Defeatist Elitist

Or maybe you're taking it the wrong way. Obviously you can't PROVE that a player will use a certain character or support. That's a given. You can prove that it is BETTER to use a certain character or support though. That's what debating is all about. Also, there basically is a solution to everything. Other things may happen while playing games, of course. Should I take into account the fact that a madman might burst into my house and shoot me in the head if I use Seth because he doesn't like awesome Paladins? :P

1-10, I've never left a sacrifice that would die. FEDS HM5 though... Maybe a little. :P *waves goodbye to the poor Pirate who couldn't hit the broad side of a moisture evaporator*

Lucius.

We know. Try rereading a bit more closely. :P He was making a comparison. And that wasn't my point, that there was a reward. Simple fact is that in this game KILLING ENEMIES FASTER IS BETTER. Do you want me to list every possible reason? There are a lot, but I'll start. -A dead enemy is not a threat. A live enemy is. Killing an enemy in 1 turn means they are a threat for less time. -Some chapters have a time limit. -Aforementioned less wear on weapons. -Frees up other characters to do other things, as well as the unit itself on subsequent turns (a unit that doesn't one round will either need to take another round, or will need another unit to help it finish off the original) How about we do this a different way? You have FEDS? Try playing HM5. Then tell me that having a unit that can one round enemies wouldn't be handy.

Running 100m in 10 seconds >> running it in 30. Basically, because they need to kill things, killing things faster is better. Just because. And also because it makes everything more efficient. If you need other things done, the boss is already dead, and you don't have to worry about it, etc. Plus, I feel like a dirty cheater if I take any longer than necessary on a chapter. :P

This is what I was trying to say here, about why this is a pretty good debate. When that's said, it gets challenged. They can prove it right or wrong, etc, etc.

Lolwut? Even without any form of abuse, tower, skirmishes, etc, FE8 HM is pretty pathetically easy. Seth can practically solo the game. And you have a bunch of other epic characters. Then you enter endgame, where every enemy gets horribly raped by the ultramegasuperpowered Legendary Weapons you have.

This post is pretty good here, I'd say... If you don't want gays to marry, well, tough luck buddy. It has no real affect on you. I would expand, but... Besides, the most hilarious thing about this is that even including Religion, Christianity should SUPPORT Homosexuals. God doesn't, contrary to popular belief "hate fags". If he did, he'd be an awful douche. I mean, he created them, right? Of course, he still has to explain away why he intentionally and knowingly created a flawed race, knowing that he would have to kill many of them, force them to suffer endlessly, condemn many of them to eternal damnation, and basically be a sadistic prick, but that's for another day.

MSNBC is Liberal, but nowhere like Fox's bizarreness. Ie. MSNBC has NEWS. They show everything, and will have anyone on the show. People might make Liberal comments, and have a Liberal air, but it's still normal news. No bullshit like Bill O'Reilly (lawl that he still pretends to be independent and without spin).

WAITWAITWAITWAITWAIT! Because he has a level LEAD, you think he's worse? Seth is better because even without gaining a single level he will basically be one rounding and being about 15 rounded by almost every enemy until around Chapter 15. Give him a couple kills (especially bosses, since he's the only one that can kill the early ones at all quickly), and he'll be a higher level, with even better stats. Basically, EVEN if he's RNG screwed he'll still be amazing for a while, and competent even after. Besides, he doesn't need a Knight Crest. There are even more points to him. Franz is AMAZING too, and I usually use both of them. I see no reason not too.

Grah. Please, tell me where we say this? Did I misunderstand something somewhere? Is a Debate not supposed to be about trying to defeat another persons point? We're not telling anyone how to play the game. We're saying that X character is better than Y character. This, right here, is debating. Actually, that's a point I'm going to make, pointing to some things about the "debate squad", or us goons who everybody obviously hates :P. This thread is for the most part a perfect example of a debate. Sandman says things, we argue, back, etc. We say "Such and such a character will be fielded", he says "Why?", we counter. That's how debating works. It's not bias, it's arguing.

So people should suffer fully for their mistakes? It's their fault and they need to deal with it? And you're fine if they deal with it by mugging people and stealing their money to buy more Meth, entering a deadly downard spiral, inevitably tying up police forces, and causing tragic and unnecessary harm to people? Just clarifying, that's all. Sometimes, the reasons for doing something aren't readily apparent. How much experience do you have with people and drugs? You've said you're pretty well of, so I'm going to guess you have fairly little, but please tell me if I'm wrong.

Bill O'Reilly. :P P'raps a Balrog?

Wait, what? That's a dangerous argument. Something is "proven" when the evidence in it's favor outweighs any evidence against it, by a larger margin than any alternate arguments. I don't see what your saying here. We "prove" something by using logic and reason. EDIT: Hold on, I just read that again. Trying to PROVE something makes you a tool and a sheep unable to deviate from a path you've been told is superior? Sorry, I would say that if anyone falls in that category it's the people who never try to prove things.

I went to the death egg, penis penis penis. On a bear to see a BIRD BIRD BIRD. The world is and really is a giant cock which emits a

4 Mov restricts mobility a LOT in many maps. Competes with many amazing units for a Promotion Item. I could get more if you want. But I like Oswin. Eh was a pretty cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything. He's also pretty good.

