CountTalabecland wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:31 pm
Its only novel length relative to the fact that most monkeys with keyboards can't write quite that long, so good for you bud, you get a banana. Don't let the door hit you on the way out of the dwarf forum that you felt so threatened by that you had to come here to defend Blackguards.
I am sure all your destro pals will let you cry on their shoulders over the adversity you face from the straw-man you have built. If I see more nonsense from you in the future, I will be more than happy to quote you, peace.
For the record, I didn't commit strawman because I simply stepped off the argument after realizing that I'd have more luck reasoning with a rock, however:
>No true scottsman: Making what could be called a claim of purity, as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.
"No IB would pick that tactic, you would know if you played one."
>Anecdotal: Using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, specially to dismiss statistics.
"Dark Elfs are the strongest faction in the game at the moment. DoK is untouchable, WE has every tool under the sun, Sorc ST burst is the go to scen and city DPS now, and BG has amazing synergy with melee ball. I do not feel bad for BG in the slightest."
>Begging the question: A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise:
"I play both sides and I have to say, Order is in a terrible state of balance but has the population at the moment."
"I'm not biased and I'm not trying to secretly screw over destro by playing 4D x-realm chess or whatever you are accusing me off. "
>The texas sharpshooter: Cherry-picking data clusters to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumtion.
"Destro classes are generally better than Order and they exist in more balanced numbers. Doing weekend scens on destro is easy mode and on Order you need a premade before you even think about getting one win."
>Ad-hominem: Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits instead of engaging with the argument:
"
TLDR. I'm not going to read your novel length garbage."
"IB suffers from poor mobility and one viable build.
IDK what Amdus is smoking but IB has one acceptable city build with punishing knock + AP tactic."
"Its only novel length relative to the fact that most monkeys with keyboards can't write quite that long, so good for you bud, you get a banana."
>Tu-quoque: Avoiding having to engage in criticism by turning it back on the accuser - Answering criticism with criticism.
"I am sure all your destro pals will let you cry on their shoulders over the adversity you face from the straw-man you have built. If I see more nonsense from you in the future, I will be more than happy to quote you, peace."
>Composition/Division: Assuming that what's true of one part of something has to be applied to all, or other parts of it.
"Sure IC gets hit more but
WHO CARES so long as you win the instances and get more sov, which destro does overwhelmingly. "
"Destro is fine. Plenty of players during peak times. Less players on Destro just before EU prime time and during NA = off hours city pushes. Its nothing more than that and it certainly doesn't reflect balance. the pop will flip at some point ppl will be clutching their Order pearls instead."
TL;DR: You are full of ****. 8 pages, 0 arguments from you.