FE Debating 101

[Narga_Rocks]

And here I was hoping you'd just left this to die. Maybe I should instead, but there are some things to point out.

I was thinking more where you quote something that has absolutely nothing to do with a person's argument and then refute it. We say you are strawmanning, or pre-emptive or whatever. We usually even say why your statement has nothing in common with what we say. Then you say it does have everything to do with what we say, and we are just supposed to believe it?

Except I will generally prove why it is relevant and not a strawman. I won't just say it. Well, unless I get tired of the argument because it doesn't go anywhere since none of us will ever admit the other is right.

So, like, where you quote nobody and respond to the quote in an attempt to refute a point nobody is actually making? I frequently don't see any notes from you on how what you quote corresponds to what the other person is actually saying. I guess since when you misinterpret stuff you may actually believe it is what they are saying you might not see that particular tactic as strawmanning. Oh well.

BTW, you completely ignored my point, which was one that was countering one of your own "main points"; the fact that saying something is a strawman or not and not proving why doesn't make you right, since that's a logical fallacy.

And which point would that be?

1: The fe9 and fe10 tier lists are getting better, not worse.

2: The line I bolded in Interceptor's post

3: This particular topic has not involved proving statements.

I'm assuming not 1 or 3, so:

something is either a strawman, or it is not. It doesn't matter whether nobody notices it, or if someone notices but ineptly refutes it.

If you are using this:

"the fact that saying something is a strawman or not and not proving why doesn't make you right, since that's a logical fallacy."

to counter my "main point", then you are clearly not understanding my main point at all. My main point isn't some amazing point to end all of your points or anything. You don't have to attempt to counter this one. It is simply a statement about reality. This isn't Schrödinger's Cat here. An argument cannot be both a strawman and not a strawman until someone proves one way or the other. (Well, Schrödinger's Cat was more something that is alive and not until we look, rather than until we prove it, but it is a similar idea.)

Maybe if I only bold parts of it this time then it will help you to actually get it. That point doesn't actually state that every single time we've called something of yours a strawman that it was a strawman. That point doesn't even state that you have ever actually strawmanned at all. It just states that when somebody strawmans, it is a strawman whether or not anybody else even catches it. It also means that if something is not a strawman then it doesn't matter how many people call it a strawman or how irrefutable their proof appears to be. If they are wordy enough or use complex enough language that people can't find the flaws in their argument for why something is a strawman (when it really isn't), that doesn't make the first person's argument a strawman.

So what does the sentence of yours that I quoted have to do with my statement? (If you answer nothing, you are right.)

See narga, this is why arguing with you is a chore. You don't even bother to read the other person's post. You just say "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG".

Or, maybe I never bothered to respond to yours because it didn't have anything to do with what I said? You ignore half of most of my posts, or more. I point it out from time to time, but I'd never claim you don't bother to read my posts. You may or may not read them, but (thankfully) I'm not in your head so I don't know. It's rather interesting that you would even make this statement considering your emphasis on the need to prove things in the rest of your post. Good job on preventing those double standards! (that was sarcasm, by the way.) How do you know whether or not I've read something? You don't. Yet you frequently use that line. If I had the inclination, I'd pull a few examples of you claiming other people don't read your posts.

Let me ask you this: have you ever been in an official, real-life debate? Or do you at least know SOMEONE who's been in one? Paperblade was in his high school debate club (albeit for a short time), and he told me that you have to prove why it's a fallacy. Simply saying something is right or wrong doesn't make it so.

Relevance? I never claimed that simply stating something to be something made it something. I could call the sun a ball of cheese. I know that doesn't make it one. I don't think I've ever assumed myself to have that power. If I did, I'd call you rational and I would no longer have to deal with this stuff.

What I have said, however, is that independent of what I claim: something either is or isn't. My attempting to prove otherwise won't change reality. That's something I'm not 100% sure you understand.

Likewise, if you say that I'm strawmanning and don't even prove why, it doesn't mean anything.

Okay. That's nice. Small correction: It means less if we don't prove it. Not nothing. If the reason it is a strawman is obvious, one should hope that once Interceptor or dondon or I have pointed it out, others can figure out on their own why it is a strawman. While we aren't proving anything, we are pointing something out to others, and if they decide to agree with us based on their own reasoning rather than our own, so much the better. At times, it may even be better for us not to say why: if someone else looks at your statements a second time after we cry "strawman" and determines that we are probably right, they will likely feel it stronger than they would had we gone into depth and they just read it.

