Join TSR now and chat about whatever you’re intoSign up now
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Allow this arguments on the Arsenal thread lol I get you guys see it as a **** hole but keep it to PM or something
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    where was the repeated ad hom from me Jam? Kindly point it out so I can better myself
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam278)
    Is that a response or not? Dismissing it is still responding to it.

    I've attempted to make reasonable discussion with you and SUG and you guys have been repeatedly using Ad hom on me. So I'm going to leave it here and I'd rather not talk about the rest. SUG clearly has something in for me with his deep rooted anger and it's hard to really go into detail in an argument with somebody who's bias towards other people completely clouds their judgement.
    I suppose it is technically a response but not a very good one.

    I don't know what's going on with you two, I always thought you were fine with each other until a few days ago but apparently you hate each other.

    Anyway I don't think I've used any ad hominem at all, I've just responded to your points and nothing else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    I suppose it is technically a response but not a very good one.

    I don't know what's going on with you two, I always thought you were fine with each other until a few days ago but apparently you hate each other.

    Anyway I don't think I've used any ad hominem at all, I've just responded to your points and nothing else.
    Neither have I

    I'd like Jam to point out the instances in this discussion that he believes I've used ad homs in
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slow Jamz)
    Bad life, I think.

    I've been nothing but cordial :lol:
    Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy. Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[8]




    To reduce van Persie's successes since 2010 into 'Sturridge was better last year' is retarded. Grow up, take your blinkers off and lose the Sturridge boner.
    Yes, according to that part you are using ad hominem in attacking the traits of a reader by implying I am a homosexual and in doing that saying that I'm also biased towards Sturridge. So yes I believe you have usedAd hom in your argument.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Log in, click Arsenal thread. Last page is argument between non-Arsenal fans about whether van Persie had a better season than Sturridge.

    This thread man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam278)



    Yes, according to that part you are using ad hominem in attacking the traits of a reader by implying I am a homosexual and in doing that saying that I'm also biased towards Sturridge. So yes I believe you have usedAd hom in your argument.
    Never did I say: 'Jam, because you are a homosexual, you have no credibility in a football discussion'. That is an example of an ad hominem, and it fits your definition too - an ad hominem is an argument used in a discussion which is deliberately irrelevant to a person's actual point but rather focuses on the negative aspects of an unrelated fact about them.

    What I said was not an ad hominem; 'lose the Sturridge boner' is just a street way of saying 'take off your Sturridge blinkers', which equates to 'you are being biased towards Daniel Sturridge'. The phrase 'lose the Sturridge boner' in no way indicates that boners in general are negative, in no way indicates that it makes you a homosexual and that's negative, and in no way suggests that a love of/bias towards Daniel Sturridge is negative. There is nothing in that statement that is negative and/or usable in an ad hom attack.

    *besides, if it did suggest that a love of Sturridge was negative, it would not be an ad hom at all, seeing as Sturridge is relevant to this case. But it does not suggest that a love of Sturridge is negative. To further back this up, you only have to look at my own love of Sturridge.

    Before you try and act clever, pick arguments on TSR, or try and use fancy Latin, try and understand the terms that you're using and keep a rational mindset.

    Seeing as you said 'repeated' ad homs, could you find me two instances of ad homs in this discussion from me to you? The one you tried to give above is not an ad hom, and 'repeated' would imply more than one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam278)



    Yes, according to that part you are using ad hominem in attacking the traits of a reader by implying I am a homosexual and in doing that saying that I'm also biased towards Sturridge. So yes I believe you have usedAd hom in your argument.
    And me?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And for what it's worth, I use ad homs all the time, and so do other people, and they are not necessarily fallacious.

    This was not an ad hom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slow Jamz)
    Never did I say: 'Jam, because you are a homosexual, you have no credibility in a football discussion'. That is an example of an ad hominem, and it fits your definition too - an ad hominem is an argument used in a discussion which is deliberately irrelevant to a person's actual point but rather focuses on the negative aspects of an unrelated fact about them.

