The Original Midna for Brawl thread. (Debate the Wolf here!)

[A Link to the Snitch]

1. They used it to discredit the list. If they think it discredits the list, they think that there is truth to it. Combining that with the fact that they presented it as fact, they are calling their opinion fact. If they're going to represent it as something which discredits the list, they believe it to be true, and they should be able to back it up.

2. Do you understand the simple fact that you cannot tell anyone what their statement implies. My statement implies nothing, it is what it is. Until you can find some statement I've made that's a bit more than implying something, you cannot even hint at what my position may or may not be. The fact of the matter is that if I do not believe something, my statement cannot imply that I believe it. It may sound like it implies something, but that's just you reading too far into something ever so simple.

3. Yes, I would. Fun fact: You did not ask for a link. You demanded that I provide a link right away or it didn't exist. I have been told that I am actually unable to prove it because I do not have evidence at the very same second I make the statement. Read this again - you are not asking for a link, you are asking for a link immediately, and if I cannot provide it, then I can never provide it.

4. "Not all of them can, but they didn't base an entire argument on something they can't prove." Your own statement. Here's a fun idea - explain to me why I cannot prove it. Oh, wait, reading down, you're defending this inane statement. Wow. Cannot prove = unable to prove. Not having the proof at the moment it is requested of me =/= unable to prove. Cannot prove means that I cannot prove it. Not that "I lack the tools to prove it at this current time". Please, take some basic English courses before you utter another inane pile of crap that is your post history.

 

[Pokec]

have Midna do the Sheik/Zelda thing..


Imp Midna to Human midna.

 

[Black/Light]

have Midna do the Sheik/Zelda thing..


Imp Midna to Human midna.

I agree, but with the FS like Samus.

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

Black/Light not able to take a losing debate, or admit he was wrong?

Shocking.

 

[Chiroz]

1. They used it to discredit the list. If they think it discredits the list, they think that there is truth to it. Combining that with the fact that they presented it as fact, they are calling their opinion fact. If they're going to represent it as something which discredits the list, they believe it to be true, and they should be able to back it up.

2. Do you understand the simple fact that you cannot tell anyone what their statement implies. My statement implies nothing, it is what it is. Until you can find some statement I've made that's a bit more than implying something, you cannot even hint at what my position may or may not be. The fact of the matter is that if I do not believe something, my statement cannot imply that I believe it. It may sound like it implies something, but that's just you reading too far into something ever so simple.

3. Yes, I would. Fun fact: You did not ask for a link. You demanded that I provide a link right away or it didn't exist. I have been told that I am actually unable to prove it because I do not have evidence at the very same second I make the statement. Read this again - you are not asking for a link, you are asking for a link immediately, and if I cannot provide it, then I can never provide it.

4. "Not all of them can, but they didn't base an entire argument on something they can't prove." Your own statement. Here's a fun idea - explain to me why I cannot prove it. Oh, wait, reading down, you're defending this inane statement. Wow. Cannot prove = unable to prove. Not having the proof at the moment it is requested of me =/= unable to prove. Cannot prove means that I cannot prove it. Not that "I lack the tools to prove it at this current time". Please, take some basic English courses before you utter another inane pile of crap that is your post history.

Imply: to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated; To state indirectly or express in logical necessity.


That is the definition of implied, and no, implying is not what you THINK, but what you STATE indirectly, meaning that, YES, I CAN KNOW what you are implying. See, PROOF, there you go, look it up yourself in a dictionary. And read my example again, it is a perfect example of what implying is.



I never stated that I wanted the link right away, but I said that you require one to show that is true, I will further explain this in #4 as I can see.



Again, I see this. This is the lowest point anyone can fall, it is when they realize they lost an argument and try to attack anything they can from their foe in order to discredit him or excuse themselves. You did the lowest thing anyone can do, attack grammar. (By the way you yourself make a lot of mistakes like spelling poll, POLE twice, but did I say anything? No, Becuase I understood what you meant).


