739 réponses à ce sujet

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Sisterofshane wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place.

Then explain to us what the endings really are to you. Did they happen? Are they canon? What do you actually believe? Because it's hard to argue your case if you have no case to stand on.

Your stance, simplified without insults,  is " I disagree with this I.T. interpretation. " So then, what would you think is the actual case? What is the basis of your argument?

Are you so unable to support your own claims that you have to fall back to the attack the other debater stance for a puncher's chance in debate?

Answer the question and stop dodging. Otherwise you are trolling and not even worth debating.

BINGO!  We have a winner!

The Guy has offered nothing to the actual debate itself, other then the fact that he believes we are all debating wrong.Read number 14.  He refuses to debate you all because he believes you crazy for arguing in favor of IT, but has offered nothing solid in this thread to refute the evidence with which you present.

And sadly avoids these logical points, because he has no foundation to back it up.

[Lookout1390]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

When/If the IT gets proven wrong. I expect some Hitler rant parodies. A lot of hitler rant parodies.

Hackett Out.

It has already proven wrong.

EA released a big ol' "**** you" back in April saying that it wasn't.

People keep saying this. Saying it doesn't make it true. In actuality, they refuted many theories but danced around I.T.

They said there will be no more gameplay added, and that they aren't changing the ending.

They are just elaborating on a few details so a few more people will be 'satisfied' with the ending.

Common sense says everything that peopled 'hated' about the ending, is staying...

Modifié par Lookout1390, 13 mai 2012 - 04:46 .

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A conspiracy theory is not true simply because it hasn't been "refuted".

There are a bunch of conspiracies that did turn out to be true as well.

And that has to do with the price of tea in China how?

[balance5050]

Lookout1390 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
That being true or false, do you really believe IT is going to gain something out of this?

Answer his question

Why should he? How does it support/disprove IT?

Seriously? you guys can't even debate properly, the only reason not to answer is either because you don't know or you're afraid of what people will say.

This

Please, keep bumping this thread. I want more IT-bashers to read this thread.

Delicious

That's what I say! Hold the Line 

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
That being true or false, do you really believe IT is going to gain something out of this?

Our only gain would be to steer this debate into a more civil discussion about circumstantial evidence rather than descending into ad hominem again.

You and yours won't stop with ad hominems. It the last refuge of true belivers and poor debaters.

I'm being as civil as I can be with you, sir. Calling you a troll is only saying that you are posting only to rile people up and have no actual argument You still haven't answered my questions at all and have dodged them at every turn, which actually makes you the poor debater.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
That being true or false, do you really believe IT is going to gain something out of this?

Our only gain would be to steer this debate into a more civil discussion about circumstantial evidence rather than descending into ad hominem again.

You and yours won't stop with ad hominems. It the last refuge of true belivers and poor debaters.

Ah, the motive!  To silence IT believers once and for all!

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A conspiracy theory is not true simply because it hasn't been "refuted".

There are a bunch of conspiracies that did turn out to be true as well.

And that has to do with the price of tea in China how?

 

[Iconoclaste]

Lookout1390 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
BINGO!  We have a winner!

The Guy has offered nothing to the actual debate itself, other then the fact that he believes we are all debating wrong.Read number 14.  He refuses to debate you all because he believes you crazy for arguing in favor of IT, but has offered nothing solid in this thread to refute the evidence with which you present.

I guess if you ignore where your supposed evidence is systematically destroyed, then I guess you can pretend that.

Where is it systemically destroyed?  Where have you offered a counterpoint to anything, except to speak in hypotheticals?

That being true or false, do you really believe IT is going to gain something out of this?

Answer his question

I've done that on many threads, on many points. Do you really think anyone here is entitled to ask again and again, even if those same points were debunked many times?