This leads back to one of my "main points", actually. Something is either a strawman or it is not. You could say Haar > Meg for ABC and I could call it a strawman and come up with an essay on why it is a strawman and maybe I'm good enough to use words that convince a few people that what you said is a strawman. I doubt I'd be good enough to pull it off (or could even write a proper essay, to be honest), but you never know. But if I "prove" to a few people that something is a strawman, that doesn't make it one. If something actually is a strawman, and if others can identify on their own that something you said is a strawman, and they never would have tried to figure it out if I hadn't pointed out your strawman, them my calling your thing a strawman clearly meant something. This isn't a debate, after all. Other people are not supposed to be impartial judges that don't think for themselves. They are quite capable of figuring it out. Especially when you make them so blatant.

Oh, that was my mistake. I was going to respond to the part about how Mekkah actually doesn't really give a shit about the whole Mia thing and then maybe show screenshots of my PMs with Mekkah, proving that Mekkah wasn't really a good example for someone who claims that my argument is a strawman and doesn't say anything else, but then decided against it and deleted it.

It wasn't technically to show "strawman", itself. More brushing you aside. Whatever Mekkah's actual feelings on the matter, even if he thinks Mia should be bottom tier, my point was that there are times we don't actually go into detail with you. I could have chosen any number of posts from that topic from other people that I know agree with Mia's position (or that she should be close to where she is, anyway). I think Interceptor and Red Fox of Fire had some short responses to you, and they seem mostly happy with Mia's current placement, even if I don't know whether or not Red Fox of Fire still thinks Gatrie should be above her or not. I just chose Mekkah's because it was one of the funniest.

Still, given that you still haven't actually linked an example of someone saying my argument is a strawman and then actually proving it (and by proving, I don't mean dondon's half-assed one where I already had countered his refutation in the post he was referring to), I'm just going to sit here and say that you're just blowing hot air up my ass. If I strawman so often, and there are people who "properly" counter me so often, then it shouldn't be hard to pull out an example or two.

Or I could just choose not to care. You chose a bad example, whether you believe it or not, and Interceptor and I attempted to explain to you why. I don't see a point in going further on that one. Anything I say won't be believed by you anyway, so why should I waste effort searching for more? (Especially when I can just continue to use the one you so thoughtfully decided to provide for me. Thanks for that, by the way.)

Besides, let's look at wikipedia. Sure, they aren't perfect, but if you want to bring up another definition, go ahead:

I know what a strawman is, kiddo.

Then why do you use it so much for things that don't fall in line with that definition listed?

We say strawman because you typically bring up D without really proving its correlation to A. When we cry strawman, you must prove the correlation. Or we could choose to disprove the correlation, but honestly you are the one that comes up with something out of nowhere. Why shouldn't you prove how it actually relates?

Except I do.

Like, did you even read the link I had, just for an example? Int said this...

Now, it's not impossible to mitigate these risky situations, but it reduces your tactical horizon to one effing attack into the future, and most importantly, there is no reason to rush the Part 3 chapters, which is the majority of what offense grants you. Both 3-6 and 3-12 will not be over until you kill exactly the specified number of units -- not before -- and there are no penalties for going slower or bonuses for going faster. Chapter 3-13 is the only exception, being strictly turn-limited, but this is also the worst chapter for random blicks, as there is no longer anything slowing down the laguz this time, and nothing to hide in.

To which I responded with this (a small snippet of my roflstomp, anyway)...

So, you're saying there's no need to "rush" 3-6 or 3-12, implying that how long we take to beat those chapters doesn't matter? Then what the fuck does matter? Chapters like GM chapters aren't going to fucking matter either since this "reward" or "penalty" is usually a stupidly useless amount of BEXP that doesn't do much because this is HM, and the CEXP we could get from prolonging chapters, or even just boss abusing, will generally far exceed the BEXP we gain anyway, so that's a pointless reason to use anyway. That's the only thing you're implying here; it doesn't matter how long it takes to beat 3-6 and 3-12? Did you happen to forget that if we killed those 40 enemies at a faster rate, we could be done with the dumbass chapter earlier (e.g. finish in 10 turns instead of 15), kinda like how killing enemies faster will let us beat GM chapters at a faster rate? But no, that doesn't matter, right?

