Originally posted by Burning thought
The quote says MC dodges, and yet you are saying "why would he do that!", well the quote says he did.....
Originally posted by Burning thought
Wheres my what exactly? are you confused on what ime debating for something? ime debating that your assumption on the quote is worthlessby mocking your assumption by making many of my own, so why would I require any more evidence than you when ime doing exactly the same to prove my side of the argument? your not making any sense....
Sorry. Once again, not buying. I made the assumption that he did a Neo-dodge. You made the assumption (quite clearly depicted in the quote I singled out below) that he did a simple dive and/roll akin to James Bond.
It doesn't help when you say that it's meant to be a parody point, then you address it right after and take it seriously. And even if what you say is true - if it was simply meant to mock my point instead of actually contributing to the thread - then you are guilty of trolling. I leave it to you to pick.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Why am I mistaken? if its some sort of impressive perceive bullet time move where he didnt dive or roll, but actually did an Agent smith then why wouldn't the author draw it out like it is something special. The fact its just a single quick quote outlines the fact he prob did simply do a roll or typical soldiers evasive maneuver and nothing special, since all it gets is a quick statement. If it was actually as impressive as you seem to assume, it would have been in more detail.
Chief went through feats of similar calibre of impressiveness; feats such as obliterating a target dummy made from reinforced concrete in a single punch, or leaping up three meter high walls wearing more than a half ton of hardware - they were arguably as impressive as, but in different ways than, being fast enough to avoid bullets already in motion.
And they were too described very briefly, in little more than a passing manner (just before the 'worthless' quote of mine came up - but in no way negates their degree of impressiveness.
Originally posted by Burning thought
erm the burden of proof is on me? ime saying your wrong for making a bold assumption, how is the burden of proof on me exactly? your the one making the assumption/claim...
You have made the claim that, despite your hasty attempt to cover it up as a mockery, that it was more likely that the Master Chief executed a tuck and roll dive, something I have long since disproved.
Originally posted by Burning thought
erm it holds factual ground, the fact is that it does not say anything at all about MC doing some crazy super speed bullet time dodge, it simply says "dodges" a few, and youve not got any fact, youve got a few statements youve come out with, thats not fact, even if its logical to you, or a deduction, its still not fact nor is it any more than assumption.
You, on the opposing hand, assumed it to be, in your words, "a James Bond style dive/roll out of the way". Remember now?
All you're really doing here is calling the kettle black, and deducting under fallacious logic that:
Assumption = unclear = entirely untrue. I addressed your continued use of "It's an assumption" below.
Yes, I have given you evidence and facts - and you attempt to cop them out predictably, because you cannot find any other way to deny them.
Originally posted by Burning thought
yes it does, none of which are [b]factually stated make it highly useless as a piece of evidence towards Chief having some kind of bullet speed/time effect.No, ime trying to prove to you that your assumption is not what makes it fact, and that the evidence is inconclusive and pretty useless. Which is also fact. Your the one making desperate analogies and apparent logical deductions to try and make "dodge" become "super Neo speed!".
Stop at assumptions and youve got the reason why its not good evidence at all
No ime not making the assumption, my assumptions were as a mockery of your own to try and make you realise assumption is not fact, even if you are delusional enough to think everything you think is both logical and fact. I pointed out the definition because it could easily be many things that the quote meant, your just over hyping it.
Here you go with "you lack evidence" nonsense again when ime using the same quote you are alongside actual definition to play down your idea that your opinion and assumption is fact and actual evidence.
The only time I did it is when i made a mockery of your own assumption, and here we go with more delusions
So you just admitted your entire argument is based on theory and assumptions...great...yet you continue....ime sorry but theory and assumption does not count as any solid evidence for Chief no matter how enthusiastic a fanboy states it.
Yes but it also includes many other more likely things that are more likely due to the lack of actual detail put on the event. MC actually doging bullets because hes just that fast and can percieve them is worth more than the word "dodge" and regardless, as my argument stands, its not about what he actually did, its about tossing away your claim of "my assumptions are fact" that you seem to follow when none of your theories are fact.[/b]
Precisely. I make an assumption, and have given my supporting evidence accordingly. How many times must we go over this?
I have stated quite clearly in my previous post that my assumption is the 'MOST LIKELY' one to happen, because of the factual support that I have given it. 'Most likely', Burning. That means me attributing it to be a possibility - albeit the most likely one - from surrounding facts and evidence.
And to the best of my knowledge, very likely possibility =/= fact. That single statement from earlier more or less dismisses this entire passage you just wrote as simply noise - again, if you had been paying attention and thinking critically, you would not have made such an enormous error in accusation.
If I make an assumption, I make it clear that it IS an assumption in the first place. If you want, go ahead and show me where I explicitly stated that my theory was total fact - the idea of the two words being in the same sentence is...well, funny, for lack of a better word.
Next time you use the words "It's an assumption!", that's a pretty clear sign that you didn't bother reading this part, or purposefully ignored it as to be able to continue using your "assumption" lifeline.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats very poetic DarkC, raging sea? lol, as i said enough with your insecurities and story making, this is a debate not happy hour in the corner of a libary although your arguments may resemble happy hour 🙄
Originally posted by Burning thought
What I said is fact, your assumptions are wild and innacurate,
Go ahead, it's part of the debate. Explain why they're 'wild' and 'inaccurate' when I have backed them up, and you have yet to respond relevantly.
Originally posted by Burning thought
the actual official evidence which is the one quote you provided does not actual say what your assuming which is why you automatically fail in the debate.
Are you, right now? No, not nearly.
But, see, this is the latest shield you're hiding behind. It's a pattern.
You: "You're assuming, which means you automatically fail."
Me: "Yes, Burning, but you see...I have given you significant amounts of facts and evidence that my assumption is the correct one."
You: "They're do not count as facts and evidence."
Me: "Of course they are. They're from the book itself and the background information behind it. If you want, go ahead and prove me wrong."
You: "..."
You: "You're assuming, which means you automatically fail."
Repetitiveness at its best.
Originally posted by Burning thought
its not undeniable until youve actuall supported it with quotes themselves, you writing out the story does not count as evidence in a debate...you need quotes, page numers, scans, videos.....thats real undeniable fact.
Me not yet citing it in proper format actually does nothing to disrupt their status as 'evidence'. Nice try.
But seeing as how you so firmly believe in quotes and page numbers as action evidence - I will happily oblige. See below.
Originally posted by Burning thought
ofc its an irrelvent question, both of them are, your asking me why he did it, how is that important when he did indeed do it. If his military training over 20 years is as extensive as you say it was, he would have been in a state of surprise in the first place, but he was.
You say, "He did it anyways."
I say, "He did what? Did he dive? Roll? Flip? Duck?"
We're trying to attribute a specific action to said quote, in relevance of the circumstances surrounding that event. The fact that you've instantly just made an assumption regarding said action doesn't help at all.
You saying "But he did do it anyways" factually does nothing to topple my argument, because that's still you assuming that it was a specified action, which you've yet to support and/or explain.
You see, I go "IF he did this specified action as included in the 'dodge' definition, he would been surprised by reason A, and undertaken action A." Your claim "But he dived/rolled to the side anyways" is simply lacking logic and rationality.
