[Discussion] Zoro = Badass
- Thread starter Our Lord Sasuke
- Start date
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
There's an actual rhetorical device that uses obviously exaggerated and false examples to demonstrate flawed logic though.
babaGAReeb
Active member
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Except it was explicitly stated that the biscuits wouldn't be able to have been eaten if not for Nami's rain.
You must be registered for see images
Yeah Toshi, it went over your head, we all saw your reply.
Don't back paddle now. I bet your stare at the screen was just as empty and full of confusion as the stare of that guy in your avatar.
Told you already that my post had nothing to do with Sanji, and everything about your nonsense way of forming arguments to your own hand.
Do you know what I notice, that your reply is about the one thing my post isn't about and trying really hard not to answer why when you're doing basically the same thing it's no problem to use flawed logic.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
His argument was a valid one though. He took Bogard's logic, and used to make conclusions to show how the line of logic is flawed. You'd think it wouldn't be hard for a guy pining about reading comprehension.
It doesn't say that anywhere..
If you're referring to the panel of Cracker in the top left corner, then it still doesn't say that they're impossible to eat without water.. it's just that the water turns them into "delicious edible biscuits"... meaning Luffy could still eat them without the water, but they would no longer be delicious, nor as easy to eat.
Oreos and milk my friend.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
My man just said "wouldn't be edible" doesn't mean "wouldn't be able to eat it." And it's at that point I stop reading.
You have the observation of a blindfolded man carrying a cane with red rings and golden retriever in a dark room.
So luckily for me, I'm not to worried.
And if that was to complicated for you again. I told you you were blind.
So the insanity defense doesn't only work in court. Luffy now apparently has a mental disorder allowing him to eat things that are inedible according to Oda.
Silly me in this thread, questioning peoples way of argumentation by forming facts to their own hand.
It's a bold strategy Cotton, Lets see if it pays off.
The boldest move is saying that the other guy is wrong when you just got proven wrong. At least you know that it is time to leave the thread now because any form of discussion has just became pointless.
No I don't I read exactly what you wrote and what you linked, and I told you why you were wrong. Not only in my eyes but also in the eyes of Oda.
Because if Oda says it is inedible, that means that it is inedible. That doesn't mean that the guy he was addressing that fact to can eat it just because some people have an disorder of swallowing tiny inedible materials.
In your post however I see nothing that indicates WHY I'm wrong. Just calling names and taking the Toshi way out of an argument when you've have lost on points. Saying that the other person didn't understand it or didn't read.
Well done you've qualified yourself as a bad debater.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Except Oda didn't use it as "inedible means things that aren't food," since the biscuits are still biscuits even while un-weakened. Context clues are important.