2) there is no facts when it comes to tone, your literary interpretation differ from ours. you failed to explain how literary interpretation and tone are objective. 3picuri3Wrong. All I'm doing is listing the things that were in Fallout cannon that are simply not in fallout 3. In their absence, it is not fallout. It is a simple definition from the world's most reputable source of the english language. And you did not point out the fallacies I'm using. I want you to LIST THE FALLACY NAMES.
Fallout 3. Change is good, as long as it's done properly. (Sorta long read)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Yes, according to HIS standards. He doesn't realize they are HIS standards, he treats his standards as universal facts. That's extraordinarily arrogant.VandalvideoThey aren't standards, they are an objective grading rubric. They are things that have been in every Fallout, which are suddenly gone.
I merely said that, if it was going to be a DIRECT AND FAITHFUL CANNON SEQUEL, it had to stay faithful to the series.And he didn't suggest how they "should" make the game (which is silly enough,) he suggested how they "had" to make the game. That is absolutely absurd.
Sorry for pointing out facts.To go on and on about how Bethesda has committed an unforgivable "Iconoclasm" is absolutely absurd.
You don't realize your argument is nonsensical and absurd because using your regulations ANY sequel could be considered non-faithful. ANY sequel could be considered an iconoclasm.
Like I said, Fallout 3 is not an isomteric 2D turn based RPG. That alone makes it non-faithful. ICONOCLASM!
Sorry man, you're being silly.
What you've done is invent a set of regulations that Bethesda had to adhere to get the "Vandal Video" stamp of approval. What you don't realize is the Vandal Video stamp of approval is 100% worthless to everyone but Vandal Video. They are not beholden to you.
You don't realize your argument is nonsensical and absrud because using your regulations ANY sequel could be considered non-faithful. AN sequel could be considered an iconoclasm.RuprechtMonkeyIf you don't like the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, maybe some day you can write your own and it can be accepted around the world. Until that day.
Thanks for agreeing then.Like I said, Fallout 3 is not an isomteric 2D turn based RPG. That alone makes it non-faithful. ICONOCLASM!
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]You don't realize your argument is nonsensical and absrud because using your regulations ANY sequel could be considered non-faithful. AN sequel could be considered an iconoclasm.VandalvideoIf you don't like the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, maybe some day you can write your own and it can be accepted around the world. Until that day.
Thanks for agreeing then.Like I said, Fallout 3 is not an isomteric 2D turn based RPG. That alone makes it non-faithful. ICONOCLASM!
Then you're agreeing with me that virtually every sequel ever made falls within your definition of unfaithful. GREAT! Let's get a duplex in crazy town.
How can you not see how silly that is?
Then you're agreeing with me that virtually every sequel ever made falls within your definition of unfaithful. GREAT! Let's get a duplex in crazy town.RuprechtMonkeyYou're the one making that assertion. All I'm doing is using the definition from Oxford.
I don't see how the Oxford English dictionary is silly.How can you not see how silly that is?
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Then you're agreeing with me that virtually every sequel ever made falls within your definition of unfaithful. GREAT! Let's get a duplex in crazy town.VandalvideoYou're the one making that assertion. All I'm doing is using the definition from Oxford.
I don't see how the Oxford English dictionary is silly.How can you not see how silly that is?
Hahah, you're not very good at debating, are you?
Your application of the definition, and the overblown implications about the game and its developers based on your application of the definition, is 100% silly.
I could use your exact same argument, cherry-pick differences between successive games in a franchise (perceived, factual, or otherwise,) and use it to deem it completely unfaithful and therefore the development team as a group of iconoclasts. If you can't recognize how absolutely asinine this is, well, I don't think I can phrase it in an anymore obvious way...
To be honest at this point I'm not convinced what your doing isn't System Wars satire, that's how absurd it has gotten.
Your application of the definition, and the overblown implications about the game and its developers based on its application, is 100% silly. RuprechtMonkeyThe definition speaks for itself. If it doesn't stay true to the facts or the original, it is ismply not faithful. There are not ifs, ands, ors or buts.