Bolded the funny part, although my whole post is relevant.

Actually, the bolded part is your undoing. I even underlined the key parts of why it is your undoing for you. There is an inherent assumption in Interceptor's post, that the bexp limits are the guides for play. As near as I can tell, Interceptor has always been perfectly happy to argue within the context of any constraints (though if they are retarded I'm sure he'd either attempt to change the constraints or more likely not bother with the list entirely). The constraint chosen in these posts is that the bexp limits are the goals. Take that away, he'll make a different argument. As for why he thought that those were the constraints under which the list were operating at the time? Don't ask me.

So basically, when you went and started talking about other chapters, his assumption would not result in your conclusions. As for what he'd say there if low turns mattered everywhere? No clue, though he'd start requiring people to speed up on chapters like 1-6-2 and 1-7, that's for sure. Makes some of the other units harder to raise, and makes it harder to get that A support for Zihark in 3-6. It's back to: shaving off turns in 3-6 is good and all, but if you can shave off more turns total (by cutting turns elsewhere) and take a little longer in 3-6 that is still better (this is under the "low turns matter everywhere" idea, by the way).

So his argument has one basis, and your "counter" has an entirely different basis. Among other things, your extension to boss abuse is flawed.

Dondon then responds with this...

I think your post exudes stupidity more than anything Interceptor said in his previous post, smash.

Int specifically said that there is no reason to rush the DB's part 3 chapters. You took this to mean that combat efficiency doesn't matter. How you managed to come to this conclusion, I can't possibly even begin to fathom.

You seem to forget that 3-6, 3-12, and 3-13 have no BEXP bonus for turn limit, so objectively there is no incentive to clear the maps faster. In addition, as defense maps, offense is mostly secondary. These are the two primary differences between the DB maps and the largely irrelevant examples that you assembled as a strawman of Int's argument.

- 2nd paragraph was the "strawman" where I make a correlation to, to prove that holding 3-6/3-12/etc. and the other chapters in the game to different standards, which int did in his post, is retarded.

- 3rd paragraph was his shitty explanation as to why my argument was a strawman, and proves that dondon didn't read my post. I had already said that BEXP bonus is retarded because it's generally a small amount lost, and BEXP has a very minimal effect on HM.

You are wrong on the underlined part of your post. The standard is "turn limit for bexp". That's what he used. Therefore turns don't much matter in 3-6 and 3-12, but do elsewhere. It is entirely consistent. The standard is constant throughout the game. He applied a standard to all chapters, and got a different result depending on the circumstance of each chapter. I don't think even you would think someone inconsistent for suggesting that 7 turns is bad for 1-8 but 8 turns is okay for 4-4. Different chapters result in different conclusions from the same standards.

You tossed aside the basis for his conclusion and then went and applied that conclusion everywhere else anyway. You do understand that if his argument goes from A to B and you decide that A isn't relevant then he's not going to come up with B afterwards, right? There is no point in applying his conclusion to the rest of the game if you toss aside the reasons for that conclusion. You tossed aside his standard as if it was nothing. Then you used a conclusion derived from that standard and applied it to where his standard would get a different conclusion. That's not how it works. I'm not sure you'll ever understand on just how many levels your argument was flawed.

dondon said you were strawmanning because you applied the "turn counts don't matter" thing to other chapters when they shouldn't be. You claim to be preventing a double standard, but in reality Int's statements were not one. It's just a question of the standard being used. Again, the same standard can result in different conclusions depending on the chapter. Remember my calculus example? The point is, by applying a conclusion to different chapters rather than the standard itself, and commenting on what happens when you do that, you are basically strawmanning because you are talking about how D is oh so wrong when Int's A had nothing to do with your D. And you can not, in fact, even get to D based on Int's "logic". That's what dondon pointed out, that's what you were doing, and that is why he did it right. Taking y(x)=3e^x when someone gets it from y(0)=3 and applying it to y(0)=5 (5 does not equal 3 so y(x)=3e^x is wrong for y(0)=5) and suggesting they are wrong about their solution for when y(0)=3 is a bad argument. You could even say it is strawmanning. And here's a shocker: that's basically what you did.

It's funny because your attempt at dissecting that argument is horrible and shows that you don't understand what the whole point is either. For example...

