Official MBR 2010 NTSC Tier List

[Jordaash]

You disrespected DK's name.

lol

And why would you move Luigi and DK back into low tier? The whole reason why they're in middle tier in the first place is to prevent their usage in low tier tournaments >_>

You should probably also split up your top tier, that's a lot of characters mashed into one tier. I also wasn't aware that Peach is better than Marth ?_?

sorry, Luigi and DK could be in mid i guess, but personally, I don't mind them in low tourneys.

In my opinion the top 6 are all really close and everyone else is far behind. I think any character in the top 6 can beat any other character in the top 6.

In my opinion peach is a little better than Marth, but it's hard to say.

 

[SleepyK]

everyone's entitled to their opinion

 

[x After Dawn x]

 

[Jordaash]

Yes, but do you agree?

 

[x After Dawn x]

does it matter if i agree or not...?

 

[Strong Badam]

there isn't even such thing as a "low tier" anymore. read the first post.

 

[x After Dawn x]

i was talking about jordaash's list

 

[Jordaash]

does it matter if i agree or not...?

Kinda, if multiple people have the same opinion it implies that opinion is correct.

Also, the comment i posted asking if you agreed was actually directed at sleepyk sinse he has not shared his opinion yet.

 

[Archangel]

i consider the tier list to be within the parameters of the current metagame what characters are objectively the best on a pound for pound basis. tournament results show overall trends and reflections of whos the best but you cant just base everything on outlier data. thats just how i view it. i guess thats not too specific tho.

discussing the tier list is like catching someone in a lie it seems. They say one thing then when you confront them about what they say then suddenly they bring up something else and it totally contradicts.

 

[SleepyK]

Kinda, if multiple people have the same opinion it implies that opinion is correct.

Also, the comment i posted asking if you agreed was actually directed at sleepyk sinse he has not shared his opinion yet.

so... as a christian, me and millions of other people believing in God means we're right and he exists?

EVIDENCE

 

[Strong Badam]

lmao get ****ing ***** Jordaash
argumentum ad populum

 

[SleepyK]

i just insulted my entire religion to prove a point

 

[x After Dawn x]

nothing is true, everything is permitted

(props to anyone who gets the reference)

 

[Strong Badam]

dat assassin's creed

 

[x After Dawn x]

actually the leader of the order of the assassins like a thousand years ago said it on his deathbed. but ubisoft took that and put it into their game as a nonfictional reference, so yeah you're right

i have yet to play brotherhood

 

[SleepyK]

dat ass... assin's creed

 

[Jordaash]

lmao get ****ing ***** Jordaash
argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. A fallacy is when people use inductive logic to try to state something as deductively valid. I didn't say if multiple people believe the same opinion that means that opinion is right, what i said is that if multiple people believe in an opinion it implies that it is correct, meaning maybe it isn't. I didn't say if my opinion was believed by more people it would become deductively true, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't commit a fallacy, I was using inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is still valid towards inductive truth.

 

[SleepyK]

so in that case it's not a valid proving point for your case, right?

 

[Derkis]

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. A fallacy is when people use inductive logic to try to state something as deductively valid. I didn't say if multiple people believe the same opinion that means that opinion is right, what i said is that if multiple people believe in an opinion it implies that it is correct, meaning maybe it isn't. I didn't say if my opinion was believed by more people it would become deductively true, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't commit a fallacy, I was using inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is still valid towards inductive truth.

Mmk...so now let's explain how exactly "inductive truth" is different from "deductive truth."

Truth is an immutable concept, and for any complete set of claims about a sufficiently defined topic, only one of them is true (though others might vary in their proximity to that truth). Whether you reason by induction or by deduction, correct reasoning with regard to such a topic will result in the same single truth.

And a logical fallacy is the incorrect application the rules of logic, resulting in an improper conclusion. This nonsense you're spouting about crossing inductive and deductive reasoning has nothing to do with what constitutes a formal or informal fallacy.

Furthermore, the fact that somebody holds an opinion or that multiple people hold an opinion implies absolutely nothing about the "correctness," or whatever other ambiguous statement of quality you choose, of the claim. So for the sake of argument let's use one which is actually useful and definable like 'truth'. Because an opinion's validity is only as good as the reproducible evidence which supports it, the opinion itself isn't capable of implying anything about the claim's truth. Hence why argumentum ad populum is considered a fallacy regardless of the manner you apply it.

 

[SleepyK]

btw game and watch is top tier

i asked joot and he agrees

who else agrees? the more people agree the truer it becomes

 

[j00t]

btw game and watch is top tier

i asked joot and he agrees

who else agrees? the more people agree the truer it becomes

This guy knows what's up.

