Defeatist Elitist

HHM (and ranked runs) is the only mode considered for a variety of reasons. Let me dig them up: (quote from Titania topic): "Without a goal or idea, things become confused and pointless. For example, with no regard to BEXP, people could say any character is the best because they can just sit that character there surrounded by un equipped characters, picking off every enemy on the field one by one. That is to say, the debate standards are there to provide a goal to reach towards, a reasonable one, and one that the game itself seems to be flaunting. Think of it this way. Logically, character's true value is tested best in Hard Mode (tell me if you disagree). This is because if something is harder it requires the character to be even better, in other words, raising the difficulty refines the remaining units until only the best remain. Now, Maximum BEXP is the only real goal we have in FE9 HM, and would make the game more difficult. Thus, if a character is actually good they should be one of the most useful units in said situation. This is what debating is based on, or something like it. It is difficult to explain. As Vincent said, it's more something that you learn from debating." For example, I want too find out the best Soccer Player in the English Leagues. Now, I'm logically only going to go based on people's performance in the Premiership and highest level competitions, since being able to score 2 points a game in a piss easy environment doesn't make you better than someone who can score 1 in a much harder environment. This is the idea behind this. You use bows, you may be able too use them more effectively. But it is actually easier (as we have proven) overall to use better weapon types. Maybe your strategy is based on that. But as I said before, No Strategy > Strategy, and therefore bow users are inherently weaker in most of the titles. That is not too say they don't have strong points, it's just stating that they are generally eclipsed by other things. In general, other weapons will be better. If you prove your supports better, then yes, they will be accepted. But much of the confusion seems to be based around this: When we're debating, we tend to fight other people's good points. For example, the debate where I am supporting Wil. Many of you have made many valid points, although I have not admitted them. This is just because I wouldn't be defending my character well if I did. Rebbecca IS a better character. But if I'm defending Wil, I'm going to fight that with every fibre of my being. I'm going to bend things, and present them in a way that will make Wil look better. If I'm obviously proven wrong, I will admit it, but I will usually maintain my stance in an actual debate.

Do you still take McSame seriously? He basically supports everything Bush does... The last 8 years, the Republicans dominated, because they know how the political game works. They never bother with issues, in fact, they would rather Americans never look at the issues, because they get owned their. Most of what they do is with words. They put a negative connotation on words like "socialist", "liberal", and even "elite". They are "patriotic". They make their key words. Al Gore and Kerry didn't know how to play the game. They just said what they where going to do, and they had good ideas. But that was the wrong choice, although Gore actually won anyway, so meh. McSame simply attacks Obama at every turn. As does Palin. They do things like call him "unpatriotic". But things are kind of changing now. Obama has keyed into the game. He's made his key word "change", and boy is it helping him. The accusations the Republicans throw at him are no longer working as well. Unlike before, when you can fudge and lie all you wanted, know that the internet is where it is, when they lie, they are called on it. That is why there are so many Republican Hypocrisy videoes and such going around. Politics is changing, and hopefully for the better. I believe Obama won. He addressed the issues, and explained points. He did what was important. McSame just attacked him over and over, throwing in a couple "patriotic" speeches here and there. For example, Obama's Health Care plan is WAY better than McSame's (if that name is annoying, you can tell me to stop, I just love it to pieces). Obama explained it. McCain went up and said, "My healthcare plan is good for Americans. Obama's healthcare plan is totally shitty, and sucks.", then, Obama comes up and says "You know, that was a pack of lies, and your Health Care plan is REALLY bad." McCain comes up and says "Obama's healthcare is shitty. Mine is patriotic." and repeats the same lies from his last statement. In short, never trust a man who shares a name with a French Fry brand. And when electing a leader, choose the one who, when his life is threatened, can fly away using his ears, as opposed to the one who will attempt to hobble to safety while wheezing.

You have horrible taste. FACT: Makalov is uber hawt. :P

Well, Supports can make a mediocre unit good, and a good unit amazing. They can make massive differences... And to this: characters are assumed to be used because they're "best". Again, in a debate if you don't like the characters the other person is assuming, challenge them on it. Show why you think other characters would be used. That's the thing about a debate. If you see something, you can challenge it. The opponent can try to back their point up, etc.

