Debate on Fire Emblem debating

[Tino]

Yeah, they are... They're constantly challenged by you and SS and a few others.

They're not perfect. And I meant that humans aren't perfect, so what we create isn't perfect either. We didn't create math, we learned it and taught it to each other. All we created were the symbols. 2+2 always equaled 4, and still would have if the symbol for 2 had ended up being "H" and 4 had been "&".

Really? Crap >_> I'll watch out for that a bit then.

They are 100% correct, and that's what matters.

[Florete]

They are 100% correct, and that's what matters.

If you mean debating standards, no, they aren't. For their purpose, I can agree that they are well thought out and very accurate, but that still doesn't give them perfection.

[Tino]

I meant average stats, since that was what we were talking about

[Florete]

I meant average stats, since that was what we were talking about

Then replace "debating standards" with "average stats."

[Tino]

I don't think I follow you anymore... You sure you don't mean it the other way around?

[Florete]

If you mean debating standards, no, they aren't. For their purpose, I can agree that they are well thought out and very accurate, but that still doesn't give them perfection.

Then replace "debating standards" with "average stats."

In the top quote, follow the instructions in the 2nd quote.

I don't think I follow you anymore... You sure you don't mean it the other way around?

I'm pretty sure.

[Tino]

Okay. Sorry :D

100% correct and accurate =/= perfect? I fail to see the logic in that, to be honest.

[DeSu]

Then replace "debating standards" with "average stats."

Yeah, I don't understand this. Doing that would instantly make characters such as Nino, whose stats blow away competition, win. Debates take all into account

EDIT: My bad.

Edited October 6, 2008 by フアイヤ

[Florete]

Okay. Sorry :D

100% correct and accurate =/= perfect? I fail to see the logic in that, to be honest.

If everything was fixed, they would be perfect, because it would happen every time. Since everything that happens is random, they're only accurate, not perfect. For their purpose in debating, they're as perfect as you'll get, but that doesn't give them credibility as to the title of "perfection" when everything that actually ends up happening is still random.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Fox

[Tino]

I suppose that they are indeed not perfect, but they are correct and accurate for 100%.

[DeSu]

GHEB IS PERFECTION.

Seriously, though, the perfection thing is going nowhere.

[Swordsalmon]

THIS IS THE SHIT IM TALKING ABOUT. You can't disprove someone's opinion. Whether or not a character is good depends on OPINION. Niño has shit availability, but great stats. That makes her GOOD IMO. Erk has great availability, but crap stats. That makes him good in your opinion. You CONSTANTLY state things as facts, constantly say people are wrong, you are right. GET OFF THE FUCKING HIGH HORSE_{stupid paladin}. You have to be extremely unsensetive to not see how this could annoy/anger/upset people.

The flaming is done out of extreme frustration, similar to when a parent yells at a child for constant misbehavior. I would say that you flame as well, but in a less blunt manner. I go for the blatant ""I don't like you/you're ways" approach, while you go for "I'm going to piss all over your ideas" approach.

And we don't SAY GTFO. Its what we think. GTFO stated was to emphasize how people wanted the debaters to stop.

SS, you seem to have a hard time understanding, so sorry if I seem harsh. Tino appears to have learned how to explain his ways in a debate without stepping all over people. I have no problem with Tino. He has my respect. Watch him and learn.

Technically, you can disprove an opinion. Saying "Rolf is good" can be an opinion and/or statement. Regardless, you can prove that he is not good, rendering the opinion null.

By the way, Nino's stats are only slightly better than most characters, even if she somehow gets on equal levels.

At least we break ideals without breaking rules. ;)

???

I've learned quite a bit from Tino. However, you people seem too stubborn and won't except anything, regardless of proper or improper behavior.

Well, we're getting flamed quite a lot, while we haven't flamed at all, I think.

But indeed, it has nothing to do with the discussion :/

Well, I did sort of flame Fox. :/

[DeSu]

Technically, you can disprove an opinion. Saying "Rolf is good" can be an opinion and/or statement. Regardless, you can prove that he is not good, rendering the opinion null.

By the way, Nino's stats are only slightly better than most characters, even if she somehow gets on equal levels.

At least we break ideals without breaking rules. ;)

???

I've learned quite a bit from Tino. However, you people seem too stubborn and won't except anything, regardless of proper or improper behavior.