Int says that unlike other chapters with a turn requirement for max bexp (trfmb for simplicity), these chapters have none.

Int ALSO said that there are no bonuses for going faster, or penalties for going slower. This implies that turn counts do not matter, as shaving off several turns in a chapter like 3-6 is indeed a bonus, just not a bonus you can use to power up characters, but rather, the bonus called "i beat the game faster/more efficiently".

you left out a key detail there, pal. Selective reading, much?

The penalty and reward thing is basically bexp in different words. You are interpreting things differently than they were meant to be interpreted. That's not my fault, it is yours. You see one thing, I see a different thing. Then you claim I'm reading selectively just because I interpreted it differently from you.

As far as I can tell, the only person who, at the time of those posts, didn't care about going slow or fast in part 3 DB chapters was fucking Int himself, since he was the only one who even suggested that turn counts in 3-6 and 3-12 (and probably 3-13 as well) don't matter.

That's not the point. Read for content and intent, not for something to jab at. If everybody else thinks 10 turns for chapters with a 10 turn requirement is okay and it is not necessary to cut it to 7 if you can, but they think going faster is better in 3-6 and 3-12, they are being inconsistent. The fact (if it is true) that nobody else thought going slow is okay in 3-6 is irrelevant. The point is that things need to be consistent. I said it before, you can't have G in one set of chapters without having G in all chapters. So Interceptor was maybe the only one attempting to apply G properly. Good for him. Take 1-7. Tell me you can't easily get out in less than 10 turns. Tell me. How many people were assuming 10 turns in order to pull off support levels for Zihark? Take a concept, apply it to the whole game. That's what you claim you were doing with Int's "slower in 3-6" thing, weren't you? It doesn't matter if nobody else was pointing out the thing about going slower in 3-6.

FFS, he never even said anything about any double standards that were going on (other than the one he did himself about 3-6 and 3-12 turn counts). The whole argument was about what to ship over from the DB to the GMs.

I wonder if you will ever learn what is and isn't a double standard. I say again, you'd think it is a double standard to have different solutions to different initial conditions when you use the same differential equation.

Anyway, just because he doesn't go into details on how he gets to the conclusion that 3-6 and 3-12 can be done a little slower, it doesn't mean that he wasn't using an assumption about other chapters that was prevalent at the time to reach his conclusion for 3-6 and 3-12. At least, from the reading I did months ago it sure seemed like people didn't mind spending 10 turns in 1-7.

So a proper response to Int's argument goes like this:

"Oh, well I don't uphold the bexp standard on the other maps. All maps should be done quickly, 3-6 and 1-7 alike. I can do 1-7 in 7 turns and so I should, just like I should do 3-6 in 11 turns rather than 15 if I can."

It's not exactly disproving the standard, of course, but that is because we can choose the standard under which we want to tier, and there is nothing inherently wrong with choosing the bexp turn numbers. It is merely stating that you'd rather not use the max turn count thing the game gives and that you want to aim better. The rest of your "stomp" was gratuitous. And flawed. And just there to try to make him look bad. A goal you failed to achieve, by the way.

My statement accomplishes the same thing: making low turns matter in 3-6. Of course, it affects the rest of the game, too, but oh well. Gotta be consistent. No double standards here.

You're killing the joke vibe of this topic. Srs business can be handled in a suitable FE10 thread.

He made the topic. It's not like there should be any reason to get in the last word. I think all of us like doing it, though. But if he is right and he's made clear enough points, anything I say shouldn't sway the opinion of others in who is correct here. There have been enough posts so far that this should be true.

[Vykan12]

You and Smash have an irreconcilable difference of opinions in regards to debating FE. Maybe you could prove me wrong by finding a single instance where the two of you agreed with each other.

[Progenitus]

You and Smash have an irreconcilable difference of opinions in regards to debating FE. Maybe you could prove me wrong by finding a single instance where the two of you agreed with each other.

I will change that right now. I will say that everything narga, and by extension interceptor, says are right.

So I will do that here. You are right, Narga, and I am wrong.

[Vykan12]

(preferably past tense)

[Narga_Rocks]

You and Smash have an irreconcilable difference of opinions in regards to debating FE. Maybe you could prove me wrong by finding a single instance where the two of you agreed with each other.

I will change that right now. I will say that everything narga, and by extension interceptor, says are right.

So I will do that here. You are right, Narga, and I am wrong.