Originally posted by Burning thought
well their not evidence are they, their you listing things, making a little list is all good and well but if it was a court case, having the killer handing the judge a list he had handwritten of events that would make it impossible for him to have been the murderer does not count for evidence does it...
Yeah, that's 'evidence', Burning.
Originally posted by Burning thought
This entire post is not part of the debate or argument, as I said before, read that post through carefully and conduct your posts with more professionalism, your requirement for idolising yourself to fight back insecurities is not within my interests.1) this first point is the only important point youve brought up in this entire debate, if you can give the page number and actual quote from a book or actual evidence that supports his pre-Mjolnir reaction speed is already enough to do the things you say he can.
whats [b]very
amusing, is that I talked with Jaxx on MSN last night precisely about how you were foolish not to bring up any evidence that he himself claimed earlier, did he just remind you or something? now youve made a fool of yourself its too late, your assumptions and nonsense were not only not fact, but you continued even though Jaxx who considers himself lesser of Halo intellect than you came up with a worthy point straight off the bat....but now it seems ive won the previous debate, its pretty much a waste of time is all thats happend if you have the evidence for the 20ms speed. [/B]
More 'professionalism', once again - ask VG vs to compare your posts vs mine.
Because you didn't even reply to it, which I assumed you either ignored or took for granted. If you really want, go ahead and continue mocking with the Jaxx issue. See below.
But I'll extend you the courtesy of actually answering your challenge here, something you haven't been bothering to do:
HALO: THE FALL OF REACH
Pg 57-58
1.) Carbide ceramic ossification: Advanced material: special metal and ceramic layers, grafting onto skeletal structure to make bones virtually unbreakable. Recommended coverage not to exceed 3 percent total bone mass because of significant white blood cell necrosis. Specific risk for pre- and near-post pubescent adolescents: skeletal growth spurts may cause irreparable bone pulverization.
2.) Muscular enhancement injections: Protein complex is injected intramuscular, to increase tissue density and decrease lactate recovery time. Risk: 5 percent of test subjects experience a fatal cardiac volume increase.
3.) Catalytic thyroid implant: Platinum pellet containing human growth hormone catalyst is implanted in the thyroid to boost growth of skeletal and muscle tissues. Risk: rare instances of elephantiasis. Suppressed sexual drive.
4.) Occipital capillary reversal: Submergence and boosted blood vessel flow beneath the rods and cones of subject’s retina. Produces a marked visual perception increase. Risk: retinal rejection and detachment. Permanent blindness.
5.) Superconducting fabrication of neural dendrites: Alteration of bio-electrical nerve transduction to shielded electronic transduction. Three hundred percent increase in subject’s reflexes. Anecdotal evidence of marked increase in intelligence, memory, and creativity. Risk: significant instances of Parkinson’s disease and Fletcher’s syndrome.
More? OK.
HALO: THE FALL OF REACH
Pg. 73-74
Dr: Halsey: "And their reaction times?"
Chief PO Mendez: "We estimate it to be approximately twenty milliseconds - significantly faster in combat situations."
And as a closing statement, the quote that you dubbed 'worthless' so many times, is to be found on Pg.113-114.
There you go - proof that yes, he possesses the capability to.percieve a moving bullet and to react to it. Evidence, even by under your standards as mentioned earlier, that is infallible. You literally have no way to counter now.
Touche.
Originally posted by Burning thought
[b]NO, wrong......you see this is prob why this debate has gotten nowhere, my entire argument is against your assumptions and that that quote is not useful evidence for him actually having bullet reaction. I brought up the diving and rolling as examples of other things "dodge" could mean.[/b]
You were under the impression that he was unable to perform a 'super-Neo', as you were referring to; and that you were quite plainly suggesting that it was more likely that the Master Chief dove and/or rolled out of the way - and that the 'surprise' that was mentioned was either that the bullets missed him by doing so, or that the suit was so easily maneuverable. The latter part rather seals your side of the argument with a ring of finality.
Don't attempt to weasel out of statements or claims you earlier made.
Originally posted by Burning thought
These last two paragraphs are pathetic idolising of yourself, your arrogence does not equel fact or logic in your arguments ime afraid, so ill ignore this nonsense.
You simply cop it out as "not part of the debate", where it is so painfully obvious that it's really the entire debate in a nutshell.
Originally posted by Burning thought
your way through assumption and theory came to the only shred of possible useful evidence for Chief being able to perform bullet reaction feats through Jaxx reminding you [b]because I reminded him.[/B]
EDIT - Oh, wait, looks like he already took offense, lol.
Even in the remote case that he did tell me about it, that still doesn't change the fact that I have now given you direct irrefutable evidence of my points, in your standards.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Game, set and match, indeed.....so as you sit defeated after wasting so much of both our times, "blundered", "blustered" and what was it? holding onto your rafting in a stormy sea? sorry ime not as poetic as you are it seems.....
You claim that you're trying to prove that my assumption is not fact. You may as well have been trying to prove the sky is blue.
Tbh, I don't think that anyone actually claimed M could actually pull Neo-like movement to dodge bullets. I see it more like Ryu's bullet dodging "slipping bitween the bullets like they weren't even there." - Chun Li _Street Fighter Alpha Anime.
Neo's moves required an incredible amount of actual speed, the kind that leaves after images, and motion blur. Thats easily multi mach levels of speed, MC really does have very quick reaction times and faster than peak human speed, but nobody claims he's multi mach speed.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Neo's moves required an incredible amount of actual speed, the kind that leaves after images, and motion blur. Thats easily multi mach levels of speed, MC really does have very quick reaction times and faster than peak human speed, but nobody claims he's multi mach speed.
The way I see it is more simple, both Neo and Chief have fast enough reflexes to percieve a travelling bullet after it has left the gun and to shift aside, hence my willing use of the Matrix allusion.
Originally posted by MadMel
noone in dbz has moved lightspeed without using IT 😬
They're just moving too fast for normal light to follow where they are at that instant, so they leave a brief afterimage, just like in the Matrix.
Originally posted by DarkC
See below for reasoning.No, you're simply trying to duck out of having to form a proper counterresponse for a rather hasty statement earlier. If you really had been 'mocking' it the entire way, you would have done so right at the beginning instead of trying to bring it up now as a last resort.
Sorry. Once again, not buying. I made the assumption that he did a Neo-dodge. You made the assumption (quite clearly depicted in the quote I singled out below) that he did a simple dive and/roll akin to James Bond.
It doesn't help when you say that it's meant to be a parody point, then you address it right after and take it seriously. And even if what you say is true - if it was simply meant to mock my point instead of actually contributing to the thread - then you are guilty of trolling. I leave it to you to pick.
I would be inclined to agree with you here, but for the following:
Chief went through feats of similar calibre of impressiveness; feats such as obliterating a target dummy made from reinforced concrete in a single punch, or leaping up three meter high walls wearing more than a half ton of hardware - they were arguably as impressive as, but in different ways than, being fast enough to avoid bullets already in motion.
And they were too described very briefly, in little more than a passing manner (just before the 'worthless' quote of mine came up - but in no way negates their degree of impressiveness.
Exactly, and I have given you my supporting evidence and backup for said assumption - you have not. Hence, why the call is on you at the time being.
