There is no such thing as *auto win* in Brawl.

[Natch]

I already said I agree.

This is a snippet from the post you made prior to mine.

"High levels of play only happen when both player make a similar number of mistakes." This is the only thing you said that I had a problem with. You are just giving your own definition of "high level play" worded in a way that is convenient for your argument.

You said you have a problem with the statement that "High Levels of Play only happen when both a players make a similar number of mistakes." You claimed that I was giving my own definition in a way that was convenient for my argument. You thought my definition was wrong, or at the very least did not approve of it.

I went through a step-by-step list of the pre-requsites to my definition, and when my definition applies and doesn't apply. You told me my definiton was only convenient, so I went out and proved that there was logic and reason behind it.

You now say that you do not have a problem with the very thing that prompted me to write that very response. Please be consistent.

If anything I said here is incorrect, tell me why it is incorrect and give me solid, concrete reasons and logic as to why it is incorrect.

 

[Kitamerby]

It is established that among the highest levels of play, the skill gap is not large enough in order to net DK the win. If such a skill gap exists between either of the two characters, one of them is not playing at the highest levels of play.

This new player will either define what the highest levels of play are, in which the players who were previously on the highest level can no longer be on the highest level. It is established that no such skill gap CANNOT exist at the highest levels of play. If such a skill gap exists, one player is not playing on the highest levels of play. The other situation is that this player becomes the exception. What was previously the highest levels of play remain the highest levels of play.

In either case, the statement that "DDD will always beat DK at the highest levels of play" is still correct.

Shaq will always beat a ****** at basketball.


If you're really freaking good, and I mean really freaking good, you can beat a DDD with DK.


Isai's Samus will cream your Kirby in SSB64.

There is no "highest levels" when only one person is really freaking good in that match. Some special dude could come out of nowhere with a sick DK, and no DDD could be able to touch him, and he'd be come the highest level of play. Yet we couldn't test the matchup ourselves, obviously, as the closest thing to his level would probably be M2K, and since this super DK is super, and beats M2K, what would you say then? You can't say that he'll lose to a DDD of equal skill if there's nobody to match him.

 

[Braggins]

This was me misunderstanding your "which you agreed on". I apologize.

However, the number of people who have made the argument "No mistakes at all" are very few and nobody cares about them. I'm not making that argument. No one credible or intelligent is making that argument. In fact, I'd like a tally and quotes of how many people have actually made the argument of "no mistakes" as I'm sure they number the 2's, at most.

In other words, nobody cares.

I know that nobody cares. I explained that there were other more important reasons why I made the statement about mistakes happening, but I don't think you read that. There is no need to find out how many people made that argument. Its not important at all, even if zero people made the argument it wouldn't affect anything about mine, especially since my opinion has changed. Also, I accept your apology.

This is a snippet from the post you made prior to mine.



You said you have a problem with the statement that "High Levels of Play only happen when both a players make a similar number of mistakes." You claimed that I was giving my own definition in a way that was convenient for my argument. You thought my definition was wrong, or at the very least did not approve of it.

I went through a step-by-step list of the pre-requsites to my definition, and when my definition applies and doesn't apply. You told me my definiton was only convenient, so I went out and proved that there was logic and reason behind it.

You now say that you do not have a problem with the very thing that prompted me to write that very response. Please be consistent.

If anything I said here is incorrect, tell me why it is incorrect and give me solid, concrete reasons and logic as to why it is incorrect.

What do you want from me? I agreed with the list of "facts" you gave. I agreed with most of what you said from your first post. I told you that after both posts. I didn't say your definition was necessarily wrong. I had a problem with it because it was your own definition and not necessarily what everyone believed. It was a very minor problem though. It is good that you explained yourself but you didn't really need to(at least to me) because I was agreeing with you.

 

[1048576]

Shaq could lose to a ****** if he missed all his dunks (1% chance per dunk) and the ****** made all his random prayer shots (lets say also 1% each)

See, the great thing about reality is that everything has a probability. The sun may not rise tomorrow, and its entirely possible for Bum to perfectly read M2K's D3 for three stocks.

