Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[DrunkenMage]

To be fair, DrunkenMage Ulfric Stormcloak was gagged up in a fetish way during the time in Helgan so he wasn't able to speak but mumble.

I was talking about the player. They already know Ulfric isn't innocent, he's being executed for High Treason, so it doesn't matter what he mumbles.

The player, caught in the same ambush, doesn't say a single thing except their name. So we can't fault the Legion, when you capture someone suspected of being a Stormcloak and they say nothing.

What would you do in the Empire's place? You capture an unknown, suspected of being a traitor to the Empire. They're not talking, and you had the Thalmor several minutes before trying to halt the execution.

DrunkenMage: If an opinion is based off of their personal feelings and not at all on the lore, will they see the lore?

If someone feels that what they see in game that they do not trust the Stormcloaks, will they listen to a stormcloak who uses the lore to prove them wrong? Will someone whose opinion is based off of the fact that an officer of the Empire was about to have them illegally killed when another officer (The general even) does not question that order, will they listen to the lore supporting the Empire?

People see whatever they want to see, I won't quote people if they're going on personal feeling. But when people use opinion as a valid argument against either side, you will get quoted. Make an argument against the Empire, I and several others will quote you. Make one against the Stormcloaks, Raijin or another will quote you. Make one against the Thalmor, Nenalata will quote you.

I don't understand why many people make mention to it being an illegal execution. The player was suspected of being a traitor to the Empire, it was a misunderstanding and you weren't supposed to be on the cart with the Stormcloaks, the Legion admits that. Ulfric simply calls you a criminal when you say you were at Helgen.

It wasn't illegal though, execution for High Treason has been law since the Septim Dynasty. Though the Septim's were far more cruel to the bodies of those executed, Raijin will go on about how the Septim's were better and how Mede Dynasty are bad and how they disrespect Ulfric's body. Under the Septim Dynasty those executed for treason could get their body given to a Necromancer for experiments.

General Tullius wasn't even near the player, if you look to your left before you're called up to Hadvar you will see him staring at Ulfric Stormcloak some distance away. There is a chain of command for a reason, Tullius doesn't have to personally oversee every single decision. The player was captured with Ulfric Stormcloak, doesn't say a single word except their name. What do you think would be the Legion's response, not being on a list doesn't suddenly make you innocent.

Ulfric Stormcloak thinks you're guilty and have a criminal past. The Legion admits their error, Tullius' apology may not sound like the most sympathetic thing. Though he still admits his error.

 

[Raijin]

I was talking about the player. They already know Ulfric isn't innocent, he's being executed for High Treason, so it doesn't matter what he mumbles.

The player, caught in the same ambush, doesn't say a single thing except their name. So we can't fault the Legion, when you capture someone suspected of being a Stormcloak and they say nothing.

What would you do in the Empire's place? You capture an unknown, suspected of being a traitor to the Empire. They're not talking, and you had the Thalmor several minutes before trying to halt the execution.

I was speaking about how Ulfric not being able to speak in behalf the player because he was gagged, and was unable to make an intelligent conversation while he was incarcerated by the Imperials. Yes I do fault the Legion because theirs a reason why the players name isn't on the list. You would think that they would take the player down to the dungeon to be interrogated while Ulfric and his Stormcloak men are being executed. This is what an well organized military organization would do in these type of situations.

The fact that a Captain was willing to show her ass right in front of her General by saying "f***f the list he goes to the block" tells me that the Legion doesn't care if you're innocent or not... you get executed anyways. They show lack of empathy for their citizens life, and I find it ironic that they brought charges against Ulfric of murdering Imperial citizens when they're guilty for this very same crime.

Lokir nearly cried out his heart to the imperials as he was pleading for his life, by telling them that hes not a Stormcloak and that they were making a big mistake, and he wand up getting murdered by the Legion.

 

[Jeremius]

DrunkenMage: If an opinion is based off of their personal feelings and not at all on the lore, will they see the lore?

