Why do I complain about DBs?

Nah bro. I think I've said the same thing you have the entire time. You just don't understand it and tried to be smart by shoving a random statistic of 10b funding getting you nowhere, which is completely false. My position hasn't changed through this entire topic, except maybe when I stated that 21% LUK is enough to get you somewhere when we compared ranges. I still think Dual Bladers are weak, and I still think that 10b of funding is enough to get you somewhere. You're just in denial and arguing with made-up statistics to prove your point.

Ok, first of all dont smugly assume that I was trying to be smart or even enhance my "argument" by plugging in 10b funding, that was an estimate at the point where dual blades will begin to feel strong for making a dual blade. I find it funny how I say dual blades suck and 3 people from the southperry clique have jumped in harassing me over it.

I love how you act like I have no self control of pretty much putting you in your place. But hey, we'll just go with that. How much do you think beran prices are off from scania? Let alone windia? I kind of multi world merch, the prices aren't that far off, unless you're going from really low pop to really high. Bera windia and scania relatively have the same pop level, scania of course a little higher.

None the less I don't know how you're determining this hiarchy, damage charts contradict that, though it's on a base, not a funding level, but for a class that gets massive weapon attack, all pieces of gear benefiting, and easier to acquire as there is a market of scrolls/drops for said scrolls, I have to say I have to dissagree.

And yet more proof how much value your opinion is worth if you can't even pick up on that.

What you use as solid fact/back up is much different than what I use then. Though mine comes from something called experience.

Funny story, I know someone who would put NL above all those classes and his argument is indefinately harder to argue than your's.

Dual blades are weak compared to other classes in terms of funding.

Locked's position never changed.
And it's not because his position changed, it's because you just plain out suck at arguing; don't try to draw attention away from this. You make claims without evidence, and fail to recognize that your arguments are all pretty terrible. Just accept this and move on; nothing more you can do.
This is Southperry, not some other Maplestory forum you visit; intellectual conversation thrives here last time I checked 2 seconds ago.

Dual blades are weak compared to other classes in terms of funding.

You Three:
Beginning your argument with, "your argument sucks" every time you post, doesn't at all strengthen your own argument. I don't think I've even argued this entire time, despite you three continuously attempting to elude to that. I have said dual blades suck and dual blades are worse than other classes in terms of funding. What began as an attempt to get people browsing these forums to second guess making a dual blade for damage, has turned into you three attacking something its not and never was. But congratulations, you can win this "argument," if I were you though, i wouldn't feel any accomplishment though, arguing with someone who's intention was never to argue.

Once more, Dual blades suck, though my point has been completely diminished now that you have driven me to divulge my intentions after your quite obsessive attempts at arguing with me or proving me wrong.

Ok, first of all dont smugly assume that I was trying to be smart or even enhance my "argument" by plugging in 10b funding, that was an estimate at the point where dual blades will begin to feel strong for making a dual blade. I find it funny how I say dual blades suck and 3 people from the southperry clique have jumped in harassing me over it.

From what I can tell, you were quite adamant on your arguments, even going as far as trying to correct someone else's estimate figure about NX ratios. Somehow, you're allowed to do this and they're not?

You Three:
Beginning your argument with, "your argument sucks" every time you post, doesn't at all strengthen your own argument. I don't think I've even argued this entire time, despite you three continuously attempting to elude to that. I have said dual blades suck and dual blades are worse than other classes in terms of funding. What began as an attempt to get people browsing these forums to second guess making a dual blade for damage, has turned into you three attacking something its not and never was. But congratulations, you can win this "argument," if I were you though, i wouldn't feel any accomplishment though, arguing with someone who's intention was never to argue.

I don't think you're really in a position to talk about others strengthening their own arguments here... But you indeed argued. Here's you initiating the argument and where it all began. There's more, but I'm taking the liberty of saving my own time since somehow, Dictionary.com links are going to pop up with "argument" as its focus. :|

Once more, Dual blades suck, though my point has been completely diminished now that you have driven me to divulge my intentions after your quite obsessive attempts at arguing with me or proving me wrong.

The problem here really isn't their obsessive attempts at arguing for you to be wrong. They've provided detailed explanations including proof to counter some of your arguments. From what I can tell, you were being quite obsessive with being right without any solid backup.

