Castiel

I'm slightly concerned that they'll replace him with Aguero, who I feel has the potential to be better.

deg0ey that isn't my statement, its Barry's. I never said I agreed with Barry's statement - I may have implied that but I never said it. In reality, neither Barry or G4 were correct according to the logic G4 retorted him with. So several pages of arguing just to determine that Barry's argument is logically flawed, but G4's retort is equally flawed by the same logic. I could probably have saved a lot of time in there somewhere.

I'd buy him just so he can closeline that little sh*t Hernandez.

They've got a huge bunch of players retiring or reaching the absolute end of their career. They've spent £50m to stand still, like De Gea for VDS. Whatever we spend will be an improvement.

Now we're at the crux of the issue, finally. Opinion and presupposition are not the same thing. Barry's statement was an assertoric presupposition, which you took great offence to - and continued to "prove" that his presupposition was a logical fallacy, on account of the apodictic assumption you made that he was stating his opinion as fact. This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning and I've gone along with it until you admitted the flaw yourself, albeit on a different issue. Forgive the misdirection but fair debate was getting us nowhere. The presupposition: anytime there is a major ref controversy in the CL involving Barca, it ALWAYS favours Barca Your retort: whether you (or I, or anyone else) think the referee got decision x or decision y correct is entirely irrelevant. you wrote "anytime there is a major ref controversy in the CL involving Barca, it ALWAYS favours Barca". my response merely shows this to be factually inaccurate. the incidents are controversial because all, or most, could be interpreted in favour of or against the team in question. at this point there is no debate to be had- you are factually incorrect, there is no margin of error. I could say which of those incidents highlighted I believe to have been well or poorly judged, but that would be to miss the point- as you have. As you now have, and we come full circle on this logical fallacy you're trapped in. You predicted that this wouldn't end pretty, and you were right; for that I am sorry. Lets go down the yellowbrick road: The evidence was provided to placate your argument in context of the rules of the game. Confirmation bias. Another flawed apodictic presupposition! The contradiction mounts. You have just done exactly what you accused Barry of. You have proposed your opinions as facts, this is an assertoric argument disused as apodictic - this is logical hypocrisy at its apex. And yet your "factual proof" is infallible? Your own logic, G4. This is particularly amusing because you dispute Barry with precisely the same flawed logic he used! You follow this trend frequently when recalling incidents involving Barcelona, but there is no point in pointing them out other than to humiliate you, which is not my intention. Confirmation bias. Opinion again, G4. Again this is an assertoric presupposition presented as fact - with a bit of confirmation bias mixed in at the end. The door swings both ways I'm afraid. And the finale!: In essence, you are saying that the presupposition founding the debate: anytime there is a major ref controversy in the CL involving Barca, it ALWAYS favours Barca Is, in your words, factually incorrect. To the point that disagreement with this presupposition is "pointless." Firstly, Barry's presupposition does hold substance; my seven controversial incidents, which all favoured Barcelona. You have already conceded that they favoured Barcelona because said incidents were awarded in their favour. You have also conceded that disputing whether the decisions were correct or not according to the rules is irrelevant, they were awarded to Barcelona regardless. You have yet to cite a single incident meeting the previously defined criteria of a controversy which went against Barcelona. Your entire argument is built upon an ad ignorantiam fallacy. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the third option that there is insufficient information to prove the presupposition to be either true or false. Your attempt to actualise your position with "fact" and "proof" was futile from the beginning, because you were operating within the parameters of a logical fallacy. You will notice that I never stated my position either way and I never stated my opinions on all disputes as fact because that is the flawed logic you so ironically accused Barry of. The presupposition: anytime there is a major ref controversy in the CL involving Barca, it ALWAYS favours Barca; is, by definition, an assertoric proposition. You went on to "disprove" this with flawed logic, the same flawed logic you were arguing against. To show my hand, my reasoning subscribes to the belief that there is overwhelming evidence, enough to justify beyond reasonable doubt, that Barcelona rely on disingenuous tactics to win. They rely on manipulation of the officials and for this reason, they are afforded favourable decisions by the the officials on a disproportionate scale compared to their rivals. The cause is manipulation (referee harassment, feigning injury, card waving), the effect is the favourable decisions on a disproportionate scale. This is not a fact, this is an educated belief that I, and many others have arrived at based on tangible video and eye witness evidence collected over a decade. This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in any examination. It has been met because there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise, just like in a court of law. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the preposition must be plausible, thereby overcoming the presumption that Barcelona is innocent of these accusations until proven otherwise. The evidence is of their deliberate feigning of injury, manipulation and pressurising of referees and forcing favourable decisions with disingenuous tactics. There is enough evidence to prove my proposition beyond reasonable doubt to the majority. People have been executed on less evidence. This is what you fundamentally failed to understand by believing that the question on had one of two answers; true or false. Point out where I presented a preposition as fact - and indeed preempted dissent with accusations of delusion. The end of your reply ventures into ad hominem reasoning which gives credence to the collapse of your position. I'm surprised you let it go there to be perfectly honest with you.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the object of debate and instead opted to argue the subject of the debate. As we've been over, several times now, the premise is: anytime there is a major ref controversy in the CL involving Barca, it ALWAYS favours Barca What you or I dispute and why is subjective. The fact remains that there are seven major controversies which involve Barcelona, and since all seven ended in favour of Barcelona, and all seven qualify as controversies - confirmed by your immediate reaction to dispute them, the premise isn't as ridiculous as you previously claimed is it? I've challenged you several times to counter this with a single controversy which went against Barcelona and each time you've avoided the issue. Is that a fact? You see where that is going. The reason it isn't remember is because we won the tie, and it was one of our most famous victories - people only remember it fondly because it was such an incredible game. This is all subjective. However none of this is the point. Your stance is looking increasingly flimsy to me in light of the reasoning you're resorting to. I'm seeing a lot of opinion, a lot of subjective refutes, not any factual responses in the context of the rules - which are exactly the parameters you enforced upon Barry. Not for any of the seven incidents I've provided. I can't speak for Barry so this point can't go any further between the two of us alone. Progress! This was thoroughly entertaining thanks for making the effort.