Now on to the actual point. YOU KNOW I MEANT you can't prove it, as in currently. Do you seriously lack the reading comprehension to understand that? It is obvious by the statements above and below that I meant that you could not prove it at the time, you might be able to, when you get a link, so why don't you do it? The fact is that you can't prove it currently, and that means that your whole argument based on that fails. Don't attack the grammar, stay on the meaning.


Everytime I said you can't prove it, I meant as in currently at the time, it is implied in everything else I say, but you cannot read between lines as it seems.

have Midna do the Sheik/Zelda thing..


Imp Midna to Human midna.

Meh, I don't like Human Midna that much.

Fused Shadows FTW

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

1. Dude? An implication is from the perspective of someone who reads the implication. It is your opinion that I implied this. Not proof, nor fact. However, it is fact that what I supposedly implied is not true.

2. Um, hello? I'm not attacking grammar, I'm saying that instead of using the one single logical statement - you do not have evidence - you used a statement which doesn't even mean what you think it means, apparently. The word cannot means unable to do so. If that wasn't what you meant, then don't say what you do not mean.

3. THat is not how arguments work out of Elementary school! It does not stand for you to say "if you can't find proof now, I win". My argument does not fall because you set a time limit for me to provide proof, proof which would be difficult to track down for the simple reasons of being in another language and being very, very old. How old are you? If you understood basic debating, you wouldn't say something as patently untrue as that.

 

[PDawgy]

wooh 100 pages

 

[Black/Light]

Black/Light not able to take a losing debate, or admit he was wrong?

Shocking.

. . .What? I countered ever lil half a**ed attemp on your part to scrape up a point.
Things like Jpuff not being a mascot for pokemon/ Mew2 being planned for Smash 64 and also not being a mascot/ both getting in due to popularity/ Sheik not being THE main character of OoT/ OoT being the game of focus and NOT the latest LoZ title MM/ Ike not repping the latest FE game with his model being from the GC FE game etc etc etc etc

I see no need to keep debating things that have nothing to do with Midna with some one who can't seem to get a solid footing on what they want to say. . .

100th page!!!!

WOOOOOOOOHT!!!

 

[Chiroz]

1. Dude? An implication is from the perspective of someone who reads the implication. It is your opinion that I implied this. Not proof, nor fact. However, it is fact that what I supposedly implied is not true.

2. Um, hello? I'm not attacking grammar, I'm saying that instead of using the one single logical statement - you do not have evidence - you used a statement which doesn't even mean what you think it means, apparently. The word cannot means unable to do so. If that wasn't what you meant, then don't say what you do not mean.

3. THat is not how arguments work out of Elementary school! It does not stand for you to say "if you can't find proof now, I win". My argument does not fall because you set a time limit for me to provide proof, proof which would be difficult to track down for the simple reasons of being in another language and being very, very old. How old are you? If you understood basic debating, you wouldn't say something as patently untrue as that.

Your first argument kills itself. Implication is what YOU make people think when they read your post. If they think something that you did not mean to, its your mistake BUT IT IS STILL IMPLIED. It does NOT become untrue.



It is attacking the fact I used can't instead of don't, and seriously it wasent wrong as you understood perfectly what I meant and it was correctly implied (as in indirectly stated) that it was at the current time.

By the way you judge me then you shoudn't be able to do anything at all.
Lets say you catch a disease and a doctor examines you and says: You can't take this (this being a food or medicine). Does he mean you can't forever? NO, and you know it doesn't, it just means that while you remain with said disease, you can't take it, AND TRUST ME, THEY NEVER SAY, "While you have, please refrain from taking said thing", they just say, "You can't take this".



O seriously, so when you make an essay, then you just state your thesis stament and thats it? Wow, I'd like to go to your school. I never set a time limit, as I already stated, don't use the fact that I used can't to twist everything around. I meant that as you have not provided any proof, your argument fails until you do so. So in actuality you are just fighting because I used the word can't? Seriously? You obviously know you have lost and have nothing else to say, or that is what it seems like.

Anyways if you think basic debating as you say is like that, then you are in for a big one. When you are going to be asked for essays, you will need to make PAGES explaining things that PROVE your thesis statement, you will also have to QUOTE things, and not just say: "The president said this."