Well, I did sort of flame Fox. :/

Bold made me lawl. But so what if we don't accept your ways? Would you be stubborn if I tried to make you do something you don't want to? There are other places for your standards and way of thinking. Use them there. Before you say anything about it, we aren't close-minded, we simply do not enjoy your ways. Just because you like X doesn't mean everyone should like X. Trying to force it on them is arrogant. See?(truly sincere here. If you don't get it say so)

[CGV]

hooray for procrastination...

Except we actually give concrete reasons why Character X is good. Also, the fact that people are resorting to flaming shows that they're on the wrong

And all of those stats have been calculated with near-perfect accuracy in averages. They're the only way to properly show stats per level.

Except your opinion on Rofl has been disproven many times, making him not a good character.

We were flaming because we were pissed, not necessarily because we are wrong. We don't care about those "concrete reasons" in our opinions. For actual debates, bring on all the stats, averages and stuff, but for opinion topics and posts and such, we don't like seeing that, which results to frustration and anger and then flames (very hot ones, too)

This is what I like to see. Sure you said "near-perfect accuracy", but you ended it with "averages". THAT is perfectly fine with me. I'm with SS on this line here because you can figure out pretty much where a unit ends up on average with their bases, growths, caps and room to gain

EDIT: I think of averages for a stat as like a class of students after a test. Some kids got low scores (getting unlucky and ending up with a low stat) and some with high scores (getting lucky and ending with a high stat) and some in the middle (about where the average is). And of course this is all focusing on how good someone ends up, not performace per say

Seriously, shut up with the Rofl thing. It's really annoying and just plain stupid. I never once said "shitania" (I know it's a little off, but you get my point) because I really could have quite a few times

You've got to be kidding me.

"Rolf is good" is obviously a statement that says that Rolf is good. I don't care about all the understoods you want it to have, but when you say "Rolf is good" you state that he is good, and that has nothing to do with opinions.

They're not near-perfect, they are perfect.

No were not kidding you. I know that through debaters eyes it seems like it's a statement being made, I know that. It makes you want to disprove them, but seriously, we don't mean it as an actual statement even though it looks like it. If you really don't know if it's and opinion or not, just ask the person who posted it and avoid all the frustration, debates and flamewars

Tino, get over the "perfect" thing. Even SS says it's near perfect. I don't know about you, but for me "average" and "perfect" don't fit together. Or maybe we're misunderstaing you. What are you saying is "perfect" just so I don't blame you for thinking it was something else

Yes, and he was wrong. They are perfect. You don't call mathematically correctly calculated numbers (also known as hard facts) perfect/correct? That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is not correct

I think I might get what you're sayig here. Are you saying something like (this is just an example) "If Ike has a base str of 5, 39 levels (assuming he promotes at 20) to grow, a cap of 26 with a 2 str bonus on promotion and his str growth is 50, his chance to cap is 59%" That is a mathematically correctly calculated number because it takes all the facts (base str of 5, 50 growth, 2 on promotion, etc) and is calculated to the chance he has to cap str. It's only focusing on the numbers...

I think what we've been doing is assuming that you were taking that answer and thinking that Ike will only get 59% of his str complete all the time and not focusing on the average part where he could end up with more or less

Again, the Ike thing was just an example and the explantion was just a theory about what you guys may have accidentally portrayed in our minds without meaning to or us misunderstanding you guys

Well, we're getting flamed quite a lot, while we haven't flamed at all, I think

The flaming is done out of extreme frustration, similar to when a parent yells at a child for constant misbehavior. I would say that you flame as well, but in a less blunt manner. I go for the blatant ""I don't like you/you're ways" approach, while you go for "I'm going to piss all over your ideas" approach

But indeed, it has nothing to do with the discussion :/

Honestly, I kinda saw that coming from a mile away...

Edited October 6, 2008 by CGV

[DeSu]

Well said CGV.