 

[x After Dawn x]

i agree sleepy

g&w just shot up to god tier

 

[Jordaash]

Mmk...so now let's explain how exactly "inductive truth" is different from "deductive truth."

A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.

An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

deductive truth is real truth

inductive truth is the probability of that truth

Truth is an immutable concept, and for any complete set of claims about a sufficiently defined topic, only one of them is true (though others might vary in their proximity to that truth). Whether you reason by induction or by deduction, correct reasoning with regard to such a topic will result in the same single truth.

I completely agree

And a logical fallacy is the incorrect application the rules of logic, resulting in an improper conclusion. This nonsense you're spouting about crossing inductive and deductive reasoning has nothing to do with what constitutes a formal or informal fallacy.

If a logical fallacy is the incorrect application the rules of logic, resulting in an improper conclusion, then thank you, this proves my point. I did not state a conclusion, therefore I could not have committed a fallacy. All I said is one thing implies something else.

I didn't use an incorrect application of the rules of logic. There is a difference between saying something proves something and saying something implies something. One is claiming truth, one isn't claiming anything.

A fallacy is invalid deductive reasoning. There is no such thing as an inductive fallacy, that doesn't even begin to make sense. I did not claim truth. I claimed an alteration in the probability of truth. I am not using deductive reasoning, therefore I am not committing a fallacy.

I would have committed the fallacy of argumentum ad populum if i said "If enough people believe the same thing, then those people are right" This is not my claim.

Furthermore, the fact that somebody holds an opinion or that multiple people hold an opinion implies absolutely nothing about the "correctness," or whatever other ambiguous statement of quality you choose, of the claim. So for the sake of argument let's use one which is actually useful and definable like 'truth'. Because an opinion's validity is only as good as the reproducible evidence which supports it, the opinion itself isn't capable of implying anything about the claim's truth. Hence why argumentum ad populum is considered a fallacy regardless of the manner you apply it.

Everything you said in this paragraph is wrong. Let's start with the first part.

"Furthermore, the fact that somebody holds an opinion or that multiple people hold an opinion implies absolutely nothing about the "correctness," or whatever other ambiguous statement of quality you choose, of the claim."

Yes it does. It doesn't prove anything about the correctness, but it does imply something about the possible correctness.

" So for the sake of argument let's use one which is actually useful and definable like 'truth'. Because an opinion's validity is only as good as the reproducible evidence which supports it, the opinion itself isn't capable of implying anything about the claim's truth. Hence why argumentum ad populum is considered a fallacy regardless of the manner you apply it."

First of all, there is no such thing as an opinions validity. Validity has nothing to do with opinion. All opinions are equally valid. This must be where you are getting confused. There is no need for reproducible evidence in an opinion. There is a need for reproducible evidence for a theory, but I didn't state a theory. An opinion itself isn't capable of proving anything about a claims truth, however it does imply something about that truth. Argumentum ad populum is always a fallacy, but i did not apply it because i did not claim a truth. Are you understanding this yet? It's actually pretty simple.

"btw game and watch is top tier

i asked joot and he agrees

who else agrees? the more people agree the truer it becomes"

No, more people thinking G&W is top tier does not affect the truth of whether G&W actually is top tier, but then there is no way of actually knowing if G&W is top tier or not anyway. There is no way to prove if a character is top tier. If there was, the tier list would not change. This truth is unknowable. However, more people thinking G&W is top tier does change our perception of the probability of that unknowable truth. Get it now?

 

[Strong Badam]

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. A fallacy is when people use inductive logic to try to state something as deductively valid. I didn't say if multiple people believe the same opinion that means that opinion is right, what i said is that if multiple people believe in an opinion it implies that it is correct, meaning maybe it isn't. I didn't say if my opinion was believed by more people it would become deductively true, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't commit a fallacy, I was using inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is still valid towards inductive truth.

No matter how intelligent you try to seem, you were wrong.

 

[Youngling]

so i heard you can use big words and it makes your arguments true....

 

[Derkis]

If a logical fallacy is the incorrect application the rules of logic, resulting in an improper conclusion, then thank you, this proves my point. I did not state a conclusion, therefore I could not have committed a fallacy. All I said is one thing implies something else.

I apologize in advance for drifting pretty far off-topic, if you want to continue this Jordaash you should PM me.

