Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[XxBlackxX]

um...yeah samus is affected by DDD's infinite, not until a later percent, but still affected.

not until 150% which would be KO percents anyways.

 

[adumbrodeus]

By "qualifications", I meant mostly one's knowledge. If one does not have insight into the subject being debate, I do not feel one is "qualified" to participate in the debate. I would never debate rocket science because I know nothing about rocket science.

As a thinking human being, one his technically "qualified" to enter debates. I just personally don't think one should if one is ignorant of the subject at hand.

Which is true, however taking a crash course in the subject helps.

It really does depend on the person involved, some can gain the knowledge and understanding to participate in debates on topics they never encountered before just through reading on the topic and sheer intelligence.

(sort of like I got into my first law debate)

It's rare, but it's the reason why qualifications never enter into the discussion. If they lack the understanding as well, their points should easily be demolished.


So yes, I understand the point you're making, but it just makes them highly unlikely to understand the topic, something that can be overcome by simply making valid and insightful points.

Yes, this is a large part of it.

Thought as much, because that's obviously the crux of the issue. Whatever his qualifications are, they're ultimately irrelevant. Even if true, as far as the debate is concerned, it can be overcome by being insightful into the topic.

However, the source of his preconceptions are the crux of any counter-argument for somebody who is unfamilar with the topic at hand and choose to use his/her preconceptions instead of those of the subject matter.

The infinite on mario, luigi, and samus has to deal with freshness, I don't think u can get out before you get 1 jab in if the DDD does it right unless its under 50% or the person has godly finger speed.

Although with the smallstep it is possible to space yourself better and stay near the edge to avoid getting grabbed too often. I agree that the smallstep is still basically as bad/good as the infinite if you can go across the stage with it

Magus has a really good technique for it, it's in this thread somewhere.

You don't need godly finger speed, you just need to practice, and again, I would consider this tech skill absolutely fundamental for any of the mains of the affected characters.

um...yeah samus is affected by DDD's infinite, not until a later percent, but still affected.

Not until irrelevantly high percentages.

At 130, back-air is a far more convenient killer then grabbing.

It doesn't change the match-up in any notable way.

 

[Yuna]

Oh, sorry I thought it was much harder than that, but for me I think 50% plus like another 12 or 15? leading to an edgeguard with D3's back air that is scary, that can lead to 80% or death from getting 1 grab and a small amount of timing.

I'm sorry, how much damage does Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox deal again? And that's right, it ends with an upsmash that kills a lot of theim.

Oh, what about Sheik's F-tilt lock? That's right, it deals around 80%-ish. Ban it all!

well samus isn't COMPLETELY unviable, xyro would like to say hello =P

Xyro has won how many major tournaments playing against the best players in the world playing as, oh, say, Meta Knight, Snake, Mr. Game & Watch, Falco and Marth now?

Nobody cares if Xyro can take her far in major tournaments and maybe place Top20. Nobody cares if Xyro can win minor and local tournaments where the Competition isn't that strong and his nearest competitor is leagues below him.

Samus is not viable. Don't delude yourself.

life isn't fair, i suggest you try to ban it >_>

Don't s teal my quotes! At least make it a quote, like:
"Life isn't fair. I suggest you try to ban it." - Yuna, 2008

um...yeah samus is affected by DDD's infinite, not until a later percent, but still affected.

But you see, it's not an infinite. It's not 0-death. It does not guarantee a stock at any percent.

Which is true, however taking a crash course in the subject helps.

It really does depend on the person involved, some can gain the knowledge and understanding to participate in debates on topics they never encountered before just through reading on the topic and sheer intelligence.

But it's been made abundantly clear that he hasn't taken a crash course in the subject. He doesn't even really know how Final Smashes work beyond a highly superficial level.

So yes, I understand the point you're making, but it just makes them highly unlikely to understand the topic, something that can be overcome by simply making valid and insightful points.

Yes, but when they lack those, I just go for the jugular and decry them as incompetent (after refuting all of their points, of course).

