o_O.Q said:
" others have already done a fine job of that anyway if you were wondering what I was refering to." lol no they haven't, others brought up CoD and madden which are entirely unrelated to lilchickens post on EA shooters ( which is the original point i quoted ) as of yet no one has tackled my point
"Do you realize how your blatant cherry picking reflects on your reputation for being able to bring up a valid point in other discussions? I don't spend too much time on this site, so I have not run into you here before. Now though I have created a little cache in my vgchartz mind where I have stored your avatar, funy username and the comment "does not seem capable of rational debate". Perhaps this is unfair of me, but that's the way it goes. The next time (God forbid) I see something you post on this site, my immidiate thought will be "this guy doesn't think through his points very well" and you'll have a much harder time convincing me that I should take what you have to say seriously."
this is what our discussion here is stemming from where you rant at length about rational debate all i'm saying is that you yourself have not demonstrated the ability to have rational debate over the course of our discussion instead of as i said before raising points to reinforce or contradict my point you're branching off in some other direction entirely btw its against the rules to call someone a troll
edit: "There's no point for me to point out why your argument is inconsistent and unreasonable" whats stopping you from doing so? as someone who has being going on and on at length about rational debate i'd think you'd jump at the chance to raise some contradictory points against mine but no instead you resort to spouting vitriol lol |
I am not sure you understand what rational debate means? I think you'll find that my posts in this thread represent a clear and logical structure with all points I am raising leading to and supporting the same conclusion. It's not necessary to debate New Super Mario Bros. for an argument to be rational.
I read your posts, wanted to know if you actually thought you had put forward a reasonable proposition or not, and called you out for your lack of sensible reasoning. Sure, I didn't spell out in detail where your reasoning is lacking, but I am not really interested in that anyway. As I said, I assume most members of the site are able to make that call for themselves.
Anyway, if you insist, here is how your argument is weak:
original proposition : Nintendo gamers like new and fresh game experiences
your rebuttal : Link to two Mario games that (in your mind presumably) have not changed much in 20 years
supporting point : two links to to Donkey Kong games that (in your mind presumably) have not changed much in 20 years
conclusion : lol
For this kind of argument to make rational sense one of these things must be true
- These four games represent the full number of games Nintendo gamers can chose from for their new and fresh experiences (the premise is false)
- Since two franchises have not changed much over 20 years, no other new or fresh games can exsist (Affirming the consequent)
Either way the argument is based on a logical fallacy and is thus not rational.
So, with that out of the way: Were you being serious, or are you just trolling?