 

[Natch]

Shaq could lose to a ****** if he missed all his dunks (1% chance per dunk) and the ****** made all his random prayer shots (lets say also 1% each)

See, the great thing about reality is that everything has a probability. The sun may not rise tomorrow, and its entirely possible for Bum to perfectly read M2K's D3 for three stocks.

But then that becomes the -new- "Highest Levels of Play," and it has been established that such a skill gap that would allow DK to win does not exist at the Highest Levels of Play. Therefore, M2K is Playing at a Lower Level-not on the Highest Levels of Play.

So the statement "DDD will always beat DK at the Highest Levels of Play" remains true.

 

[LinIsKorean]

We understand that there are small percentages of victory for highly disadvantaged matchups. What you are failing to recognize is that at higher levels of play, we are assuming that both players know the matchups inside and out, and will make similar mistakes in proportion. Under these circumstances, no player will be able to "completely read" another. As soon as a player starts making monumental mistakes (such as being predictable), they are no longer playing at a high level. Natch has got this, a few others understand it as well. >_>

 

[Natch]

I know that nobody cares. I explained that there were other more important reasons why I made the statement about mistakes happening, but I don't think you read that. There is no need to find out how many people made that argument. Its not important at all, even if zero people made the argument it wouldn't affect anything about mine, especially since my opinion has changed. Also, I accept your apology.

But it would affect something about your argument.

An argument has two sides. The Pro side and Con side. Each of these arguments must be syntaxly oppisite from the other. If one side says apples are 2lbs, the other side says apples are NOT 2lbs.

You made the following statement in some form recognizable to this one:

"It is impossible for a player to never make mistakes."

Nobody ever said "It is possible for a player to never make mistakes" in any way, shape, or form. We are trying to get you to understand this. We are trying to teach how logic, prerequisites, and reason work.

What you did is akin to going out and adamantly arguing to everyone that the world is NOT flat. Nobody is out there arguing the oppisite.

Another scenario which is far more plain can illustrate this same point.

1. Please clean your room.
2. I didn't yell at my sister.

This should've gone differently:

1. Did you yell at your sister?
2. I didn't yell at my sister.

This the type of mistake that you made. Do you understand this now?

What do you want from me? I agreed with the list of "facts" you gave. I agreed with most of what you said from your first post. I told you that after both posts. I didn't say your definition was necessarily wrong. I had a problem with it because it was your own definition and not necessarily what everyone believed. It was a very minor problem though. It is good that you explained yourself but you didn't really need to(at least to me) because I was agreeing with you.

Wait, you agreed with MOST of what I said? What didn't you agree with?

Also, making up my own defintion is the entire crux of debate. You make up your own, plausible definition, and argue based upon that. Not everyone is SUPPOSED to believe it. If everyone believed, there would be no debate, because everybody agrees with each other.

And if you problem with my problem with my definition, that is HARDLY a minor problem. That definition was the entire crux of my debate-I have to defend it or everything falls to shambles. How you can agree with what I say if you have a problem with what I say? That right there is an entire contradiction.

 

[Kitamerby]

But then that becomes the -new- "Highest Levels of Play," and it has been established that such a skill gap that would allow DK to win does not exist at the Highest Levels of Play. Therefore, M2K is Playing at a Lower Level-not on the Highest Levels of Play.

So the statement "DDD will always beat DK at the Highest Levels of Play" remains true.

Don't you define "highest level of play" by the top players at the time? If there's only one, he can't play himself.

 

[Natch]

Don't you define "highest level of play" by the top players at the time? If there's only one, he can't play himself.

I said "Highest LevelS." Note the "S". This means the top, and things not too far from the top.

And if one player becomes tremendously better than M2K, he is the new "top" that you have to be close to in order to be on the "Highest Levels of Play." The other situation is that becomes the exception.

In either case, the phrase "DDD will always beat DK on the Highest Levels of Play" remains true.

 

[LinIsKorean]

No, highest level of play is considered the level at which both players know the matchup inside and out and are not making considerable mistakes in their gameplay. As soon as one player begins making more mistakes than the other, it is not highest level of play. If M2K SDs at the beginning of his match, he is clearly not playing at the highest level of play, regardless if he is the best player or not.

 

[fissionprime]

at the highest level of play, each match will play out in exactly the same way, both sides will always choose the best option to use at the time. So if we can conclude that DDD will win once at the highest level of play, he will win every match at the highest level of play.