You have made the claim that, despite your hasty attempt to cover it up as a mockery, that it was more likely that the Master Chief executed a tuck and roll dive, something I have long since disproved.
Precisely, and that's the point. I assume it to be, in your words, "super speed bullet time dodge" because of the surrounding circumstances.
You, on the opposing hand, assumed it to be, in your words, "a James Bond style dive/roll out of the way". Remember now?
All you're really doing here is calling the kettle black, and deducting under fallacious logic that:
I addressed your continued use of "It's an assumption" below.
[b]Assumption = unclear = entirely untrue.Yes, I have given you evidence and facts - and you attempt to cop them out predictably, because you cannot find any other way to deny them. [/B]
It does contribute, any mockery does, lets go back to the Toddler again, your making ridiculous assumptions and trying to pass them off as evidence, by mocking you by making assumptions of my own ime actually pointing it out to you how foolish your notions are.
But you see, you say they were described brieftly, but how brieftly? does it actually say they were destroyed in a single punch, and that it was impressive to do so? I mean theres a diffrence here, if it actually says he punched a concrete dummy and it was destroyed in a single blow, then thats your evidence for him having high strength. Wheras your quote your using for this apprent speed feat says nothing about perceiving bullets and moving accordingly, it simply says "dodge". Which leads me to belive justly so that it was not some super imrpessive speed manouver. Infact I would say such a speed manouver is even more impressive than smashing concrete dummies and worth even more praise.
But ime not making any assumption as part of my whole argument, the only assumption was the mockery one earlier, my main argument was clear from the beginning is that the quote is inconclusive and your assumption does not give chief factual evidence for said speed.
no, youve been confused between my argument and my own, your hteo ne argueing for assumption=actual evidence, ime argueing against.....
Originally posted by DarkC
Seeing as how the few paragraphs above were addressing the exact same issue, I may as well reply to them all here.Precisely. I make an assumption, and have given my supporting evidence accordingly. How many times must we go over this?
I have stated quite clearly in my previous post that my assumption is the 'MOST LIKELY' one to happen, because of the factual support that I have given it. 'Most likely', Burning. That means me attributing it to be a possibility - albeit the most likely one - from surrounding facts and evidence.
And to the best of my knowledge, very likely possibility =/= fact. That single statement from earlier more or less dismisses this entire passage you just wrote as simply noise - again, if you had been paying attention and thinking critically, you would not have made such an enormous error in accusation.
If I make an assumption, I make it clear that it IS an assumption in the first place. If you want, go ahead and show me where I explicitly stated that my theory was total fact - the idea of the two words being in the same sentence is...well, funny, for lack of a better word.
Next time you use the words "It's an assumption!", that's a pretty clear sign that you didn't bother reading this part, or purposefully ignored it as to be able to continue using your "assumption" lifeline.
Will you stop ranting?
Care to explain how?
Go ahead, it's part of the debate. Explain why they're 'wild' and 'inaccurate' when I have backed them up, and you have yet to respond relevantly.
Sure, if I had made an empty claim and pretended like it's fact the whole time without even bothering to explain myself, nor provide facts/evidence as support. Yeah, you would be correct then.
Are you, right now? No, not nearly.
But, see, this is the latest shield you're hiding behind. It's a pattern.
You: "You're assuming, which means you automatically fail."
Me: "Yes, Burning, but you see...I have given you significant amounts of facts and evidence that my assumption is the correct one."
You: "They're do not count as facts and evidence."
Me: "Of course they are. They're from the book itself and the background information behind it. If you want, go ahead and prove me wrong."
You: "..."
You: "You're assuming, which means you automatically fail."Repetitiveness at its best.
Moot. They're still evidence. If you had taken the time, to say...go to the library or bookstore and actually get this book, you would have seen that I was correct anyway. Makes little difference either way.
Me not yet citing it in proper format actually does nothing to disrupt their status as 'evidence'. Nice try.
But seeing as how you so firmly believe in quotes and page numbers as action evidence - I will happily oblige. See below.
No, he 'dodged', which means no specified action remember? You provided the Webster's definition of that word. Why on Earth am I having to remind you the significance of that definition in this debate, when you were the one who brought it up originally?
You say, "He did it anyways."
I say, "He did what? Did he dive? Roll? Flip? Duck?"We're trying to attribute a specific action to said quote, in relevance of the circumstances surrounding that event. The fact that you've instantly just made an assumption regarding said action doesn't help at all.
You saying "But he did do it anyways" factually does nothing to topple my argument, because that's still you assuming that it was a specified action, which you've yet to support and/or explain.
You see, I go "IF he did this specified action as included in the 'dodge' definition, he would been surprised by reason A, and undertaken action A." Your claim "But he dived/rolled to the side anyways" is simply lacking logic and rationality.
Listing facts, figures, events that did happen or do exist, in lieu of supporting my first conclusion much earlier.
Yeah, that's 'evidence', Burning.
I dont see what your even moaning about here, is it even a reply to my post or a troll? going on about how "assumption" is my some sort of lifeline? its simple fact assumption is not fact, yet your constantly bringing up your theories to suggest evidence for MC.
Their wild and innacurate because theres no reason for MC to have done such a seemingly spectaculour feat of speed AND been surprised about it when the author simply makes a single word "dodge", no matter how much you assume, "dodge" will never become a factual "yes MC did percieve bullets and do super neo", that alone negates all your "zomg but hes been a soldier for 20 years!", the fact that he was surprised at all makes it obvious either A: his time in the suit has not be sufficent to realise his apparent increase in reaction speed and B: his 20 years of soldiering does not give him immunity to being "surprised" at dodging bullets, furthermore, from your own words and my discussion with Jaxx...he apprently had bullet reaction before the suit, so......where does that leave your argument exactley? if he already had bullet reaction before it, and according to you, his training makes him immune to not being surprised just for diving out of the way of bullets. Then I would say your argument is now pretty weak, in comparison to my argument that his time in the suit is likely not long enough to realise the armour allows him the same agility as if he were wearing none at all but my argument is not to decide what Chief was actually doing, ime not interested in helping your side of the debate.
Explanation or not, you fail at the debate for trying to use assumption, even if you "think" its undeniable assumption as evidence, the only worthwhile evidence, does not hint to "bullet time" and according to current evidence (him already having super reaction apprently) your assumptions now seem more and more unlikely.
no no no, this is how it is:
You: Chief can go super reaction speed because it says it in "fall of reach"
me: show me the quote and the paragraph that its in to set the scene
You: (posts a single line that does not point to anything), there it is, Chief can dodge bullets with super speed!
Me: erm sorry but that does not say that at all, dont assume "dodge" means some kind of super reaction to bullets
You: Here look at my theory and assumption! thats good enough evidence that dodge means perceiving bullets!
Me: ime sorry, but its still worthless assumption, it does not give evidence for his apparent speed, the "dodge" could mean many diff rent things, including diving, jumping or rolling.
You: but it couldnt! coz it wouldnt make sense and due to my theory its more likely he perceived each bullet and moved accordingly!
Me: ime sorry but I dont buy it, its still assumption, not fact....
You: assumption is your lifeline! my logic is undeniable and ime using facts!