Again, let's discard your use of the term "correctness" as it is too ambiguous to be at all useful to argument. So let's examine the statement you made, substituting "probably true" or "approximately true" in place of "correct," since I believe this is what you mean. If it's not, let me know. I'm assuming this, by the way, based on your statement: "yes it does. It doesn't prove anything about the correctness, but it does imply something about the possible correctness."

p: multiple people share the same opinion, q: that opinion is probably true

In order for your implication to hold, the implications p -> q, ~p -> q, and ~p -> ~q must return true (be logically valid). Furthermore, the implication p -> ~q must return false.

p -> q : if multiple people share the same opinion, then that opinion is probably true
~p -> q : if multiple people don't share the same opinion, then that opinion is probably true
~p -> ~q : if multiple people don't share the same opinion, then that opinion is probably false

p -> ~q : if multiple share the same opinion, then that opinion is probably false.

Since both ~p -> q and ~p -> ~q must return true, and they are in fact contradictory (thus cannot both be true), your statement as a whole does not hold. Something can't be both probably true (true with a probability > .5) and probably false (false with a probability > .5) as this results in a total probability greater than 1, which is impossible.

I'm going to lift this straight from the Wikipedia entry on fallacy: "By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy."

Your implication didn't hold, and in doing so you incorrectly applied principles of probability and causality. Thus, you committed a formal fallacy. I don't care to examine whether or not it was arugmentum ad populum.

And, just to address the tiresome junk about opinions. My word choice was poor, instead of 'valid' I mean something more along the lines of 'useful'. Sure, all opinions may be 'valid' since we live in this relativist world where everyone is 'entitled' to their opinion even if its based on bad information, improper logic, et cetera. Given this modern definition of opinion, they are absolutely useless if I want to learn anything about truth, since I don't know anything about how you've derived this opinion. Opinions have been rendered meaningless by relativism--theories, reproducible evidence, and logical argument using these ideas are the only reliable way to determine anything about truth. Hence why science continues to contribute useful things to society and philosophy/opinion divested of the scientific method continues to be utterly useless. Also, if you choose to only respond to this portion of my post I will not be continuing this argument.

 

[SleepyK]

 

[john!]

whoever brought up argumentum ad populum as a fallacy is being dumb. the tier list is made by people and is not objective truth. don't talk about fallacies if you don't know how to use them.

 

[j00t]

He might be trolling, but I most certainly am not.

G&W for top tier.

 

[x After Dawn x]

"btw game and watch is top tier

i asked joot and he agrees

who else agrees? the more people agree the truer it becomes"

No, more people thinking G&W is top tier does not affect the truth of whether G&W actually is top tier, but then there is no way of actually knowing if G&W is top tier or not anyway. There is no way to prove if a character is top tier. If there was, the tier list would not change. This truth is unknowable. However, more people thinking G&W is top tier does change our perception of the probability of that unknowable truth. Get it now?

He was being sarcastic, you idiot. The whole purpose of him posting that was to mock you.

 

[Jordaash]

@Derkis
I will continue to explain my point with you in messages.
@strongbad
I'm just going to ignore you
@Youngling
yes, I can
@JWT2k6
lol
@after dawn
I know he was being sarcastic you idiot, don't insult people smarter than you, thanx.

whoever brought up argumentum ad populum as a fallacy is being dumb. the tier list is made by people and is not objective truth. don't talk about fallacies if you don't know how to use them.

Thank you, this was my point to begin with. never did i claim objective truth.

 

[x After Dawn x]

you're smarter than me? LOOOOOOOOOL

 

[Jordaash]

yes, very much so

 

[x After Dawn x]

if you knew he was being sarcastic you wouldn't have responded to him in the same way you did. at first i thought you were a fail troll but now i'm fully convinced you have down's syndrome

edit: your april 2011 join date is pretty cute too, i'm sure you're really good at this game you're arguing about with all that experience. really hoping that's your new account

 

[Jordaash]

yes, it is a new account i forgot my login info to my old account because i rarely used it.

The reason i responded to him mocking me was to correct his flawed logic, because even in his sarcastic mockery he was misquoting me and didn't make sense.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Jordaash, no matter how much you argue on this website, it will just fall on deaf ears.
You doing proves how new you are to forums, especially this one.
You fail.

 

[-ShadowPhoenix-]

your april 2011 join date is pretty cute too,

jordaash even if you were right (youre not lol)
your join date makes everything you say fall on deaf ears...

 

[x After Dawn x]

Jordaash I just got you IP checked and you have no second account. You're full of ****.

 

[Mr.-0]

LOL this is funny.

 

[x After Dawn x]

in before "oh i moved houses" or "i changed my ISP" or something along those lines