Your IQ is probably low, so I will help you.

Your hypothesis: Aspas is a baiter.

Definition of bait in the context of FPS: consists of letting your teammate die to get the trade.

Your thesis and premise: Aspas is a baiter based on the premise that his First Death stats are low.

My counterargument: Your premise fails miserably in trying to prove that Aspas is a baiter. Low First Death stats only prove that he dies little in his first duels. The premise that the reason for low First Death stats is due to baiting is only an indirect relationship, which cannot be treated as concrete proof. Another indirect relationship that may exist in this case (which contradicts yours) is that Aspas has low First Death stats due to the fact that he simply wins his first duels.

Your argument that Aspas is a baiter based on his low First Death stats is an example of assuming causation from correlation. Low First Death doesn't directly prove baiting; it could also mean he's just good at winning first duels. This is called a spurious correlation or false causality.

It's hard for stupid people to understand logical things, your answer is a reflection of that. Definetely braindead.

.

This braindead argument is only logical inside ur head. There's no point in pointing out that it's confirmation bias if you can't prove it, because confirmation bias naturally only becomes confirmation bias when it's proven. If you think he's ignoring any facts or statistics that contradict his beliefs, this can only be proven if you show them.