FE Debating 101

[Narga_Rocks]

So, what, the ignoring thing wasn't fun anymore?

I mean, your habit of putting things in quotes that nobody ever said, that's brilliant. Sometimes you use it to poison the well, sometimes you use it to misrepresent someone's already-made argument, but it's awesome in both cases. Well, you probably stole it from Paperblade but that doesn't matter because you improved upon it and made it your own.

If I may be so presumptuous, I think that should call this technique "The Preemptive Straw-man". It's genius in its simplicity.

It's actually a very dangerous tactic to use. See, when you destroy someone's stance by mimicking it and showing everyone how stupid it is, the opponent himself realizes how futile his own argument is, at which point the only thing he can do is call it a strawman (right in line with point 1, subpoint I).

Um,

a: You aren't mimicking, you are misrepresenting

b: It makes you look (to everyone) like you don't even understand what is going on

c: The opponent realizes you have no intention of debating honestly (and if he quits bothering with you, that's why)

d: Most other people realize they shouldn't bother with your posts since you are discussing something by yourself (ie: you create points to refute and then ineptly "refute" them, contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion at hand)

e: Ever consider he might just be calling it what it is?

[Progenitus]

So, what, the ignoring thing wasn't fun anymore?

I'm responding to you in this topic because I take this topic more seriously than the jokes that have become the FE9 and 10 tier lists on this forum.

Um,

a: You aren't mimicking, you are misrepresenting

b: It makes you look (to everyone) like you don't even understand what is going on

c: The opponent realizes you have no intention of debating honestly (and if he quits bothering with you, that's why)

d: Most other people realize they shouldn't bother with your posts since you are discussing something by yourself (ie: you create points to refute and then ineptly "refute" them, contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion at hand)

e: Ever consider he might just be calling it what it is?

Calling someone's argument a strawman without showing why doesn't make it a strawman.

[Florete]

I'm responding to you in this topic because I take this topic more seriously than the jokes that have become the FE9 and 10 tier lists on this forum.

Of course, you and your tier lists are right and everyone else (since almost everyone else who debates seriously posts in those tier topics, and none have problems like you do) is wrong. Either you're contradicting yourself or you've already lost the half the argument and you know that.

[Narga_Rocks]

So, what, the ignoring thing wasn't fun anymore?

I'm responding to you in this topic because I take this topic more seriously than the jokes that have become the FE9 and 10 tier lists on this forum.

Your opinion. I think they are getting more accurate. You saw the tide turning against you and ran for the hills. Anyway, what makes this topic something you take more seriously than the other topics you made in "General Fire Emblem" (the ones where you posted and subsequently ignored us)?

Um,

a: You aren't mimicking, you are misrepresenting

b: It makes you look (to everyone) like you don't even understand what is going on

c: The opponent realizes you have no intention of debating honestly (and if he quits bothering with you, that's why)

d: Most other people realize they shouldn't bother with your posts since you are discussing something by yourself (ie: you create points to refute and then ineptly "refute" them, contributing nothing whatsoever to the discussion at hand)

e: Ever consider he might just be calling it what it is?

Calling someone's argument a strawman without showing why doesn't make it a strawman.

Saying something isn't a strawman without showing why also doesn't make it not a strawman. Your point?

Something is either a strawman or not. Whether anybody notices (or bothers to show why it is/isn't) is irrelevant.

Besides, since when was anybody proving things in this topic? I'm pretty sure when you pull that stuff on the tier list topics we not only call you out on it but explain just how you misrepresented the argument. We don't just say "that's not what we are saying" and then ignore the rest of your post. Well, we probably do sometimes, like when we've tried to explain it 5 times and you still display ignorance. Then we tend to do things like "you just don't get it, do you?" and then ignore your post. But most of the time we show why.

For an example of one of us not explaining, see Mekkah's post in one of your other topics:

itt smash doesn't get it even after several months/years of explanation

So I admit it does happen.

[Progenitus]

Saying something isn't a strawman without showing why also doesn't make it not a strawman. Your point?

me: Your point is wrong because of X and Y and Z.

you: strawman

me: prove it.

you: no you prove it.

It doesn't work that way, because if I let you call my argument a strawman and get away with it, you just committed proof by assertion.

Something is either a strawman or not. Whether anybody notices (or bothers to show why it is/isn't) is irrelevant.