You're surprised? We're talking about an institution that held an election with one candidate not two weeks ago.

According to the Mirror he tried to seduce his Brothers Wife's Mother and he's been involved in something with a fellow players wife/girlfriend: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Ryan-Giggs-sex-cheat-Manchester-United-star-tried-to-seduce-brother-Rhodri-wifes-MUM-EXCLUSIVE-article745403.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Just saw it on City forums. The Media are really going to ruin him it seems.

Malouda + cash I'd agree with all day. Essien, no. On his day he is a world class player, I'd give him one more season to regain form. He's still on the young side too. He hasn't had a good season by his standards, but really, who has?

Anyone have any idea where he'll end up? If he goes to the prem he'll be very dangerous to play against.

Wishful thinking I guess, at least it is on my part. More hope than expectation like you said. Its also worth noting that if we sign Lukaku this season, he'll count as home grown by the time he's 21.

Well Drogba, Anelka and probably Malouda are passing their sell-by dates. If we only count the "future" strikers we have and are being linked with we've got Torres, Sturridge and Lukaku. Neymar and Kalou can and are used in wide positions effectively. So even if we got them all it'd be reasonable competition. In the 433 some people might have to accept playing wide occasionally for more games though I guess.

I feel that Barry has tag teamed me in on the sly. But you're probably right. G4 will have a list of refutes and we could go on forever. Mainly because its a debate based on opinions. But to be honest I don't really want to care this much about Barcelona so I'll take in whatever he has to say next and leave it there. :P

I love how unselfish he is. When Ronaldo came on he moved out to a wing (started as a centre forward). As soon as he made that change he was disciplined about staying on his flank and focused on creating for those in the middle, only cutting inside when nobody was there. His game awareness is just incredible and he has absolutely no problem playing anywhere at the front correctly.

