2011-04-16, 12:15 AM
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.
"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.