Cloud vs Squall

I'm not going through every point again. Really it's just a whole bunch of the same stuff repeated endlessly. So I'm going to adress it generally again.

IndridCold, you said Cloud being weak minded means he wouldn't last long in a fight. That's just not true. What does being weak minded have to do with your ability to win a fight? Nothing, of course. You could have a really powerful character who is easily manipulated. That doesn't change the fact that he would win in a fight against most other characters. The two are unrelated.

Now, about the fallacies you all keep committing, even after I call you out on them.

These are all really fallacies, LOOK THEM UP IF YOU WANT. But sitting back and responding with "no they aren't fallacies" isn't enough. I'm tired of you thinking this is an acceptable response. I asked you to respond with reasons WHY they aren't fallacies, but you neglected to do so. All you said was, "No they aren't."

That's just not enough.

Now, GrieverSquall. You claim that Squall is the greatest swordsman in the whole world because of a ton of reasons you claim show he is the best. I'll run through them ONE MORE TIME. After I do so, if you respond with "No, you're wrong, they are facts and they show what I say they show," I'm going to close this part of the discussion.

Okay, let's start with laying down what it generally means to show someone is the absolute greatest swordsman.

I'll break it down into the easiest way I can.

In order to make a claim that someone is the absolute greatest swordsman, IE better than every other swordsman who exists in the world, they must somehow show themselves to be better than ALL of them. Take special note of the word ALL. Not MOST. Not ALL OF GARDEN. ALL of them.

Now, this can be done by performing an action that shows they are the best. This action must somehow, in some way, relate to every other swordsman in the world. For instance, if there is a swordsman who is already known to be the strongest swordsman in the world, we would know that, by defeating him, he has shown himself to be the greatest swordsman in the world, since the one he defeated was already known to be better than every other swordsman on the planet. In that way, this action shows that the swordsman is now better than every other swordsman in the world.

So, we see that in order for someone to be the best, he has to perform an action that REQUIRES him to be greater than every other swordsman. Thus, if an action does not REQUIRE that you be the greatest to perform it, then it does not show that you are the greatest swordsman in the world.

Let's look at the actions that you claim REQUIRE someone to be better than every other swordsman on the planet.

1.) Leader of garden.

This is obviously false. We know that the previous leader of garden was not the greatest swordsman in the world. Thus that is not a requirement for someone to be the leader. And thus Squall becoming the leader doesn't show him to be the greatest swordsman in the world.

2.) Mastering the gunblade.

You yourself admitted that using the gunblade does not show that you are greater than someone who uses a normal sword, and indeed this is true. Since it is not required to be the greatest swordsman in the world, performing this action does not show that you are.

3.) Strongest SeeD.

Even if I accept this, it still does not show him to be the greatest in the whole world. For we know that if you are a great swordsman, you do not HAVE to join garden. You don't HAVE to be a SeeD. Therefore, it is not only possible, it is reasonable to assume that there are excellent swordsman who are outside of SeeD, and thus being the best of SeeD does not require you to be the greatest swordsman in the world.

4.) Ultimicia uses the word "legendary" in a line of the game.

This has been a rather... interesting point that you have defended. According to you, the word legendary completely changes it's meaning when applied to the FF8 world. This is obviously false, as we see no reason to believe this is so.

When faced wit this, you claim that the term "legendary seed" is its own word with it's own meaning of "greatest warrior in the world". But this is OBVIOUSLY false. They are two separate words. One describing the other. That's simple grammar, GrieverSquall.

The word "legendary" applies to the word "SeeD". They are their own separate words with their own separate meanings.

In the same way, if we use the term "the Blue Ball", we are not making up a whole knew word. We are using two seperate words each with their own meaning. In this case, it is taking Blue, a color, and showing that it applies to the ball. Neither one of those words lost it's original meaning.

The same is true of "legendary SeeD." Legendary still means what it has always meant, but it is being applied to the word "SeeD".

You claim that by putting the two together, it changes the meaning to: Greatest in the world. But it doesn't. Any intro level English class will tell you as much.

Frankly, this is one of the most surprising arguments I have come by from you and IndridCold.

Next up, the icicle argument.

I have seen many many different "refutations" for this argument come from both of you. In the end, I have refuted all of them. The scene shows what it shows. Squall passes out, and Cloud doesn't.

Now, I don't want to get back into every point made along this ridiculously long path, but the most recent argument it has boiled down to is
1.) Squall didn't pass out, but he was defeated and was falling back out of lack of energy. Which to me, sounds mostly like "Passing out" just without loosing consciousness. And as such, my point still stands.
2.) It is the same as Cloud's infantry argument and so either they should both be allowed, or neither should. This isn't quite accurate, however. What I meant when I said it was Clouds past, I meant it was before he became what he is now. In other words, before what he was in FF7. That is not true of Squall's incident, obviously. So the two are not related.

