Cloud vs Squall

Originally posted by TacDavey
There are far too many points for me to reply to each of them individually. So I'm starting over and will reply to each argument in general.

You can always take your time to answer, isn't necessary automatic fast replies, just take your time to do it, no problem.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You claim that the amount of feats you have supplied for Squall show him to be the greatest swordsman in the world

You're right, althought they are not only feats, they are FACTS. And yes, I do believe they support my stance perfectly.

Originally posted by TacDavey
However, at the same time, you admitted that NONE of them actually show him to be the greatest swordsman in the world. I went through each, and you admitted, in general, that these feats alone do not prove that Squall is the absolute best. You admitted that it is certainly possible that, in each of these examples, there is still someone out there who could be better. No one of those arguments truly proves that Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world, as I have shown.

I don't know what you are talking about really, I didn't admitted anything. I responded to each of your refutations without skipping any of them and making it clear that by asking: 'it is impossible that' 'it is impossible this' is meaningless, unrelated and irrelevant as far as the story-line goes. As long as I have responded to each of your arguments and failed attempts, there's nothing to discuss here, I didn't admitted absolutely anything, that's you being admitting things for me and putting words in my mouth to make me to defend something that I never claimed as that IS fallacy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It seems to me, that you wish to claim that all of them together show Squall to be the best. But this is not so. If none of those arguments show Squall being the greatest, then the argument in general fails to do so as well. It doesn't matter the NUMBER of arguments you have.

I do not wish anything, I've said it, is a logical reasoning. I suppose you do know what a logical reasoning is, right? You called my argument a fallacy without realizing that my argument is well supported by facts (Facts that in this case are the game's rules and can't be changed no matter what). Like the facts in the real world, the Sky is Blue, thus I can't refute that is Blue because IS Blue, thus is a FACT. By saying: 'It is imposssible that the Sky could have been Red instead that Blue'? It doesn't matter, the fact won't change even if I ask that question and it won't reverse any situation whatsoever. Your attempt was to try to make the facts sound like anyone could have done what Squall has done without even reasoning that the things have been set in a way that you can't reverse with imaginary claims and unrelated questions. The number of facts I have provided are also important and there are probably even more. Nothing fails here, but your attempt to refute something irrefutable (Which are the facts).

Originally posted by TacDavey
Now, knowing you, I realize that you will discard this unwelcome fact, as if it were simply my opinion, but it is not. As with your "argument of ignorance". The fact of the matter is that that is a fallacy. It isn't my opinion that it is a fallacy any more than it is my opinion the sun is yellow. It is what it is. What you have supplied is the textbook definition of "argument of ignorance" and as such is a fallacy. I'm sorry.

No, I don't think is your opinion, I think you simply don't realize my stance and probably don't want to concede. Argument of ignorance? Nothing at all, repeating the same over and over to make it sound more true is also a fallacy, you can't call my argument a fallacy because I have facts supporting it, I call your attempt to refute my facts an argument from personal incredulity as you don't believe it can be possible so it can't be true.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Back to the debate of Squall being the greatest swordsman in the world, if you truly wish to proceed with this argument, you will need to specify exactly which of these arguments PROVE that Squall is better than EVERYONE.

The best swordsman, also Legendary. NOT better than everyone (including the ones that aren't swordsmen, I never said that). You're wrong here. I have covered enough also.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That means, that whatever argument you bring must show that there is not any swordsman, or even the possibility that there is a swordsman out there better than Squall. It must somehow relate to the swordsmen of the world and show him superior to them. If it does not, then it does not show him to be the greatest. It only speaks of his skill.

Before I start, what happened to your refutations? They don't worked, because it won't work against FACTS. You can't change ANYTHING by 'suggesting' that is possible that OTHER person coud have achieved what only, and only Squall have. My arguments pretty much suggested what it concerns here, yours have NOT. The example of you, calling your dog "Legendary" shows nothing, because it doesn't change anything in the story-line aspect of the game, NOTHING AT ALL. Because these are no speculations, for example I do not speculate that Squall is Legendary because I just want to speculate that Squall is Legendary, is a FACT. It speaks ALSO about his skills.

Originally posted by TacDavey
legendary does not mean "greatest in the whole world." It's easy to see this, as we know, that it is perfectly possible to have two legendary swordsmen, is it not?
legendary does not mean "greatest in the whole world." It's easy to see this, as we know, that it is perfectly possible to have two legendary swordsmen, is it not? However, if the word Legendary REQUIRES you to be the greatest swordsman in the whole world, then it would be logically IMPOSSIBLE to have two legendary swordsmen. It IS possible to have two legendary swordsman, however, thus it does not mean greatest in the world. Aside from that, from what I hear. Ultimicia refers to Squall as the legendary SeeD because he is destined to defeat her. It is more of a prediction, the term legendary is not used, in this sense, to show Squalls skill with anything, much less with the sword. You may not agree with this interpretation, and I'm sure you don't. But either way, the fact that Ultimicia termed him "the legendary SeeD destined to defeat me" does not mean he is the greatest swordsman in the world. All it means is that he is predestined to do this.

Yes under Final Fantasy VIII's world rules, I also think under Final Fantasy VII rules, but whatever. See what you're doing here? First off, you are repeating yourself, read above. Second you're completely downplaying the story-line facts which is irrelevant. You're right there, IT IS REQUIRED, do you know exactly why Squall is the Legendary SeeD? Because 'SeeD' was started thanks to him, due to him. But since you know basically nothing about Final Fantasy VIII is understandable seeing you making these claims. The title of 'Legendary' is something that ONLY SQUALL CAN CARRY, thus making him the best of the best, SIMPLE AS THAT, just get over it. Oh, Squall is already a master swordsman BEFORE of your: 'prediction', later he grew EVEN STRONGER, EVEN BETTER.

I'm gonna reply to your claims just with a few words since you are bit confused.
Squall didn't passed out automatically, he endured the attack and then he lost stability.
Squall didn't passed out before the moment of touching the ground.
Taking your quote about the developers, they also did the scene as Squall's eyes, putting the view of his fall seeing Rinoa while watching him and slowly rising her hands to him, he still has his eyes open, so he DIDN'T PASSED OUT. Like I said in my first post, he could have passed out in the ground, but you have no evidence for that because the scene ends here.

Originally posted by IndridCold
And one more thing before I post this. I'm going to drop the icicle arguement. Mainly for the sake of letting you be able to post lol I really do think that is irrelevent as well. You yourself said that it wouldn't prove either Cloud or Squall to win, it's just a small factor. Concidering it happened so early in each characters respective game, and so well before the feats that made Squall and Cloud great, I do not think it is relevent in this fight now.

It alone wouldn't prove Cloud would win, at least not conclusively. Still, I wouldn't call it irrelevant.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I don't know what you are talking about really, I didn't admitted anything. I responded to each of your refutations without skipping any of them and making it clear that by asking: 'it is impossible that' 'it is impossible this' is meaningless, unrelated and irrelevant as far as the story-line goes.

No it is not. You are claiming that Squall is the absolute best swordsman in the whole world. But that argument only works if he has shown himself to be better than everyone. But all of the things you have supplied are things he did on his own. They never related them to other swordsman, they never showed him to be better than other swordsman. They simply show he is a good swordsman, and nothing more. You are reading conclusions that simply do not follow, and are not related to the evidence.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I do not wish anything, I've said it, is a logical reasoning. I suppose you do know what a logical reasoning is, right? You called my argument a fallacy without realizing that my argument is well supported by facts

The sun is yellow
Thus I have super powers

That argument is backed up by facts, is it not? Your argument can have all the facts it wants and still be fallacious, as is the case with this argument here. I'm sorry, like I said, this is not my opinion, it is undeniable fact.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
No, I don't think is your opinion, I think you simply don't realize my stance and probably don't want to concede. Argument of ignorance? Nothing at all, repeating the same over and over to make it sound more true is also a fallacy,

Um.... No it's not. There is no such fallacy, as far as I know. And anyway, I'm only repeating myself because you are forcing me to.