If you want to call it asinine, then go take it up with Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure they would love to hear your opinion about their definitions.I could use your exact same argument, cherry pick differences between successive games in a franchise, perceived, factual, or otherwise, and use it to deem it completely unfaithful and therefore the devlopment team as a group of iconoclasts. If you can't recognize how absolutely asinine this is, well, I don't think I can phrase it in an anymore obvious way...
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Your application of the definition, and the overblown implications about the game and its developers based on its application, is 100% silly. VandalvideoThe definition speaks for itself. If it doesn't stay true to the facts or the original, it is ismply not faithful. There are not ifs, ands, ors or buts.
If you want to call it asinine, then go take it up with Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure they would love to hear your opinion about their definitions.I could use your exact same argument, cherry pick differences between successive games in a franchise, perceived, factual, or otherwise, and use it to deem it completely unfaithful and therefore the devlopment team as a group of iconoclasts. If you can't recognize how absolutely asinine this is, well, I don't think I can phrase it in an anymore obvious way...
Again, I'm not taking issue with the Oxford definition, ahahahahaha. I know how "faithful" is defined in the dictionary. "Faithful" isn't exactly a confusing, obscure word... trying to pit someone up against a dictionary because you realize you're on the losing end of a debate isn't exactly the best way to go about it.
So I'll repost the important bits you refuse to acknowledge:
Your application of the definition, and the overblown implications about the game and its developers based on your application of the definition, is 100% silly. Not the definition itself.
And again, can you refute this:
I could use your exact same argument, cherry-pick differences between successive games in a franchise (perceived, factual, or otherwise,) and use it to deem it completely unfaithful and therefore the development team as a group of iconoclasts. If you can't recognize how absolutely asinine this is, well, I don't think I can phrase it in an anymore obvious way...
To be honest at this point I'm not convinced what you're doing isn't System Wars satire, that's how absurd it has gotten.
An argument is only as sound as its foundation, and yours is very, very poorly built.
Wrong. All I'm doing is listing the things that were in Fallout cannon that are simply not in fallout 3. In their absence, it is not fallout. It is a simple definition from the world's most reputable source of the english language. And you did not point out the fallacies I'm using. I want you to LIST THE FALLACY NAMES.Vandalvideo
how is listing a fallacy name going to help you in the least when i've laid out clearly what the fallacy was. referencing it against a list of logical fallacy you find on the internets won't prove or disprove it. you made an error so general that it likely doesn't have a name in those lists. you assume literary interpretation is objective - it is not, it is subjective. you then removed your argument from context by trying to say it's a matter of being faithful.
i can't fix what you're doing wrong by yourself, i've tried. i honestly would like to help you see the mistakes you're making but i think it's beyond my ability.. and i've been a TA in the past for English!!!! lol.
you've made a laundry list of errors in your assertion of opinion as fact.. i don't care to spend any more time trying to right it to be honest. now that i have further validation with the others in this thread that see it it no longer bugs me as much.. at least i know i'm not crazy.
good luck with stuff man.. all i can say.
pAgain, I'm not taking issue with the Oxford definition, ahahahahaha. I know how "faithful" is defined in the dictionary. "Faithful" isn't exactly a confusing, obscure word... trying to pit someone up against a dictionary because you realize you're on the losing end of a debate isn't exactly the best way to go about it.RuprechtMonkeyI'm merely pointing out the facts. By definition, fallout 3 isn't faithful.
Its not an application, all I'm doing is merely pointing out the definition itself, which by mere wording calls for Fallout 3 to be unfaithful. Lets see, whose word should we take. Most reputable source of the english language? Some random forumite calling my post silly? I chose OED.Your application of the definition, and the overblown implications about the game and its developers based on your application of the definition, is 100% silly.
I'm not trying to refute it. You're the one making such an assertion. if you want to call it silly then take offense with the OED. And I refuse to respond to ad hominem.I could use your exact same argument, cherry-pick differences between successive games in a franchise (perceived, factual, or otherwise,) and use it to deem it completely unfaithful and therefore the development team as a group of iconoclasts. If you can't recognize how absolutely asinine this is, well, I don't think I can phrase it in an anymore obvious way...
how is listing a fallacy name going to help you in the least when i've laid out clearly what the fallacy was. referencing it against a list of logical fallacy you find on the internets won't prove or disprove it. you made an error so general that it likely doesn't have a name in those lists. you assume literary interpretation is objective it is not, it is subjective. you then removed your argument from context by trying to say it's a matter of being faithful. 3picuri3I'm asking you to illustrate your grasp of fallacies, and your qualifications for calling my arguments a fallacy. IF you can't even list the formal fallacy name, why should I even consider what you're saying to be accurate?
