Genuine question - why do you manufacture arguments against positions that you know not a single person has tried to make as last resorts in debates?
It doesn’t establish credibility. It does the opposite. You know full well what’s been said and what’s not been said.
Thing is, I probably agree with a lot more of your posts than most others. So what is the problem with just genuinely looking at facts presented to you rather than digging in your heels and just dishing out passive aggressive strawman arguments?
You took the position that someone who had a better rookie season by WAR than Ryan Braun, Prince Fielder, and Rickie Weeks combined, was rushed up to the bigs. Based on a great play by the Braves, and nothing rational. You were rightfully presented opposing rational arguments on why that wasn’t the case. But instead of listening to anyone you just dug in and chose to die on the hill.