Why do I complain about DBs?

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?