Do you deny that you made the argument that since there is never any mention of swordsman stronger than Squall, thus we can conclude that he is the strongest?

THAT is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Before I start, what happened to your refutations? They don't worked, because it won't work against FACTS.

The sad thing is my refutations DID work. I refuted all your points. Which one did I not? Which one of your points shows Squall to be the best? I went through each one, one by one, and responded to them. They may be FACTS. I don't deny they happened. But they don't show what you think they show, GrieverSquall, THAT is the problem with your argument.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Yes under Final Fantasy VIII's world rules, I also think under Final Fantasy VII rules, but whatever. See what you're doing here? First off, you are repeating yourself, read above. Second you're completely downplaying the story-line facts which is irrelevant. You're right there, IT IS REQUIRED, do you know exactly why Squall is the Legendary SeeD? Because 'SeeD' was started thanks to him, due to him. But since you know basically nothing about Final Fantasy VIII is understandable seeing you making these claims. The title of 'Legendary' is something that ONLY SQUALL CAN CARRY, thus making him the best of the best, SIMPLE AS THAT, just get over it. Oh, Squall is already a master swordsman BEFORE of your: 'prediction', later he grew EVEN STRONGER, EVEN BETTER.

No, legendary does not mean "the greatest in whole world". End of story. That's not what legendary means.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Squall didn't passed out automatically, he endured the attack and then he lost stability.

Lost stability? What evidence do you have to suggest that? There is nothing about that scene that even remotely implies he simply "lost stability."

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Taking your quote about the developers, they also did the scene as Squall's eyes, putting the view of his fall seeing Rinoa while watching him and slowly rising her hands to him, he still has his eyes open, so he DIDN'T PASSED OUT. Like I said in my first post, he could have passed out in the ground, but you have no evidence for that because the scene ends here.

Your argument that he didn't pass out was that his eyes were still open? First, your eyes don't have to close to pass out. Second, he was LOOSING consciousness at that time. That scene was set up to show he was passing out. It is so obvious to see. If the developers had wanted Squall to have passed out from the fall, they would have shown that. You are only denying this because it hurts your stance.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It alone wouldn't prove Cloud would win, at least not conclusively. Still, I wouldn't call it irrelevant.

You obviously ignored my whole post. Here's why. You can't give some made up "is it possible this" or "is it possible that" arguement to it. It's to straightforward of an arguement. I'm not making any of it up and it is completly logical. Ultimecia knew there was "one" past or present SeeD powerful enough to beat her. (That is in the storyline, I'm not making that up) The "one" SeeD was Squall. She saw this and allowed him to TC to her timeline so she could fight him on her terms. Squall won. Most would agree it makes him the most powerful SeeD in existence.

Quick rundown: SeeD has been shown to have feats those in Soldier would have. Thus SeeD can be comparable to Soldier. Cloud defeated waves of Soldier (I'd like to have a reference to that....), *Squall defeated an enemy waves of SeeD's could not take down.* They both exceled in their respective force, and you have obviously underestimated Squall as a mere pushover. Sorry to say, but Squall would put up more of a fight than you think he would, in fact, he might just take Cloud out in a real fight. Simple as that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No it is not. You are claiming that Squall is the absolute best swordsman in the whole world. But that argument only works if he has shown himself to be better than everyone.

Yes, it is. You must know something about me, when I claim something, is because I perfectly know what I'm talking about and I CAN back my words. The argument works in many different ways, not just in one, because is supported. You wouldn't say the same if I claim something without backing anything, right? Exactly, you wouldn't.
He has shown to be better than everyone, what part of what: he have showed to be the best swordsman in the world can't you understand?

Originally posted by TacDavey
all of the things you have supplied are things he did on his own. They never related them to other swordsman

I stop you right here, Tac. Which is the important! If I'm talking about Squall, I will talk about HIM. What? They never related him to other swordsman? What about Seifer? Is even stated that Seifer is one of the top fighters in the whole Garden, have you played Final Fantasy VIII...? I begin to doubt this even more.

Originally posted by TacDavey
they never showed him to be better than other swordsman. They simply show he is a good swordsman, and nothing more. You are reading conclusions that simply do not follow, and are not related to the evidence.

Yes, they did. Better than Seifer, thus better than the rest from the Garden. They aren't the only swordsmen of the Garden, but if Seifer is one of the best in the whole Garden (which is giant) and Squall is stronger than Seifer, then logic plays a big role here, don't you think? Without mentioning that Squall is a master swordsman and the only one who mastered the Gunblade in the planet. Yes, they are related to everything I've said, you just ignore the facts.

Originally posted by TacDavey
They simply show he is a good swordsman, and nothing more. You are reading conclusions that simply do not follow, and are not related to the evidence.

They shows he's more than that, I'm afraid. These are facts, facts are directly related to evidence, what are you talking about?

Originally posted by TacDavey
The sun is yellow
Thus I have super powers

That argument is backed up by facts, is it not? Your argument can have all the facts it wants and still be fallacious, as is the case with this argument here. I'm sorry, like I said, this is not my opinion, it is undeniable fact.

The Sky is Blue.
Thus the Sky IS Blue.
The grass is Green, thus the grass is Green.

Yes, also by evidence. In this case isn't fallacious, I'm afraid. I don't care if is your opinion or not, I never said it was anyway. Undeniable fact? Can't be that fallacious too? You called my facts fallacious, can't be THIS the case you're talking about?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Um.... No it's not. There is no such fallacy, as far as I know. And anyway, I'm only repeating myself because you are forcing me to.

I am forcing you to repeat yourself? Uh... Are you serious? You are repeating yourself because you want to... Do not blame me.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Do you deny that you made the argument that since there is never any mention of swordsman stronger than Squall, thus we can conclude that he is the strongest?

THAT is an "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

No, I won't deny that because I've said it in my previous posts. But you ignore my facts, evidences, logical reasoning from the game and story-line itself and conclude to close your mind to a reasoning? Thus because you 'think' it can't be possible (WHEN I AM SHOWING YOU IT IS), it can't be true?

That is an: "Argument from personal incredulity", Fallacy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The sad thing is my refutations DID work. I refuted all your points..

I'm afraid that the FACTS are untouched by you. You haven't refuted anything because I've refuted your refutations. Sorry, but thinking is one thing but doing is another.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Which one of your points shows Squall to be the best?

All of them. They are called facts by the way.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I went through each one, one by one, and responded to them. They may be FACTS. I don't deny they happened. But they don't show what you think they show, GrieverSquall, THAT is the problem with your argument.

You're trying to persuade me here. I have responded as well, when someone responds, you have to refute again (if you can, if not then concede) that usually how debates works.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, legendary does not mean "the greatest in whole world". End of story. That's not what legendary means.

It means greatest warrior in the planet, yes. What's your problem? Are you going to change Final Fantay VIII's rules now? That may be work in the real world, not in this one.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Lost stability? What evidence do you have to suggest that? There is nothing about that scene that even remotely implies he simply "lost stability."

Are you asking what makes me think think that? Well just by the simply fact in having a hard piece of Ice passing through your bones and lung. Without mentioning the fights. Squall lost there, I won't deny it. Now tell me, what you think?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Your argument that he didn't pass out was that his eyes were still open? First, your eyes don't have to close to pass out. Second, he was LOOSING consciousness at that time. That scene was set up to show he was passing out. It is so obvious to see. If the developers had wanted Squall to have passed out from the fall, they would have shown that. You are only denying this because it hurts your stance.

That wasn't EXACTLY my point. My point is that when he was falling had STILL consciousness. I won't deny that if he reaches the ground it is very likely that he passed out. He had a thing passing though his body after all. End of story.

Originally posted by IndridCold
I would.

You obviously ignored my whole post. Here's why. You can't give some made up "is it possible this" or "is it possible that" arguement to it. It's to straightforward of an arguement. I'm not making any of it up and it is completly logical. Ultimecia knew there was "one" past or present SeeD powerful enough to beat her. (That is in the storyline, I'm not making that up) The "one" SeeD was Squall. She saw this and allowed him to TC to her timeline so she could fight him on her terms. Squall won. Most would agree it makes him the most powerful SeeD in existence.

