David "MVP" Eckstein Is A Crappy Arguer

I have no problem with arguing. This is a sports blog and it's expected that we all share our sports opinion on different topics. And as expected, we're not all going to agree on the opinions we have. And that's perfectly fine. It's fine that in a post we express something and then someone disagrees with that opinion in the comments. But there is most certainly a right way and a wrong day to comment. Eckstein does this the wrong way.

If you've never heard of logical fallacies, a fallacy is an argument which may convince others but is not logically sound. Note that the truth of the conclusions of an argument does not determine whether the argument is a fallacy - it is the argument which is incorrect. Using basic LSAT terms, in every argument there is a conclusion, evidence, and an assumption. The conclusion is the final statement of fact (i.e. Kevin Youkilis will be better than Carlos Pena next year), the evidence is data to prove the conclusion (i.e. Carlos Pena has been injury prone recently therefore he won't produce like he can. Also, Youk has improved every year he has been in the majors), and the assumption is what bridges the evidence and the conclusion and this is often unstated (i.e. Using what a player had done in the past is a good way to measure how the player has done in the future). This is the right way to make an argument. This is also something that myself, The "Bright" One, and Cubsfan4evr have done often.

But not David "MVP" Eckstein.

He uses logical fallacies often to destroy evidences and create assumption in order to prove a conclusion. And this is bullshit. The reason fallacies are bad is because they destroy credibility to arguments and blur truth from being known.

Two recent fallacies Ecketin has committed recently, The Red Herring and Ad Hominem.

The Red Herring fallacy is where a person takes a trivial point of an argument and argues that trivial point in order to create a contradictory conclusion to the original arguers main conclusion(done in "Random White Sox Notes")

The Ad Hominem fallacy is where a person attacks the arguer instead of the argument. Politicians do this all the time, like calling Obama a Muslim. (done in "Boston Red Sox v. Tampa Bay Rays)

These are just two examples and I'm sure more have been done. Frankly, I'm sick of it. Eckstein uses blinders when reading posts and uses fallacies to win arguments. Eckstein, you try to defeat the arguer instead of trying to win the argument and I'm calling you out on it.

By Eckstein always using fallacies, it beings down the credibility of this blog. You're actions and words affect the other three authors.

Please stop doing this. I have no problem with arguing against what everyone says but stop doing what you normally do to win almost every argument I've seen you enter.

Also, please stop putting your name as a label for every post. It's arrogant and annoying. I've asked you to stop this once before and if you continue, then I'm going to start putting your name as a label for all my posts.

Now despite my harsh tone and words, I mean no disrespect to Eckstein personally. This sole focus of this post is aimed at the specific actions that you, Eckstein, do in relation to your arguing skills and post labels, and that's it.

Thank you and have a great day.