red herring...something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.
a fact, idea, or subject that takes people's attention away from the central point being considered
The central point of contention is my assertion that Fields and Darnold are at least comparable passers. Explaining to you how I arrived at that conclusion ie scouting reports and game film is not a red herring dummy. It is central to the point as it provides the actual basis upon which I made that point. So I have no idea what you think is a red herring. I am not distracting from the point. I am explaining how I arrived at the point that you are disputing.
strawman.....an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
What are you claiming is a strawman? Please cite the actual statement and explain what makes it a strawman as again it appears you don't know how to apply these words in real life.
Also, as nc0gnet0 pointed out.....
You Move the goal posts.......evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Again, be specific. Cite the example where you claimed goalposts were moved. I did not move any goalposts. You referenced college states to dispute my claim and I responded that college stats alone do not determine who the better passer is. You actually have not disputed this in anyway. I provided evidence by the fact that NFL teams employ scouts and watch game film to evaluate players and again you have not provided any evidence that disputes that they do. So I did not move goalposts dummy. I rebutted your argument with actual facts. It is fact that in evaluating players NFL teams use scouts and watch game film rather than rely solely on college stats. So again your position here is moronic. You keep referencing college stats and ignoring that NFL players are evaluated on more than college stats.
when all else fails you'll sometimes slip into ad hominem attacks
Again you don't know what words mean.
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
It would be an ad hominem if I insulted you instead of addressing your argument. Instead, I insulted you while also rebutting your argument so it is not an ad hominem. I call you a dummy and your argument moronic not as a means to avoid addressing your argument. I call you a dummy and your argument moronic because in evaluating and thoroughly rebutting your argument, it was revealed that again you don't know what words mean and your argument regarding college stats is not actually practiced by a single one of the 32 teams in the NFL. There is no NFL team, coach, GM or scout that would ever cite college stats and college stats alone as a means to conclude one player is better than the other. That is why your argument is moronic. It would only be an ad hominem if I called you a moron and then refused to respond to the substance of your arguments. But the last few pages are of me explaining why the substance of your argument is categorically stupid. Hence any insult of you is not an ad hominem but simply an insult.
