What? I only speak for myself on the first "objective statement"? Which one was that? I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Is it the "I don't see the use of female models in a motorsport tournament" statement? I've never claimed that is an objective stateme, it explicitly states "I don't see". In fact I've told you several times that that was a subjective statement (as if that was necessary).

Seriously, what is it you are referring to here?

I said it was sufficient for F1. If my sentence had ended after sufficient, you'd have a point, but it didn't. Did F1 make the decision to get rid of grid girls based on pressure from external groups? Yes. Ergo that external group was sufficiently large (large enough) to get F1 to make that decision. We don't need an empirical measure on how large that group is, beause my statement was that it was large enough that F1 made that decision. Which it neccesarily is, since F1 made that decision.

We have an empirical measure of that - did F1 decide to remove grid girls? The empirical answer is yes. Ergo the group opposing grid girls was sufficiently large to get F1 to decide to remove grid girls. I thought that was self-evident? It's a logical necessity.

I have empirical evidence proving that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary for either:

F1 decided to get rid of grid girls. Ergo they aren't absolutely necessary, not for business, nor for the sport.

Further evidence: The world endurance championship got rid of grid girls in 2015. Conclusion - grid girls are not absolutely neccesary, anyway you cut it. Do they provide some benefit? Possibly, but that benefit is empirically non-essential as several formula racing tournaments don't have them.

https://www.motorsport.com/wec/news/wec-getting-rid-of-grid-girls-for-all-events-including-le-mans/

Let me get this straight - do you think grid girls are absolutely necessary to have a formual racing tournament? Can you not have a formula racing tournament without grid girls?

Have I claimed otherwise? My opinion is my opinion, but what makes "my perspective" more limited than yours?

The group in support of grid girls is evidently not sufficiently large to make F1 keep them. They may be larger, but that doesn't make my statement not objective - it just means F1 puts unequal importance to the two groups. Perhaps the group in support of grid girls is larger, but support them less adamantly, so they on average care less. Either way, that the group was sufficiently large to make F1 remove grid girls is empirically true and an objective statement. 

In addition - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11231936/scrapping-grid-girls-divides-opinion-but-returns-f1-to-the-frontpages

Sky sports's poll show a larger group supporting F1's decision to remove grid girls.

The link was just as a source that WEC did indeed stop having grid girls in 2015. Whatever opinions they've written in addition is irrelevant. WEC hasn't had grid girls since 2015. WEC is a formula racing tournament. Conclusion - grid girls aren't neccesary to have a formula racing tournament.

I've demonstrated that there exists tournaments that don't have grid girls. That alone proves that grid girls aren't necessary. It's not complicated. Formula racing tournaments that don't have grid girls exist. Thus Grid girls aren't necessary to have a formula 1 tournament. You can try and spin all you like, but that's a fact.

Anyway, luckily for me, the end result is that F1 made their decision in favour of the view I support

Using the absolutely necessary is quite a problem, because you could also argue that pilots aren't absolutely necessary (as you can have it by GPS navigation or someone outside the cockpit driving) or that the power isn't absolutely necessary since they had less than 200bhp under the hood way back.

Have I claimed otherwise? My opinion is my opinion, but what makes "my perspective" more limited than yours?

The group in support of grid girls is evidently not sufficiently large to make F1 keep them. They may be larger, but that doesn't make my statement not objective - it just means F1 puts unequal importance to the two groups. Perhaps the group in support of grid girls is larger, but support them less adamantly, so they on average care less. Either way, that the group was sufficiently large to make F1 remove grid girls is empirically true and an objective statement. 

In addition - http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11231936/scrapping-grid-girls-divides-opinion-but-returns-f1-to-the-frontpages

Sky sports's poll show a larger group supporting F1's decision to remove grid girls.

The link was just as a source that WEC did indeed stop having grid girls in 2015. Whatever opinions they've written in addition is irrelevant. WEC hasn't had grid girls since 2015. WEC is a formula racing tournament. Conclusion - grid girls aren't neccesary to have a formula racing tournament.

