Defeatist Elitist

I have been reading the boards, and testing the waters hear, so now I think I can offer a better response. I will also attempt to avoid being insulting. Many members here seem to no quite understand the concept of debating Fire Emblem. In a Fire Emblem debate, a character is considered "better", in a very concrete way, apart from any play styles or similar, if they are shown to benefit the team most by their use. Playstyle and such never come into it. So while you may be able to use Rolf, and beat the game using him, in the debating arena, it is considered fact that he is the worst character in this game, as it has been proven given these parameters. You may argue with the parameters, and I have tried to explain why they are in place, but nevertheless, that is how things work. Fire Emblem is contrary to what many people say, actually perfect for Tier lists. Because it is not meant for Multiplayer, no real balance is required. Character's are free to have massive advantages over each other. When Tino says something is a fact in a debate, it really is a fact, given the context of debates and their parameters. I think the safest idea would be to say that for people who dislike said parameters, or the debating process, just try not to debate. I know that you (Fox), have clearly stated that you believe no character can be the best because of play styles, etc, but I beg of you, please consider that given the context of such debating parameters as we have provided, that a best character can be established in fact. It doesn't mean that the game is impossible, or even that hard without said character, it simply means that it will be slightly easier with that character. Sadly, it may be quite impossible to fully explain what I mean, but I do hope that you might understand where I'm coming from.

Honestly? No trolling? Not even a smidgen? Hitler could have done quite a bit more for Germany, he did some things that helped, but overall he actually probably hindered them. To your other points. Humans are animals regardless. Animals rape, murder, and do everything like that in order to raise themselves to dominance. They do what is required in order for their survival and the passing on of their genes. Humans just expand on that. But some people try to hold back, they try to not do things when those actions would cause harm to another person, even if that action si clearly in their own best interest. So, really, I don't see where the whole "Lawl, humans are evil" idea comes from. Besides, as I said earlier, good and evil are more opinion than anything.

No, Hitler was insane. :P He could have raised Germany much more easily if he hadn't unbalanced his entire Economy by removing the people who where running it and replacing them with random others. It would have been far more efficient to do many other things. Plus, his obsession with the Occult was just WAY overboard. I'm still not totally convinced you aren't trolling though, so I don't have a totally serious response. ^_^

I think we're missing each other here, but instead of pursuing this further I'm going to take a step back. My original point was that if Tino makes such a statement as "Titania is the best character in the game.", is it really that bad? He is offering evidence to support it. And honestly, no-one else was giving much of a (good) counter to him. Basically, I don't see why, especially in a debate, so much stress seems to be put on him saying "X is Y", as opposed to "It's my opinion that X is Y".

Yes. that would seem to be a fairly accurate statement. Good and evil do not exist in a real situation. That is too say, the average person is going to believe that the people they're with, or the people on their "side", are good, and vice-versa. However, logically, looking at a position, we can only see what actually has happened. Obviously, in cases such as the holocaust the argument was semi skewed. Hitler was not a particularly fair person, and had little respect for human life. He is not a person I would want around. "Evil" however is a term that simply loosely describes this type of thing. Basically, "Evil", and "Good" are words people would use to describe things and/or people that they personally found appalling or something similar. In essence, evil and good, like most things, are terms, and are also almost entirely subjective.

I'm really warm and I feel all warm and fuzzy. It's raining really hard outside, but it's super hot in here with the fireplace going. I can smell it too. It's a wonderful feeling. ^_^

My actual last name has 4 consecutive consonants. :P Wrap your mind around that.

The series is good except for the Romance and main characters. That is to say, I believe Stephenie Meyers could be a great writer. She should just give up on romance. :P

Interesting things here. Now, for people saying "85% of people are ignorant", or whatever. Think about it a bit more. People are the way they are because society and other people shape and mold us all. We are profoundly malleable and changeable, which is a great asset. Maybe first we should dive into good and evil. They don't exist. This is a simple enough concept, but one many people have trouble grasping. Morals are subjective. There is no single act that is always the "right" or "wrong" thing to do, and to be honest, how can you even tell what the "right" or "wrong" thing is? People thought up morals, mainly as a way to protect themselves and manipulate. Laws, contrary to popular opinion, are not based on morals. They are what is best for society. If murder was legal, everyone would kill people they didn't like, which would hardly be efficient or helpful for anyone. Likewise with theft, etc. Some laws are really stupid. Some aren't. Biologically, humans could be very easily considered a superior species. No other current species has managed to become quite so prolific (except you could argue some insects, but that is a different thing). None have become as dominant, with members in every continent on the planet. We, unlike other animals managed to develop potent cognitive ability, to manipulate what is around us, and to communicate fully, as well as advance. Perhaps this explains then, our position in the world today. So many things happen with people. In the end, who is it that can pass judgement on an entire species? The answer of course, is those capable of it, but I mean it in a more general manner.