Now, let's look at the fallacies you have commited in your arguments.

The most recent being the "fanboy" or "ad hominum" argument.

You made this argument when you tried to call me a "fanboy" as a way to combat my arguments. However, this was merely an attack on me as an individual, and not in any way related to my actual arguments. In logic, you must draw a line between a person and their arguments. The truth is they are completely unrelated.

When I defended myself against these claims, you called me a liar. Accusing me of saying this to try and make my points seem more valid. But indeed, it was not I who brought this into the debate to begin with. It was you, IndridCold, who accused me of being a fanboy, and I was merely defending myself against these claims. I did not do so to try and further my points, as it was not my intention to even bring this into the debate to begin with!

In the end, it doesn't matter what you think I am, or what title you try to place on me. It doesn't do anything to combat my arguments, so I would suggest we drop it.

The "argument for ignorance"

You made this fallacy when you tried to show that Squall was the greatest swordsman in the whole world based off of the fact the there was never an mention of anyone better. You even admitted you made this fallacy when you said:

"The first time I said Squall was the best because there wasn't other warrior introduced could have been one fallacy,"

the "you too" fallacy

This you made this fallacy when you called me a hypocrite. It doesn't matter if I AM a hypocrite (And I still don't say I am). That still doesn't mean my point is any less valid. The same way a smoker tells you that smoking is bad for you and you shouldn't do it. The smoker is a hypocrite in this sense, but that doesn't mean his argument is any less valid. Indeed, smoking IS bad for you and you SHOULDN'T do it.

I think that's enough for now. And please respond with something other than " No it isn't, you're wrong" Or "ooh, look at the fanboy, he loves Cloud so much". This is a debate, here. I've backed up my points, I don't think it's unreasonable for you to do the same.

To help out the Squall is one of the strongest swordman in his world argument, I'll put my thoughts on it. First he is most likely the best at Balamb along with Seifer. It is said by Quistis that Squall(and Seifer) were on a higher level. It is also said in the end of disc 2 by Nida that everybody in garden actually look up to him(why they would look up to some one who barely made seed I'll never know.)

Now than the known blade wielders in the FFVIII world are the Galbadia army, other Gardens, and some esthar soldiers(though those aren't really swords). Now lets analize thier strength

Trabia garden is the smallest of all the garden's. It is also known that there is no seed exam there(which is why Selphie transfers) meaning naturally there aren't many seeds. Also many died in the bombing. Not many fighters were left

Galbadia Garden. main source of weaponary is supposedly technology(machine guns, and thoughs battle suits). Though there are sword users as well. Though these guys as you know are quite easy to go through despite being slightly more skilled than whats at Balamb

Galbadia soldiers: Pushovers. These guys were running away from Seifer while he was still a cadet and alone. these guys also couldn't take Seifer as he broke through the tv station and kidnapped the president. There is a reason why Edea chose Seifer as her kight, cause the rest of Galbadian army were wusses

Seifer: Another person who was said to be on a higher level at garden. One of Garden top fighters and even later in charge of the Galbadian army. Seifer is a skilled arrogant fighter. Well there isn't much proof that Squall is stronger than Seifer by the end, but Seifer does lose to Squall one on one the first fight.

Squall being the strongest known fighter seems plausible to me

Originally posted by TacDavey
IndridCold, you said Cloud being weak minded means he wouldn't last long in a fight. That's just not true. What does being weak minded have to do with your ability to win a fight? Nothing, of course. You could have a really powerful character who is easily manipulated. That doesn't change the fact that he would win in a fight against most other characters. The two are unrelated.

Originally posted by TacDavey
These are all really fallacies, LOOK THEM UP IF YOU WANT. But sitting back and responding with "no they aren't fallacies" isn't enough. I'm tired of you thinking this is an acceptable response. I asked you to respond with reasons WHY they aren't fallacies, but you neglected to do so. All you said was, "No they aren't."

Originally posted by TacDavey
It is the same as Cloud's infantry argument and so either they should both be allowed, or neither should. This isn't quite accurate, however. What I meant when I said it was Clouds past, I meant it was before he became what he is now. In other words, before what he was in FF7. That is not true of Squall's incident, obviously. So the two are not related.

Originally posted by TacDavey
1.) Leader of garden.

This is obviously false. We know that the previous leader of garden was not the greatest swordsman in the world. Thus that is not a requirement for someone to be the leader. And thus Squall becoming the leader doesn't show him to be the greatest swordsman in the world.