I've demonstrated that there exists tournaments that don't have grid girls. That alone proves that grid girls aren't necessary. It's not complicated. Formula racing tournaments that don't have grid girls exist. Thus Grid girls aren't necessary to have a formula 1 tournament. You can try and spin all you like, but that's a fact.

Anyway, luckily for me, the end result is that F1 made their decision in favour of the view I support

Are there any current Formula racing tournaments that don't have powerful cars, and/or no drivers? (FYI, I'm sure computer controlled F1 racing will be a thing eventually. We already have computer chess championships. And with computer/remote controlled cars, you don't have to worry as much about safety regulations, so things can be much faster.)

There are current Formula racing tournaments that don't have grid girls though. They also aren't economically necessary - for any tournament to survive, there must be some factor that makes it financially viable (wether that's sponsorship revenue, viewership revenue, or even donations). Thus evidently grid girls aren't an economic necessity. They may provide an economic benefit, but not an absolutely necessary one.

However, this poll that I provided showed a larger disparity between the people who opposed the removal and those who supported it. In addition, the poll I cited specializes on reporting F1 news while Sky Sports has a more general sports focus. As a result, the respondents in the F1i poll are more likely to be fans of F1 and therefore, part of F1's target audience. Since the Sky Sports audience is less specifically focused, the proportion of respondents in the pool who are fans of F1 is likely smaller than that in the F1i poll. The respondents who are part of F1's target audience are more relevant than those who are not since they are the ones who will actually watch the tournaments and/or pay money to attend these events.

You can assert that that the group was "sufficiently large" and that's an objective statement, but as I showed above, there are some flaws in representing the Sky Sports poll as evidence and as a result, there is still contradicting evidence.

So WEC has not made any statements about how the financial contributions from grid girls were declining and therefore, they decided to scrap the practice?

In addition, a more accurate conclusion is "grid girls aren't necessary to have in a WEC racing tournament". As you stated already, Formula E still uses grid girls, so that contradicts your original conclusion.

And you also demonstrated that there exists tournaments that do have grid girls, so that contradicts what you have concluded. For your statement to be true, then all racing tournaments would not have grid girls whatsoever.

I don't claim that the Sky Sports poll is gospel. Any internet poll like that (both yours and mine. BTW your link gives me a 404 error) will have flaws in demographic, and can vary wildly in sample size. It was just to show that it's not clear cut that the group in favour of grid girls is substantially larger. I also doubt the people who read at a specialized F1 site are representative of the average F1 fan, just like you and I probably aren't representative of the average gamer. So skewed demographics goes both ways.

Good that we agree that my statement was objective.

Once again - I haven't said that grid girls don't provide any financial benefit. (I also never claimed that WEC scrapped grid girls due to declining revenue - I never said anything to suggest that). They probably do provide some financial benefit (though neither of us has any data on that). But I have shown that the possible financial benefit of having grid girls is not a necessity. It's an option, but not absolutely necessary. Wether financial contributions from grid girls were declining or increasing doesn't change that fact. 

Okay, I'll concede this for now, because I can't be bothered to find which Formula racing tournaments have grid girls and which don't. We'll know for sure within a year though, you know, since F1 themselves are removing grid girls. If everything goes to hell with F1 now, that would support your argument.

By the way, how does Formula E still having grid girls in some of their ePrixes contradict my conclusion? I'm merely stating that it's possibly to make do without grid girls.

Once again - there existing tournaments with grid girls does not contradict that you can have tournaments without them. Why would my statement require all racing tournaments to not have grid girls? When did I ever imply anything in that regard?

