@ehenry:
@mantlefan:
Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right? So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.
Why?
A true logician would be gracious to his audience and note the fallacy employed. A poser merely steals the words of a logician with no explanation and no understanding.
Does logical discourse require that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why? The 211 logic class i took discussed true vs not true and valid vs invalid. There was no discussion of burden of proof.
You are likely confusing logic with debate, specifically NFL debate. In this case the affirmative has the burden of proof to explain that the status quo is insufficient to resolve a given problem.
In this case mantlefan claims the game is balanced and that those who say otherwise bear the burden of proof. This is an error. The game is indeed unbalanced. The very existence of an Alpha2 bears this out. If balance existed then this forum would not. Logic would diagram the argument as If A then B. If B then C. Therefore If A then C.
All of which means that the game is indeed unbalanced until proven otherwise.
That’s really funny. I never said the game was balanced. Somehow you are the expert of logic but equate my asking for proof of someone else’s claim as refutement of the claim.
Your “analysis” ignores the fact that a claim was made. Your statement that because Alpha 2 exists the game is unbalanced means that because changes were made to make the game balanced, the game is automatically unbalanced. What you ignore is whether or not the game is balanced.
You state that according to what you call logic, there would be no discussion of imbalance if balance existed. Why does the act of discussing whether or not something exists have direct impact on the existence of that which is being discussed?
Does the sky change color based on whether or not we are discussing what color it is? Isn’t the color independent of whether or not it is discussed?
Essentially, you are saying that saying that imbalance exists means imbalance exists, because if balance was the case, then no one would think there is imbalance. Why then does saying there is balance (which I have never done), not mean that it is balanced?