Quick rundown: SeeD has been shown to have feats those in Soldier would have. Thus SeeD can be comparable to Soldier. Cloud defeated waves of Soldier (I'd like to have a reference to that....), *Squall defeated an enemy waves of SeeD's could not take down.* They both exceled in their respective force, and you have obviously underestimated Squall as a mere pushover. Sorry to say, but Squall would put up more of a fight than you think he would, in fact, he might just take Cloud out in a real fight. Simple as that.

I don't see how this is related to the icicle argument, but I'll respond anyway.

I never ever said Squall was a push over. Just because I think Cloud would win, does not mean I think Squall is weak. It just means I think Cloud is stronger.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Yes, it is. You must know something about me, when I claim something, is because I perfectly know what I'm talking about and I CAN back my words. The argument works in many different ways, not just in one, because is supported. You wouldn't say the same if I claim something without backing anything, right? Exactly, you wouldn't.
He has shown to be better than everyone, what part of what: he have showed to be the best swordsman in the world can't you understand?

I stop you right here, Tac. Which is the important! If I'm talking about Squall, I will talk about HIM. What? They never related him to other swordsman? What about Seifer? Is even stated that Seifer is one of the top fighters in the whole Garden, have you played Final Fantasy VIII...? I begin to doubt this even more.

Yes, they did. Better than Seifer, thus better than the rest from the Garden. They aren't the only swordsmen of the Garden, but if Seifer is one of the best in the whole Garden (which is giant) and Squall is stronger than Seifer, then logic plays a big role here, don't you think? Without mentioning that Squall is a master swordsman and the only one who mastered the Gunblade in the planet. Yes, they are related to everything I've said, you just ignore the facts.

I'm not ignoring anything. I fully admit all the things you have said, for the most part, are accurate. However, none of them show that Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world. You seem to think they do. But I've been trying to tell you that they do not.

Best of garden does NOT equal best in the whole world. Leader of garden DOES NOT equal best in the world. Master of a tricky weapon DOES NOT equal best in the world. None of your points show Squall is the best. Not one. I went through them all. The only thing you responded with was that "possibilities don't work" or something along those lines. But that is hardly a refutation. In the end, since those feats don't have any relation to other swordsman, except Seifer as you pointed out (Though, unless Seifer is the greatest swordsman in the world it still doesn't matter) it doesn't show his dominance over the other swordsman of the world. How can it? Since it isn't related to them at all.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
The Sky is Blue.
Thus the Sky IS Blue.
The grass is Green, thus the grass is Green.

What...? This made no sense.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Yes, also by evidence. In this case isn't fallacious, I'm afraid. I don't care if is your opinion or not, I never said it was anyway. Undeniable fact? Can't be that fallacious too?

Ummm... No. Undeniable fact cannot be fallacious.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I am forcing you to repeat yourself? Uh... Are you serious? You are repeating yourself because you want to... Do not blame me.

You are forcing me to repeat myself because my points refute yours, yet you continue to repeat the points that I just refuted. When you stop repeating yourself, I'll stop having to repeatedly refute you.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
No, I won't deny that because I've said it in my previous posts. But you ignore my facts, evidences, logical reasoning from the game and story-line itself and conclude to close your mind to a reasoning? Thus because you 'think' it can't be possible (WHEN I AM SHOWING YOU IT IS), it can't be true?

No, not at all. I never said Squall WASN'T the greatest swordsman in the world, thus I am not committing any fallacies. I am simply asking you to back up your radical claim and you haven't been able to.

Your points are either fallacious, or they don't show what you claim they show. Which is another fallacy, by the way.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
That is an: "Argument from personal incredulity", Fallacy.

Was this suppose to be a joke? You aren't seriously making up your own fallacies, are you?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I'm afraid that the FACTS are untouched by you. You haven't refuted anything because I've refuted your refutations. Sorry, but thinking is one thing but doing is another.

You haven't refuted anything. All you have done is try to accuse me of making the fallacy you are making, or make up your own fallacies. Neither one of those is a refutation. I have shown that all your points do not show Squall is the best. Good maybe, but not the best.

Honestly though, if you continue down the path I've expected you to take, you'll likely just ignore that and pretend that they do. Honestly, it's becoming a little vexing.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
All of them. They are called facts by the way.

Do I really need to run through them again? In order for an action or feat to show ones dominance over another, that action or feat must relate to both parties. None of your points do this, however. All they relate to are Squall himself, and in some cases Seifer. Not all the swordsman of the world, thus they don't show his dominance over all the swordsman of the world.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
It means greatest warrior in the planet, yes. What's your problem? Are you going to change Final Fantay VIII's rules now? That may be work in the real world, not in this one.

It most certainly does not. Didn't you remember? You can have two legendary swordsman, GrieverSquall. Still if you really want the definition of legendary, here it is:

"so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a legend;"

I want you to point out to me in his definition where it says "greatest warrior on the planet."

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Are you asking what makes me think think that? Well just by the simply fact in having a hard piece of Ice passing through your bones and lung. Without mentioning the fights. Squall lost there, I won't deny it. Now tell me, what you think?

Squall took the attack, though. He wasn't thrown off balance by it, as you can clearly see from the scene. Indeed, he was standing fine after it hit. Then, as he was passing out, he started falling backwards. I really don't know why I am still debating this with you. If you can't see that he was passing out from the scene, you are simply lying to yourself because you don't want to concede defeat. It's obvious. It's as obvious as the grass is green.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall

That wasn't EXACTLY my point. My point is that when he was falling had STILL consciousness. I won't deny that if he reaches the ground it is very likely that he passed out. He had a thing passing though his body after all. End of story.

He was passing out. I have more than adequately shown that, further more I am tired of discussing it, since you have no argument against it other than wild speculations with no evidence supporting them. If you wish to delude yourself into thinking he didn't pass out, then fine. But unless you can bring more to the table than ideas that are not supported by the scene, this part of the debate has come to a close.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see how this is related to the icicle argument, but I'll respond anyway.

I never ever said Squall was a push over. Just because I think Cloud would win, does not mean I think Squall is weak. It just means I think Cloud is stronger.

But anyways...

The only reason you think Cloud is stronger is because you like him more. You upplay his pros and disregaurd anything that makes him appear weak. EXAMPLE: He took a sword strike well ("OMG he must be really strong!"😉 but you do realize that he never made the cut into Soldier because he sucked too much("Psh, that obviously has nothing to do with this arguement"😉. You keep argueing it isn't possible to show Squall as being the most powerful character in the FF8 universe. You keep arguing it's impossible to show Squall has the best swordsmanship, with arguements such as "is it possible that somebody else exists with greater ability." You argue the fact that Legendary has been coined to his name by downplaying the word. You downplay every single thing that Squall has going for him, not refuted it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not ignoring anything. I fully admit all the things you have said, for the most part, are accurate. However, none of them show that Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world. You seem to think they do. But I've been trying to tell you that they do not.

Good to know. You've been trying to say they do not show that, you seem to think they do not and I'm trying to show you that it does.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Best of garden does NOT equal best in the whole world. Leader of garden DOES NOT equal best in the world. Master of a tricky weapon DOES NOT equal best in the world. None of your points show Squall is the best. Not one.

Yes all together.
You are underrating Squall badly by saying: 'tricky' weapon.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I went through them all. The only thing you responded with was that "possibilities don't work" or something along those lines. But that is hardly a refutation. In the end, since those feats don't have any relation to other swordsman, except Seifer as you pointed out (Though, unless Seifer is the greatest swordsman in the world it still doesn't matter) it doesn't show his dominance over the other swordsman of the world. How can it? Since it isn't related to them at all.

What you asked about possiblities aren't refutations, those are unrelated questions without logic that have no place in a fictional story at all. Why? Because they don't make sense as far as the story goes, these are facts, what you ask is nonsense. Seifer is just ANOTHER example that supports my stance and there must be even more.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What...? This made no sense.