 

[Kitamerby]

I said "Highest LevelS." Note the "S". This means the top, and things not too far from the top.

And if one player becomes tremendously better than M2K, he is the new "top" that you have to be close to in order to be on the "Highest Levels of Play." The other situation is that becomes the exception.

In either case, the phrase "DDD will always beat DK on the Highest Levels of Play" remains true.

...You broke my ****** analogy. This isn't fun anymore.

Alright, you win this one, Natch.

 

[Yuna]

at the highest level of play, each match will play out in exactly the same way, both sides will always choose the best option to use at the time. So if we can conclude that DDD will win once at the highest level of play, he will win every match at the highest level of play.

This is not the argument we're making. Stop trolling.

 

[Natch]

at the highest level of play, each match will play out in exactly the same way, both sides will always choose the best option to use at the time. So if we can conclude that DDD will win once at the highest level of play, he will win every match at the highest level of play.

It won't play out -exactly- the same way. It's impossible to ALWAYS choose the best option-because the best option means you won't make a mistake. Which DOES happen. Highest Levels of Play includes top level players who's skill gap is not wide enough in order to give DK the win. Players will always make mistakes, but those mistakes become smaller and smaller at the Level of Play becomes Higher.

...You broke my ****** analogy. This isn't fun anymore.

Alright, you win this one, Natch.

I'm good at doing that, unfortunately.

 

[Braggins]

But it would affect something about your argument.

An argument has two sides. The Pro side and Con side. Each of these arguments must be syntaxly oppisite from the other. If one side says apples are 2lbs, the other side says apples are NOT 2lbs.

You made the following statement in some form recognizable to this one:

"It is impossible for a player to never make mistakes."

Nobody ever said "It is possible for a player to never make mistakes" in any way, shape, or form. We are trying to get you to understand this. We are trying to teach how logic, prerequisites, and reason work.

What you did is akin to going out and adamantly arguing to everyone that the world is NOT flat. Nobody is out there arguing the oppisite.

Another scenario which is far more plain can illustrate this same point.

1. Please clean your room.
2. I didn't yell at my sister.

This should've gone differently:

1. Did you yell at your sister?
2. I didn't yell at my sister.

This the type of mistake that you made. Do you understand this now?



Wait, you agreed with MOST of what I said? What didn't you agree with?

Also, making up my own defintion is the entire crux of debate. You make up your own, plausible definition, and argue based upon that. Not everyone is SUPPOSED to believe it. If everyone believed, there would be no debate, because everybody agrees with each other.

And if you problem with my problem with my definition, that is HARDLY a minor problem. That definition was the entire crux of my debate-I have to defend it or everything falls to shambles. How you can agree with what I say if you have a problem with what I say? That right there is an entire contradiction.

Seriously, this is still going on. I am almost at a loss for words. You seriously did not get a single thing that I said. I've said this so many times before but apparently it still has not registered. Yes, I said "It is impossible for a player to never make mistakes", and when I did I was using that as reasoning as to why I thought the DDD could eventually lose. I have been saying in post after post that I know no one is arguing against that. When you make an argument you give reasoning to support your argument. My argument was that I thought the DDD could eventually lose a single game to a DK even though it is extremely unlikely. One of my reasons was that people are prone to make mistakes(It is impossible for a player to never make mistakes."), and that eventually a game would happen where the DDD player would make enough mistakes to lose. I didn't say "It is impossible for a player to never make mistakes" because I thought that people were out there arguing that it is possible for a player to never make any mistakes. I never have thought that, and I still do not think that. I don't know what else to say. Surely you understand all of this since you clearly demonstrated in this enlightening post that you are an expert debater. It is humorous at this point to look at a post and read lines like this "Nobody ever said "It is possible for a player to never make mistakes" in any way, shape, or form. We are trying to get you to understand this. We are trying to teach how logic, prerequisites, and reason work. " I have specifically stated time and time again that I do not think you or anyone else is saying that to me. If you still think otherwise then I don't know what to do for you.

I specifically said in my last post that I don't disagree with your definition. I don't really know why you brought that up again, although at this point it doesn't surprise me.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

Eh, I know I already posted this before, but I thought I should do this again.

