mercedez can do me sideways.

Have you ever taken an intro to philosophy class? Just wondering.

Me?

Yes..

Only Mercedes are on top. Then the top 9 is a mixture of Demon Slayer, BM, and Mercedes.
It's always been like this.

image

Person in picture is a Bowmaster, #1 is a mercedes.

Hate to be an ass.
Every person I've seen with a Hero's Glove has been a mercedes.

I didn't twist anything I put your argument into syllogistic form is all, they mean the exact same, the enthymeme here is obviously that only the top player can get the Heroes gloves which is true, if both reasons are true and the conclusion is false there is a fallacy some where js.

Whether you meant to or not you implied that Mercedes will always be on the top and therefore always have the glove, but this is wrong.

I didn't twist anything I put your argument into syllogistic form is all, they mean the exact same, the enthymeme here is obviously that only the top player can get the Heroes gloves which is true, if both reason are true and the conclusion is false there is a fallacy some where js.

Yes, only people I've seen with a Hero's Glove is a Mercedes. I never justified that it was only a mercedes that can attain a glove but it is more than likely going to be one anyway judging from how much they output.

Yes, only people I've seen with a Hero's Glove is a Mercedes. I never justified that it was only a mercedes that can attain a glove but it is more than likely going to be one anyway judging from how much they output.

Whether you meant to or not you implied that just because:

All the gloves you've seen are on Mercs
and some Mercs are the top,
that they will always have the glove,

but this is wrong. You can't say that definitively is all I'm trying to say.

Whether you meant to or not you implied that just because you've All the gloves you've seen are on Mercs, and some Mercs are the top, that they will always have the glove, but this is wrong. You can't say that definitively is all I'm trying to say.

Since when are implications facts?

Since when are implications facts?

They aren't which is why you shouldn't try to draw conclusions from them, understand? Now you're just nitpicking semantics so I'm done, you don't understand.

I don't really care if they are true or not, you are assuming they are correct and so will I for arguments sake, but you're still wrong.

For all the people peaching about be arguing it's 100% relevant to the topic hand, and this whole "MercedesDemonSlayerOverlord" mentality, annoying to see all these bad conclusions drawn and tossed around as facts.

They aren't which is why you shouldn't try to draw conclusions from them, understand? Now you're just nitpicking semantics so I'm done, you don't understand.

I don't really care if they are true or not, you are assuming they are correct and so will I for arguments sake, but you're still wrong.

For all the people peaching about be arguing it's 100% relevant to the topic hand, and this whole "MercedesDemonSlayerOverlord" mentality, annoying to see all these bad conclusions drawn and tossed around as facts.

I think you misunderstood what he said...
(I think) What danny's trying to say is that not everything that is implied is necessarily what he meant to say.
Not 100% sure though.

I think you misunderstood what he said...
(I think) What danny's trying to say is that not everything that is implied is necessarily what he meant to say.
Not 100% sure though.

First reason is something he said explicitly, second is a fact stated by him. Conclusion is something he also stated explicitly so assuming he implied anything it wasn't at all relevant to the argument he was making.

They aren't which is why you shouldn't try to draw conclusions from them, understand? Now you're just nitpicking semantics so I'm done, you don't understand.

I don't really care if they are true or not, you are assuming they are correct and so will I for arguments sake, but you're still wrong.

For all the people peaching about be arguing it's 100% relevant to the topic hand, and this whole "MercedesDemonSlayerOverlord" mentality, annoying to see all these bad conclusions drawn and tossed around as facts.

lmao.

Not everything I say is factual or meant to be factual. Arguing over them because you assume it's factual just makes me think you don't understand a statement. Maybe I should add a clause to my post from now on.

First reason is something he said explicitly, second is a fact stated by him. Conclusion is something he also stated explicitly so assuming he implied anything it wasn't at all relevant to the argument he was making.