Edit: Also as you can see Black/Light has given PROVEN FACTS, that counter your list, not opinions. Although something like Mewtwo being planned for Smash 64 might require proof, he has a lot of things that do not, or SHOULD not require proof. (If you know anything about smahs and the games its based on)

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

1. Yes it does! Your opinion of what I believe is infinitely inferior in status to what my opinion of what I believe IS! I'm the only one who can state my beliefs, and yet, the fact that what you think I believe is not what I believe, you seem to think that it's still potentially true.

2. The very first response from somebody in regard to me not having proof basically said "of course you don't have proof, because you are lying". It was in much fewer words, but that was actually an implication. Not my post, which you believe to imply something, but actually doesn't imply anything.

3. Um, see, funny thing - I'm actually right. You are actually debating what my opinion is. You have not shown for a fact that my opinions is something other than what it actually is, and for some reason, you seem to think you won an argument without providing any truth or intelligent thought in your itty bitty post.

4. This debate went to areas that no one could predict. Even if I grabbed all evidence that I felt I would need, I would not have the evidence, no matter how prepared I could be.

 

[Chiroz]

1. Yes it does! Your opinion of what I believe is infinitely inferior in status to what my opinion of what I believe IS! I'm the only one who can state my beliefs, and yet, the fact that what you think I believe is not what I believe, you seem to think that it's still potentially true.

2. The very first response from somebody in regard to me not having proof basically said "of course you don't have proof, because you are lying". It was in much fewer words, but that was actually an implication. Not my post, which you believe to imply something, but actually doesn't imply anything.

3. Um, see, funny thing - I'm actually right. You are actually debating what my opinion is. You have not shown for a fact that my opinions is something other than what it actually is, and for some reason, you seem to think you won an argument without providing any truth or intelligent thought in your itty bitty post.

4. This debate went to areas that no one could predict. Even if I grabbed all evidence that I felt I would need, I would not have the evidence, no matter how prepared I could be.

No because implying does not have to be what YOU THINK you said, it is what PEOPLE think you said.


How does that involve ME saying you did not have it. What you quoted from me was that I used the word can't, where I should have used don't or can't at the time, this is what you are basing your last 3 posts on!


Huh? WHAT?! I don't get anything of what you are saying, I have never been discussing YOUR opinion. I have been saying that you do not have proof at the time to support your own statements, that you have been using statements that fall undr the category of "I have lost". By this I mean that when someone can't actually intelligently discuss something and instead has to look up for any tiny mistake someone else makes and try and discredit a whole paragraph because of a spelling mistake, then in my opinion, that person has lost the argument and just can't handle the truth.


Yet you never made any notion to look up for any proof for ANY of your statements. You just say something is a fact and don't even try to prove it.


It's as I said before, look up to the sky, its green, if you see it blue then you are color blind, scientists say so. (And I will never provide any proof of this, but you still have to believe me)


Anyways what happened about the deate about debates? Wheres your support paragraphs supporting the idea that you only need a thesis statement to make a debate, and don't need support, proof or quote/links in order to make a debate/essay.


Anyways you say you can't gather proof as if NOW you can't, well why didn't you do it before, or why didn't you just use universally known facts to prove your point as Black/Light did. Everything he said, (well except for the Mewtwo thing I guess) is an universally known fact that does not require proof (at least for a smash fan), or if you were to need proof even I could come up with the proof at your request.

 

[UsernameLink]

A Link to the snitch, prove to me that Link is the main character and midna is not

cant can ya? which means its forced by public views, which in this thead, your being beaten by

 

[Chiroz]

A Link to the snitch, prove to me that Link is the main character and midna is not

cant can ya? which means its forced by public views, which in this thead, your being beaten by

He will probably take your post as an scapegoat now and tell you to prove to him that Midna is the main character.



Fun fact: If you type Pokemon, Pikachu, Jigglipuff, Mascot, Poll, type any 4 of those 5 words and this is the first page to come out in google. XD,

 

[Black/Light]

My proof for Mew2. . .