Dual blades are weak compared to other classes in terms of funding.

I gotta admit, I only skimmed some of these posts but this is kind of funny.

Jeez at that Ani kill.

Ok, first of all dont smugly assume that I was trying to be smart or even enhance my "argument" by plugging in 10b funding, that was an estimate at the point where dual blades will begin to feel strong for making a dual blade. I find it funny how I say dual blades suck and 3 people from the southperry clique have jumped in harassing me over it.



Dual blades are weak compared to other classes in terms of funding.



Dual blades are weak compared to other classes in terms of funding.

You Three:
Beginning your argument with, "your argument sucks" every time you post, doesn't at all strengthen your own argument. I don't think I've even argued this entire time, despite you three continuously attempting to elude to that. I have said dual blades suck and dual blades are worse than other classes in terms of funding. What began as an attempt to get people browsing these forums to second guess making a dual blade for damage, has turned into you three attacking something its not and never was. But congratulations, you can win this "argument," if I were you though, i wouldn't feel any accomplishment though, arguing with someone who's intention was never to argue.

Once more, Dual blades suck, though my point has been completely diminished now that you have driven me to divulge my intentions after your quite obsessive attempts at arguing with me or proving me wrong.

Done bashing the hypocrite. Sorry but I'm stealing your catchphrase moose.

STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Ok, first of all dont smugly assume that I was trying to be smart or even enhance my "argument" by plugging in 10b funding, that was an estimate at the point where dual blades will begin to feel strong for making a dual blade. I find it funny how I say dual blades suck and 3 people from the southperry clique have jumped in harassing me over it.



Dual blades are weak compared to other classes in terms of funding.



Dual blades are weak compared to other classes in terms of funding.

You Three:
Beginning your argument with, "your argument sucks" every time you post, doesn't at all strengthen your own argument. I don't think I've even argued this entire time, despite you three continuously attempting to elude to that. I have said dual blades suck and dual blades are worse than other classes in terms of funding. What began as an attempt to get people browsing these forums to second guess making a dual blade for damage, has turned into you three attacking something its not and never was. But congratulations, you can win this "argument," if I were you though, i wouldn't feel any accomplishment though, arguing with someone who's intention was never to argue.

Once more, Dual blades suck, though my point has been completely diminished now that you have driven me to divulge my intentions after your quite obsessive attempts at arguing with me or proving me wrong.

1. I'm saying your arguments suck because you're too thick-headed to understand that your arguments blatantly suck; unlike you, my arguments have been backed up sufficiently. I have no need to strengthen my arguments against you; I just feel the need to drill this into your head.
2. Fighting over a statement through the use of logic and reasoning to reach a conclusion is by definition an argument. Let's ignore the fact that you have not successfully employed either logic or reasoning. As stated before, your evidences are claims. Claims are not seen as valid until they have been backed up, which you have failed to do.
3. We're attacking you over the premise that you're an idiot. In case you failed to receive the usual welcome message:

1. I'm saying your arguments suck because you're too thick-headed to understand that your arguments blatantly suck; unlike you, my arguments have been backed up sufficiently. I have no need to strengthen my arguments against you; I just feel the need to drill this into your head.
2. Fighting over a statement through the use of logic and reasoning to reach a conclusion is by definition an argument. Let's ignore the fact that you have not successfully employed either logic or reasoning. As stated before, your evidences are claims. Claims are not seen as valid until they have been backed up, which you have failed to do.
3. We're attacking you over the premise that you're an idiot. In case you failed to receive the usual welcome message:

1. Your arguments contain no support, I say something like dual blades suck, you say they don't and say my argument sucks or worse invalid. My arguments were all quite valid, I dont think i have to spell it out in basic form.
2. my "argument" was valid, you obviously don't understand the word validity within an argument
3. ok, let's have a real intellectual discussion, I have just created a thread in the rubix cube section titled "Logical approach to scientific hypotheses."

Your argument consists of "60% is what makes them OP, same funding with any other class they fall under". Maybe you should validate your argument with %'s, some calculations? Rather than throwing mindless meso figures in the air. I'm sorry but because DB has more access to more weapon attack while retaining every equip slot available, including a signature mask for thief's, I can't see how you can even begin to validate it.