Fair enough. But even so, they were wrongly given. Why can I say its a fact that they were wrongly given? Because its indicative of the rules of the game. Drogba's red card did not agree with the rules of the game. The Hand Ball rule stipulates that the hand must be played to ball deliberately. These are clearly defined, black and white rules, with only human error to corrupt them. On the field, human error does come into play, in video replays its easy to judge decisions in context of the rules. You're forgetting about the context of the laws of the game. I didn't write the rules, but law 12 clearly states that in order to commit a hand ball offense, the player must deliberately handle the ball within the penalty area. Paulo's left hand was by his side (while in the descent of his jump) his right hand was wedged between Eto'o and in an unnatural position, impossible to dislodge, also while in mid air. Its physically impossible for him to remove his hand from that position at that exact moment in time, despite the fact that his momentum was pulling his arm down (as seen by his other arm). That is not manipulating the facts to fit my argument, its analysing the incident in context of the rules of the game. Its quite convenient that I've now gone from turning opinions into fact, to manipulating the facts themselves. Am I misunderstanding the rules now? I believe that particular incident was difficult to call in real time, and the referee gave the attacking team the benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that according to the rules, it was the wrong call, and in favour of Barcelona. That incident doesn't constitute a controversy either, because hardly anyone seems to remember it as it didn't affect the eventual outcome of the game. Well then lets get specific. Taking Barry's original comment: anytime there is a major ref controversy in the CL involving Barca, it ALWAYS favours Barca Lets define controversy: dispute, argument, or debate, esp one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and esp one carried on in public or in the press. Lets select them: Didier Drogba sent off Camp Nou 2004/05 I can't find a video of this one but assuming you've seen the match, you must agree that the red card was not in tandem with the laws of the game. Why is this a controversy? Ref harassment and acting resulted in Drogba going off for wining the ball in a position to score. How dare he score against Barcelona. Lehman Sent off in the CL Final. Lehman had caught Eto’o who was clean through on goal. Why is this a controversy? Guily was in a clear position to score from the rebound and the question remains why the referee didn't play advantage keeping Arsenal at 11 men and allowing Barcelona their goal? Because of referee harassment and card waving as seen in the video. That is where the rules are broken to favour Barcelona in a CL final. For the life of me, I cannot find one of those clear video analysis of offsides for this one, but either I'm going insane, or it was offside by quite a margin. I'd be happy to negate this example on the basis that there doesn't seem to be any clear evidence of it happening any more. The original point being that Eto'o was offside to begin with. Del Horno vs Messi 2005/06 Why is this a controversy? Yes this was an absolute mess of an incident. However, Messi's acting is clearer than day. The entire Barcelona team bar Valdes surrounds the referee waving cards and pleading him to send Del Horno off. Messi is caught looking at the ref before beginning his performance. When the incident is over, he gets up amongst his half dozen strong medical team with IV's, surgical scalpels and defibrillators and continues to play unscathed. That is directly in violation of the rules. Deliberately attempting to manipulate or sway the referee is cheating. Again the referee harassment can be seen, the commentator even notes that they're all yelling at him except the goal keeper. The goal that Never was? 2005/06 That goal was disallowed. In actual fact Sheva was fouled by Puyol. Again, the rules of the game, not my opinion. That goal cost AC the tie as Barca won 1-0. Why is this a controversy?: Because the tie was won by one goal, the striker was quite clearly fouled and yet, his goal was disallowed and he was penalised. This is in contradiction to several laws of the game and this happens quite frequently in Barcelona's case. This is the only major controversial example I can find involving a similar decision though. Some may remember this happening to Ronaldo in the 2nd Real v Barca leg last season. In both cases, the defenders rolled around feigning injury while their team mates surrounded the referee to force his decision to disallow the goals. On video replays its clear that both Sheva and Ronaldo were in fact fouled - yet the incidents ended in Barcelona being awarded a free kick and the opposition players being booked. Ovrebo. 2008/2009 Do you need a video of this one? Why is this a controversy?: It can be argued that six penalty appeals were wrongfully denied in context of the laws of the game. Abidal later admitted that his eventual red was justified and that he was forced to "sacrifice" himself in order to prevent Anelka from having a clear shot at goal. The numerous appeals Chelsea had during this match cost them their place in the final - which Barcelona went on to win. 2009/2010, Thiago Motta red card Why is this a controversy? Busquets play acting, Barcelona players surrounding the referee in an attempt to influence his decision, card waving, the works. All done in an attempt to, and succeeding in, gaining an unfair advantage over their opposition - also known as cheating. Enjoy: 2010/2011 - Van Persie red card Sorry best video I can find. UEFA claiming copyright on a lot of them. That is the most ridiculous red card I've ever seen. Whats more: Why is this a controversy? So one's a red card, and the other doesn't get anything? There are clearly double standards going on. Again, referee harassment featured. 2010/11 Pepe red Why is this a controversy? No contact, again the acting and referee harassment got him sent off. Again, in violation of the rules. The deliberate harassment of the referee and feigning injury qualifies this as a controversial incident because the authorities of the game were manipulated. When you write a lengthy dissertation illustrating someones misuse of a word in order to dismiss his opinion, finally succeeding in forcing to him to admit that its an opinion, then you are being pedantic. Do I need to get the dictionary out again? By this statement, what you say next is a contrapositional argument: For a start, you wrote your dissertation on Barry's use of the word fact to make him admit that he was talking about an opinion. Then you proceed to disprove his opinion? Do you realise how arrogant that is? I believe the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster. I believe the Pacific ocean contains exactly 900 trillion to the power of 8 hydrogen molecules. I believe Frank Lampard's goal against Barcelona in 2009 was deliberate. Prove any of them wrong. You can't, because by virtue of them being opinions, they cannot be proven either way. Opinions, unlike facts, are an intangible qualification, they are subjective and pertain to the characteristics of an individual; and attempting to disprove them is like saying: "I believe the universe was created in the big bang, therefore you're wrong." As for the actual statements existing simultaneously, Katon explained how you're wrong there. One specifies controversy, the other specifies that occasionally they get wrong decisions, nothing to do with controversy. You can't change the rules of the game now, you made the decision to work with absolutes and facts. Those are the facts I'm afraid. Well I've specified what I consider to be controversial incidents. The criteria being an indisputable incident (based on video evidence) which contradicts the rules of the game resulting in Barcelona gaining an unfair advantage over their opposition. The examples listed in this post share a commonality which makes them controversial, that is the manipulation of the officials in order to gain an unfair advantage over their opposition. There are no examples of this happening with any other team in more than isolated incidents. Why are these not isolated incidents? Because of frequency. Two points do not make a pattern they make a line. Seven points however... In the TV show Stargate, 7 points in space was enough to create an artificial wormhole. :) Just to clarify I should have said league goals because both teams progress at different rates in the tournaments. The bolded part however is exactly what I was looking for. You just disrespected my opinion, just like you did to Barry, which is all I've seen you do so far.