I have not asserted any opinions in this thread. I have used established definitions and norms of the two games to establish that Fallout 3 is not faithful to the other games in its series, as a matter of factual information by mere exclusion of characteristics that are so unique to the object in question.you've made a laundry list of errors in your assertion of opinion as fact.. i don't care to spend any more time trying to right it to be honest. now that i have further validation with the others in this thread that see it it no longer bugs me as much.. at least i know i'm not crazy.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]pAgain, I'm not taking issue with the Oxford definition, ahahahahaha. I know how "faithful" is defined in the dictionary. "Faithful" isn't exactly a confusing, obscure word... trying to pit someone up against a dictionary because you realize you're on the losing end of a debate isn't exactly the best way to go about it.VandalvideoI'm merely pointing out the facts. By definition, fallout 3 isn't faithful.
Its not an application, all I'm doing is merely pointing out the definition itself, which by mere wording calls for Fallout 3 to be unfaithful. Lets see, whose word should we take. Most reputable source of the english language? Some random forumite calling my post silly? I chose OED.Your application of the definition, and the overblown implications about the game and its developers based on your application of the definition, is 100% silly.
I'm not trying to refute it. You're the one making such an assertion. if you want to call it silly then take offense with the OED. And I refuse to respond to ad hominem.I could use your exact same argument, cherry-pick differences between successive games in a franchise (perceived, factual, or otherwise,) and use it to deem it completely unfaithful and therefore the development team as a group of iconoclasts. If you can't recognize how absolutely asinine this is, well, I don't think I can phrase it in an anymore obvious way...
Again, you're responding with the same regurgitated talking points and dancing around my point.
If you're using that application of the definition of "faithful" as the foundation to all the assertions you're making about the worth and value of Fallout 3, as you clearly are, I can apply the definition of "Faithful" in the exact same way as to make an enormous number of sequels "Unfaithful," and likewise I can use that assertion to make overblown outrageous claims (iconoclasm, etc.)
That's what makes it completely silly.
If you're using that application of the definition of "faithful" as the foundation to all the assertions you're making about the worth and value of Fallout 3, as you clearly are, I can apply the definition of "Faithful" in the exact same way as to make an enormous number of sequels "Unfaithful," and likewise I can use that assertion to make overblown outrageous claims (iconoclasm, etc.)RuprechtMonkeyWorth and value? Who said anything about worht and value? All I'm doing is pointing out that this is not faithful to the original Fallout games, and can hardly be considered a Fallout game.
and then someone buys Halo and makes it a city building Sim.jeffwulf
Or an RTS....
Oh, wait...
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]If you're using that application of the definition of "faithful" as the foundation to all the assertions you're making about the worth and value of Fallout 3, as you clearly are, I can apply the definition of "Faithful" in the exact same way as to make an enormous number of sequels "Unfaithful," and likewise I can use that assertion to make overblown outrageous claims (iconoclasm, etc.)VandalvideoWorth and value? Who said anything about worht and value? All I'm doing is pointing out that this is not faithful to the original Fallout games, and can hardly be considered a Fallout game.
Again, not addressing the point.
Using that logic, I can do the SAME thing to virtually any sequel.
Understand?
And using that application of the defintion I can make the same outrageous, overblown claims you're making (Iconoclasm, how someone "Has" to make a given game, the responsibilities they have when making games, etc.)
Understand?
[QUOTE="jeffwulf"]and then someone buys Halo and makes it a city building Sim.RuprechtMonkey
Or an RTS....
Oh, wait...
Well, I have agreed with your opinion, but that example is not good because Halo Wars is a spinoff and not titled "Halo 4."
