If you don’t mind, would you give me a thumbnail sketch of the dialectic approach?
I understand Socratic, as I had to practice it as a parent.
Anyway, I admit I should have stayed a bit higher above the fray than I did, which was my mistake.
I’ve long puzzled over why Tim Tebow had trouble staying in the NFL. I discarded Tim’s open Christianity as the reason for Tim’s lack of staying power, just as I discarded his ability or lack thereof. Too many QB’s in the league have skills that are as marginal as Tim Tebows.
This is why I settled on the offensive problems created by having a run-option QB backed up by a drop back QB.
Which then lead me to the idea that the backup QB needs to able to run the existing offense when, not if, the starting QB goes down.
Then things more sense.
In this instance, “truth” is derived through conjecture insofar as there is no NFL by-law regarding what constitutes competency at the QB position. Your adversary is implementing that “fact” and its intrinsic subjectivity by way emotional (or impulsive) argumentation. In English, he is trying to baffle with bullshit. He utilizes passion to “prove” his conviction. He is after the “win” (eristic argumentation), not the “truth” (whatever that may be).
You, on the other hand, were employing rational argumentation. The two forms are in fundamental conflict. Socratic resolution, while dialectic, is a response form that is poorly suited for internet chat.
An alternate form would be to isolate a few seminal actualities that are preponderant in their influence. Present them as such., and then argue the preponderant nature as being the best representation of a “truth” that is – ultimately – deniable, yet more substantive than his alternatives.
Without going back through the thread to verify, I think you actually started to do that when you stated “The NFL, for better or worse, is what it is, a money making business.” – but got redirected for other reasons – resulting in your argument becoming frustrated. Had you repositioned the basis of your argument to “relative” nature of the "truth” in question and cornered your quarry on that basis, you MAY have had success in achieving a limited concession. Which is all you could have hoped for, given the eristic purposes of your opponent.
That's the most likely cause for most teams. On the other hand, there are a few teams that don't really have a drop-back QB, or even a real QB at all. I don't think there's any issue people have with Tebow not beating out Tom Brady, and it is understandable why Brady's backup chosen would have similar style. What seems rather more odd is why Tebow wasn't given a chance at all when Sanchez collapsed and became clearly useless. For all Tebow's faults, he had shown he could clearly play better than that mess.