2.) Mastering the gunblade.

You yourself admitted that using the gunblade does not show that you are greater than someone who uses a normal sword, and indeed this is true. Since it is not required to be the greatest swordsman in the world, performing this action does not show that you are.

3.) Strongest SeeD.

Even if I accept this, it still does not show him to be the greatest in the whole world. For we know that if you are a great swordsman, you do not HAVE to join garden. You don't HAVE to be a SeeD. Therefore, it is not only possible, it is reasonable to assume that there are excellent swordsman who are outside of SeeD, and thus being the best of SeeD does not require you to be the greatest swordsman in the world.

4.) Ultimicia uses the word "legendary" in a line of the game.

This has been a rather... interesting point that you have defended. According to you, the word legendary completely changes it's meaning when applied to the FF8 world. This is obviously false, as we see no reason to believe this is so..

Even if you think you have refuted any of this, it's this collection of things that make Squall great and legendary. True there can be more than one person thats legendary. You say it doesn't matter he was the Leader of Garden? Leaders can lead by many ways and in Squall's case his leadership ability coupled with his fighting prowress. I can see you've accepted him as the most powerful SeeD. He's also shown to have fantastic swordsmanship ability. Not to mention he defeated Ultimecia, an enemy nobody could take down. Ask Hundreds of thousands of dead bodies laying on the beach.

If you look at that collectivly and as a whole, it's simply awesome. The only thing you have is an icicle arguement which you yourself said wouldn't determine anything. Cloud has a handful of things that he has done that has shown him to be weak, to Squall's one thing. If you ask me, We shouldn't be defending Squall from Cloud.....It should be you defending Cloud from Squall.

on another note you said this

"3.) Strongest SeeD.

Even if I accept this, it still does not show him to be the greatest in the whole world. For we know that if you are a great swordsman, you do not HAVE to join garden. You don't HAVE to be a SeeD. Therefore, it is not only possible, it is reasonable to assume that there are excellent swordsman who are outside of SeeD, and thus being the best of SeeD does not require you to be the greatest swordsman in the world. "

Then why is it specifically stated in the story SeeD is the only thing that can take down the Sorceress? If they are the only ones powerful enough to do it, and Squall is the most powerful SeeD, would that not make him the most powerful in the world?

Originally posted by TacDavey
When I defended myself against these claims, you called me a liar.

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

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'll run through them ONE MORE TIME. After I do so, if you respond with "No, you're wrong, they are facts and they show what I say they show," I'm going to close this part of the discussion.

Nah... Don't throw me that, I have responded to each of your 'refutations' before as well, there's nothing to discuss here and bringing all the points you have repeated before is useless. But, whatever...

Originally posted by TacDavey
Okay, let's start with laying down what it generally means to show someone is the absolute greatest swordsman.

I'll break it down into the easiest way I can.

In order to make a claim that someone is the absolute greatest swordsman, IE better than every other swordsman who exists in the world, they must somehow show themselves to be better than ALL of them. Take special note of the word ALL. Not MOST. Not ALL OF GARDEN. ALL of them.

Now, this can be done by performing an action that shows they are the best. This action must somehow, in some way, relate to every other swordsman in the world. For instance, if there is a swordsman who is already known to be the strongest swordsman in the world, we would know that, by defeating him, he has shown himself to be the greatest swordsman in the world, since the one he defeated was already known to be better than every other swordsman on the planet. In that way, this action shows that the swordsman is now better than every other swordsman in the world.

Uh... Tac, 'if there is a swordsman who is already known to be the strongest swordsman in the world you say? No, there are no swordsmen known as the best, SQUALL has become the best.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So, we see that in order for someone to be the best, he has to perform an action that REQUIRES him to be greater than every other swordsman. Thus, if an action does not REQUIRE that you be the greatest to perform it, then it does not show that you are the greatest swordsman in the world.

I have to repeat myself, right? So, Squall hasn't performed anything enough to show he's indeed the best for YOU? Ok...

Originally posted by TacDavey
1.) Leader of garden.

This is obviously false. We know that the previous leader of garden was not the greatest swordsman in the world. Thus that is not a requirement for someone to be the leader. And thus Squall becoming the leader doesn't show him to be the greatest swordsman in the world.

1.) Leader of Garden and all SeeD.

No, it isn't. We know that Cid was Edea's Knight, we know that Cid founded the Gardens along with Edea, therefore there is no need for HIM to be the strongest warrior, he has founded the Gardens to begin training warriors, no because he was the strongest warrior. He gave the title to the best warrior and to the one who most merits and achievements had around the world in the Garden, Squall Leonhart. This pretty much shows Squall's superiority (in all sense) among the rest.

