Feedback: Testing Melee Set Performance

[Galaxy Brain]

3 hours ago, Infinitum said:

For instance I couldnt tell you what an ad hominem is.  And I dont care enough to look it up.

Ad Hominem is essentially this:

Person A - I think this, because of A, B and C.

 

Person B - I think that is stupid, and *you* are stupid and out to ruin everything.

 

 

Attacking the person instead of the subject at hand.

[Haijinx]

The reason these things are discouraged, isn't because of debate team reasons.

 

Its because the use of repeated logical fallacies when discussing subjects means you aren't discussing the relative merits of an idea. 

 

Instead, you end up obscuring those and bogging the discussion down.   Often in emotional arguing.  

 

Which is sometimes the motive behind the fallacies in the first place.  Destroying any reasoned debate on a topic will often preserve the status quo.  

 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

The reason these things are discouraged, isn't because of debate team reasons.

 

Its because the use of repeated logical fallacies when discussing subjects means you aren't discussing the relative merits of an idea. 

 

Instead, you end up obscuring those and bogging the discussion down.   Often in emotional arguing.  

 

Which is sometimes the motive behind the fallacies in the first place.  Destroying any reasoned debate on a topic will often preserve the status quo.  

 

There is motive behind everything, just because a point is an emotional reaction doesnt make it a bad point even if its an illogical one.

 

Who is to say which motive is right or wrong but just because its wrapped up in a sound logical argument doesn't necessarily make the intent pure.

 

Quoting the debate rules handbook wont win anyone over that dont get it anyway.

 

 

[DSorrow]

5 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

There is motive behind everything, just because a point is an emotional reaction doesnt make it a bad point even if its an illogical one.

 

Who is to say which motive is right or wrong but just because its wrapped up in a sound logical argument doesn't necessarily make the intent pure.

 

Quoting the debate rules handbook wont win anyone over that dont get it anyway.

Strictly speaking, motives have no bearing on whether an argument is valid or not. Motives may have a lot of bearing on whether someone wants to intentionally muddy the discussion by using arguments they know aren't valid, not addressing valid points by their opponents or trying to start a fight to stop the other party from presenting actually valid arguments in the first place.

 

As I've repeated several times already, I'm not pointing out blatantly insulting or otherwise unproductive arguments "to win anyone over", I'm pointing them out because I'm frankly sick and tired of that kind of poor argumentation strategy. To me it's important that whatever conclusion is reached has been achieved with good justification rather than an emotional shouting match, so I'll continue calling out anyone trying to substitute argumentation with insults and other toxic attention grabbers. Just because this isn't a formal debate club doesn't exempt debates from the basic rules of any argument: civil discourse and justifying your arguments.

[Infinitum]

Just now, DSorrow said:

Strictly speaking, motives have no bearing on whether an argument is valid or not. Motives may have a lot of bearing on whether someone wants to intentionally muddy the discussion by using arguments they know aren't valid, not addressing valid points by their opponents or trying to start a fight to stop the other party from presenting actually valid arguments in the first place.

 

As I've repeated several times already, I'm not pointing out blatantly insulting or otherwise unproductive arguments "to win anyone over", I'm pointing them out because I'm frankly sick and tired of that kind of poor argumentation strategy. To me it's important that whatever conclusion is reached has been achieved with good justification rather than an emotional shouting match, so I'll continue calling out anyone trying to substitute argumentation with insults and other toxic attention grabbers. Just because this isn't a formal debate club doesn't exempt debates from the basic rules of any argument: civil discourse and justifying your arguments.

There are no rules if you don't know them.

 

You can poke at emotional reactions all you want but they have a place also.

 

At least they are enjoying the game not freaking out about a mythical balance that doesnt yet exist and may never have existed with this game.

[TheAdjustor]

17 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

There are no rules if you don't know them.

 

You can poke at emotional reactions all you want but they have a place also.

 

At least they are enjoying the game not freaking out about a mythical balance that doesnt yet exist and may never have existed with this game.