Oh, it does, you can't refute that the Sky is Blue, can you? Because is fact, so you can't refute facts.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ummm... No. Undeniable fact cannot be fallacious.

Correct, that's why you can't refute undeniable facts and call them fallacious.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You are forcing me to repeat myself because my points refute yours, yet you continue to repeat the points that I just refuted. When you stop repeating yourself, I'll stop having to repeatedly refute you.

Repeat yourself all you like, the one who refuted your arguments is me.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, not at all. I never said Squall WASN'T the greatest swordsman in the world, thus I am not committing any fallacies. I am simply asking you to back up your radical claim and you haven't been able to.

Your points are either fallacious, or they don't show what you claim they show. Which is another fallacy, by the way.

You think it can't be true because you 'think' isn't possible, that's fallacy, I'm afraid. I've already backed everything with a logical reasoning, it doesn't matter what you think about me, what it concerns here are the facts.

You're simply wrong.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You haven't refuted anything.

Sorry, that's you.

Originally posted by TacDavey
All you have done is try to accuse me of making the fallacy you are making

I don't need to accuse you, it is clear. The one who tries to accuse people here is you, because you can't refute a fact.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Was this suppose to be a joke? You aren't seriously making up your own fallacies, are you?

You don't sound intimidating enough.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I have shown that all your points do not show Squall is the best.

You 'think', but think is one thing and doing is another.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Good maybe

Tch, tch. More than that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Honestly though, if you continue down the path I've expected you to take, you'll likely just ignore that and pretend that they do. Honestly, it's becoming a little vexing.

Sadly, I'm not like you, I don't ignore any facts, I accept them. I said it, it doesn't mater what you think of me. I'll continue because I have a reason to do it, sorry if that annoys you. And please focuse on the topic instead of judging me, thanks.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Do I really need to run through them again?

That's not really necessary, because your points and your attempts (because they are attempts) are refuted. You left nothing but excuses to make my argument look illogical which is not.

Originally posted by TacDavey
None of your points do this, however. All they relate to are Squall himself, and in some cases Seifer. Not all the swordsman of the world, thus they don't show his dominance over all the swordsman of the world.

Yes, they does. Squall is the subject, that's why most of my points are related to him, but also to the fighters in the world, not only to Gardens (which is the best academy of fighters in the planet).

Originally posted by TacDavey
in some cases Seifer.

Seifer is ANOTHER point.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It most certainly does not. Didn't you remember? You can have two legendary swordsman, GrieverSquall.

It's good to see how well are you ignoring Indridcold's points and also my points, you ignored a very good part of his paragraphs about this, because you can't reply to it anymore and it supports my stance. You sir, is refuted.

Originally posted by TacDavey
you are simply lying to yourself because you don't want to concede defeat. It's obvious. It's as obvious as the grass is green.

He was passing out. I have more than adequately shown that, further more I am tired of discussing it, since you have no argument against it other than wild speculations with no evidence supporting them. If you wish to delude yourself into thinking he didn't pass out, then fine. But unless you can bring more to the table than ideas that are not supported by the scene, this part of the debate has come to a close.

He wasn't passing out, he maybe passed out when he reached the ground because he had a thing passing through his body, simple as that. I am lying to myself? Are you mad or something? That sounds like you lying that Cloud didn't took that sword through his stomach, don't make me laugh and stop being hypocrite. You have nothing but purely speculations and personal interpretations.

Originally posted by Indridcold
The only reason you think Cloud is stronger is because you like him more.

He says he likes Squall better than Cloud though. I like Cloud better than Squall too, obviously. His story.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
He says he likes Squall better than Cloud though. I like Cloud better than Squall too, obviously. His story.

Originally posted by IndridCold
He's obviously doing that to appear like he isn't biased. I guess he thinks we are stupid and will take his perspective as a reasonable one because "He likes Squall better."

Well, in my case I don't need to do that because I admit that I like Squall better, he's my favorite character from all the Final Fantasy series, but by his logic that's why I think he would win, 'because I like him more', that's bullshit. But whatever.

Originally posted by IndridCold
Because it has nothing to do with the icicle arguement.....in fact, I'm done with the icicle argument completely, we will obviously never agree on that subject. It's really just an out of control spiral of stupid arguements that really wouldn't determine who would win anyway....so what's the point? We really aren't getting anywhere by going back and forth on that argument.

But anyways...

The only reason you think Cloud is stronger is because you like him more. You upplay his pros and disregaurd anything that makes him appear weak. EXAMPLE: He took a sword strike well ("OMG he must be really strong!"😉 but you do realize that he never made the cut into Soldier because he sucked too much("Psh, that obviously has nothing to do with this arguement"😉. You keep argueing it isn't possible to show Squall as being the most powerful character in the FF8 universe. You keep arguing it's impossible to show Squall has the best swordsmanship, with arguements such as "is it possible that somebody else exists with greater ability." You argue the fact that Legendary has been coined to his name by downplaying the word. You downplay every single thing that Squall has going for him, not refuted it.

That's completely untrue. I find it humorous that you have taken to the "fanboy" argument. I have noticed that when people run out of arguments, they call the other person a "fanboy" in hopes of somehow undermining their points.

I am not taking this side because I like Cloud better. I have evidence and logic backing me up. You and GrieverSqualls points are mostly fallacious, as I have pointed out. I am not down grading Squall at all.

You cannot show Squall is the greatest swordsman in the FF8 universe. Not with these arguments. I have pointed out why on NUMEROUS occasions, but you seem content with simply ignoring me.

Bottom line, all those points GrieverSquall brought forth do not show Squall is the greatest swordsman in the FF8 world. I'm sorry, they don't. It's that simple.

What they DO show, is that he is a good even GREAT swordsman. The problem that both of you are having is that you want to jump from GREAT to BEST IN THE WHOLE WORLD, and you simply CANNOT do that. I have shown that you cannot do that, but again, you ignore me.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Yes all together.

STOP! Right there! Thank you!

You claim that a lot of arguments that don't show Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world, when put together, show that he is.

This is obviously not so. You can have all the arguments that don't show Squall being the best that you want. In the end, they don't show he is the best. Put as many of them together as you please. Piling arguments on top of one another does not make their conclusions true. If they don't show he is the best, then they don't show he is the best. End of story.

Now, you may be tempted to say "yes they do" but I'll stop you right there. They don't. Any logician will tell you as much. I don't think I will change your mind, and this will go back to being a "yes it does" "no it doesn't" argument.

So lets just drop it right there.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Oh, it does, you can't refute that the Sky is Blue, can you? Because is fact, so you can't refute facts.

No you can't, and I never tried. You can, however, refute arguments.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Correct, that's why you can't refute undeniable facts and call them fallacious.

Again, I was calling your argument fallacious, not your "facts".

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
You don't sound intimidating enough.

I wasn't trying to. I was asking an honest question. Was that really suppose to be taken as a joke, or are you really making up your own fallacies?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Sadly, I'm not like you, I don't ignore any facts, I accept them. I said it, it doesn't mater what you think of me. I'll continue because I have a reason to do it, sorry if that annoys you. And please focuse on the topic instead of judging me, thanks.

I'm not judging you, I am making an prediction based on observations. I am not ignoring facts, I fully accept all of the "facts" that you have given me. It is your arguments that I have a problem with.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
You left nothing but excuses to make my argument look illogical which is not.

You don't need my help there. I'm simply trying to show YOU that your argument is illogical. You've even supplied fallacies, and then defended them after I showed you they were fallacies. Tell me, which one of us is going against textbook logic here? The one who points out the fallacies, or the one who brings them forward and then defends them?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
It's good to see how well are you ignoring Indridcold's points and also my points, you ignored a very good part of his paragraphs about this, because you can't reply to it anymore and it supports my stance. You sir, is refuted.

Really? I thought that in a debate over the definition of legendary, the definition of legendary would be pretty relevant. I have shown you that it is not what you claim it is. YOU sir, are heavily refuted.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
He wasn't passing out, he maybe passed out when he reached the ground because he had a thing passing through his body, simple as that.

