997675

[WillLi]

@cor3zone I'm not 'blaming' debate on you I'm saying you 'are' debating so are they. And now you're contradicting yourself. You just told me you're withholding judgement on the witches being less evil. As an explanation for your statement of "withholding judgment" which is the only reason I continued to post to you. Now you're saying you have not been withholding judgement on that but instead been making a judgement on that. Which either means your 'withholding judgement' statement was pointless and this could've all been solved by you either not saying it, or when I commented on it you said it was pointless instead of defending it. Or that you are just covering your ass now.

As again for wrong, it's about continuing the debate on what pretense, it's not about who started it. It's impossible for someone to know what your thoughts are prior to trying to initiate debate. However you have no obligation to respond. The others, have been saying whatever they want to say, but they have a judgement, and they are only using the information the series has provided us as evidence and not doing "What if's." They also are not saying something and contradicting themselves later.

You keep saying me or they are violating debate rules, but you haven't explained how. I've clearly told you what you're doing wrong. And when you've proven that you're not doing that I've retracted that. The problem is you have changed the explanation of what you're doing only to have it infringe in another manner. Maybe the problem is that you keep omitting key pieces from your post, either that or really you just want to argue. Or maybe it's that you just don't want to admit you messed up somewhere.

This is gonna be my last reply to you now though, because as a rule, as soon as people start changing the meaning of what they said earlier in the discussion, there is no point in speaking with them.

 

[cor3zone]

@WillLi
Interesting. I respect you taking distance. For posterity:

I was withholding judgment on the witches being less evil due to the past. Not once did I state I was talking about the present witches, I thought I was quite clear about that. Again, sorry for being unclear, in regards to time.

I do have an obligation to respond, if I truly believe in my argument. Not defending it is the same as admitting I'm wrong. At least to me. As for the others, they are literally pulling shit out of their asses. Invader claimed the humans' justification was never stated. I proved that wrong. They also claimed witches left/haven't done anything. I also proved that wrong. As for Balrog, you saw yourself the pathetic 'arguments' levelled against mine. Like I've stated, I never based anything on 'what ifs'. I speculated, it was never part of my argument. Everyone else can pull shit out of nowhere, I can't?

As for being wrong, I thought that was self-evident. Sorry, I guess. Invader has provided factually incorrect evidence. Balrog devolved into frantic trolling. You literally strawmanned me, claiming I argued on something I didn't ('less evil'), while also claiming I never offered proof (I am the only one who did). So, fuck off and have a nice day.

 

[MrF0x]

@cor3zone @WillLi
It's is Fictional Fantasy manga, story and characters with only 15 chapters and now this is just a battle arc. As I even pointed there isn't that many facts established yet, so this whole discussion haves no backing and is just pointless...
So just why are you talking about it if this was real life? This makes no fucking sense...

 

[cor3zone]

@MrF0x
Some people immerse themselves in fiction. I don't think your way is wrong, so why do you think mine is?

As for facts, I've stated earlier in the thread that my stance is based on facts: the facts being what we have seen both sides do.

 

[WillLi]

@MrF0x What you're saying would mean that we can not discuss a story until there is a substantial amount of information provided. Which is fundamentally wrong to believe that's not possible. If t was, they wouldn't bother with a periodical release method, because their fans wouldn't be able to discuss it. Also no one is discussing this as if it is real life. We're talking about witches on the moon.

@cro3zone What I did to you wasn't a straw man. You not providing clear information on what you're saying and then people saying you're saying something and you never clarify that is not what you said is not a straw man, that is miscommunication. And If you're not basing your arguments on what if's, don't bring them up. It makes it look like you are. Invader and Barlog's arguments are incorrect, but you're allowed to have an incorrect argument in a debate as long as you follow the rules. when Barlog started using speculation I got on him as well. You just aren't reading my post to other people. The fact that they think witches haven't done anything is probably their lack of reading comprehension of chapter 9. That's not them pulling something out of thin air, that's them failing to understand the information presented to them. Large difference in intent.

And yes I responded after I said I wouldn't, and that is because you actually clearly explained yourself and apologized for not being clear, even if you proceed to say I'm strawmaning you about something you just admitted you weren't clear about. Either way, I have no quarrel with you if you're doing what you say in your recent post. However understand none of this would happen if you're clear from the get go when making a statement referring to something specific and not general. We could've spent all this time working together instead.

And yes, I feel obligated to make sure the debate I'm participating in is following the rules of debate, because if it's not then it just devolves into a shouting match and I and everyone else has wasted their time.

