peach is a good character imo, but i don't think anymore that she will win a major
tournament. why did i change my mind? because i trust sky's as well as other peach's experiences, and experience does matter in debate.
Then you have no idea what's important for debates. Also, do you not trust
Dark.pch at all? He's also very talented and experienced, yet he claims Peach is perfectly viable.
So experience obviously does not mean wisdom. Which is why in debates, all that matters are
arguments, logic and whatever.
f you have the opportunity to argue with a physicist about general relativity or something, of course it makes sense to take into account his opinions over your own prejudices.
No, not really. Especially not when you have another scientist standing nearby disputing the physicist. For all I know, the physicist could be wrong while the scientist was right.
You had absolute
no problems opposing me and my arguments but the second Sky` walked in repeated
exactly what I had been trying to get through your head for days, all of a sudden, you bent over and just took it. Because it's Sky`! How could he
possibly be wrong about Peach?
But
I was wrong, apparently. At least my reasoning and my arguments were flimsy, according to you. You yourself claimed that my case was shoddily built. So Sky`'s arguments, logic and reasoning apparently meant squat to you. All that you needed to be cured from your delusion of Peach's viability was Sky`saying "Peach isn't viable".
Apparently, that was all the "debate" you needed.
they are more specialized to know that info. I don't know the full reasons why peach doesn't win, but i can admit that peach mains probably have a better understanding than me, or you for that matter.
But you refuse to admit that I have a very keen understanding on Peach's viability. In the same breath as you admitted defeat, you claimed you saw yourself perfectly justified in opposing me in this debate because, apparently, I was arguing my case badly.
Which against goes to show how all you needed from this debate was a notable Peach telling you you were wrong. That's not debating, that's just waiting for an authority figure to dictate your views and opinions for you.
debates should matter on logic and facts, you are correct, but you're also missing the point that logic and facts are both based on observation.
Logic and facts can be just cold hard logic and facts. Observation only plays into it when
ignorance is involved, when one is too
ignorant to see things for what they are and
interpret the facts wrong.
Also, are you admitting to
sucking at "observing" facts and logic? After all, you "observed" the facts all wrong. You claimed Peach's tournament results prove her viability. Obviously, that was wrong. So you "observed" the facts wrong, thus you know too little about Competitive Smash and Competitive gaming to accurately "observe" the facts.
and there is a limit to how much conjecturing about about limited tourney results leads to substantial claims.
No there isn't. Not in
this case when the tournament results
clearly went against you.
lol and sure your opinions might have been "based on fact and logic", but so were mine. that doesn't make them anything other than opinions though ^^ at least not here.
But since your opinions (conclusions) were flawed, it means your logic and "facts" were flawed, yet you had the utmost conviction you were right despite more experienced people telling you otherwise. This should tell you something:
Introspection is needed. Trust your seniors better. You were
wrong. Learn more about Smash before arguing it. Train your logical thinking.
also, "viable" can really be taken into many lights....
I specifically said, 29 times over, that for this case, viability was to mean "capable of winning major tournaments". Seeing as how you yourself tried to argue Peach stood a **** good chance at winning major tournaments, you cannot hide behind the "Viability can mean several things"-argument.
You
knew what you were arguing. Backtracking now to save face will not help you against me.
it wasn't your "remarkable wit" that won me over lol ^^, i would stop claiming this...
I'm sorry, what are you
hallucinating (a pandemic here on SWF and a
chronic condition for you) now? When did iever claim I "won you over with my remarkable wit"? Please quote me (and I've noticed how you've never been able to quote me when I've asked you to).
Read my posts better.
but even if maybe you are you don't need to openly declare it constantly.
You call once a month (at most) "constantly"? Especially when I average 50 posts or so a week?
and if i am as idiotic as you make me out to be you should take no pride in slamming my arguments (i'm not).
I have never claimed you were idiotic. I have tried to prove you were
wrong, highly
misguided, used
flawed reasoning, logic and facts and are
ignorant about debate, Competitive Smash, Competitive gaming and whatnot.