Why would you expect me or anyone else to work harder at your stuff than yourselves? You did not put solid evidence in ordered fashion, so everytime an IT supporter opens up a "thread" to attract attention, he / she doesn't give all the "evidence" to open up a frank and honest discussion, it's always a tiny bit at a time. Why so? Because it would give opponents the "real matter of the theory", and IT supporters would not be able to "make up evidence" and change it in the course of a discussion. Instead, they casually send people searching in a thousand pages thread, or send them looking at fan made Youtube videos, or whatever time saving method to try to get their point through without having to show their theory in a structured manner.

I do not think IT would gain anything more than what it already has : a bunch of zealots trying to shut down opposition with rude manners, trollish behavior and immature argumentation and refusal of counter-evidence when presented. If any IT supporter thinks he's giving his theory a "nice look" by asking others to repeat endlessly the same points, knowing in advance how things will turn out, they just don't realise we are not all in a frenzy of frustration regarding the endings. Harsh words are used sometimes to describe some IT supporters and their manners, I don't think they have any merit to more respect than they give others.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 13 mai 2012 - 04:50 .

[CavScout]

KevShep wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KevShep wrote...

CavScout ... Ive backed up my claim now you answer my question!

You have not.
You claimed "indoctrination" was used in that Final Hours app. It wasn't.
You claimed "full reaper control" can only mean indoctrination as proved by the codex. You failed to back it up.

Just because other Indoctrination Theory Adapts are cheering you on doesn't mean you've actually accomplished anything.

I guess I cant argue with some one that says the codex and wiki are wrong

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!!

Note that I never said the Codex/Wiki were wrong....

You sound like you were easly indoctrinated/fooled by Bioware when you got to the ending. This whole serise has been about destroying the reapers and you let a REAPER kid talk you into throwing all of that out the window in JUST 10 minutes to pick control/synthesis...or TIM's/Saren's path!

A opening ad hominem followed by the odd ignoring of the actual game ending(s)/choice(s). For you can still destroy the Reapers in ME3.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A conspiracy theory is not true simply because it hasn't been "refuted".

There are a bunch of conspiracies that did turn out to be true as well.

And that has to do with the price of tea in China how?

And your arguments have what to do with IT and the endings of ME3?

[BatmanTurian]

Lookout1390 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

When/If the IT gets proven wrong. I expect some Hitler rant parodies. A lot of hitler rant parodies.

Hackett Out.

It has already proven wrong.

EA released a big ol' "**** you" back in April saying that it wasn't.

People keep saying this. Saying it doesn't make it true. In actuality, they refuted many theories but danced around I.T.

They said there will be no more gameplay added, and that they aren't changing the ending.

They are just elaborating on a few details so a few more people will be 'satisfied' with the ending.

Common sense says everything that peopled 'hated' about the ending, is staying...

And I.T. can still happen with all of that. I.T. doesn't change the ending and no additional gameplay is needed to end the game, only cutscenes and conversations.

[CavScout]

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A conspiracy theory is not true simply because it hasn't been "refuted".

A literary interpretation is not a conspiracy theory. English 101 fail.

According to IT, BioWare has shipped a game with no ending. According to IT, BioWare won't even state that IT is their plan all the while being crucified in the press and on their forums for the reveled endings.

IT is not an interpretation of the ending, it is a claim that BW is hiding the real ending from its customers and taking a massive PR hit while doing so.

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!!

Note that I never said the Codex/Wiki were wrong....

Except you did. You as much as claimed that full reaper control is not indoctrination, which makes no sense because it's the only other lore-based way Reapers control organics other than turning them into husks.

[CavScout]

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
That being true or false, do you really believe IT is going to gain something out of this?

Our only gain would be to steer this debate into a more civil discussion about circumstantial evidence rather than descending into ad hominem again.

You and yours won't stop with ad hominems. It the last refuge of true belivers and poor debaters.

I'm being as civil as I can be with you, sir. Calling you a troll is only saying that you are posting only to rile people up and have no actual argument You still haven't answered my questions at all and have dodged them at every turn, which actually makes you the poor debater.