I responded to this with a PM, although I should post similar here... A statement is stated with finality because, well, does it matter that much? If someone tells me "X unit is the best unit ever" that isn't going to stop me from arguing against it. It doesn't really make a difference. If you believe it wrong, prove it.

Ah, but Late Game is rarely a problem, as by then most of your characters kick enough ass that you barely have to worry. It's early game where there's trouble. Regardless, let's take a look at them at 20/1, right after promotion. Wil: 36.5 16.0 16.0 14.2 10.6 7.5 13.2 7 Rebbecca: 32.4 14.6 15.5 18.3 7.8 8.7 13.5 6 It's pretty similar, isn't it, although now she has a clear Avoid edge, but her Res edge is slipping. Now, support wise, Wil is actually pretty alright off. Lowen, when fielded, is unlikely to get a Rebbecca Support, so Wil and Rebbecca (assuming both are fielded, which for the sake of a debate like this, they usually are) are likely to Support each other, since the Support ain't half bad, and is pretty fast. Wil can also probably sneak a Lyn B. But I must stress, early game is when the problems are, and Wil's problems just aren't as bad as Rebbecca's.

Wait, there are more Cavaliers! But Oscar and Kieran are definitely the two best. All the Cavaliers in this game are amazing however, since the Paladin class is just incredible. You can end up with massively versatile characters, who all have pretty good stats, not to mention the massive Movement as well as Move Again. A team with Titania, Oscar, Kieran, Astrid and Makalov is an incredibly awesome team. :D

Man, that Cheeseburger really hurt our Funds, hey? Sorry 'bout that...

You want me to debate from Wil's point of view? Sure. :D I shall begin... First off, you'll notice that Wil comes back in Lyn's mode, which is totally easy. He won't be a drag on your party at all to train then. He should gain a few levels there, at least enough to match the number of levels Rebbecca would gain in the time between when she joins and when he joins in HHM. Now, say they're both level, say, 8-10. Honestly, I just chose a promising sounding number, but that sounds about right... But wait, there's a catch. Rebbecca has to work a LOT harder for those levels than Wil does, her levels are far harder, she is fairly easily killed, etc. Now, assuming they both managed to reach that level (8): They would look like this: Wil: HP: 24.5 Str 9.0 Skill 8.0 Speed 7.4 Def 6.2 Res 1.5 Luck 8.4 Con 6 And Rebbecca: 21.2 6.8 8.5 10.2 4.0 3.1 7.5 5 Now, HP is a win for Wil, as is Str, by a fair margin. Skill is essentially a tie, but hitting (especially with bows), is rarely an issue. Speed is a clear win for Rebbecca, but Con closes the gap for Wil a little bit. Def is another win for Wil, and Res goes to Rebbecca. However, Res is a less important stat, since there aren't too many mages, they all have AWFUL attack, and they all go down really quickly anyway. Wil wins Luck by a little. Now, Wil is definitely winning durability, with higher Def, HP, and comparable Avoid, due to his higher Luck, and her lower Con. Offense is a toss up. The AS difference usually won't end up causing too much difference, but it does on some enemies. Wil is likely to be wielding a heavier bow though, and thus will have a higher Pow, in addition to his better Str. So in all enemies that have less than 4 AS, or more than 6, Wil will win, whereas all those with 4, 5, or 6, Rebbecca will probably win. Of course, there will be some difference. I may go into Supports soon. Man, I really need to play this game again, I'm getting REALLY hazy... :(

I'm sure SS will agree. You guys might not know, but SS is probably one of the nicest people I've ever seen. I will say with confidence that he is WAY nicer than I will ever be.

Alright then, since the main discussion in the last one was GBA Snipers being weak, and Rebecca vs Will, I'll focus on that. Well, GBA Snipers are definitely weak I would say, since they have no Crit boost, and Bows are probably the weakest weapon in the game. Personally, I believe both Will and Rebbecca to be fairly mediocre. I would give the edge to Rebbecca though, as though she is quite difficult to use effectively at first in order to level her up, she ends up being fairly good, and has amazing Dodge. I also see her Supports as somewhat better, if a little unrealistic in some situations (Dart not being fielded because of massive damage to funds, etc). Rebbecca just seems to have more good points. Obviously there is more, but I'm trying to keep this light for now.