But again, I have shown that he WAS. You see? Your response to that was "no he wasn't" Quite frankly, there is NOTHING to suggest it was the fall that made him pass out. There was NOTHING to suggest he simply slipped and fell. These are simply your wild speculations that you made up to try and offer some alternative to what was obviously happening.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I am lying to myself? Are you mad or something? That sounds like you lying that Cloud didn't took that sword through his stomach, don't make me laugh and stop being hypocrite. You have nothing but purely speculations and personal interpretations.

Ah, this one is called the "you too" fallacy. You try to combat my argument by calling me a hypocrite. But even if I am a hypocrite, and I'm not by the way, it still does nothing to show my argument is poor. The biggest hypocrite in the world can make a good argument, the two are not related.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
He says he likes Squall better than Cloud though. I like Cloud better than Squall too, obviously. His story.

Originally posted by IndridCold
He's obviously doing that to appear like he isn't biased. I guess he thinks we are stupid and will take his perspective as a reasonable one because "He likes Squall better."

Oh joy, the fanboy argument at it's best. I think I may start calling it by it's true name, though. "Ad hominum."

Yes, another fallacy, you guys are on a roll.

Even if I was a fanboy, it doesn't disprove my arguments. You are making a personal claim about me, which isn't true by the way, in hopes of somehow combating my points. Anyone who knows first level logic would know that the two are completely separate and in no way related.

Lets try to focus more on my arguments, rather than assigning me titles, shall we?

holy shit this is a huge pile of TL DR

Originally posted by TacDavey
STOP! Right there! Thank you!

You claim that a lot of arguments that don't show Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world, when put together, show that he is.

This is obviously not so. You can have all the arguments that don't show Squall being the best that you want. In the end, they don't show he is the best. Put as many of them together as you please. Piling arguments on top of one another does not make their conclusions true. If they don't show he is the best, then they don't show he is the best. End of story.

Now, you may be tempted to say "yes they do" but I'll stop you right there. They don't. Any logician will tell you as much. I don't think I will change your mind, and this will go back to being a "yes it does" "no it doesn't" argument.

So lets just drop it right there.

Uh... You got it all wrong. Well a misunderstand is a misunderstand, after all, no worries, but let me make it simple for you.

The facts shows him ALWAYS being above the rest, no matter what they are or who they are. Understood? Squall being above Seifer easily puts him on the top of the Garden, just that single fact, letting alone all the other ones, being Legendary puts him above all warriors in the planet, letting alone all the other facts. So you can imagine with the others supporting my entire stance. Irrefutable.

Sorry and you're welcome.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No you can't, and I never tried. You can, however, refute arguments.

Yes, you tried refuting facts and failed in the attempt.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Again, I was calling your argument fallacious, not your "facts".

If you could demonstrate is fallacious, that would be good, sadly, you can't. 'It can't be possible, so it can't be true, I don't believe that's possible that's why it can't be true'. That's you. THAT'S a fallacy. No a logical reasoning that is already showing what I'm suggesting.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I wasn't trying to. I was asking an honest question. Was that really suppose to be taken as a joke, or are you really making up your own fallacies?

No, I'm not making anything. I don't make up things and I don't ask nonsense.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not judging you, I am making an prediction based on observations. I am not ignoring facts, I fully accept all of the "facts" that you have given me. It is your arguments that I have a problem with.

"Facts" no matter how you add these: " " are still facts and you'll have to deal with it. Nothing weird in my argument based in a logical reasoning, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm simply trying to show YOU that your argument is illogical. You've even supplied fallacies, and then defended them after I showed you they were fallacies. Tell me, which one of us is going against textbook logic here? The one who points out the fallacies, or the one who brings them forward and then defends them?

And I'm trying to show YOU that it isn't, your: "refutations" (if you want to call them like that) are illogical. Nothing of my points were fallacies, get over it, facts are no fallacies, evidence is not fallacy, a logical reasoning supported by facts isn't fallacy at all. You are no making sense.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Really? I thought that in a debate over the definition of legendary, the definition of legendary would be pretty relevant. I have shown you that it is not what you claim it is. YOU sir, are heavily refuted.

It is required to be Legendary, Squall can only weild that title as far as the story goes, he's the best of the best. Unless you want to change the entire plot by your nonsense and by making "refutations" against a story you hardly know, because you showed your knowledge about Final Fantasy VIII, and honestly is lame. Sorry... You sir, is still refuted and you'll remain as this.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But again, I have shown that he WAS. You see? Your response to that was "no he wasn't" Quite frankly, there is NOTHING to suggest it was the fall that made him pass out. There was NOTHING to suggest he simply slipped and fell. These are simply your wild speculations that you made up to try and offer some alternative to what was obviously happening.

You have YOUR OWN speculations, right? Or you are shown me evidence or facts? No, you are not. Slipped? I mentioned something about stability for being stabbed in such way, nothing about slipping. If he touch the ground with that thing passing through his body, the pain would be worst. That made him to passing out, not being directly stabbed = passed out automatically. End of story. I'm even admitting that he passed out, so I don't know what's your problem. You are too dramatic sometimes.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ah, this one is called the "you too" fallacy. You try to combat my argument by calling me a hypocrite. But even if I am a hypocrite, and I'm not by the way, it still does nothing to show my argument is poor. The biggest hypocrite in the world can make a good argument, the two are not related.

When did I say 'you too'? Are you making up things or something? I called you hypocrite (You may be no an hypocrite) But you was in what you just said, I am lying to myself, when you DID the same no accepting even when I showed you images of Cloud being stabbed in his stomach, you refused to accept it, well that's why I am calling you an hypocrite now, you were lying to yourself there even after seeing the EVIDENCES.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, another fallacy, you guys are on a roll.

Now calling everything fallacious for no apparent reason because you have no arguments... That's sad and funny. Well, I never called you a fan-boy. Indridcold said you like Cloud more, not me.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I have evidence and logic backing me up. You and GrieverSqualls points are mostly fallacious

😂

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's completely untrue. I find it humorous that you have taken to the "fanboy" argument. I have noticed that when people run out of arguments, they call the other person a "fanboy" in hopes of somehow undermining their points.

When Ultimecia practically looks at Squall and says your the only one who can defeat me(obviously she didn't say it just like that, refer to my quote in a previous post.)....it's logical to assume that Squall is probably the most powerful SeeD.

Then you downplay the whole situation as "predetermined." Like the words she spoke to Squall she would have said to anybody. Right....

You tried to downplay the word "Legendary" implying there can be more than one legendary individual. And sure, your right, there can be. However it's not the gardens coining the term to Squall or any nation in the FF8 world. It was specifically Ultimecia that gave that to him. She never did that for any other character in the game. Squall is in all liklihood the only one.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You cannot show Squall is the greatest swordsman in the FF8 universe. Not with these arguments. I have pointed out why on NUMEROUS occasions, but you seem content with simply ignoring me..

Originally posted by TacDavey
I am not taking this side because I like Cloud better. I have evidence and logic backing me up. You and GrieverSqualls points are mostly fallacious, as I have pointed out. I am not down grading Squall at all.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Oh joy, the fanboy argument at it's best. I think I may start calling it by it's true name, though. "Ad hominum."

Yes, another fallacy, you guys are on a roll.

Even if I was a fanboy, it doesn't disprove my arguments. You are making a personal claim about me, which isn't true by the way, in hopes of somehow combating my points. Anyone who knows first level logic would know that the two are completely separate and in no way related.

Lets try to focus more on my arguments, rather than assigning me titles, shall we?.

Originally posted by Cyner
holy shit this is a huge pile of TL DR

This is a pile of what?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Uh... You got it all wrong. Well a misunderstand is a misunderstand, after all, no worries, but let me make it simple for you.

The facts shows him ALWAYS being above the rest, no matter what they are or who they are. Understood? Squall being above Seifer easily puts him on the top of the Garden, just that single fact, letting alone all the other ones, being Legendary puts him above all warriors in the planet, letting alone all the other facts. So you can imagine with the others supporting my entire stance. Irrefutable.