Thought as much, because that's obviously the crux of the issue. Whatever his qualifications are, they're ultimately irrelevant. Even if true, as far as the debate is concerned, it can be overcome by being insightful into the topic.

You're not getting me. Being insightful into the topic is a qualification, in my eyes.

 

[adumbrodeus]

But it's been made abundantly clear that he hasn't taken a crash course in the subject. He doesn't even really know how Final Smashes work beyond a highly superficial level.


Yes, but when they lack those, I just go for the jugular and decry them as incompetent (after refuting all of their points, of course).


You're not getting me. Being insightful into the topic is a qualification, in my eyes.

All of which is why I summerized your position as, "his preconceptions are utter bs!", and everything else was just window dressing/going for the jugular.

 

[Yuna]

All of which is why I summerized your position as, "his preconceptions are utter bs!", and everything else was just window dressing/going for the jugular.

I still find it perfectly acceptable to question someone's qualifications when they obviously possess none.

 

[-Wolfy-]

well samus isn't COMPLETELY unviable, xyro would like to say hello =P

This is comparable to people saying Samus was a solid pick in Melee because of HugS' accomplishments. Thing of it is, despite isolated successes such as MLG 06, he doesn't place as well as most other smashers of considerably lower caliber do with better characters.

Isolated incidents don't warrant a character being viable.

 

[RDK]

This is comparable to people saying Samus was a solid pick in Melee because of HugS' accomplishments. Thing of it is, despite isolated successes such as MLG 06, he doesn't place as well as most other smashers of considerably lower caliber do with better characters.

Isolated incidents don't warrant a character being viable.

TL ; DR

Azen is Azen.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I still find it perfectly acceptable to question someone's qualifications when they obviously possess none.

As an independent argument, it fails. But as a "final touch" it's worthwhile.

Because it's really worthless to rail against a person's qualifications if they're making tons of good valid points, (I know some people prone to that) but if their points are totally lacking in substance, it's fair enough to attack their qualifications on that basis.

But really, I'm satisfied with implicitly doing so, and ignoring the explicit qualifacations.

 

[-Wolfy-]

oh snap I've been tl;dr 'd.

same analogy only shorter:

Gimpy didn't make Bowser viable.

 

[Blad01]

Grmbl, something that doesn't give the best player the win should be banned. Even more if it's a glitch :/ And even more if it completely destroys the metagame of 5 characters.

 

[Yuna]

Because it's really worthless to rail against a person's qualifications if they're making tons of good valid points, (I know some people prone to that) but if their points are totally lacking in substance, it's fair enough to attack their qualifications on that basis.

I would never do this if they were making valid points.

Being able to articulate valid points based solely on critical thinking and analysis is a qualification for debating. If you go and read my posts in the "Which game is more balance, Melee or Brawl (take 2)" (or whatever it is called) thread, you'll see that I openly admit to not knowing much about 3S. I'm still able to counter their points concerning 3S vs. SSB purely through rhetoric.

So, being able to "make valid points" despite lacking insight into the subject matter is a qualification (and I did outline that as a qualification earlier) to enter debates.

Grmbl, something that doesn't give the best player the win should be banned.

Ban everyone but one character then. Or at least so that all the remaining characters only 50/50 each other. Because then it'll be all about who is the best player.

I mean, 70/30 is about who's the best player, it's about picking the better match-up (if both are at roughly the same level).

Even more if it's a glitch :/

No.

And even more if it completely destroys the metagame of 5 characters.

Two. Two. Two. Two.Two.

Also, Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox says "Hi".

 

[RDK]

Grmbl, something that doesn't give the best player the win should be banned. Even more if it's a glitch :/ And even more if it completely destroys the metagame of 5 characters.

It's not a glitch. It's an exploit that abuses game physics.

And even then, what the hell is an exploit except something the game designers didn't intend? That doesn't even matter. Anything possible within the game is technically intended, so even the term exploit is moot.

Stop using the glitch argument. It's not even up for debate; we've established this ages ago.