[QUOTE="3picuri3"]how is listing a fallacy name going to help you in the least when i've laid out clearly what the fallacy was. referencing it against a list of logical fallacy you find on the internets won't prove or disprove it. you made an error so general that it likely doesn't have a name in those lists. you assume literary interpretation is objective it is not, it is subjective. you then removed your argument from context by trying to say it's a matter of being faithful. VandalvideoI'm asking you to illustrate your grasp of fallacies, and your qualifications for calling my arguments a fallacy. IF you can't even list the formal fallacy name, why should I even consider what you're saying to be accurate?
I have not asserted any opinions in this thread. I have used established definitions and norms of the two games to establish that Fallout 3 is not faithful to the other games in its series, as a matter of factual information by mere exclusion of characteristics that are so unique to the object in question.you've made a laundry list of errors in your assertion of opinion as fact.. i don't care to spend any more time trying to right it to be honest. now that i have further validation with the others in this thread that see it it no longer bugs me as much.. at least i know i'm not crazy.
i'm sorry man. i'm not going to keep playing your game. i'm an english / semiotics major, i've TAd at one of the best schools in Canada. i've take logic calculus, passed with flying colors. here is a definition of fallacy - no need for 'formal fallacy' names as you call them as yours fits the most basic definition.
A fallacy is a component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the argument invalid in whole
you made the most general of fallacy based arguments, passing on opinion and interpretation as fact. there's no need to dissect or categorize it as it isn't necessary. no need to keep saying your stating facts because they aren't facts in the context you try to present them. you continue to say your opinion is fact and think for some reason that plot defines tone. while it's true that plot can define tone, it's not something that all people will agree on - and arguing things like this are the crux of english ****s. because guess what, it's subjective. you can cry out that X happened in Y episode but that doesn't meant X has to happen in Z. i try to give the analogy of serial tv, literary works, etc, you always ignore it because it TOTALLY destroys your argument at its very root. and you know it.
you're an english teachers nightmare to be honest. there's no arguing here, just repeated attempts for clarification that you try to twish around on us. but we're not being fooled by it.
you are wrong. whether you ever realize it i don't know. not sure i care. just know i have better things to do with my time then try to teach when i'm not getting paid.
Using that logic, I can do the SAME thing to virtually any sequel.RuprechtMonkeyWell good for you.
That definition is very explicit. I haven't done any tinkerign with it. By mere WORDING it is unfaithful. There are no ifs, ands, ors or buts about it.And using that application of the defintion I can make the same outrageous, overblown claims you're making (Iconoclasm, how someone "Has" to make a given game, the responsibilities they have when making games, etc.)
your an english teachers nightmare
3picuri3
I'm sorry, but I couldn't help quoting this. Sorry.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Using that logic, I can do the SAME thing to virtually any sequel.VandalvideoWell good for you.
BING BING BING!
That is precisely what makes your entire argument so ludicrous.
I could apply it in that way to virtually ANY sequel I choose, and waste my time making absurd and outrageous accusations based on its absurd application, and that would make me silly. It would be a tremendous waste of time. I would be blowing my own horn for no reason at all. It is silly, sad, and pathetic.
[QUOTE="3picuri3"]your an english teachers nightmare
organic_machine
I'm sorry, but I couldn't help quoting this. Sorry.
heh fair enough, i can own up to my mistakes :) happens when you're typing fast so you can leave work!
i also throw grammar and proper caps out the window on the internet fyi. i worry about it enough with work and school.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"][QUOTE="jeffwulf"]and then someone buys Halo and makes it a city building Sim.jeffwulf
Or an RTS....
Oh, wait...
Spinoff, not series proper. Doesn't count. People were fine with Fallout Tactics.
Resident Evil 4 was an absolute ICONOCLASM!!!!
i'm sorry man. i'm not going to keep playing your game. i'm an english / semiotics major, i've TAd at one of the best schools in Canada. i've take logic calculus, passed with flying colors. here is a definition of fallacy - no need for 'formal fallacy' names as you call them as yours fits the most basic definition.3picuri3Well isn't that special? Now show me the EXPLICIT fallacy that I'm committing.
