quote: (post)

Originally posted by Usual Suspect
I think a really big problem here is instigation.

I mean its cool for posters to gang up on a guy if they feel his/her opinion is wrong.

Ya know, saying stuff like he makes since and you don't is cool, kinda like taking sides

but this is when it gets irritating, when someone insults you and then another member says "pwned" your in encouraging bad behaviour and pouring fuel on the fire.

Also, A LOT of the posters on this forum don't realize that their not really debatin, they're trying to make there opponent look dumb rather than changin the guy's oppinion or simply gettin their point across. Your supposed to want the make the guy, change his mind and see your point of view, not make him want to leave the forum in fear that he'll face ridicule every time he logs in. People here are mean as hell over shit so meaningless, yo.

Bad behaviour shouldn't be tolerated, yo.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Spamming is a problem as well.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Usual Suspect
No one here really spams do they?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Lana
Err, no. Ganging up on people is NOT cool. Saying that you disagree is one thing, but actually ganging up on someone is another and not tolerated because that just leads to bashing.

But otherwise, I agree. A lot of people here are a lot nastier than they have any business being.

quote:

Ad hominem- This means "argument against the man, not the point". It's when you rebut an opponent's argument by insulting them instead of their argument.

Example:

"Your argument is wrong because you're a troll".

Even if it is true that the person in question is known for trolling, it does not invalidate their argument, the argument must be considered on its own objective merits, no matter who or where it comes from.

NOTE: There is a difference between an ad hominem and a plain insult. Saying "Your arguments are wrong because you're stupid" is an ad hominem, but simply saying "You're stupid" is not a fallacy.

Strawman- This is when one person corrupts an opponent's argument into something different, a "straw man" that they set up just to knock it down.

Example:

Person A: Luffy is so fast due to Gear 2, he would easily blitz Naruto.

Person B: Luffy isn't lightspeed! You're wrong.

Person A never said Luffy was lightspeed, person B is making that up to make Person A's argument look bad.

NOTE: This is a very simple example, usually strawmen are much harder to spot than this.

Burden of proof fallacy- This is when someone attempts to make someone else prove a claim when the burden of proof is really on them to prove it. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, and the person who makes the claim.

Example:

"Goku is faster than lightspeed because you can't prove he's not!"

In this case, the person in the example makes a claim (Goku is FTL), and without providing evidence for it himself, he asks his opponent to prove him wrong. In reality, the person who made that claim would be the one required to prove it.

Appeal to motive- This is when someone attempts to rebut an argument by speculating on what ulterior motives the person making the argument might have, instead of addressing the argument itself.

Example: "You only think Superman could beat Goku because you hate DBZ!"

In this case, the person is not actually debating the point (Superman vs. Goku) and is only attempting to invalidate his opponent's argument based on a possible motive.

Appeal to popularity- This is when someone claims that if more people think one thing than another thing, then the one supported by the majority is correct.

Example: "The poll in this thread has more votes for character A than character B, so character A wins".

The person in this example is ignoring any actual evidence and facts and just basing his reasoning on what the majority of people said.


The person in this example is only basing his argument on what another person or group of people think, other than actually debating the points.

Circular reasoning- This is when someone's conclusion is buried in their premise.

Example: "Luffy is faster than Gai because One Piece characters are faster than Naruto characters".

The premise here (One Piece characters are faster than Naruto characters) is simply stated as if you should be expected to just accept it, and the conclusion is only true if the premise is true.

Non - Sequiter- This is when someone's conclusion is not implied at all by the premise.

Example: "Goku leaves afterimages, therefore Goku is faster than light".

The person in this example starts with a true premise (Goku leaves afterimages), but then jumps to a conclusion which is in no way implied by that premise (Goku is FTL).

Red Herring- This is when someone attempts to rebut an argument by bringing up a completely unrelated point, a "Red herring", to lure his opponent away from the real point of the argument.

Example: "Even though Ichigo deflected over a million of Byakuya's senbonzakura petals using his Bankai speed, he still couldn't really beat Byakuya."

This argument's claim (Ichigo didn't really defeat Byakuya, it was more like a tie) is true, but that is irrelevant to the point of the opponent's argument (to show Ichigo's speed). Therefore it's not a real refutation of the argument.

Association fallacy- This is when someone claims that since A has certain qualities, and B is in some way associated with A, then B has those qualities as well, without actual proof of this.

Example: "Many Naruto ninjas use genjutsu. Therefore Gai knows genjutsu as well."