Having an infinitesimally small small chance of winning is the same as having no chance of winning.

Let's say the match-up is [" stands for repeating], is 9.9" to .0"1

9.9" = x

10x = 99.9"

10x-x= 9x

99.9"-9.9"= 90

9x/9= x

90/9 = 10

x=10

X =9.9"

9.9"=10

 

[Yuna]

Random stuff.

At the highest levels of play (and, really, even at much lower levels), D3 will never make enough mistakes for DK to win, ever. Stop arguing this, you cannot win this debate.

If one knows how to perform the infinite, one has to literally be playing badly on purpose to lose the match (or just suck).

 

[Braggins]

I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure you are 100% wrong. If you apply your theory to real life you can have the following example. A persons chances of winning the lottery are like 1/1000000(i have no idea if this is the actual chance). So if you plug that number in to your equation and "solve" it the way you did then you come out with the conclusion that a person has a 0% chance to win the lottery, which is clearly not true. If it were, then no one would ever win the lottery.

 

[Braggins]

At the highest levels of play (and, really, even at much lower levels), D3 will never make enough mistakes for DK to win, ever. Stop arguing this, you cannot win this debate.

If one knows how to perform the infinite, one has to literally be playing badly on purpose to lose the match (or just suck).

Seriously, just shut up and read my posts before you post anything about me. I've already stated in a previous post that I agree with you now. In the last post when explaining my argument I put it in the past tense because it is no longer my argument. I keep replying to people like Nesh because he keeps acting like I'm trying to argue something that I'm not, which is extremely obvious if you just read my posts.

Edit: Sorry for the double post, I thought that Yuna's last post was after my first one when it actually wasn't.

 

[ExCeL 52]

A Dk Can Beat A DDD.
But the DDD has to try to lose.
Yes there is such thing *sadly* as an auto-win.

This is stupid.. Brawl is comepetitive.
Noone is just going to say "**** it .. you can have the pot" in a tournament.

Hence auto-win if it is a Dk vs. DDD
If you REALLY think someone is going to do that your stupid..
This whole thread is stupid.. The World Doesn't give out cookies on a silver platter for free.

 

[Yuna]

Seriously, just shut up and read my posts before you post anything about me. I've already stated in a previous post that I agree with you now. In the last post when explaining my argument I put it in the past tense because it is no longer my argument. I keep replying to people like Nesh because he keeps acting like I'm trying to argue something that I'm not, which is extremely obvious if you just read my posts.

I'm sorry, I'm psychic since when? Since when am I supposed to automatically be able to tell "I said xyz!" means "I've now switched positions"? I missed the post where you finally recanted. I, however, cannot be blamed for not interpreting you speaking of what you said and did in the past tense (because it is the natural thing to do when dealing with, you know, stuff that happened in the past) as you having now switched positions.

 

[Braggins]

I'm sorry, I'm psychic since when? Since when am I supposed to automatically be able to tell "I said xyz!" means "I've now switched positions"? I missed the post where you finally recanted. I, however, cannot be blamed for not interpreting you speaking of what you said and did in the past tense (because it is the natural thing to do when dealing with, you know, stuff that happened in the past) as you having now switched positions.

Maybe when I say things like "Anyways, It may make you two happy to hear that my opinion has changed. I admit that you are probably right about the topic and that I am probably wrong.", you should be able to tell that I've switched positions. You probably never read that because you ignore my posts because of some false preconceived notion you have about my position. Then you make posts where you act like you know what I'm trying to say or what my position is.

 

[Yuna]

Maybe when I say things like "Anyways, It may make you two happy to hear that my opinion has changed. I admit that you are probably right about the topic and that I am probably wrong.", you should be able to tell that I've switched positions. You probably never read that because you ignore my posts because of some false preconceived notion you have about my position. Then you make posts where you act like you know what I'm trying to say or what my position is.

Did I or did I not just state that I missed the post where you recanted? I never replied to it, which indicates I missed it. I didn't read it because I simply don't read every single post in this thread, especially ones I find uninteresting, such as yours. I tired of your posts after the umpteenth time you arguing the position that DK can conceivably win against D3 at high levels of play.