 

[brinboy789]

wow, i just realized that in the tourneys that I go tgo, D3's regular CG is banned....-.-

 

[Yuna]

wow, i just realized that in the tourneys that I go tgo, D3's regular CG is banned....-.-

All of his chaingrabs are banned? Stop supporting Scrubs.

 

[cutter]

wow, i just realized that in the tourneys that I go tgo, D3's regular CG is banned....-.-

Uh. Oh.

IC's chaingrabs banned as well?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I would never do this if they were making valid points.

Being able to articulate valid points based solely on critical thinking and analysis is a qualification for debating. If you go and read my posts in the "Which game is more balance, Melee or Brawl (take 2)" (or whatever it is called) thread, you'll see that I openly admit to not knowing much about 3S. I'm still able to counter their points concerning 3S vs. SSB purely through rhetoric.

So, being able to "make valid points" despite lacking insight into the subject matter is a qualification (and I did outline that as a qualification earlier) to enter debates.

You seem to be missing the part where I'm agreeing with you completely in this regard.

It's just the posts where you didn't quite make it clear that I was nit-picking.

wow, i just realized that in the tourneys that I go tgo, D3's regular CG is banned....-.-

Wow! That's not a slippery slope at all...

TOs in this community are far too ban-happy.

 

[Yuna]

You seem to be missing the part where I'm agreeing with you completely in this regard.

It's just the posts where you didn't quite make it clear that I was nit-picking.

Only I did (not crystal clear, but there was a clear implication).

 

[YUNq PHR3$H]

well i would say no but then again yea.

REASON FOR NO
ban ic chaingrab + metaknight

REASON FOR YES
cheap but a good smasher can find there way around it = D
STILL CHEAP XD

 

[1048576]

Something has to be cheap unless you ban every single move.

Cheap: yielding great results for little effort.

It's comparative. MK's D-Smash is only cheap because other moves don't have such high speed/range/knockback.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm sorry, how much damage does Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox deal again? And that's right, it ends with an upsmash that kills a lot of theim.

Maybe low ceiling stages with bad DI.

 

[brinboy789]

Uh. Oh.

IC's chaingrabs banned as well?

amazing enough, yes

-_-

 

[-Wolfy-]

usmash from pika shouldn't kill at ~90, but a quick ~90% is still a lot.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Only I did (not crystal clear, but there was a clear implication).

Implication doesn't work very well for the crowd you're using this on, in case you haven't noticed, they're not the brightest bunch around.


Edit:

This post actually was meant to be taken in context. I was merely attempting to point out that people who attempt to debate something that they know they have no insight in and do not attempt to acquire such aren't particularly bright.

That was not directed at anyone, it was merely a general rule, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

 

[M15t3R E]

Implication doesn't work very well for the crowd you're using this on, in case you haven't noticed, they're not the brightest bunch around.

I believe you, Yuna, RDK, and the others need to take a hiatus from this debate.
The language you just used shows this debate has gotten ugly and it's really not acceptable.

 

[cutter]

I believe you, Yuna, RDK, and the others need to take a hiatus from this debate.
The language you just used shows this debate has gotten ugly and it's really not acceptable.

More like the pro-ban side just needs to just stop arguing because they continue to fail at proving why the infinites need to be banned.

 

[M15t3R E]

More like the pro-ban side just needs to just stop arguing because they continue to fail at proving why the infinites need to be banned.

The anti-ban side has been arguing here more actively

Spoiler

and viciously

for quite some time now. So it's your move first.

Anyway, thanks for proving my point.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I believe you, Yuna, RDK, and the others need to take a hiatus from this debate.
The language you just used shows this debate has gotten ugly and it's really not acceptable.

I don't quite think you were following that particular discussion I was having with Yuna, but I'm sorry it came off that way.

That wasn't directed at anyone, pro-ban, anti-ban, or any other group.


Yuna was suggesting that he would attack the qualifications of anyone who proved by lack of insight that they did not have said qualifications.

I was pointing out to avoid Ad Hominem fallacy, that he should make sure that he attacks the preconceptions which lead to said lack of insight, something he was doing implicitly before, but not explicitly.