As long as you make the necessary examples and connections, you can make basically anything seem related. It's therefore the other side's job to prove why those examples/connections are not relevant.

Besides, since when was anybody proving things in this topic? I'm pretty sure when you pull that stuff on the tier list topics we not only call you out on it but explain just how you misrepresented the argument. We don't just say "that's not what we are saying" and then ignore the rest of your post.

I'm pulling just ONE example of when people tried to dismiss my argument by calling it a strawman.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10600&view=findpost&p=492181

Look for any other posts on the matter. He called my argument a strawman and that I was twisting int's words, and his only flimsy argument to defend why it was a strawman was something I had already addressed in the post above his. Do you see any other argument he brings up to prove why my post was a strawman?

Do you want me to pull out more examples? I'm pretty sure I could dig through topics on the gamefaqs RD board for times when people tried to dismiss my posts by calling it a strawman and not explain why.

[Narga_Rocks]

Saying something isn't a strawman without showing why also doesn't make it not a strawman. Your point?

me: Your point is wrong because of X and Y and Z.

you: strawman

me: prove it.

you: no you prove it.

It doesn't work that way, because if I let you call my argument a strawman and get away with it, you just committed proof by assertion.

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

A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

(Now, they follow it up with saying some other things that say it sometimes works. But I'd have to disagree on the basis of logic. They say that if someone says A => B and everyone must accept B, then you disprove A, that you are refuting B. They say

the refutation is valid

, so I assume that means they say B is disproven. While it's great that A is true and the person's argument for B can be thrown out, it doesn't technically do anything to disprove B.

Notice how p can be false but q can still be true. So p => q means if P is true, q is true. If p is false, q can still be true, or q can be false. Nothing about q is proven. That, of course, means that we are left with a statement (q) that may or may not be true, and both people should now attempt to prove one way or the other and the person trying to prove q is true can no longer attempt to use p (if you successfully disprove p), but this doesn't make q untrue. Look in the first and second rows in my link.)

As for the statement from wiki that I quoted, it suggests that someone should not actually cry "strawman" if you are in fact saying "Your point is wrong because of X and Y and Z."

However, when you say, your point A is wrong because D is clearly untrue, you are basically strawmanning. If D is actually part of somebody's argument for why A is true, then you are not strawmanning. Thus, if you can disprove D then you can rest in the knowledge that A's veracity is left up in the air. Not that A is disproven, mind, but that A's veracity is unknown. That's if someone is saying D => A.

If you just attempt to disprove D (and D came from you, not us) then we can say strawman and you have to show why it isn't. You have to show how somebody actually used D to prove A, or at least how A relies on D being true, or how if A is true than D is true, and thus if D is false than A is false. This is more A => D than D => A, though. Also it would be the first row from what I linked you to rather than the second row.

So you either show how a persons argument uses D, and that it relies on D => A and then disprove D and so they have to try to show A another way, or you show how a person's argument (A) implies your example (D), aka A => D, and now disproving D actually disproves A.

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?

Something is either a strawman or not. Whether anybody notices (or bothers to show why it is/isn't) is irrelevant.

As long as you make the necessary examples and connections, you can make basically anything seem related. It's therefore the other side's job to prove why those examples/connections are not relevant.

What does that have to do with my statement? My statement there is basically irrefutable truth. I don't know why you bothered even quoting it. You could just make your statement without even quoting mine. They don't have much in common.

Besides, since when was anybody proving things in this topic? I'm pretty sure when you pull that stuff on the tier list topics we not only call you out on it but explain just how you misrepresented the argument. We don't just say "that's not what we are saying" and then ignore the rest of your post.

I'm pulling just ONE example of when people tried to dismiss my argument by calling it a strawman.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10600&view=findpost&p=492181

You do realize you basically cut out a very important part of my paragraph, right? Didn't you once whine about me taking a whole paragraph of yours and arguing about it when there were 2 other nice looking paragraphs in your post that I ignored?

Did you think I'd forget I typed this:

"Well, we probably do sometimes, like when we've tried to explain it 5 times and you still display ignorance. Then we tend to do things like "you just don't get it, do you?" and then ignore your post. But most of the time we show why."

So basically, showing one example proves nothing. Besides, it isn't even a good example.

Let me break it down for you:

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

You say that if turns don't matter in chapters without a trfmb then suddenly blah blah blah in chapters with a trfmb.

