Obviously I don't, or we wouldnt be arguing. But it doesnt have to. it all depends on who responds. In this case, it was you, and thus an argument started.


Actually, I explained why I was correct, and you then said the opposite. I had as much an argument as you did.


For one who constantly strikes down anything someone uses that isnt an argument while arguing, that doesnt seem like you.

ugh, falco you got exactly what you asked for when you posted something about Kaimetsu...you know as well as anyone else who has been on the otherside of the debate with him that if you say something about him, he WILL respond...you are going out exactly how you wanted to.....

Only if I win. That'd be great. Leaving knowing that I am one of the few victorious against Kai. That'd be something.

I don't think you will succeed.

aye i think he did take a look :-/

You missed my point, I was saying you made the remark to get Kaimetsu to reply, so therefore, you started the whole thing

You're such a loser, dude. You pick a fight with someone so you go out with glory? Not only is that a dumb thing to do, but your plan is also failing.

Two stupid actions don't make a... never mind

We'll see. I am 99.5% sure that I am at the right here.


I did not do that with that intent. I was merely in a bad mood at the time and posted what i exspected. I said I would liekt o go out by beating kai. I never said that i preplanned it.


See above. Also, I'm not failing. Neither one of us is really winning at this point.

You're contradicting yourself. If person A says something derogatory about person B, and person B responds, who started the argument? A or B? According to your logic up to now, it's B?

Person A punches person B in the face. Person B punches back. By your logic, B started the fight?

We both stated our positions. Then, in your next post, you simply asserted that I was wrong. You weren't bringing anything new, you weren't clarifying your claim, you were just saying "I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG". You may be able to convince yourself like that, but it doesn't work on anybody else.

I do? Constantly? Are you gonna back that accusation up or is it gonna be another "NO YOU KNOW YOU DO I DON'T NEED TO PROVE IT" deal?

You misunderstand. Person A said nothing bad about person B. Person A merely said that he thought person B would do event C. Person B responds to this in a way meatn to be argued. Therefore, person B is responsible.
Of course not, but this is nothing liek our current example.


Me, 1.
you, 1.
me, 2.

You, 2.

Me, 3.

Then you claim that all im doing is assumign im right, while as seen, before that, you were doing the same.




This doesnt affect the argument as a whole, really, so i dont care whether you wish to delude yourself or not. But you do point out irrelevances.

I guess that was what he wanted. Let him argue his life away... I don't know who's better: Falco who basically picks a fight on particular individuals to prove he's superior then them... Or Kaimetsu who actually spends his time wasting it on someone who argues for the sakes of proving he's stubburn. As far as I know, it's a waste of time, and a good way to get post counts.

it's the other way around. I have maybe picked 1 fight in my whole time imn these forums. Kai, on the other hand....

So if I said: "Falco will say something very stupid in response to this post" then I wouldn't be saying anything bad? You think that statements of expectations cannot be derogatory remarks?

I simply asked you not to attribute words to me. You were the one that started the argument over language.

No? You've repeatedly stated that I could have ignored you, as though this is enough to show that I started the argument. But you don't extend this to any other type of confrontation?

No, I said you asserted that you were right. I don't even wanna get into assumptions.

In all of my posts that you quoted, I was either stating or clarifying my position. In the final post - yours - you simply reiterated what you'd asserted before and declared that you were right.

Haha, that's what I expected. Why do you make these accusations if you're never prepared to back them up?

If a person's point is irrelevant then yeah, I'll draw attention to that. So what? How would that tendency forbid me from making flippant comments?

Me, obviously. I argue because it's fun, and also because it's an excuse to work on my writing skills (given the incredible clumsiness of your second sentence, you should probably consider taking my lead). How can it be a waste of time if it fulfils my objectives?

With that in mind, the comparison is simple: Falco fails in his goal, while I do not.

If you said "I think Falco will say something...etc" I wouldnt think of it as bad. it's your opinion. It may be derogatory, but it isnt necessarily an attack meant to start an argument.


Ah, giving a "No, you started it" to spice up your arguments? Hmm, very nice tactics (I'm obviously joking, for any *****s out there).


I said that was one possible solution. It wasnt a direct attack, while punching someone is. Different situation.


Fine.

I dont see how what you did was any better. There's a pretty clear line between clarification and declaring you're right. You were on the latter side, the second time around.


"it was just a flippant comment."


They aren't relevant to the overall argument.

So statements of opinions can't start arguments? What can?

You're being patently ludicrous. If somebody makes a derogatory remark about me and I respond, I'm the one starting the argument? And yet if somebody punches me then he started the fight? How do you explain this distinction?

Um. Ostensibly this is a 'joke'? If so, why are you hiding behind it? I made a point: You started the discussion of language when you challenged my use of it.

Define "direct attack", and then show that it makes a difference.

Completely untrue. My first post summarised what you did and then claimed that it constituted putting words in my mouth. My second defined exactly what the phrase means. I didn't even declare that either of us was right or wrong - I just said my piece and left it at that.

You, on the other hand, started with the declaration that I was wrong and then repeated your definition of the phrase. You apparently think that the winner is whoever can continue to say "I'M RIGHT NANANA" for the longest before he gets bored.

No, it was a direct accusation meant to undermine what I had posted. You can abandon it now and pretend you were only kidding, but it won't do much for your credibility.

Nor were they meant to be (and, by your own logic, nor was your claim that you're not always wrong). I don't reject statements just because they're irrelevant. But if my opponent is using them in attempts to support his cause then yeah, I'll take issue with them.

The conflicting opinion put against it.


"I want to punch him, he deserves it". Someone punches him. Indirect.

Person described above just Punches him.direct

"I think you wil ldo this". Indirect.

"You will do this". Direct.

Want me to reiterate this about 50 more times? WIl lyou understand then?

You accused me of something I did not do. That started it.


See above.


"No, not really" is saying i am wrong. There's one thing wrong with this argument. I did the same thing you did postwise, also. The last one is the only one then, by your standards, that could arguably be considered asserting I am right with no backing. Though by your standards, it was further clarification.
No, see above.


At this point, the only thign we could clarify is who started the argument. With no written definition of what putting words in one's mouth is, it makes this whole argument pointless. If you wish to continue though, I can.

But you already ruled that statements of opinion can't cause arguments. Now you're saying that they can, but only if they are in response to another? You've created a contrived, convoluted mess. Specify exactly what you think it means to start an argument.

Stupid boy. The two examples are completely disparate. In the first instance of the first example, the harm is indirect because the instigator isn't interacting with the victim. In the second, both actions involve direct, harmful (or at least offensive) participation with the subject. If you're going to try something like this, you have to try to be consistent.

Even if you didn't understand the particular phrase I used, you certainly understood the overall meaning. All that was left was to argue over semantics, which you inanely did.

Yes, but not so blatantly. In any case, it's irrelevant. Did you not read this text? "The problem is not that you claimed to be correct. The problem is this: That's all you did".

And the last one is the only one that I criticised for it.

Ah, now you are attributing standards to me. Did it convey any information that wasn't conveyed in your previous message?