While this could be possible, there is no confirmation, and merely because other ninjas know it doesn't mean he does.

Argument from ignorance- This is when someone states that since there is insufficient evidence of something, it cannot possibly be true.

Example: "I've never heard of an anime with stronger characters than DBZ, so therefore DBZ characters must be the strongest in all of anime."

The person in this example states that since they do not know of something personally, it cannot exist.

NOTE: This fallacy is often invoked improperly, because there's a big difference between stating "There is no evidence of A, so A cannot possibly be true" (which would be a fallacy) and "There is no evidence of A, so we cannot assume A to be true" (which is correct logic).

Argument from incredulity- This is similar to the argument from ignorance, except it is based on the fact that the person in question cannot personally believe something.

Example: "DBZ characters are so powerful, I find it hard to believe that there are characters stronger than them."

The person in this example asserts that since he personally does not believe something, then it cannot be true.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by shin_remy
Question to Lana

Are uncanon feats allowed ?

cause in debates they say, it is not canon bla bla bla.. You can only talk about the character from their own game, and not about the character who also appeared in a game that didn't followed the storyline

so what!! it is a gamecharacter..NOTHING REALLY HAPPEND, cause they don't exist.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu

quote:

The Fallacy Fallacy- This is when someone accuses someone else of making a logical fallacy, when they have not actually made one. It is an attempt to dismiss an argument by saying it is fallacious without explaining how or why.

Example:

Person A: "Luffy was moving so fast in Gear 2 that a world - class Assassin, Blueno, couldn't keep track of him."

Person B: "That's an appeal to authority fallacy."

In this example, person B doesn't explain how person A's argument is a fallacy, he simply states that it is.

Argument from anecdotal evidence- This is when someone tells a story of something that happened to them or another person, and it cannot be confirmed, but they expect it to prove something.

Example: "I once watched a nature show where a lion killed a pack of hyenas, therefore a lion could beat a pack of hyenas in a fight".

This argument simply recounts a story that may or may not be true, and the person in question expects it to count as evidence of their point of view. Even if the story was true, it does not necessarily mean that that is the way it will always happen, it could have been a statistical anomaly. In addition, there may have been other factors in play that the person neglected to mention (for example, the Hyenas may have been sick or injured before the fight started).

Proof by example-This type of fallacy involves someone citing one example of something as proof of a general rule.

Example: "Superman was tagged by Solomon Grundy, who is slow, therefore Superman can be tagged by anyone as fast or faster than Grundy."

The person ignores the fact that this could have been a statistical anomaly, and that it doesn't necessarily hold true all the time.

Another example: "Deidara defeated the Sanbi Bijuu, therefore he will always win a fight against a Bijuu, even the full nine - tails Kyuubi."

Affirming the consequent- This fallacy takes the form of presenting a conclusion that would logically follow from a premise, and then asserting that since the conclusion is true, the premise must be true also.

Example: "If One Piece characters could move faster than sound, then it would be difficult for people to see them move. Since fast One Piece characters seem to disappear, then they move faster than sound."

This argument ignores the possibility that characters could be difficult to track even if they moved below sound speed.

Denying the antecedent- The opposite of the previous fallacy, this is when someone presents a conclusion that logically follows from a premise, and then asserts that since the premise is false, the conclusion must also be false.

Example: "If Luffy could beat Aokiji, that would mean he is strong. He couldn't beat Aokiji, therefore he's not strong".

This argument ignores the fact that while Luffy is strong, Aokiji is simply stronger. Also, Luffy's powers have no effective counter to those of Aokiji.

Another, more common way this could be phrased is:

"Are you kidding? Luffy's not strong, he couldn't even beat Aokiji."

Biased sample- This is when a statistical survey only takes into consideration a sample of people or entities that are biased towards the conclusion. This only applies to matters of opinion and subjectivity, because even if the sample wasn't biased, this would not be an effective argument for an objective claim due to the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Example: "Everyone on that forum says that the PS3 is way better than the Wii."

What the person in the example is neglecting to mention is that the forum he's referring to is a Sony - centric forum populated mainly by Sony fans.

Half - truth- This is when someone presents a piece of evidence, but only presents some of it, ignoring critical factors that would cast the evidence in a whole different light, and would not necessarily support the person's conclusion.

Example: "Galactus was beaten by Thor, therefore he can be easily beaten by anyone around or above Thor's level".