I can play your game too. I'm a pre-law student with a minor in philosophy. I'm currently taking Logic, Language, and Evidence PHIL 211. I've had an indepth study of logic, rhetoric, and fallacies. I'm sitting here, reading 'A Concise Introduction to Logic' by Hurley. I'm staring at the fallacies. I'm waiting for you to tell me WHICH fallacy I have committed. You can't just claim "Your logic is flawed". You have to explicitly tell me how it is, and the precise method in which it is flawed. By that, you have to tell me the precise fallacy that I am committing.you made the most general of fallacy based arguments, passing on opinion and interpretation as fact. there's no need to dissect or categorize it as it isn't necessary. no need to keep saying your stating facts because they aren't facts in the context you try to present them. you continue to say your opinion is fact and think for some reason that plot defines tone.
I'm an English teacher's love student; on the university newspaper, work with a local newspaper for stories, have wrote dissertations that were given to the county commissions office on Disabilities in the county.your an english teachers nightmare to be honest. there's no arguing here, just repeated attempts for clarification that you try to twish around on us. but we're not being fooled by it.
You have failed to illustrate exactly HOW I'm wrong, merely saying that I'm using my opinion. I reiterate. Nothing I have stated for my conclusion is an opinion. It is simple logic: Definition by OED is that faithful defiend by staying true to the FACTS or the original. By mere negation of this syllogism, that would mean that in the absence of the facts or the original intent, it is not faithful. Without the facts, it is not faithful. Fallout 3 goes against Fallout established facts. It is not faithful.you are wrong. whether you ever realize it i don't know. not sure i care. just know i have better things to do with my time then try to teach when i'm not getting paid.
That is precisely what makes your entire argument so ludicrous.RuprechtMonkeyYou can't just make up a hypothetical and call my argument ludicrous. I'm using the explicit wording of the OED.
Then apply it any way you choose. It is an explicit definition.I could apply it in that way to virtually ANY sequel I choose, and waste my time making absurd and outrageous accusations based on its absurd application, and that would make me silly. It would be a tremendous waste of time. I would be blowing my own horn for no reason at all. It is silly, sad, and pathetic.
Then apply it any way you choose. It is an explicit definition.Vandalvideo
I have.
Let's go start a crusade against Resident Evil 5, the new Banjo, the next Zelda, (should I go on?) Iconoclasts, all of 'em! We will dedicate countless hours to an absolutely pointless and absurd talking point.
Because, you know, that wouldn't be a silly waste of time or anything.
Let's go start a crusade against Resident Evil 5, the new Banjo, the next Zelda, (should I go on?) Iconoclasts, all of 'em! We will dedicate countless hours to an absolutely pointless and absurd talking point.RuprechtMonkeyLook, you can call it absurd all you want, but this is the EXPLICIT defintion of the OED. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Let's go start a crusade against Resident Evil 5, the new Banjo, the next Zelda, (should I go on?) Iconoclasts, all of 'em! We will dedicate countless hours to an absolutely pointless and absurd talking point.VandalvideoLook, you can call it absurd all you want, but this is the EXPLICIT defintion of the OED. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.
Again, not addressing the point.
The definition is sound.
The assertions you make by applying it are overblown ("iconoclasm," hah), pointless, and silly. I could do the same thing with the word "Evil."
As I said, an argument is only as strong as its foundation. Yours is weak for precisely the reason I've given. It can be applied to virtually ANY game, any situation, anything.
The assertions you make by applying it are overblown ("iconoclasm," hah), pointless, and silly. I could do the same thing with the word "Evil."RuprechtMonkeyYou can call them pointless and silly, but they are facts by defintion. Fallout 3 is not Faithfull. Bethesda has performed iconoclasm.