Me: no your using inconclusive evidence
You: facts!
Me: inconclusi.....
You: facts!
Thats pretty much it in a nutshell, your simply trying to put your opinion and assumption from the beginning as fact, it will never be worthwhile evidence, the quote does not support your assumption.
Ime sorry did you just tell me that I should actually go to the bookstore and find YOUR evidence? i thought as much......
And no, ime not trying to attribute any notion to "dodge", ime telling you your assumption is not worthwhile evidence for what you belive he is doing. Trying to come to our own conclusion is pointless since its simply not evidence nor is it fact.
Originally posted by DarkC
Terribly wrong. This entire post is, literally, the extent of the entire debate that I have provided. Don't attempt to cop it out simply because you can't form any counter arguments. If you want, find counter arguments or supporting facts - but you can't walk into here and say "Hey, your evidence doesn't count" without giving a logical reason why.More 'professionalism', once again - ask VG vs to compare your posts vs mine.
Because you didn't even reply to it, which I assumed you either ignored or took for granted. If you really want, go ahead and continue mocking with the Jaxx issue. See below.
But I'll extend you the courtesy of actually answering your challenge here, something you haven't been bothering to do:
[b]HALO: THE FALL OF REACH
Pg 57-58
1.) Carbide ceramic ossification: Advanced material: special metal and ceramic layers, grafting onto skeletal structure to make bones virtually unbreakable. Recommended coverage not to exceed 3 percent total bone mass because of significant white blood cell necrosis. Specific risk for pre- and near-post pubescent adolescents: skeletal growth spurts may cause irreparable bone pulverization.
2.) Muscular enhancement injections: Protein complex is injected intramuscular, to increase tissue density and decrease lactate recovery time. Risk: 5 percent of test subjects experience a fatal cardiac volume increase.
3.) Catalytic thyroid implant: Platinum pellet containing human growth hormone catalyst is implanted in the thyroid to boost growth of skeletal and muscle tissues. Risk: rare instances of elephantiasis. Suppressed sexual drive.
4.) Occipital capillary reversal: Submergence and boosted blood vessel flow beneath the rods and cones of subject’s retina. Produces a marked visual perception increase. Risk: retinal rejection and detachment. Permanent blindness.
5.) Superconducting fabrication of neural dendrites: Alteration of bio-electrical nerve transduction to shielded electronic transduction. Three hundred percent increase in subject’s reflexes. Anecdotal evidence of marked increase in intelligence, memory, and creativity. Risk: significant instances of Parkinson’s disease and Fletcher’s syndrome.
More? OK.
HALO: THE FALL OF REACH
Pg. 73-74
Dr: Halsey: "And their reaction times?"
Chief PO Mendez: "We estimate it to be approximately twenty milliseconds - significantly faster in combat situations."
And as a closing statement, the quote that you dubbed 'worthless' so many times, is to be found on Pg.113-114.
There you go - proof that yes, he possesses the capability to.percieve a moving bullet and to react to it. Evidence, even by under your standards as mentioned earlier, that is infallible. You literally have no way to counter now.
Touche.
No, your entire argument is based off of you making an assumption that he dove or rolled out of the way, something I have long since corrected and you've yet to admit. Since that particular one lacks proper evidence/backup, you chose to attack my argument itself.
Don't attempt to weasel out of statements or claims you earlier made.
And what about the above facts and counter arguments I have listed in so comprehensive a format as to be impossible to misunderstand?
You simply cop it out as "not part of the debate", where it is so painfully obvious that it's really the entire debate in a nutshell.
You claim that you're trying to prove that my assumption is not fact. You may as well have been trying to prove the sky is blue. [/B]
As I said before, it was just a whine/rant because you didnt like me pointing out your insecurities. And your constant use of antagonistic ploys and idolisms immediatley make you less professional in posting and youve lost the debate anyway making it irrelvent.
Why would I counter that? thats exactley what my entire argument has been all about.....ALL about....your doing exactley what ive asked you to do from the start, show me worthwhile evidence, and now after all this time (and a little help from me) youve realised your assumptions about your worthless quote are not useful, and that this new evidence is the only good proof for MC abilities....
so yes, Touche.....I win the debate as it were.
Ime sorry lol, but no, your wrong.....Dive/roll were obviously suggestions I made for what "dodge" acutally meant other than super reaction speed. Its been obvious throughout the debate that was my argument, heres what started it:
Originally posted by Burning thoughtJudging by the quote you gave its no more than James bond dodging....thats a pathetic shred of evidence on your part even if it is illegal on this forum.
from the start ime against the use of the quote as any real evidence, why would I give the time of day debating what Masterchief actually did do while dogding? its not even relevent to this thread....technically your entire argument was a troll argument and perhaps even a massive Straw man.
and here is where your major assumptions began:
Originally posted by DarkCHe was surprised at how much faster the armor made him, not that a few bullets missed him. Remember, this was the first field testing of Mark V MJOLNIR. He just stood up and let the rounds deflect briefly, presumably to test its durability. It makes no sense that he would be surprised at doing something an ordinary human can accomplish.
Your entire argument was based pretty much on this assumption...which is amusing because according to recent evidence he was already super reactive before the suit...so...were you lieing or is it yet another one of your "blusting" "blunders" and "holding on to your raft in the raging seas"?
lol, your evidence? as ive said before, your previous evidence has been your own little stories and a single lefit piece which was a weak quote, only now with my help (as well as Jaxx w/e) do you realise that you could cough up something worthwhile, giving me what I want as well as proving my superiority in the debate.
Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Excuse me?
To both of you, its blatently obvious that you helped him out thanks to my hinting, I mean the [b]very[/]b next post after our discussion the guy comes up with the very evidence I was anoid that he did not bring up instead of wasting my time and failing at assumptions in the process.
Ill admit I cannot prove it on the forum, but the evidence is too strong to decide against, certainly for me, its obvious your trying to hold on to what little crumbs of pride you can collect up as your entire argument cracks to the ground.
yes DarkC, I may as well be proving the sky is blue, thing is, you were not convinced for the past pages, showing your short sightedness and lack of debating skills.
So in the end, I win the debate, show you up as a failure at debating points and finally it seems too rich to belive that this incredible coincidence of you bringing up that point leaving me thinking I actually let you full circle, enabling you to "attempt" any hope of regaining lost cred myself.
Originally posted by Burning thought
It does contribute, any mockery does, lets go back to the Toddler again
If you're not debating, you're just simply here for the sake of arguing, which is to say...trolling. Like I said, if that was purely intended as a mockery, then you're not posting in a constructive manner. If it wasn't a mockery and was intended to be a serious claim or post, I have disproved it.
There is no more that is needed to say.
Originally posted by Burning thought
your making ridiculous assumptions and trying to pass them off as evidence
Where on Earth did you get that notion from? Seriously.
Originally posted by Burning thought
by mocking you by making assumptions of my own ime actually pointing it out to you how foolish your notions are.
Read above. If you're not going to post in a mature or constructive manner - why are you still here?
Originally posted by Burning thought
But you see, you say they were described brieftly, but how brieftly? does it actually say they were destroyed in a single punch, and that it was impressive to do so? I mean theres a diffrence here, if it actually says he punched a concrete dummy and it was destroyed in a single blow, then thats your evidence for him having high strength.