I had been thinking of how to point out while they are "logical fallacies" human discussion is almost never purely logical. Most problems are too complex to distill down to a purely mathematical or logical proposition and even when you can it's very difficult to have all the information you need to reach a conclusion. The level of difficulty goes up when there is an agenda involved.  People may not like how Vayek presents his case but he is undoubtedly honest in his position.

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

There is motive behind everything, just because a point is an emotional reaction doesnt make it a bad point even if its an illogical one.

 

Who is to say which motive is right or wrong but just because its wrapped up in a sound logical argument doesn't necessarily make the intent pure.

 

Quoting the debate rules handbook wont win anyone over that dont get it anyway.

 

 

A certain Intellectual detachment is a learned skill as well. 

 

Human nature tends towards us both being emotionally invested in our arguments, and conditions us that when confronted to use anything we can to "win" (or flee)

 

You diminishing it to being just the "debate rules handbook" is actually the same sort of thing.  

 

People tend to make emotional, illogical statements to support their side.  

 

They also tend to make emotional, illogical statements when confronted with issues with their previous statements.  

 

Everyone does it.  It takes work to learn how to avoid it.  One of those you can get better but never perfect things.

 

[Haijinx]

It actually has nothing to do with rules, they are descriptions of poorly constructed arguments. 

 

In the ad hominem example - if i attack someone for how they dress, therefore their ideas about climate change are wrong 

..

 

I'm not breaking a rule, instead i am making a bad argument.  Whether or not they dress badly is irrelevant.  

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Haijinx

[Indystruck]

59 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

At least they are enjoying the game not freaking out about a mythical balance that doesnt yet exist and may never have existed with this game.

 

And there he goes again!

[yeetsman]

lol lets just nuke the F out of tw so the pplwho want to ruin the game with op crap have something to cry abt .... maybe what happened to em was good lol 

[Infinitum]

36 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

 

And there he goes again!

Well show me where it is then.

[DSorrow]

1 hour ago, TheAdjustor said:

I had been thinking of how to point out while they are "logical fallacies" human discussion is almost never purely logical.

And like I said, I'm not looking for purely logical reasoning, I'm looking for reasoning that isn't just thinly veiled insults and substanceless rhetoric. There is a stark difference between "you jokers are trying to ruin the game" and an actual reasoning for why it's fine that TW gets all the extra goodies it has. This isn't mathematics where there are objective truths so it's impossible to get to a conclusion with logic alone as in the end it's an arbitrary decision (= opinion) to draw the line between an outlier and a top tier set. However, insulting others, trying to derail the thread with irrelevant arguments and generally just not addressing points is just against basic etiquette, not just some "debate handbook". Just "being honest" doesn't excuse bad manners or poorly constructed arguments.

[Infinitum]

43 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

It actually has nothing to do with rules, they are descriptions of poorly constructed arguments. 

 

In the ad hominem example - if i attack someone for how they dress, therefore their ideas about climate change are wrong 

..

 

I'm not breaking a rule, instead i am making a bad argument.  Whether or not they dress badly is irrelevant.  

 

 

A little different here because people who are wanting to balance TW whether needed or not could ruin the game for someone whether or not that is rhe intent. 

 

So there is basis for not liking the stance and who has the stance of changing something they like.

[DSorrow]

13 minutes ago, yeetsman said:

lol lets just nuke the F out of tw so the pplwho want to ruin the game with op crap have something to cry abt .... maybe what happened to em was good lol 

Now this is what you'd be right to call a joker trying to ruin the game.

[DSorrow]

27 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

A little different here because people who are wanting to balance TW whether needed or not could ruin the game for someone whether or not that is rhe intent. 

 

So there is basis for not liking the stance and who has the stance of changing something they like.

Why is it different? You can disagree with someone, but it's a choice to disagree and insult them. Not sharing an opinion doesn't justify attacking the person. EDIT: More importantly, whatever someone's stance is has no bearing on whether the arguments for their stance are valid or not. If you really think they're wrong it should be easy to demonstrate why their argument doesn't hold rather than attacking the arguer (their motives, number of 50s, etc., that isn't a part of the argument is irrelevant).