Originally posted by TacDavey
2.) Mastering the gunblade.

You yourself admitted that using the gunblade does not show that you are greater than someone who uses a normal sword, and indeed this is true. Since it is not required to be the greatest swordsman in the world, performing this action does not show that you are.

2.) Thus a master swordsman.

You (like always) putting words in my mouth. Let me make it simple for you. The one who trains with a Gunblade MUST show and display MORE SKILLS to master that Blade, 'normal Blades or swords' as you suggest aren't mentioned in Final Fantasy VIII, I never saw one anyway, (I saw the Galbandian ones though, but those Soldiers aren't in Squall's league anyway) I'm not saying they don't exist, but I can't say with 100% certainty that they do either. If they do exist, Gunblades are a more difficult weapon to master as IS stated. Squall is the first one in the whole planet who achieved such thing. In this case, the ones who must show to be better than Squall are the rest. Not Squall.

Originally posted by TacDavey
3.) Strongest SeeD.

Even if I accept this, it still does not show him to be the greatest in the whole world. For we know that if you are a great swordsman, you do not HAVE to join garden. You don't HAVE to be a SeeD. Therefore, it is not only possible, it is reasonable to assume that there are excellent swordsman who are outside of SeeD, and thus being the best of SeeD does not require you to be the greatest swordsman in the world.

That's one of Indridcold's points, are you trying to ignore him and leave him out this debate? Don't worry, I'll cover him.

3.) Yes.

Yeah, yeah... For you anything shows that. I don't care if you accept it or not, is fact. But Gardens has got and trains the best warriors in the planet, I'm afraid... Even if you don't have to join a Garden. SeeD is the best title in the planet, SeeD owns every other warriors and organizations in the world, actually. Indeed, but you can't make up things, you can't say someone imaginary is better than Squall which clearly nothing suggest that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
4.) Ultimicia uses the word "legendary" in a line of the game.

This has been a rather... interesting point that you have defended. According to you, the word legendary completely changes it's meaning when applied to the FF8 world. This is obviously false, as we see no reason to believe this is so.

When faced wit this, you claim that the term "legendary seed" is its own word with it's own meaning of "greatest warrior in the world". But this is OBVIOUSLY false. They are two separate words. One describing the other. That's simple grammar, GrieverSquall.

The word "legendary" applies to the word "SeeD". They are their own separate words with their own separate meanings.

In the same way, if we use the term "the Blue Ball", we are not making up a whole knew word. We are using two seperate words each with their own meaning. In this case, it is taking Blue, a color, and showing that it applies to the ball. Neither one of those words lost it's original meaning.

The same is true of "legendary SeeD." Legendary still means what it has always meant, but it is being applied to the word "SeeD".

You claim that by putting the two together, it changes the meaning to: Greatest in the world. But it doesn't. Any intro level English class will tell you as much.

Frankly, this is one of the most surprising arguments I have come by from you and IndridCold.

4.) Wow... you are clearly underrating Ultimecia and all the plot or you've never pay attention to the story.

English class? Grammar? Sadly, you don't make sense anymore.

In conclusion, you think I fuse these two words: 'Legendary' and 'SeeD' to make my own meaning of the entire word? How can you even think of such retarded idea?

'Legendary SeeD'. [Legendary] is a legend, it can be a person, an object, etc. But to obtain such title, is due of merits, achievements. In this case, we are talking about a Legendary warrior like Squall. If he's Legendary, is because he has proven he is a legend, no because Ultimecia said it, because he has actually showed to be that legend. You say is a 'prophecy' but that 'prophecy' has become reality and solid. Squall saved the Universe, SeeD started due to him. Squall's the best of the best, there is no discussion.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I have seen many many different "refutations" for this argument come from both of you. In the end, I have refuted all of them. The scene shows what it shows. Squall passes out, and Cloud doesn't.

No, you haven't refuted anything and Cloud also passes out.

Originally posted by TacDavey
1.) Squall didn't pass out, but he was defeated and was falling back out of lack of energy. Which to me, sounds mostly like "Passing out" just without loosing consciousness. And as such, my point still stands.

1.) Squall passed out when he touched the ground. (Zero evidence for that though anyway).

Originally posted by TacDavey
2.) It is the same as Cloud's infantry argument and so either they should both be allowed, or neither should. This isn't quite accurate, however. What I meant when I said it was Clouds past, I meant it was before he became what he is now.

