Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

That Guy · 03-28-2006, 06:04 PM

apparently you have to play his debates by his rules, which he makes as he's going along and changes the rules to suit him on the fly. You have to be "nice" when pointing anything out and be fine with him making personal attacks on you in return.

If you do make a valid point, he'll ignore it and continue with a flawed arguement anyways hoping no one noticed.

If you're really a vet of actual debates, it sure as hell doesn't show, cause when arguements fall apart, instead of a defense or a rebuttal, there's only silence or backtracking.

as far as keeping track of winners and losers, ask the audience :P your arguements are weak and not in any way persuasive, and if you can't convince other people you have a point, then how can you claim that you're the mystical, magical winner of all debates?

These are just pissing matches and wastes of time. I don't know what you're trying to prove, but it ain't working. You claim everyone is oppressing you with personal attacks and faulty logic, yet you're by far the biggest culprit, and when your arguement falls apart you just ignore it completely to focus on how oppressed you are instead.

that whole stat thing: you said there was no way to filter out covariances or make stats useful, I proved you could, but you continued to say it was impossible without even acknowledging my posts and talking about magic super secret stats analysts use that the public will never know about.... a few days later, you post a f'ing article on DVOA (which tries to, surprise, filter out co-variances and isolate individual performances).

Yet somehow you're still not wrong? do you even see why your credibility here is in the crapper?

03-28-2006, 06:04 PM	#122
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,587	Re: rooting for Goliath apparently you have to play his debates by his rules, which he makes as he's going along and changes the rules to suit him on the fly. You have to be "nice" when pointing anything out and be fine with him making personal attacks on you in return. If you do make a valid point, he'll ignore it and continue with a flawed arguement anyways hoping no one noticed. If you're really a vet of actual debates, it sure as hell doesn't show, cause when arguements fall apart, instead of a defense or a rebuttal, there's only silence or backtracking. as far as keeping track of winners and losers, ask the audience :P your arguements are weak and not in any way persuasive, and if you can't convince other people you have a point, then how can you claim that you're the mystical, magical winner of all debates? These are just pissing matches and wastes of time. I don't know what you're trying to prove, but it ain't working. You claim everyone is oppressing you with personal attacks and faulty logic, yet you're by far the biggest culprit, and when your arguement falls apart you just ignore it completely to focus on how oppressed you are instead. that whole stat thing: you said there was no way to filter out covariances or make stats useful, I proved you could, but you continued to say it was impossible without even acknowledging my posts and talking about magic super secret stats analysts use that the public will never know about.... a few days later, you post a f'ing article on DVOA (which tries to, surprise, filter out co-variances and isolate individual performances). Yet somehow you're still not wrong? do you even see why your credibility here is in the crapper?