Sorry and you're welcome.

Being legendary puts him above all warriors on the planet? Why is this so? I have shown you what the word legendary means, and that is not it.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Yes, you tried refuting facts and failed in the attempt.

I never tried refuting facts, I did, however, refute arguments.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
If you could demonstrate is fallacious, that would be good, sadly, you can't. 'It can't be possible, so it can't be true, I don't believe that's possible that's why it can't be true'. That's you. THAT'S a fallacy. No a logical reasoning that is already showing what I'm suggesting.

Actually you just described exactly what you have been doing this whole time. You claimed that Squall is the best because there is no evidence that there is someone better. That's the fallacy, you even admitted to claiming this.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
And I'm trying to show YOU that it isn't, your: "refutations" (if you want to call them like that) are illogical. Nothing of my points were fallacies, get over it, facts are no fallacies, evidence is not fallacy, a logical reasoning supported by facts isn't fallacy at all. You are no making sense.

facts and evidence are not fallacies, that's true. Fallacies is a term that relates to ARGUMENTS. You seem to be continually getting the two mixed up. I accept all the facts you have given me, but you try to use these facts, that I'm sure are true, to form an argument. This argument being that Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world. THAT is what I am attacking, because THAT is where you are mistaken. These facts do NOT show that, not at all. I have told you this continually and you just keep ignoring me and telling me that I'm going against facts. I'm NOT going against facts, I accept the facts. But they don't show Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world. THAT is what I'm saying.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
It is required to be Legendary, Squall can only weild that title as far as the story goes, he's the best of the best. Unless you want to change the entire plot by your nonsense and by making "refutations" against a story you hardly know, because you showed your knowledge about Final Fantasy VIII, and honestly is lame. Sorry... You sir, is still refuted and you'll remain as this.

It is NOT required to be legendary, because I gave you the definition of legendary.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
You have YOUR OWN speculations, right? Or you are shown me evidence or facts? No, you are not.

Yes, yes I have. You just aren't happy with what they show so you try to make up alternatives to explain away what is obvious. That scene is set up to show Squall passing out. That icicle attack was it for him. It wasn't the fall that did him in, it was the icicle. Edea won because of that attack. Squall was finished, the fight was over. She won, he lost. He was falling backwards, defeated. The scene was set up to show him passing out. You can deny it all you want, I no longer care. Your stubbornness to accept facts is staggering. You can't even explain what he was doing falling backwards. Why did he suddenly fall over? You say he "lost stability". Like, he was thrown off balance? Is that what you mean? I thought one of your arguments was Squall took that attack and weathered it. But now you're saying he was knocked off the float because of it. So which is it? It doesn't matter what you say, Squall didn't "loose stability" from the attack, he was standing just fine. There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest he was stumbling backwards because of the attack, indeed you can see he wasn't. He stood there fine for a moment before he fell backwards. Anyone watching that scene will tell you he was passing out. I mean, look at it. It's a classic pass out scene. The slow motion backwards fall. The sounds all slowly fading away...

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
When did I say 'you too'? Are you making up things or something? I called you hypocrite (You may be no an hypocrite) But you was in what you just said, I am lying to myself, when you DID the same no accepting even when I showed you images of Cloud being stabbed in his stomach, you refused to accept it, well that's why I am calling you an hypocrite now, you were lying to yourself there even after seeing the EVIDENCES.

"you too" is just the name of the fallacy, GrieverSquall. The same fallacy you continue to exert through the rest of this paragraph.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Now calling everything fallacious for no apparent reason because you have no arguments... That's sad and funny. Well, I never called you a fan-boy. Indridcold said you like Cloud more, not me.

Actually, I'm not calling them fallacious for no reason, I'm calling them fallacious because they are fallacious.

Originally posted by IndridCold
I'll be out of arguements when you start addressing those arguements. Until then I'm going to take you as a joke.

I have addressed your arguments.

Originally posted by IndridCold
When Ultimecia practically looks at Squall and says your the only one who can defeat me(obviously she didn't say it just like that, refer to my quote in a previous post.)....it's logical to assume that Squall is probably the most powerful SeeD.

Okay, maybe Squall is the most powerful SeeD. I never said he wasn't. What does this show?

Originally posted by IndridCold
Then you downplay the whole situation as "predetermined." Like the words she spoke to Squall she would have said to anybody. Right....

That's not what predetermined means. What I mean was that just because Squall was the one who was destined to defeat Ultimicia, doesn't mean he was the most powerful warrior on the planet. It just means that "destiny" determined he was the one who would do it.

Originally posted by IndridCold
You tried to downplay the word "Legendary" implying there can be more than one legendary individual. And sure, your right, there can be. However it's not the gardens coining the term to Squall or any nation in the FF8 world. It was specifically Ultimecia that gave that to him. She never did that for any other character in the game. Squall is in all liklihood the only one.

It doesn't matter who gave him the title. It's still just a title, and can't be used to show he is the all time greatest swordsman in the whole wide world. It just shows he is the one who is destined to defeat Ultimicia.

Originally posted by IndridCold
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But if that is true, you're obviously not realizing Cloud has weaknesses throughout the entire game. He failed to get into Soldier, because he wasn't good enough. He was a little blue soldier for awhile.

Irrelevant. That was in the past. He's well beyond that now. Just because he used to be weak, doesn't mean he still is, obviously.

Originally posted by IndridCold
He thought he was somebody else for the majority of the game, how weak minded can you get?

This is 100% irrelevant. I don't care how weak minded someone is.

Originally posted by IndridCold
Oh joy, was the part where you realized we were right, and tried to make us look like we were the ones doing something wrong? You've done a good job of that for the entire duration of this arguement. Good to see I hit a nerve though.

Oh joy, was the part where I exposed what you were doing wrong. The "fanboy argument" as I have come to call it, is horridly fallacious, and it usually marks the point in a debate when one side has won, and the other lost. The fact that you have stooped to this level of reasoning only helps prove my point.

I don't know what you mean by "You've done a good job of that for the entire duration of this arguement." Pointing out fallacies? Yes, I've been doing that pretty well. You guys seem to love making them.

The simple fact is your "fanboy argument", or Ad hominum for the logically knowledgeable, is a fallacy. Plain and simple. And no matter what you say, it will never stop being a fallacy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Being legendary puts him above all warriors on the planet?

I have exaggerated. Yes, above all the other swordsmen warriors as far as the story goes. That's it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Why is this so?

Because he has showed to be the best of the best.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I have shown you what the word legendary means, and that is not it.

You're wrong with your: 'shows', I'm afraid

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never tried refuting facts, I did, however, refute arguments.

When did you refuted arguments? Because trying is one thing but doing is another.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You claimed that Squall is the best because there is no evidence that there is someone better. That's the fallacy

Argument from ignorance is when you claim something that hasn't been proved wrong or true. I'm using a simple logical reasoning supported by numerous facts, evidences as you can see, nothing of what I'm saying is a fallacy as you suggest. It would be a fallacy if I say: 'Squall's the best because it hasn't been proved that he isn't the best'

Originally posted by TacDavey
THAT is what I am attacking, because THAT is where you are mistaken. These facts do NOT show that, not at all. I have told you this continually and you just keep ignoring me and telling me that I'm going against facts. I'm NOT going against facts, I accept the facts. But they don't show Squall is the greatest swordsman in the world. THAT is what I'm saying.

No friend, no one has ignored your refutations, they were a threat, but they are no more, because I have refuted and responded with a counter showing you that your: 'refutations' or attempts aren't really relevant on what is the story and how everything follows, your refutations doesn't follows at all, anything. You suggest is possible this and is possible that but you have to look at what we have, sounds unfair, right? But that's how things works in a fictional Universe, you'll have to deal with it, friend. This is not the real world, your logic may work here, pretty much actually, but not in a Universe which elements are already set to be in a way and is irreversible. What you ask is unrelated also.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It is NOT required to be legendary, because I gave you the definition of legendary.

