You need to unclench your cheeks, sweetheart, or stat your own threads where no characters lose and everyone holds hands singing kumba ya.
In this one, looks like its a fight.
No, it really isn’t a fight... at all. You might as well make a topic about MXY vs Sentry and you’ll have the same response from the same posters here.
You could have a moron arguing that Ego is bigger than size of a solar system, it doesn’t mean nothing
CAS was operating at a level far beyond anything DSS did. He is considered by most to be top 10 in DC cosmic hierarchy. You have trolls in this thread trying to argue otherwise.
“”These guys wanna play in the realm of science. They wanna claim, "We have evidence for our beliefs!" Ok — what is it?
—Michael Shermer[1]
Burden of proof (also known as onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.
II) POISONING THE WELL:
Poisoning the well (also called the smear tactic) is a rhetorical technique and logical fallacy that uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument.
Poisoning the well is an appeal to hate.
The usual method is to point out the unpleasant nature of the person making the opposing argument, in which case it is a special case of a personal attack or ad hominem. In general, "to poison the well" means to pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning, positive or negative.
It can be done subtly or quite blatantly. A subtle way of poisoning the well would be to use particular adjectives in introducing something that would influence people who are about to hear an argument. A good example would be introducing an argument that you disagree with by using the phrase 'Do you believe this rubbish?' The word 'rubbish' poisons the well.
In a more blatant display, someone can make an outright personal attack in an introduction. For example, asking people to remember that a person has been in prison before listening to their statements; the well is now "poisoned" because people are likely to distrust a person making an argument knowing that they're a convict, regardless of the reasoning that they put forward.
CAS is completely immune to everything Sentry can throw at him, of course. Assuming CAS would even register something as small and insignificant as Sentry (relatively speaking), he would probably simply cure Bob of his deathseed and void - allowing Bob to live the rest of his life in peace and without fear. So, while CAS is infinitely more powerful than Sentry, this end result wouldn't really be a loss to either combatant.
In order to have an actual fight, instead of the massive mismatch described above, I'm going to use REGULAR Superman (instead of CAS) in my answer:
I already have morons and trolls in my threads. They dont get warned and dont ever stop.
So, i’m not going to -not- make threads just because of them.
If i’ve a match i find interesting, imma post it.
I don't see why making a stomp versus thread interesting.
A weaker version on Mandrakk stomped a version of Radiant and Spectre (who one a tie-in issue re-made the universe with the SOD). CAS was operating on a level much higher.
I also dont worry about posters who seem to do nothing but complain from thread to thread, about the quality of match ups, without contributing any ‘quality’ threads of their own.
(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)
Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y, which requires justification.
Person 1 demands that person 2 justify the opposite of Y.
Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Special Pleading1
Form:
Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.
Example:
The law requires everyone to follow the speed limit and other traffic regulations, but in Suffolk County, exceptions should be made for cops and their families, police union officials say.
Police Benevolent Association president Jeff Frayler said Thursday it has been union policy to discourage Suffolk police officers from issuing tickets to fellow officers, regardless of where they work.
"Police officers have discretion whenever they stop anyone, but they should particularly extend that courtesy in the case of other police officers and their families," Frayler said in a brief telephone interview Thursday. "It is a professional courtesy."2
Analysis
Counter-Example:
Police officers occasionally have to shoot and kill suspects. So, family members of police officers should never be charged with murder if they shoot and kill someone. It's a professional courtesy.
Exposition:
Many rules—called "rules of thumb"—have exceptions for relevant cases. For example, many institutions, such as airlines and restaurants, have rules against people bringing animals onto their premises. However, an exception is made for blind people with seeing-eye dogs, since otherwise such people might not be able to use the facilities. A blind person is a relevant exception to the rule against animals, but some people who are not blind or otherwise disabled attempt to evade the rule. The fallacy of Special Pleading occurs when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not qualify as an exception.
The scans have been posted hundreds of times in this forum.
I don't need to show again something that has been established for years alreadY.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 10th, 2018 02:40 PM