Precisely. That's evidence for him having massive strength, which is why I mentioned that they were impressive in different ways, but still impressive on the same scale. Super fast, super strong, etc, etc. The point being, they were described in the same way - very quickly and fleetingly - which rather negates your comment on it "being too brief as to count as impressive".
If you want another example of short descriptions of noteworthy feats, the man described Chief running at 104 km/h later in the book with: "As he moved, he felt his Achilles tendon tear. He crossed the half kilometer stretch in seventeen seconds flat and rang the bell."
That's it. A rather bang-bang-bang descriptions sort of author, Nylund seems.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Wheras your quote your using for this apprent speed feat says nothing about perceiving bullets and moving accordingly, it simply says "dodge".
It's not the assumption itself that is fact, Burning, it's the evidence that I used to support it that is.
Now, this leads to your comment:
Originally posted by Burning thought
Which leads me to belive justly so that it was not some super imrpessive speed manouver.
You believed that the Chief would have done more of a dive or a roll out of the way - don't even deny that, this is what you believed - rather than the Neo-esque dodge, while technically the definition of the word dodge includes any action undertaken to avoid it. Both your comprehension of the word 'dodge' and mine are technically included.
Scroll down if you want elaboration.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Infact I would say such a speed manouver is even more impressive than smashing concrete dummies and worth even more praise.
Originally posted by Burning thought
But ime not making any assumption as part of my whole argument, the only assumption was the mockery one earlier, my main argument was clear from the beginning is that the quote is inconclusive and your assumption does not give chief factual evidence for said speed.
Following me here?
Originally posted by Burning thought
no, youve been confused between my argument and my own, your hteo ne argueing for assumption=actual evidence, ime argueing against.....
Not buying, yet again.
Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont see what your even moaning about here, is it even a reply to my post or a troll? going on about how "assumption" is my some sort of lifeline? its simple fact assumption [b]is not fact, yet your constantly bringing up your theories to suggest evidence for MC.[/b]
Your silly accusation of me apparently trying to pass off an assumption as fact holds no ground here at all, considering how many times I've referred to my own arguments as "my assumptions" or "this theory", etc. They're assumptions and theories, Burning, as said by myself - which really attributes to me not believing they're fact.
And despite this relatively simple concept, you continue to pointlessly pelt me left and right with "it's an assumption" as though it was, in my words, a lifeline. Hence, the term.
Considering how you only began to use this as your substitution for an actual reply - in the later stages of this debate - I hardly think it's plausible for you to suggest that you've been trying to get at this point from the very beginning. Again, nice try.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Their wild and innacurate because theres no reason for MC to have done such a seemingly spectaculour feat of speed
I'm not sure why you made this claim when beforehand I had already given you a perfectly capable reason to explain why he would have done it. It's
Originally posted by Burning thought
AND been surprised about it when the author simply makes a single word "dodge", no matter how much you assume, "dodge" will never become a factual "yes MC did percieve bullets and do super neo", "that alone negates all your zomg but hes been a soldier for 20 years!",
Originally posted by Burning thought
he fact that he was surprised at all makes it obvious either A: his time in the suit has not be sufficent to realise his apparent increase in reaction speed and B: his 20 years of soldiering does not give him immunity to being "surprised" at dodging bullets,
Originally posted by Burning thought
furthermore, from your own words and my discussion with Jaxx...he apprently had bullet reaction [b]before the suit, so......where does that leave your argument exactley?
if he already had bullet reaction before it, and according to you, his training makes him immune to not being surprised just for diving out of the way of bullets. Then I would say your argument is now pretty weak, in comparison to my argument that his time in the suit is likely not long enough to realise the armour allows him the same agility as if he were wearing none at all but my argument is not to decide what Chief was actually doing, ime not interested in helping your side of the debate.[/b]
Right where it stands, really. The only thing that changes is that apparently 20ms is not enough to dodge a bullet yet. I'll live with that error, since it makes little difference anyway.
And did Jaxx tell you about the training CTF session, or the mission following?
Judging from the mission right after the bioaugmentation and the incident in the gym, he did not have bullet-time capability. During the training session he 'flipped through the air, narrowly avoiding the stun rounds that came his way'.
And to put this particular point of yours under the guillotine, he took a bullet in the gut from a direct confrontation during the mission that followed right after, which by the way, he got a Purple Heart for.
HALO: THE FALL OF REACH
Pg. 90-91
"He kicked down the door and took in the situation at a glance. Three men crouched behind boxes armed with older MA-2 submachine guns, with Watts behind them.
The men opened fire.
John dove to the side. Three bullets impacted against his armor and knocked the breath from him - he felt one penetrate and ping off his ribs."
===
Kelly: "The bullet is still inside."
Kelly: "This may sting a little."
"The biofoam seared through his insides like a thousand burning ants. The anti-bacterial, tissue-regenerative foam polymer would stop any internal bleeding and to stave off the shock."
(The armor mentioned is SPI armor, not MJOLNIR. Pg 70 explains.)
So if he already had bullet dodging capability, why was he slow enough to let three bullets hit him even after diving to the side, let alone dodge one Neo-style?
My basic argument here still stands - after MJOLNIR was Chief able to be fast enough to dodge bullets. No buts, ands, or ifs.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Explanation or not, you fail at the debate for trying to use assumption
Originally posted by Burning thought
even if you "think" its undeniable assumption as evidence
The background info and evidence I support the assumption with - THOSE are the facts, not the assumption itself. I shouldn't have to go over this again, but knowing you, I likely will have to anyway.
Don't make this mistake again. 'Assumption' or 'theory' is in no way a connotation of the word 'proof'. Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by Burning thought
the only [b]worthwhile evidence[/b]
Really.
Originally posted by Burning thought
no no no, this is how it is:You: Chief can go super reaction speed because it says it in "fall of reach"
me: show me the quote and the paragraph that its in to set the scene
You: (posts a single line that does not point to anything), there it is, Chief can dodge bullets with super speed!
Me: erm sorry but that does not say that at all, dont assume "dodge" means some kind of super reaction to bullets
You: Here look at my theory and assumption! thats good enough evidence that dodge means perceiving bullets!
Me: ime sorry, but its still worthless assumption, it does not give evidence for his apparent speed, the "dodge" could mean many diff rent things, including diving, jumping or rolling.
You: but it couldnt! coz it wouldnt make sense and due to my theory its more likely he perceived each bullet and moved accordingly!
Me: ime sorry but I dont buy it, its still assumption, not fact....
You: assumption is your lifeline! my logic is undeniable and ime using facts!
Me: no your using inconclusive evidence
You: facts!
Me: inconclusi.....
You: facts!Thats pretty much it in a nutshell, your simply trying to put your opinion and assumption from the beginning as fact, it will never be worthwhile evidence, the quote does not support your assumption.
Once again, when I said "That means that he'd be able to see the bullet and avoid it", you took it a little too literally and thought that I was attempting to convey my opinion as fact. I don't recall ever saying something along the lines of "Yeah it's confirmed, he totally did do it without a shadow of a doubt".
Despite the fact that I have referred to my own arguments as 'assumption' and 'theory', for some reason you are still under the impression that I think my assumption is clear fact.