 

Just to give an example, if person A claims "TW is OP because of X, Y, Z", then person B retorting "you just want to ruin it" doesn't actually refute any of the claims made, B is just attacking the arguer because they can't or don't want to address the arguments. To me that's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and starting a circus because you can no longer defend your position.

Edited September 20, 2019 by DSorrow

[TheAdjustor]

59 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

It actually has nothing to do with rules, they are descriptions of poorly constructed arguments. 

 

In the ad hominem example - if i attack someone for how they dress, therefore their ideas about climate change are wrong 

..

 

I'm not breaking a rule, instead i am making a bad argument.  Whether or not they dress badly is irrelevant.  

 

 

Climate change is a good example. I remember very well the original prophecies of climate and resource doom  Why in the 60s they were saying that by now the U.S. would have the inconceivably large population of 300 million and and we would be scrounging for food and resources in general and might well be reduced to eating each other.

 

Come 2000 I was saying, "It's 2000 and I still can't buy soylent green at the market". So saying Paul Ehrlich is a nutcase who was heavily invested in a argument so it's therefor wrong. Isn't correct reasoning, but saying there's a much higher standard of proof  and scrutiny needed because he personally profits from anything that moves in that direction is very warranted. 

 

P.S. if you hadn't heard obesity is now one of the fastest growing causes of disease worldwide, and commodity prices were in a longterm downtrend (adjusted for inflation) in 2000. So much for yesterday's predictions of doom.

 

Oh and not to forget we were going to be in the middle of a glacial period again (we never left an ice age, seeing as that's defined as being when there is ice at the poles)

Edited September 20, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[Galaxy Brain]

In any case, we are attempting to gather data on the set now with more solid "real" criteria. I would like us to talk to those points going forward as they are something more concrete.

[Haijinx]

30 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Climate change is a good example. I remember very well the original prophecies of climate and resource doom  Why in the 60s they were saying that by now the U.S. would have the inconceivably large population of 300 million and and we would be scrounging for food and resources in general and might well be reduced to eating each other.

 

Come 2000 I was saying, "It's 2000 and I still can't buy soylent green at the market". So saying Paul Ehrlich is a nutcase who was heavily invested in a argument so it's therefor wrong. Isn't correct reasoning, but saying there's a much higher standard of proof  and scrutiny needed because he personally profits from anything that moves in that direction is very warranted. 

 

P.S. if you hadn't heard obesity is now one of the fastest growing causes of disease worldwide, and commodity prices were in a longterm downtrend (adjusted for inflation) in 2000. So much for yesterday's predictions of doom.

 

Oh and not to forget we were going to be in the middle of a glacial period again (we never left an ice age, seeing as that's defined as being when there is ice at the poles)

My post had nothing to do with climate change.  

 

It was only used as an example. 

 

You can change "climate change" in my example to "Elizabethan Fashion".

[Infinitum]

30 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

Why is it different? You can disagree with someone, but it's a choice to disagree and insult them. Not sharing an opinion doesn't justify attacking the person. EDIT: More importantly, whatever someone's stance is has no bearing on whether the arguments for their stance are valid or not. If you really think they're wrong it should be easy to demonstrate why their argument doesn't hold rather than attacking the arguer (their motives, number of 50s, etc., that isn't a part of the argument is irrelevant).

 

Just to give an example, if person A claims "TW is OP because of X, Y, Z", then person B retorting "you just want to ruin it" doesn't actually refute any of the claims made, B is just attacking the arguer because they can't or don't want to address the arguments. To me that's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and starting a circus because you can no longer defend your position.

the intent may be to ruin it though.

 

if the desired result is to nerf it, that could be considered attempting to ruin it, especially when no evidence can be provided as to why exactly the game is broken because of it.  Pointing to other games doesnt provide any evidence that the diseased imbalance exists here or will ever exist here.

 

I believe that is where the opinion comes from, and why its a valid concern.