Also until you show your logic, through actual figures, it's nothing more than opinion that you smugly try too validate as fact.

Your argument consists of "60% is what makes them OP, same funding with any other class they fall under". Maybe you should validate your argument with %'s, some calculations? Rather than throwing mindless meso figures in the air. I'm sorry but because DB has more access to more weapon attack while retaining every equip slot available, including a signature mask for thief's, I can't see how you can even begin to validate it.

Also until you show your logic, through actual figures, it's nothing more than opinion that you smugly try too validate as fact.

Validity doesn't rely on support, please if your going to use logic terms, learn their meanings.

Yeah, it does. Or else I can accuse anyone of molesting me and get away with it. I mean, since validity doesn't rely on how well I can justify that accusation, there's no need for me to prove that statement, and anyone I accuse will enjoy the miracles of jail.
And you're implying that intelligence is based of what you know, which is complete bullpomegranate. What makes a person "intelligent" is subjective; I can easy smother you with evidence of my school's extremely high rankings (which I can) in anything related to education and claim that that makes me smart.
And the fact that you're dragging away the conversation from DBs to the validity of your arguments spells Chewbacca defence for me; every single thing you've said is bullpomegranate you cannot back up as an attempt to redeem your nonexistent "intelligence". So I reiterate the following statement: prove your claims.

Yeah, it does. Or else I can accuse anyone of molesting me and get away with it. I mean, since validity doesn't rely on how well I can justify that accusation, there's no need for me to prove that statement, and anyone I accuse will enjoy the miracles of jail.
And you're implying that intelligence is based of what you know, which is complete bullpomegranate. What makes a person "intelligent" is subjective; I can easy smother you with evidence of my school's extremely high rankings (which I can) in anything related to education and claim that that makes me smart.
And the fact that you're dragging away the conversation from DBs to the validity of your arguments spells Chewbacca defence for me; every single thing you've said is bullpomegranate you cannot back up as an attempt to redeem your nonexistent "intelligence". So I reiterate the following statement: prove your claims.

Validity pertains to the structure of the argument and whether the conclusion follows from the premises. You are so wrong and so far off, its pathetic your still trying to refute everything I say.

Validity doesn't rely on support, please if your going to use logic terms, learn their meanings.

I didn't mention anything on intelligence, your inferences are absurd.

The last part doesn't say anything.

Validity-the state or quality of being so constructed that if the basises, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
Straight from dictionary.com, and replaced several words in the definition of validity with their definition from dictionary.com.
A.k.a You justify your claims strongly enough to justify your conclusion. Your claims are not justified, so therefore your conclusions are false. In order for a conclusion to valid, one must justify the claims they state to prove the conclusion.
And the fact is, you did mention something on intellgence.
"3. ok, let's have a real intellectual discussion, I have just created a thread in the rubix cube section titled "Logical approach to scientific hypotheses."
Maybe if you actually justified your reasoning, then there would be nothing to refute. But since you don't, it's open season.

Also, to check my sanity, I decide to ask someone about your statement of "Validity doesn't rely on support". Since you're obviously referring to logical support:
"If it's logical support, then ummm, duh? The point of debate is to determine which side is logically superior. Validity is just a way of saying "this statement's logic checks out" in 1 work"

Validity-the state or quality of being so constructed that if the basises, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
Straight from dictionary.com, and replaced several words in the definition of validity with their definition from dictionary.com.
A.k.a You justify your claims strongly enough to justify your conclusion. Your claims are not justified, so therefore your conclusions are false. In order for a conclusion to valid, one must justify the claims they state to prove the conclusion.
And the fact is, you did mention something on intellgence.
"3. ok, let's have a real intellectual discussion, I have just created a thread in the rubix cube section titled "Logical approach to scientific hypotheses."
Maybe if you actually justified your reasoning, then there would be nothing to refute. But since you don't, it's open season.

