Trickster almost never backs anything up. Like back when he was debating with me against Sentry, he didn't even try to provide evidence. I'd bring up evidence and he'd just keep saying "That doesn't count, that doesn't count." backing up nothing. He does it all the time.
No not really. He would have had to show it was PIS to do that. He didn't even try. Other people also debated me but they actually tried to show why it was PIS, and I respect them for that even though I disagree.
Other people called me on shady stuff. Trick didn't, he just whined and provided nothing of substance. This isn't about me disagreeing with him. Other people disagreed and I respect them because they actually pointed out the flaws in my argument instead of just insulting me. Trick didn't call me on anything.
So Trick was right and you were wrong, but you didn't like how he went about proving you were wrong so now you're going to flame bait and bash him now?
But at least you admit that it was shady stuff you tried to pull. But it looks like you don't want to admit that Trick was right.
Trick was right. Everyone was right and I was wrong. Trick though just yelled bullshit and never made any effort to debate. And it's not like that was the only time, he does that all over the place not just to me. He never used evidence which was my point in the first place.
Doomsday also soloed Apokolips. He didnt cut the new gods off from their power. Thats the difference. I get that Yuga Khan is powerful but to say he outright beats Thanos while no one can provide any evidence to such is ludicrous. He wins just because you say so.
Answer me this did he cut the new gods off from their power source? If he did do this and then he soloed the fourth world how is this so amazing. He depowered them and then beat them. Big whoop. He cant depower Thanos.
Gender: Male Location: Hiding from The Doctor, shhhh.....
The reason I don't use evidence against , is because it doesn't work and there's no point. I've argued for pages against Quan, as have 15 other posters. just doesn't listen. He does not ****ing debate. All he does is bring up low showings and bullshit. He's claimed that Thanos can beat the Anti-monitor or Superman Prime and Monarch.
So, all he deserves is . It's ironic that the MK quan dur works so well for him.
And you Kandy. you claimed Sentry>Thanos at the minimum. Or how you agreed with Quan about Thanos w/e IG>Spectre? I refuse to acknowledge that kind of BS with anything other than
__________________ Wanted: New sig. Something crazy, zany, and slightly evil. Will give sig credit to whoever's I sport.
Last edited by TricksterPriest on May 4th, 2008 at 07:24 PM
Trick you are stubborn as well. You continue to argue for Superman against Odin and continue to be dc biased. I dont bring up bullshit I bring up facts. You seem to ignore low showings for your favorite characters and act as if the dont count when they obviously do. So go ahead and post your durs if it makes you feel better.
Thanos with the ig would crush the Spectre just like the inferior Captain Marvel did while he as amped. The ig has infinite power while Captain Marvel wasnt backed up by infinite power.
Thanos can defeat Superman Prime and I am not the only one who thinks so. He would need a significant amp to take on the Am. The Monarch ordeal was before the countdown arena issues were completed.
I always can explain why I think a certain way while you just claim bullshit which isnt an effective way to debate at all.
It's still called argumentum ad ignoratiam as well as argumentum ad logicam.
Yeah yeah, I know it annoys people when I name off the fallacies they're commiting. But basically those mean:
"Just because the evidence is not present, doesn't mean that the conclusion is invalid. As an absence of evidence is not evidence to falsehood."
and
"Just because the argument used is bad does not mean that the conclusion is wrong."
In fact people will often use skewed evidence, or misinterpret the evidence aailable to come to the conclusion they do. Much like you did earlier when you falsely claimed that Doomsday solo'd Apokolips. You totallly ignored Henshaw's involvement in the story.
So even if you HAD provided evidence it would have been out of context and thus invalid.
So that strikes me as amusing that someone can use evidence and be wrong. And someone can not use evidence and be right.
Doomsday could not be stopped and thus would have soloed Apokolips with or without Henshaw's involvement. Darkseid had no answer for him and knew he had to get involved. Henshaw was opportunistic and took this chance to reestablish himself and connect with Apokoliptian tech. But it was Doomsday who went through everyone like they were nothing and if you pay attention to Darkseid who knows every in and out on his planet then you knew that it all came down to Darkseid whether or not the whole planet could stop him. He failed and Apokolips failed. So thus what I said was correct.
People misconstrue comics all the time and I have seen other posters do this as well. This is where you step in and throw your two cents. Let the masses makes up their minds but if we dont have to post evidence for fear of it being misconstrued why debate,eh?
He got the right conclusion with the wrong logic. He just regurgitated what he'd heard other people say. Maybe you count evidence less guessing as good debating but I sure don't.
You have evidence of how you arrived at this conclusion yes?
Or do you also apply evidence selectively like you do your false analogies?
Not really. You ignored parts of the story, thus removing some of the context, thus your argument was fallicious.
This is what's known as the "et tu" fallacy. So since other posters are illogical that meansthat you can be as well?
The point isn't that evidence isn;t needed. The point is that evidence is only viable when its valid. You use invalid evidence its exactly like if not worse than not using evidence.
Trick was right without evidence. You would be wrong with your "evidence".
Should Trick have used evidence? Probably. Was he wrong because he didn't? Nope.
Should you have not used evidence? Probably not. Were you wrong because your evidence was out of context? Yeah, yeah you were.
KMC Community Forums
May 4th, 2008 04:24 PM
, is because it doesn't work and there's no point. I've argued for pages against Quan, as have 15 other posters. 
I refuse to acknowledge that kind of BS with anything other than 
