Wolverine vs. Krillin

Originally posted by Classic NES
And I repeat:

This is an example of hardcore intellectual dishonesty on your part. Both persons stated that anime version isn't used just like I did. A person doesn't have to repeat what I said ad verbatim to echo my sentiments I.E. you're lying.

"No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty because neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing: "Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only."

"No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty and borders on trolling.

Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:

'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'

That quote is yours."

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, which one is it?

Is it "your [my] argument does not have to be valid"

Or

"[An] argument does not have to be valid"

Is the argument exclusively my argument or is it just AN argument?

Does it make a difference, at all, in the points I made? 🙂

It is both. I used one in a general sense as part of a requote so I did not have to type and in a specific, original, sense.

Note the brackets used around "An" in the requote I did. You're trying too hard. 🙁

Originally posted by Classic NES
Except that the fallacy you used already makes the choice for you.

I made no such fallacy. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
If it's an appeal to popularity that means you believe that the rule exists...

That's not true. Here's why:
"one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."

Originally posted by Classic NES
and I'm supporting it through an appeal to popularity.

Regardless of the content of the argument itself, that's a logical fallacy. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
Otherwise how could a rule that doesn't exists be supported by popularity?

This is why it is called a logical fallacy: just because the masses believe it, does not mean it is true. And before you get too excited, that's in a general sense. I have soundly destroyed you in regards to KMC's "Anime 'Versus' Forum". But you like this goalpost moving thing.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Your argument is that I made up a rule and now you're claiming that I'm appealing to popularity over a rule I made up. How could a rule that doesn't exists be popular?

That's a strawman. That is not my argument. You are misrepresenting my argument. It has never been, specifically, that you made up a rule that is generally understood by the interwebz on versus forums. Even after I have explained it to you about a dozen times now, why would you still hold that belief?

And you are still not addressing the substance of my original argument: please point to me in the rules, for KMC's versus, where it states this "popularity rule" that you are desperately clinging to? After you do that, reconcile that the OP did not specify anime or manga. After that, reconcile that Toriyama said both are canon.

In other words, no matter how you approach this topic, you will be categorically wrong in every direction. This is why you have now descended into illogical arguments and pseudo-words games.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Actually, I showed that you were ignoring the quotes. 🙂

Incorrect: "No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty and borders on trolling.

Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:

'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'

That quote is yours."

Originally posted by Classic NES
This is nonsense. Both criticism are about the exsistance and popularity of a rule.

Incorrect: "Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such."

Originally posted by Classic NES
One supports the other, I cannot be guilty of both making up a rule that doesn't exist but is simultaneously popular.

Incorrect: "Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such."

Originally posted by Classic NES
That's a contradiction.

Incorrect: "one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Fallacy fallacy again

Incorrect: "one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."

Additionally: I actually did address the actual argument itself and it was also wrong. So your claim of argumentum ad logicam is not only wrong, but improperly used.

Originally posted by Classic NES
First it was a false dilemma now it's moving the goal post.

Incorrect. Those refer to two different problems in your arguments. You have multiple logical fallacies abounding all over your posts and you can barely follow the conversation: so it is understandable that you are confusing two different logical fallacies your are committing as being the same thing.

The false dilemma is when you gave only two possible motivational justifications when in fact there was a contextually obvious third and correct reason. The goalpost moving fallacy you committed is independent: you are shifting the definition of the debate away from my original point of contention.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Even though, it's the same question I made earlier repeated ad naseum.

It is not.

Observe where you once properly represented my argument:

"Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction[;] unless specified[,] it's manga only."

Ahhh. There it is. There's the actual argument and point of contention. However, I would argue that even there, you are not properly representing my exact argument, but it is close enough. My argument is only with KMC's rules, not all of internet SOPs. And why would it be about internet culture? That's just a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum. Who cares what other forums do? Let's keep it about this forum and these rules. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
I remind you again that you claimed that I "made up" the rule.