[Meteor]

The averages are perfect.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Bold made me lawl. But so what if we don't accept your ways? Would you be stubborn if I tried to make you do something you don't want to? There are other places for your standards and way of thinking. Use them there. Before you say anything about it, we aren't close-minded, we simply do not enjoy your ways. Just because you like X doesn't mean everyone should like X. Trying to force it on them is arrogant. See?(truly sincere here. If you don't get it say so)

We've never said you had to do things our way. It is a FACT that we cannot debate without an opponent. If we actually did say "NINO SUCKS AND YOU SUCK FOR LIKING HER", if you don't respond, WE CANNOT DEBATE. Every single debate we've had here has only happened because you all participated. Even this one now. Ironic actually, in order to stop us from debating, you debate with us. :P

And for the statements thing:

The two main topics I've seen where this happened was the Titania topic (which was for debating anyway), and the Which Pegasus Knight did you LIKE topic. You might think that a statement "Rolf is good", is an opinion. But, well, several things.

One, it's stated as a fact. Nothing there necessarily implies it's an opinion. Obviously however, the context has a pretty massive effect.

Two, just because it's an opinion that Rolf is good, doesn't mean my opinion can't be wrong. If I said "I like Rolf" or "I like Rolf because", then I can't really be wrong, can I? But if my opinion is that 2+2=7, then my opinion is wrong. Etc.

Now, for the main "problem" thread. A lot of things in that thread where stated like I outlined before. Now, the title might have said "Which one do you like?", but if I ask someone which car company they like and they say "GM is BETTER", it doesn't really matter what the question was, they're saying GM is better. Now, let's look what happened once the debating started:

QUOTE(Raven @ Oct 2 2008, 12:06 PM) *

Tana, obviously... Vanessa's nice too, but Tana is just that little bit nicer and better.

Vanessa completely destroys Tana until end-game, where Tana becomes slightly better.

QUOTE(CGV @ Oct 2 2008, 02:38 PM) *

Hard to say, but Tana gets my vote. She is usually a bit more reliable than Vanessa...

Do I even need to say the other reason?

How is Tana more reliable than Vanessa? She joins incredibly underleveled, goes completely supportless in Eirika's route, and requires much more babying. It is closer in Ephraim's route, where Tana can get Ephraim A, Cormag B, but that's only half the time.

Vanessa has the best support combination in the series, giving her arguably the best durability and offense in the game. She blows Tana out of the water for almost the entire game.

SS initiated a debate based on their statements, statements that would appear to be statements of "X character is better"

Now, let's see the first response to SS:

You just don't bother with her, I guess. Tana, even in my hard mode runthrough without any form of abusing, I got her caught up to Vanessa in no time. Both her and Vanessa are very reliable. Before you continue about how her supports are better, I just don't give a crap about them, to be blunt. I will not agree on your comment that "She blows Tana out of the water for almost the entire game" no matter how much you try to debate it, because it just doesn't happen to people who know how to use a unit and are able to raise a unit quickly and efficiently.

Also, the topic asks which do we "like" more. We have our personal opinions and experiences with Tana, so don't go challenging them. It just pisses people off. You have your opinion that you like Vanessa the most, and other people like Tana or maybe even Syrene. This ends now, please. For this thread, anyway.

First, he responds trying to debateish. But he doesn't REALLY, as he continues to say "Do whatever you want, I will never accept your point no matter how well defended it is", then tells SS that he doesn't know how to play the game. However, this basically is asking for a response, seeing as he insulted SS fairly blatantly, and denied everything he said.

Then, he pulls the thing about the topic. Now, if he had JUST given the bottom part, I would say that SS should have stopped. But as it is, he's saying something, then saying "NO, STOP NAO!", which isn't very courteous.

It accelerated from there.

[Liz]

i had refrained from posting in this thread, but enough is enough

this is getting ridiculous.

you are too busy blaming each other that you don't even think about the problem

did you know that in a discussion it takes TWO? perhaps not, seeing that everybody blames the other side instead of realizing and accepting their own mistakes and try to fix them. and this goes to both debaters and non-debators.

so toodles! and don't even bother to respond to this message, since i'm not coming back to this thread.

[DeSu]

Hmmm. Didn't see that. Yes, we may have moments where we are the first aggressers, but the reverse happens as often, if not more often.

[Defeatist Elitist]

i had refrained from posting in this thread, but enough is enough

this is getting ridiculous.

you are too busy blaming each other that you don't even think about the problem

did you know that in a discussion it takes TWO? perhaps not, seeing that everybody blames the other side instead of realizing and accepting their own mistakes and try to fix them. and this goes to both debaters and non-debators.

so toodles! and don't even bother to respond to this message, since i'm not coming back to this thread.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one. Don't post if you don't plan on returning. Seriously, I don't want to be rude, but really don't state something if you aren't going to listen to the responses. Especially don't tell people that you won't listen to the responses.