I skim most threads, but sometimes I just ignore certain users straight out after they repeatedly make the sane inane arguments times and again. This specific post, however, I simply missed. I do not hold "a false pre-conceived notion [...] about [your] position" since your position was actually "DK stands a chance! It's not an auto-win!" and it stayed that way for days.

 

[cot(θ)]

Eh, I know I already posted this before, but I thought I should do this again.

Having an infinitesimally small small chance of winning is the same as having no chance of winning.

Let's say the match-up is [" stands for repeating], is 9.9" to .0"1

9.9" = x

10x = 99.9"

10x-x= 9x

99.9"-9.9"= 90

9x/9= x

90/9 = 10

x=10

X =9.9"

9.9"=10

You're rounding 9x to 90 in the third step. It is, in fact, 89.9", where x=9.9". Therefore, 9.9" =/= 10. If you feel like rounding in one of your steps, I suggest you reduce your calculations to one step and state that 9.9"=10.

Please learn math.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

have you guys heard of the infinite monkeys on a type writers theorem, basically it states that given an infinite amount of time something randomly pressing keys on a typewriter will eventually produce Shakespeare's plays.

So as a few guys earlier said with an infinite number of matches, it is likely that DK will win some matches, even if they are of the same skill, because even if the odds are almost impossible, there are an infinite amount of matches so DK will win eventually.

Therefore you can only say it is virtually an Auto win, or say it is almost impossible that DK will win.

 

[Braggins]

Did I or did I not just state that I missed the post where you recanted? I never replied to it, which indicates I missed it. I didn't read it because I simply don't read every single post in this thread, especially ones I find uninteresting, such as yours. I tired of your posts are you umpteenth time arguing the position that DK can conceivably win against D3 at high levels of play.

I skim most threads, but sometimes I just ignore certain users straight out after they repeatedly make the sane inane arguments times and again. This specific post, however, I simply missed. I do not hold "a false pre-conceived notion [...] about [your] position" since your position was actually "DK stands a chance! It's not an auto-win!" and it stayed that way for days.

Sorry, the preconceived notion thing was about the original thing we argued about, which had to do with the "mistakes" thing. I wasn't very clear about that. Anyways, even though my argument was probably wrong, you calling my argument inane is a joke considering I explained myself much more thoroughly than you did.

I only made a couple of posts(that were admittedly long) actually arguing that I thought the DK could win. The rest were me having to repeat myself over and over again saying that I know that you, Natch, or anyone else important isn't arguing to me that high level players don't make mistakes and me explaining why I made that statement about mistakes in the first place. I had to do that because you two kept making post after post saying that I was trying to argue the "mistakes" thing and acting like I just couldn't understand it or something.

 

[Yuna]

Sorry, the preconceived notion thing was about the original thing we argued about, which had to do with the "mistakes" thing. I wasn't very clear about that. Anyways, even though my argument was probably wrong, you calling my argument inane is a joke considering I explained myself much more thoroughly than you did.

How thoroughly you explain your position doesn't matter if the position itself is inane.

The rest were me having to repeat myself over and over again saying that I know that you, that other guy, or anyone else important isn't arguing to me that high level players don't make mistakes and me explaining why I made that statement about mistakes in the first place.

And did I or did I not criticize you for making that statement in the first place, stating that almost no one has made that argument, so why bring it up as if it were something one has to refute?

 

[pure_awesome]

have you guys heard of the infinite monkeys on a type writers theorem, basically it states that given an infinite amount of time something randomly pressing keys on a typewriter will eventually produce Shakespeare's plays.

So as a few guys earlier said with an infinite number of matches, it is likely that DK will win some matches, even if they are of the same skill, because even if the odds are almost impossible, there are an infinite amount of matches so DK will win eventually.

Therefore you can only say it is virtually an Auto win, or say it is almost impossible that DK will win.

The infinite monkey theorem states that if something can happen, then given an infinite amount of opportunities, it will happen.

This is different, because at high levels of play it can't happen. So given an infinite amount of opportunities, it would just... not happen, alot.


Anyway, I think this thread has served it's purpose.

 

[Brinzy]

LOL, are you serious. That was clearly sarcasm. [all the way through] I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU BLEW THAT VIDEO OFF BECAUSE THE DDD PLAYER WASN'T PLAYING AT A HIGH LEVEL(high level for the present). I UNDERSTAND WHY DDD CAN NEVER LOSE TO DK AT HIGH LEVELS.