What the person in this example fails to mention is that Galactus was starving and severely weakened in this instance, and also that Thor was drawing extra power from Odin to attack him.

Hasty generalization- This is an argument where someone takes an insufficient amount of evidence and attempts to form a conclusion from it, while ignoring or not being aware of contradictory evidence.

Example: "Flash has been tagged by people without super - speed in the past. Therefore, anyone, even if they don't have super speed, can tag him."

This person ignores all the times people both with and without superspeed were unable to tag the Flash, or were defeated by him.

Misleading vividness- This argument is similar to proof by example, but instead of simply citing an example, it describes the example in vivid detail, which makes people more likely to pay attention to it and think it is significant.

Example: "Flash isn't fast! He was tagged by Grodd, who grabbed his leg from behind, pulled him away, and bit into his leg!"

All of those details weren't necessary, and they don't do anything to logically advance the argument, but they do play on people's emotions to make them think this is a more significant occurence.

Package deal- This is when someone claims that since A is true, and A is usually (but not necessarily) associated with B, then B is also true.

Example: "Samurai Deeper Kyo characters can move faster than light. That means they can also travel through time."

This argument assumes that since FTL speed and time travel are often interrelated, then they must be in this case, even if there is no evidence of this.

False dichotomy This is when someone claims that there are only a certain amount of options, and if all but one are false, then the other must be true. This ignores the possibility of other options.

Example: "Lightning travels at relativistic speed. If lightning is heading towards you, either you'll can't move that fast and you'll be hit, or you can move that fast and you can block or dodge it. Nami blocked Enel's lightning in the Skypeia arc, so therefore Nami can move at relativistic speed."

Ther person in this example ignores the possibility that Nami could have seen Enel powering up his attack before he actually fired it and set up her defense in advance.

Correlation implies causation. This type of argument claims that since A is associated with B, then A causes B.

Example: "Afterimages, blurry images, and speed lines usually are used in manga and comics to denote speed. Therefore, anything drawn with afterimages and blurry effects must be moving very fast."

This argument ignores the possibility that the said effects were added for some other reason, or that they are simply there to exaggerate the object's movement rather than to imply vast supernatural speed.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Usual Suspect
Great Job!

But there is one small problem, if you Apply all parts to all those rules, wont this section get kinda boring.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Usual Suspect
Can we ban 2D Capcom fighters, no one likes them and they only cause problems.

quote:

This is when someone claims that if more people think one thing than another thing, then the one supported by the majority is correct.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
The forum's biggest problem is in the form of 2 or 3 posters who who dragged the debating downhill and fostered a new style that precluded intelligent debating. We used to have great threads like Gen vs. Gouki or M. Bison vs. Goenitz. Now everything is Ryu Hayabusa, Kratos, Sephiroth or KH stuff.

I lay the blame at least partly on Guilty Gears, Sado and another poster who used to frequent here, but hasn't been here in awhile. Banning those 2 would be a major step in the right direction.

2nd: I want plot devices acknowledged under the rules. People like Sado and Guilty gears refuse to acknowledge the existence of the plot device weapon/ability. Like how Orochi has the immunity to everything except Magatama or how the Vigoor Emperor is immune to everything but the True Dragon Sword. In that case, anyone with the proper ability/weapon can win. AND IT IS NOT A FEAT FOR THE CHARACTER IF A PLOT DEVICE WAS USED TO WIN. Examples: Holy being used to stop Meteor in FF7 is a plot device and not a feat for Aeris or Cloud. Whereas Link using the Master Sword to beat Ganon is not a plot device, other than using the sword as a seal in games like Ocarina of Time.

3rd: The idiotic fan-wankery has to end. DOA/Tekken are not and have never been equal to SF/KOF. Fights between them are alright, but it's painfully obvious that SF/KOF are on the whole stronger than DOA/Tekken.

4th: Non-canon versions of characters should be eligible, and up to the discretion of the thread maker. But characters who do not exist period, cannot be argued. Like Hayabusa with the Dark Dragon Blade, or Jinpachi at his max, or Devil Jin from the ending of Tekken 5. There's no way to debate them and they just start fights and flame wars. Whereas, someone like God Rugal or Devil Kazuya are debatable, because they are legitimate characters, even if their status is non-canon, they are still playable.

5th: Like Ashtar said, the logical fallacies need to be kicked. You can't argue for example, that because the TDS's plot device killed the VE, that it can one-shot Orochi.

That's all for now.