2.)Wow... Surely Cloud is so strong now that he don't even moved when Sephiroth stabbed him the same way as before.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You made this fallacy when you tried to show that Squall was the greatest swordsman in the whole world based off of the fact the there was never an mention of anyone better. You even admitted you made this fallacy when you said:

"The first time I said Squall was the best because there wasn't other warrior introduced could have been one fallacy,"

Yes. I've already covered and conceded that like I said. Now, your 'argument from personal incredulity' fallacy. You think isn't possible for Squall to be the best, therefore it can't be true. You are claiming that our proposition must be wrong because you can't accept that is maybe true (I am showing IS true in this case).

Originally posted by TacDavey
the "you too" fallacy

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.

Originally posted by heartlesshero17
Seifer: Another person who was said to be on a higher level at garden. One of Garden top fighters and even later in charge of the Galbadian army. Seifer is a skilled arrogant fighter. Well there isn't much proof that Squall is stronger than Seifer by the end, but Seifer does lose to Squall one on one the first fight.

Actually, Squall is stronger than Seifer by a long shot and also more skilled. First off, Squall mastered the Gunblade, Seifer (also a Gunblade user) isn't a Gunblade specialist as the only Gunblade specialist is Squall. In their training fight (In the intro) Seifer tricked Squall and crossed the line cutting his face with the Hyperion, Squall not only retaliated, he unleashed a powerful counter-attack at Seifer cutting also his face. Squall defeated Seifer in a one on one fight without apparent problems. Later through the story, it seems Seifer has grow stronger (I don't really know how) But I suppose he was training (I don't know when and where either) But I can say the same about Squall, who has real fights permanently through all the story and rest of the game, fought armies multiple times, GFs, fought the worst dangerous creatures, more of what Seifer could have faced. Squall defeated Edea, Adel and he even went through Time Compression defeating the Sorceresses proving that he has a powerful mental concentration and a very focused mind which factor is very important to win a fight. With this, I can easily say that Seifer grew stronger, but Squall even more. Squall being Legendary also proves he's the best of the best. Seifer is stronger but he's not in Squall's league anymore. Never was actually.

Originally posted by heartlesshero17
Squall being the strongest known fighter seems plausible to me

Thank you. I'm the one who brought that idea actually, after doing a research in the game's plot and story-line and after playing multiple times, of course.

Cloud wins easily due to showing greater strength, speed, and durability.

/endthread

Squall wins.

/Thread.

Notice how I provided some elaboration on my verdict of who would win.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Notice how I provided some elaboration on my verdict of who would win.

Basing your 'argument' on Advent Children. You should know that any Final Fantasy Series would get the same treatment that Advent Children has shown for the VII team.
Keep also in mind that the developers stated that the movie wasn't 100% realistic meaning that some of the 'feats' were exaggerated because he's OBVIOUSLY that none of the characters did in the original game what they are doing in the movie. So save your strength, speed and durability feats for another thread because Squall has shown more feats in his game than Cloud in his game.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Basing your 'argument' on Advent Children. You should know that any Final Fantasy Series would get the same treatment that Advent Children has shown for the VII team.
Keep also in mind that the developers stated that the movie wasn't 100% realistic meaning that some of the 'feats' were exaggerated because he's OBVIOUSLY that none of the characters did in the original game what they are doing in the movie. So save your strength, speed and durability feats for another thread because Squall has shown more feats in his game than Cloud in his game.

GrieverSquall, IndridCold.... That's it. I'm done. I concede.

I can't take this anymore. You two are a logicians worst nightmare. There is no reasoning with you.

You bring me fallacies, you bring me weak reasoning, and when I call you out on it, you stubbornly deny it, or you accuse me of doing it, and you call me "fanboy".

You pretend that there are no such things as fallacies. You act like they are an "opinion" when they really aren't. When I explain to you why you have performed a fallacy, you blatantly disregard it and claim "I didn't do it".

IndridCold:

You attack me personally when you have run out of arguments to defend. You sit back and call me a "fanboy" as if it is so clear that Squall is better and I am just refusing to see it. You do not account for the fact that it is a highly debatable topic. One that is supported by both sides. I have never made a claim I could not back up. I honestly think, as a lot of people do, that Cloud would win. Not because I like him better, but because of all the points I have been discussing with you this entire debate. When one of my points was refuted, I admitted it. As was my point with Sephiroth and Cloud.

But you are so convinced that Squall is the best, that when someone provides a counter argument, you assume they must be a fanboy, with nothing else to go on other than they disagree with you.

I pointed out to you that this was the direct definition of an "ad hominum" fallacy, but that didn't seem to dissuade you.

GrieverSquall:

You supply me with a number of points that do not show what you think they do. And your justification for this, is all the points are facts. I pointed out that an argument can have facts and still be fallacious, but you ignored that as well.