Good for you that you used sarcasm. The problem with your sarcasm is that you made a TRUE statement with it and then posted that video which did not help your claim. If you understand why the video was bad, then why did you use it to back up your claim? I believe this is why I even bothered replying to you in the first place.

Also, yes, I read your whole post before hitting quote reply, so I know that you changed your mind, but I'm still going to answer to this.

Anyways, It may make you two happy to hear that my opinion has changed. I admit that you are probably right about the topic and that I am probably wrong. I thought I was right at first, then I thought about it a little more and pretty quickly realized I very well may be wrong. I kept arguing my side because I have fun discussing things with people (I still think there is a possibility that counterpick stages may give the DK player a chance to eventually win a single game, but I don't really care so I'm dropping it all together). You shouldn't get arrogant though, because you played no part in my mind being changed. You never addressed any of the points I made as to why I thought the way I did. You just kept dwelling on insignificant details and kept trying to tell me that I didn't understand what you were saying(and accused me of making contradictions, lol).

First off, I don't care if I did not make a difference for you. I could not care less even if someone paid me to try to. All this means to me is that I should be replying less to you after this.

Second, that "insignificant detail" was mostly about your "sarcastic post" (which I did pick up as sarcasm, but it doesn't matter, because it was a true statement). Again, if you really understood from the very beginning why the video is bad, then... why would you even make that type of post?

I had to do that because you two kept making post after post saying that I was trying to argue the "mistakes" thing and acting like I just couldn't understand it or something.

Then if you did understand, why did you even keep that much going? I'm not going to sit here and assume that you understand everything if the posts leading up to then tell me otherwise. My posts are independent from Yuna's in this thread, so stop making it sound like we teamed up against you just because we happened to be addressing the same things.

 

[Braggins]

How thoroughly you explain your position doesn't matter if the position itself is inane.

Inane doesn't mean incorrect if that was what you were implying. It would mean that my argument was lacking substance or ideas, which was not true of my argument.

And did I or did I not criticize you for making that statement in the first place, stating that almost no one has made that argument, so why bring it up as if it were something one has to refute?

I didn't make that statement just because I thought people were arguing against it. That was a very small part of the reason why I made the statement. I agreed with you that almost no one was making that argument. Then I explained that I was using it as reasoning to support why I thought the DDD could win. I could look at your posts where you made your argument and find countless statements that hadn't been argued against, and were just your reasoning to support your theory, which is what the mistakes statement was.

Good for you that you used sarcasm. The problem with your sarcasm is that you made a TRUE statement with it and then posted that video which did not help your claim. If you understand why the video was bad, then why did you use it to back up your claim? I believe this is why I even bothered replying to you in the first place.

Also, yes, I read your whole post before hitting quote reply, so I know that you changed your mind, but I'm still going to answer to this.



First off, I don't care if I did not make a difference for you. I could not care less even if someone paid me to try to. All this means to me is that I should be replying less to you after this.

Second, that "insignificant detail" was mostly about your "sarcastic post" (which I did pick up as sarcasm, but it doesn't matter, because it was a true statement). Again, if you really understood from the very beginning why the video is bad, then... why would you even make that type of post?



Then if you did understand, why did you even keep that much going? I'm not going to sit here and assume that you understand everything if the posts leading up to then tell me otherwise. My posts are independent from Yuna's in this thread, so stop making it sound like we teamed up against you just because we happened to be addressing the same things.

I'm sorry, but based on that post with your rant about how I was contradicting myself I just can't believe you picked that up as sarcasm unless you were being sarcastic yourself. I didn't think the video was bad at first. I'm not even going to talk about the "mistakes" thing because it is getting ridiculous.

 

[Yuna]

Inane doesn't mean incorrect if that was what you were implying. It would mean that my argument was lacking substance or ideas, which was not true of my argument.

1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. )

One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; angry with my inane roommate.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

devoid of intelligence [syn: asinine]
(WordNet 3.0 2006 by Princeton University.)

Incidentally, English is my third language.

I didn't make that statement just because I thought people were arguing against it.