If someone feels that what they see in game that they do not trust the Stormcloaks, will they listen to a stormcloak who uses the lore to prove them wrong? Will someone whose opinion is based off of the fact that an officer of the Empire was about to have them illegally killed when another officer (The general even) does not question that order, will they listen to the lore supporting the Empire?

People see whatever they want to see, I won't quote people if they're going on personal feeling. But when people use opinion as a valid argument against either side, you will get quoted. Make an argument against the Empire, I and several others will quote you. Make one against the Stormcloaks, Raijin or another will quote you. Make one against the Thalmor, Nenalata will quote you.

You people take opinions way to seriously in that case. An opinion is a perfectly valid argument for choosing a side, and you guys make it about Right vs Wrong when there is neither in the Civil War.

I don't understand why many people make mention to it being an illegal execution. The player was suspected of being a traitor to the Empire, it was a misunderstanding and you weren't supposed to be on the cart with the Stormcloaks, the Legion admits that. Ulfric simply calls you a criminal when you say you were at Helgen.

It wasn't illegal though, execution for High Treason has been law since the Septim Dynasty. Though the Septim's were far more cruel to the bodies of those executed, Raijin will go on about how the Septim's were better and how Mede Dynasty are bad and how they disrespect Ulfric's body. Under the Septim Dynasty those executed for treason could get their body given to a Necromancer for experiments.

General Tullius wasn't even near the player, if you look to your left before you're called up to Hadvar you will see him staring at Ulfric Stormcloak some distance away. There is a chain of command for a reason, Tullius doesn't have to personally oversee every single decision. The player was captured with Ulfric Stormcloak, doesn't say a single word except their name. What do you think would be the Legion's response, not being on a list doesn't suddenly make you innocent.

Ulfric Stormcloak thinks you're guilty and have a criminal past. The Legion admits their error, Tullius' apology may not sound like the most sympathetic thing. Though he still admits his error.

1) I was talking about the player.

2) You were bloody not on the list, what part about the player not being on the list does not make that illegal?

 

[DrunkenMage]

I was speaking about how Ulfric not being able to speak in behalf the player because he was gagged, and was unable to make an intelligent conversation while he was incarcerated by the Imperials. Yes I do fault the Legion because theirs a reason why the players name isn't on the list. You would think that they would take the player down to the dungeon to be interrogated while Ulfric and his Stormcloak men are being executed. This is what an well organized military organization would do in these type of situations.

Ulfric is gagged for a reason, for all the Legion knows he shouted the King apart. Wouldn't take chances with that, especially when it comes to the Thu'um which is an ancient powerful form of magic.

Your name not being on the list is meaningless, simple oversight. You're not on the list, yet you're there before the Captain with all the other Stormcloaks. Your player doesn't talk, not a single word.

There is no reason to interrogate you. You were captured with Ulfric in the same ambush, you were on the cart with the Stormcloaks.

Raijin, if an Elder Council member was executed for treason, summarily tried and executed. The exact same thing going on in Helgen. What makes you think you, the player. Will get some special treatment, get taken to interrogation, get legal aid. Maybe get a phone call and what not.

Give me three examples as to how you can actually provide evidence of your innocence without you saying "I'm innocent"

If you can do that, I will admit to losing against you.

The fact that a Captain was willing to show her ass right in front of her General by saying "f***f the list he goes to the block" tells me that the Legion doesn't care if you're innocent or not... you get executed anyways. They show lack of empathy for their citizens life, and I find it ironic that they brought charges against Ulfric of murdering Imperial citizens when they're guilty for this very same crime.

Who says you're innocent? You? Yet the player says nothing in their defense. Ulfric calls you a criminal, Balgruuf also calls you a criminal. The Legion admits they were at fault, it was a misunderstanding and you were mistaken for one of the rebels. The Legion shows a lack of empathy for traitors, you were suspected of one. How would the Legion know your innocence? You don't even say anything, yet you suddenly expect that a tiny little detail of not having your name on the list should make them go "Oh, name not on the list... well off you go, have a good one."

Lokir nearly cried out his heart to the imperials as he was pleading for his life, by telling them that hes not a Stormcloak and that they were making a big mistake, and he wand up getting murdered by the Legion.