I don't think I really need to say anything else, this speaks for itself.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Ime sorry did you just tell me that I should actually go to the bookstore and find YOUR evidence? i thought as much......
Read my posts properly.
Originally posted by Burning thought
And no, ime not trying to attribute any notion to "dodge", ime telling you your assumption is not worthwhile evidence for what you belive he is doing. Trying to come to our own conclusion is pointless since its simply not evidence nor is it fact.
If you make any further attempt to weasel out of this one by denying it, I will go back and quote you, word-for-word, on how you believed that as a possibility.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As I said before, it was just a whine/rant because you didnt like me pointing out your insecurities. And your constant use of antagonistic ploys and idolisms immediatley make you less professional in posting and youve lost the debate anyway making it irrelvent.
Why would I be so insecure when I have facts, explanations and citations to back my claim up? Why would I adamantly remain in one position, rather than jumping all over the place as you have, and pretending that your prior action somehow does not count? Really, you're not making any sense.
This coming from the person who dripped sarcasm all over the place when implying that I was not of age to go onto KMC forums, who accused me outright of childish behavior when he was the one who got chided by a moderator. You're in no position to make this kind of an unprecedented statement. At all.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Why would I counter that? thats exactley what my [b]entire argument has been all about.....ALL about....your doing exactley what ive asked you to do from the start, show me worthwhile evidence, and now after all this time (and a little help from me) youve realised your assumptions about your worthless quote are not useful, and that this new evidence is the only good proof for MC abilities.... [/b]
You asked me for evidence because you did not believe
No, they were useful from the beginning. I gave you logical reasoning and explanation as to why I have formed my initial assumption, you dismissed them. Only when I give you evidence that even by your standards are acceptable do you accept the inevitable.
But wait, you didn't. You make yet another leap in this debate and attempt to pass it off as invalid.
Originally posted by Burning thought
so yes, Touche.....I win the debate as it were.
I don't know whether to laugh or to roll my eyes. This is a new one, I'll give you that.
As it stands, your sense of debating - jumping all over the place and offering poor excuses as to why the previous position you were adopting did not count - is sadly lacking.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Ime sorry lol, but no, your wrong.....Dive/roll were obviously suggestions I made for what "dodge" acutally meant other than super reaction speed. Its been obvious throughout the debate that was my argument, heres what started it:
I think it's time to put this silly 'debate content' excuse of yours away to prevent you from using it again.
Here's what you said. I've taken the liberty of bolding the significant parts in.
Judging by the quote you gave its no more than James bond jodging
According to what you call evidence neither can chief, it just sounds like Bonde style dodging, he was "surprised" he dodged some, its not like he predicated it or watched the coming and moved out of their path. To his "surprise" just like Ime surprised James bond can escape machine gun fire so often or jump out of the way of a fireing weapon.
James bond dives out of the way and dodges the fire.[/b]
That's what stemmed the whole debate off. To make your position even more confusing, you start using the English definition of the word 'dodge' in an attempt to derail mine...but it actually does nothing, not to my side of the argument nor yours.
But as of now, you are no longer in any position whatsoever to deny what you were originally debating about, given by what you yourself said above.
Any further attempts to say "No, this was not what I was debating about, this is"....I'll simply just quote what I did here.
Sorry to spoil your little self-claimed victory.
Originally posted by Burning thought
why would I give the time of day debating what Masterchief actually did do while dogding? its not even relevent to this thread....
Originally posted by Burning thought
technically your entire argument was a troll argument and perhaps even a massive Straw man.
Originally posted by Burning thought
To both of you, its blatently obvious that you helped him out thanks to my hinting, I mean the [b]very[/]b next post after our discussion the guy comes up with the very evidence I was anoid that he did not bring up instead of wasting my time and failing at assumptions in the process.Ill admit I cannot prove it on the forum, but the evidence is too strong to decide against, certainly for me, its obvious your trying to hold on to what little crumbs of pride you can collect up as your entire argument cracks to the ground.
Correct. You can't even come close to proving it, yet why are you so faithfully confident that it happened when you have such a void to fill in terms of supporting evidence? You say that the 'evidence' is too strong to decide against. What evidence?
For all your vaunted accusations of me making my own assumptions - with better facts/evidence, I may add - you have made a terrible blunder here by forming your own, completely unfounded one.
I think I'll let Jaxx do the talking for the most part here since he doesn't seem too pleased that you've drawn out such a hasty conclusion, lol.
Originally posted by Burning thought
yes DarkC, I may as well be proving the sky is blue, thing is, you were not convinced for the past pages, showing your short sightedness and lack of debating skills.
All one would really have to do is to provide a Webster definition of the word 'assumption' and compare it to the word 'fact'.
Despite me more or less saying, "Yeah I know.", you continue anyway.
Originally posted by Burning thought
So in the end, I win the debate, show you up as a failure at debating points and finally it seems too rich to belive that this incredible coincidence of you bringing up that point leaving me thinking I actually let you full circle, enabling you to "attempt" any hope of regaining lost cred myself.
Have fun.
Originally posted by DarkC
Which is a clear troll on your part, and as attested to by the entrance of Kaliero.If you're not debating, you're just simply here for the sake of arguing, which is to say...trolling. Like I said, if that was purely intended as a mockery, then you're not posting in a constructive manner. If it wasn't a mockery and was intended to be a serious claim or post, I have disproved it.
There is no more that is needed to say.
No, I am making assumptions and backing them up with evidence.
Where on Earth did you get that notion from? Seriously.
Ok, so you've admitted to trolling just there.
Read above. If you're not going to post in a mature or constructive manner - why are you still here?
Yes, and why would Eric Nylund further attest to it being impressive? It already is. The entire training paragraph was more of a montage, but it does make quite clear what he is capable of now that he is wearing MJOLNIR V.
Precisely. That's evidence for him having massive strength, which is why I mentioned that they were impressive in different ways, but still impressive on the same scale. Super fast, super strong, etc, etc. The point being, they were described in the same way - very quickly and fleetingly - which rather negates your comment on it "being too brief as to count as impressive".
If you want another example of short descriptions of noteworthy feats, the man described Chief running at 104 km/h later in the book with: "As he moved, he felt his Achilles tendon tear. He crossed the half kilometer stretch in seventeen seconds flat and rang the bell."
That's it. A rather bang-bang-bang descriptions sort of author, Nylund seems.
Yeah, exactly, and I formed an assumption. An assumption you mistake me repeatedly for trying to pass off as fact.
It's not the assumption itself that is fact, Burning, it's the evidence that I used to support it that is.
Now, this leads to your comment:
This is what I am talking about - you instantly rule out the super-impressive speed maneuvre, right off the bat, and instantly form your own assumptions. You just said it yourself.
You believed that the Chief would have done more of a dive or a roll out of the way - don't even deny that, this is what you believed - rather than the Neo-esque dodge, while technically the definition of the word dodge includes any action undertaken to avoid it. Both your comprehension of the word 'dodge' and mine are technically included.
Scroll down if you want elaboration.
You're really comparing apples to oranges here. They're both extremely impressive and well beyond normal human capability, which is what matters.
Exactly, hence why I have to provide separate evidence in order to back it up.