Then, at the end of the poll, Sakurai makes some comments, saying that that top requested characters like Mewtwo, Peach, Wario, Koopa and Dedede were planned for SSB64 but they got problems. That's interesting for sure. It will be funny to know how pissed were the Wario fans after noticing that he didn't appeared in Melee, while Peach did. Lame.

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=81891&highlight=melee+poll+1999 That was on Melee's translated poll for melee chars.

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

*facepalm*

Idiots.

Link is the main character in every game. It's not my opinion that Nintendo features him more prominently than anyone else in every single game - in the manual, you see him most. In the game, you see him most. In the boxart, you see him most. In the ads, you see him most. In the trailers, you see him most. In the commercials, you see him most. In the game, you play as Link and only Link.

In lacking an official statement from Nintendo, we have the fact that Link fulfills everything that a main character requires. Nintendo uses him to tell the game, making him the mascot and main character of Twilight Princess.

 

[Chiroz]

*facepalm*

Idiots.

Link is the main character in every game. It's not my opinion that Nintendo features him more prominently than anyone else in every single game - in the manual, you see him most. In the game, you see him most. In the boxart, you see him most. In the ads, you see him most. In the trailers, you see him most. In the commercials, you see him most. In the game, you play as Link and only Link.

In lacking an official statement from Nintendo, we have the fact that Link fulfills everything that a main character requires. Nintendo uses him to tell the game, making him the mascot and main character of Twilight Princess.

Mascot: Yes
Main Character: Yes


Now whos to say that a story can't have 2 main characters?

And whos to say that the main character is the most important character in the story?

And who is to say that a secondary main character, that is not the regular main character is not only a main character too but is also the most important character in the game?

 

[Chiroz]

My proof for Mew2. . .

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=81891&highlight=melee+poll+1999 That was on Melee's translated poll for melee chars.

See how he can actually look up for proof when asked, and it wasen't even you that asked. This is how someone should act when asked for proof (not that I asked for it, , I was just stating that this is, or rather was, the only thing that was kind of obscure, at least to me.)


This is a good random fun fact to know.

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

1. Excuse me, we're talking about Midna being THE main character. It was never an argument of main character or not. It was Link vs. Midna, and that's a fact.

2. I do believe that he wasn't asked, assumed that he was lying about what he said, accused of being unable to provide such proof, etc.

 

[Chiroz]

1. Excuse me, we're talking about Midna being THE main character. It was never an argument of main character or not. It was Link vs. Midna, and that's a fact.

2. I do believe that he wasn't asked, assumed that he was lying about what he said, accused of being unable to provide such proof, etc.

A game can have more than one, I myself believe them both to be the main characters, the fact that other people disagree and think Midna is the only one, well, IN MY OPINION, they are partly wrong, but you cannot prove them wrong at the moment.



And he still brought foward the information, 1999 information. While you who have been asked for it, did not bring foward any information...

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

1. Link is the main character by the fact that Nintendo promotes Link considerably more so than any one character from Twilight Princess, even Midna. That's all the proof I need.

2. He went to a thread on this forum, whose thread title clearly states that the information he needs is in it. My information is from a different game series, it's older than that information (in fact, my date was even wrong - for some reason, I was thinking RB came out in 98 - it's more than 12 years old), and it's definitely not going to be on this forum.

 

[Chiroz]

1. Link is the main character by the fact that Nintendo promotes Link considerably more so than any one character from Twilight Princess, even Midna. That's all the proof I need.

2. He went to a thread on this forum, whose thread title clearly states that the information he needs is in it. My information is from a different game series, it's older than that information (in fact, my date was even wrong - for some reason, I was thinking RB came out in 98 - it's more than 12 years old), and it's definitely not going to be on this forum.

That does not prove in any way he is the only main character, and probably the fact that he is one is very debatable as you have seen.



He still had to search for it. And Pokemon hasent been out for 12 years, its been out for about 11 and a half years, and in RB Pikachu still was not the mascot, as he gets no representation whatsoever, at least from what I remember.

