ContinueWe use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website; if you continue without changing your settings - or dismiss this message - we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on Forums.Football Web Pages.co.uk

Borochat

Super proud sponsors of Alex Revell IDST

Return to front page

Newest article: Re: Match Thread - Newport (a) by WASPToday 09:29Today at 09:29:47view thread

Oldest article: Buying a ticket (ST holder) by Eazy29/11/2020 13:29Sun Nov 29 13:29:16 2020view thread

MenuSearch

Next thread: University Questionnaires for Stevenage FC fans by Ed House16/2 12:44Tue Feb 16 12:44:22 2021view thread

Re: Walsall match thread

By AgentEves22/2 18:37Mon Feb 22 18:37:19 2021In response to Re: Walsall match thread

Views: 195

I bit because I just don't see how someone can completely change the argument mid-way through and then use that to try and prove me wrong.

To jump in and say that an attacking defender means a ball-playing defender and that I should basically shut up because I'm wrong is just moving the goal posts mid-way through the argument. There's no such thing as an 'attacking defender' playing at centre back. A ball-playing defender isn't an attacking defender. That isn't a term that's commonly used for a centre back. An attacking defender is a full back like James-Wildin.

And even if an attacking defender does mean a ball-playing defender, then saying that Martin was brought on for that reason completely proves my original point. If Martin was brought on to improve the distribution from the back, then it was presumably because the management team decided that Prosser's distribution was poor (whether that means in general, or in that game specifically, is irrelevant). That is exactly what I said originally: I didn't think Prosser had a good game because his distribution was terrible. When someone questioned whether he had a poor game, I then said that the management team didn't take him off for a laugh. The argument used to counter that was that Martin was brought on to improve distribution from the back... it's like someone has re-worded my argument, then used it against me as a way to prove I'm wrong. I literally said my reason for me saying Prosser had a bad game was cos of his poor distribution.

I appreciate that I've created an environment where a lot of people are hell-bent on proving me wrong, because a lot of my posts come across like I'm a know-it-all, but I'm not having someone telling me that I'm poisoning the well because someone has just invented an argument mid-way through and moved the goal posts.

Argue with me in a logical manner and I'll happily debate with you all day long, and will often try to see your point of view, even if it's different to mine. A great example of this is Taz and my discussion about Emma Hayes. Unfortunately, most people didn't read that because the replies were too long. But it proves that I'm not completely stubborn all the time and try to engage with people who are bringing forward logical and reasonable arguments. I actually think the conclusion of that argument was that I ended up agreeing with a lot of what Taz said, despite originally disagreeing with him.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Next article in this thread: WARNING: DO NOT READ IF NOT AGENTEVES by Freemo22/2 20:14Mon Feb 22 20:14:05 2021

Previous thread: Newport by Copeysaurus21/2 21:04Sun Feb 21 21:04:45 2021view thread