Also, to check my sanity, I decide to ask someone about your statement of "Validity doesn't rely on support". Since you're obviously referring to logical support:
"If it's logical support, then ummm, duh? The point of debate is to determine which side is logically superior. Validity is just a way of saying "this statement's logic checks out" in 1 work"

This is funny. Ok, so you want to use dictionary.com. I don't like doing this, but since you insist, I'm sure dictionary.com can get the gist of it:

logic Compare invalid (of an inference or argument) having premises and conclusion so related that whenever the former are true the latter must also be true, esp ( formally valid ) when the inference is justified by the form of the premises and conclusion alone.

And just to drill this point home, you're friend didn't say anything to be honest, he gave a half-ass answer, something I'd expect from someone who has no idea what their talking about. He didn't address the point I was making or what you asked.

Validity assumes the premises true, and if the conclusion follows the argument is valid. I don't know why this is so hard for you to comprehend, after bragging about how superior your arguing is and how intelligent you are. Its not a hard concept, introductory.

Saying intellectual discussion means, once again I'll use your preferred method of dictionary.com,

appealing to or engaging the intellect: intellectual pursuits.

I said nothing about the epistemological subject of intelligence.

And after all that, "you suck at arguing" bull pomegranate for the last few days, this is the best you have in terms of knowledge of an argument, pathetic. Stop pretending you know stuff, stop trying to act smart, and post something useful from now on. This goes for everyone who said anything along the lines of "you suck at arguing" or "your arguments are invalid" (and any of its various forms).

Because he has no idea of what's happening in this thread; I only just cut and pasted that statement. So you expect him to actually read this thread? Mkay.
"Validity assumes the premises true, and if the conclusion follows the argument is valid."
Key word is assumes. You don't prove the premises to be true, you assume. And assumptions can be false, unless shown otherwise. If your whole conclusion fringes on the assumption that the premises you made are true (and you don't do anything to justify these premises), your conclusion cannot be seen as right. Example:
Premises: The moon is made of cheese.
Conclusion: The moon smells funny, as it is made of cheese, and cheese smells funny
See what's wrong with this? I'm making a conclusion based off an assumption which I assumed to be valid. A solid conclusion isn't based off of just assumptions; you have to prove that these assumptions are true.

....hang on, isn't this thread about DBs?
*Looks at the jump from DBs to logic
*looks at title
GJ on a successful straw man. Your reasoning on DBs is still wrong, no matter how good you think you are at arguing. You could be right for all I know about logic and etc., you could be the master on logic and reasoning, but that doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. Being able to argue on one thing doesn't necessarily mean you are able to argue in another thing.
So, stick to the topic and talk about DBs.

Instead of us posting something useful, have you ever read what people posted about your arguments instead of dismissing it as false? Have you ever based off your conclusions off of claims that are justified? From what I've seen, you state that "DBs are weaker than x and y" and back out the moment someone asks you for the math. The problem isn't that I'm just trying act "smart", the problem is that you're stubbornly sticking onto your arguments, which are shown to be invalid. When you're proven wrong, don't stubbornly stick to the fact that you're right and desperately procure a bunch of straw men in order to distract the people you're arguing against; move on and address another part of your argument.

My "friend" also told me: "If he's just labeling your arguments as invalid instead of doing actual arguing, then there's no point arguing really."
I see no actual arguing from you; all your arguments are either based off of the fact that your assumptions are right or straw men based on a topic you have more experience on. Produce what you think is another brilliant argument on logic? Good for you, you can argue on logic *claps*, now what about Dual Blades, which is the topic on hand. Are any of those arguments about DBs based on justified claims/assumptions and not just something you pulled out of your ass and assumed to be true just to prove your point? No? Then I see no point in arguing with you.

Because he has no idea of what's happening in this thread; I only just cut and pasted that statement. So you expect him to actually read this thread? Mkay.
"Validity assumes the premises true, and if the conclusion follows the argument is valid."
Key word is assumes. You don't prove the premises to be true, you assume. And assumptions can be false, unless shown otherwise. If your whole conclusion fringes on the assumption that the premises you made are true (and you don't do anything to justify these premises), your conclusion cannot be seen as right. Example:
Premises: The moon is made of cheese.
Conclusion: The moon smells funny, as it is made of cheese, and cheese smells funny
See what's wrong with this? I'm making a conclusion based off an assumption which I assumed to be valid. A solid conclusion isn't based off of just assumptions; you have to prove that these assumptions are true.