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

1. He is still THE main character.

2. Wow, big difference. A whole half of a year off. That's still 1996 versus 1999. Internet access was pretty limited at the time. He had to look on this forum. All you got to do is search for 1999, Mewtwo, poll, Melee, etc., and you got it.

 

[PDawgy]

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

Nice attempt at trolling, although I never said I didn't want her.

Your implication that I don't want Midna in because I don't think she's likely enough would also imply that Balloon Fighter, who I supported until his obvious deconfirmation in The Summit update, is someone I do not want.

 

[PDawgy]

boo-hoo-hoo

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

I agree, people who defend Midna really are whiners.

 

[PDawgy]

wah-wah-wah

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

I already told you that I agree that you and the rest of Midna supporters seem to have crying fits, are you trying to make a point?

 

[Black/Light]

OMFG, That actually made me lol!

 

[UsernameLink]

1. Link is the main character by the fact that Nintendo promotes Link considerably more so than any one character from Twilight Princess, even Midna. That's all the proof I need.

.

Link is the mascot of the zelda series. If you see a advert for a newZzelda game and you dont see the mascot link, you would be confused. While he the mascot and representant of zelda game, that does not make him the main charcter of TP,, so you have failed to say why he is the main

 

[PDawgy]

OMFG, That actually made me lol!

aww shucks thanks

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

The fact that every single material that exists for TP basically suggests Link > Midna.

You play as Link.
The perspective is from Link, never Midna.

Being the focus of the story has mattered never in Zelda history. Link has rarely been the focus of the story in the series, but he's still the main character. The focus of Zelda and Zelda II is not Link, LttP is not Link, MM is not Link (not primarily).

Honestly, without any word from Nintendo on who is the main character, why should we assume that Link is only now not the main character?

 

[UsernameLink]

The fact that every single material that exists for TP basically suggests Link > Midna.

You play as Link.
The perspective is from Link, never Midna.

Being the focus of the story has mattered never in Zelda history. Link has rarely been the focus of the story in the series, but he's still the main character. The focus of Zelda and Zelda II is not Link, LttP is not Link, MM is not Link (not primarily).

Honestly, without any word from Nintendo on who is the main character, why should we assume that Link is only now not the main character?

stupid reason, in some tv shows (desperate housewives comes to mind) you see it through a dead person eyes and views, doesn that make them the main character? no.

Its decided by who is the most importnat, and in TP's case, That is Midna

Now shoo

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

Pikachu may be the mascot, but he's not in all of the DP material, not even most of it.

100% of every Zelda character is less of a main character in any context to Link. That's a fact. If Nintendo thought that Midna was on the same level, she would have gotten a wee bit more exposure than she did.

 

[PDawgy]

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

PDawgy, do you have anything to contribute to this thread?

Hell, I'd like to ask if you can contribute anything to life.

 

[PDawgy]

Im gonna go to church in 30 mins righ' now duz that count???

 

[Black/Light]

PDawgy, do you have anything to contribute to this thread?

Hell, I'd like to ask if you can contribute anything to life.

Do you? This "debate" isn't very on topic. . . And yes, Pika is on most DP stuff from what I have seen.

 

[A Link to the Snitch]

Right now, the debate is Midna's character status.

Well, it's not really a debate, since one of the users has pretty much decided to troll when he figured that he's somewhat of a mongoloid.

 

[UsernameLink]

Pikachu may be the mascot, but he's not in all of the DP material, not even most of it.

100% of every Zelda character is less of a main character in any context to Link. That's a fact. If Nintendo thought that Midna was on the same level, she would have gotten a wee bit more exposure than she did.

Shes an unknown. Your buying it because its a Zelda game, so they will promote link more.

Not only that but Midna is the story plot. In trailers you show action, just random parts that will intrest you but will not reavel the story plot. Midna is shown with wolf link, she gets alot of exposure there, and Link will get more because he does use his human form aswell, where midna is not present, however Midna is the story plot (which cant be shown) which beats the person you mindless walk around with and control.