Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
Just because you believe something to be factual to the point of obsurd delerium, doesnt say anything towards either of your arguments about mc being 100% victor against samus. I would have taken the books seriously until you started giving retarded excerpts like "chief can punch a hole clear through several feet of titanium".. lmfao!
I? Quote me where I said that.
You're not dealing with a stupid fanboy with the intelligence of my foot's toenail. It doesn't matter frankly if people say that about MC, as nothing is 100% assured. Samus might lose, MC might lose. The books are Canon, it's the people posting here that say crap like "He can punch through 7 feet of titanium". The books are canon, deal with it. Just because people make absurd claims based off of information gleaned from the written material doesn't mean you dismiss the books. If that were the case, everything about Samus would've been thrown away a long while ago.
Snoopbert, hes just annoyed that I managed to actually provide proof of MC being strong, intellegent and fast. So now he has to dismiss the proof.
Satsujin I never gave you any exagerations.. and every quote I gave came from the books... Why are you angry? Before I was joking with you, I never though you were this pissed off over it.
I'd like to point out one thing I've noticed.
When the people arguing for Samus make a point, they usually point out a deficiency in another poster's evidence, supposedly based on the games, and, in some cases, on the "official" books.
When the people arguing for Chief make a point, they usually point out their perceptions of another poster's intelligence or fanboyism. In other words, they aim to insult the other poster.
This sort of argument is called "Ad hominum," or "at/ against the man," and its purpose is to slander the opponent to the point where others will not take them seriously enough to support their views. It is most commonly used when the arguer is insecure in his position and cannot give counter-evidence to support his views, instead choosing to deride his opponent and dodge the point in question.
All in all, it's simply the coward's way out. If you intend to argue, argue against evidence, not against people.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I'd like to point out one thing I've noticed.When the people arguing for Samus make a point, they usually point out a deficiency in another poster's evidence, supposedly based on the games, and, in some cases, on the "official" books.
When the people arguing for Chief make a point, they usually point out their perceptions of another poster's intelligence or fanboyism. In other words, they aim to insult the other poster.
This sort of argument is called "Ad hominum," or "at/ against the man," and its purpose is to slander the opponent to the point where others will not take them seriously enough to support their views. It is most commonly used when the arguer is insecure in his position and cannot give counter-evidence to support his views, instead choosing to deride his opponent and dodge the point in question.
All in all, it's simply the coward's way out. If you intend to argue, argue against evidence, not against people.
I agree 👆
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Polls dictate what the population thinks. And though you wouldn't know it by looking at America, the majority of something usually has the right idea.
Hahaha, crazy W. Bush...
The majority is right because people accept them as right... or else! There's a definite problem with the logic there, as we're all likely ignorant and being taught things that are as far from the truth as you can get in school. I agree with the poll, but that doesn't mean that pollls are necessarily right.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
I'd like to point out one thing I've noticed.When the people arguing for Samus make a point, they usually point out a deficiency in another poster's evidence, supposedly based on the games, and, in some cases, on the "official" books.
When the people arguing for Chief make a point, they usually point out their perceptions of another poster's intelligence or fanboyism. In other words, they aim to insult the other poster.
This sort of argument is called "Ad hominum," or "at/ against the man," and its purpose is to slander the opponent to the point where others will not take them seriously enough to support their views. It is most commonly used when the arguer is insecure in his position and cannot give counter-evidence to support his views, instead choosing to deride his opponent and dodge the point in question.
All in all, it's simply the coward's way out. If you intend to argue, argue against evidence, not against people.
Mm. It's also covered under the Debate Rule of "Argue the Point, Not the Man."
Meaning don't go "Well you're a retarded fanboy. Samus is gay."
Whereas "Well, MC has this which could do this to Samus." is perfectly alright.
In short, Samus wins 😉
They don't like the idea that their Samus can be beaten. *shrug*.
I'm not saying Master Chief is by any means weak, or it's an easy fight. I'm just saying Samus is the clear winner.
Let me re-iterate my point.
SPACE DINOSAUR.
(Inside joke. We discussed this. I brought up Samus fights Kraid and wins on a constant basis. Kraid being the space dinosaur)