make them from a site you found. Those are the rules of debating at THAT site and THAT site alone! If our debate was conducted at that site, then yes, we adhere to those principles. Talk about who is getting schooled on logical fallacies, it's you! Yep, you want to make the rules. You want to ignore everything you are beaten with and twist the arguments with continued flawed logic.

Of course that site has no last man standing rule, they time everything! Since you have failed to address my countless instances of refutations to everything you have posted, it's pretty clear I am the last man standing. You must have 20,000 words to write to refute everything I have said, and that is quite impossible, you have too much hypocrisy and flawed logic to deal with.

Now since it's obvious the rules of that site cannot possbly be used, we are left with rexhamer eating a lot of crow. I'll remind him here. I did say earlier in this thread I would refute anything he posted, he should have learned that already when I annihilated and destroyed his last blog and the first part of this thread. I have delivered on my promise, everything he has posted today has been refuted. EVERYTHING. He refuted nothing of mine. NOTHING.