I agree, he looks more like a deep lying playmaker to me, certainly not a holder but I'm not sure about no.10. Sneijder is small but he's fast and strong, see his games in Inter for proof of that.

Neymar giving another masterclass. He's created too many chances to count now and almost scored himself. Ronaldo out there makes it incredibly entertaining.

I think what you consider a fact and what we consider a fact are differing somewhere. The decisions I cited went in favour of Barcelona, that is a fact. I don't know how you can say otherwise. As an example, Drogba was red carded incorrectly, I'm sure everyone agrees that was a bad decision; but completely isolated from every other decision in the history of football - in that event, the card brought us down to 10 men and removing our most influential player (most influential player is an opinion but being down to 10 men is not), was in favour of Barcelona because it helped them win the game. It isn't an opinion. Drogba really was red carded. Its very much a fact. But I'm not basing it on opinions. I pointed out a good chunk of the controversial events that have surrounded Barcelona, resulting in their progression or directly winning the tournament. These events really happened, and they helped Barcelona progress, making them factual events. The cameras don't give opinions and thats what I'm basing my point on. I think there have been 2 instances where the opposite has been true, from memory, Sneijders foul on Danny Alves and the disallowed goal from Bojan. Perhaps 3 having just remembered Henry's penalty call against us. If you, quite rationally so, chalk it all up to human error, then how do you explain the overwhelming discrepancy in Barcelona's favour compared to every other top flight team in the world? Is this a statistical freak occurrence? I'm really interested to see how you explain it. It is not an opinion, this is statistically the case and somewhere on UEFA's site you can see it for yourself. I'll take a look for it myself after writing. I'm not sure how you can be so pedantic about the use of the word fact, then continue to attempt to disprove an opinion. How can you disprove someones opinion? I think Messi is a superior player to Ronaldo, yet Ronaldo has scored more goals this season - prove me wrong. Whats more, I haven't yet seen you prove him wrong. Above I've cited some of the controversies surrounding Barcelona, all of them with a favourable outcome for them. Name one controversy, not an isolated incident like a missed offside or a dodgy handball, but an actual controversy (i.e. Overbo, Florentina vs Bayern, Madrid vs Barca, RVP red card) that robbed Barcelona. I'll only accept an incident that fits the definition of the word, since you insist on being pedantic, so something more than what upset Barcelona and their fans. Something that had the whole football world pissed off and debating like we are now. If you can do that, I'll concede; if not, stop saying you've "proven" anything. Its very much your opinion.