Let's show you why you made it up:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f104/t504517.html

No where in there does it have a rule that says or implies:

Originally posted by Classic NES
When no version is specified we use the canon version...

Originally posted by Classic NES
The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version.

Look, you made up KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum rule. You can't do that! Naughty Classic NES, naughty naughty. naughty

Originally posted by Classic NES
Which is impossible.

Because once again: I cannot be guilty of both making up a rule that doesn't exist but is popular. That's a contradiction.

Do you hear that very loud whooshing sound? It's either farts or:

"...one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Which earlier according to you was a false dilemma.

"You have multiple logical fallacies abounding all over your posts and you can barely follow the conversation: so it is understandable that you are confusing two different logical fallacies your are committing as being the same thing."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Your not reading my post at all.

I think you meant to pluralize "post" to "posts" because it refers to other posts (two others) and not the one I just replied to.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I conceded that you were right and that I was hiding behind rules.

That's not true: you conceded that the feat occurred in both the manga and anime making my point about it work just fine and no-contradiction has to occur. That's not the same thing as admitting fault about the rule. You also did not say you were hiding behind the rules, you said it was lame to hide behind the rules.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I repeat: I conceded that you were right and I was hiding behind rules.

Cool. So you agree that you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind that? If so, well done and mad respect.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Now here's the kicker: How can I be hiding behind a rule that doesn't exist and was made up by me?

The answer to your question is in your question. You created a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Section and then tried to hide behind it. That's fairly straight forward, I thought.

Notice that I did not make fun of you or call you names. Why? Because you did not do that to me.

Originally posted by juggerman
Hi Donut Man! I see you are pissing people off again 😛

I agree with you on this issue but man are these arguements making me dizzy! 😆

Sup, deewwwwd! And, yes, I wish opening posts (OP) said which canon version will be adhered to so we don't have to argue about this stuff, ever. Star Wars movie canon debate are much less muddy, imo, than these anime/manga threads.

Star Wars has the same problem tho. Like in RotS arguements ive noticed that some people use the novel scenes to explain points like Obiwan>Dooku even tho Dooku pounded Obi in the movie easily

Originally posted by dadudemon
"No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty because neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing

Incorrect: "No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty and borders on trolling.

Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:

'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'

That quote is yours."

I repeat:

This is an example of hardcore intellectual dishonesty on your part. Both persons stated that anime version isn't used just like I did. A person doesn't have to repeat what I said ad verbatim to echo my sentiments I.E. you're lying.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Does it make a difference, at all, in the points I made? 🙂

Yes, it does since the arguments contradict. Here's a refresher:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

Originally posted by dadudemon

I made no such fallacy. 🙂

Let me remind you again:

Your argument is that I made up a rule and now you're claiming that I'm appealing to popularity over a rule I made up. How could a rule that doesn't exists be popular?

Originally posted by dadudemon

That's not true. Here's why:
"one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the

Incorrect: "one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to [color=red]even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."

Incorrect: "one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."

argument itself."[/color]

But, I'm not objecting your use of appeal to popularity. I'm objecting to the argument that you've not "even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself".

Originally posted by dadudemon

Regardless of the content of the argument itself, that's a logical fallacy. 🙂

Agreed, it is a logic fallacy.

Now, lets talk about the content of the argument. You said I made up the argument but it's suddenly a popular argument. Which is it? Did I make it up or is it popular?

Originally posted by dadudemon

This is why it is called a logical fallacy: just because the masses believe it, does not mean it is true.

Believe whats true?

You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Originally posted by dadudemon

It has never been, specifically, that you made up a rule that is generally understood by the interwebz on versus forums.

So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it. That's all I wanna know.

Originally posted by dadudemon

And you are still not addressing the substance of my original argument: please point to me in the rules, for KMC's versus, where it states this "popularity rule" that you are desperately clinging to? After you do that, reconcile that the OP did not specify anime or manga. After that, reconcile that Toriyama said both are canon.