[Haijinx]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

the intent may be to ruin it though.

 

if the desired result is to nerf it, that could be considered attempting to ruin it, especially when no evidence can be provided as to why exactly the game is broken because of it.  Pointing to other games doesnt provide any evidence that the diseased imbalance exists here or will ever exist here.

 

I believe that is where the opinion comes from, and why its a valid concern.

Trying to ascribe motives to people beyond what they actually post is problematic. 

 

The original poster said he thought TW was OP and should be toned down.

 

That is enough information about motive without having to just guess at additional agendas.

 

  

[TheAdjustor]

11 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

My post had nothing to do with climate change.  

 

It was only used as an example. 

 

You can change "climate change" in my example to "Elizabethan Fashion".

And my post has nothing to do with climate change except as a caution for how extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, also how things everyone knows can rapidly be "Proven" wrong, and be replace by new things everyone knows.

 

P.S. I am pretty happy that powdered wigs and wearing all your clothes at once to demonstrate wealth are no longer things either.

[Haijinx]

3 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

And my post has nothing to do with climate change except as a caution for how extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, also how things everyone knows can rapidly be "Proven" wrong, and be replace by new things everyone knows.

 

P.S. I am pretty happy that powdered wigs and wearing all your clothes at once to demonstrate wealth are no longer things either.

So .. lets see.  

 

A-Global Warming exists! 

B- No it doesn't because you wear crocs!

 

C-Therefore Climate change requires extraordinary proof.

 

Hmm.  Not sure I follow.

 

A-Elizabethans didn't wear powered wigs that much, that mainly happened later.

B- You are wrong because you wear crocs.   

 

C-Still need extraordinary proof. 

 

Really missing how its relevant.  My point was that whether or not someone wears crocs it has nothing to do with their argument.

 

======

While your post had a lot to do with the subject of climate change, whether or not you agree it exists.  As you brought up several topics related to it.

 

 

 

[TheAdjustor]

2 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

 

Really missing how its relevant.  My point was that whether or not someone wears crocs it has nothing to do with their argument.

 

======

While your post had a lot to do with the subject of climate change, whether or not you agree it exists.  As you brought up several topics related to it.

 

 

 

Well that's because you're argument omits quite a bit and is a good example of  why it's a bad idea to let anyone buffalo you with arguments about logical fallacies.

 

The position was that people had agendas some announced, some unannounced and others they might not be fully aware of. If you have a thread that calls for a nerf from the start,  calling for higher levels of scrutiny and higher standards of evidence is perfectly valid.

 

Tell me how would you look at a climate change study funded by Exxon ? Or a study on how to fund space exploration put out by Boeing ?

[Haijinx]

34 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Well that's because you're argument omits quite a bit and is a good example of  why it's a bad idea to let anyone buffalo you with arguments about logical fallacies.

 

The position was that people had agendas some announced, some unannounced and others they might not be fully aware of. If you have a thread that calls for a nerf from the start,  calling for higher levels of scrutiny and higher standards of evidence is perfectly valid.

 

Tell me how would you look at a climate change study funded by Exxon ? Or a study on how to fund space exploration put out by Boeing ?

I would not have thought to ascribe nefarious motives to the other posters in this thread, no.

 

But now that you have enlightened me i now see that Galaxy Brain, Dsorrow, and Hopeling clearly work for Nemesis.  

 

Thank you.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Haijinx

[TheAdjustor]

10 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I would not have thought to ascribe nefarious motives to the other posters in this thread, no.

 

But now that you have enlightened me i now see that Galaxy Brain, Dsorrow, and Hopalong clearly work for Nemesis.  

 

Thank you.

 

 

You see it would be a logical fallacy to point out that and your prior posts have been made in bad faith, but everyone can easily understand why passive aggressive posting is a sure indicator that someone is pulling a fast one.

 

In the real world credibility is a very important thing.

 

Edit: Most people also understand that using logical fallacies to shut down discussion generally isn't a good thing.

Edited September 21, 2019 by TheAdjustor