Dondon says that you are strawmaning. He also attempts to say why. Something you, in this topic, said is required. He did it. He basically explained how D (what you said) has no correlation to A (what Int said), because D has something in it (trfmb) that is mutually exclusive with the requirements Int stated for where his logic applies. In other words, he said why there is no correlation between A and D. Then later on you still try to apply his logic (based specifically on no trfmb) to all chapters in the game (many of which have trfmb). Your specific examples in a later post again all have trfmbs. You even attempt to call it a double standard. How is it a double standard when the whole thing is based on one set has no trfmb and the other does. Anything he declares based off one set having no trfmb should obviously not apply to the other.

Besides, you ignored the whole point of his entire argument. If it is important to be fast in a bunch of chapters with no trfmb, then why is it not important to be fast in a bunch of chapters with a trfmb? Basically, if the trfmb is 10, why is 10 good enough? Why is 7 or 8 not a better goal than 10? I'll get more into this later.

Back to his post itself:

If it is okay to only go as fast as the game tells you in one chapter, then shouldn't the same apply everywhere? If taking 10 turns in a map with a trfmb of 10 is good enough, then taking 20 turns should be good enough in 3-8, and taking 15 turns in 1-6-2 is good enough as well (I.S. is incompetent so 1-6-1 isn't part of their counter), and taking a careful number of turns in chapters with no bexp requirement is also okay.

Back to his main point:

The idea here is that if going 1 or 2 turns faster is important in 3-6, it is then important everywhere. Which we have actually started to go with (a little), since some of the tactics that get certain characters moved up seem to mean that Red Fox of Fire is valuing more efficient play even when less efficient play still pulls off the trfmb.

So basically his entire argument is that in two situations, E and F, you should apply the same standard (lowish turn counts). You can't apply lowish turn counts to E (3-6 and 3-12) but not apply the lowish turn count standard to F. Keeping a lowish turncount is either the goal of the tier list or it is not, no half applications. You completely ignored his main point because you wanted to extend his "play 3-6 slowish" idea to other chapters, despite the fact that those other chapters did not meet the clear guidelines he set up for why it is okay for us to play 3-6 slowing.

Anyway, bringing up D when we are talking about A, and D has little or no correlation to A, is very much strawmanning. Dondon even went to the trouble of explaining why A and D have no correlation. Thanks for giving me an example of where you strawman and somebody calls you out on it while explaining why it is a strawman.

Look for any other posts on the matter. He called my argument a strawman and that I was twisting int's words, and his only flimsy argument to defend why it was a strawman was something I had already addressed in the post above his. Do you see any other argument he brings up to prove why my post was a strawman?

Do you want me to pull out more examples? I'm pretty sure I could dig through topics on the gamefaqs RD board for times when people tried to dismiss my posts by calling it a strawman and not explain why.

Um, it was a strawman. It also showed that you didn't even understand what Interceptor was getting at. Just to reiterate:

He actually didn't even care about going slow in those chapters. Actually, as near as I can tell from all of his posts, he very much would want a low turncount kept throughout all chapters, including 3-6 and 3-12, but also including 3-5 and 3-8 and 4-E-2. You were so interested in trying to make him look bad that you completely ignored how he was pointing out an inconsistency in the mentality at the time: that it was okay to take 10 turns in a 10 trfmb chapter (even if you can finish it in 8) but it was not okay to take a little extra time in 3-6 and 3-12. So even if your post wasn't strawmanning, you still chose to refute his lesser point rather than his greater point. (His greater point, in case you still haven't figured it out, and it seems like you haven't, is that the last sentence I bolded is a double standard and has no place on a tier list. You can't apply two different standards to different maps.)

It's funny, because when you attempted to make him look bad you went and applied his standard to all maps in an incorrect way (they have a trfmb, 3-6 and 3-12 don't, so his standard in 3-6 and 3-12 actually means that in the chapters with a trfmb you need to not go beyond the trfmb, unlike what you tried to suggest), but you were attempting to go for consistency. Even if you did it wrong. So it is funny that you couldn't recognize how the entire post of his was a complaint about the lack of consistency in the tier list.