....hang on, isn't this thread about DBs?
*Looks at the jump from DBs to logic
*looks at title
GJ on a successful straw man. Your reasoning on DBs is still wrong, no matter how good you think you are at arguing. You could be right for all I know about logic and etc., you could be the master on logic and reasoning, but that doesn't pertain to the topic at hand. Being able to argue on one thing doesn't necessarily mean you are able to argue in another thing.
So, stick to the topic and talk about DBs.

Instead of us posting something useful, have you ever read what people posted about your arguments instead of dismissing it as false? Have you ever based off your conclusions off of claims that are justified? From what I've seen, you state that "DBs are weaker than x and y" and back out the moment someone asks you for the math. The problem isn't that I'm just trying act "smart", the problem is that you're stubbornly sticking onto your arguments, which are shown to be invalid. When you're proven wrong, don't stubbornly stick to the fact that you're right and desperately procure a bunch of straw men in order to distract the people you're arguing against; move on and address another part of your argument.

My "friend" also told me: "If he's just labeling your arguments as invalid instead of doing actual arguing, then there's no point arguing really."
I see no actual arguing from you; all your arguments are either based off of the fact that your assumptions are right or straw men based on a topic you have more experience on. Produce what you think is another brilliant argument on logic? Good for you, you can argue on logic *claps*, now what about Dual Blades, which is the topic on hand. Are any of those arguments about DBs based on justified claims/assumptions and not just something you pulled out of your ass and assumed to be true just to prove your point? No? Then I see no point in arguing with you.

First of all, in your example, your conclusion isn't a conclusion and your premises aren't supportive of your conclusion, so yes it's invalid. If your example was:

Things that smell funny are cheese, the moon smells funny, therefore the moon is cheese.

Then it would have been valid. Validity is only dependent on the structure of the argument, if it follows appropriate rules of logic, then it is valid. To determine validity you assume the premises true, and if the conclusion follows, then the argument is valid. I have no idea how to put it any simpler, I've explained it in every way possible.

Your friend was given all he needed to give you the correct answer, and he failed to do so, I can only assume he is just as clueless about validity as you.

I don't think you fully understand the straw man fallacy either, so let me educate: its a misinterpretation leading to the claim that the initial position has be refuted, under the basis of the misinterpretation. All I have done is respond to your kind critiques of my argument not being valid, by establishing what it means to be valid.

You used that word again, invalid, my arguments are not invalid, let me spell them out for you.

Classes that are weaker than other classes suck. (W->S)
Dual blades are weaker than other classes. (W)
Therefore, dual blades suck. (S)

Simple modus tollens for you.

I didn't label your "arguments" as invalid, I addressed your accusations of my arguments being invalid, which they certainly aren't.

Like I said before, all of this could have been avoided if you hadn't attacked my attempts to discourage people from making dual blades.

Both you and your friend are out of your league on this, you should never have used the term invalid without knowing what it meant. There's another word which my argument isn't, which has to deal with the acceptability of the premises, see if you can figure out what it is.

Validity doesn't rely on support, please if your going to use logic terms, learn their meanings.

I'm not going to sit here and argue too you about the definition but it's pretty clear I'm asking you to justify your reasoning, which has yet ot be done. In fact you completely ignored every point I made, therefore all you're doing is proving yourself to be a hypocrite.

Present me reasoning that dual blade is actually inferior to other classes. This all started with your incorrect assumptions concerning mesos. pineapple man you even tried to deny saying it. Seriously, your arrogance and the fact you're obsessive over arguing weak crap points with no reasoning has the audacity to try to talk down too me, lol.

It's actually more pathetic that you have to retort to strawman arguments to avoid the fact that you're wrong. When it comes to money it's about the %'s, the amount of hits, and how fast. So really that kills your argument right there. Unless you'd like to attempt to prove that wrong, but forewarned, there is a damage cap, so it comes to the point of who can hit the damage cap the most and as quick.

Now we take the funding issue out, unless you want to attempt to argue common sense, how are dual blades worse off than the DPS classes? What is your reasoning besides an opinion? And by the way I don't really have any social hiarchy with anyone on SP, I'm not a dedicated user, I don't associate with anyone personally on any forum, so you can throw that "biased" bull pomegranate out. The only thing that we have in common is correcting you, it's not a gang bang, its the fact your ego is overpowering your common sense. I just find it ironic how you sit here and talk about how obsessive I am with arguing your opinion, yet it takes two too tango, so you only make yourself a hypocrite as every goddam insult can be applied to you 2x over.