I have only said that grid girls aren't necessary. Plenty of things exist that aren't necessary. That's not a contradiction. A phone isn't necessary to communicate. That isn't contradicted by the fact that a lot of people use phoens to communicate. You don't have to add sugar to coffee. That isn't contradicted by the fact that some people add sugar to their coffee. And last but not least, you don't have to have grid girls to have a formula racing tournament. That isn't contradicted by the fact that many formula racing tournaments have grid girls.

Right?

I fixed the link, it should work. I also provided two more polls and heres another one that happens to side with my stance. So I have four polls that agree with me vs only one poll that agree with you. Obviously, the amount of people who opposed the decision is greater. No, but seriously, that was why I pointed out at the proportion of respondents that belong to the target audience.

I also didn't say I agreed that your statement was objective. I said that "You can assert that the group was "sufficiently large" and that's an objective statement". I don't think fishing for gotcha moments help your case.

I'm very aware of that and I haven't said that you were saying that grid girls don't provide any financial benefit. I still disagree because a company's main goal is to maximize profits and if grid girls help a company do that, then that would make them necessary. As you said below, if it goes to hell or if F1's revenues and profits go down, then my argument would be supported.

That's not what you said though: "Whatever opinions they've written in addition is irrelevant. WEC hasn't had grid girls since 2015. WEC is a formula racing tournament. Conclusion - grid girls aren't neccesary to have a formula racing tournament."

Since Formula E still has grid girls (as well as other tournaments like NASCAR), then your conclusion is not sound. I also said that your conclusion would be if you were referring to WEC racing tournaments because that would be more accurate.

I will point to my third paragraph. And if you put some more thought into it, you will realize that some of your examples do not support your argument that well. Hint: The phone one is a deeply flawed comparison.

I'm confused. Do you not agree that the statement "the group that opposes grid girls is sufficiently large for F1 to decide to remove them." is an objective statement? Do you think it's a subjective statement?

This good morning britain poll here asks a different question - it asks the overarching question "Do you think promotional models at sports events, such as 'grid girls', should be banned?". That's a very different question to "Do you support F1's decision to get rid of grid girls?". I answer yes to the latter, but no to the former. I do not think grid girls or other promotional models should be banned. I do support F1's decision to get rid of grid girls though. The Good Morning Britain poll asks a question that is too broad to use it in support of your argument, as not wanting promotional models to be banned doesn't mean you also disagree with F1's decision to end the practice at their tournaments.

Also, let me clarify - I do believe that the group that opposes this move is larger than the group that supports the move. Once again, I do not think I've claimed otherwise, so you don't have to try and convince me about that. But even the polls you've dug up shows that there is a substantial amount of people that also support the move. 15-20% is still a large amount of people, even though they are a minory compared to the 80-85% that comprise the majority.

If you include anything that possibly helps a company make more profit into the group of things that are "absolutely necessary", when do you stop? How do companies get by, despite missing out on many things that aren't absolutely necessary? Isn't that a contradiction? Because if you lack something that is absolutely necessary, then you would fail, right? If F1 survives after it's removal of grid girls, does that not prove that they weren't absolutely necessary? Am I absolutely necessary at my job because I bring in more in profits than I get in wages? Does that mean I am essential for my company (which employs several thousand other people)? Absolutely necessary, because I contribute a miniscule amount to the company's profits? Surely not absolutely everything that somehow contributes to profits is absolutely necessary for a company?

We clearly have wildly different views on what "absolutely necessary" implies...

You haven't explained to me how Formula E and NASCAR having grid girls contradicts my conclusion that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary to have a formula 1 tournament. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the World Endurance Championsip a formula racing tournament? If it's not, then sure, we'll have to wait a year to see if F1 survives without grid girls to draw the conclusion that grid girls aren't absolutely necessary for formula racing tournaments, but we do know that they aren't necessary for motorsport tournaments at least.

Let me try to get this clear - do you think that the statement "grid girls aren't absolutely necessary to have a formula racing tournament" is contradicted by the fact that there exists formula racing tournaments that do have them? Because that's all I need to know from you here. I just need a short concise answer, a yes or no will do.