Well, I don't know who this "we" is, talking about an appeal to false authority. I am one of the very best debaters here, without question. That others who disagree with me about this or that issue would engage in ad hominem attack aimed at me does not change that basic truth. The balance of your post alludes to why you are so bad at this. First of all, a perception that someone has a bad opinion does not make that person a bad debater. A proper argument begins with an understanding of what is at issue. And stays with that understanding. You fail at this simple principle of debate. For example you take the discussion here about which people are viewed as high draft picks and veer off into a discussion of players who later show, for a variety of reasons, that they performed at a level not consonant with their draft status. But that is another subject. Conversely even one who begins with a bad opinion, whether one thinks such a thing is so in subjective or objective terms, if he sticks to the understanding of the issue in question, and attempts to counter logical arguments with counter arguments, is a good debater despite the original position. Only by doing so can he remain a good debater, since ultimately he will have to succeed in continuing in presenting those logical counter arguments, or should alter his opinion. That is what a "good" argument is supposed to be all about. Second, being a good debater does not preclude also being able to describe other posters for what they are. The fact that I have on occasion quite properly identified your position as not based on fact, not based on logic, but instead based on a homerstic, unreasonable and insupportable optimism about the Jets and negativism about other things, merely is me being accurately descriptive. It does not make me a bad debater, because quite literally I am not debating at that point. I am describing. Even the notion of "getting one's way" here is problematic. "Winning" a debate, a related concept, is as a concept a rather elusive notion as well. In both related concepts it is first of all not a matter of winning some popular vote, here or otherwise. It is not a popularity contest. It must instead be about presenting the most logical arguments in support of one's position on the issue at hand. Even the more self doubting among us will at least have an inkling they have "won" if their opponents cease making logical counter arguments, or perhaps even never did so. And while one need not have allies in this process to prevail, not so much in making one's argument but in seeing others agree with it, and validate it, there is concededly a frisson of enjoyment at having accomplished that. But... it is to be clear not necessary to have that to "win." But yes, concededly getting one's way here is somewhat elusive as a concept. On top of everything else these discussions are often taken up later as new information and other counter arguments are presented. It is in short not a static, one time only state. Well, I think that covers it for now, other than to say your charge that I am close minded is grossly unfair. Make a logical argument on point, and I am sure I will respond to it. But if you can't, then surely even if I were you I would retreat from the field.
Oh, so you DO care about winning an internet argument?!? Pretty sure you said you didn't. Btw, you lost miserably, if we're really keeping a tally. Which we're not. _
Why do we have Mods on here if they don't do shit? This thread has been derailed for 2 pages... I wanna talk about Geno damnit.
Heh. I was merely being complete in responding to his post. HE was the one who brought his homer status up, not me. Ftr as you may have missed I previously said I think 101 is overall a good poster here, if that makes any difference.
Lol whatever man - this shit ain't going anywhere - you just want the last word. No one said homer until you came into the thread (actually JStokes did but that's not the point). My point in this discussion is advertising your brand as a football player during the combine. Too much information gets leaked out, true or false and wherever we believe it or not NFL Team Scouts take stock into this. Bridgewater, Geno Smith - these guys did not do their best to advertise their brand during the draft process which in my opinion makes me believe is the reason they fell in the draft. Bridgewater to me should have been drafted in Bortles spot and I think Geno should have been a first round pick. Where in the first round? idk. Obviously where you are drafted is where you are drafted and I understand that - but I believe there are things you can control in regards to your draft stock. btw I respect your opinions as well Blocker. You just irks me when you say homer because I know it's a shot at me when you disagree with something.
Then why not just say that? It's what YOU think--not what anyone else in the real NFL thought that. None of those reports you use to confirm YOUR rating have any validity. Missing the Senior Bowl had NOTHING to do with where he was drafted. He was NEVER a first round prospect other than in your mind and in the mind of internet draft gurus and all those bloggers and magazines that repeated and regurgitated it. _
That is a pretty myopic view. Especially considering that those same fans and "draft experts" have called far more first round talent. Does it work both ways? Clowney was a first round talent for 2 years and he ended getting taken in the first round and there are plenty other examples. So somebody who was projected with a first round grade may have in fact slipped. It's more to it than "player A not taken in round 1, then that meant they were never considered a 1st rounder"
Again, 101, I think you are a good poster here. But putting aside the debate thing, I do think you get somewhat homeristic about some things. I don't think that's anything other, when I say it, than a challenge to say why some (of course in such case optimistic) opinion is justified. It doesn't make someone a bad person to be a homer.
Not myopic at all. There are guys that start out and continue to be first rounders for years. Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck, Clowney. There are other guys that are hyped and that some folks are led to believe are first round talents. It's the projection thing that's the debate. We can talk all we want about where Geno was "projected" in his junior year or senior year but none of us really know. Some folks pick up on a projection that they read and continue to believe that that is, in fact the case. Then for some reason they "fall" because of some contrived excuse and they ultimately don't get drafted in the first round, and that's the fallacy in the argument. Nobody knows for sure--maybe player X DIDN'T fall, maybe player X was ALWAYS a second round talent that the media and bloggers and internet draft gurus continued to pump up. _
I don't get what the argument is. I'm just happy he doesn't throw like that 1st round draft pick Tim Tebow.
I like the pic, but am not sure about the intended meaning of bloviation. The long part I do not mind - if the subject calls for it, a longer explanation, to be adequate, must be given. But of course bloviation is not merely a synonym for long. Generally it is also a discourse given in a pompous or boastful manner. Hm. Perhaps you had intended to say I was being boastful, but I fear you meant pompous. Well I don't think I was being pompous. Does the meaning of pompous that is equivalent to affected fit your meaning? If so, and you believe that is accurate, I can only respond it is not intended to be such, so please take that into account. Nice pic, though.
Heh. Well again I must point out that pompous has more than one meaning. I plead not guilty to pretentious and smug. Certainly pretentious is not applicable, since I am not pretending anything. Conceited? Well, I concede having a favorable view of some of my abilities, but don't really think that view is excessive. That leaves affected. Here the meaning would seem to be limited to simulated in order to impress. Hm. Again I might be able to see that charge being leveled, but I do not think I am doing anything of the sort intentionally. Of course I am having fun with all this high minded discussion, but I think that is something else.