I went through each of your points and told you why they don't work. But you refused to accept that. You continued to claim they showed Squall was the best even when I showed you they didn't. The very simple fact is, there is no reason that someone other than Squall couldn't do each of those things. They don't relate to other swordsman, so how can they show that he is better? All they show is he is a very skilled swordsman. It shows he has great accomplishments and he is truly a master swordsman. But that is sadly all they show. The thing is, to be shown you are the best you must prove you are better than every swordsman who is alive. But those actions you gave me don't do that, no matter how hard you try stress that they do, they don't. I have shown this multiple times. You either don't understand, or you are choosing to ignore it. Either way, there is nothing more I can do.

You then commit fallacies that I call you out on. And when I do, you simply say "no, I didn't commit any fallacies." I pointed out where you did the fallacies, and I pointed out why you did the fallacies. It is possible you simply don't understand what fallacies are. But either way, you refused to accept that you were committing them.

I did not make up those fallacies. I did not make up the definition of those fallacies. If you were to pick up any intro level logic book, you could find detailed explanations of those fallacies.

You blatantly disregard evidence, and when I call you out on it, you use another fallacy. The "you too" fallacy. Which you then deny doing, even though I supply you with the definition, and tell you how you fit into this category, somehow you decide that's not good enough.

Well congratulations gentleman. You win. You win by wearing down my will to continue debating. I would say you will likely "win" a lot of debates, because I can't see anyone else actually lasting as long as I have.

But I'm done now. I can see that there is not even the possibility of this going anywhere and I think I'll just save all of us a lot of time and energy.

Tac, I am not going to quote anything from you anymore. But let me point some things out.

First off, you refuted my points by bringing them again, but I did responded to each of them showing you that your refutations doesn't work and also to prove you wrong, I responded, I did responded logically to your points, I didn't say: 'No you don't, no you haven't, no it isn't' all the time without saying anything else, so stop complaining. Second, that: 'you too' fallacy, I didn't used that kind of fallacy at all in this debate, I never said stuff like: 'Hey! You too!' or 'Yours too!', I pointed out when you called me a 'liar' because my interpretations were different from yours, I said you were an hypocrite for accusing me, that's all, I never said you ARE hypocrite and I never attacked you. I never called you a fan-boy either. If I recall you was the one calling me a fan-boy and saying I support Squall just because I like him more. The only 'fallacy' you found out was when I said that Squall is the best because there wasn't something better without adding anything else and leaving the sentence like that. I conceded the point and I agreed with you in calling that a fallacy, so I don't know why you call everything I point out a fallacy. As long as I have responded to each of your refutations maintaining my stance, you don't need anything more than just accept the logical reasoning. I never ignored your points because I have responded to each of them and you have evidence of that. Still, you don't have to retreat or anything you have no lost, no one is a loser here, you still have to support Cloud, we were just arguing about Squall being the best in the world. You seem to not have anything more than just the stab argument, seriously... That's the only thing you have for Cloud? I can't believe it. Maybe I won in this point, but not the debate. The winners aren't the ones who keeps arguing to the end by the way or the ones who last more, so please don't insinuate that. We have just to focuse on the characters instead of accusing each other, this won't work if we keep this way and I am kind of tired. You say Squall has shown to be just good, but no, I am sorry but that isn't what the plot suggest, the plot suggest he is indeed the best. That's all.

Originally posted by TacDavey
IndridCold:

You attack me personally when you have run out of arguments to defend. You sit back and call me a "fanboy" as if it is so clear that Squall is better and I am just refusing to see it. You do not account for the fact that it is a highly debatable topic. One that is supported by both sides. I have never made a claim I could not back up. I honestly think, as a lot of people do, that Cloud would win. Not because I like him better, but because of all the points I have been discussing with you this entire debate. When one of my points was refuted, I admitted it. As was my point with Sephiroth and Cloud.

But you are so convinced that Squall is the best, that when someone provides a counter argument, you assume they must be a fanboy, with nothing else to go on other than they disagree with you.

I pointed out to you that this was the direct definition of an "ad hominum" fallacy, but that didn't seem to dissuade you.

You've shown nothing meriting Cloud for winning the fight, the only thing you have argued, that I have saw, is about the icicle attack. Thats it...Everything else has been about trying to disprove what Griever or I have said, but you have said nothing at all about Cloud's strength's. Nothing about why he would win or why I should put Cloud over Squall in terms of power and strength. Most of your arguements did come by way of your opinion or just how you interpret things. Like take the Cloud being weak thing for example...Cloud could get stronger because it was so far in his past, but Squall can't get stronger after the icicle attack? How biased can you get??? You call me a logicians worst nightmare? I beg to differ sir, you are a logicians worst nightmare......Oh and of course I cannot give in to you, there's a thin line between whats right and whats fair and your trotting the line.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Tac, I am not going to quote anything from you anymore. But let me point some things out.