I'm afraid it is required as far as the Final Fantasy VIII world is set. Squall being the Legendary SeeD or the simply fact in being considered Legendary shows he's above the rest (no above all the warriors in the planet but yes above all the swordsmen warriors from the planet, at least). In other words, the title he carries, can't be carried by any other person. That's how everything was set, you CAN'T change it. It doesn't matter f you think it can be another Legendary person, that never happened and it won't happen, it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That scene is set up to show Squall BEING DEFEATED BY ULTIMECIA

Fixed. 😉

Originally posted by TacDavey
She won, he lost.

Correct. Agreed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The scene was set up to show him defeated

Fixed again. 😉

Originally posted by TacDavey
Your stubbornness to accept facts is staggering.

Hypocrisy says hi.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You can't even explain what he was doing falling backwards.

I did.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You say he "lost stability". Like, he was thrown off balance? Is that what you mean?

I guess I should add more details to you. He lost stability due of the lack of his energy, the fatigue among other various factors, he didn't had sufficient energy to counter-attack, he didn't passed out, I admit that he could have passed out already in the ground though, I am admitting it so I don't see what you're trying to show here. This is all I will quote from this paragraph, the rest is more of your nonsense. And personal interpretations which I don't care.

Originally posted by TacDavey
"you too" is just the name of the fallacy, GrieverSquall.

Of course it is.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The same fallacy you continue to exert through the rest of this paragraph.

Being hypocrite does not equal being fallacious, me calling you hypocrite doesn't mean I'm attacking you nor trying to show that your arguments are ALSO illogical because mine aren't illogical, yours alone are.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm calling them fallacious because they are fallacious.

I call Squall the best of the best because he's the best of the best, see how this works? Hey, but I don't blame you. I suppose facts don't play here. Sadly (for you) logic plays in my argument, I'm not surprised how any warrior in the whole planet don't even touched Ultimecia but Squall and his team did, I am not surprised why Ultimecia called him Legendary, she knows her stuff, huh? I suppose Squall even saving the whole Universe isn't considered anything special for you. Well denying facts won't make them go away anyway, you'll have dreams with these fact and they wont go away no matter how much you cry: 'dats fallacy!!' 😠

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Because he has showed to be the best of the best.

Alright GrieverSquall, lets do this again.

He has not shown himself to be the best. Plain and simple. You keep asserting this stance, but you fail to back it up. You say you provide facts that show he is the best, but they don't. I fully accept the facts, but not the conclusion drawn from them. You say that not one of these facts INDIVIDUALLY shows Squall to be the strongest. BUT all of them TOGETHER show that he is the strongest, right?

This is logically flawed reasoning. If they don't show him to be the best individually, nothing changes when you stack them on top of each other. Put a bunch of arguments that DON'T show Squall being the best together and you do not get arguments that show he IS. All you get are a bunch of arguments that don't show Squall being the best. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
You're wrong with your: 'shows', I'm afraid

Really? The dictionary doesn't know the meaning of the word legendary? Are you sure? Because that's where most people turn to find the definitions of words. If you think that, for some reason, it's mistaken, we should bring it to peoples attention.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Argument from ignorance is when you claim something that hasn't been proved wrong or true. I'm using a simple logical reasoning supported by numerous facts, evidences as you can see, nothing of what I'm saying is a fallacy as you suggest. It would be a fallacy if I say: 'Squall's the best because it hasn't been proved that he isn't the best'

But GrieverSquall that is EXACTLY what you were saying, you even admitted it in past posts!

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
You suggest is possible this and is possible that but you have to look at what we have, sounds unfair, right? But that's how things works in a fictional Universe, you'll have to deal with it, friend. This is not the real world, your logic may work here, pretty much actually, but not in a Universe which elements are already set to be in a way and is irreversible. What you ask is unrelated also.

I don't get this part. Are you saying we should ditch logic all together because it's a fantasy universe and logic doesn't apply here?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I'm afraid it is required as far as the Final Fantasy VIII world is set. Squall being the Legendary SeeD or the simply fact in being considered Legendary shows he's above the rest (no above all the warriors in the planet but yes above all the swordsmen warriors from the planet, at least). In other words, the title he carries, can't be carried by any other person. That's how everything was set, you CAN'T change it. It doesn't matter f you think it can be another Legendary person, that never happened and it won't happen, it doesn't matter.

Okay okay okay, let me get this straight. Are you saying, that the word legendary changes it's meaning specifically for FF8? That in the FF8 world, the word legendary means something else? I would be interested to know where you got this radical idea.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Hypocrisy says hi.

Fallacy says hi.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I guess I should add more details to you. He lost stability due of the lack of his energy, the fatigue among other various factors, he didn't had sufficient energy to counter-attack, he didn't passed out, I admit that he could have passed out already in the ground though, I am admitting it so I don't see what you're trying to show here. This is all I will quote from this paragraph, the rest is more of your nonsense. And personal interpretations which I don't care.

Okay GrieverSquall, you basically just described passing out without actually loosing consciousness. Even if I accept your version of the scene, and I want to be very clear that I do not, but for the sake of this argument and pressing forward, I accept that Squall didn't actually loose consciousness. He basically passed out, just without the actual passing out part. Even if we accept this, Cloud still comes out on top in this scene. Cloud was fully able to counterattack and he was fully able to counterattack in a way most people couldn't attack NORMALLY. Cloud was able to stand, lift someone off their feet, and throw them over a ledge. Squall couldn't do any of that because Squall couldn't even STAND.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Being hypocrite does not equal being fallacious, me calling you hypocrite doesn't mean I'm attacking you nor trying to show that your arguments are ALSO illogical because mine aren't illogical, yours alone are.

First off, I'm not a hypocrite. Second, yes, accusing someone of being a hypocrite in response to one of their points is a fallacy. It's called the "you too" fallacy. And it's very real.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I call Squall the best of the best because he's the best of the best, see how this works? Hey, but I don't blame you. I suppose facts don't play here. Sadly (for you) logic plays in my argument, I'm not surprised how any warrior in the whole planet don't even touched Ultimecia but Squall and his team did, I am not surprised why Ultimecia called him Legendary, she knows her stuff, huh? I suppose Squall even saving the whole Universe isn't considered anything special for you. Well denying facts won't make them go away anyway, you'll have dreams with these fact and they wont go away no matter how much you cry: 'dats fallacy!!' 😠

The difference here is that these truly are fallacies. I mean they are recorded, textbook fallacies. I'm not making them up. They are real and you are committing them. I'm not saying you are making these fallacies just because I am saying so, you really are.

Now, since your arguments are recorded, textbook fallacies, I logically follows that they are not logical. Plain and simple. I have pointed out the fallacies and even named them for you. Your ONLY defense against this is "these aren't fallacies". But they are GrieverSquall. They are indeed. And no matter how you try to cover it up, the facts are facts. These are fallacies. They are illogical. And I have shown this. I have caught you in your fallacies and there is no escape. You can continue to try to make the claim that they are not fallacies. You'll probably say that they had FACTS behind them and thus are not fallacies, but that is incorrect. You can have facts that are true and still make a fallacious argument, as you are doing, and have been doing this entire time. Unless you can:

1.) Show that your arguments really AREN'T fallacies. (And I want more that, "but they are backed up by facts"😉

or

2.) Bring new evidence for Squall

This debate is pretty much concluded.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I have addressed your arguments.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Okay, maybe Squall is the most powerful SeeD. I never said he wasn't. What does this show?.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's not what predetermined means. What I mean was that just because Squall was the one who was destined to defeat Ultimicia, doesn't mean he was the most powerful warrior on the planet. It just means that "destiny" determined he was the one who would do it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It doesn't matter who gave him the title. It's still just a title, and can't be used to show he is the all time greatest swordsman in the whole wide world. It just shows he is the one who is destined to defeat Ultimicia.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Irrelevant. That was in the past. He's well beyond that now. Just because he used to be weak, doesn't mean he still is, obviously.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This is 100% irrelevant. I don't care how weak minded someone is.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Oh joy, was the part where I exposed what you were doing wrong. The "fanboy argument" as I have come to call it, is horridly fallacious, and it usually marks the point in a debate when one side has won, and the other lost. The fact that you have stooped to this level of reasoning only helps prove my point.