 

[BananowyJE]

This series started so strong and is so shit, like holy cow, that's some kind of achievement.

 

[cor3zone]

@WillLi
The definition of a strawman:
Twisting the opponent's argument into one easier to refute, and defeating that. That fits your opening response to me:

Well regardless of what either side did in the past. The human response is inexcusable. We're talking genocide here.

I never stated it was excusable, I stated that both sides are equal. Equally bad, in this case. It also fits your other response:

But we -do- know the genocide <.< both sides have straight up mentioned it.

I never stated the genocide was one-sided information. Further:

if you withhold judging the action in a situation like this, then you are implying that there is the possibility for their actions to be redeemed or excused.

No. I literally stated, at the start, that both sides are equal. Both sides are irredeemable. Then:

"Well it's possible this happened and we just don't know it" it's down right disrespectful to the other side

Again, never my point, just your interpretation. Now:

Just as you can say "Maybe they had a reason" everyone else can say "Maybe they didn't" and no discussion can go anywhere if people do that. That is why your way of thinking is wrong, not because your answer is 'incorrect' but because you are stonewalling discussion with a baseless argument that can not be disproved until later.

Again, never my point. All of my actual arguments were based on the facts we've seen. I was not the one claiming an 'objective truth'; I was not the one "stonewalling". Let's see:

If you don't want to judge 'less evil' then don't comment on discussions about that even if you are addressed, because you're breaking the rules of debate, not them. If you debate, you must make a decision on what you're debating about. If you with hold judgement on who is 'less evil' then you can only debate whether or not one 'is' evil without breaking debate etiquette. Because to debate you must take a side, and you must have evidence. Without those it's not a debate, it's a shouting match.

I need to comment on 'less evil', since that actually runs counter to my argument: equally evil. It was a direct counter, why are you saying it's unrelated? They made a stance counter to mine, yet somehow I didn't take a stance? Not technically a strawman:

The others, have been saying whatever they want to say, but they have a judgement, and they are only using the information the series has provided us as evidence and not doing "What if's."

You just admitted to them not understanding the story so far. Yet they are using information provided as evidence, but never actually quoting anything from the manga? Intent literally doesn't fucking matter, as you pointed out yourself. I was unclear, yet you still went after that point over and over. They were unclear (about information from the manga), yet I'm more in the wrong than you when I respond pretty much identically to you?

 

[WillLi]

@cor3zone

Your point about me bringing up 'inexcusable' was in reference to this

All of that is purely one-sided information, though. Who can tell what is actually true, when neither side agrees with the other? Besides, a possible witch being the cause of all that is not really a point in their favor. Both sides are equally at fault, your arguments only strengthen my idea.

This is why I brought up the inexcuability. Because it's not 'equal fault'. Based on the information we have, humans started this crazy train. Nothing suggest the witches were equal in responsibility for -starting- this. Now I will admit I had not read your first post here at this point, but it's also irrelevant here because as you just quoted my post I'm sure you can see. All I did was say "The genocide is inexcusable" and then talk about why I personally don't think the series deserves and 8. I even clearly mentioned in this post 'both sides were evil' so you can't possibly think I'm saying your statement of "both sides were bad" is wrong.

You replied to that with this

We don't know the true past, or the true intentions of either side. All we have so far is their respective propaganda. I'm withholding my judgment, seeing as currently both sides are monsters, that's my stance.

And guess what? That's when I got on you about witholding judgement., because you did not clarify what you were witholding judgement on, I assumed you were saying that you will not judge at all. Which then lead into the back and forward we had.

Also as for the onsided part

All of that is purely one-sided information, though. Who can tell what is actually true, when neither side agrees with the other? Besides, a possible witch being the cause of all that is not really a point in their favor. Both sides are equally at fault, your arguments only strengthen my idea.

(Yes it's the same quote from before)

This was your response to Invader speaking of the witches being 'genocided for no reason', -everyone- is going to assume you're trying to say that "that's jsut what the witches say the reason for the genocide is". Which is why it was highlighted that that's what the humans themselves said.

As for the part about about disrespect, you are misquoting me.

It's also a stance that frankly pisses people off if you participate in debate because no one can prove anything to you if you just say "Well it's possible this happened and we just don't know it" it's down right disrespectful to the other side.

This was in reference to you taking the stance of withholding judgement based on the fact that "Maybe something happened" but still debating. This was not saying you were throinwg out what ifs as arguments.