Actually, I'm thinking of making a separate thread, so as not to disturb the people in the first one.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. He said that was a demonstration of your method of arguing. I said that that doesn't really work for me for the stated reason. Then I asked if I could show how I would do it, but in a thread where everyone had really agreed to it, and no-one would feel bad, since I think all the earlier threads had that problem. EDIT: But would you agree to my proposition? I think that it makes both sides pretty happy. Non debaters can just say "No thank you, I'm not really interested", and people who are interested can have fun debating.

I see what you're saying, and though I don't totally agree, I think maybe I have a compromise. Maybe then, if the topic is not an obvious debate, and one of us sees something we would debate, we should post something like "Would you consider debating this?" or "Do you mind if I give an argument?", and perhaps make a new thread? That seems good with me. @ Anna: Agreed, and I will do my best to keep things like that.

But the way you guys are talking will rarely discover the superior character. The point of debating is to create a list of characters, from best to worst. We USUALLY compare and contrast, but on a far larger scale, and with conclusions thrown in. Mind if I try in that Archer thread to show you how I personally would go about that debate? Or should we make a new thread, Rebecca vs Will, in a one on one type thing, or something. I'll try to avoid things like "shooting your opinion down", but I would appreciate you pointing it out when I do it.

Well, when you debate you aren't very likely to attack your own position, or admit it's weakpoints unless someone else actually gets them, right? The point is generally to argue your character to "victory". I know a lot of people think differently, and are not fully ready for debates. This is why most of the time I post, it is to explain debating, and debating standards. Not only that, but I try to explain WHY we have them, HOW we get them, etc. Would you like me to post that information here, and hopefully clear things up?

And that's why I was posting here. Again, if I say "Which Console do you like more?" and you say "Wii is better", it doesn't make it your unbeatable opinion. There is a very distinct difference between liking something and saying/thinking it's good. Etc. So, does that mean that since SS posted in that topic, that was assumed to be his opinion, and thus he couldn't be wrong? Because I could use the same logic against you. Again, the question doesn't excuse the answer.

STOP TAUNTING ME GUYS! :P Personally, I like Louise, 'cause she's total hotness. Same with Shinon, and Leonardo is pretty cute. :D

HE FIGHTS FOR 10 FRIENDS?

Look, so far, I actually have not initiated ANY debates. I've only jumped in on ones that have been started by others, and then mainly in order to defend the concept of debating. I see you're fine with debating. And I personally don't think we're stomping all over your ideas. Unless by stomping all over your ideas, you mean proving them wrong, and well then, isn't that kind of the point of discussion/debate? I mean, we haven't insulted you or anything for your likes and dislikes. We've just said, "X character is good/bad for Y reason". There can be mingling, in fact everywhere else debates are totally peaceful. The only times they aren't is when people start whining about them. Sometimes they may seem arrogant, but usually that's because of a joke, or because we're just debating. Alright, maybe we're not understanding opinions right here. You've said that "2 plus 2 is 7" is a false statement, not an opinion, but "Rolf is good" is an opinion? The structure of words is almost identical. What if I said "Crabs are responsible for nuclear warfare"? See what I mean. And to the bike shed metaphor, simply put, we enjoy it, and it usually is constructive. What I mean by hiding behind opinion is this: I often argue with people. I might say I am something of an expert. Often, people who I argue with will say something, and then say "HA! IT'S MY OPINION, NOTHING YOU CAN SAY CAN PROVE ME WRONG!". Now, if you say "In my opinion, 2+2= 7", then your opinion is wrong. If you say "2+2=7" it's not even an opinion. Etc. Now, honestly, all I ask is that people stop complaining about debates. I (and hopefully Tino and SS), will try to keep our debating in some threads, but it's kind of hard to not try to engage someone in a debate when they say things like "best" or whatever. It's like someone dangling a carrot in front of our noses. :D PS. The Titania topic was not really anyone's fault, but it WAS a debate topic, if I can see one. Tino stated in passing in the "Laguz Band" topic that their where enough broken characters in the game without the Laguz Band being useable by Reyson, and one of the characters he listed was Titania. Someone quoted him and said "Since when is Titania broken in PoR", etc. That is, without a doubt, an invitation for debate.