You debating of Smash is flawed because you do not know enough about Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash to sufficiently debate either. Your knowledge is too limited for you to make the right "observations" when it comes to the facts.
Also, you often
hallucinate when reading my posts. I'd suggest you stop doing that.
It was even fun arguing for awhile though you know? i WILL get mad when you start to insult me though.
People get insulted by the smallest thing. I'm not openly insulting you, I'm attacking your arguments, logic, reasoning, fact and maybe even the scope of your insight into Smash. None of these are openly insulting, especially since all of these can be trained and expanded upon.
When presenting flimsy arguments in debate, your arguments are going to be picked apart.
(try to be more courteous... this isn't the first time either, you always do this in debates <.<.)
If I present perfectly valid arguments and the opposition is unable to understand my arguments due to a lack of logic, reasoning or simply a lack of insight, what can I do but attack their logic, reasoning and insight to show to them that they do not understand my arguments because of a fault that lies with
them and not with my arguments?
After all, you insisted for
days, convinced you were right, that my arguments were flimsy and/or flawed when in fact they were not. I countered with arguing that
your arguments were flimsy and/or flawed. And since you ultimately admitted defeat, you are tacitly
admitting to your arguments being flimsy and/or flawed. Thus I was
right and all I did was trying to prove you wrong by
stating cold hard facts.
I have yet to be infractioned for not be courteous enough. Grow thicker skin.
i shouldn't have said your arguments were stupid either...
See, this is where you and I differ. You called my arguments stupid. I merely called yours flawed.
its not that i disagreed with you, i guess more than anything i was just angry with what you said.
If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the debates. When debating, keep a cool head. Argue with cold hard facts, logic and reasoning.
some of your arguments were legit in my opinion, but that's not to say that i thought they were genius either... just small arguments really. constantly talking crap to everyone in tactical threads just makes you sound like an ******* though.
I don't talk crap about people. I merely reduce their flimsily constructed posts and arguments to rubble. It's called
debating. Grow thicker skin.
either way in terms of efficiency this kind of stuff is unproductive to the debate.
No it's not. This is what goes on in debates all the time. The attacking of logic, arguments and reasoning. It's kinda the
main point of debates.
my reasons for arguing the tourney stats wasn't a "stupid" response though.
Why do you keep on
hallucinating?! I have
never used the word "stupid" when replying to you.
you hadn't presented enough counterevidence to convince me otherwise...
Yes, because your reasoning, logic and grasp of the facts were limited. You simply did not understand the evidence to such a level you could see how they demolished your arguments.
i know peach hasn't won any major tournies, but i still thought that she had the capacity to over enough time due to her having reasonably good all around matchups (though improbable when taken in light of a single tourney).
Odds do not stack up. If your chances are low in singular tournaments, your chances will still be low when you look at the results of 29,000 tournaments.
Also, nobody cares if a character can, by some stroke of luck, win a single major tournament once. We only care about their
potential, what they are
expected to be able to do overall.
maybe that's wrong, but it was still a legitimate arguement
It's a standpoint. It's not legitimate as it is, at this moment, incorrect. Peach does not stand a reasonable chance at winning major tournaments.
Standpoints are OK. In order for them to be legit in debate, you need actual evidence and facts to back yourself up. You believed yourself to be in possession of such because of your lack of insight into the matter.
and i didn't really see any reason to think otherwise til i got actual insight with someone who plays her.
So no matter what anyone said, as long as no highly regarded Peach player corroborated with them (even in the face of no Peach player opposing them), it would not have mattered to you?
i noticed you posted earlier that i should be ashamed lol. i'm not, i said my mind and was corrected, no harm in that, that is the point of any debate.
Stop
hallucinating. Quote, please. I went all the way back top page 10 and CTRL + F:ed "shame".
Zero hits.
if two drunk guys are fighting in a bar or something over politics it doesn't really matter who was right in the long run if none of them has the capacity to change anything about it lol.
