Where would you RANK NDSU's 2nd string in the FCS if they were a team.

[El_Chapo]

The FCS indeed suffers from talent deprivation. But 2nd with your 2nd string? You barely beat Incarnate Word with your first string at home. That's a pretty arrogant opinion. I'm chiming in because, unlike many arrogant opinions floated on this board, this one is flat wrong.

UNI fan crawls out from the garage door... hi Mr irrelevant

[pantherhawkrolling]

UNI fan crawls out from the garage door... hi Mr irrelevant

Lol. My point is still correct. But if making a snide comment makes you feel better after your whipping, knock yourself out.

[heffray]

Lol. My point is still correct. But if making a snide comment makes you feel better after your whipping, knock yourself out.

No one here needs you to tell us this thread is stupid. Half of these threads are stupid.

[BFKasper14]

Lol. My point is still correct. But if making a snide comment makes you feel better after your whipping, knock yourself out.

Consider the source…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El_Chapo]

Lol. My point is still correct. But if making a snide comment makes you feel better after your whipping, knock yourself out.

haha. you're an idiot

we were down 10+ players. 12-13 if you count Cox Hayes too.

OUR 2ND TEAM WERE RUNNER UPS IN THE PUD LEAGUE.

SORRY UNI WAS 29TH

[The_Sicatoka]

we were down 10+ players. 12-13 if you count Cox Hayes too.

Point of Order: I have been informed numerous times by various members of this illustrious cast that injuries are not an excuse. It's next man up and not the opponent's fault your depth isn't what it need be.

[pantherhawkrolling]

haha. you're an idiot

we were down 10+ players. 12-13 if you count Cox Hayes too.

OUR 2ND TEAM WERE RUNNER UPS IN THE PUD LEAGUE.

SORRY UNI WAS 29TH

Man, it's been a while since I've been on this forum. All hail Chapo, king of ad hominem!

Addressing the point, blaming injuries is pretty weak, just as ad hominem is the lowest form of argument. All teams have issues like that. I'm calling it right now, next year in the garage you are going to blame it on the officials.

[heffray]

Man, it's been a while since I've been on this forum. All hail Chapo, king of ad hominem!

Addressing the point, blaming injuries is pretty weak, just as ad hominem is the lowest form of argument. All teams have issues like that. I'm calling it right now, next year in the garage you are going to blame it on the officials.

Neat words, bro. Lets try a few more, shall we?…

“…All hail Chapo, king of ad hominem…” - genetic fallacy, he literally stated facts, you called ad hom and ignored his point, also, see next line.
“…blaming injuries is pretty weak…” - ad hom much? …also a strawman, no one is “blaming” injuries, we’re simply siting that one team is more healthy than another and that likely contributes to an outcome, so even if your logic is sound, you’re wrong.
“…All teams have issues like that…” - ad populum
“…next year in the garage you are going to blame it on the officials…” - jeeziz, so many options here… could go with false equivocation, or ignoratio elenchi (aka irrelevant conclusion), or even composition and division, but that’s just my first look…

[pantherhawkrolling]

Neat words, bro. Lets try a few more, shall we?…

“…All hail Chapo, king of ad hominem…” - genetic fallacy, he literally stated facts, you called ad hom and ignored his point, also, see next line.
“…blaming injuries is pretty weak…” - ad hom much? …also a strawman, no one is “blaming” injuries, we’re simply siting that one team is more healthy than another and that likely contributes to an outcome, so even if your logic is sound, you’re wrong.
“…All teams have issues like that…” - ad populum
“…next year in the garage you are going to blame it on the officials…” - jeeziz, so many options here… could go with false equivocation, or ignoratio elenchi (aka irrelevant conclusion), or even composition and division, but that’s just my first look…

"ha ha, you're an idiot." Name calling is by definition ad hominem.
"blaming injuries is pretty weak" is certainly not ad hominem. I'm attacking the argument, again by definition not ad hominem since ad hom is attacking the person and not the argument.
Congratulations on getting me to look up ad populum. Problem is that when I did it became obvious you don't know what it means. Because it means making a conclusion is true because most or all, or an elite group, believes it to be true. I am saying nothing about who believes it to be true. I am saying that at the end of the season injuries are an issue for most teams, and is not a good excuse, at least for something as ridiculous as saying your second string would be 2nd in the nation. But cool words, bro. Just learn what they mean next time.
Since you are going with a first look I'll limit myself to that as well and just say your last sentence is just a desperate attempt to appear smarter than you are and best left alone.
But nice try, and better luck next time.

[heffray]

"ha ha, you're an idiot." Name calling is by definition ad hominem.
"blaming injuries is pretty weak" is certainly not ad hominem. I'm attacking the argument, again by definition not ad hominem since ad hom is attacking the person and not the argument.
Congratulations on getting me to look up ad populum. Problem is that when I did it became obvious you don't know what it means. Because it means making a conclusion is true because most or all, or an elite group, believes it to be true. I am saying nothing about who believes it to be true. I am saying that at the end of the season injuries are an issue for most teams, and is not a good excuse, at least for something as ridiculous as saying your second string would be 2nd in the nation. But cool words, bro. Just learn what they mean next time.
Since you are going with a first look I'll limit myself to that as well and just say your last sentence is just a desperate attempt to appear smarter than you are and best left alone.
But nice try, and better luck next time.

Do you even logicalfallacies.org, bro?

You imply both that all teams experience injuries and that most people believe it to be a weak “excuse” (and you provide no evidence for calling it weak, hence the ad hom which can apply to both a person and thing you are attacking).

Please show how stating that one team has more key injuries than another is not a good reason for why a certain outcome was impacted. That would be addressing the point, one that you likely won’t try to do because you already know you’re wrong.

Also, not trying to sound smart, just shining a light on your idiocy. Big difference and a lot easier, frankly.