Defeatist Elitist

SS, while I agree with you, this isn't FEU or FEP. Try to cut down on the "Don't post here then" and exact statements. People here are still getting used to this stuff, so you should really try to make it as friendly, explained and comprehensive as you can. If you just say Priscilla wants such and such they're going to think you're just making a totally biased statement.

Alright, I think I see now. If someone says "No, this character is assumed", then they're doing it because it helps their side. You can, and SHOULD say "No, actually, it would benefit the team more to use X other character". It looks like the rules are biased in the debaters direction, because they present things to their advantage. It's how you debate. Also, no-one said Raven sucks because Guy can replace him. Raven is awesome, I believe me, Tino and SS all think he's great.

The way she debates and acts just doesn't roll well with me. I'm a guy who likes to hear what peoples plans are. McCain, Obama and Biden often do that, but most of what I hear Palin say is just attacks on Obama, or random patriotism. She does a lot that "gets the vote", but I don't actually think she'd be a good President.

Alright, good. Tino may have made a mistake. Or he might have just hoped you didn't catch it. :P I must admit, often my debate points have big holes in them, and I just hope no-one sees them. :D You are correct. Vanessa A/Colm B is amazing. Ironically, Vanessa has 2nd best Supports in the series, with Moulder A/Lute B. If you don't use either of them, then Moulder will be significantly less useful, although still pretty damn good. But the thing is, 2 units, both of which are good and very likely to be fielded (Vanessa is usually considered the best flier, and is your ONLY flier for a lot of time), and the bonuses are incredible, for all people involved. No matter what, this ends up benefiting the team. Hell, if Vanessa was total shit it might almost be worth it. :P Well, maybe not quite. You also have to think that if you did do this, Vanessa would become super awesome as well. So basically, there are so many benefits to using Moulder and his Supports, that NOT using them is basically a detriment to the team. Besides, he's a fairly good unit without them.

As I said before, I think Serra is better. But Gulcasa, Priscilla is still amazing. I actually often will use both of them. They're both in the Top 10 best characters, I'd say. Just because Serra is also a Healer doesn't stop Prissy from being amazing. Your argument seems to be based on the fact that Serra is better, but Prissy is better than the majority of units in the game. If this was an argument between Serra and Prissy, I'd support Serra, but it should be an argument about whether or not Prissy is good, and I most definitely think she is.

Uh, I think we're saying the same thing here... On supports: Yeah, a fast Support is better generally. I agree. That's something that must be factored in, and that's generally considered. You haven't seen people condemn IkexSoren for being slower than a brick wall? :P Moulder Supports several REALLY good units. His Supporters are incredibly likely to be used, but hey, even without them he's pretty good. His Supports are a big part of him though, because they are with good units, are fairly fast and give incredible bonuses. He's kind of on the extreme end of Supports. Like, I'd say he may have the best Supports in the SERIES. Especially for the stats he has and the type of unit he is.

I think Serra is better, but Prissy is amazing. She's one of the best characters in the game. Healing utility is amazing. Plus she's just GOOD. You wanna debate? :P

To the deployment thing. The reasoning is this, say you;re debating between two random characters. If one of them has a support option that is a weak character, then fielding that support option is weakening the team. Now, if the bonuses are large enough to make up for that, then it's a benefit, but they often aren't. And to Supports. Supports make Moulder awesome, to go with the one we have here. +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res is huge. Very few people will beat him in all three of those stats anyway. Now, being great without Supports > being great with them. But being pretty good without supports << being amazing with them. It's a delicate balance. Of course, if you're in a debate and someone is saying a character's supports make them so awesome and you think that it doesn't do enough, point it out. Don't expect them to immediately bend to your will, it wouldn't be a debate if they didn't argue back, but it will usually be kept in mind. Supports I also don't find need much Strategy or anything like that. Number crunching perhaps, but not strategy. Reason being, Supports are part of a character, and are therefore a statistic. They don't really need Strategy, and are a massive help. But as you said, there needs to be a balance.

