the fall of cameron

[Aeson]

The medal count is about on par when you just have UK+Germany. So a 28 to 1 comparison belies that it is closer to 2 to 1 in actual effect.

You are cherry picking the top 2 medal count countries within the EU.

If we are going to treat the EU as a monolithic entity (which the graphic that started this line of discussion did) then it's inconsistent to cherry pick from within the entity. It would be like making an argument based on the state of Maryland in a discussion about the US. Yah, Maryland has a pop of 6 million, won 18 medals ... 14 of which were gold ... which would put them first in gold medals per capita and 5th in total medals per capita. But it really doesn't address the topic, which is the US as a whole vs EU as a whole.

In any case, the 28 to 1 comparison was specifically about men's basketball, which was specified as the most obvious situation where the US is at a disadvantage in medal count due to that issue. I did not claim any specific ratio about the other events or in general. The US is able to field 3 competitors in many events that most EU countries cannot field 2 ... and at least some of the EU countries are unable to field even 1 ... so the ratio overall will be very different. But it is still a factor that needs to be taken into account.

[Dauphin]

You are cherry picking the top 2 medal count countries within the EU.

I am demonstrating that in a direct comparison of the U.S. to EU, you can still disregard the rest of the EU and still the EU has a higher medal count. You can't say that the U.S., or subset of states or other criterion, can match the E.U. It's not cherry picking when you are making an "even if" or "worst case" statement.

If we are going to treat the EU as a monolithic entity (which the graphic that started this line of discussion did) then it's inconsistent to cherry pick from within the entity. It would be like making an argument based on the state of Maryland in a discussion about the US. Yah, Maryland has a pop of 6 million, won 18 medals ... 14 of which were gold ... which would put them first in gold medals per capita and 5th in total medals per capita. But it really doesn't address the topic, which is the US as a whole vs EU as a whole.

You can do that comparison, but I'm not talking about medals per capita, so you are introducing a straw man. To say the EU's benefit from having 28 teams gives the impression that they have a 28-fold advantage - and that is what I am disputing. My comparison was an attempt to reflect what would happen if you consolidated the EU into many fewer teams. The advantage is much closer to 2.

In any case, the 28 to 1 comparison was specifically about men's basketball, which was specified as the most obvious situation where the US is at a disadvantage in medal count due to that issue. I did not claim any specific ratio about the other events or in general. The US is able to field 3 competitors in many events that most EU countries cannot field 2 ... and at least some of the EU countries are unable to field even 1 ... so the ratio overall will be very different. But it is still a factor that needs to be taken into account.

So you want to stick to a cherry picked sport?

Let's say that EU countries win two medals and the U.S. gets one - there are only three medals available in any event. If the EU were represented by one team, it could get one medal, and the U.S. can still get one medal. Honours even. But the medal count for the EU has only halved, not decreased by 28 to 1.

[Aeson]

It is cherry picking. The reality is the US is allowed 1 team, and the EU up to 28 teams. The number of teams allowed was what I specifically addressed. As I said, if the US was allowed 3+ teams it would be a consistent threat to sweep the men's basketball medals.

I never claimed the effect on medals to be 28 to 1, that is just your ignorant strawman.

[Dauphin]

You complain of cherry picking, yet you want to limit your argument to a single event?

[Aeson]

I didn't limit my argument to a single event. I specifically said the event was chosen because the effect was most obvious in that event. I also mentioned how the effect is different in other events.

I gave the clearest example of the effect because you were displaying ignorance about the effect even existing.

[Dauphin]

Is ignorant your insult of the day? You've used it twice inappropriately in the past few posts.

I said it would not make a huge difference. Not that it would make no difference.

[Aeson]

If you don't want me to use the term "ignorant", stop behaving ignorantly. You tried to pretend that I had said something I didn't. Whether that was willful ignorance on your part or just the more mundane ignorance involved in not understanding what was said, I don't know. The label applies either way.

Then your childish "I'm cherry picking, you're cherry picking" when I am not cherry picking at all is another instance of you behaving ignorantly. I explicitly noted that the example was the most obvious one. I helped you understand that the individual events are influenced to a lesser degree. Then you claimed I was only addressing one event because I said the 28 to 1 was only was being referred to in regards to men's basketball. It was ignorant of you to do so.

The funny part is that I never claimed how much of an effect this had on the total medal counts outside the specific example of men's basketball, and noting that that was the event where the effect would be most obvious. Then you labored to try to enlighten me about what that effect would be, after I had already laid it out.

I only went as far as to say that it was a benefit to the EU to be treated as separate countries. That is simply a fact, it is a benefit. You're such a butt-hurt nationalist that you've gone on and on trying to refute a claim that never was made outside your imagination.

[Dauphin]

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Sport. Serious business.

[C0ckney]

If you don't want me to use the term "ignorant", stop behaving ignorantly. You tried to pretend that I had said something I didn't. Whether that was willful ignorance on your part or just the more mundane ignorance involved in not understanding what was said, I don't know. The label applies either way.

Then your childish "I'm cherry picking, you're cherry picking" when I am not cherry picking at all is another instance of you behaving ignorantly. I explicitly noted that the example was the most obvious one. I helped you understand that the individual events are influenced to a lesser degree. Then you claimed I was only addressing one event because I said the 28 to 1 was only was being referred to in regards to men's basketball. It was ignorant of you to do so.

The funny part is that I never claimed how much of an effect this had on the total medal counts outside the specific example of men's basketball, and noting that that was the event where the effect would be most obvious. Then you labored to try to enlighten me about what that effect would be, after I had already laid it out.

I only went as far as to say that it was a benefit to the EU to be treated as separate countries. That is simply a fact, it is a benefit. You're such a butt-hurt nationalist that you've gone on and on trying to refute a claim that never was made outside your imagination.

i'll take 'why no one bothers debating with me any more' for $500 please alex.

[Aeson]

What is, "because I'm always right"