Titania is the best in the game.

[Defeatist Elitist]

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.

[Florete]

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.

I was with you until this part. We've been over this in another thread.

Things that can be proven 100%:

Your gender

Your age

2+2=4

The allied nations won WWII.

Spiders have 8 legs (until one is cut off...)

Those are facts, not opinions. Anything expressed as opinion, something another person can reasonably disagree with, whether you agree with their reasons or not, is an opinion. An opinion can't be "proven", only backed up.

Love your avatar.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Fox

[Defeatist Elitist]

I was with you until this part. We've been over this in another thread.

Things that can be proven 100%:

Your gender

Your age

2+2=4

The allied nations won WWII.

Spiders have 8 legs (until one is cut off...)

Those are facts, not opinions. Anything expressed as opinion, something another person can reasonably disagree with, whether you agree with their reasons or not, is an opinion. An opinion can't be "proven", only backed up.

Love your avatar.

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. ^_^

[Tino]

Revan wins the topic ^_^

Finally someone who understands it all.

[Florete]

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'm no Science major, so I wouldn't know how that works. But, not everyone trusts science anyway. But it really doesn't matter, as this isn't science. Even if the entire world agreed with a person's opinion, it would still be an opinion. Someone can change their mind and think otherwise (and likely be stoned). I DON'T think Titania is the best unit in the game. I don't need to back it up, it's only an opinion. Can you really tell me I'm wrong for having a different opinion just because I don't back it up?

It's like the color example I used before, but I've got a different one for this; I don't think McDonald's is a great fast-food restaurant, same as a lot of people. Am I wrong because someone can tell me that McDonald's is the most succesful fast-food operation in the world? No, it's my opinion. Titania is McDonald's in this case; perhaps proven to be the best, but not everyone will agree, and that makes it opinion. This is why we aren't big debators here; We're big on opinions, and debators can't seem to accept that. If it can be debated, it's an opinion. Where else did it come from?

And you explained it much better than the other two.

[Reikken]

I don't think McDonald's is a great fast-food restaurant, same as a lot of people. Am I wrong because someone can tell me that McDonald's is the most succesful fast-food operation in the world?

That depends on what is meant by "great". Possibly, yes, you could be wrong.

[Florete]

That depends on what is meant by "great". Possibly, yes, you could be wrong.

That's completely beside the point. It was just an example. Let's stay away from the infamous McDonald's debates.

[Reikken]

Ok, ok

Can you really tell me I'm wrong for having a different opinion just because I don't back it up?

If it's an opinion stated as a fact (ex: "I think this is better than this."), then yes. If it's an opinion stated as a preference, then no.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Reikken

[Florete]

Ok, ok

If it's an opinion stated as a fact (ex: "I think this is better than this."), then yes. If it's an opinion stated as a preference, then no.

So if I say "I think red is better than green", I'm wrong in my opinion because I can't back it up?

[Reikken]

First you would have to establish what you mean by "better" or else it's a meaningless statement to begin with.

Better for a forest camouflage outfit? That's obviously wrong. Better at getting you to like it? Now that's become a preference statement.

[Florete]

First you would have to establish what you mean by "better" or else it's a meaningless statement to begin with.

Better for a forest camouflage outfit? That's obviously wrong. Better at getting you to like it? Now that's become a preference statement.

That's like the Ike>Lucia statement used earlier. It'll be generally believed that that is the case, but someone out there will still think otherwise. Consider someone who is colorblind. They have no preference. Consider a forest with red trees, no matter how it happened, being blood, paint, etc. If it can't be proven to be 100% fact, it can't be used as a definite fact. Not saying anyone is going to try a red camouflage outfit, but do you get what I mean?

[Reikken]

No, it's a definite fact. It's just not as easy to determine as some other things.

"But this particular forest it's going to be used in has red trees!" would be a valid argument to show that red is indeed better than green.

btw, it doesn't matter if the wearer is colorblind. Rather, everyone the wearer wants to be hiding from would need to be colorblind.

[Leonri]

I am firmly of the belief that nothing is fact. ;)

Our own existence, for example, are just well-evidenced hypothosis'

[Florete]

No, it's a definite fact. It's just not as easy to determine as some other things.