Please, tell them to me. I'll try to defend them. In fact, I'll address some here right now. First, the assumption that certain units are being used. This is usually because of course, the point of debating is to prove what characters are the "best" and make the game easiest. So the other "best" are automatically assumed. In addition, the game is made harder if you have to use characters that aren't the "best". That's why it's assumed. Supports also. Supports can in some cases make or break a character. +5 Damage, and +5 Def/Res is pretty significant. A unit with 20 Str, 20 Def, and 20 Res and a Support granting +5 Atk, +5 Def/Res, is slightly better than a unit with 23 Str, 23 Def, and 23 Res who has no real Support options. It's not hard to keep people in Support Range.

Honestly, this election is a pretty good one. If it weren't for Palin, I really wouldn't mind McCain being elected very much at all. I'd prefer Obama, but McCain himself is pretty moderate, so I wouldn't mind him. I don't think he'd be too bad. I have a lot of beef with Palin though. :(

There's a difference between acting like other peoples options are viable in a debate, and actually considering them. It's difficult to explain. Either way, I have seen him take other peoples opinions and ideas. I have seen him admit he was wrong. I've seen him accept other peoples ideas.

Alright, I'm not going to argue about the characters right now, but as to how you're talking to SS... I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on how debates work, but honestly, SS is just doing his thing. I've seen him admit he was wrong before, and I've seen him change his mind. He doesn't discount anything that isn't his idea. He does have his standards of course, which you disagree with, but he really isn't being a dick. Maybe it's because SS is saying that his options are better, and trying to prove them. But isn't that what everyone is doing? I see how it might look like he's being static and not changing, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about other peoples ideas. I know for a fact that he thinks Raven is pretty damn good.

I think it's just a clash of Principles here. It's a matter of perspective really. Of course, everyone wants what benefits them. There are more poor people than rich people. I believe in support for the poor, and don't believe the rich need any support. Obviously, rich people don't want their money taken, but normally they don't NEED that money. In truth, I would love a real dog eat dog, pure capitalist economy in principle, but in reality there are a lot of flaws with it. Everything would be monopolized almost instantly. The current economic trouble in the states is because of too few regulations on business. Canada has these regulations, and thus doesn't have to worry about it (actually, I have to say that Canada is usually considered to have one of if not the best and most effective/efficient banking system in the world). But I don't think you're arguing against that entirely. I just tend to lean to a more liberal side. I think that the people with the capabilities to be rich, and the effort deserve to be rich, but I also believe the people without those abilities should at least be able to lead happy lives. I think the rich should be able to stay rich, but I think the poor should become middle income.

Ya know what? I'm tired of this stuff. You have confessed yourself that you don't care about the politics or leader of your country. You have said that you don't believe the country can be changed and you will be leaving as soon as possible. Yet you come into this topic to tell me that I can't care about somewhere I don't live? You think I don't know this? You don't know me, and you've never met me. For all you know I could have a lot of family in the US. I could work there, many Canadians do. I could have lived their most of my life. I could study American Economics. I could do tons of things. You DON'T KNOW. Besides that point, what happens in America affects the rest of the world. To be honest, everyone should care about Politics, the world would be a much better place if they did, I'm sure that's something both me and Sandman actually agree on. To put it bluntly, I don't appreciate being told that I am not entitled to talk about American politics by somebody who's given up hope in their own country and doesn't want to change it. I might disagree with Sandman, but I don't mind arguing with him. Because it's obvious he cares. He is saying what he thinks is best for America. I just disagree. But you seem to only come into these types of topics to say "I don't care about this topic, by the way, ZXValaRevan, you can't talk, you live in Canada, bai." If that's pretty much all you're going to say, then please don't post. If you do post, from now on, expect me to respond in a matter befitting it. @sandman, I'll respond better later, but I think we just disagree on this. I don't believe that people bring things on themselves with poor financial decisions. Me and my family make good decisions, we've managed to do pretty damn well. But I know some people who make mistakes, and I don't think that we should just say "Haha, they made mistakes, they suck".

