Originally posted by IKC
Nevermind that the Massassi are, by definition, living Force users. Nevermind that the burden of proof is on the other side to show that they can stop the beams, which are shown to be a physical manifestation of the Force since they rip through everything they're shown to touch, including stone walls.Logic: 1
Trolling: 0
Originally posted by Faunus
Stow it already with the ''zOMg! ur a fanboy1'' IKC, unlike any of you, as actually provided proof for his stance. And so far, I haven't seen anyone successfully beat them down. So until you can do so, stfu.
When you successfully address my posts, you can be treated to a response.
I don't need to sucessfully answer your posts while you dodge my questions because you can't back up your argument. So keep proving that with your ignorant quotes, thanks.
BTw you don't use logic when it comes to Kun, nor when it comes to your hatred of Luke. Come back when you're ready to prove up... If ever..
troll, n.
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
BTw you don't use logic when it comes to Kun, nor when it comes to your hatred of Luke. Come back when you're ready to prove up... If ever..
Logical fallacies:
Argumentum ad hominem - "To the man." Use of personal attacks and insults to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument.
Begging the question - A statement that presumes the question being argued has already been proved.
The Hasty Generalization - Conclusions founded in insufficient and inadequate evidence or reasoning.
You forgot dodging arguments that would successfully discredit your characters power because of bias, using useless quotes to dodge questions, and justifying the use of useless quotes to dodge questions..
Logical fallacies:
Argumentum ad hominem - "To the man." Use of personal attacks and insults to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument.
Straw Man - The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Special Pleading - Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.
Originally posted by IKC
Logical fallacies:Argumentum ad hominem - "To the man." Use of personal attacks and insults to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument.
Straw Man - The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Special Pleading - Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.
Oh, and:
Begging the Question - Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." (Important!)
Originally posted by tdtd
You forgot dodging arguments that would successfully discredit your characters power because of bias, using useless quotes to dodge questions, and justifying the use of useless quotes to dodge questions..
Wow, that is trolling, I'm sorry.
Why not prove that Mace can slash his lightsaber through Ulic Quel-Droma, cite examples please.
Sorry, but making ridiculously specific requirements to "prove a point" is lame.
The amulet blasts literally vaporized everything they touched; so it's your job to prove that Jedi somehow have bodies that resist being vaporized, or that they can dodge it.
Originally posted by Illustrious
Wow, that is trolling, I'm sorry.Why not prove that Mace can slash his lightsaber through Ulic Quel-Droma, cite examples please.
Sorry, but making ridiculously specific requirements to "prove a point" is lame.
The amulet blasts literally vaporized everything they touched; so it's [b]your
job to prove that Jedi somehow have bodies that resist being vaporized, or that they can dodge it. [/B]
Sorry Illustrious but Luke's blasts instakilled the Vong so if you're going to use your logic that it has never been shown to use on a force user, then I can use my logic and say Kun's blasts have never been shown to work on a living force user regardless of what it did. Since it was never shown to be used on a living force user it is on you to prove that it would work. To discredit my argument and use yours would be a logical fallacy.
