Gun Rights

My guess is that you either fundamentally misunderstand the definitions here, or you're trolling
I think you know you are wrong, probably about everything, but to stubborn to admit it.

Is that considered trolling?

Blackflag: It told me that a random sampling of 1000 people in 315 million has a critical t-value margin of error of 4%, and a (more accurate) z-value margin of error of 3%. Yes.

Just like EVERYONE ELSE.

Would you like me to prove to you mathematically that z-scores work in determining margin of error?

Oh yes, and FYI, margin of error is not a complete description of ACCURACY. Accuracy is something different in statistics from a margin of error.

admin: It told me that a random sampling of 1000 people in 315 million has a critical t-value margin of error of 4%, and a (more accurate) z-value margin of error of 3%. Yes.
So margin of error is the propability that one of the variables in the sample is incorrect, not that the statitic is accurate.

Sounds like after all this time, you were flabbergasting about not even understanding the definition of margin of error.

Blackflag: It would be.

Except I know full well that I'm right. All you've done is tell me to find people to tell me I'm wrong.

Not only is that a poor argument. NOBODY EXCEPT YOU WOULD.

A margin of error is one of the easiest calculations in the world of statistics. I cannot believe you can't do one. I looked at those numbers and without even calculating it could instantly see it was roughly 3%.

Therefore I was correct, and in every instance where 1000 people out of 315 million people are surveyed, there is a 100% chance the statistic is going to be wildly false.

Blackflag: NO. The margin of error is the range of values above and below a statistic at a confidence interval. HOW THE HELL DO PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET NOT KNOW THIS?

Except I know full well that I'm right. All you've done is tell me to find people to tell me I'm wrong.
I didn't say you were wrong about the equation, but the application of the equation in the scenario.

You tried to use margin of error as a argument for the validity of the statistic, but anyone who isn't a total retard would call that out immediately as crockshit,

Blackflag: Do you know what a random sample is?

Do you know how a random sample of 1000 people differs from a regular sample of 1000 people?

HOW THE HELL DO PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET NOT KNOW THIS?
How the hell can you be so sure of something yet so wrong?

Look it up, you can't use margin of error to validate the survey you provided. It is ludicrious.

Blackflag: No I didn't. You tried telling me the margin of error was wrong on my stat. I simply showed that USA Today had calculated it correctly.

admin: Do you know how a random sample of 1000 people differs from a regular sample of 1000 people?
What I do know is that me answering this question wont lead to an explanation of how a random sample of 1000 people will provide an accurate representation of the views of 315 million people.

Blackflag: I'M NOT. YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY THE MARGIN OF ERROR CALCULATED BY USA TODAY WAS WRONG.

Do you agree their stat had a 3% margin of error?

Note that this does not mean it is in any way accurate.

admin: No I didn't. You tried telling me the margin of error was wrong on my stat. I simply showed that USA Today had calculated it correctly.
You must have a bad memory.

I said your survey was incredibly unreliable, and you gave me a margin of error statistic, which if you actually had a brain, you would know that statistic has literally not the slightest thing to do with the accuaracy of the survey as a representation of the views of 315 million people

Blackflag: Because a random sample is inherently perfectly representative .

Don't tell me you don't know the statistical definition of those things either.

Because a random sample is inherently perfectly representative .
Yes, and now we come back to how you are mentally insane and possibly addicted to crack cocaine

I don't even think you hear yourself. This is insanity, I am LOLing my ass off right now

Blackflag: And you're the one who says you always respond to my points in full? Seesh. I've got to remember this comeback.

I said your survey was incredibly unreliable, and you gave me a margin of error statistic
You said that you cannot derive an accurate statistic from that sample.
I replied, more or less, that the scope of an accurate statistic can be ascertained with confidence if the sample is random.
You replied that the margin of error was close to 100%.
I was like "WTF" and flipped out because that made it clear you had never studied stats before I googled this for you 10 minutes ago.

Blackflag: Would you like to debate that a random sample is perfectly representative? I'd imagine you'd think it's an easy win (because you think a perfect representation precludes a sample, without understanding that representation has a special meaning in statistics too).

And you're the one who says you always respond to my points in full?
These are points?

Wow, since when was insanity confused with scholarship?

I replied, more or less, that the scope of an accurate statistic can be ascertained with confidence if the sample is random
Yes, and I encourage hospital physchologists to look at this when they examine you.

Come on. I can't be the only one who thinks you are talking out of your ass. I don't care if the survey is random or not. You are never going to get an accurate representation of 315 million people by surveying a 1000.

Also the fact that you thought margin of error dealt with the validity of the survey just shows that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Would you like to debate that a random sample is perfectly representative?
Debating the blatantly obvious is not in my interests.

What if a dude came on here and asked me to debate whether 2+2=5?