Following me here?
No, you're simply backing off and pretending that you have no burden of proof or explanation to offer, and that you're free to go. This is a debate, Burning, and there are certain unspoken ways that debates work.
Not buying, yet again.
I call it your lifeline, because ironically, you yourself have delivered that impression upon me.
Your silly accusation of me apparently trying to pass off an assumption as fact holds no ground here at all, considering how many times I've referred to my own arguments as "my assumptions" or "this theory", etc. They're assumptions and theories, Burning, as said by myself - which really attributes to me not believing they're fact.
And despite this relatively simple concept, you continue to pointlessly pelt me left and right with "it's an assumption" as though it was, in my words, a lifeline. Hence, the term.
Considering how you only began to use this as your substitution for an actual reply - in the later stages of this debate - I hardly think it's plausible for you to suggest that you've been trying to get at this point from the very beginning. Again, nice try.
Sure there is. I said he was likely testing his reflexes, remember? Akin to how he was testing out his movement and dexterity and whatnot.
I'm not sure why you made this claim when beforehand I had already given you a perfectly capable reason to explain why he would have done it. It's
You're placing my arguments out of chronological order and attributing them to the wrong counter arguments.
Assuming he did his Neo thing, correct and correct.
lie, mockery is part of the argument, it cannot be a troll
No your making assumptions then using inconclusive evidence, either way my argument that that quote is inconclusive has been deemed correct, thus why I win the debate.
as i said, mockery is a good way to point out why your assumptions are foolish, how can that possibly be trolling? indeed its not...
But you did not answer my question, are the descriptions for the other feats as inconclusive as this "dodge" one, does it actually say he smashes concrete dummies or is it like this apprent bullet speed feat? without actual detail....infact show me the quote for smashing concrete dummies.
So you admit you were trolling? your simply assuming randomly just for the sake of argument? your not even trying to make any factual base for a feat in this thread towards MC? ......
The evidence does not support MC going at such speed within the word "dodge" at all. Its an assumption, no amount of evidence can possibly back up "dodge" meaning whta you think it does as fact.
I think that a roll/dive is more likely, yes, but thats not my argument, they were still simply side assumptions to point out your assumptions are not fact, and neither were mine , my argument which I made clear in the beginning is that the quote you provied is inconclusive evidence for a speed feat for MC and your assumptions do not make it fact.
But youve not backed anything up, you simply take into account Chiefs background and claim that "dodge" has to mean what you think it does according to these things when thats not true at all, its still an assumption.
Assuming he did the Neo thing? so you are even agreeing you are assuming yet you continue to troll this thread with argueing of how you think he dodged the bullets even though their irrelvent...great.....very good.... 🙄
Originally posted by DarkC
Where's that leave my argument, you ask?Right where it stands, really. The only thing that changes is that apparently 20ms is not enough to dodge a bullet yet. I'll live with that error, since it makes little difference anyway.
And did Jaxx tell you about the training CTF session, or the mission following?
Judging from the mission right after the bioaugmentation and the incident in the gym, he did not have bullet-time capability. During the training session he 'flipped through the air, narrowly avoiding the stun rounds that came his way'.
And to put this particular point of yours under the guillotine, he took a bullet in the gut from a direct confrontation during the mission that followed right after, which by the way, he got a Purple Heart for.
[b]HALO: THE FALL OF REACH
Pg. 90-91
"He kicked down the door and took in the situation at a glance. Three men crouched behind boxes armed with older MA-2 submachine guns, with Watts behind them.
The men opened fire.
John dove to the side. Three bullets impacted against his armor and knocked the breath from him - he felt one penetrate and ping off his ribs."
===
Kelly: "The bullet is still inside."
Kelly: "This may sting a little.""The biofoam seared through his insides like a thousand burning ants. The anti-bacterial, tissue-regenerative foam polymer would stop any internal bleeding and to stave off the shock."
(The armor mentioned is SPI armor, not MJOLNIR. Pg 70 explains.)
So if he already had bullet dodging capability, why was he slow enough to let three bullets hit him even after diving to the side, let alone dodge one Neo-style?
My basic argument here still stands - after MJOLNIR was Chief able to be fast enough to dodge bullets. No buts, ands, or ifs.
Yes it would normally be considered invalid, but only without supporting background info. I've went over this.
No.
The background info and evidence I support the assumption with - THOSE are the facts, not the assumption itself. I shouldn't have to go over this again, but knowing you, I likely will have to anyway.
Don't make this mistake again. 'Assumption' or 'theory' is in no way a connotation of the word 'proof'. Quite the opposite.
I find it curious how a certain piece of evidence suddenly turns "worthwhile" when it supports your argument, despite the fact that it was included with other pieces that you seemed to forego.
Really.
Despite the very obvious sarcastic mocking of my own post, I will forego the report button this time.
Once again, when I said "That means that he'd be able to see the bullet and avoid it", you took it a little too literally and thought that I was attempting to convey my opinion as fact. I don't recall ever saying something along the lines of "Yeah it's confirmed, he totally did do it without a shadow of a doubt".
Despite the fact that I have referred to my own arguments as 'assumption' and 'theory', for some reason you are still under the impression that I think my assumption is clear fact.
I don't think I really need to say anything else, this speaks for itself.
Nope, I was addressing it as a dead-end possibility that wouldn't have made a difference either way, hence the use of "even if".
Read my posts properly.
Yes you did. You said that you believed that the Master Chief either rolled or dove out of the way.
If you make any further attempt to weasel out of this one by denying it, I will go back and quote you, word-for-word, on how you believed that as a possibility.
You again with your silly 'insecure' accusation.
Why would I be so insecure when I have facts, explanations and citations to back my claim up? Why would I adamantly remain in one position, rather than jumping all over the place as you have, and pretending that your prior action somehow does not count? Really, you're not making any sense.
This coming from the person who dripped sarcasm all over the place when implying that I was not of age to go onto KMC forums, who accused me outright of childish behavior when he was the one who got chided by a moderator. You're in no position to make this kind of an unprecedented statement. At all.
You're claiming that your debate this entire time has been for me to show you evidence. If that was the case, why did you ignore ones that I have provided earlier and give a half-assed response to them, or pass them off as worthless? Why did you make little excuses in order to not refute my side?
You asked me for evidence because you did not believe
No, they were useful from the beginning. I gave you logical reasoning and explanation as to why I have formed my initial assumption, you dismissed them. Only when I give you evidence that even by your standards are acceptable do you accept the inevitable.
But wait, you didn't. You make yet another leap in this debate and attempt to pass it off as invalid.
Out of all the people I have debated with, no one has ever have the sheer audacity to make a claim that they have outright won the debate after me comprehensively beating them down with irrefutable evidence and proof.
I don't know whether to laugh or to roll my eyes. This is a new one, I'll give you that.
As it stands, your sense of debating - jumping all over the place and offering poor excuses as to why the previous position you were adopting did not count - is sadly lacking. [/B]
Not really, drawring it up, your argument is an assumption, you argue that your assumption is logical and backed up by fact, therefore its apprently fact that "dodge" in the quote you provided means he percieved and dodged bullets.....thats not true at all...and furthermore, nothing as of yet shows he has said speed.