I stated that it was an unspoken rule and part of board culture.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Incorrect: "Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such."

Incorrect: "Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such."

I repeat: Both criticism are about the exsistance and popularity of a rule. One supports the other, I cannot be guilty of both making up a rule that doesn't exist but is simultaneously popular. That's a contradiction.

Originally posted by dadudemon

The goalpost moving fallacy you committed is independent:

Okay, now show me what post I moved the goal post. Because I know it's when the same as when I gave you two options to choose from.

Originally posted by dadudemon

And why would it be about internet culture?

So, you believe me when I stated that it's an actual trend?

Originally posted by dadudemon

No where in there does it have a rule that says or implies:

The Quote you made above me mentions internet culture. That's what I'm talking about. Not an actually rule made for anime versus.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Look, you made up KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum rule. You can't do that! Naughty Classic NES, naughty naughty. naughty

Actually, that's a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that it was a rule made by the mods, just an unspoken one that versus debaters tend to follow. When you referenced "internet culture" like you did earlier. I'm pretty sure you knew I meant that it wasn't a rule made by the mods.

Originally posted by dadudemon

That's not the same thing as admitting fault about the rule. You also did not say you were hiding behind the rules, you said it was lame to hide behind the rules.

Then I'll say it now. I'm hiding behind the rules. But, said statement implies that such a rule exists and I did not make it up like you claimed.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Cool. So you agree that you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind that? If so, well done and mad respect.

But, I stated repeatedly that the rule I was talking about was unspoken and not enforced by the moderation. It's just board culture and yes I was hiding behind that. I never denied that part. Now are you going to acknowledge that said culture [I'll use that word instead of rule, because It might be confusing] infact does exists and I did not make it up.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Notice that I did not make fun of you or call you names. Why? Because you did not do that to me.

I never planned to insult.

We mostly agree. I'm just trying to make my point that I did not invent the culture of canon manga by default.

dadudemon
Not Goku's feat but a feat, non-the-less that shows things are not as limited as they appear. Goku is definitely stronger than that younger Trunks, obviously.

Mm, the damage is like a tenth of the Frieza kick.

Also three pages about what is/isnt canon?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Yes, it does since the arguments contradict.

I know this conversation is hard to follow but your reply is actually quite non sequitur. There is no difference between a general statement and that statement directed at you. They both hold true and there is no contradiction. Go back and reread the part of the conversation to see where you went wrong.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Let me remind you again:

Your argument is that I made up a rule and now you're claiming that I'm appealing to popularity over a rule I made up. How could a rule that doesn't exists be popular?

I addressed this already. You have yet to offer a counter to my reply to that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
But, I'm not objecting your use of appeal to popularity. I'm objecting to the argument that you've not "even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself".

I literally and directly addressed both aspects of what you mention there. Why do you keep ignoring it?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Agreed, it is a logic fallacy.

Cool. That's one concession down. I only need you to admit one other half and you can move on.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Now, lets talk about the content of the argument. You said I made up the argument but it's suddenly a popular argument. Which is it?

Please quote me where I said it is "suddenly a popular argument." Or would you like to just go ahead and admit you just used a strawman?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Did I make it up

Define "it" first before I can answer this portion.

Originally posted by Classic NES
or is it popular?

Define "it" in this portion, as well. Then show me where in my posts I argued against "it" being popular.

I'll save you time: you oddly committed two logical fallacies at once with that compound question: false dilemma (there are not only two choices) and strawman (your question implies a malformed version of my arguments).

Originally posted by Classic NES
Believe whats true?

Anything. I was explaining how that type of fallacy works, for you, because I'm awesome like that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
You mean the rule you claimed I made up.

Strawman. That's not really what I said, you little sneak, you. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

With this same type of absurd reasoning, I can answer your question with a better question: why would I selecting green when I should be counting to potato?

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it.

My argument was outlined, quite clearly, over a dozen times to you. I even confirmed when you got my argument (mostly) right.