Now that you're presented with an argument, let's see something besides a cowardly dodge.

First of all, in your example, your conclusion isn't a conclusion and your premises aren't supportive of your conclusion, so yes it's invalid. If your example was:

Things that smell funny are cheese, the moon smells funny, therefore the moon is cheese.

Then it would have been valid. Validity is only dependent on the structure of the argument, if it follows appropriate rules of logic, then it is valid. To determine validity you assume the premises true, and if the conclusion follows, then the argument is valid. I have no idea how to put it any simpler, I've explained it in every way possible.

Your friend was given all he needed to give you the correct answer, and he failed to do so, I can only assume he is just as clueless about validity as you.

I don't think you fully understand the straw man fallacy either, so let me educate: its a misinterpretation leading to the claim that the initial position has be refuted, under the basis of the misinterpretation. All I have done is respond to your kind critiques of my argument not being valid, by establishing what it means to be valid.

You used that word again, invalid, my arguments are not invalid, let me spell them out for you.

Classes that are weaker than other classes suck. (W->S)
Dual blades are weaker than other classes. (W)
Therefore, dual blades suck. (S)

Simple modus tollens for you.

I didn't label your "arguments" as invalid, I addressed your accusations of my arguments being invalid, which they certainly aren't.

Like I said before, all of this could have been avoided if you hadn't attacked my attempts to discourage people from making dual blades.

Both you and your friend are out of your league on this, you should never have used the term invalid without knowing what it meant. There's another word which my argument isn't, which has to deal with the acceptability of the premises, see if you can figure out what it is.

For the 10th time, show me the calculations.
You and I both know you can't do this, so therefore your entire argument is considered false until do you so.
Stop throwing straw men and justify your claims. Read what KhainiWest said.
And since 90% of what you said here was a straw man, I'm ignoring it. I know what a straw man is; it means that you set up another argument (with little to no relevance to the topic at hand), address it, and then assume that you win the argument just because you defeated your "dummy argument". Does the arguing about the use of logic relate to DBs being OP/not OP? No?

Stop trying to label arguments as variables. Being able to use logic in a situation where you have control over which direction it goes doesn't mean you can apply the same logic in a situation where you can't control everything. Your entire argument fringes on the assumptions that everyone is wrong, and that you are right, even though it is frequently shown that you are in fact wrong. So, again, I lost count of how many times I have to say this, JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIMS, or is your ego too goddamn big to understand the fact that you can be wrong?

Things i got out of this thread...

1. The moon is cheese.

If someone can say that DBs suck with "equal funding" of any other class with no actual proof, couldn't the same be said about any other class? I think when it comes down to it, "DBs suck with equal funding" is just an opinion, which is fine, anyone can have their own opinion, but when you continue to voice your opinion as if you want it to be believed, no point without any proof yeah?

I believe the moon is cheese, while i don't have a picture proving so, i will continue to say so and expect people to eventually agree without providing any substantial proof.

For millions of years, man thought the moon was made of cheese.
In 1969, we went there and discovered it was made of rock.
We haven't been back since.

Behold, the Power of Cheese.

I'm curious to see the math riding behind those claims as well. Not to mention that post chaos, Daggers and Kataras are melded together for calculations making them a whole lot more favorable to fund compared to other classes.

lolirony

Dual blade with no buffs vs Any other class with no buffs= Dual blade wins.

A class with 50% of their stat, and a DB with 35% of their stat= Dual Blade comes REALLLLL close

Dual blade with 500% luk, most other classes with 500% of their stat= Dual blade wins.


I believe this is the main argument about DB. A DB will have to put less effort than any other class to become ''godly''. And if you were to get 2 GM's, both with maxed out everything, one being a Db, (Hurricane-type attacks might beat this), the DB will most likely do anything and everything the other GM's class can do.


Not that I care, really. Seeing as how they're remaking all the adventurer classes.

All anyone really needs to see to understand the situation.

Lol this thread is funny.