Anyway, I WILL respond.

I have pointed out that a Discussion takes TWO. That's what I said earlier. And I believe we may have made certain mistakes, but when we made them, I immediately tried to rectify them. Notice that we have admitted we where wrong about some things? Besides, obviously we wouldn't be debating this as we are now if we didn't believe we were right. Unless someone here is playing devil's advocate.

[DeSu]

We all know it takes two to debate. But I guess part of us says "We're NOT losing to these guys!". Seriously, I doubt if we didn't respond that you guys would be like "Damnit, nobody is debating! Better leave.". You guys will find SOMETHING to debate on. And two problems with leaving it. 1. You'd probably gloat and be the arrogant jerks you guys can be, claiming dominance of the topic. 2. Why should we just ignore it? Ignoring leads to more problems. If we ignore it you guys would continue. It would be nice to stop it completely. And your response towards Bianchi was completely uncalled for.

[Defeatist Elitist]

We all know it takes two to debate. But I guess part of us says "We're NOT losing to these guys!". Seriously, I doubt if we didn't respond that you guys would be like "Damnit, nobody is debating! Better leave.". You guys will find SOMETHING to debate on. And two problems with leaving it. 1. You'd probably gloat and be the arrogant jerks you guys can be, claiming dominance of the topic. 2. Why should we just ignore it? Ignoring leads to more problems. If we ignore it you guys would continue. It would be nice to stop it completely. And your response towards Bianchi was completely uncalled for.

Wait, my response was totally uncalled for? And all those people who swore at us for doing nothing where just totally fine? My response to her was based on the fact that she basically said "You all have no idea what you're doing, but instead of doing anything, I'm just going to mock you, but don't you know, DEFEND yourselves, or try to make a point, because I won't listen". That is considered very bad form.

Also, we try never to be arrogant jerks. You guys are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Want to be able to state what you like and dislike? Fine, we CAN'T argue that. Want to state what you think is good or bad? Fine, but we can argue that fine. The problem comes when you try to state what's good or bad and say we shouldn't argue it.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that I don't think hiding behind opinion is a valid argument.

Either way, we seriously cannot debate without an opponent. It won't work. One of the reasons I came here was to find new debaters, and new opinions and blood. I ENJOYED the Titania vs Rolf debate. Because most other places everyone is already used to the established idea that Titania>Rolf.

Meh. This is becoming a speech.

[DeSu]

<_<... This isn't going anywhere, is it. I'd try to end this with "truce", but that would only result in "lulz debaters win, fatality".

So, you guys OBVIOUSLY don't get what I'm saying. We're( at least I am) fine with you debating. We're NOT ok with you stomping on our ideas. You cannot say it has not been done, for it has on multiple occasions. You can state your "facts" as much as you want. I like to hear your views. But they always seem so tricking arrogant and forceful, causing dislike. WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS SEE THAT( well, Tino has...)! Why can there be no mingling!? I've seen peaceful debates, so why not just make all of them like that?

[Liz]

lol! changed my mind!

I have pointed out that a Discussion takes TWO. That's what I said earlier. And I believe we may have made certain mistakes, but when we made them, I immediately tried to rectify them. Notice that we have admitted we where wrong about some things? Besides, obviously we wouldn't be debating this as we are now if we didn't believe we were right. Unless someone here is playing devil's advocate.

as ironically as it sounds, i like to read debates and such just not be a part of them, since my debating skills are meh i find them to be a good way to see the different parts of an issue. but my post wasn't about the debate topics, it was about this one.

this thread has been ridiculous, and even you can't deny it. debaters say that they are constantly flamed by non-debaters for posting their reasons why a character is good or bad, and non-debaters say that the debaters constantly dismiss their arguments for or against a character. this thread was made in order to fix the debating problem, not to cause more discussion.

and the reason of my post was to make you all realize this.

[Fireman]

Discussions on the concept of debating and/or debating standards are prohibited, except for in this topic.

Well, anyway, when there isn't much to discuss, that is basically what a debate is. A constant "throwing back" of the same arguments.