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.
Thank you for the information.
I honestly am not that invested in the NFL which I think gives me a certain amount of objectivity.