That's what I was asking! Jesus Christ, do you have a little recording in your head that repeats "I'm better than you" whenever you type? Don't try to one up me when I was merely asking a question. Honestly, you're the only person here I've met who even argues with people that AGREE with you because it's not exactly your point of view. Lordy...
I'll argue against anyone using faulty logic and arguments. Though I won't randomly jump down someone's throat if we largely agree, only he says something I find
really stupid.
"Isn't he invincible after the attack is initiated until he reappears?"
To which I replied
"Since when does Fox disappear during Phantasm and since when is he even invincible during most of it, anyway", shortly edited to "Since when does Fox disappear during Phantasm and since when is he even invincible during it, anyway" since he's not invincible
at all. I was also not the only one, someone else also stated it.
At this point, we'd established, to anyone paying attention, that, no, Fox is
not invicible during this time. And
then, you came up with this:
"Just to provide a better mental picture, suppose you are Fox and you're fighting Ganondorf on a stage like Final Destination. You go to one side of the stage and spam the crap out of the lazer. Ganondorf approaches by *insert method here*. When he's right next to you, you short hop the Fox Phantasm twice to get to the other side of the stage and repeat the pattern."
To which I replied that it's not the same thing at all because
Fox isn't invincible. He's just fast and good at running away.
I'm sorry, what part of "Extensive testing is needed before banning it" was too foreign for your tastes? I've said it at least twice now. I shouldn't be expected to say it in every single post in order for you to not randomly jump down my throat.
I'm merely refuting arguments for why it should never be banned. They're saying that from what we know of it so far, it shouldn't be banned. I'm merely saying "Yeah, right. No, from what we know so far, we have to ban it because...".
All the while, I've
also said that extensive testing
must be done before banning it. And yes, we
might find a way to combat it. But if we
don't during this extensive testing, then we have to ban it (if what we know insofar holds true after testing or at least doesn't change much).
In other words, "Your reasoning for why it shouldn't be banned is faulty" =/= "It must be banned
now!".
I debated competitively throughout high school in LD. I placed in at least octos at Princeton, Harvard, and Yale tournaments (which, admittedly, aren't the best of the best tournaments, but I just wanted to list schools you'd know) from sophomore to senior year. I know how arguments work and what arguments are faulty. I know when someone is completely talking out of their ***.
Funny, I didn't know Competitive Debating allowed expletives, personal insults and ignoring valid arguments from the opposition all the while repeating the same already refuted arguments (your forthe).
I can say this for sure, either the debates you participating had
sucky rules and judges
or you didn't debate the same way as you go do here on Smashboards.
Seriously, all I see you do is jump into the middle of threads without reading up on
anything already said in the thread, throw in already-by-then old arguments and stubbornly repeating them when they're refuted, ignoring anyting that refutes your arguments, even if they're directed
directly at you and then often times accusing the opposition of being stupid/ignoring your very valid arguments and/or using expletives or pesonal insults.
Of course, you
are articulate and use certain techniques which makes your debating technique above-average. However, that doesn't mean much when what you say is either flat out wrong or misinformed, because most of the time, the way you say things will look really good but what you're actually saying will be
very bad because, as you just admitted,
I know more about Smash than you, yet you consistently act as if you know more.
As I just said
in the very post you quoted me in, I do not use any special techniques when debating. I have never been in a debate club (because Swedish schools normally don't have them). I'm very simple and possess no fancy-schmancy techniques. I just
do my research (one of the most
basic aspects of debating, yet you, Mr. Debate Club, constitently do
not do this) first and make sure that the things I say are correct and cannot be twisted around (this is why I often also edit my posts afterwards). This is how I can still win debates despites not knowing how to debate "technically".
It's like mindgames vs. technical skill. So you have the ATs down. But I still win if I constitently outsmart you.
I don't even know that much about Brawl. But I know enough to consistently best you, yet you keep coming back repeating the same stale arguments despite the fact that the game itself refutes you. This is what's bad about your technique, not enough research.
You have the technical skills down to debate. But you do not possess the required knowledge for the subjects you debate. This is why I win and you lose.
Now, will you admit to having
ignored the many times I said the many things which completely
refuted your post before this where you went on and on about how this was like "normal" stalling despite the fact that I had already established why it's not (as had MookieRah)?
Because either you just
ignored it all
or you jumped blindly into the thread without backtracking more than 2 pages to read up on what has already been said, which is
also bad form when debating.
And, yes, the majority of people who agree with me are randoms, because they're currently in the majority on these boards. However, if we line up the people who agree with me and not with you vs. the people who agree with you but not with me in every single matter we've butted heads about insofar, the vast majority of credible people will be standing on
my side.