This is what I'm getting at. No matter what there will ALWAYS be some tiny little way that it could possibly be wrong. Therefore saying "X is a fact", where X is a point that has significant and meaningful evidence backing it in excess of any other conflicting points is not really wrong. I would go quite a bit more in depth, but after your comment about not everyone believing Science I think I'm going to keep it to myself while I test the political waters here. Suffice it to say, no-one believes Science. It is not something that requires belief.

But what do you think of them? I ask this because I notice throughout the world and internet many views on humanity. Everyone thinks differently. Thus, I wish to learn more of them, and perhaps come closer to full comprehension. I understand this is risky, and probably isn't the greatest idea in the middle of a bunch of people I don't know, but alas, that is simply how I am. So what do you think? Are you one of the people who are quite common on the internet? The ones who believe that most people are scum? The ones that hate all those popular kids? That say all the boys are jerks and dumbasses and all the girl's are whores? Are you the type who thinks people are perfect and without flaw? Are you the type that prefers on type of person over others? What do you think? Me, personally, I believe that people are just people. We do what we do. Everyone does. We may be weak in many ways, but we are also strong. Too quote: "There is weakness, their is frailty, but there is also strength, and honor in the hearts of men." As people we are animals who evolved out of the cul-de-sac of eat-breed-die. We became self aware, developed language, and began to advance. This is our strength. Life to me has no purpose, no over-arching values. Why would it? My life is dedicated to enjoyment, and helping others in their enjoyment of life, as well as the search for truth.

Well, this is what I mean (don't take this as what I actually think, because I'm not like this, BUT): What if, for 2+2=4. What if we're actually in a weird distorted world. What if math is actually totally different? Now, there is an unbelievably tiny chance of that, and I would never think of using that as a point, in fact if someone tried to actually say that I'd tell them to go back to their asylum, but my idea is this: Something is a fact as soon as it has a significant amount of proof. An example would be Science. In Science, whatever theory, or related has the most, and most concrete proof is considered fact, until it is usurped from it's position. Which happens often. But I realize know, I believe that we are disagreeing because of a different understanding, definition, and/or use of the word "fact". My point should be, throughout this, that Tino and SwordSalmon's statements where no less viable because people would consider them "opinion". What would you have them do, right "Oh, by the way, the rest of this post is just my opinion, alright?" at the beginning of each post? To be honest, I am probably explaining this poorly, but what I intend to say is this: While a point may not be proveable 100%, this does not mean that it should be immediately disregarded, or called "opinion" as if it is some sort of taboo. Oh, and I also love my avatar. ^_^

I have a special relationship with Twilight. Now, before we say anything, I love Romances. Very much. To me, Twilight was a good book, except for the parts with Edward and Bella. Edward is completely unrealistic and totally flat as a character. As in, neither Bella nor Edward has a personality. Their only really distinguishing features are: Edward is beautiful. Bella is REALLY annoying. They're both stupid (like, the actual character's exhibit very little intelligence). Stephanie Meyers seems to think she needs to repeat how ZOMGWTFLOLBeautiful Edward is every single goddamn page. Also, the so called "romance" is the same scene plastered over everything. Keep in mind though, I have only read Twilight, not any of the sequels. On the other hand, some of the minor character's and ideas where really good. I less than three Alice. :P In conclusion, Twilight is what I would call mediocre. Average. Neither bad nor good, neither abysmal nor celestial. It has no significant features other than being popular. Now, keep in mind, I enjoyed it, but I can enjoy anything, even bad books. There is a MASSIVE difference between something being enjoyable and being good.

Meh. Moot point. I've decided to do stuff here, and I'll be damned if I let someone stop me once I've decided on something. :P

Hello all, I'm ZXValaRevan. Moving right along, I'm the type of person who loves logic and structure. I enjoy proving and debating things, although sometimes others will accuse me of being too sure of myself, but alas, I have been wrong far too often for my likings. Seeing what happens here, I can see we'll get along like a house on fire. Screams. People fleeing. :P But in all honesty, I really, really like people, and I find it hard to not love everyone, so I doubt I'll end up ever being mad at anyone. ^_^

Ahem. I made an account specially for this purpose! :P There has been a lot of stuff thrown around here, and a lot of things said. Some, quite frankly, I think are fairly stupid. But let's ignore that for a second, shall we? The Debating Standards that Tino and SS speak of aren't as uncommon as you seem to believe. I hear them all the time. But perhaps an explanation is in order. 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. I was once much less knowlegeable than I am now. I'm sure lots of people would attest. I thought that the Tower should be considered in FE8 debates, I thought Rolf was good, I though Nino was good. But I learned. In debate after debate I came to see how things work, how the absolute capability of a character is tested. And on the subject of opinion. Many people will use the word "opinion" in a debate, but the truth is, a proven opinion is a fact. Nothing can ever be proven 100%, so it's useless wondering about it. If something has more evidence in its favor than evidence against it, it can safely be considered fact.