I mixed the dates up for the Arsenal games, as I said, top of my head. Paulo's hand was pretty clearly forced into the ball by Eto'o's shoulder, his other hand was down by his side, but the offending hand (up there to provide momentum for his jump) was kept up being wedged against another player. We don't remember it scornfully because we won the tie. I couldn't find a clear video of the offside either but I remember my Arsenal friends rewinding it constantly trying to convince me of how badly they were robbed at the time. I also don't think Valdes was fouled, it looked like he was looking for it, conveniently diving in the direction of the header to save it and looking for the foul when he failed. Carvalho was behind him, not impeding him. Yes' date=' you are. You said: The above examples are factual examples of repeated controversy, some in larger degrees than others, directly in favour of Barcelona, which result in them progressing or winning the competition. No other team has a similar history. All teams have been screwed over or helped in one off matches, but none of them are so consistently helped in absolutely vital matches in almost every campaign. Do I believe there is a conspiracy? No. I believe there is possible favouritism, even on an unconscious level. I also believe that Barcelona exploit the officials with feigning injury/diving/harassment - which constitutes cheating in my book. Do you understand that?

2004/05 1. Paulo handball (ball forced to hand by Eto'o's shoulder). 2. Drogba red card completely unjustified. 3. Lehman red card. (Arsenal) 4. Eto'o blatantly offside goal. (Arsenal) 2005/06 1. Messi feigning injury to get Del Horno red carded. 2. Shevchenko's goal that never was for AC Milan (still unclear why it was disallowed and the ex-referee's in the studio couldn't pinpoint a reason why he blew). 2008/09 1. Ovrebo. 2010/11 1. Pepe (there was no contact) - Mourinho sent down to 10 men for the 3rd consecutive time against Barcelona. 2. van Persie red carded for shooting a second after the whistle blew. I just wanted to point out that a pattern is emerging to me. I'm fully aware that they suffer from poor refereeing but the scales are certainly not balanced. They're not even all the incidents, just the ones I can recall from the top of my head.

I was guilty of this myself at first, but I feel people are overeating a little bit. I think I've already said somewhere that our U15's beat City 9-0 last year. Now the Academy is up and running we've got waves of potentials, seemingly improving every year, coming through. We have a squad of 25 for them to compete for, to think they're all going to make it is a bit naive and I'm sure buyback clauses have been attached to those the management are unsure about. Holding onto these people when they clearly wont be making the cut is just selfish and hindering their careers. We've got Josh out of it already who we have high hopes for. We also have Bentrand, van Aanholt and a few others who are looking like real prospects for the first team. We're seeing the results, but not everyone is going to make it here, or at any top team.

I've got to disagree with you there. I haven't seen him very often but got a good look at him against Brazil and he looked very solid defensively. Neymar (who most of us rate very highly) only managed to trick him a few times, it was nothing like what Valencia did to Cole a few weeks ago. He didn't get many opportunities to go forward that match so can't really comment on how good he is in that regard but I liked how he's always in the right place at the right time, mainly in a defensive respect. He always knew where his winger (Neymar in that case) was and closed him down quickly. Robben didn't do anything to help him either and a CB was always covering him when Neymar was marauding that flank so he was identified as a special threat anyway - exactly what we'd do with a player like Messi or Ronaldo going down a flank.

Well he wants to come here so badly that he's done everything in his power to shift the bargaining power away from his club to us. I think he'd see out his contract and come to us on a free if that became his only option. Its sort of like Fabregas and Barcelona, if the players heart is in it they'll make it happen.

Its just a case of what you said earlier, sometimes youth potential translates great into the senior level, and sometimes it doesn't. Sadly Mikel didn't live up to the heights Messi reached, but when it comes to talent; in anything from Football to Music, Messi is the exception. For every Messi there are a thousand Mikels. Thats not to say Mikel isn't a good player, because he is; but comparing him to Messi now is utterly ridiculous.