Bong Lover said:
o_O.Q said:
Bong Lover said:
I didn't advice you to do anything. I asked you a question, the question was if you are aware of your posting pattern and the weakness of the argument or not. The reason why I ask is because I want to know if you are trolling, or just not very adapt at seeing the logical concluisons of statements.
Unless it's not clear, I have not entered into the current debate about platformers vs. sports franchises or whatver the discussion has evolved to by now. There's no point for me to point out why your argument is inconsistent and unreasonable, others have already done a fine job of that anyway if you were wondering what I was refering to.
It seems that you have misunderstood the entire premise of what I was asking, let me condense it down to a level that might be more appropriate:
You trollin', bro?
|
" 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?
|
"wanted to know if you actually thought you had put forward a reasonable proposition or not"
i wouldn't have posted it otherwise...
"original proposition : Nintendo gamers like new and fresh game experiences"
no... this is what i bolded and addressed with all my posts
"because of the missing audience who prefers original games over the same generic shooter over and over again"
anyway very good! i was worried for a minute there
you finally after about 6 posts or so tried to address the point i was making... i'm proud
"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)"
well no that isn't the case at all i was just providing examples of cases where lilchickens point about EA shooters also in my opinion applies to nintendo fanchises
he seemed to be implying to me that nintendo is only ever original
i never at any point spoke in absolute terms , if i did i wouldn't have chosen a couple examples....
and in case you missed it my overall point was only ever that nintendo isn't always as original as some people claim
thats funny though put words in my mouth then say my argument is weak thats rich lol