What do you think my argument is. And, please, do not make my argument to me with your words: make my argument to me with my words by quotting them.

Originally posted by Classic NES
That's all I wanna know.

Me thinks you know since I haven't been secretive about it.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I stated that it was an unspoken rule and part of board culture.

That's not all you stated and not what you originally had stated.

But you failed to actually address the portion of my post you just quoted.

Please address this: "And you are still not addressing the substance of my original argument: please point to me in the rules, for KMC's versus, where it states this 'popularity rule' that you are desperately clinging to? After you do that, reconcile that the OP did not specify anime or manga. After that, reconcile that Toriyama said both are canon."

Now, you can do a few things, from here. You can admit no such rule exists on KMC Forums and concede the point. If you still claim that such a rule exists, you'll have to find it on the list of rules listed for the KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum. If you cannot find it, then you must concede the point. If you do find it, then you must reconcile how the rule would apply when the OP does not specify "manga only", "anime only" or "both manga and anime". If you can properly reconcile that, within the context of the KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum rules, then you must also reconcile the problem of canon superiority: Toriyama said they are both canon.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I repeat: Both criticism are about the exsistance and popularity of a rule. One supports the other, I cannot be guilty of both making up a rule that doesn't exist but is simultaneously popular. That's a contradiction.

We've been over this, already. You're actually having to completely ignore entire sets of arguments I made against this particular line of reasoning, which also includes some of your responses to those same arguments (meaning, you acknowledge, simply by responding to the content where it clearly shows it is a false dilemma on your part).

But, I'll play just to see if I can get you to concede this point, too: if it is a contradiction then how do you reconcile that problem of my explanation clearly showing it is not a contradiction but simply false dilemma on your part?

So why continue repeating the same point that has already been destroyed? You know all I have to do is just re-quote myself where I counter that same repeated point of yours, right?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Okay, now show me what post I moved the goal post. Because I know it's when the same as when I gave you two options to choose from.

Do you see the post where I first pointed out you were moving the goalpost? 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you believe me when I stated that it's an actual trend?

Define "it's".

But, no, I have no interest in discussing that topic.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Actually, that's a misunderstanding.

Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Hardly. 313

Originally posted by Classic NES
I didn't mean to imply that it was a rule made by the mods, just an unspoken one that versus debaters tend to follow. When you referenced "internet culture" like you did earlier. I'm pretty sure you knew I meant that it wasn't a rule made by the mods.

No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.

You went from, "Deez are da rulez and dis is how it will be!" to "nah, naaaah, maaaan. We just...kind of...have a general understaaaanding on the interneeet on hoooow theeese things shoould work."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Then I'll say it now. I'm hiding behind the rules.

Correction: "you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind the newly created rule."

Originally posted by Classic NES
But, said statement implies that such a rule exists and I did not make it up like you claimed.

That's odd. Because that is non sequitur to this:

"...you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind the newly created rule."

Originally posted by Classic NES
But, I stated repeatedly that the rule I was talking about was unspoken and not enforced by the moderation.

Not once did you say it was "not enforced by moderation". And you first said this:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

That's hardly stating it is an unspoken rule.

Originally posted by Classic NES
It's just board culture and yes I was hiding behind that. I never denied that part. Now are you going to acknowledge that said culture [I'll use that word instead of rule, because It might be confusing] infact does exists and I did not make it up.

Again, this is moving the goalposts. I will not acknowledge that particular argument you are wanting to make because it would validate your goalpost movement: something I have no interest in arguing.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I'm just trying to make my point that I did not invent the culture of canon manga by default.

Be honest: that's not really what you're doing nor is it a point of contention on this end. I have no interest in discussing or debating that topic. It is a redherring.

Originally posted by BloodRain
Mm, the damage is like a tenth of the Frieza kick.

No, I'd say the mountain kick is a better feat.

Originally posted by BloodRain
Also three pages about what is/isnt canon?