Do you also tell your woman that you love her and that's why you beat her?

Loaded question = Load question

[Sisterofshane]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...
BINGO!  We have a winner!

The Guy has offered nothing to the actual debate itself, other then the fact that he believes we are all debating wrong.Read number 14.  He refuses to debate you all because he believes you crazy for arguing in favor of IT, but has offered nothing solid in this thread to refute the evidence with which you present.

I guess if you ignore where your supposed evidence is systematically destroyed, then I guess you can pretend that.

Where is it systemically destroyed?  Where have you offered a counterpoint to anything, except to speak in hypotheticals?

That being true or false, do you really believe IT is going to gain something out of this?

Answer his question

I've dona that on many threads, on many points. Do you really think anyone here is entitled to ask again and again, even if those same points were debunked many times?

Why would you expect me or anyone else to work harder at your stuff than yourselves? You did not put solid evidence in ordered fashion, so everytime an IT supporter opens up a "thread" to attract attention, he / she doesn't give all the "evidence" to open up a frank and honest discussion, it's always a tiny bit at a time. Why so? Because it would give opponents the "real matter of the theory", and IT supporters would not be able to "make up evidence" and change it in the course of a discussion. Instead, they casually send people searching in a thousand pages thread, or send them looking at fan made Youtube videos, or whatever time saving method to try to get their point through without having to show their theory in a structured manner.

I do not think IT would gain anything more than what it already has : a bunch of zealots trying to shut down opposition with rude manners, trollish behavior and immature argumentation and refusal of counter-evidence when presented. If any IT supporter thinks he's giving his theory a "nice look" by asking others to repeat endlessly the same points, knowing in advance how things will turn out, the just don't realise we are not all in a frenzy of frustration regarding the endings. Harsh words are used sometimes to describe some IT supporters and their manners, I don't think they have any merit to more respect trhan they give others.

Funny, I think the anti-IT side has presented this behavior more recently tonight...

Besides, jokes on you I don't believe in IT.  I can, however (and did, in this thread) come in and have a reasonable discussion with people who want to hear actual answers to questions based upon what happened in the game, not spout off red herrings learned from debate 101 in a hope to derail any thread with which might present a theory that is contrary to my way of thinking.

[Iconoclaste]

BatmanTurian wrote...

And I.T. can still happen with all of that. I.T. doesn't change the ending and no additional gameplay is needed to end the game, only cutscenes and conversations.

Ah! Again, a new "version" with no gameplay? I already addressed that on another similar thread, and I will not do it here again. You will simply skip the slap and go play your game on another thread, like the others.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A conspiracy theory is not true simply because it hasn't been "refuted".

A literary interpretation is not a conspiracy theory. English 101 fail.

IT is not an interpretation of the ending,

WRONG! I don't even know how you.... nevermind, I interpret the ending as an indoctrination attempt, one is all it takes to make IT an interpetation.

[Lookout1390]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

When/If the IT gets proven wrong. I expect some Hitler rant parodies. A lot of hitler rant parodies.

Hackett Out.

It has already proven wrong.

EA released a big ol' "**** you" back in April saying that it wasn't.

People keep saying this. Saying it doesn't make it true. In actuality, they refuted many theories but danced around I.T.

They said there will be no more gameplay added, and that they aren't changing the ending.

They are just elaborating on a few details so a few more people will be 'satisfied' with the ending.

Common sense says everything that peopled 'hated' about the ending, is staying...

And I.T. can still happen with all of that. I.T. doesn't change the ending and no additional gameplay is needed to end the game, only cutscenes and conversations.

More cutscenes with auto-dialogue.

Yay, because ME3 needs just more of that.

So Shepard will ask a few more questions....whoopie.

Everything that ruined the ending is staying, they made it clear they aren't chaing their 'art' (lol)

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A conspiracy theory is not true simply because it hasn't been "refuted".

There are a bunch of conspiracies that did turn out to be true as well.

And that has to do with the price of tea in China how?

And your arguments have what to do with IT and the endings of ME3?

That IT isn't in the ending of ME3 at all.

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A conspiracy theory is not true simply because it hasn't been "refuted".

A literary interpretation is not a conspiracy theory. English 101 fail.

According to IT, BioWare has shipped a game with no ending. According to IT, BioWare won't even state that IT is their plan all the while being crucified in the press and on their forums for the reveled endings.

IT is not an interpretation of the ending, it is a claim that BW is hiding the real ending from its customers and taking a massive PR hit while doing so.

Those are true, but it's still an interpretation of the events as metaphor. It's looking at the ending as a story element. Anything else is just logical conclusions based on the literary interpretation.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

BatmanTurian wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...
I totally give up on these people. I admit it, the IT is cool, and thought provoking. But is it part of this game and the story? No. Moving on.

Fair enough. You have a right to your opinion. And that's all either side's points are at this moment in time: opinion.

Opinoins are not equal just because they are "opinions".

That makes as much sense as everything else you've spewed forth, which amounts to nothing.
oh one more thing, no further replies to you ok? sunshine?

Maybe we should all collectively ignore him. not because he has any valid points (because he never makes any) but because he's kind of a waste of time.

Total waste of blood actually.

[CavScout]

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!!
Note that I never said the Codex/Wiki were wrong....

Except you did. You as much as claimed that full reaper control is not indoctrination, which makes no sense because it's the only other lore-based way Reapers control organics other than turning them into husks.

Please link to my post where I state the Codex/Wiki are in error.

PS: "full reaper control" is in the App not the Codex/Wiki.

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

And I.T. can still happen with all of that. I.T. doesn't change the ending and no additional gameplay is needed to end the game, only cutscenes and conversations.

Ah! Again, a new "version" with no gameplay? I already addressed that on another similar thread, and I will not do it here again. You will simply skip the slap and go play your game on another thread, like the others.

Correct, technically no new gameplay is even neede for IT, hell they don't even need to release the EC and it's still a valid interpretation of the end, nothing more is even needed if you want to interpret IT.

[Iconoclaste]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Funny, I think the anti-IT side has presented this behavior more recently tonight...

Besides, jokes on you I don't believe in IT.  I can, however (and did, in this thread) come in and have a reasonable discussion with people who want to hear actual answers to questions based upon what happened in the game, not spout off red herrings learned from debate 101 in a hope to derail any thread with which might present a theory that is contrary to my way of thinking.

You got me there!

I've been on these threads just too many times, I know how it always turn out, and it's just too bad. A debate is a public thing, and even if readers don't come in systematically to voice their opinion, they can see what's happening, and that will be shown in other threads later, with sarcasm or irony against IT supporters.

[BatmanTurian]

Lookout1390 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

When/If the IT gets proven wrong. I expect some Hitler rant parodies. A lot of hitler rant parodies.

Hackett Out.

It has already proven wrong.

EA released a big ol' "**** you" back in April saying that it wasn't.

People keep saying this. Saying it doesn't make it true. In actuality, they refuted many theories but danced around I.T.

They said there will be no more gameplay added, and that they aren't changing the ending.

They are just elaborating on a few details so a few more people will be 'satisfied' with the ending.

Common sense says everything that peopled 'hated' about the ending, is staying...

And I.T. can still happen with all of that. I.T. doesn't change the ending and no additional gameplay is needed to end the game, only cutscenes and conversations.

More cutscenes with auto-dialogue.

Yay, because ME3 needs just more of that.

So Shepard will ask a few more questions....whoopie.

Everything that ruined the ending is staying, they made it clear they aren't chaing their 'art' (lol)

Hey, I'm not a big fan of the ending either, actually. I would have preferred a more cut-and-dry ending. It would have been a cleaner ending to the trilogy.