Posted:
#26
Since you "know" its rigged seems like you would be cleaning up betting the so called rigged side--likely as not you didnt even bet at all though
RIGGED It's 100% going to be Chiefs vs 49ers Superbowl
Posted:
#27
The burden of proof (called in Latin onus probandi) is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that you make. For example, if a politician claims that a policy they want to implement is guaranteed to lead to a number of positive outcomes, then that politician has a burden of proof with regard to this statement, meaning that they need to back it up with supporting evidence.
Posted:
#32
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
It's the first time in covers history that someone calls both favs winning rigged, bravo.Notice how ZERO rigged threads spawned after yesterday's results. If one of the dogs would of covered a lot of people would be looking for excuses.
It's the first time in covers history that someone calls both favs winning rigged, bravo.Notice how ZERO rigged threads spawned after yesterday's results. If one of the dogs would of covered a lot of people would be looking for excuses.
Wrong I calmed SF winning SB in August.
Only I thought it would be vs Pats.
Proof that there are clues you can find but you can't exactly predict future.
Posted:
#33
Quote Originally Posted by 7out:
The burden of proof (called in Latin onus probandi) is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that you make. For example, if a politician claims that a policy they want to implement is guaranteed to lead to a number of positive outcomes, then that politician has a burden of proof with regard to this statement, meaning that they need to back it up with supporting evidence.
The burden of proof (called in Latin onus probandi) is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that you make. For example, if a politician claims that a policy they want to implement is guaranteed to lead to a number of positive outcomes, then that politician has a burden of proof with regard to this statement, meaning that they need to back it up with supporting evidence.
This us incredibly bad , pseudo logic.
There is no such thing as a burden of proof. Either something exists or it doesnt. Ability to prove it is irrelevant.
By your logic . You are allowed to believe something because others do/have , and or you've believed it for years. Only when you are confronted with a new concept ,then you need what you would consider so called proof?
What you fail to realize is you haven't and can't prove it's not rigged. You don't have a single thing that qualifies as proof . All you have is " how could they? I don't see how ,so it's not possible? That's doubt, that's not proof.
We have circumstantial examples. In the real world games would not come down to the final plays /seconds, as they do, basically every weekend in sports tv world.
You've simply chosen to believe the fictional tv world they've created for you.
If burden of proof were actually necessary .every person who believes in a god should be thrown in a home or jail. But society seems to be doing just fine. Social conditioning and acceptance doesn't make a belief a reality. ie, just because you can't figure out its staged, does t mean it isnt.
Super bowl 51. Saints vs Rams and Vikings the last 3 years. The Titans this year. SF vs saints during season. These unrealistic outcomes are proof. It's your perception that's wrong
Posted:
#36
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Quote Originally Posted by chic-cardinals:
Wrong I calmed SF winning SB in August. Only I thought it would be vs Pats. Proof that there are clues you can find but you can't exactly predict future.
I thought 1 of 32 teams would win the SB in AugustWrong I calmed SF winning SB in August. Only I thought it would be vs Pats. Proof that there are clues you can find but you can't exactly predict future.
Lol what a childish , asinine comment. I in fact picked the niners and rode that for 4 months. There's no questioning that. You have nothing to counter with.
Posted:
#37
Quote Originally Posted by warrenator:
Then if it is "rigged" as you are 100% certain it is you might as well bet your house, your soul, your life savings and everything else (which would be idiotic but so is his premise)
Then if it is "rigged" as you are 100% certain it is you might as well bet your house, your soul, your life savings and everything else (which would be idiotic but so is his premise)
What's idiotic , is thinking a billion dollar tv entertainment industry, is obligated to honestly present itself to you.
Gambling was invented by dishonest people for dishonest reasons. You gladly participate in being screwed over. I'm helping you develop better eye sight towards it. But you reject honesty. So who's the fool again?
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
It's the first time in covers history that someone calls both favs winning rigged, bravo.Notice how ZERO rigged threads spawned after yesterday's results. If one of the dogs would of covered a lot of people would be looking for excuses.
It's the first time in covers history that someone calls both favs winning rigged, bravo.Notice how ZERO rigged threads spawned after yesterday's results. If one of the dogs would of covered a lot of people would be looking for excuses.
They were Favs as the script dictated. Besides, like someone said, underdogs win... or cover? 40% of the time. It's a mythical classification.
Posted:
#41
Quote Originally Posted by Ikid2groove035:
I don’t think it’s rigged- 49ers clearly been the most consistent team all year and KC finally got healthy and hot
So losing 2 DE’s and your safety that is rated as the best cover guy(rated by PFF) in the KC secondary is getting healthy? The Chiefs benefited from Tony Corrente being there to get the SB match up they wanted. SF 49ers tie the pats and Steelers with 6 Super Bowls and Andy Reid cries eating his cheeseburger after yet another big game playoff loss.
Hot Forum Topics
