FanNation - The Republic of Sport

In any debate, the burden of proof lies on the side of the affirmative. The negative position only needs to sow reasonable doubt... and Ruby has already done that with this first argument without making any new arguments. It indeed was suspicious, but I would like at least a quotation or at least som anecdotal evidence to consider as potential proof...

I will reserve judgment now, until I see YDT's rebuttal...

If the 1972 Gold Medal game was fixed, so was the 1980 Miracle on Ice Game.

Not fixed by the players, but by the refs.

But the USA should've done a better job on defense. 50% refs, 50% players not playing hard enough.

Touche TeadeAngelos

sorry I butchered your name.

It wasn't fixed. If it was, do you think the refs would wait for some incredible play to happen 3 seconds before the game was over to play their hand?

Wow...a lot of guys here are still pretty pissed about losing a basketball game 35 years ago to a country that doesn't exist anymore. Sad.

The evidence presented here is simply too weak to condemn FIBA or the referees in the game. Certainly there were -- and obviously still are -- suspicions about the validity of the contest; the fact remains that no proof has come out here or anywhere else to convict, without doubt, the authorities that be.

That said, I think you could go further with how you rebut the opponent's arguments, Ruby... but you did enough to get my vote...

There was nothing to rebut, Bigalke. This guys arguments were weaker than lemonade without the lemons.

the person making the td makes a statement hoping the person responding would argue..telling him he needs more evidence isn't defending the opposite side of the argument...

the people telling who needs stronger fact and arguments are the voters....

maybe thats why ruby sits at a 40 some %in TDS

Or maybe it's because of spiteful jackaasses who vote regardless of the topic like you, steveo.

First salvo in the rise of basketball internationally. It was a bitter pill to swallow for the USA at the time. Good analogy re: 1980 Miracle on Ice.

It???s a structured debate between two Fans. Each Fan gets three turns to make an argument and prove their case. Other Fans can comment on the Throwdown and vote for a winner.

there you go...theres the definition straight from fan nation...im voting based on the arguments at hand...weather you want to call me spiteful for thinking that you have no valid case in your arguments...thats your problem...not mine.

My case was that he had no evidence. And he didn't.