Relax

[Dirtyswabby]

I agreed they have made a difference I don't understand your method of trying to beat me into submission, is this how debates normally occur on this board? So you completely ignore my question, to try and push your point? Don't worry I wont waste my time anymore.

[Mothman]

I agreed they have made a difference I don't understand your method of trying to beat me into submission, is this how debates normally occur on this board? So you completely ignore my question, to try and push your point? Don't worry I wont waste my time anymore.

I didn't try to "beat you into submission". I tried to get you to concede an obvious, rational point in a discussion, something that should be part of a good, honest debate. When you kept refusing to do it, I asked why you were refusing to do it. Despite what you claim, you didn't agree that the personnel changes made a difference until you posted it in the sentence quoted above. Saying you agree that personnel changes "can make a difference" is not the same as saying they have actually made a difference. Maybe it was a poor choice of words but it read like a dodge, especially when viewed in the context of your previous comments on the subject.

When people dig in, refuse to acknowledge obvious, logical points directed at them from multiple sources and instead extend arguments by re-framing an issue as a straw man or simply by dodging points they can't effectively refute, it runs counter to the spirit of good, honest debate and discussion. I get tired of it so I attempted to get you to either defend your point of view effectively or concede the significance of the personnel moves to the Vikings defensive improvement.

In response to your question above: debates normally occur on this board in a variety of ways but I think the best debates occur when people acknowledge good points, admit when they've adopted a point of view that is, perhaps, a bit too extreme, effectively and logically reinforce the views they're expressing, etc.

Finally, you're taking me to task for ignoring a question when you ignored the same question twice. That seems a bit hypocritical. However, if you want an answer to your question abut Barr, I'm happy to provide one: there's absolutely no way to know if he would be the force he is right now if he was learning under Frazier/Williams. Any answer to that is pure conjecture. I think they would likely be able to get a lot out of him because over the years, both coaches were able to get quite a bit out of talented defenders they coached. However, his role might be different.

[Dirtyswabby]

I did answer your question you just didn't like the wording of it. That's not on me that's on you, telling me I refused to answer is ridiculous. You even say in your own words that you were trying to get me to concede something I had already conceded, so you just strong arm until people do exactly what you want? So its my fault you didn't see my answer as conceding.

When people dig in, refuse to acknowledge obvious, logical points directed at them from multiple sources and instead extend arguments by re-framing an issue as a straw man or simply by dodging points they can't effectively refute, it runs counter to the spirit of good, honest debate and discussion. I get tired of it so I attempted to get you to either defend your point of view effectively or concede the significance of the personnel moves to the Vikings defensive improvement

Dig in, I disagreed with one person, one time and you jumped in to make me concede, where are these multiple sources you speak of? Tell me Mothman before you jumped in how many people disagreed with me?

So the only good honest way to debate around here is to concede to your "Rational" Opinion. Mighty fine words for an admin, I think ill skip town rather than dealing with an admin like you.

[Mothman]

I did answer your question you just didn't like the wording of it. That's not on me that's on you, telling me I refused to answer is ridiculous. You even say in your own words that you were trying to get me to concede something I had already conceded, so you just strong arm until people do exactly what you want?

I didn't "strongarm" you. I simply asked you a pair of very direct questions.

So its my fault you didn't see my answer as conceding.

You weren't clear so if were conceding the point, how was I to know? It's not a question of whether I liked the way you worded your response or not. I can only respond to what you post, not what you intended to post and saying something "can make a difference" is quite different from saying it is actually making a difference. I wasn't trying to get you to concede something you had previously conceded. I was trying to get you to concede a point that, based on the way you worded your actual response, it appeared you were trying to circumvent (and I drew that conclusion based on your response to Purple Reign, in which you made it pretty clear that you didn't think the defensive turnaround was due to better personnel and coaching).

If it was a simple misunderstanding then let's just call it that and move on.

So the only good honest way to debate around here is to concede to your "Rational" Opinion.

We both know that's not what I said.

Mighty fine words for an admin, I think ill skip town rather than dealing with an admin like you.

I happen to think encouraging flexibility, logic and honesty in debate is a fine quality for an admin.

If you want "skip town", that's obviously your call but you're still welcome here. I'm not taking any of this personally...

[Dirtyswabby]

When people dig in, refuse to acknowledge obvious, logical points directed at them from multiple sources and instead extend arguments by re-framing an issue as a straw man or simply by dodging points they can't effectively refute, it runs counter to the spirit of good, honest debate and discussion. I get tired of it so I attempted to get you to either defend your point of view effectively or concede the significance of the personnel moves to the Vikings defensive improvement.


That is exactly what you said. You also failed to explain to me how my one disagreement cause you to jump in and make me concede to your point?

[Mothman]

Dig in, I disagreed with one person, one time and you jumped in to make me concede, where are these multiple sources you speak of? Tell me Mothman before you jumped in how many people disagreed with me?

Two. Believe it or not, I am a person.

Plus, if you look back, you'l see that I actually made the point about personnel near the top of the thread before you ever discussed it with Purple Reign. I "jumped in" because you two were discussing a point I had already raised and also because this is a thread on a message board, not a private conversation. Jumping in and contributing to discussions and debates is encouraged. Feel free to do it yourself.

[Dirtyswabby]

Debates don't require an admin to jump in and tell people who is right or wrong, very rarely is there ever a winner in debates as most of it is Opinions/ Tell me why its healthy for an admin to jump into a debate and try and force their opinion on someone? Especially since it was still civilized after one disagreement.

[Mothman]

That is exactly what you said. You also failed to explain to me how my one disagreement cause you to jump in and make me concede to your point?

That's because it appears to be something you added to your post. I responded to it when I saw it.

I suspect the rest of the board is probably tired of this conversation by now. If you'd like to continue it, let's do it via PM.

[Dirtyswabby]

Im moving on, no need to continue with PM's best of luck.

[fiestavike]

wait, what? What just happened?

[allday1991]

Just saying Mothman was a poster here long before he was an admin. So he participates in conversation quite a bit more than other moderators and don't think it's correct how you felt he was using his moderator benefits to make you change your opinion. This is quite the community you're welcome to any opinion you want but don't be surprised if more than one person wants to debate it moderator or not.

[Dirtyswabby]

Just saying Mothman was a poster here long before he was an admin. So he participates in conversation quite a bit more than other moderators and don't think it's correct how you felt he was using his moderator benefits to make you change your opinion. This is quite the community you're welcome to any opinion you want but don't be surprised if more than one person wants to debate it moderator or not.

I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

When people dig in, refuse to acknowledge obvious, logical points directed at them from multiple sources and instead extend arguments by re-framing an issue as a straw man or simply by dodging points they can't effectively refute, it runs counter to the spirit of good, honest debate and discussion. I get tired of it so I attempted to get you to either defend your point of view effectively or concede the significance of the personnel moves to the Vikings defensive improvement.

This is what was said, to translate your opinion is moot, my opinion is the right one, and I will continue to berate you until you agree with my opinion. If you do not agree with me your going against the good spirit of the debate, this is strong arm tactics at its finest, him being an admin is not the main issue here, I was just saying that an admin shouldn't act this way, I certainly didn't. I simply formed my opinion, I didn't attempt to force it on anyone and then try to tell people that they had to agree with it.

HE attempted to get me to answer a question in which I did answer, which should have effectively ended this debate, but because he didn't like the answer he continued with debate trying to force me to answer, this is counter to the spirit of good, honest debate and discussion

[Mothman]

Dirtyswabby, my comments were posted in english. They require no "translation".

As I said, if you want to continue discussing this, it should be taken to PM. This thread should get back to football.