Go ahead, pull out more examples. You'll probably find one or two examples where someone did accuse you of strawmanning when you weren't, or accused you when you were strawmanning but they didn't explain why it was strawmanning. However, I'd almost be willing to wager that you'll pull another example where someone else did it right.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Interceptor]

I'm pulling just ONE example of when people tried to dismiss my argument by calling it a strawman.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10600&view=findpost&p=492181

Look for any other posts on the matter. He called my argument a strawman and that I was twisting int's words, and his only flimsy argument to defend why it was a strawman was something I had already addressed in the post above his. Do you see any other argument he brings up to prove why my post was a strawman?

When I clicked on that link, I was expecting an example of someone accusing you of straw-manning, and then that person not backing it up. I mean, I figured it must have happened at some point. I was preparing to point out that there are other situations where people correctly spotted such a fallacy and proved it, aka it was probably an outlier.

What I was not expecting is that you'd self-pwn yourself by giving an example of someone who did, in fact, support his assertion that you were straw-manning. Anyone can see it just by following the thread of conversation.

Never mind that you completely dodged the meat of Narga's point, which was that 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. Even if dondon completely flubbed the counter (and he didn't), what you pulled was textbook.

[Narga_Rocks]

I'm pulling just ONE example of when people tried to dismiss my argument by calling it a strawman.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10600&view=findpost&p=492181

Look for any other posts on the matter. He called my argument a strawman and that I was twisting int's words, and his only flimsy argument to defend why it was a strawman was something I had already addressed in the post above his. Do you see any other argument he brings up to prove why my post was a strawman?

When I clicked on that link, I was expecting an example of someone accusing you of straw-manning, and then that person not backing it up. I mean, I figured it must have happened at some point. I was preparing to point out that there are other situations where people correctly spotted such a fallacy and proved it, aka it was probably an outlier.

You know the best part? I gave an example of someone dismissing one of smash's posts without going into detail. Sure, he wasn't saying strawman or anything, but it was a complete brush-off. Even if smash's link was an example of somebody not backing it up, it would just emphasize a point I already made:

We don't just say "that's not what we are saying" and then ignore the rest of your post. Well, we probably do sometimes, ...

So I admit it does happen.

And that post is unedited, by the way. Unlike my last post in this topic, and indeed many of my posts on this and other boards. So this isn't a case of him seeing my original version and not seeing an edited version until after he posts. And it is something smash cut out of his quotation to make it look like I was saying something I wasn't.

Breaking it down into steps:

That was me saying: A happens.

Then Smash saying: Look, A happens here so you are wrong about A never happening.

Except A wasn't happening in smash's example and I already gave an actual example of A, admitting to its existence.

Never mind that you completely dodged the meat of Narga's point, which was that 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. Even if dondon completely flubbed the counter (and he didn't), what you pulled was textbook.

Actually, I had 3 main points in that post:

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.

(though Interceptor is right: #2 is the meat of the post. Though major as well, the other two in the above list are less important).

And a 4th point, this one minor:

We sometimes do brush aside Smash's arguments without due process, but that doesn't happen as often as the alternative.

Every single one of those points was ignored.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

I'd like to point out a few missing points on the list!

- Use correct spelling and grammar! It makes you look super smart, especially if your opponent is constantly mispelling things.

- Use lots of numbers! Nobody likes to write stats, but people like reading them even less, especially if you format them in an ugly manner. And best of all, even if nobody reads it, it still gives the impression you know what you're talking about!

- If your opponent makes a good point, just IGNORE it. If people don't argue over a point, it DOESN'T exist, and nobody will care (or remember).

- Argue in favour of a Swordmaster. I guarantee some retard fanboy will try and support you.

[Narga_Rocks]

I'd like to point out a few missing points on the list!

- Use correct spelling and grammar! It makes you look super smart, especially if your opponent is constantly mispelling things.

This is actually something I'd prefer people to do anyway.

- Argue in favour of a Swordmaster. I guarantee some retard fanboy will try and support you.

This doesn't apply only to Swordmasters. Plus in some games they are that good. Well, unless you want to argue Lakche to top or something. But high is quite reasonable for at least one pairing (she's already there), anyway.

Anyway, people also support snipers or sages or falcos above their true station in a lot of games. I'm not sure which other types are popular enough for someone to jump on the bandwagon no matter what you are suggesting.

[Vykan12]

We need testimonials now.

[Rodykitty]

We need testimonials now.

My RNG blessed Swordmaster!Katua was pretty amazing with Mercurius + Starsphere while standing on top of a mountain.

Leveling her as Swordfighter kind of sucked, and I had to give her the Arms Scroll to get her out of being locked to Iron.