I'm going to be honest and say I've never heard anything quite so... Dissonant.

No, I'm going to have to disagree there. Very much. Rich people don't even really NEED to work. You can live your entire life fairly comfortably if you have 2 Million Dollars. Now, most really rich people have a lot more. Its not all in cash form, but they have way more money than they will ever reasonably spend. They don't need to work, and I honestly don't think their work is that hard. I really don't think they work harder. Could you explain why you think this? Also, most politicians aren't SUPER SUPER rich. They're pretty much set for life a lot of the time, but not Super rich.

The rich people who are famous usually work hard. Maybe it's not so much a question of not working hard, but the fact that many of them work no harder than the average person.

Because Sigrun is the Peg Knight champion in that aspect.

This. He's a Healer that you might think about putting in a situation where he could be attacked. Obviously, he's no General, but he's pretty good overall. His stats are BALANCED. Not the typical Mage fare of Massive Mag/Skill/Spd/Res, no HP/Def/whatever they didn't have massive of. Plus, his Con just makes it better. He makes up for mediocre Speed and Mag by being able to use better tomes with less AS loss.

But what I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who live off the poor. A lot of company owners don't have to do much. Now, maybe I should clarify my statements. I personally, could live life very easily with not much income. As I am now, I can drift through life no problem. I an capable of making smart decisions with money. But not everyone can do that. The way the system works actually discourages that. If you're smart you'll have no trouble. But not everyone's smart. And you're not wrong just because you're not smart. I'm going to quote a line from a song here: "Just because you're better than me, doesn't mean I'm lazy". Some people have poorer situations at birth then they do now. The problem with the argument of "The people at the top are at the top for a reason, they must have done something to bring them self up there. They must have worked harder or something." is that it's the EXACT argument that people used to justify things like serfdom. If you were a noble, you were obviously a noble for a reason, right? I mean, they could even prove it. The average noble was far more knowledgeable and trained then the average serf. Of course, this was BECAUSE they were nobles. Once you get rich, it's easy to just keep getting richer. And America has some of the worst division of wealth in the world. Normally, people will do what they think is in their best interest. But in society today, people are trained to think that the things in the companies best interests are in their best interests as well, when they usually aren't. Should people really have to research every thing they do? Of course, once someone starts making lots of money, they will be all for what makes them more. People don't want to pay money. Especially rich people. Rich people don't want to pay taxes. They don't NEED the benefits. They can already pay for almost everything. If your average CEO breaks his leg, it's not that big a thing. If a single parent breaks his or her leg, they're basically fucked. First of all, they might not even have been able to afford a real Health Insurance policy (or their insurance company is just like "lol we don't cover that"), and on top of that, they can't work.

Check my post on the previous page.

You don't understand. Saying "You moron" in a joking tone to a good friend when he just dropped his spoon on the floor is much different than saying "You moron" mockingly to the mentally handicapped kid who's trying to learn how to read. They basically have different meanings. Tone, intention, context, all sorts of things can make a massive difference. In addition, words evolve over time. A word that originally meant one thing can eventually mean something very different, or can mean several things. Think of words like Gay. Now, some people will pull their bullshit about how "Gay only means happy", but almost everyone KNOWS that most people mean homosexual when they say it. It's called evolution of language. Ever heard of an idiom? Something like "Let's hit the road", or "Looks like the cat's out of the bag". Language changes. Words change. Meanings change.

I dunno what you guys really mean... I think that two people loving each other and accepting one another's flaws is a perfectly reasonable thought.

Lern 2 let language evolve. :P Words change. Besides, words themselves don't really hold any special meaning. It's the context of their use, how they are used, and the intentions behind them that make all the difference. You want me to start spewing examples? YokaiKnight has it down pretty well. People should be able to say what they want. Of course, this means that I can say what I want about what they say/

Lucius. :P