    What I said was not an ad hominem; 'lose the Sturridge boner' is just a street way of saying 'take off your Sturridge blinkers', which equates to 'you are being biased towards Daniel Sturridge'. The phrase 'lose the Sturridge boner' in no way indicates that boners in general are negative, in no way indicates that it makes you a homosexual and that's negative, and in no way suggests that a love of/bias towards Daniel Sturridge is negative. There is nothing in that statement that is negative and/or usable in an ad hom attack.

    *besides, if it did suggest that a love of Sturridge was negative, it would not be an ad hom at all, seeing as Sturridge is relevant to this case. But it does not suggest that a love of Sturridge is negative. To further back this up, you only have to look at my own love of Sturridge.

    Before you try and act clever, pick arguments on TSR, or try and use fancy Latin, try and understand the terms that you're using and keep a rational mindset.

    Seeing as you said 'repeated' ad homs, could you find me two instances of ad homs in this discussion from me to you? The one you tried to give above is not an ad hom, and 'repeated' would imply more than one.
    tl;dr
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nah that's too much :rofl:


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam278)
    tl;dr
    tl;dr you can read it for yourself and try and respond
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If the chat forum can easily detect trolling and take swift action why can't the football forum?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam278)
    15-20 direct goals from Toure a season or indirectly being part of preventing 11 less goals? Considering we're looking at the best seasons for the club. I thought we'll look at this season and your invincibles season and note the differences.

    I think I'll know what I'll take anyway.

    I do think they're both very good players but having central midfielders/AMs who score regularly helps a team a lot, see Ramsey and Hazard.
    I've only read up to here so if you've addressed this point ignore me.

    Toure isn't better than Vieira and Vela isn't even close to Pires (wasn't sure if you were serious on the latter) in terms of the roles they played for Arsenal in 04. There's also the fact that defending now is shambolic in comparison to 10 years ago (I thought we had agreed on that?) Toure in 2004 wouldn't have scored anywhere close to as many goals as this year.

    Genuinely wouldn't take a single member of the starting XI of City in the 2004 arsenal team (bar maybe Zabaleta).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pete_91)
    I've only read up to here so if you've addressed this point ignore me.

    Toure isn't better than Vieira and Vela isn't even close to Pires (wasn't sure if you were serious on the latter) in terms of the roles they played for Arsenal in 04. There's also the fact that defending now is shambolic in comparison to 10 years ago (I thought we had agreed on that?) Toure in 2004 wouldn't have scored anywhere close to as many goals as this year.

    Genuinely wouldn't take a single member of the starting XI of City in the 2004 arsenal team (bar maybe Zabaleta).
    Vincent Kompany? Sergio Aguero? Joe Hart?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aguero and Henry aren't really too far apart from each other tbf.

    I can see the arguments for each person.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FKLW)
    Vincent Kompany? Sergio Aguero? Joe Hart?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Kompany in for Kolo is arguable actually, Hart not even close to Lehmann. Aguero very very slightly inferior to Henry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pete_91)
    Kompany in for Kolo is arguable actually, Hart not even close to Lehmann. Aguero very very slightly inferior to Henry.
    Yeah that was a legit question for me- 2004 was before the time where I could truly analyse teams.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FKLW)
    Yeah that was a legit question for me- 2004 was before the time where I could truly analyse teams.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Campbell was an absolute tank so to have yet another tank next to him in Kompany would be ridiculous tbh.

    Henry and Aguero are similar, Henry less injury prone and brought slightly more to the team.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pete_91)
    Campbell was an absolute tank so to have yet another tank next to him in Kompany would be ridiculous tbh.

    Henry and Aguero are similar, Henry less injury prone and brought slightly more to the team.
    From seeing Henry on programmes/05 onwards and barca years where I properly could analyse football he's one of my favourite players. Wouldn't swap him for anyone bar CR7 and LM10.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: July 9, 2014
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.