No, pretentious posturing and boredom.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know this conversation is hard to follow but your reply is actually quite non sequitur. There is no difference between a general statement and that statement directed at you. They both hold true and there is no contradiction. Go back and reread the part of the conversation to see where you went wrong.

This is the statement:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

That response you made doesn't address the issue.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I addressed this already. You have yet to offer a counter to my reply to that.

This is false. You've failed considerably at addressing this.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I literally and directly addressed both aspects of what you mention there. Why do you keep ignoring it?

You did not, but direct me to the counter argument and I'll show you my reply.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Cool. That's one concession down. I only need you to admit one other half and you can move on.

I never implied that it wasn't, It just once again contradicts the assertion that I made up the argument. How could the argument be nonexistent but at the same time popular?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Please quote me where I said it is "suddenly a popular argument." Or would you like to just go ahead and admit you just used a strawman?

I didn't say you stated that bit. I'm saying that it suddenly being popular is inconsistent with what you infact did say: That I made it up. That's a misread on your part.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Define "it" first before I can answer this portion.

The rule that we've been discussing. You claimed I made it up.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Define "it" in this portion, as well. Then show me where in my posts I argued against "it" being popular.

Same as above: "The rule that we've been discussing. You claimed I made it up.

So, you're saying that you didn't accuse me of making the rule up now?
"

Originally posted by dadudemon

I'll save you time: you oddly committed two logical fallacies at once with that compound question: false dilemma (there are not only two choices) and strawman (your question implies a malformed version of my arguments).

Which I addressed with this:

First of that's a Fallacy Fallacy.

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Anything. I was explaining how that type of fallacy works, for you, because I'm awesome like that.

You also just cherry picked that quote. Here's the bits you ignored:

You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Originally posted by dadudemon

That's not really what I said, you little sneak, you. 🙂

So, you didn't claim I made up the rule now?

Originally posted by dadudemon

With this same type of absurd reasoning

How could something be believed by the masses if I made it up?

Originally posted by dadudemon

What do you think my argument is. And, please, do not make my argument to me with your words: make my argument to me with my words by quotting them.

You claimed that I made up the rule whilst simultaneously claiming that I'm appealing to the masses.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Me thinks you know since I haven't been secretive about it.

I don't, so answer the question now:

So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it.

Originally posted by dadudemon

That's not all you stated and not what you originally had stated.

That is not all I stated, but it is part of my original post:

Originally posted by Classic NES

I already touched on this. In versus forum culture when the specifications of a match are not stated. The default is to use the current canon version.

Originally posted by Classic NES

It's an unstated rule.

Originally posted by dadudemon

. If you do find it, then you must reconcile how the rule would apply when the OP does not specify

You explained that already man. It's through appeal to popularity which is wrong.

Originally posted by dadudemon

if it is a contradiction then how do you reconcile that problem of my explanation clearly showing it is not a contradiction but simply false dilemma on your part?

Because it is a contradiction:

That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you see the post where I first pointed out you were moving the goalpost? 🙂

Quote it.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Define "it's".

But, no, I have no interest in discussing that topic.

It's being the rule you claimed I made up.

And, that's our only discrepancy and has always been.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Hardly. 313

Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's". You said above that you don't want to gt into it, but I'll ask you again. Are you still asserting I made that rule up then claiming you don't know what "it" is then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses. All at once?

Originally posted by dadudemon

You went from, "Deez are da rulez and dis is how it will be!" to "nah, naaaah, maaaan. We just...kind of...have a general understaaaanding on the interneeet on hoooow theeese things shoould work."

I said from the onset that it was board culture and clarified that it wasn't a mod made rule.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Correction: "you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind the newly created rule."

That's odd. Because that is non sequitur to this:

"...you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind the newly created rule."

I repeat:

I said from the onset that it was board culture and clarified that it wasn't a mod made rule.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Not once did you say it was "not enforced by moderation". And you first said this:

That's hardly stating it is an unspoken rule.