Wait, my response was totally uncalled for? And all those people who swore at us for doing nothing where just totally fine? My response to her was based on the fact that she basically said "You all have no idea what you're doing, but instead of doing anything, I'm just going to mock you, but don't you know, DEFEND yourselves, or try to make a point, because I won't listen". That is considered very bad form. Also, we try never to be arrogant jerks. You guys are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Want to be able to state what you like and dislike? Fine, we CAN'T argue that. Want to state what you think is good or bad? Fine, but we can argue that fine. The problem comes when you try to state what's good or bad and say we shouldn't argue it. I guess what I'm getting at, is that I don't think hiding behind opinion is a valid argument. Either way, we seriously cannot debate without an opponent. It won't work. One of the reasons I came here was to find new debaters, and new opinions and blood. I ENJOYED the Titania vs Rolf debate. Because most other places everyone is already used to the established idea that Titania>Rolf. Meh. This is becoming a speech.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one. Don't post if you don't plan on returning. Seriously, I don't want to be rude, but really don't state something if you aren't going to listen to the responses. Especially don't tell people that you won't listen to the responses. Anyway, I WILL respond. I have pointed out that a Discussion takes TWO. That's what I said earlier. And I believe we may have made certain mistakes, but when we made them, I immediately tried to rectify them. Notice that we have admitted we where wrong about some things? Besides, obviously we wouldn't be debating this as we are now if we didn't believe we were right. Unless someone here is playing devil's advocate.

Sadly, I saw those twists coming miles away. Alright, not the RD one. I need to stop being such a literary twat. But where there seriously any people who ? I just thought it was really obvious ... But I do LIKE those. I like a lot. Oh yeah, best plot twist EVAH: KotOR

We've never said you had to do things our way. It is a FACT that we cannot debate without an opponent. If we actually did say "NINO SUCKS AND YOU SUCK FOR LIKING HER", if you don't respond, WE CANNOT DEBATE. Every single debate we've had here has only happened because you all participated. Even this one now. Ironic actually, in order to stop us from debating, you debate with us. :P And for the statements thing: The two main topics I've seen where this happened was the Titania topic (which was for debating anyway), and the Which Pegasus Knight did you LIKE topic. You might think that a statement "Rolf is good", is an opinion. But, well, several things. One, it's stated as a fact. Nothing there necessarily implies it's an opinion. Obviously however, the context has a pretty massive effect. Two, just because it's an opinion that Rolf is good, doesn't mean my opinion can't be wrong. If I said "I like Rolf" or "I like Rolf because", then I can't really be wrong, can I? But if my opinion is that 2+2=7, then my opinion is wrong. Etc. Now, for the main "problem" thread. A lot of things in that thread where stated like I outlined before. Now, the title might have said "Which one do you like?", but if I ask someone which car company they like and they say "GM is BETTER", it doesn't really matter what the question was, they're saying GM is better. Now, let's look what happened once the debating started: Vanessa completely destroys Tana until end-game, where Tana becomes slightly better. How is Tana more reliable than Vanessa? She joins incredibly underleveled, goes completely supportless in Eirika's route, and requires much more babying. It is closer in Ephraim's route, where Tana can get Ephraim A, Cormag B, but that's only half the time. Vanessa has the best support combination in the series, giving her arguably the best durability and offense in the game. She blows Tana out of the water for almost the entire game. SS initiated a debate based on their statements, statements that would appear to be statements of "X character is better" Now, let's see the first response to SS: First, he responds trying to debateish. But he doesn't REALLY, as he continues to say "Do whatever you want, I will never accept your point no matter how well defended it is", then tells SS that he doesn't know how to play the game. However, this basically is asking for a response, seeing as he insulted SS fairly blatantly, and denied everything he said. Then, he pulls the thing about the topic. Now, if he had JUST given the bottom part, I would say that SS should have stopped. But as it is, he's saying something, then saying "NO, STOP NAO!", which isn't very courteous. It accelerated from there.

Drawing style and country of origin?