Lokir made a run for it. "Gee, lets make a bolt for the gate and expect the Legion not to use archers. Even though he actually was a criminal."

But seriously Raijin, Lokir pleading? Go to a prison and shout "Who's innocent?"

A criminal pleading innocence, well if you want to fall for that.

You people take opinions way to seriously in that case. An opinion is a perfectly valid argument for choosing a side, and you guys make it about Right vs Wrong when there is neither in the Civil War.

An opinion is perfectly fine, but it isn't a valid argument in this thread. How many times must I repeat that? I'll make you happy, anytime you post an argument, or whatever defense in favor for your choice. I and several others will just simply go "No you're wrong, cause in my opinion you're wrong. End of discussion."

I guess I'm wrong for trying to give a good amount of information for people in my posts, using facts and lore. Presenting a good case. I'll just do exactly what you, and many other Stormcloaks do.

1) I was talking about the player.

No, really? I answered twice to you and to Raijin in regards to the player.

2) You were bloody not on the list, what part about the player not being on the list does not make that illegal?

You are on the list, Hadvar puts you on it the second you create your character. They did that before they executed you, therefor it is legal.

So since you're added to the list, your argument of it not being legal cause you're not on the list, doesn't hold. You're technically on the list when they're about to execute you. By law, basically legal.

I could always take after you, call everything you write false, faked, propaganda. You believe I'm being too serious, I won't treat you seriously, I'll consider you more of a joke and reply as such to reflect your status. Though to make it simple, I'll just give you my opinion, since it is valid without facts.

You're wrong, you're always wrong. My opinion, therefor it is valid.

 

[Anouck]

Jeremius I don't think anyone here fails to see your point. We all agree that opinions should be respected, even if the people who hold them refuse to open up to other opinions.
But this is a debate thread. This is a place where people come to debate their own and other people's views. You can't mix yourself up in a debate and then react surprised because you don't understand why people are quoting you. That is like walking into the barber shop, make an appointment, and then yell: 'I have the right to have this haircut! What you are doing is useless because I can have whatever haircut I want!'.
You're not obligated to get into this discussion. You can just state your opinion and leave it at that. But that is not what happens here.
A person quotes someone else and tries to prove his opinion is the right one, but when that person quotes him back he doesn't like it? This is no matter of 'I am not able to state my opinion' because you are. This is a matter of 'I am not able to attack other opinions without other people defending themselves or attacking mine'. Only kick as hard as you want to be kicked back.

I don't care if people hold on to their views, even after being proven wrong. I actually like people who have morals and a fire burning in their heart for a certain cause (even though I hope they don't get blinded by it and stay objective).
If you tell me that 1+1=3 because you truly believe that, go ahead. But say the same thing in a mathematics classroom and someone will correct you. This is a thread that is pretty much dedicated to lore and the ongoing debate about it. You can say your opinion here, but if you debate others you will be debated too.

 

[Jeremius]

I am going to leave this piece of advice for future "debates": If a person keeps going back to the same arguments over and over again, they are probably baiting you, and you should probably just end the debate right there.

 

[Anouck]

I am going to leave this piece of advice for future "debates": If a person keeps going back to the same arguments over and over again, they are probably baiting you, and you should probably just end the debate right there.

I don't see why the word debates is between two quotation marks...
But to respond to your "piece of advice": They don't always use the same arguments, just the same logic and way of viewing and interpreting things.
Some people are terribly creative in coming up with arguments that hardly make any sense. You can choose to ignore everyone you think doesn't have a valid argument, but that won't contribute to the debate. Just 'ignoring' certain members because we decided that the things they say aren't valid enough anyway, is not something I do. I think a good debater should be capable of going against the good arguments, but also the arguments that are less strong without coming off as condescending.

But if a person is, like you say, going back to the same arguments over and over again, then eventually people will stop replying. But that won't stop the debate. There are always people who have something valid to say, and there is even stuff being said that hasn't been said before. Especially on the Stormcloak side there are a lot of arguments that are strong and have never been used.

