He's refuting your argument. On the other hand, calling his argument a straw man argument IS a straw man argument. Go figure
I didn't make any argument. I'm not even involved in it. I just said that his argument was a straw man. Calling something a straw man is NOT a straw man in itself. Pegs claimed that they aren't hustling, defensive, team oriented players. He responded saying that Watson, Mohammad were good players and Arenas is a dominant scorer. That's not responding to any claims, which makes it a straw man.
Which is exactly why it's a straw man. He attributed the argument of that they aren't good players to you, which you never said.
See the bolded part. Straw man argument is setting up some other argument that's theoretically easy for you to defend, as you are with calling his argument a straw man argument.
There's a difference between setting up a straw man and an actual straw man argument. I'm not setting up a straw man, I'm calling his actual argument a straw man. You bolded him saying Watson and Mohammed are both good (team) players. I don't see anything of him saying they are good team players. He said they are good players. Saying Arenas should fit in nicely with your team is irrelevant, that doesn't make him a good team player. Saying he is one of the most dominant scorers in the NBA, however, is a straw man when responding to a claim that he's not a team oriented, hustling, defensive player. The only thing that remotely comes close to addressing any points Pegs made was saying that Nazi contributed to the Spurs, who were a team oriented team.
Let me be clearer: His argument is clear. He's stated the players are team oriented each time. You've distorted his argument (saying he just called them "good" players) then called it a straw man, hence you are the one with the straw man argument.
I'm not distorting anything! I just quoted a part of his post and said that's what I think people are paying attention to.
Calling Watson and Mohammad good players doesn't refute anything. Calling Arenas a dominant scorer and a good player doesn't refute anything. Saying Mohammad contributed for a team oriented team (SAS) touches upon something, but doesn't refute anything. Saying Arenas fits in well with your other players doesn't refute anything.
He said they're good and they're team players; specifically that Mohammad proved he's a team player by playing in a team system and doing well. In terms of rhetoric, he's made an assertion and supported it with factual argument. Unless you disagree Arenas is a dominant player and good scorer. Saying he fits in well with my other players absolutely addresses the team as a unit vs. Arenas as a player. Or do you disagree that Mohammad contributed for a team oriented team? That is indisputable. What he is refuting is an unsupported assertion that these players are not team oriented.
Making assumptions that you are smart enough to connect stuff was a bad assumption I guess. It's all one debate, and I had already made my point like Denny Crane has said. Maybe if you learned how to read before posting, instead of skimming, you would realize this.....
Where'd he say Watson was a good team player? Saying "they are good players" doesn't mean that they are good TEAM players. He could have said they are good TEAM players, but he didn't. Saying Arenas is a dominant scorer and good player is irrelevant. Saying he fits on that team doesn't support anything that he's a good team player. You can put Iverson on a team with 4 non-scorers and say he fits well with that team because he can dominate the ball and score, but that doesn't mean he's a good team player. That's a false assumption.