Funny, you specifically said that people were making the argument you claimed they were making and then went on to refute it.

That was a very small part of the reason why I made the statement. I agreed with you that almost no one was making that argument. Then I explained that I was using it as reasoning to support why I thought the DDD could win. I could look at your posts where you made your argument and find countless statements that hadn't been argued against, and were just your reasoning to support your theory, which is what the mistakes statement was.

Quote me, please.

 

[Braggins]

1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
2. empty; void.
–noun
3. something that is empty or void, esp. the void of infinite space.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. )

One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; angry with my inane roommate.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

devoid of intelligence [syn: asinine]
(WordNet 3.0 2006 by Princeton University.)

Incidentally, English is my third language.


Funny, you specifically said that people were making the argument you claimed they were making and then went on to refute it.


Quote me, please.

Fair enough on the inane thing. I thought you meant empty and void as you can see from my last post. I don't think that my argument about DK possibly winning was silly or lacking ideas or sense. I was wrong about it because I was talking about something different that what you were(if you want me to explain I will).

I said a couple people made the argument. Someone earlier in the thread said that when deciding the matchups you shouldn't factor in the possibility of mistakes. That was who I was referring to. That was part of the reason I said that because I wanted to point out that I wasn't really talking about deciding matchups. Anyways, it was 1 or 2 people total, which is exactly what you said. I have never refuted that just as I have never accused you of making that argument. I explained though that it wasn't the main reason why I made the statement so it doesn't matter if anyone argued against it or not.

EDIT: In the last part were you asking me to quote you saying things that hadn't been argued against?

 

[Yuna]

Fair enough on the inane thing. I thought you meant empty and void as you can see from my last post. I don't think that my argument about DK possibly winning was silly or lacking ideas or sense. I was wrong about it because I was talking about something different that what you were(if you want me to explain I will).

It lacked sense and intelligence. I read it, I read it again, I read it a third time, I read it every time you typed it out and reworded it for a while there. It still didn't make any sense, nor was it intelligent.

I said a couple people made the argument. Someone earlier in the thread said that when deciding the matchups you shouldn't factor in the possibility of mistakes.

Are you sure you aren't misremembering? Are you sure what was said wasn't "an inordinate amount of mistakes" or "one side making one jillion mistakes while the other doesn't" or something of the sort?

Also, who cares what one or two people said?! Why would you base your argument, even in an indirect way, on an argument very few people have made and then specifically point out that it has been made?! And why would you base your argument on an argument very few people (especially smart ones) are making?) .

 

[Braggins]

It lacked sense and intelligence. I read it, I read it again, I read it a third time, I read it every time you typed it out and reworded it for a while there. It still didn't make any sense, nor was it intelligent.

Are you sure you aren't misremembering? Are you sure what was said wasn't "an inordinate amount of mistakes" or "one side making one jillion mistakes while the other doesn't" or something of the sort?

Also, who cares what one or two people said?! Why would you base your argument, even in an indirect way, on an argument very few people have made and then specifically point out that it has been made?! And why would you base your argument on an argument very few people (especially smart ones) are making?) .

If you are referring to my main argument about DK vs DDD then I must disagree. I presented my argument in an intelligent manner. Nothing about it was silly. I would like to know which points you consider silly.

I went back and looked and I'm not misremembering it. I think you used "inordinate". but that wasn't who I was referring to. I only pointed out that it had been said because you said that no one was saying it. I never claimed anyone made that argument until you claimed that no one had.

I wasn't ever basing my argument on anyone's argument. I said that even at high levels people make mistakes. That sentence should have been "Even high level players make mistakes". That was one of the things I was wrong about it and it was due to a phrasing error and me having a loose definition of "high level gameplay". All I was saying the entire time was that since people make mistakes that eventually a game could happen where the DDD player messed up enough to lose even though it is extremely unlikely and would take a lot of games. That is why I said the "mistakes statement". My argument could be summarized in a very simple way as "Since everyone makes mistakes, after enough games eventually a DDD player could make enough mistakes to lose a game against a DK player, even if they were both high level players." The first sentence in that summary is taken directly from "Even at high levels people make mistakes". It was used as simple reasoning. Whether or not someone has disagreed with a statement or not does not dictate whether or not you can use that statement as reasoning(assuming it is true).