I don't know what you mean by "You've done a good job of that for the entire duration of this arguement." Pointing out fallacies? Yes, I've been doing that pretty well. You guys seem to love making them.

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck”

Your a Cloud Fanboy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
He has not shown himself to be the best. Plain and simple.

Yes, he has shown, pretty much actually. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You keep asserting this stance, but you fail to back it up.

No, I don't fail at all, you fail in refuting my arguments.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You say you provide facts that show he is the best, but they don't.

I provided facts to show he's the best and he has shown to be the best. Yes, they do.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You say that not one of these facts INDIVIDUALLY shows Squall to be the strongest.

I never said that, you did. I've said each one puts him above others, always. His merits and achievements.

Originally posted by TacDavey
BUT all of them TOGETHER show that he is the strongest, right?

No necessarily. Just one or two of them puts him easily above the rest. I named every achievements to just intensify my stance, that is all.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This is logically flawed reasoning. If they don't show him to be the best individually, nothing changes when you stack them on top of each other. Put a bunch of arguments that DON'T show Squall being the best together and you do not get arguments that show he IS. All you get are a bunch of arguments that don't show Squall being the best. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, it isn't, read above. All of them show him to be above the rest. That's clear.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Really? The dictionary doesn't know the meaning of the word legendary? Are you sure? Because that's where most people turn to find the definitions of words. If you think that, for some reason, it's mistaken, we should bring it to peoples attention.

What does have to do a dictionary in this? I suppose I could find the meaning of: 'Legendary SeeD'? I thought it was enough just by looking in the story-line of the game and find out by yourself. I suppose I can search the word: 'Para-Magic' too? No, just no, play the game. But since you suggest to look at the meaning of Legendary, I found this:

1. so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a
legend

I know what you said before: 'Legendary' does not mean best in the world'. But we're in a fictional Universe here, I'm afraid. 'Legends' are considered legends for their multiple achievements (whatever they are) and merits, or can be considered in different aspects or terms, if you didn't know. In Final Fantasy VIII (for example) The Legendary warrior (SeeD) is considered the best of the best, simple as that. So I don't know what you're trying to say here anyway by: 'dictionary'.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But GrieverSquall that is EXACTLY what you were saying, you even admitted it in past posts!

I'm afraid you found the wrong case here, this is a logical reasoning, not a fallacy as you suggest. I don't admitted absolutely anything. Maybe you admitted things for me.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't get this part. Are you saying we should ditch logic all together because it's a fantasy universe and logic doesn't apply here?

You don't get anything, actually. I never said nor insinuated something like that. Logic plays here, THAT'S WHY I'M USING A LOGICAL REASONING. But what you suggest is something beyond a fictional universe which everything is already set to be in a single way. What you ask/asked IS irrelevant. My logical reasoning is using these already-set elements, without changing them at all.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Are you saying, that the word legendary changes it's meaning specifically for FF8? That in the FF8 world, the word legendary means something else?

Legendary 'SeeD' isn't the same as just: Legendary 'unknown', (general meaning). Sorry friend, you got it all wrong. Squall's the Legendary SeeD because he saved the Universe and 'SeeD' started due to him, therefore he's the best of the best no matter how you try to find logic here, you'll have to accept the facts, stop arguing a logical reasoning here. You won't win this point. Squall's the best.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Fallacy says hi.

To you. 🙄

Originally posted by TacDavey
Even if I accept your version of the scene, and I want to be very clear that I do not

Just as I do not accept yours, exactly.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Cloud still comes out on top in this scene. Cloud was fully able to counterattack and he was fully able to counterattack in a way most people couldn't attack NORMALLY. Cloud was able to stand, lift someone off their feet, and throw them over a ledge.

No he don't. Mako enhancements says hi. Cloud was stronger than Sephiroth? No? Cloud is stronger than Sephiroth, then? No? No. He just was stabbed in the stomach and fell basically dying after that and Hojo saved him. Cloud could have done the same in Advent Children if I recall, you said he's stronger now. He did it? No.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Squall couldn't do any of that

Any of what? I suppose you are putting Squall in Cloud's place now? You said the situations weren't the same which aren't the same at all by the way. If you put it that way, I can put Cloud dying at the hands of Edea? No I can't. Because no one cares about that. What happened once doesn't happen twice, in Cloud's case it happened twice I'm afraid. He retaliated? No? No.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The difference here is that these truly are fallacies. I mean they are recorded, textbook fallacies. I'm not making them up. They are real and you are committing them. I'm not saying you are making these fallacies just because I am saying so, you really are. The difference here is that these truly are fallacies. I mean they are recorded, textbook fallacies. I'm not making them up. They are real and you are committing them. I'm not saying you are making these fallacies just because I am saying so, you really are.

Now, since your arguments are recorded, textbook fallacies, I logically follows that they are not logical. Plain and simple. I have pointed out the fallacies and even named them for you. Your ONLY defense against this is "these aren't fallacies". But they are GrieverSquall. They are indeed. And no matter how you try to cover it up, the facts are facts. These are fallacies. They are illogical. And I have shown this. I have caught you in your fallacies and there is no escape. You can continue to try to make the claim that they are not fallacies. You'll probably say that they had FACTS behind them and thus are not fallacies, but that is incorrect. You can have facts that are true and still make a fallacious argument, as you are doing, and have been doing this entire time. Unless you can:

The first time I said Squall was the best because there wasn't other warrior introduced could have been one fallacy, but I have already covered that pretty much and conceded that point if you didn't noticed, this is the only excuse you have to refute arguments and to call ALL my words or Indridcold's fallacies, you have no arguments, sir, you definitely has nothing. Now calling everything fallacies because you've literally lost, you sir is refuted. Your attempt in putting words in my mouth to making me to defend something is fallacy, 'argument from personal incredulity' is fallacy, you were making several of them, but since your refutations are meaningless, this is pretty much concluded as I accept your concession. And yes, I would say: 'No, they aren't fallacies'.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Fallacy says hi. is a fallacy. It's called the "you too" fallacy. The difference here is that these truly are fallacies. you are committing them. you are making these fallacies. textbook fallacies. I have pointed out the fallacies. they are. They are indeed. These are fallacies. you in your fallacies. fallacious argument. That's the fallacy.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat my arguments are fallacies, that won't making it more true or less true and that won't make them look more important now. The fact is that they aren't, repeat yourself all you like, I don't really mind, seeing you refuted I would care less.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Bring new evidence for Squall

Refute my points first, wait, you can't.
Bring something instead the 'stab argument', wait, you can't.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Refute my points first, wait, you can't.
Bring something instead the 'stab argument', wait, you can't.

Wait....didn't he say this regarding the icicle arguement "It alone wouldn't prove Cloud would win, at least not conclusively. Still, I wouldn't call it irrelevant." (Of course its going to be relevent to HIM, it makes Squall appear weak)

And then he says this regarding how weak minded Cloud was..."This is 100% irrelevant. I don't care how weak minded someone is." (Completly disregaurding anything that makes Cloud appear weak)

And then he says this on Cloud failing Soldier... "Irrelevant. That was in the past. He's well beyond that now. Just because he used to be weak, doesn't mean he still is, obviously." And Squall can't be well beyond the icicle attack? but anyways.... (Completly disregaurding anything that makes Cloud appear weak)

We have an obvious contradiction here folks....lol

Originally posted by TacDavey
First off, I'm not a hypocrite. Second, yes, accusing someone of being a hypocrite in response to one of their points is a fallacy. It's called the "you too" fallacy. And it's very real.

You were though. No, because you were a hypocrite, you accused me of lying to myslef because my interpretation of Squall's scene was different than yours, but you refused to accept Cloud being stabbed in the stomach even having images, therefore you lied to yourself having the proof in your face, you were a hypocrite. No fallacies here.