Which I did apologize for.
Not really the point. You set a precedent by arguing this way, even if you apologize for it afterwards.
Maybe it's because they don't want their differing viewpoint to end up inciting frustration on your end, but I've really never seen (at least on smashboards) Edgar or Jose debate with you for more than like 1 post at a time. If Jose made another post that didn't simply concede the point that we shouldn't be balancing the roster, how would you feel? Would you feel like "Oh, I might need to explain it better to Jose", or "I can't believe he thinks that way, that's absurd".
Edgar and I usually debate over AIM or in person, and the debates are always civil.
And no, I would not immediately reject José's post if he were to claim that we should be balancing the roster. I would calmly explain several reasons for which it's a bad idea to ban things in the interest of creating balance.
And way to suggest that the only reason I haven't behaved this way to Edgar and José is due to the lack of arguments.
This is where we mainly disagree (and is the core point of my argument), because I don't think that a perspective that is "as objective as possible" exists..
MT, the important point is that some standards
are less objective than others. I won't claim that my standard is the most objective, for I have not analyzed every one of the literally infinite number of possible standards. But I've explained to you why my standard is more objective than yours, and yet you insist, again and again, that they're equally arbitrary.
They're not equally arbitrary. There's a difference between "where do we draw the line at broken?" and "I want to ban stages that move." It's incredibly frustrating that you're reiterating the same point and not taking the time to understand me. Even worse is that you later backtrack to suggest that your actual standard, which is "I want to ban stages that move" is actually "I think even slightly broken" (which you also have failed to demonstrate is a quality many of these stages possess) "is too broken." The debate here is not on how much of an effect these stages must have, i.e., "how broken they are;" it's about whether your standard of "banning things that don't standardize gameplay" (read: banning whatever you don't like) is better than my standard of banning only things that are provably broken.
And in any case, arguing with those kinds of words not only becomes exhausting for the other person, it also undoubtedly makes the other person less willing to end up agreeing with your point of view (though in this case I don't think I would have ended up agreeing anyway).
Again, I'm not disagreeing that I used any harsh words when we argued. I'm simply pointing out that you set yourself up for it; your arguments are themselves not so civil. Do you expect a kind response when you make strawman arguments or equate drastically different viewpoints? Do you see how, out of my entire post, all you've done is reiterate the problems with my style of arguing, without even considering yours (save for the one you apologized for)?
/reqy