Infact, your argument for Chief being able to perceive and dodge bullets is getting weaker as the moment passes, apprently as you just asid 20ms is still not fast enough to percieve bullets....
so now youve got.....nothing in your argument other than the assumption that "dodge" means percieving bullets.....since my argument was to wipe out the idea that assumption=fact, which ive accomplished it seems youve little left to actually claim MC can dodge bullets in a bullet time reaction.
Yet nothing proves even after gaining the Armour, he can dodge bullets so no....
Report what you like, mockery is not trolling, especially since when you report a post, your reporting the whole thing, so even if I did type randomly for a couple of lines on purpose, its not worthy to report a post for trolling, otherwise almost all of your posts are trolling (beyond the fact your argument is a straw man troll in this thread) because you include at least several pieces of irrelvent text in each post. Including the little outline I mimicked.
That piece of evidence is the only piece that actually supports Chief has some kind of speed advantage over a typical human so far. Thus why you did exactley what I wanted you to do by posting it because ime trying to get you to post real evidence rather than assumptions and to stop trolling and get back onto the debate at hand.
I used rolling and diving as examples only, they were not however my argument, they were simply examples of how your assumption is worthless.
So were debating for no reason at all because you agree with me now that your assumptions are not fact and that your quote is indeed worthless as an example of a percieving bullet speed feat, as i said, I knew id win eventually, all along I told you, your debating this is pointless because your assumption is worth nothing to MC canon.
Your insecure because all youve got nothing but assumptions on MC being able to percive bullets.
I win the debate because my argument was that assumptions do not equel proof/evidence, I win because youve had no choice but than to post some real evidence from the book (20ms reaction) that Chief has above average speed, I win because your only argument left if you still bother with it is that your assumptions apprently deem the "dodge" in your inconclusive quote an instant bullet reaction.
You have no real evidence still....try again...
Originally posted by DarkC
No, you outright said that it was more likely that he dove or rolled out of the way James Bond style. That means you formed an instant assumption, as I did, about the true meaning of the word 'dodge'. You simply took it as a simple roll or dodge.I think it's time to put this silly 'debate content' excuse of yours away to prevent you from using it again.
Here's what you said. I've taken the liberty of bolding the significant parts in.
Clear as day, as you can see.
I formed an assumption from the original quote that I provided, yes. I have acceeded to that much. But you did too, judging from these few quotes of yours - you assumed that:
1.) The Master Chief did not percieve a travelling bullet or react to it.
2.) The Master Chief did, in your words. a 'James Bond' dodge, which means just a dive out of the way.
Undeniable. Mockeries or not, your assumptions here were clear as daylight.That's what stemmed the whole debate off. To make your position even more confusing, you start using the English definition of the word 'dodge' in an attempt to derail mine...but it actually does nothing, not to my side of the argument nor yours.
But as of now, you are no longer in any position whatsoever to deny what you were originally debating about, given by what you yourself said above.
Any further attempts to say "No, this was not what I was debating about, this is"....I'll simply just quote what I did here.
Sorry to spoil your little self-claimed victory.
Yet you did anyway, see above.
Explain yourself next time when making outcast statements like these.
I hope you realise how dangerous of an explosive you have dropped on your very own lap by making such a stupid and unsupported claim. I elaborated on it right after, that totally makes it so obvious, I'm sure.
Correct. You can't even come close to proving it, yet why are you so faithfully confident that it happened when you have such a void to fill in terms of supporting evidence? You say that the 'evidence' is too strong to decide against. What evidence?
For all your vaunted accusations of me making my own assumptions - with better facts/evidence, I may add - you have made a terrible blunder here by forming your own, completely unfounded one.
I think I'll let Jaxx do the talking for the most part here since he doesn't seem too pleased that you've drawn out such a hasty conclusion, lol.
You claim that you've been trying to prove that my assumption isn't fact, remember?
All one would really have to do is to provide a Webster definition of the word 'assumption' and compare it to the word 'fact'.
Despite me more or less saying, "Yeah I know.", you continue anyway.
As a recap, I think the above replies of mine make enough of a statement by themselves without me having to say anything to really finish it off.
Have fun.
But your assumption is your argument, my assumption was at first a mockery as to how assumptions dont mean jack in this thread and continued to be simply an opinion of what Chief is likely to have done, my argument as ive made clear and said 100 times throughout the thread is that assumptions do not make your quote credible evidence for his bullet reaction.
yes so youve bolded my opinion on what the quote was, nice one....is that my main argument? no....not in the slightest, my main argument is:
Originally posted by Burning thought
No, I may as well reply because anyone who uses the novel is not following the KMC rules. Its a rule just like any other, or can we spam threads on non game characters!Judging by the quote you gave its no more than James bond jodging....thats a pthetic shred of evidence on your part even if it is illegal on this forum.
and:
Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes well, it seems to your one line of poor evidence for what your saying contstitutes to a strong evidence for a failing argument lolAccording to what you call evidence neither can chief, it just sounds like Bonde style dodging, he was "surprised" he dodged some, its not like he predicated it or watched the coming and moved out of their path. To his "surprise" just like Ime surprised James bond can escape machine gun fire so often or jump out of the way of a fireing weapon.
I laugh if you actually took my opinion on what I think "dodge" meant as my main argument.
I used that definition to make you realise that the quote is inconclusive and that its not good evidence for chiefs speed because "dodge" has many meanings, its obvious youve been confused the entire debate which considering your skills at debating is all fair and well but thats no use to try and attempt to make it seem I was debating "for" him simply rolling out of the way.
Again, explain to me why I would give a damn if chief did indeed roll, dodge, or do a super Neo? its not like the Doom marine has super speed, its not like its relevent in this thread, my entire argument is that inconclusive quotes are worthless, just as assumptios are.
I had fun, very much of it, i won the debate AND it seems even if I wanted to allow you to troll this thread more by debating seriously as my main argument what Chief actually did withi n the word "dodge" in that quote it seems youve little evidence FOR that.
Originally posted by Burning thoughtYou think you are important enough for DarkC and I, who have never had something remotely resembling a private convo or even a PM, to carry on some sort of secrect discussion about how to best defeat you in this debate?
To both of you, its blatently obvious that you helped him out thanks to my hinting, I mean the [b]very[/]b next post after our discussion the guy comes up with the very evidence I was anoid that he did not bring up instead of wasting my time and failing at assumptions in the process.Ill admit I cannot prove it on the forum, but the evidence is too strong to decide against, certainly for me, its obvious your trying to hold on to what little crumbs of pride you can collect up as your entire argument cracks to the ground.
yes DarkC, I may as well be proving the sky is blue, thing is, you were not convinced for the past pages, showing your short sightedness and lack of debating skills.
So in the end, I win the debate, show you up as a failure at debating points and finally it seems too rich to belive that this incredible coincidence of you bringing up that point leaving me thinking I actually let you full circle, enabling you to "attempt" any hope of regaining lost cred myself.
I loled.
For one thing, DarkC knows at least five times what I do about Halo, I would not need to remind him of a thing.
And regardless, you are avoiding the fact that no matter where he received the information, it is still legitimate evidence of bullet dodging, as that is fast enough to dodge some bullets fired from some guns.