"But this particular forest it's going to be used in has red trees!" would be a valid argument to show that red is indeed better than green.

btw, it doesn't matter if the wearer is colorblind. Rather, everyone the wearer wants to be hiding from would need to be colorblind.

No, it's not a definite fact if it can't be proven to be 100% factual. If a situation can prove it otherwise, it's not a hard fact.

There you go.

I was talking about an enemy being colorblind... Or if the hunter was colorblind.

[Reikken]

No, it's not a definite fact if it can't be proven to be 100% factual.

A fact doesn't have to be proven by people for it to exist. The only thing a proof does is prove to other humans that it is indeed a fact.

"If a situation can prove it otherwise, it's not a hard fact."

Of course, if it's wrong, then it's wrong.

"There you go."

hm?

"I was talking about an enemy being colorblind... Or if the hunter was colorblind."

Well, it would have to be all enemies, but if that's what you mean, ok.

[Florete]

A fact doesn't have to be proven by people for it to exist. The only thing a proof does is prove to other humans that it is indeed a fact.

It doesn't have to be proven pre se, but it must be provable. I can say "2+2=4" without bothering to prove it. The thing is, it is 100% provable, and is therefore a fact.

[Reikken]

It doesn't have to be proven pre se, but it must be provable.

I dunno about that... maybe. Well, it certainly doesn't need to be able to be proven by practical means. I suppose anything could be provable in some way, regardless of whether humans have the ability to do it.

[Defeatist Elitist]

It doesn't have to be proven pre se, but it must be provable. I can say "2+2=4" without bothering to prove it. The thing is, it is 100% provable, and is therefore a fact.

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.

[Florete]

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.

Not necessarily. 2+2 will always = 4, no matter the circumstance. No matter how you look at it, I am at age 17 currently, and that's a fact. However, Titania will not always be the best character in the game, and so the topic title is just an opinion backed up with good evidence.

Maybe you misunderstood me: Not everyone trusts science. I know it might be considered the same thing, but I feel there is a difference here. Science has proven some facts to be true, yet there are things that are only hypothesized.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Not necessarily. 2+2 will always = 4, no matter the circumstance. No matter how you look at it, I am at age 17 currently, and that's a fact. However, Titania will not always be the best character in the game, and so the topic title is just an opinion backed up with good evidence.

Maybe you misunderstood me: Not everyone trusts science. I know it might be considered the same thing, but I feel there is a difference here. Science has proven some facts to be true, yet there are things that are only hypothesized.

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".

[Florete]

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".

Point is, it wasn't a problem until he started calling it fact. And I mean, actually using the word "fact." If it had just been left as the statement it is, we wouldn't be here. If someone makes a subjective statement, I automatically assume it's just their opinion, as most people probably do.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Point is, it wasn't a problem until he started calling it fact. And I mean, actually using the word "fact." If it had just been left as the statement it is, we wouldn't be here. If someone makes a subjective statement, I automatically assume it's just their opinion, as most people probably do.

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.

[Reikken]

Point is, it wasn't a problem until he started calling it fact. And I mean, actually using the word "fact." If it had just been left as the statement it is, we wouldn't be here. If someone makes a subjective statement, I automatically assume it's just their opinion, as most people probably do.

It is indeed a fact that there is a best character for any given meaning of "best"

Saying that "Titania is the best" can't be a fact is wrong (except, of course, if you can prove that she can't possibly be the best).

[Florete]

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.

You probably haven't noticed since you're new, but I've said countless times I hate debates. In my opinion, the rules are too restricting. Also, in a game with a random number generator (RNG), how can anything possibly be considered fact? What happens is random, no matter how likely things may be. Therefore, the only way to call the topic title a fact would be if Titania always had 100% to hit and kill, and could never be damaged, be it by 0% hit chance or by 0 damage. This isn't the case, so it isn't fact. Even if that were the case, it might possibly be still up for debate as to whether or not it is a hard fact.

I've learned from this past week and previous times how debators minds work. I know how to debate; If I wanted to, I could probably end up being pretty good at it. But the idea of tier lists and all that comes with debating will never make sense to me, especially in a single-player game. And so, I'll likely never involve myself in a serious debate.

Opinions are never facts, and will never be so. That's why they are opinions. It's where individuality comes from. Are debates not born from two peoples' differing opinions?

[canas is back]

wow, this has turned into what is debating...