 

[Sven]

Ok Im back after new year.So where are we now?I read the last 10 post but I still can't figure out what the argument is about?

Someone bring me up to speed

 

[Anouck]

Ok Im back after new year.So where are we now?I read the last 10 post but I still can't figure out what the argument is about?

Someone bring me up to speed

The last debate was about the debate itself. Some people think it is better to drop the subject.

 

[Rimfaxe96]

Oh boy, London after New Year's Eve looked worse than the Imperial City after the Battle of the Red Ring.

I was talking about the player. They already know Ulfric isn't innocent, he's being executed for High Treason, so it doesn't matter what he mumbles.

The player, caught in the same ambush, doesn't say a single thing except their name. So we can't fault the Legion, when you capture someone suspected of being a Stormcloak and they say nothing.

Maybe the protagonist suffers from mutism. He or she was still able to use sign language up to a certain point but not enough because his or her hands were bound. After all we never hear his or her voice.

 

[Anouck]

Maybe the protagonist suffers from mutism. He or she was still able to use sign language up to a certain point but not enough because his or her hands were bound. After all we never hear his or her voice.

 

[Jeremius]

I am going to leave this piece of advice for future "debates": If a person keeps going back to the same arguments over and over again, they are probably baiting you, and you should probably just end the debate right there.

I don't see why the word debates is between two quotation marks...
But to respond to your "piece of advice": They don't always use the same arguments, just the same logic and way of viewing and interpreting things.
Some people are terribly creative in coming up with arguments that hardly make any sense. You can choose to ignore everyone you think doesn't have a valid argument, but that won't contribute to the debate. Just 'ignoring' certain members because we decided that the things they say aren't valid enough anyway, is not something I do. I think a good debater should be capable of going against the good arguments, but also the arguments that are less strong without coming off as condescending.

But if a person is, like you say, going back to the same arguments over and over again, then eventually people will stop replying. But that won't stop the debate. There are always people who have something valid to say, and there is even stuff being said that hasn't been said before. Especially on the Stormcloak side there are a lot of arguments that are strong and have never been used.

People like that should get the same treatment. They are not really debating/contributing to the debate and thus just trying to derail the thread.

 

[Anouck]

I am going to leave this piece of advice for future "debates": If a person keeps going back to the same arguments over and over again, they are probably baiting you, and you should probably just end the debate right there.

I don't see why the word debates is between two quotation marks...
But to respond to your "piece of advice": They don't always use the same arguments, just the same logic and way of viewing and interpreting things.
Some people are terribly creative in coming up with arguments that hardly make any sense. You can choose to ignore everyone you think doesn't have a valid argument, but that won't contribute to the debate. Just 'ignoring' certain members because we decided that the things they say aren't valid enough anyway, is not something I do. I think a good debater should be capable of going against the good arguments, but also the arguments that are less strong without coming off as condescending.

But if a person is, like you say, going back to the same arguments over and over again, then eventually people will stop replying. But that won't stop the debate. There are always people who have something valid to say, and there is even stuff being said that hasn't been said before. Especially on the Stormcloak side there are a lot of arguments that are strong and have never been used.

People like that should get the same treatment. They are not really debating/contributing to the debate and thus just trying to derail the thread.

So if you have an invalid argument you are willingly trying to derail the thread? Some people just have invalid arguments. Some people just suck at debating or simply don't know what to say.

Not to forget to mention the fact that everyone used to be ignorant. No one was born with knowledge. We all learned from reading ingame books, UESP or coming to this thread. Heck, even DrunkenMage's arguments were invalid when he posted in here for the first time. And he learned, and became one of the strongest debaters in here. And you know how he learned? From reading the arguments of others. People like Dagmar, for instance.
If you want to ignore ignorant people, they will stay ignorant. Not saying it is your job or my job to provide them with information. But when someone says something that isn't true, I will tell them. I would like someone to tell me too if I said something incorrect.