I did say it was unspoken early on, just not first.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Again, this is moving the goalposts. I will not acknowledge that particular argument you are wanting to make because it would validate your goalpost movement: something I have no interest in arguing.

Why would you need to argue that I was hiding behind a rule if I said I was?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Be honest: that's not really what you're doing

Yes, it is. Since that's all I'm debating.

DDM's wrong and makes a mockery of himself yet again. News at 11.

Originally posted by Classic NES
This is the statement:

"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "

That response you made doesn't address the issue.

The same still holds true for this statement, as well:

"I know this conversation is hard to follow but your reply is actually quite non sequitur. There is no difference between a general statement and that statement directed at you. They both hold true and there is no contradiction. Go back and reread the part of the conversation to see where you went wrong."

I don't think you know what you're replying to. Go back through the convo and re-read to see why your replies are not making sense. I'll give you a hint, you should be responding to something about "An" and "Your".

Originally posted by Classic NES
This is false. You've failed considerably at addressing this.

Go ahead and show me where you addressed my counter argument because it has not been posted, as of yet. Instead, you just repeated yourself. I could be wrong. Maybe I missed it. So show me and I'll concede if you actually countered it.

Originally posted by Classic NES
You did not, but direct me to the counter argument and I'll show you my reply.

No thanks. Go back and read it, yourself. Quote the counter argument and quote your reply that counters that counter argument. If it is just you repeating yourself and it is an actual legit counter argument, I'll concede.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I never implied that it wasn't, It just once again contradicts the assertion that I made up the argument. How could the argument be nonexistent but at the same time popular?

I addressed this already, multiple times. Why are you talking in circles? Go back and read my replies and find where I addressed this already. I'll help jog your memory: remember the stuff about logical fallacies?

Originally posted by Classic NES
I didn't say you stated that bit.

That's odd, because, that's exactly what you said: "You said I made up the argument but it's suddenly a popular argument."

But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I'm saying that it suddenly being popular is inconsistent with what you infact did say: That I made it up. That's a misread on your part.

Well, it's not a misread on my part. You just confirmed that my reading was correct. Are you arguing for the sake of argument, now?

Originally posted by Classic NES
The rule that we've been discussing. You claimed I made it up.

No I didn't. But, please, feel free to quote me where I said "you made it up".

Originally posted by Classic NES
Same as above: "The rule that we've been discussing. You claimed I made it up.

No I didn't. 🙂 But, please, feel free to quote me where I said "you made it up".

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you're saying that you didn't accuse me of making the rule up now?

Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Which I addressed with this:

Which was addressed and countered, inexorably. Do you have another argument that wasn't soundly destroyed?

Originally posted by Classic NES
You also just cherry picked that quote. Here's the bits you ignored:

You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?

Ugh. This is irrelevant to that which you responded. It is not even a tiny bit relevant.

Addressed that already, too. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, you didn't claim I made up the rule now?

Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
How could something be believed by the masses if I made it up?

Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.

Originally posted by Classic NES
You claimed that I made up the rule whilst simultaneously claiming that I'm appealing to the masses.

Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
I don't, so answer the question now:

You do know the argument, actually. Go back and read it and quote it back to me.

Originally posted by Classic NES
So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it.

None of the above. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
That is not all I stated, but it is part of my original post:

Ahhh, but you see, the problem is not what you stated later but what you stated originally. I addressed that, too. 🙂 Why did you ignore that?

Originally posted by Classic NES
You explained that already man.

I'm a woman.

Originally posted by Classic NES
It's through appeal to popularity which is wrong.

Not only did I address that, you conceded the point that it is argumentum ad populum. So, I'll ignore this statement of yours.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Because it is a contradiction:

Which was addressed and countered, inexorably. Do you have another argument that wasn't soundly destroyed?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Quote it.

No thanks. You can go back and read to find it or you can use the search function in both your browser and on KMC. Good luck!

When you find it, you can certainly quote it back to me.

