Haha. If someone can say a theory for sure, then they have proved the hypothesis and then its deductive and scientific. Its not an argument. It is now a fact.
Nothing in the humanities can someone say for sure, hence the inductive argument. Are you suggesting economics, law, history or even pure philosophy is pointless?
Nice one champ. You stick to regurgitating your facts, leave the thinking for those that can.
Sigh........
You're arguing against a point in time that has already happened, re: your theory that QLD would with certainty (according to you) dump Lockyer IF QLD had of lost the last 5 series in a row.
Now unless you can go back in time and even then, one could argue that you would have to somehow alter the present in the past, for future result to be different ....unless you can do that and I can say with unabashed certainty
you can't
therefore your assertions are baseless
and once again
your argument is pointless, because it is not in the realms of any (including yours) possibilities.
Btw.......your pseudo intellectual bullshit that you think you have a grasp on is laughable.
Don't put away your picture books just yet.........