But if this debate was meaningless, why did you even enter it?
look, yuna, i really want to get past this, please lay off, and i will too.
The problem is that you refuse to admit just how much "blame" lies with you for this. You tried to blame me for you being wrong by stating how you weren't really wrong, how your facts, reasoning and logic weren't really that flawed and that it was
my (in your eyes) flawed facts, reasoning and logic that got you to enter the debate and oppose me so fiercely, as opposed to how I was right about everything, how my facts, reasoning and logic were sound and it was all
you being wrong due to your limited insight into Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash.
all of this in the long run
edit
also "bovine manure" lol? nope. nice try. trust me, there is no intelligent way to say "cow ****" lol
Do you know what acronym "BS" stands for? Since the 2nd part of that term is censored, I have elected to use "bovine manure" as an euphemism.
Is there such a thing as a
real "truth", or is this "truth" he spells out merely that which has been established by man as "truth"? Come now, logic, "educated arguments", all mere tools for one to squabble on with throughout life. Yuna is good at explaining his cases, but are they really this "truth" that is really "true", or nothing more than what has widely been established as such? My same questions apply to "facts" as well.
In this case, it's the established truth. Whatever the real truth might be, we cannot know for sure if our current truth concerning this case and Smash in general is true. Because our perception of the truth might be founded on flawed facts. After all, for years, it was believed that Sheik was better than Marth and Fox. That was our truth based on solid facts.
But overtime, those facts were proven flawed and/or faulty and thus our perception of the truth changed. We can only argue our current perception of the truth concerning Smash because unlike clearly definable things such as "Yuna's hair is dyed brown with blue and purple highlights (2 of each)", we cannot state for certain whether or not Peach is viable or not because the facts might change tomorrow.
Is uncertainty not the only certainty?
@ Thread- I agree with Hive on a certain point. Yuna, you display intelligence that is rarely seen on these boards, but my suggestion to you is to continue to display that intelligence within your arguments, not to continuously showcase it outside of the squabble.
I always do it within my arguments. The only reason why I'm "going after Hive" right now is to try to teach him to look past his ego and admit to having been wrong on so many levels.
If he finally admits to it, he might be able to work past it and become a better debater for it.
Yuna, the reason why you needed to actually name a few good Diddy Kong users that are not Ninja Link is because I knew that you couldn't. Frankly, I know that you know very little about competitve Brawl, and so you strawman your way through debates.
I could. If I wanted to. The problem is that you've given me insufficient reason to since you didn't really prove there are multiple Lucario-players doing well in tournaments. You just
named two people. I want tournament results.
And it's not whether or not they can do well,
because I never argued that. I argued that no Lucario-player is coming even close to doing
as well as Azen.
You strawmanned me on this into something easier to prove.
I know you didn't know the MK jump thing, you had four different tiers of mains, you talk about tournament results when you have absolutely no idea what is actually happening in the tournament scene
Wow, I was off by one jump!
It's not four different tiers of mains. You do not understand what the word "main" means if you believe this. You have a much more superficial grasp of tournament results than I do.
you still don't understand the true severity of the DK D3 matchup,
O RLY? Proof of this? I grasp the severity quite clearly. I just disagree with you on that it needs bans. Because according to the principles of Competitive gaming, being an unwinnable match-up =/= a ban is warranted.
Yet again you distort the facts and strawman arguments. Please show me using quotes how I do not grasp the true severity of the DK vs. D3 match-up, o speaker of truths and facts.
and when you argued Ivysaur's move range and priority with me, you were wrong with conviction.
We
barely argued Ivysaur's move range and priority. It was a passing argument. And it wasn't really about range and priority, it was about character potential in general, of which Ivysaur has very little.
Please pull up quotes instead of relying on your clearly
flawed memory (with my sig in
plain sight, you claimed it had 12 characters when it only had 10).
You claimed that people other than Ninja Link are taking Diddy to that level of the metagame when you contrasted Diddy with Lucario.