That's like: Don't touch my car.

*touch*

Well, not exactly, but I wonder why you'd go to such lengths to prove Vykan wrong.

Oh, but I can find a single instance. I was saying something about Rolf's bad earlygame, you said "indeed". It was before the Lethe v. Mak thing. Possibly even before the Lyre v. Astrid thing. It wasn't long after you made your proposed changes to bottom and it was mostly ignored. Long long time ago. Don't care enough to try to find it.

I like the "by extension Interceptor" thing. Nice touch.

(Though I'm pretty sure I value Marcia more (in RD) than Interceptor does, though. There are other things that I can't remember off the top of my head.)

Also: Fiona deserves bottom tier.

Ike and Haar in top tier.

(feel free to agree)

[Vykan12]

>_> What about things that aren't self-evident? Think of this as platonic couples therapy.

[Progenitus]

That's like: Don't touch my car.

*touch*

Well, not exactly, but I wonder why you'd go to such lengths to prove Vykan wrong.

I'm not saying it just to prove prog wrong, I'm doing it because I'm too hostile and/or take people on teh intarweb too srsly.

[Paperblade]

Is there going to be a group hug at the end?

[Florete]

What the hell happened to this topic? This isn't right.

[Colonel M]

Is there going to be a group hug at the end?

I fear the apocalypse...

[Rodykitty]

Is there going to be a group hug at the end?

There are two group hugs in parallel realities, one that is Smash's group hug and Narga's group hug, but neither have both for the sake of finding out who provides more love and comfort.

Edited November 22, 2009 by FE3 Player

[Allan's Aokage]

I wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere, a giant rip in the universe just opened up.

A rip that isn't Wales, I mean.

[Narga_Rocks]

Is there going to be a group hug at the end?

That depends. Do therapists attempt to force a group hug even when the people's differences are not resolved?

Is there going to be a group hug at the end?

There are two group hugs in parallel realities, one that is Smash's group hug and Narga's group hug, but neither have both for the sake of finding out who provides more love and comfort.

That's pretty funny, actually. I give you:

Edited November 22, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Paperblade]

I'll buy my plane ticket. We can meet in Wyoming. It'll be easy to find each other because there's no one there.

[Rodykitty]

I'll buy my plane ticket. We can meet in Wyoming. It'll be easy to find each other because there's no one there.

In a ranked tier list though, the opportunity cost of airplane tickets would auto-fail many people because of the Funds Rank.

[Narga_Rocks]

I'll buy my plane ticket. We can meet in Wyoming. It'll be easy to find each other because there's no one there.

In a ranked tier list though, the opportunity cost of airplane tickets would auto-fail many people because of the Funds Rank.

Less funny, but still amusing. It gets: :D

Anyway, I vote Ellesmere Island. Ellesmere Island is smaller. Wyoming is too big. Even if we are the only ones there, it's a wide area to search.

[Paperblade]

I'll buy my plane ticket. We can meet in Wyoming. It'll be easy to find each other because there's no one there.

In a ranked tier list though, the opportunity cost of airplane tickets would auto-fail many people because of the Funds Rank.

Damn your snark.

[Progenitus]

Should be at the south pole.

I'll meet you there.

[Allan's Aokage]

I have no doubt that the South Pole would assrape your Tactics rating, though.

Get plenty of EXP from clubbing baby polar bears, though.

[Colonel M]

Are you guys kidding me? The opportunity cost to go to some ass state like Michigan is far less than going to somewhere expensive such as the South Pole. Not to mention it'll wreck our Turn Count ranking just because how long it'll take us to get to said South Pole.

[Zkirsche]

That's why FE players go to Iceland.

[Paperblade]

I dunno. Iceland has a lot of really fast enemies, so our units are going to have poor hit and have doubling issues. I'd much prefer going to Greenland.

[Defeatist Elitist]

But Greenland is full of terrain that damages your units. Not to mention all the enemies lined up on the fjord's. You should come to where I live, nice, steady weather, plentiful easy to kill enemies, and you literally find herbs, energy drops and all those other plant derivatives walking down the street.

Edited November 24, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Zkirsche]

I dunno. Iceland has a lot of really fast enemies, so our units are going to have poor hit and have doubling issues. I'd much prefer going to Greenland.

They have poor luck, stats, though, and they have low def, so not doubling isn't an issue.