I'd say Seth is by far the best (overall, on average, in general, just so no-one rapes me :(), because not only does he start epic and promoted, but he actually have equal to or better than stats than ANY of the other options except Amelia, assuming they somehow managed to close the gap on him. In other words, even if they managed to overcome the 20 level gap, he would still be even with them or better than them.

I just felt a blood vessel in my eye pop. :( Did you not see where I said that units being assumed is not a part of the debate standards? They're assumed BECAUSE THE PERSON ARGUING IS TRYING TO MAKE THEM ASSUMED. If you don't like a certain unit or support being assumed, prove why your option is better. Maybe I didn't clarify enough... You can say Raven is a better support for Priscilla than Guy, and you can try to prove it. Now, I've said this before. You might prove it. Hell, you might prove it better than the other person. But they won't automatically accept it. After a debate, people might look back and go "Yeah, I think you won there.", or "That was a really good point." Did you see Tino debate against Swordsalmon? They even said afterwards things like "I think you won that one". Problem with a lot of the debates here is that someone sees Tino or SS or me say "No, those Supports suck", or "That unit won't be used" and think "WHOMG They're saying that I can't ever use that unit and it's a rule of the debate", as opposed to "That's just another point they're trying to make. An argument against me."

It's hard to explain... McCain ACCUSED OBAMA OF PALLING AROUND WITH TERRORISTS IN A DEBATE. People talk about it on the news as if it's a legitimate issue, which it isn't. People have lied about Obama (and they have been PROVEN to be lies) many times. It's not like he's getting it lightly. For example, MSNBC, which as I said before is probably the most left wing news station, repeatedly invites McCain supporters, Republicans, right wingers, anyone who wants to, to go on and talk. I've heard MANY arguments against Obama there.

And Obama is a Muslim and an Arab, right? And there's something wrong with that, right? AND HE PALS AROUND WITH TERRORISTS! I'm interested to see exactly where this man gets his news from. I heard about most of this on what is by far the most left wing news network out there, MSNBC. They didn't try to hide it. That stuff Biden said? Heard about it on MSNBC. I'll extrapolate more when I'm not about to sleep.

What "huge factors" do the debate standards ignore exactly? The only ones I can think of are personal preference, personal experience and bias. Anything else is probably just a point the other person was trying to make. If I say "I think Guy is better because he's better early game" then it's not because the debate standards say that, it's because I'm trying to make a point. The debate standards are NOT willfully ignorant of anything really. A debate, to me, is two people attempting to convince each other, or an audience of their point. I'm assuming you think the same thing, right? Then, correct me if I'm wrong, if you say something in defense of your point (say for example, that this unit is good with strategy), and I attack it (say, by saying "Yeah, but everyone's strategy is different, and besides, that still doesn't change the fact that my unit is statistically superior", how is that NOT a debate? As to strategy. I've never once said that you shouldn't debate strategy. I've never said anything about it. Hell, I think it's a good idea. Personally, I, and a lot of other people enjoy debating CHARACTERS, because Fire Emblem is a Strategy RPG, and the character's are a fairly big part of it. They have statistical differences. Some units, like it or not, are better statistically than others. Also, StarCraft is BALANCED. There where times when some units WHERE better than others, and people barely used the worse units. But Blizzard has this thing called Patching, and a Multiplayer Community creating the NEED for balance. Fire Emblem has none of that. And why Seth to Knoll? Well, why not? Just because they fulfill a different role (ie. They kill things a different way :P), doesn't mean one can't be better than the other.

But did you see what I said? Debating never has and hopefully never will be a method to tell people which units they have to use. It has always been simply to show which units are better OVERALL. Which means that taking into account everyone's possible playstyles, certain characters ARE better than others. For example, Seth is better than Knoll. Sure, people can use strategy to make Knoll effective, but using the same amount of thought with Seth will still yield better results. Characters can get RNG Blessed/screwed, but OVERALL Seth will end up better, in addition to starting incredible and with a massive level lead. He also has massive supports. See what I'm getting at? You can use strategy all you want, it doesn't change the fact that in general, Seth is better than Knoll.

While that is true to a degree, I certainly wouldn't expect a Thief or Healer to be doing a lot of killing, or even a Magic User doing much combat with enemies that can counter attack physically, it doesn't make much of a difference. First of all, regular old physical units have one main job. Killing things without being killed. They may have side jobs (rescuing, flanking, walling, etc), but their main job is killing things. Same with most combat oriented Magic Users. Now, a Healers job is essentially to help your other units kill things. A Thief's job is basically to open doors and get items so that your units can kill things. Horrible simplification yes, but I think it gets the point across. Some units have certain roles, but that doesn't mean that they are always "good" because of their role. Amelia beating Dozla at both his and her own role is a case in point. Unless the role is like "Primary axe wielding man with beard, lackluster supports, a critical bonus, and mediocre stats". Then Dozla might be best at it. :P

They where most likely insane. Notice how the one guy didn't even finish high school?

Maybe I should clarify. When I say bad, I mean bad in comparison with the other characters. Just using that example, I would say Nino is bad, because she is not as good as many other characters. That is a statement that overall will generally be true. So, you say you don't think Dozla is any good, we say he's bad. It's pretty much the same thing.