"Every person I've seen with a Hero's Glove has been a Mercedes"
>I've seen
>I

I'm not stating that every person who has a Hero's Glove is a Mercedes. I'm stating that the people I have seen with the glove are only Mercedes.

"Only Mercedes are on top. Then the top 9 is a mixture of Demon Slayer, BM, and Mercedes.
It's always been like this."

This would be me finding something to relate to the statement I made above. I know the wording sounds like it's a fact but it's just a reinforcement of something I've seen.

You question me over arguing over semantics yet you're doing the same.

Why would continue to post evidence for something you don't believe to be true, you supported it 3 times before I even posted, and once after.

If you don't believe something to be true why would you argue for it, now who's the one arguing for argument's sake?

Why would continue to post evidence for something you don't believe to be true, you supported it 3 times before I even posted, and once after.

If you don't believe something to be true why would you argue for it, now who's the one arguing for argument's sake?

Because I believe every person I've seen with a Hero's Glove is a Mercedes and haven't seen a different class with them.

Hate to be an ass.
Every person I've seen with a Hero's Glove has been a mercedes.

You said that as a contradictory to the Takebacker's

"Some players with the heroes glove are not Mercedes." (or that can obtain the heroes gloves doesn't really matter what term you use here its still wrong)

Meaning you believe the opposite to be true, or else you had no reason to post, because Takebacker was still correct and your statement was unneeded.

If nothing else learn hot to make a useful contribution, no point repeating what's just been said.

I'm assuming you are going to argue that that's not what you meant, but your 2 or 3 posts after that say otherwise as you continue to provide support for All players that can get the heroes glove are Mecedes(and will always be). I don't think you took a logic class or else you'd realize changing the words does nothing, if your form is wrong every combination in the same form is also wrong no matter what, which is why I included the elephants example, but you ignored that.

You said that as a contradictory to the Takebacker's

"Some players with the heroes glove are not Mercedes."

Meaning you believe the opposite to be true, or else you had no reason to post because Takebacker was still correct if you believed otherwise.

I'm assuming you are going to argue that that's not what you meant, but your 2 or 3 posts after that say otherwise as you continue to provide support for All players with the heroes glove are Mecedes(and will always be).

k.

My bad or something. Go nuts. Here's a trophy.

I'll take my reward after you read the rest.

I'll take my reward after you read the rest.

An attack?

I'm not that sadistic.

Why is this even continuing? This entire argument is pointless and completely off topic. Locked I think you should be the bigger man and just ignore his posts. Seems like he wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

Why is this even continuing? This entire argument is pointless and completely off topic. Locked I think you should be the bigger man and just ignore his posts. Seems like he wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

I argued because he was wrong if you don't like that go tell Aristotle.

Aristotle wasn't arguing on the internet.

There's a difference between meaningful debate and what you guys are doing.

I argued because he was wrong if you don't like that go tell Aristotle.

You argued for the sake of arguing. The entire thing had NO point to the topic at hand. You simply nitpicked his posts and went "HerpDerp, your logic R wrong!"

"HerpDerp, your logic R wrong!"

It was, it still is, peaching about it doesn't change that. It wasn't a debate, I had no side no particular interest in the matter, just wanted to point out that the conclusion he drew 100% relevant to the topic was wrong, by proxy, my posts were probably relevant to the topic, but I'm just guessing. Assuming you think all posts about Mercedes are post relevant to the topic, then yes I was* on topic and I can prove it with the same "logic bullcrap" you all seem to hate. Barbara dear, time to move on from grade school, you need to back up your points.

[+3 Internets if you get why I said Barbara.]

Stereo is just saying who cares if people are stupid? Let them be stupid in peace. That's the kind of apathy that I hate.

Also I didn't nitpick anything, everything I used to prove my points were things said, the only ones pulling things out of their arses are the ones stating I'm arguing for some demented love of conflict, of which you cannot prove.

*Through fault of mine own as well, I have been dragged a considerable amount off topic, but my initial point, sweet Barbara, was on topic.