 

[Jeremius]

I don't see why the word debates is between two quotation marks...
But to respond to your "piece of advice": They don't always use the same arguments, just the same logic and way of viewing and interpreting things.
Some people are terribly creative in coming up with arguments that hardly make any sense. You can choose to ignore everyone you think doesn't have a valid argument, but that won't contribute to the debate. Just 'ignoring' certain members because we decided that the things they say aren't valid enough anyway, is not something I do. I think a good debater should be capable of going against the good arguments, but also the arguments that are less strong without coming off as condescending.

But if a person is, like you say, going back to the same arguments over and over again, then eventually people will stop replying. But that won't stop the debate. There are always people who have something valid to say, and there is even stuff being said that hasn't been said before. Especially on the Stormcloak side there are a lot of arguments that are strong and have never been used.

People like that should get the same treatment. They are not really debating/contributing to the debate and thus just trying to derail the thread.

So if you have an invalid argument you are willingly trying to derail the thread? Some people just have invalid arguments. Some people just suck at debating or simply don't know what to say.

Not to forget to mention the fact that everyone used to be ignorant. No one was born with knowledge. We all learned from reading ingame books, UESP or coming to this thread. Heck, even DrunkenMage's arguments were invalid when he posted in here for the first time. And he learned, and became one of the strongest debaters in here. And you know how he learned? From reading the arguments of others. People like Dagmar, for instance.
If you want to ignore ignorant people, they will stay ignorant. Not saying it is your job or my job to provide them with information. But when someone says something that isn't true, I will tell them. I would like someone to tell me too if I said something incorrect.

and if they do not want to read and instead stick to their personal biases, they should stay ignorant.

When it comes to this topic, I personally feel that nobody looks at the whole picture, and instead argues what they want to argue.

Let's look at the Torygg-Ulfric duel, logically:

1) Ulfric speaks out at the moot, in terms just shy of treason, advocating independence. That, to me sounds quite definitive, and an argument worth saying something about at the moot. From what I know, Torygg did nothing, which might mean he
was ignorant of what Ulfric was saying or he had his mind made up and did not want to bring it up. no proof, but theories fit evidence.

2) Ulfric challenges Torygg to a duel, when some say he should have just talked to him, again. I used to have this view, until I focused on the first part, as well as Sybille Stentor and what she said. She gives logical evidence to show that Torygg might not have sided with Torygg at all, and likely already decided to stay with the Empire. Ulfric probably would have wasted his breath talking to him.

I may be wrong, but looking at the Torygg-Ulfric situation this way makes it look like that while Ulfric is a traitor to the empire, many who support him likely thought he was doing the right thing.

 

[Anouck]

People like that should get the same treatment. They are not really debating/contributing to the debate and thus just trying to derail the thread.

So if you have an invalid argument you are willingly trying to derail the thread? Some people just have invalid arguments. Some people just suck at debating or simply don't know what to say.

Not to forget to mention the fact that everyone used to be ignorant. No one was born with knowledge. We all learned from reading ingame books, UESP or coming to this thread. Heck, even DrunkenMage's arguments were invalid when he posted in here for the first time. And he learned, and became one of the strongest debaters in here. And you know how he learned? From reading the arguments of others. People like Dagmar, for instance.
If you want to ignore ignorant people, they will stay ignorant. Not saying it is your job or my job to provide them with information. But when someone says something that isn't true, I will tell them. I would like someone to tell me too if I said something incorrect.

and if they do not want to read and instead stick to their personal biases, they should stay ignorant.

When it comes to this topic, I personally feel that nobody looks at the whole picture, and instead argues what they want to argue.

Let's look at the Torygg-Ulfric duel, logically:

1) Ulfric speaks out at the moot, in terms just shy of treason, advocating independence. That, to me sounds quite definitive, and an argument worth saying something about at the moot. From what I know, Torygg did nothing, which might mean he
was ignorant of what Ulfric was saying or he had his mind made up and did not want to bring it up. no proof, but theories fit evidence.

2) Ulfric challenges Torygg to a duel, when some say he should have just talked to him, again. I used to have this view, until I focused on the first part, as well as Sybille Stentor and what she said. She gives logical evidence to show that Torygg might not have sided with Torygg at all, and likely already decided to stay with the Empire. Ulfric probably would have wasted his breath talking to him.