Mine is strong precisely because I rely on objective facts and defintions.As I said, an argument is only as strong as its foundation. Yours is weak for precisely the reason I've given. It can be applied to virtually ANY game, any situation, anything.
take this argument, print it out, take it to your professors. see what they say. take it to your logic professor actually - and your english professor. if you have one that teaches both it would be preferable.
you committed a base fallacy. there is no category needed. formal definitions of fallacy are created to categorize complex or varied fallacy - you committed pure base fallacy as defined in the sentence i provided. the fact you hinge yourself so much on definition shows that you pay far more attention in law class than you do any others. if you're doing well in logic and have passed english 101 then i have absolutely no clue why you fail to see what you're doing wrong here.
my guess is you do this for fun to antagonize people and you don't believe it. it makes more sense than assuming you're as educated as you say you are and are completely oblivious to what is going on here. i mean no offense, i'm just trying to think this one out ;).
you ARE speaking like a lawyer. you ARE deflecting and refusing to acknowledge critical and irrefutable points against you. at a debate you would be absolutely destroyed by now - it would have been declared over a while ago. you toss english studies in the bin, confuse plot with tone, assume plot and tone are contiguous from episode to episode (they aren't, or you'd be reading the same thing over and over again). this is farce to be honest - absolute farce.
This has now gone beyond the realm of pointlessness.
What you need to do is take a class on debate.
Honestly, everything else aside - that is my suggestion.
at a debate you would be absolutely destroyed by now - it would have been declared over a while ago.
3picuri3
Yes, it would've for certain.
Anyway, I have to get back to work. This has gone well beyond futility.
you commited a base fallacy. there is no category. the fact you hinge yourself so much on definition shows that you pay far more attention in law class than you do any others. if you're doing well in logic and have passed english 101 then i have absolutely no clue why you fail to see what you're doing wrong here.3picuri3Ehhhh, all fallacies fall into categories, whether they be weak relevance or other. They are all categorized and then split up into named groups. You should be able tofind the fallacy I'm commiting if I truly am. I've passed both Comp classes and Writing for the social Sciences with all As.
In a debate you have to make worthwhile, meaningful points - not merely points.
As I said, using your base argument it can be applied to virtually any game and identical overblown assertions can be made based on that application alone. This makes it virtually worthless.
[QUOTE="jeffwulf"][QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"][QUOTE="jeffwulf"]and then someone buys Halo and makes it a city building Sim.RuprechtMonkey
Or an RTS....
Oh, wait...
Spinoff, not series proper. Doesn't count. People were fine with Fallout Tactics.
Resident Evil 4 was an absolute ICONOCLASM!!!!
Yeah, that irked me a bit, though Capcom makes good games, and RE4 was no exception. I hope they make a Resident Evil style Resident Evil sometime soon, because they're fun. I wouldn't be complaining if Bethseda made good games, but Bethseda hasn't made a good game in 6 years, with their best game coming out 12 years ago. I have no faith in them to make anything that doesn't blow right now.
As I said, using your base argument it can be applied to virtually any game and identical overblown assertions can be made based on that application alone. This makes it virtually worthless. RuprechtMonkeyAnd as I said, you're making your own extrapolations and inferences based off of one defintion. All I'm doing is pointing otu the definition. By that definition, by the word, Fallout 3 is unfaithful.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]As I said, using your base argument it can be applied to virtually any game and identical overblown assertions can be made based on that application alone. This makes it virtually worthless. VandalvideoAnd as I said, you're making your own extrapolations and inferences based off of one defintion. All I'm doing is pointing otu the definition. By that definition, by the word, Fallout 3 is unfaithful.
Untrue.
Based on that application of the definition you have declared Bethesda to be iconoclasts. Ridiculous.
You have used the application to set out a series of regulations as to not only how they should be making the sequel, but as to how they have to make the sequel. Ridiculous.
There is more to a debate than logic. A successful debate is tethered by meaning and sense, when your entire premise can be applied in the same fashion to virtually any game it's devoid of meaning.
You need to take a class on debate.
You're also completely unable to acknowledge any valid counterpoint, you endless avoid the point at hand and deflect.
Based on that application of the definition you have declared Bethesda to be iconoclasts. RidiculousRuprechtMonkeyBased on that definition I called them unfaithful. Based on THAT conclusion, I called them iconoclasts.
I used the definition to clearly illustrate how, in the absenceo fthe innate and unique characteristics of the original, it is not faithful. If you watn to make a "faithful and cannon sequal, by semantics it has to be faithful".You have used the application to set out a series of regulations as to how now only they should be making the sequel, but as to how they have to make the sequel. Ridiculous.