Now as for my quote on this one

Just as you can say "Maybe they had a reason" everyone else can say "Maybe they didn't"

This one, is my mistake, at that point I had mixed up some things on what you actually said. Though you're still misquoting me, as I never said it was your point I said it shouldn't be done.

As for the less evil thing. You actually don't need to comment on things being 'less evil'. You know what you can say? "I don't have enough information to decide if the witches are less evil" and then not say anything. This is of course on the basis if you have not made a decision. If you have made a decision, then this entire quote falls back to the fact that there was a misunderstanding about what you were witholding judgement on due to lack of clarity. As you notice, no where does it say it's wrong to say that the witches are not less evil. It says you can't comment on that if you haven't made a decision about that. But you had, there was just a misunderstanding on that.

As for the final one, there's a difference between "using evidence incorrectly" and "not having evidence." Every time they said something that had no evidence that I noticed that was not corrected by you, I said something. Is it possible I missed some? Yeah it is, but it's not like I didn't get on them for it. And the reason I kept going after your point was because you kept fighting what I was saying without clearing up the misunderstanding. I was explicit in what I was talking about specifically most the time. If you simply said "That's not what I meant" and explained I had misunderstood what you said, it'd have been over. However if you attack my statement and don't correct me on my mistaken assumptions I have no way of knowing they're incorrect, and will continue on assuming they are correct, because you responded as if they were.

Now I don't know why you're comparing your 'wrongness' to me, when as I said before me and you aren't even debating this topic, we're debating whether or not you're debating properly. You yourself have said you didn't read my post to other people, and if you think we responded the same..well you didn't read them. There is a difference in how we responded. It doesn't make my argument more right than your's, but the method. I clearly stated my argument in the early stages that "You are not less evil just because someone was evil to you first" and every time the argument went on something different I explictly veered it back to "less evil because you had evil done to you first" Barlog tried to bring up 'harm' and a few other things, I addressed them, but then specifically said "We're talking about "less evil because someone was evil to you first" and did not pursue anything else. You went from "Evil, yes or no?" into "Less evil?" and that is what caused the issues with clarification and led to all this.

 

[Kestan]

Comments are too long to read. I'll just enjoy my cup of tea.

Ah yes, life is wonderful and I freaking hate it.

 

[bitlock]

WHOA CHAPTER! Moar!

 

[henkingu]

Why he didn’t use that at the beginning?? Wtf

 

[MrF0x]

@Invader_Retro @BalrogDeMorgoth
Ok, chapter 16 is really good twist and turning point for setting up next arc.

Very small generic info:

Spoiler

Part is direct development from story set up and other is just nice play from the author. Though, it will be hard to understand without knowing some things.

 

[Boots]

The old lady going "ara" as her top half flew across the air completely destroyed the grim serious tone lmao

 

[sinisempi]

i have already forgotten if the girl who was not sliced was a witch or not

 

[MachuPicchu]

I'm sorry, but how can anyone say both sides of conflict are equally bad?
Human race decided to kill off witches and the only reason of genocide we got is that they are no longer needed due to technological progress of human race. Let's add to that slavery and tortures.
On the other hand we have witches, who wanted to respond with same thing (but ofc on smaller scale as there were few witches left), but were decimated before they could do so. Yeah, for sure they did some war crimes as well (like all sides do during war), but nowhere near as bad as human.

 

[mruggeri2]

I really admire how people can talk and analyze so passionately about such a shitty series like this.It just sounds like a waste of time to me.

 

[Joonhas]

I had expectations, I was interested.

Now it's just a pool of bloody piss and diarrhea. Insanity for the sake of insanity. Edgy psycho asshole of a mc for the sake of it.
A shit show that you only read at this point so you can say;
"yeah, I know how shitty it is, I read it and I won't recommend you doing the same"

If I had a physical copy of this manga, then the best way to use it would be to use its pages to wipe my ass every time a would take a shit. Then the pages would at least have some content of value.

P.S. I feel like demanding a refund for the time lost reading this from the author, even though I didn't pay a cent to read this.

 

[cor3zone]

@MachuPicchu
Getting killed while in the process of murdering someone doesn't make one a better person than a successful murderer. Being a victim doesn't excuse becoming the aggressor.

 

[MachuPicchu]

@cor3zone
Witches were not caught in the middle of mass murdering human race. All they had was only plans, which tbh, were super duper unrealistic considering how easily all of them got massacred.

 

[cor3zone]

@MachuPicchu
Fine. Getting killed while planning murder, doesn't make one better than a successful murderer.

You seem to suggest only the results matter when pondering morality. Am I getting that right?