CS2D 
World Champions League CS2D [1on1] v.4
Offline
leegao has written
First on-topic: [TGV] has agreed to host the International division of the WCL, and we're working on constructing a site and a timetable for both 1v1's and 2v2's after the style of the ESL. If anyone remembers the cs2d.org league, this will be somewhat like it.
Also note, it is currently still at WCL v.3, Signups for WCL v.4 are currently open and the first matches will commence in around one month.
Good luck guys.
Now Guest, let's just end it here once and for all.
First of all you have absolutely no right to act as though you are better than anyone else. And don't rebut me by saying that you are not. The tone of your voice, the over-exaggerated hostility that you manifest, and the mere fact that you take little grammatical errors made by other as a foundation to prove their ignorance says otherwise.
Secondly, please please please stop acting as if you are a knowledgeable person. The first point you made against me was made in such a loose fact-support style that my natural instinct was to laugh at how you expect the readers would automatically assume a leap in logic. Don't ever think the fallacy that is the entirety of your words will ever appeal to anyone less than a sick and no doubt a mentally troubled individual.
You claim to be superior in your knowledge of the English language yet this statement is a clear testimony of your lack of education. Do not ever appeal to the ignorance of your reader as justification of your words. It doesn't work in debate, it doesn't work anywhere.
Secondly, seeing as the only thing that you give in support of this statement is un-provable, I will then do a favor for all of us and make the following observation on behalf of your point:
Only points fully supported by empirical data or philosophical rationalization can be counted on as valid points. All else will be discarded.
Now if you really want to debate out this situation, fine, let's go then
First I would like to establish the most important value to look across upon in this debate as Justice, which embodies all that is Just including fairness, equality, and proper response in lieu of an unjust event. As you may note, I will derive the basis of Justice from Locke's own interpretation, of which the term will embody Freedom and Equality. The least of the reasons as to why my value should prevail in this debate should be blandly obvious. The same concept made by Locke was used as the basis of Freedom and Liberation from nations extending from Haiti in the Latin Americas to the United States up north, east towards France and Britain, and eventually the moral backbone to every democratic country in the world.
The following observations should be made on behalf of this debate:
1. No one can claim moral superiority over the other without full support (see my point above as a reference point to what full support really means)
2. Due to the fact that we are using a metaphysical concept as the basis of this debate, philosophical argumentations are the only acceptable points.
3. If there be any points in which the author of the said point violated the moral value of the debate, the said point will be nulled
4. Any points dropped for more than one round will be devoid of any impacts whatsoever.
The following Brightline should also be observed.
1. Morality is mutually exclusive. Thus all arguments must be able to be classified as either Just or Unjust and that there be no grey area.
So what are we debating about? The moral justification of your words.
I will take the 1st AC by constructing 2 points. If you fail to respond to any one of them, it will be automatically assumed that you have dropped the point and I have full power to use that point in any ways that I can.
Contention 1: Hypocrisy is the antithesis of Just
Referring to your original point made:
I would start by congratulating you on your basic knowledge of the English language. Yet you have no power to correct Szelek because the word “its” Is a possessive pronoun, meaning, the 2 phrases that you've used as a sentence are grammatically incorrect because there is NO VERBS to be found anywhere in the statement.
An analysis of your behavior harbors the following conclusion: You have a superiority complex in which you believe you wield superior power and knowledge than do the rest of the people in this board. Let me tell you this, you are not.
Contention 2: The use of personal attacks in a neutral argument is not fair.
Your purely crude response to NightHawk's point was laughable at best. Of course that point have no real impact since you neither supported it, nor warranted it. Thus I gave out a comical response in which you replied with a fallatical analysis.
Rather than point out the obvious flaws in this statement such as the circularity of it, I'm going to take a different approach with this argument. I will actually rationalize the example that you have provided.
Premise 1: Nobody likes NightHawk (keep in mind the grammatical interpretation of this statement)
Premise 2: Anyone who is disliked by everyone else does not count
Grammatical Analysis
1. The word Nobody is singular, therefore the grammatical analysis of this premise yields that no individual likes NightHawk.
2. Anyone refers to an individual, the word have no natural reflection but serves as a reflexive pronoun substituting for a subject. Everyone in this case I will extend to the collective masses. The do not count implies a negation of some sort.
The author of this argument failed to create any link for us so I will do that for him.
1st Conclusion: NightHawk is not like by any singular individuals and that any individual who is disliked by the mass can not be used to negate this statement.
Fair enough, first to provide some factual support. There are currently 4 people total who collectively opposes your view and does not like you: Me, NightHawk, Szelek, and Redemption. Don't worry, I'll get more people in this list soon. There's currently one person who is in favor of your view: Yourself.
If this individual can then make the claim that there are 4 people in this forum who are disliked by all, then fine, we'll take it. Especially since statistically speaking, the only people who will not count as a “Nobody” is and will remain a scarce minority.
Therefore, taking upon the utilitarian view of Justice, in which the Ends over-rides the Means, We can clearly see that the Majority of the people, regardless of the names given to them, opposes your views and thus your logic falls.
Now, taking on the Kantian form of Justice, the diametrical opposition of Utilitarianism, we will see that individualism transcends all else. Thus the subject of the debate becomes focused on you. Since the Majority can be counted as the “everyone” in your second premise under Kantian Justice, we see that any arguments that you make are void by your own arguments.
Therefore, we can see that your arguments are circular, and are both illogical and unjust, I rest my case.
PS: Please do not use inflammatory words in your posts, it makes you seem unprofessional.
Also note, it is currently still at WCL v.3, Signups for WCL v.4 are currently open and the first matches will commence in around one month.