[Colonel M]

I tried to make Roger a Swordmaster, but he could only be an RNG-Blessed Hero. :(

[Paperblade]

We need testimonials now.

STEFAN IS THE BEST UNIT EVER MINE ONE ROUNDED AURAS ONCE

Edited November 18, 2009 by Paperblade

[Narga_Rocks]

We need testimonials now.

STEFAN IS THE BEST UNIT EVER MINE ONE ROUNDED AURAS ONCE

You know what's funny? He can. It takes max str, brave sword, two blood tides and an A level fire/water/dark support, but the point is that with all that he can.

Of course, your joke is still a joke because that wouldn't make him the best ever, but I just wanted to point out to anyone that didn't know that it is possible for him to ORKO auras.

[Paperblade]

Yo Shanan, I'm real happy for you, and imma let you finish, but Stefan is the best Swordmaster of all time.

OF ALL TIME

[Dat Nick]

astrid for win tier yo

what im talking about PoR Astrid

[Narga_Rocks]

Yo Shanan, I'm real happy for you, and imma let you finish, but Stefan is the best Swordmaster of all time.

OF ALL TIME

I suppose he probably is the best (Shanan), but somehow I really don't like calling him the best ever just because of one weapon. Oh well. He has it, so what can I do?

Going back on topic, let's talk more "strategies":

Applying person B's conclusion from one situation (call it E) to a different situation (call it F) and calling it "using B's logic".

The more ridiculous the conclusion looks in situation F the better. It doesn't even have to matter that using person B's actual logic in situation F would result in a completely different conclusion from their conclusion in situation E. You can hope that nobody will notice that you are butchering the concept of a logical argument (as it applies here: take a situation, apply an ideal, reach a conclusion. The conclusion is different based on the situation to which the ideal is applied, and of course what the ideal is. You can call the process from start to finish a person's "logic", if you feel you must). Then get upset when people tell you that you are Doing It Wrong. Now claim that they are running a double standard because they say to do one thing in situation E but a completely different thing in situation F. Nevermind that this is how it is supposed to work. Then pat yourself on the back for having "destroy(ed) someone's stance by mimicking it and showing everyone how stupid it is", despite the fact that you did nothing of the sort.

For a practical demonstration (and to show why in reality this tactic is retarded), let's look at Differential Equations, because it is fun. I'll throw in some words on how it parallels the above.

y(0) = 3

In Calculus, we call it the initial condition.

Consider this to be your situation, like E or F, or in FE, a particular map or item or whatever. I'll call it situation E.

y' = y

This is the differential equation itself.

Consider this to be person B's "logic", or more accurately, the ideal they choose to apply to situation E. Like, matching the trfmb given by the game being good enough, and getting less than that is irrelevant. Or you can go with merely matching the trfmb is not good enough if it is possible to beat it. Either way is fine, if it is applied consistently.

Now, the process by which the conclusion is reached is not relevant, but the result is:

y(x) = 3e^x

So, that is person B's conclusion to situation E.

Now let's look at situation F:

y(0) = 5.

Oh look, person B is an idiot! He says y(x) = 3e^x! Clearly when x=0, y=5, not 3, like person B would say! Person B's argument is ridiculous! Wow, what a great debater you are, person B! Haha, everyone look at how stupid person B is!

(back to reality)

Um, NO! That's not how it works. If you want to apply person B's "logic" to situation F, you must run through the process by which they reached the conclusion for situation E, only with the initial conditions of situation F.

Person B's "logic" results in

y(x) = 5e^x

in situation F, which we can see is perfectly fine for when x = 0, since it results in y(0) = 5.

So person B's "logic" actually arrives at a different conclusion for situation F than what it concluded for situation E, y(x) = 5e^x rather than y(x) = 3e^x. And that's what is supposed to happen. It is in no way inconsistent or pulling a double standard when a different conclusion is reached for situation E than the conclusion reached for situation F.

In RD:

If 10 turns for a chapter like 1-7 is just fine, then consistency suggests that 3-6 has no motivation for going fast. 16 turns is just as good as 12 turns, in fact if it can be better if there is less chance of dying.

alternatively

If there is a motivation for going fast in 3-6 (12 turns is better than 16, regardless of how dangerous it is), then 10 turns should not be fine for 1-7. If you can finish in 7, then you should finish in 7, even if it is a little more dangerous, but especially if it isn't.