I may be wrong, but looking at the Torygg-Ulfric situation this way makes it look like that while Ulfric is a traitor to the empire, but likely thought he was doing the right thing.

Regardless of the whole Ulfric/Torygg discussion: I get your point. But why would you start quoting people for quoting others? 638 pages of debate taught us that this is not a conversation you can just "stop". You're not the first, nor the last one to mention that this is a useless discussion.
There are people who look at the whole picture. The fact that the current debate is concentrated on a tiny little aspect of the subject, doesn't mean that we don't see the whole picture.
If you mean by the whole picture the fact that Imperials only mention pro-Imperial arguments and the Stormcloaks only pro-Stormcloak arguments, then I don't really understand your point. If you are going to wait for the opposition to provide you with arguments, you can wait long. No one is going to defend your side for you. But despite that, there have been moments when Imperials defended the Stormcloaks and the other way around. Takes a bit of browsing, but it should be findable in one of the pages of this thread.

Also, this:

You people take opinions way to seriously in that case. An opinion is a perfectly valid argument for choosing a side, and you guys make it about Right vs Wrong when there is neither in the Civil War.

and if they do not want to read and instead stick to their personal biases, they should stay ignorant.

I find this rather contradicting. We take opinions too seriously, and opinions are perfectly valid arguments for choosing a side. Yet you say that those people should be ignored because they try to derail a threat and that they are ignorant and stick their heads in personal bias?

 

[Sven]

Ok people don't bring up the "End this debate" subject.

You very well know this is the most active thread on the forum and if its closed the forum will die off.

 

[Anouck]

Ok people don't bring up the "End this debate" subject.

You very well know this is the most active thread on the forum and if its closed the forum will die off.

I don't think it will die off, but this is the thread with the most activity. Even though it doesn't have the stamina it used to have.

 

[Jeremius]

So if you have an invalid argument you are willingly trying to derail the thread? Some people just have invalid arguments. Some people just suck at debating or simply don't know what to say.

Not to forget to mention the fact that everyone used to be ignorant. No one was born with knowledge. We all learned from reading ingame books, UESP or coming to this thread. Heck, even DrunkenMage's arguments were invalid when he posted in here for the first time. And he learned, and became one of the strongest debaters in here. And you know how he learned? From reading the arguments of others. People like Dagmar, for instance.
If you want to ignore ignorant people, they will stay ignorant. Not saying it is your job or my job to provide them with information. But when someone says something that isn't true, I will tell them. I would like someone to tell me too if I said something incorrect.

and if they do not want to read and instead stick to their personal biases, they should stay ignorant.

When it comes to this topic, I personally feel that nobody looks at the whole picture, and instead argues what they want to argue.

Let's look at the Torygg-Ulfric duel, logically:

1) Ulfric speaks out at the moot, in terms just shy of treason, advocating independence. That, to me sounds quite definitive, and an argument worth saying something about at the moot. From what I know, Torygg did nothing, which might mean he
was ignorant of what Ulfric was saying or he had his mind made up and did not want to bring it up. no proof, but theories fit evidence.

2) Ulfric challenges Torygg to a duel, when some say he should have just talked to him, again. I used to have this view, until I focused on the first part, as well as Sybille Stentor and what she said. She gives logical evidence to show that Torygg might not have sided with Torygg at all, and likely already decided to stay with the Empire. Ulfric probably would have wasted his breath talking to him.

I may be wrong, but looking at the Torygg-Ulfric situation this way makes it look like that while Ulfric is a traitor to the empire, but likely thought he was doing the right thing.

Regardless of the whole Ulfric/Torygg discussion: I get your point. But why would you start quoting people for quoting others? 638 pages of debate taught us that this is not a conversation you can just "stop". You're not the first, nor the last one to mention that this is a useless discussion.
There are people who look at the whole picture. The fact that the current debate is concentrated on a tiny little aspect of the subject, doesn't mean that we don't see the whole picture.
If you mean by the whole picture the fact that Imperials only mention pro-Imperial arguments and the Stormcloaks only pro-Stormcloak arguments, then I don't really understand your point. If you are going to wait for the opposition to provide you with arguments, you can wait long. No one is going to defend your side for you. But despite that, there have been moments when Imperials defended the Stormcloaks and the other way around. Takes a bit of browsing, but it should be findable in one of the pages of this thread.

