Where to begin? I wisish fellow once said: "Let's start with the Truth, because it gets you in the end".
So I'm gonna start with the end. Why? Because Truth is not mere fact, but fact with relevance. When you are talking about about whether you like James Bond or not and someone asks you to be truthful, telling them about how the earth is a circle or a triangle does not fulfill their call. So from this we understand that Truth is fact with relevance or within context. Now in my view, my reply to the last part will carry the most relevant information for this discussion, so it is closer to Truth than the other part.
The thing is, you don't know me, correct? This is all very unimportant and it actually reveals more about your character than you'd realize.
I simply pointed out the absurdity of what I found in here "zabuza vs itachi" and I posted. You're extrapolating this into what it isn't and has no relevance to the debate. It's a very weird way if anything to appeal to emotionality.
Regardless if you want to discuss this we can discuss it later or PM me because i'm extremely inactive. I'm open to all forms of vs debates I find them interesting no matter how absurd they are or might seem to the community
FIRST POINT - CONTEXT
In what context do i need to know you? What does it kean to know you, by what metric do you judge this?
We have already had an interaction, during which we reply according to what we think and feel, which themselves arise from the way we evaluate things, which is an impression of our selves. So by some metric, i do know you and you know me. The question is whether we know enough.
Enough of what? In context, enough to be able to offer evaluation of our debating quality or discussion quality about Naruto.
When you have precise context and are dealing with a topic of knowledge, then you can judge a person withi these horizons. You do not need to know the life story of a person when you see them make an objective mistake. And when you are dealing with a practice where you have some experience, you can evaluate their level even after two glances at them.
The fact that i specifically said that in this thread and used evidence fromothger threads, contextual analysis tells that i am referring to your ability in discussion, especially Naruto discussion, not whether you have the personality of Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler.
That is to say, learn to read context or at least to ask if you do not get something. Especially before replying so aggressively . . .
SECOND POINT - SUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY
Absurdity is a subjective standard. Therefore, you don't use it to dismiss or as a foundation for dismissal.
Now in a place where you debate things, you never dismiss on subjective standard because the premise of debate/discussion is difference of views. It is not difference that you must be comfortable with, but simple difference. Kudos for being open to all debate, but that should be the standard for everyone.
Appeal to emotion is used when debating issues that people are emotionally attached to, it seeks to prevent people from considering pure fact.
Now here we are discussing magical ninjas . . .
And who would i even appeal to? You have already expressed disagreement, so it is not like i can make you love me too much to disagree or something like that. When you are discussing something like this, especially one on one, Appeal to Emotion is the weakest fallacy one could ever try (off the top of my head)
On top of that, mine was an evaluation, not some subjective expression of feeling. It was based on the points you made. If a simple evaluation seems like an emotional attack, then we see things very differently.
Well, people being different is what makes them worth having. So let me just clarify that i didn't intend to try to trickyour emotions or somesuch. That was just an evaluation, something to help you develop/grow as a debator and even as a person. For clarity, i would appreciate one in return if you wanted to.
THIRD POINT - FALLACIES
Fallacies are situations of correct logic being used incorrectly.
For example, if i see you wearing a Manchester United shirt, i assume you support them. Why? Because people buy shirts of clubs to express support. Now it is possible you do not even know Manchester United but your girlfriend brought you the shirt because she thinks it is fashionable. So my assumption is logical, but not guaranteed to be true. Therefore, judging by association/appearance is a fallacy.
So think of fallacies like this: logical but not guaranteed.
Now because the fallacy is inherently logical, the onus is on the one who points it out to explain why it doesn't apply in this specific scenario. You don't just scream "fallaceee" and think you have a point. No. You explain why it is a fallacy and then you have a point.
Logic also tells this. I can't reply to you if i dont know what you meant, what reasoning you used.
Additionally, if i used a fallacy, chances are i didn't see it. So you have to point it out and explain why, else i could not see it and the discussion cannot proceed.
SERIOUSLY - RESPECT
Didn't i already cover this?
Discussion requires basic respect between each other. Not to treat me like your parents or president, but as person with their own thinking, feeling and reasons. So if i say things over and over and am having the worst assumed against me, that's clearly disrespect.
You wanna know what that is, imcurrebtly using a keyboard which is auto-incorrecting every second word i type in, i keep havung to take a step back to neatly align every word or else my posting gets all jumbled up. So i cant be half struggling with my keyboard and also having to struggle just to have a decent discussion as well. That doesn't seem fair to me.
My entire previous post covered actually giving me something to reply to. In this i covered how fallacies work and how points are made - with proof! So why am i having to explain things like basic context and deal with accusations so weak i cant believe that you yourself believe them?
First you make claims without backup, but can somehow tell if im making assumptions despite my points all being evidenced.
Then you accuse me of fallacies when you cant back them up with evidence.
Then when you do try to give something objective, its with the weakest possible point you could go on.
Looking at that, it seems like you didnt come here to talk but just to attack. Seriously, an appeal to emotion?
Come on, lets respect each other.
As an adjective it means on a personal whim, assumption, rather than reason. Which is to say, it's not wrong, but in this instance we can safely say it is.
I don't mean to drag this debate into a Tl;DR over a consensus among the majority that zabuza doesn't win, like he just doesn't it seems redundant on my part to just constantly assert that and me be met with very "muh semantic" games than properly analyzing the why's/how's more practically
How can we safely say it is? If im expressing disagrement, doesn't that mean it isnt safe by any metric?
What semantics? Care to at least try to be direct on any point. I legit dont even know what youre referring to
Maybe thats the problem? In a discussion, you dont assert, you prove. You bring evidence that everyone can work with. See how i referred to specific techniques instead of "muh stronger-ism"?
The reason I say it's far fetched is because of fallacious reasonings multiple of them, you may propose idea's in debates, I mean that's how we're able to expand not only as a community but for interesting discussion as well.
The reason, again, I say it's far fetched is because I can make the same "befitting" scenario's for itachi, where itachi claims no one without an MS can beat him (authors words) or that "hurr yataaa brocks aaaalll" these are simply no limit fallacies and use this information to make it seem like he's invincible (even in a particular situation/scenario). Drawing parallels/contrasts to the users ability as "the hidden mist beats itachi" is a same method of thinking. Zabuza again conventionally does not stand anywhere close to itachi where the hidden mist should be an issue for him.
These types of debates are very common, it seems absurd on the surface, but you can legitimately conjure up a defense to whatever you think is a possibility, it does not make it correct
What fallacious reasonings? Prove them to be so!
Then how about making one? How about giving me something to actually reply to instead of neither here nor there vagueness?
NLF is actually such an assertion - that powers work no matter the level difference. Im here debating thay Zabuza is at Itachi level, so i cant possibly be using NLF! Its technically impossible. Additionally, i gave examples of powers working despite level difference, so your point is already bad. Finally, becfore you assert Nlf, prove that it applies in Naruto!
Apealing to conventionality is an actual fallacy, funny enough. In a debate, it always fails because the premise of debate is difference in views.
Simply claiming something is absurd does not make it wrong either. You have to actually address given points. Thats how debate works.
Overall, i think you fell for the buzzword trap. You speak of fallacies, conventionality, NLF and all that but based on how you used them, you genuinely dont have a shred of understanding on them. See, buzzwords are used for the express purpose of building fake commonality (research propaganda) and not actually helping people understand things. So get buzzwords out of your head and actually make sure you know what youre talking about. And if you dont know, then ask.
You're the closest ive gotten to an actual discussion here, lets keep it going, but actually going.