No I didn't. When did I do this? Please quote me. You're
hallucinating as usual.
It should have been easy for you to at least name a couple of good Diddy users.
I can if i want to. You have yet to give me sufficient reason to. You digging yourself a deeper hole is not really helping your case. Now please quote me.
Like CoT4? LeeM got 5th (/289) with Lucario while you brushed the character off just a few weeks ago because Azen apparently skews results.
No I didn't. Learn to read better. I never brushed him off. I stated that Lucario is indeed viabl..ish. He's quite good, just not as good as the most viable characters in the game.
Vex made it to 9th place with Bowser knocking azen into losers, iirc. I doubt he went Bowser all the way as he does have a D3 in his pocket, but what does this really say about viable characters in general?
That some of the best players in the world can take viable characters quite far against less good players? There's a reason why at some point or another, players of unviable characters switch them out.
Because you have D/E/F tiers placing REALLY well in tournaments with high concentrations of skill (neo, chu, azen, forte, etc) but I have a feeling you'd brush these examples off.
Staring yourself blind at tournament results will not help you if you stare yourself blind only at D/E/F tiers. After all, maybe all the people they went up against to reach that placement were bad players or just unfamiliar with the match-up. Or they counterpicked or played more than one character. Simply having one character named as one of their used characters does not tell you for how long said characters were used in the tournament.
The best players in the world doing well against inferior players with low tiers mean squat, especially not if it's freak occurences and not trends. If only a select few can do it while others fail miserably, then that indicates it's the player skill in play, not character potential.
Getting up and arms about how X players got 5th playing Y character means squat if he had to drop that character halfway through the tournament.
You know, while I'm sure he appreciates how you've got his back -- you're just wrong.
Yuna doesn't stop as long as someone will argue against him, but there's an awfully lot of points he makes where he's just dead wrong but never holds to one point long enough to have to address it. (Now I wait for his response of "Show me these", which I won't do simply because no matter how many mistakes, misreadings, or errors I find for him he blows it off and claims I make more -- somehow that removes him making them?)
Stop
lying. I stop when people admit defeat, realize they are wrong or when I deem people irredeemable in terms of stupidity and just let them go on their merry way with their
delusions.
I know I used to agree with you and disagree with Yuna, but now I see where he comes from. It's not as bad as it looks, trust me. It's not even bad. It's good.
Aw. that's cute.
Which Lee has done.
Bloodhawk and Milln are also notable names, however I'm not entirely familiar with how well these two have been doing.
Really? Lee consistently takes Top 3 or Top 5 at tournaments of roughly equal concentration of skill as the ones Azen takes Top 3 or Top 5 at?
If he's to be as informed as he asserts to be, taking a minute of his day to check the results wouldn't have killed him. I managed just fine ^_^.
Why would I check the tournament results of tournaments which finished just a few days ago? Why should I have to check the results of every single tournament? I need
trends, not isolated incidents.
Hence why I followed that by asking Yuna if what he considered viable are characters that have no solid counters (maps or character wise)~ I can't even recall the last Falco placing really well in a tournament.
Being viable means both theoretically and practically. Falco is quite viable theoretically. The fact that he often doesn't place high is due to character popularity.
No, Azen did not make top 8. And 9th over 280 entrants is nothing to brush off, kthx. And no johns.
Show us trends, not isolated incidents.
@natch- look i haven't provoked you at all, you're being a jerk.
No, he's stating
facts. You
do have a superficial grasp of Competitive gaming, which is why you "observed" the facts the wrong way.
If I may, I'd like to try to address the thesis of this thread.
All this thread is saying, is that there's a difference between tournament-derived tier lists (where we have a ranking function on the basis of placements), and theoretical tier lists.
No, the thread is really arguing that depending on the skill level, low tiers perform differently, implying that the higher up you go, the better Low Tiers will perform (which is preposterous).
Stop meat-riding Yuna, Natch.
But I'm a bottom!