First off, you refuted my points by bringing them again, but I did responded to each of them showing you that your refutations doesn't work and also to prove you wrong, I responded, I did responded logically to your points, I didn't say: 'No you don't, no you haven't, no it isn't' all the time without saying anything else, so stop complaining. Second, that: 'you too' fallacy, I didn't used that kind of fallacy at all in this debate, I never said stuff like: 'Hey! You too!' or 'Yours too!', I pointed out when you called me a 'liar' because my interpretations were different from yours, I said you were an hypocrite for accusing me, that's all, I never said you ARE hypocrite and I never attacked you. I never called you a fan-boy either. If I recall you was the one calling me a fan-boy and saying I support Squall just because I like him more. The only 'fallacy' you found out was when I said that Squall is the best because there wasn't something better without adding anything else and leaving the sentence like that. I conceded the point and I agreed with you in calling that a fallacy, so I don't know why you call everything I point out a fallacy. As long as I have responded to each of your refutations maintaining my stance, you don't need anything more than just accept the logical reasoning. I never ignored your points because I have responded to each of them and you have evidence of that. Still, you don't have to retreat or anything you have no lost, no one is a loser here, you still have to support Cloud, we were just arguing about Squall being the best in the world. You seem to not have anything more than just the stab argument, seriously... That's the only thing you have for Cloud? I can't believe it. Maybe I won in this point, but not the debate. The winners aren't the ones who keeps arguing to the end by the way or the ones who last more, so please don't insinuate that. We have just to focuse on the characters instead of accusing each other, this won't work if we keep this way and I am kind of tired. You say Squall has shown to be just good, but no, I am sorry but that isn't what the plot suggest, the plot suggest he is indeed the best. That's all.

GrieverSquall. The thing is, by simply calling me a hypocrite, you committed the fallacy. You don't have to actually say "you too", you know.

The rest of my fallacies were also true. I wasn't just calling out fallacies where they didn't belong.

You may have gone back to each of my posts, but you didn't respond to my refutation, rather you reinforced your stance without actually touching on my refutation. My counter arguments stated that since none of your examples pertained to every swordsman in the world, they cannot show that he is better or worse than them, since it is completely separate from them.

But you didn't respond to that, instead you simply reiterated your stance.

"He gave the title to the best warrior and to the one who most merits and achievements had around the world in the Garden, Squall Leonhart. This pretty much shows Squall's superiority (in all sense) among the rest."

But it doesn't. I have shown it doesn't. Again, SeeD trains top of the line soldiers, but that doesn't mean that any swordsman who comes from SeeD will always no matter what be better than someone who doesn't.

It seems that's where we disagree. And if we get back into it now, it will just go back to the way things were, and I am in no hurry to do that.

Originally posted by IndridCold
I'm pretty sure I was still argueing with you both times that I pointed out the simple observation(personal attack). As I recall I called you a fanboy 2 times....and if you read the posts where I called you a fanboy, I had arguements either in the same post or it was a double post....but they were there. Obviously I struck a nerve though, because you were pretty damn defensive about it lol All in all though I wasn't calling you a fanboy to compensate for a lack of an arguement, which is completly apparent if you reread the posts where arguements are presented in both. I do account for the fact that it is highly debatable topic, but what you don't take into account is that these are video game characters, and that most of the arguements are simply there for plot purposes only. Both Jenova cells and the icicle attack are there to keep the game moving forward and shouldn't be used to determine who would win a fight.

You've shown nothing meriting Cloud for winning the fight, the only thing you have argued, that I have saw, is about the icicle attack. Thats it...Everything else has been about trying to disprove what Griever or I have said, but you have said nothing at all about Cloud's strength's. Nothing about why he would win or why I should put Cloud over Squall in terms of power and strength. Most of your arguements did come by way of your opinion or just how you interpret things. Like take the Cloud being weak thing for example...Cloud could get stronger because it was so far in his past, but Squall can't get stronger after the icicle attack? How biased can you get??? You call me a logicians worst nightmare? I beg to differ sir, you are a logicians worst nightmare......Oh and of course I cannot give in to you, there's a thin line between whats right and whats fair and your trotting the line.

I wasn't becoming defensive, but I was growing steadily more irritated. I was already arguing between two streams of posts and the you added the "fanboy" argument on top of that.