Originally posted by Classic NES
It's being the rule you claimed I made up.

No it isn't. 🙂 Figured that's what you'd say, though.

Originally posted by Classic NES
And, that's our only discrepancy and has always been.

No that's not. Have you see how wordy and circular your posts have been?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's".

In order to address some of your points, I need you to define your ambiguous pronouns. Why? Because you're obviously misrepresenting my position with your "its" and "it's" so if I respond assuming you are properly representing my argument, then you can use that to have a shit fest heyday by pretending you got me via an ambiguous pronoun reference. I'm not knew to legal speak and contracts: what makes you think I'll fall for an ambiguous pronoun reference?

Originally posted by Classic NES
You said above that you don't want to gt into it,

Either you forgot my actual argument or you are purposefully ignoring it. Which one is it?

Originally posted by Classic NES
but I'll ask you again.

And I won't answer the questions you'll ask.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Are you still asserting I made that rule up

Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that. 🙂

Originally posted by Classic NES
then claiming you don't know what "it" is

Addressed this already. Just read above.

Originally posted by Classic NES
then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses.

Addressed this already.

Originally posted by Classic NES
All at once?

Well, had you actually represented my side with a tiny bit of accuracy, maybe I could say yes to this last question. Since you continually fail to represent my arguments, sadly, I am unable to answer a yes or a no to this. 🙁

Originally posted by Classic NES
I said from the onset that it was board culture and clarified that it wasn't a mod made rule.

No you didn't. 🙂 In fact, you admit that you don't a bit later in your reply:

Originally posted by Classic NES
I did say it was unspoken early on, just not first.

Anyway, this is actually what you said (and you said nothing more after this, in the same post, which is why this started):

"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."

Originally posted by Classic NES
I repeat:

No need to repeat your lies.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I did say it was unspoken early on, just not first.

OH! So it wasn't the onset? Huh? Well, now...I know how to address your earlier points.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Why would you need to argue that I was hiding behind a rule if I said I was?

This reply makes little sense to the section you quotted mostly because you're purposefully forcing my reply to be on one small portion of the section I quoted. Maybe that section of my post you quotted actually applies to this section of your post:

"I never denied that part. Now are you going to acknowledge that said culture [I'll use that word instead of rule, because It might be confusing] infact does exists and I did not make it up."

Now, with this new knowledge that my post applied to that, make another reply to that same section of my post.

Here it is again:

"Again, this is moving the goalposts. I will not acknowledge that particular argument you are wanting to make because it would validate your goalpost movement: something I have no interest in arguing."

Originally posted by Classic NES
Yes, it is. Since that's all I'm debating.

No it's not and you're not. If that was all you're debating then why reply to everything else with that useless fluff?

Originally posted by Robtard
DDM's wrong and makes a mockery of himself yet again. News at 11.

I know you're just trolling, but feel free to quote the rule Classic NES is talking about from the list of rules Peach made for the KMC 'Versus' Forum. 🙂

Or maybe I'm not wrong??? I'm actually rarely wrong about anything. 🙂

Originally posted by juggerman
Star Wars has the same problem tho. Like in RotS arguements ive noticed that some people use the novel scenes to explain points like Obiwan>Dooku even tho Dooku pounded Obi in the movie easily

But those are quickly and easily destroyed by mods like Ushgarak. It's much easier to piss out those tiny fires with things like Star Trek and Star Wars because there is a very clear canon and non-canon definition for those two things. Similar is true for Marvel's 616...but less so.

I'm a woman.

Sorry your posed gender threw me off. The internet is no place for lies!

Guess you are now dubbed "Donut Woman"!

Originally posted by juggerman
Sorry your posed gender threw me off. The internet is no place for lies!

Guess you are now dubbed "Donut Woman"!

That was a joke. I'm a man.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was no joke. I wish I were a man.

😉

I know 😛

Originally posted by Damborgson
😉

you...you...

🙁

You bassturd. weep