In my first example here, it is taking one ideal (ideal G), that whatever the game says is fine, and applying it both to chapters in which the game says something and to where the game says nothing.

In the second example, it is taking one ideal (ideal H), that going faster is better, and applying it to all chapters.

If person B suggests that 16 turns is at least as good as 12 turns in 3-6 because it is safer and they are operating under ideal G, then the "strategy" near the top of this post would have you say that person B is suggesting that taking 16 turns or even more is also okay in chapter 1-7, and in fact boss abuse is suddenly okay because it makes the rest of the game safer. Then when person C or even B him(/her)self accuses you of strawmanning, claim that you are just applying person B's logic to other chapters to show how ridiculous it is. Nevermind that when person B's true logic is applied to 1-7, the result is then 10 turns for 1-7, and not a turn more.

Either dispute the logic (ideal) itself, or don't. If you like how G applies to 1-7, then you have to live with how it applies to 3-6. If you really don't like how it applies to 3-6, then either get over it or accept that you can't have G in 1-7. Either take G or take H, you can't mix and match depending on the chapter.

[Progenitus]

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.

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.

What does that have to do with my statement? My statement there is basically irrefutable truth. I don't know why you bothered even quoting it. You could just make your statement without even quoting mine. They don't have much in common.

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".

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.

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

You do realize you basically cut out a very important part of my paragraph, right? Didn't you once whine about me taking a whole paragraph of yours and arguing about it when there were 2 other nice looking paragraphs in your post that I ignored?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

He actually didn't even care about going slow in those chapters. Actually, as near as I can tell from all of his posts, he very much would want a low turncount kept throughout all chapters, including 3-6 and 3-12, but also including 3-5 and 3-8 and 4-E-2. You were so interested in trying to make him look bad that you completely ignored how he was pointing out an inconsistency in the mentality at the time: that it was okay to take 10 turns in a 10 trfmb chapter (even if you can finish it in 8) but it was not okay to take a little extra time in 3-6 and 3-12. So even if your post wasn't strawmanning, you still chose to refute his lesser point rather than his greater point. (His greater point, in case you still haven't figured it out, and it seems like you haven't, is that the last sentence I bolded is a double standard and has no place on a tier list. You can't apply two different standards to different maps.)

It's funny, because when you attempted to make him look bad you went and applied his standard to all maps in an incorrect way (they have a trfmb, 3-6 and 3-12 don't, so his standard in 3-6 and 3-12 actually means that in the chapters with a trfmb you need to not go beyond the trfmb, unlike what you tried to suggest), but you were attempting to go for consistency. Even if you did it wrong. So it is funny that you couldn't recognize how the entire post of his was a complaint about the lack of consistency in the tier list.

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.

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.

[Vykan12]

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

[Paperblade]

Smash, I wouldn't use my 5 months of "Speech and Debate" as evidence of anything other than the fact that I got bored and quit halfway through the year of my hatred of spreading.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Paperblade

[Progenitus]

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

meh, you're right.

Smash, I wouldn't use my 5 months of "Speech and Debate" as evidence of anything other than the fact that I got bored and quit halfway through the year of my hatred of spreading.

Well, I'd say it's better than nothing. it's at least some form of proof to back up my post.

[Paperblade]

The logical fallacies stuff wasn't actually learned from debate club, I did that on my own time. The only thing about "formal debates" that I remember that could arguably apply to here is that if you don't respond to a point, it's considered conceded. Although I believe that was due to the structure of the debates, unlike here where it goes until everyone's sick of it or someone admits defeat.

I really hated it though, but that's probably because the topics were policy issues (should the USFG do this or that), and everyone was a hardcore this or a hardcore that, and I just don't really care enough about politics to get that involved.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Paperblade

[Progenitus]

The logical fallacies stuff wasn't actually learned from debate club, I did that on my own time.

>_> the heck? a debate club didn't go over logical fallacies? My English 100 class did that.

Oh well. I guess it's not really a good form of proof then.

The only thing about "formal debates" that I remember that could arguably apply to here is that if you don't respond to a point, it's considered conceded. Although I believe that was due to the structure of the debates, unlike here where it goes until everyone's sick of it or someone admits defeat.

Yeah, I'm starting to drift towards "official" debates on the debate board, since those actually end.

[Paperblade]

Well, it was only a high school debate club. It really wasn't what I expected and it doesn't really apply, which is why I never bring it up.