Logic is all that matters in a debate. The ability to correctly portray a point of view, regardless of the impacts other peoples may feel it has.There is more to a debate than logic. A successful debate is tethered by meaning and sense, when your entire premise can be applied in the same fashion to virtually any game it's devoid of meaning.
The ability to correctly portray a point of view, regardless of the impacts other peoples may feel it has. Vandalvideo
You have failed miserably, sorry. The very foundation of your argument has been stripped down and revealed to be worthless. When I say I can apply every accusation you have made about this game to ANY game based on your application of the definition of the word "Faithful," and it's a sound argument.... and you reply with "Good for you," that's not the indication of the strongest premise. You have no counterpoint to something that fundamentally renders your entire premise pointless and asinine, you just keep saying the exact same thing endlessly, and then encouraging others to take it up with the dictionary.
Everything else aside, if you honestly are looking to go into law, you NEED to take a proper course on debate.
You have failed miserably, sorry. The very foundation of your argument has been stripped down and revealed to be worthless. When I say I can apply every accusation you have made to ANY game based on your application of the definition, and it's a sound argument.... and you reply with "Good for you," that's not the indication of the strongest argument. You have no counterpoint to something that fundamentally renders your entire premise pointless and asinine, you just keep saying the exact same thing endlessly, and then encouraging others to take it up with the dictionary. RuprechtMonkeyYou have failed miserably, sorry. You keep putting up extreme hypotheticals that in no way break down my argument in any way, shape or form. My argument is sound, valid, and logical. It is simple, and based solely on factual information and definition from the most reputable source of the english language in the world. The facts are simple; By this definition, fallout 3 is unfaithful. There is nothing you can say that will change that. Fallout 3 is unfaithful to Fallout. We've established that by definition. You have not refuted the definition, and that is what grounds the argument. By sheer definition it is unfaithful. There is nothing you can say or do to change that Your extreme hypothetical does not render my premise pointless. All you're doing is claiming it does, and that basically ammounts to nothing.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]You have failed miserably, sorry. The very foundation of your argument has been stripped down and revealed to be worthless. When I say I can apply every accusation you have made to ANY game based on your application of the definition, and it's a sound argument.... and you reply with "Good for you," that's not the indication of the strongest argument. You have no counterpoint to something that fundamentally renders your entire premise pointless and asinine, you just keep saying the exact same thing endlessly, and then encouraging others to take it up with the dictionary. VandalvideoYou have failed miserably, sorry. You keep putting up extreme hypotheticals that in no way break down my argument in any way, shape or form. My argument is sound, valid, and logical. It is simple, and based solely on factual information and definition from the most reputable source of the english language in the world. The facts are simple; By this definition, fallout 3 is unfaithful. There is nothing you can say that will change that. Fallout 3 is unfaithful to Fallout. We've established that by definition. You have not refuted the definition, and that is what grounds the argument. By sheer definition it is unfaithful. There is nothing you can say or do to change that Your extreme hypothetical does not render my premise pointless. All you're doing is claiming it does, and that basically ammounts to nothing.
Again, I'll help you out here - as someone who is extensively experienced in actual debate throughout my college stint.
You don't "refute" the definition of a simple, straightforward word. I have not attempted to "refute" the definition of the word "faithful."
Based on your application of the word faithful I will, and have, conceded that Fallout 3 is considered "unfaithful." But to what end?
Now, based on that very application you have strung together a series of overblown assertions.
Now, as I have said that same application can be used for virtually ANY game. This is something you can not refute. Agreed?
By being able to apply the "unfaithful premise" in that exact same fashion to virtually ANY game I choose it ceases to have any meaningful impact. It becomes virtually pointless. You would have to concede that virtually any sequel is made by iconoclasts, you would have to concede every sequel and its developer fall prey to the assertions you've made about Fallout 3 and Bethesda.
When you can't acknowledge that your premise is weak, you will never improve as a debater. Sometimes you need to cast your ego aside to improve.
I'm not trying to annoy you here, I'm trying to help you.
And with that, goodbye. I really can't spare anymore time at work with this. I'd like to, but I'd also like to reamin employed.
