Roughly 6 Owls provides a stellar explanation of why it's okay to accept some of the original arguments I was making a few pages back. Now, that argument I was originally going for will more accurately describe the Elo situation than the argument I'm currently using.

But, the new argument is a purely logical argument. All it takes is for AtheistGuy1 to tell me what he believes to be the answer to the questions I answer. The fact of the matter is, even if we can use mathematical and statistical fact to prove that AtheistGuy1's answers to my questions are incorrect (to someone who understands the math and statistics), my new approach will actually logically disprove Elo hell, whether or not AtheistGuy1's answers are mathematically or statistically accurate.

It only requires minimal cooperation on AtheistGuy1's part.

Quote:

**AtheistGuy1**:

I can only assume you've pulled this out of your ass as well. You only have a vague idea what my stance is on the subject. So tell me- how does it feel to be able to conjure up strawmen so quickly?

And in his latest response, instead of reading the whole post and actually answering the simple questions that I asked that would further the argument, he's throwing up a strawman argument and accusing me of doing the same. My comments on your religious beliefs were merely an observation on the amazing irony present in this thread given your choice of summoner name. I don't intend to turn this thread into a debate about religion. That wouldn't be constructive for anyone.

All I want is to continue the logical argument, and all that takes is for AtheistGuy1 to answer this simple set of questions, which I restate yet one more time:

1) If Team A has 1 troll and Team B has 1 troll, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?

2) If Team A has 2 trolls and Team B has 2 trolls, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?

3) If Team A has 3 trolls and Team B has 3 trolls, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?

4) If Team A has 4 trolls and Team B has 4 trolls, if they played an infinitely large sample size of matches against each other, would the win rate approach 50%?

I'm not going to try reasoning you into one answer or another. It's a simple yes or no question. What is, in your opinion, the answer to each of these 4 questions? Please give me an answer so that I can continue with the next step in the argument. The argument can continue whether you say yes or no, it just takes different paths (and I'd be willing to go through both), but for now I'd just like to focus on disproving Elo hell existence based entirely on what your set of beliefs regarding Elo hell are without trying to convince you of anything else. Four yes or no questions, four yes or no answers. That's all your response needs to be. If your response to all four questions is the same answer, then one answer will suffice.

If you're still unwilling to cooperate, then I'm not going to continue. If you want cooperate and give answers to straight-forward questions, then you're being unreasonable obtuse for no other point than to avoid allowing me to make my point in fear that I'll disprove your belief.