Quote Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
You actually said you weren't judging Diaw. The half dozen examples where you picked a play and judged Diaw on it say otherwise. Or maybe it's just coincidence that not one of them positive.


When you use it as a preface to start pointing out all the bad plays that you witnessed while people are giving him credit for playing well. It's kind of the way conversations go. You have been standing on the fence like a pussy so far saying what you did or did not say, but you still have yet to give him credit for having a good game in this thread.


You've made it abundantly clear that NOTHING will affect your opinion of Diaw.


Wrong again. Go back and watch. Manu went for the steal on Barnes, Green ran at Curry and missed, and Leonard ran at Curry as he threw the pass instead of chasing down Bazemore. Before Parker crossed half court, it was Diaw with three Warriors running up the court. Jack was at the three point line on the opposite side and Diaw was waiting for Leonard to catch up to the play, which he never did. By that time, Bazemore had the ball and went to the rack, but he had Jack wide open for a jumper because nobody else was there.

Mentioning bad plays doesn't mean I'm saying he had a bad game, you need to learn the difference between a valid argument and an invalid argument. None of your premises can be connected to your conclusion.


You're ignoring obvious mistakes by other players to pin them in Diaw in addition to listing the legitimate mistakes that Diaw made in a game where Diaw was pivotal to the comeback and the victory, doing so in a thread where people were trying to give him the credit he deserved for playing well after sitting out for three weeks.

Everyone knows your opinion as a whole, but don't try to bull people about what happened in the game.
You really need to learn how to make a proper argument. None of your accusations are true. They are all straw man arguments where you change my meaning to mean something else that is easy for you to argue against.

You can not know my opinion as a whole since I never stated it and none of the individual statements are enough to make any conclusions as a whole.

I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't understand even the basics of making a valid argument. You need a premise that correlates to a conclusion, and since you aren't using this and instead making assumptions you are using as premises for conclusions this is a pointless exercise.

How many times do I have to point out that none of your conclusions, have enough facts to back them for you to stop making them?

Perfect example:

You said "You actually said you weren't judging Diaw"

When, in fact, I said:

"I don't judge players based on a couple of plays, I judge all players on the totality of their game."

You come to the conclusion that I never judged Diaw. Which is obviously false. Since I clearly said "I judge all players on the totality of their game". Then come to the conclusion that I must be judging him poorly overall because I only mentioned his negative plays. Also not a valid conclusion. His good plays are taken into account, but since everyone else mentioned them I felt no need to repeat them as they are implied. Just because I don't mention something is not a reason to conclude they don't exist. A straw man argument is when you change someone elses argument to something else to make it easier for your to refute. It is the most common rhetorical device used by people that don't have any real debate skills.