Either way, the whole picture kind of invalidates both sides when it comes to the duel, but validates both sides as well.

and I was going for a neutralist argument, one using the whole picture to make a point.

Also, this:

You people take opinions way to seriously in that case. An opinion is a perfectly valid argument for choosing a side, and you guys make it about Right vs Wrong when there is neither in the Civil War.

and if they do not want to read and instead stick to their personal biases, they should stay ignorant.

I find this rather contradicting. We take opinions too seriously, and opinions are perfectly valid arguments for choosing a side. Yet you say that those people should be ignored because they try to derail a threat and that they are ignorant and stick their heads in personal bias?

If they are being hardheaded and just plain stupid, they are derailing the thread. and people on this thread do take opinions too seriously if they get into debates that are not debates in the first place because the person with that opinion bases their opinion on whatever they feel like basing it on randomly.

 

[DrunkenMage]

If they are being hardheaded and just plain stupid, they are derailing the thread. and people on this thread do take opinions too seriously if they get into debates that are not debates in the first place because the person with that opinion bases their opinion on whatever they feel like basing it on randomly.

Opinions are taken seriously, when you quote someone using that opinion. Everyone who posts in here is treated seriously, unless it is obvious they are joking around. I do not quote someone if they say something like "I like Ulfric cause his voice" I will generally leave many people alone when they post their opinion. If you scroll through the pages, you will see many people who have stated their opinions and left it. They did it correctly, they stated their opinion and left it at that. And surprise, I never quoted them, never debated them.

But when you quote me, using an opinion as an argument against my post. I will respond and debate.

The problem isn't people making debates with those who simply state their opinion and leave it, it is the people who state an opinion without facts and then go on to quote someone and use their opinion as evidence. Then when they're not agreed with, they act all surprised and go on about the debate should end, the thread should stop. All because they lost a little argument, or no one agreed with them.

If someone wants to post their personal opinion without facts, they can. But don't cry victim when you go and quote another and they debate back with you.

Heck, even DrunkenMage's arguments were invalid when he posted in here for the first time. And he learned, and became one of the strongest debaters in here. And you know how he learned? From reading the arguments of others.

Haha, not only reading the arguments of others. I used to get my ass kicked on debates in this thread and others on the forums. I'd post wrong information, get owned and beaten down horribly. I had no knowledge of lore, and probably some of the weakest arguments.

Though I never once said "Thread should be locked" "Debate should end" anytime I lost. I learned from my mistakes, came back again, then again. I learned until I had the knowledge to hold my own.

 

[Jeremius]

If they are being hardheaded and just plain stupid, they are derailing the thread. and people on this thread do take opinions too seriously if they get into debates that are not debates in the first place because the person with that opinion bases their opinion on whatever they feel like basing it on randomly.

Opinions are taken seriously, when you quote someone using that opinion. Everyone who posts in here is treated seriously, unless it is obvious they are joking around. I do not quote someone if they say something like "I like Ulfric cause his voice" I will generally leave many people alone when they post their opinion. If you scroll through the pages, you will see many people who have stated their opinions and left it. They did it correctly, they stated their opinion and left it at that. And surprise, I never quoted them, never debated them.

But when you quote me, using an opinion as an argument against my post. I will respond and debate.

The problem isn't people making debates with those who simply state their opinion and leave it, it is the people who state an opinion without facts and then go on to quote someone and use their opinion as evidence. Then when they're not agreed with, they act all surprised and go on about the debate should end, the thread should stop. All because they lost a little argument, or no one agreed with them.

If someone wants to post their personal opinion without facts, they can. But don't cry victim when you go and quote another and they debate back with you.

maybe they are arguing that an argument is different for different people?OR they are trying to bait you into a pointless debate?