Start the five most talented players (what I'll call the BudFrog argument of the past) as an infallible principle = dogmatic
Start the five with the most starting/game experience as an infallible principle (or convention) = dogmatic
HuskyNan and Icebear arguments against starting the five most talented players = skeptical based on some prior situations
Your arguments (and at least one other) against starting the five with most experience = skeptical based on some prior situations
You implicating that Auriemma would be dogmatic in inserting the line-up suggested by doggydaddy, etc. assumes he would be doing it according to some convention and not situation-based. I tried to make an earlier point that this whole thread brought up nice situation-based points on both sides. Your argument for Stewart starting was well-reasoned, situation-based and not dogmatic, just as were some of the counterarguments. However, once you allege a counterargument to be dogmatic, even in the face of it being reasoned and situation-based, you are in turn being dogmatic rather than skeptical in your refusal to consider possible validity in opposing points. Like I said, I don't think you really intended that. The correction would be to accept that if Auriemma did not start Stewart he might be making a mistake assessing the situation in your view, but he still could be doing it out of accessing the situation at hand rather than simply following some dogmatic convention. If you accept that as a possibility then you in turn are merely skeptical rather than dogmatic in disputing its validity as the best starting line-up. Now if Auriemma comes right out and says he starts who he starts due to convention, then your skepticism has been verified.
Another way to look at this is you tried (unwittingly I think) to set up a tautology against counterarguments. Convention = inserting KML into the line-up instead of Stewart. Thus, any argument in support of that scenario must be dogmatic and convention-based instead of situation-based, whereas only by deviating from that does Auriemma prove his situation-based approach and, by extension, only your arguments in support are situation-based arguments. This is an approach to preempting counterarguments that is prevalent in our society, particularly with economic and political schools of thought, so I'm particularly sensitive when I spot a tautology. I'll say this once more: I don't think you intended to do this, but it came after I implied there were good situation-based points on both sides. I actually think you've suggested the best starting five (actually someone else suggested it first), though I'm willing to concede Auriemma may not use it for other reasons besides dogmatic convention.