EDIT: If you have msn messenger or aim it would be easier to continue this discussion through im's.

 

[Yuna]

If you are referring to my main argument about DK vs DDD then I must disagree. I presented my argument in an intelligent manner. Nothing about it was silly. I would like to know which points you consider silly.

You can present your argument in an intelligent manner, yet the argument you are making is itself stupid, the points you use illogical, etc., etc., etc. In other words, no matter how much you dress it up, a stupid argument is still stupid.

I only pointed out that it had been said because you said that no one was saying it.

The implicit and later explicitly "important".

I never claimed anyone made that argument until you claimed that no one had.

Yes, but my question still remains:
Why base your argument on an argument very few people are making and one which you know is stupid and is not supported by the vast majority of the opposing side of the debate?

I wasn't ever basing my argument on anyone's argument. I said that even at high levels people make mistakes. That sentence should have been "Even high level players make mistakes".

And no one (intelligent) would dispute this. The way you said it, you were implying many people are claiming the opposite (when that was not true).

Blah blah.

Did you just finally admit it was all your fault? Yes, bad phrasing is all your fault.

 

[Braggins]

You can present your argument in an intelligent manner, yet the argument you are making is itself stupid, the points you use illogical, etc., etc., etc. In other words, no matter how much you dress it up, a stupid argument is still stupid.

The implicit and later explicitly "important".


Yes, but my question still remains:
Why base your argument on an argument very few people are making and one which you know is stupid and is not supported by the vast majority of the opposing side of the debate?


And no one (intelligent) would dispute this. The way you said it, you were implying many people are claiming the opposite (when that was not true).


Did you just finally admit it was all your fault? Yes, bad phrasing is all your fault.

I admitted I was wrong about the main topic a long time ago. Yes, bad phrasing is my fault. My loose personal definition of "high level" was my fault. I never implied that many people were saying it. You took it that way, which is fine since I didn't state otherwise in my first post, but after you accused me of claiming that I told you that wasn't what I meant. It should have ended at that. I didn't base my argument on an argument like you keep insisting. When I said "Even at high levels players make mistakes", I was not arguing that to anyone. I was never saying, "no you guys are all wrong, even at high levels players do make mistakes, as opposed to them not making mistakes". I don't see why you refuse to see that. I was saying that "A DDD player could lose to a DK player because they can make mistakes because making mistakes is something everyone does". "They can make mistakes because making mistakes is something everyone does." --> "Even at high levels people can make mistakes". I don't understand at all why you think whether or not people were disagreeing about whether or not high level players make mistakes means anything at all.

I like how you continue to use insulting words like stupid when describing my argument even though you haven't given any reasons why they are stupid, even after I specifically asked you to. Is that the kind of discussion you speak of in your sig?

 

[Yuna]

I like how you continue to use insulting words like stupid when describing my argument even though you haven't given any reasons why they are stupid, even after I specifically asked you to. Is that the kind of discussion you speak of in your sig?

I'm sorry, you still don't know why your argument was "unintelligent"? "Given enough matches, D3 could screw up enough to lose to DK"? Yeah, if he was half-asleep maybe. Maybe if he was losing on purpose. Maybe if the DK was Bum and the D3 was me with grab not set to C-stick.

 

[Gimpyfish62]

not even playing better than your opponent while using a better character for the duration of the match is necessarily an auto win in brawl

it's a shame really

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The infinite monkey theorem states that if something can happen, then given an infinite amount of opportunities, it will happen.

This is different, because at high levels of play it can't happen. So given an infinite amount of opportunities, it would just... not happen, alot.


Anyway, I think this thread has served it's purpose.

what the hell do you mean? You're saying that given an infinite number of opportunities it wouldn't happen at all but it would happen. I think you are contradicting your self. And why is high levels of skill different, in this situation it Doesn't Make Any Difference.

 

[pure_awesome]

No.

I clearly said that given an infinite number of opportunities, it will not happen. If you think I contradicted myself, you misread.


High level of play is different because an exceptionally skilled DK can, and most likely will, beat a bad DDD. At high levels of play, the match is auto-win.
---

I'm absolutely dreading the first person who thinks gimpy is being serious.