Based on your application of the word faithful I will, and have, conceded that Fallout 3 is considered "unfaithful." But to what end?ow, based on that very application you have strung together a series of overblown assertions. Now, as I have said that same application can be used for virtually ANY game. This is something you can not refute. Agreed?y being able to apply the "unfaithful premise" in that exact same fashion to virtually ANY game I choose it ceases to have any meaningful impact. It becomes virtually pointless. You would have to concede that virtually any sequel is made by iconoclasts, you would have to concede every sequel and its developer fall prey to the assertions you've made about Fallout 3 and Bethesda. When you can't acknowledge that your premise is weak, you will never improve as a debaterRuprechtMonkeyFor someone who has claimed to debate a lot, you have committed one of the most grave fallacies anyone could commit; Reductio Ad Absurdum, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as - method of proving that a premise is false by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory, further designated in Hurley as a fallacy of logic. So what you're doing is not, at all, a valid way of arguing. You're committing a straight up fallacy.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Based on your application of the word faithful I will, and have, conceded that Fallout 3 is considered "unfaithful." But to what end?ow, based on that very application you have strung together a series of overblown assertions. Now, as I have said that same application can be used for virtually ANY game. This is something you can not refute. Agreed?y being able to apply the "unfaithful premise" in that exact same fashion to virtually ANY game I choose it ceases to have any meaningful impact. It becomes virtually pointless. You would have to concede that virtually any sequel is made by iconoclasts, you would have to concede every sequel and its developer fall prey to the assertions you've made about Fallout 3 and Bethesda. When you can't acknowledge that your premise is weak, you will never improve as a debaterVandalvideoFor someone who has claimed to debate a lot, you have committed one of the most grave fallacies anyone could commit; Reductio Ad Absurdum, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as - method of proving that a premise is false by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory, further designated in Hurley as a fallacy of logic. So what you're doing is not, at all, a valid way of arguing. You're committing a straight up fallacy.
Again, that's a weak deflection. In an actual debate such endless deflections would get you laughed off of the stage.
Going back to your previous point, this is my response:
Based on your application of the word faithful I will, and have, conceded that Fallout 3 is considered "unfaithful." But to what end?
Now, based on that very application you have strung together a series of overblown assertions.
Now, as I have said that same application can be used for virtually ANY game. This is something you can not refute. Agreed?
By being able to apply the "unfaithful premise" in that exact same fashion to virtually ANY game I choose it ceases to have any meaningful impact. It becomes virtually pointless. You would have to concede that virtually any sequel is made by iconoclasts, you would have to concede every sequel and its developer fall prey to the assertions you've made about Fallout 3 and Bethesda.
Is there any way you can refute this? Saying "Good for you" or "Take it up with the OED" is NOT going to further your case in in actual, observed debate. Using your application of the word, and the conlusions drawn by such an application, wouldn't you agree that I can do the exact same thing with the vast majority of video game sequels?
Again, that's a weak deflection. In an actual debate such endless deflections would get you laughed off of the stage. RuprechtMonkeyWeak deflection? Your entire argument hinges on this one assertion that taken to the extreme, my point is meaningless. You are committing a fallacy. There are no ifs, ands, ors or buts about it. Your entire argument has been invalidated because you're using a fallacy.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]Again, that's a weak deflection. In an actual debate such endless deflections would get you laughed off of the stage. VandalvideoWeak deflection? Your entire argument hinges on this one assertion that taken to the extreme, my point is meaningless. You are committing a fallacy. There are no ifs, ands, ors or buts about it. Your entire argument has been invalidated because you're using a fallacy.I'm sorry, but you're not addressing the point.
Again, can you refute what I've said?
Can I not apply the word "Faithful" in the exact same manner you're doing so to virtually any video game sequel I choose? If you'd like I could go into endless specifics with an unfathomable amount of sequels. Doing so would render your premise laughable. Address. This. Point.
I'm sorry man, but you're just not that good at debating.
You have to acknowledge the specific points your opposition raises and dismantle them, that is one of the very first things they should be teaching you. Endless deflection is a sign of weakness when debating. It lends validity to your opposition's points.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment