Discussion History Main / PopularSayingBut

You avoid Gish galloping not making a bunch of random, irrelevant points. If there are several points that support an argument, making them is a legitimate debate tactic, even if it\'s tedious for you to address them. I\'m not making strawmen or telling lies or half-truths. I\'m debating you honestly here. And anyway, it\'s not that huge amount of text I\'m making. I\'m making a few paragraphs at most. It\'s that\'s too much for you, I don\'t know what to tell you. Besides, that tactic seems to refer to real life debates where people only have a certain time to respond. We\'re debating using text on a posting board. You have all the time in the world. Feel free to take a month if you like. Gish Galloping isn\'t simply \'a lengthy argument\'. Also, for someone who is critical of someone providing a lengthy argument, don\'t you feel it\'s a bit hypocritical to link a 40 minute review for someone to inspect as your evidence for support of your point? It\'s not like you even linked to the relevant part of which you\'re talking about, just \"Here\'s a long ass review that I say support me, have fun getting to the relevant part\"

Anyway, look up the definition of a sound mind, because it\'s not what you describe it as. You have to be literally incapable of managing yourself to have an unsound mind. That\'s the legal definition. On the other hand, an unsound DECISION is something else, and also not something very present in the movie. Look up logical soundness and you\'ll see \"Affected by emotion\" is not part of the definition. What you mean is if the characters are objective, which they aren\'t and I never said otherwise, but that doesn\'t mean they are incapable of making sound, logical decisions. Also, Rhodey and Sam are not their respective best friends stooges. Keep in mind that your argument is now that Rhodey and Sam are making irresponsibly biased decisions based on a matter that will greatly affect their lives JUST because they\'re friends with those two heroes? That merely being friends removes their ability for sound, rational thought towards decision making? I\'m sorry, but that\'s ridiculous. There is no reason to think that Sam and Rhodey can\'t make and argue their own opinions just because they\'re friends with Cap and Iron Man. Especially Rhodey, who has been operating essentially from before the first NY incident independently from Tony. Maybe you have more of an argument with Sam, since he\'s pledged himself to following Cap\'s leadership, but even he\'ll question his decisions, like how he disagrees with whether Bucky is worth saving, so even there it\'s doubtful that Sam doesn\'t simply legitimately believe in what he\'s saying.

Lastly, you\'re right that if they had just been \'more willing to compromise\', then yeah, they\'d have worked something out. But the thing is, they made every effort to compromise. Steve was about to when he realized Tony was willing to put people under house arrest preemtively. Stark meanwhile was willing to make provisions and changes to the accords. It\'d be one thing if they didn\'t try, but they did. And yes, if they had been willing more willing to compromise, that\'s true...

But your task wasn\'t merely to find a solution, but find a solution that everyone would be happy with (especially when \"just compromise more\" is a solution you can make to literally any interpersonal problem anywhere). They went down every avenue, wrestling with the issues and trying and failing to come to a solution that couldn\'t be made because *insert hundreds of examples for each side here*. For you to make your argument that one or the other should have just compromised more, you have to find a way to address their issues in some way, because these characters aren\'t just being stubborn jackasses for no reason. There has to be a reasons for them to compromise, because right now, they only have reasons not to. Because otherwise you\'re just saying that the characters who have a problem with it just shouldn\'t have a problem with it, regardless of the reasons for their objection. That\'s not logical or reasonable, that\'s just a \"Why can\'t you just shut up and not fight\" solution that wishes the problem wasn\'t actually a problem.

You avoid Gish galloping not making a bunch of random, irrelevant points. If there are several points that support an argument, making them is a legitimate debate tactic, even if it\'s tedious for you to address them. I\'m not making strawmen or telling lies or half-truths. I\'m debating you honestly here. And anyway, it\'s not that huge amount of text I\'m making. I\'m making a few paragraphs at most. It\'s that\'s too much for you, I don\'t know what to tell you. Besides, that tactic seems to refer to real life debates where people only have a certain time to respond. We\'re debating using text on a posting board. You have all the time in the world. Feel free to take a month if you like. Gish Galloping isn\'t simply \'a lengthy argument\'. Also, for someone who is critical of someone providing a lengthy argument, don\'t you feel it\'s a bit hypocritical to link a 40 minute review for someone to inspect as your evidence for support of your point? It\'s not like you even linked to the relevant part of which you\'re talking about, just \"Here\'s a long ass review that I say support me, have fun getting to the relevant part\"