I then explained that the reason why this step is necessary is that if somebody tries to debate something they have no insight in, unless noted explicitly it will appear to be ad hominem logical fallacy because anyone who does that probably isn't very bright.


I left him to judge who fell under this definition, specifically because I wanted to avoid flaming anyone. You'll note that I did not attack anyone's qualifications in that debate.


Taken out of context, it seems bad, but in context it wasn't directly at anyone and only implies that a particular chain of actions is rather foolish, just like I would suggest that sticking one's hand in a pencil sharpener is foolish.


So, yeah, I apologize that it came off viciously, that was not my intention. I guess it serves me right for assuming that everyone will read an entire thread of the conversation that doesn't apply to them.

 

[M15t3R E]

Well my bad then for assuming it was directed towards the pro-ban people.
It sounds like you were going off on a tangent with Yuna.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well my bad then for assuming it was directed towards the pro-ban people.
It sounds like you were going off on a tangent with Yuna.

NP

Yeah, pretty much. My debates do happen to have a habit of going off on tangents. You should see the tangents the "ban mk" threads went off into. Constitutional law, discrete mathmatics, etc. A fun time was had by all.


The funny thing is, somehow all those tangents managed to be relevant.

 

[M15t3R E]

NP

Yeah, pretty much. My debates do happen to have a habit of going off on tangents. You should see the tangents the "ban mk" threads went off into. Constitutional law, discrete mathmatics, etc. A fun time was had by all.


The funny thing is, somehow all those tangents managed to be relevant.

Lol, I saw those too. People will go to great lengths to prove their points.
Honestly, I'd like to see this thread closed sometime soon. I don't think anything positive is coming out of the endless debating. I also don't care anymore what the SBR rules on this issue.

 

[RDK]

Not only Constitutional Law and discrete mathematics, but religion, which is what every good debate ends in.

In order to spur on the closing of this thread since we've pretty much debated this to death, I'll take the first potshot.

Fundies suck.

 

[Tornadith]

Not only Constitutional Law and discrete mathematics, but religion, which is what every good debate ends in.

In order to spur on the closing of this thread since we've pretty much debated this to death, I'll take the first potshot.

Fundies suck.

Honestly, I'd like to see this thread closed sometime soon. I don't think anything positive is coming out of the endless debating. I also don't care anymore what the SBR rules on this issue.

I agree with these statements. This thread should be dead seeing as all sides have been looked at an there is nothing new to look at or to discuss. The pro-ban side keeps making absolutely no solid points, yet still tries to argue with ethical reasons, not logical or factual.

Thread = GG (Good game)

 

[Wylde]

Every bad debate goes into religion imo, anyone who tries to reason with God/entity = failure.

 

[salaboB]

Every bad debate goes into religion imo, anyone who tries to reason with God/entity = failure.

It makes an excellent strawman to beat down anyone who believes in a religion with, though.

 

[IrArby]

Well if you're arguing pro just about any kind of religon you probably don't use logic very often and shouldn't be debating matters that require it in copious amounts.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I just thought of something, this infinite is so unfair. God wouldn't want this, we should do onto other what we don't want onto ourselves.

DDD doesn't want to be infinited so DK shouldn't be infinited either, this death grab should be banned.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I just thought of something, this infinite is so unfair. God wouldn't want this, we should do onto other what we don't want onto ourselves.

DDD doesn't want to be infinited so DK shouldn't be infinited either, this death grab should be banned.

here's something for ya: GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

/joke post

 

[Yuna]

I just thought of something, this infinite is so unfair. God wouldn't want this, we should do onto other what we don't want onto ourselves.

I'm an Atheist. Atheismo says he wants it. My god is bigger than yours.

 

[-Wolfy-]

I just thought of something, this infinite is so unfair. God wouldn't want this, we should do onto other what we don't want onto ourselves.

DDD doesn't want to be infinited so DK shouldn't be infinited either, this death grab should be banned.

Noone wants to get K.O.'d either. By your logic should we also ban KOs?

 

[PKNintendo]

Anti ban side: What would you do if this got banned?