These are mine off the top of my head. Ones I have heard on here for years. The reason these are annoying is that they can't be argued or proven right or wrong. Hell, I know I have been in my share of these in the past.
1) The Hall of Fame argument- always starts with a certain player getting ripped on here for not being "worthy" enough for HOF status. Usually ends up up with hometown argumnets ensuing. A hometowner defends his local hero or another hometowner wants to say his guy is more legit. Still have yet to see one guy admit defeat in theses arguments.
2) The prove me wrong capping/challenge contest argument- This one comes around about every 3 months. It starts with a guy telling (and some feel bragging) about his gambling prowess and another guy questioning it. It ends up getting pretty ugly and than the challenge gets thrown out there EVERYTIME by the guy that feels that no one wins at gambling. Nothing ever gets settled with this argument either as the contests never happens. Pretty sure if one of these contest ever went down it would prove nothing in the big scope of things.
3) The who is better from diferent era's argument- This one is currently up on the 1st page. Usually gets to the point that one guy throws out google research and stats and the other guy's is strictly opionion. Much like the HOF arguments, no won admits defeat.
These are just the 3 I can think of off the top of my head. Anyone else have any? I think next time any of these type arguments start to happen than the thread should automatically megre with this one.
1) The Hall of Fame argument- always starts with a certain player getting ripped on here for not being "worthy" enough for HOF status. Usually ends up up with hometown argumnets ensuing. A hometowner defends his local hero or another hometowner wants to say his guy is more legit. Still have yet to see one guy admit defeat in theses arguments.
2) The prove me wrong capping/challenge contest argument- This one comes around about every 3 months. It starts with a guy telling (and some feel bragging) about his gambling prowess and another guy questioning it. It ends up getting pretty ugly and than the challenge gets thrown out there EVERYTIME by the guy that feels that no one wins at gambling. Nothing ever gets settled with this argument either as the contests never happens. Pretty sure if one of these contest ever went down it would prove nothing in the big scope of things.
3) The who is better from diferent era's argument- This one is currently up on the 1st page. Usually gets to the point that one guy throws out google research and stats and the other guy's is strictly opionion. Much like the HOF arguments, no won admits defeat.
These are just the 3 I can think of off the top of my head. Anyone else have any? I think next time any of these type arguments start to happen than the thread should automatically megre with this one.