The thing about the Fanboy argument is there is no defense for it. There is literally nothing I can do to defend myself against that line of reasoning. Everything I say would just be met with "liar" as you did a magnificent job of pointing out.

On top of that, it does nothing to combat my arguments, not logically anyway, so it seems that argument is really only there to try and provoke me. I have seen that line of reasoning running rampant in these debates, and it never comes off as logical.

As for the Cloud infantry point. Cloud's infantry days were before he became the Cloud we are debating about in this discussion. Before he was the Mako Enhanced, Jenova Cell Sephiroth cloned, buster sword wielding character we know him as today. That's not the same as Squall, who for all intense and purposes is the same Squall. Granted, he may grow in strength as the game progresses, but with Cloud we are talking about a drastic change. infantry Cloud and Buster Sword Cloud are almost completely different characters.

It seems you want to continue.

Originally posted by TacDavey
GrieverSquall. The thing is, by simply calling me a hypocrite, you committed the fallacy. You don't have to actually say "you too", you know.

I am very sorry, but I've already pointed out why I've said that and it wasn't to hurt your arguments nor to attack you at all. You were the one making one fallacy, you called me a fan-boy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The rest of my fallacies were also true. I wasn't just calling out fallacies where they didn't belong.

I didn't said you were calling out fallacies just because you wanted to, but I'm defending myself saying that not all of my points were fallacies, just one that I've conceded by the way. Repeating the same won't make your words being more valid/true than before.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You may have gone back to each of my posts, but you didn't respond to my refutation, rather you reinforced your stance without actually touching on my refutation. My counter arguments stated that since none of your examples pertained to every swordsman in the world, they cannot show that he is better or worse than them, since it is completely separate from them.

Tac... Don't be childish, I have responded to your refutations, I haven't 'reinforced' anything, I have responded to show you that your refutations aren't valid, that's all. I have also noticed that you don't have much knowledge about Final Fantay VIII, so it must be hard for you to argue about it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But you didn't respond to that, instead you simply reiterated your stance.

Again... No. The one repeating the same refutations is you.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But it doesn't. I have shown it doesn't. Again, SeeD trains top of the line soldiers, but that doesn't mean that any swordsman who comes from SeeD will always no matter what be better than someone who doesn't.

SeeD is the most powerful special force in the planet, Tac. Just Scan a Galbandian Soldier, look by yourself to have solid proof that they aren't even in their league and the Galbandian soldiers are around the whole world. The same goes to Esthar, Trabia, White SeeDs, etc.
Squall being the best among them puts him above the rest, that alone. I can't believe you are arguing this.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It seems that's where we disagree. And if we get back into it now, it will just go back to the way things were, and I am in no hurry to do that.

Actually, we disagree in everything, the only thing that we agreed if I recall is that the battle system from Final Fantasy X is the best, lol.

Indeed, well it will have to stay that way, because I think I've had just about enough of this debate. It has to end somewhere, and it has become increasingly evident that no one is changing their minds, so let's just end it before things get REALLY out of hand.

I'll leave my points and you leave yours and people who come to this thread can read them and decide for themselves who they think would win.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Indeed, well it will have to stay that way, because I think I've had just about enough of this debate. It has to end somewhere, and it has become increasingly evident that no one is changing their minds, so let's just end it before things get REALLY out of hand.

I agree with Indridcold, I think the same.

squall would win cuz look at what he has to go trew to to save time he has to fight ultimecia and she has like 2mill hp when you add all the 4 fights at the end together. then he was trained not just given geneticly enhanced a lil.
i can beat ff7 in like 3 days but ff8 is just so dam crazy it took me 5 days.
cloud is a lil emo just look at him the way he acts and looks.
squall is a loner cuz the closest thing to a sister and family he knew left him at a young age and never told him why that ****s people up most of the time. in a 1 on 1 fight squall wins

sry for puting gameplay stuff in here

Originally posted by MrSleepy
squall would win cuz look at what he has to go trew to to save time he has to fight ultimecia and she has like 2mill hp when you add all the 4 fights at the end together. then he was trained not just given geneticly enhanced a lil.
i can beat ff7 in like 3 days but ff8 is just so dam crazy it took me 5 days.
cloud is a lil emo just look at him the way he acts and looks.
squall is a loner cuz the closest thing to a sister and family he knew left him at a young age and never told him why that ****s people up most of the time. in a 1 on 1 fight squall wins

sry for puting gameplay stuff in here

None of what you brought up relates at all to who would win in a fight, only who you like better. Squall's attitude, his family life, and how he dresses have no bearing on who is stronger. And the rest is game mechanics.