Good luck guys.
Now Guest, let's just end it here once and for all.
First of all you have absolutely no right to act as though you are better than anyone else. And don't rebut me by saying that you are not. The tone of your voice, the over-exaggerated hostility that you manifest, and the mere fact that you take little grammatical errors made by other as a foundation to prove their ignorance says otherwise.
Secondly, please please please stop acting as if you are a knowledgeable person. The first point you made against me was made in such a loose fact-support style that my natural instinct was to laugh at how you expect the readers would automatically assume a leap in logic. Don't ever think the fallacy that is the entirety of your words will ever appeal to anyone less than a sick and no doubt a mentally troubled individual.
Quote
And yes that person has done something wrong,
and how would you know? You don't know what he has done to me so just be quiet.
and how would you know? You don't know what he has done to me so just be quiet.
You claim to be superior in your knowledge of the English language yet this statement is a clear testimony of your lack of education. Do not ever appeal to the ignorance of your reader as justification of your words. It doesn't work in debate, it doesn't work anywhere.
Secondly, seeing as the only thing that you give in support of this statement is un-provable, I will then do a favor for all of us and make the following observation on behalf of your point:
Only points fully supported by empirical data or philosophical rationalization can be counted on as valid points. All else will be discarded.
Now if you really want to debate out this situation, fine, let's go then
First I would like to establish the most important value to look across upon in this debate as Justice, which embodies all that is Just including fairness, equality, and proper response in lieu of an unjust event. As you may note, I will derive the basis of Justice from Locke's own interpretation, of which the term will embody Freedom and Equality. The least of the reasons as to why my value should prevail in this debate should be blandly obvious. The same concept made by Locke was used as the basis of Freedom and Liberation from nations extending from Haiti in the Latin Americas to the United States up north, east towards France and Britain, and eventually the moral backbone to every democratic country in the world.
The following observations should be made on behalf of this debate:
1. No one can claim moral superiority over the other without full support (see my point above as a reference point to what full support really means)
2. Due to the fact that we are using a metaphysical concept as the basis of this debate, philosophical argumentations are the only acceptable points.
3. If there be any points in which the author of the said point violated the moral value of the debate, the said point will be nulled
4. Any points dropped for more than one round will be devoid of any impacts whatsoever.
The following Brightline should also be observed.
1. Morality is mutually exclusive. Thus all arguments must be able to be classified as either Just or Unjust and that there be no grey area.
So what are we debating about? The moral justification of your words.
I will take the 1st AC by constructing 2 points. If you fail to respond to any one of them, it will be automatically assumed that you have dropped the point and I have full power to use that point in any ways that I can.
Contention 1: Hypocrisy is the antithesis of Just
Referring to your original point made:
Quote
its engliSH not englisch. Its polish not polisch.
Ja pierdole kurwa wink
Ja pierdole kurwa wink
I would start by congratulating you on your basic knowledge of the English language. Yet you have no power to correct Szelek because the word “its” Is a possessive pronoun, meaning, the 2 phrases that you've used as a sentence are grammatically incorrect because there is NO VERBS to be found anywhere in the statement.
An analysis of your behavior harbors the following conclusion: You have a superiority complex in which you believe you wield superior power and knowledge than do the rest of the people in this board. Let me tell you this, you are not.
Contention 2: The use of personal attacks in a neutral argument is not fair.
Your purely crude response to NightHawk's point was laughable at best. Of course that point have no real impact since you neither supported it, nor warranted it. Thus I gave out a comical response in which you replied with a fallatical analysis.
Quote
Fact #1 Nobody likes NightHawk
Fact #2 Someone who is disliked by everyone else doesn't count
Now start calculating and see what I mean.
Fact #2 Someone who is disliked by everyone else doesn't count
Now start calculating and see what I mean.
Rather than point out the obvious flaws in this statement such as the circularity of it, I'm going to take a different approach with this argument. I will actually rationalize the example that you have provided.
Premise 1: Nobody likes NightHawk (keep in mind the grammatical interpretation of this statement)
Premise 2: Anyone who is disliked by everyone else does not count
Grammatical Analysis
1. The word Nobody is singular, therefore the grammatical analysis of this premise yields that no individual likes NightHawk.
2. Anyone refers to an individual, the word have no natural reflection but serves as a reflexive pronoun substituting for a subject. Everyone in this case I will extend to the collective masses. The do not count implies a negation of some sort.
The author of this argument failed to create any link for us so I will do that for him.
1st Conclusion: NightHawk is not like by any singular individuals and that any individual who is disliked by the mass can not be used to negate this statement.
Fair enough, first to provide some factual support. There are currently 4 people total who collectively opposes your view and does not like you: Me, NightHawk, Szelek, and Redemption. Don't worry, I'll get more people in this list soon. There's currently one person who is in favor of your view: Yourself.
If this individual can then make the claim that there are 4 people in this forum who are disliked by all, then fine, we'll take it. Especially since statistically speaking, the only people who will not count as a “Nobody” is and will remain a scarce minority.
Therefore, taking upon the utilitarian view of Justice, in which the Ends over-rides the Means, We can clearly see that the Majority of the people, regardless of the names given to them, opposes your views and thus your logic falls.
Now, taking on the Kantian form of Justice, the diametrical opposition of Utilitarianism, we will see that individualism transcends all else. Thus the subject of the debate becomes focused on you. Since the Majority can be counted as the “everyone” in your second premise under Kantian Justice, we see that any arguments that you make are void by your own arguments.
Therefore, we can see that your arguments are circular, and are both illogical and unjust, I rest my case.
PS: Please do not use inflammatory words in your posts, it makes you seem unprofessional.
[1]
