I mean , why don't you just like get over your ZTG PTSD and talk like a person? you accuse too much tbh , its a bit of shameless behaviour but I've come to expect that of you , but regardless its getting pretty annoying seeing the same sort of whining from you all the time
Shameless unlike blatantly editing evidence to support your claim that's good behaviors!
Its not really terrible arguments considering you've been getting bitchslapped on the thread for 4 pages but considering you're completely incapable of actually debating , I can see you being bodied by bad arguments, let alone good ones presented to you here.
What an actual sob story lmao, bro is actually making fan theories about how he debunked shit when you've not debunked anything except ride wikis and post fanfic evidence, its just so easy for anyone with five braincells to curbstomp your shitty arguments.
me too since it's really funny coming from guys who can not tell if tornado is an adjective or not. X'D it's like getting insult by guys who think toenail is a verb.
"okay can point where in the gow 2 and novels does it say Ares' created a real universe in seconds?"
Doesn't need to be shown in GOW2 or the novel, you're not playing as the Kratos who got sucked into the universe.
You can't show it because it's not there. it's just something you and your buds assumed.
For that, we go to GOW1, where we see it's a universe with a galaxy and stars, which Ares has control over.
again....ignoring the fact the gow 1 shows that Kratos never left the area something one of the devs pointed out addressed.
Because again, the novels are secondary canon and have the games as context. If you play GOW2, you'd realise that both Ares AND Kratos disappear. It doesn't need to spell it out for you, especially since Ares sucks him in.
yeah you do!!! Especially when the first novels claimed he never left at all and 2nd novel never mention him leaving at all either! Yes would assume the novels would mention it happening at least instead of claiming it didn't happen! so again really literally no logically way to reach this conclusion without gow2 visuals said visual the dev mention was only there for rule of cool.
Again, this is a lot of circumstantial shit that doesn't relate to this argument. We are using the context of the games, and pairing it with the novels, and I don't particularly care for "but what if someone didn't play the games" because we played the games.
yes and the term is that is called Cherry picking and it's typically scene as a bad thing.
The novels state tornado, but again, would be changed to portal due to contradicting primary canon.
And the first novels said it just happen in his mind and so did the dev. and first gow let it totally ambiguous weather it was real or not. Nothing supports this.
Again, they support it, you just need to acknowledge the context from the game itself.
This ain't cherry-picking though, this is a novel excerpt that also requires knowledge from the main game to understand what's happening. We know from both GOW1 and GOW2 that it's not a "tornado" and we also know from both that Ares didn't just "leave Kratos."
No it's doesn't suppot and yes you are cherry picking. you cherry pick out literally one word and one sentences from out of two whole novels and discarded literally everything else that contradicted you then claimed that said the novels supported you. that the literally textbook definition of what cherry picking is! And if you can't see obviously wrong with doing this there is no point literally no point in debating ya'll anymore we're just wasting time.
You know what realized ya'll might be worst than Zgtfreak. Zgfreak maybe have use out of context scan and terrible tacties but he actually give a logical arguments at times. i've yet to see this from ya'll/ you really can't win a debate when you debate someone who goes "so what" when it's pointed out that their argument makes no sense.
But.. the context of the book is the game itself. Using the context, it's a portal vortex.
no. it isn't. you don't need to play the game the to understand the context of the novel otherwise there is literally no point or reason in making this novel if only people who played the game can understand the context.
Again, no one reading the books basically never played the game. The point is, the book is supporting the fact that they physically disappeared. And that the vortex/portal/whatever was physical.
And once again you're missing the point. Also the that's lie the novel never mention Kratos disappearing just Ares. One again no one would logically reach that conclusion based on purely what was in the books.
hell if someone only played the first game and read two novels and listen to the devs they wouldn't logically reach that conclusion all either. the argument is just visual from gow2 there is no Lore at all actually supporting this.
But again, we've played the games and the primary canon is the games, we're talking about the games rn and the GOW 2 game supports it, and since the GOW 2 novel uses context from the game and would be overwritten by the game at any sense of contradiction, the portal also teleported them away there.
yeah but thing is you said when you edited that wiki you were using the games and novels as your primary source. but you're clearly aren't. like literally next to nothing supports this.
like if you only read the novels you couldn't logically come to this conclusion and if you take away the novels your argument is pretty unaffected because only the second novel supports is the idea that Kratos was sucked into something the novel clearly says tornado. and Ares disappearing. again there no mention of universes of dimensions of any kind or the novels never even mention kratos leaving the area at all either.
your argument is based visual in gow 2 part of the visual of gow and literally 14 words fromg ow 2 novels that barely supports anything. and no dev or WoG at all.
Again, it seems like you're ignoring the entire point. The novels are typically used as supporting evidence for the game. This is a scenario where it's used as SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Supporting evidence basically looks like non-sense on it's own.
no supporting evidence only looks like non-sense on it's own if it's cherry picked. it looks nonsense because you took like 14 words out of 2 novels and ignore everything else that didn't support you.
But they do, since they use the context of the games.
Again, thus supporting evidence, my man. At least you seem to be starting to understand.
Supporting evidences typical make sense on their own unless they're cherry picked.
"The entire argument is based on the visuals and nothing else"
Again my man, it uses the visuals from GOW 2 and also uses the GOW 2 game's context to tie in the GOW 2 novel to make it also canon in the novel.
okay can point where in the gow 2 and novels does it say Ares' created a real universe in seconds?
this wasn't addressing you but this give the time to talk about the zgtfreak tactic number 2 : tag team gish galloping.
now it's your turn to jump with a half dozen terrible arguments then when I'm addressing your terrible arguments Maul will come in with half dozen terrible arguments of own.
for bouns points! : use the same points I already addressed and rephrase them as if they new and weren't just debunked! remember the point isn't make a good or logically sounded argument. it's just to make so many bad arguments they are overwhelms.
for even more points have buddy come in a mention his inability to debunk over a dozen shitty arguments the span of 15 minutes is a sign he's running out of arguments .
Again, Maul ain't even online, so I just jumped in for him, just like how he jumped in for me while I was offline. Tit for tat, you know?
Jesus Christ, instead of complaining "wahhh tag team" just debunk the arguments, all of which are valid in some form of way. Your superiority complex is ridiculous.
Bro I'm just having fun and reminiscing is all.
Bro your first argument I already addressed in my initial point.
I already dressed a point some people in fiction call it that. but that is not the definition of the term! and it's really not used that way commonly! so there is no justification to assume this within the context of the book itself !
The only reason why you are assuming this is because you play the second God of War two game but there is absolutely literally no way a person reading this book would come to that conclusion based off the facts and wording of that books.
"Yeah, well literally no one is reading the books without playing the game. The book is still secondary canon"
You're missing the point if there is no logical way for a person purely reading these books to come to this conclusion then your conclusion is not supported logically by the books.
If you're going to say that your argument is logically supported by the books then you're implying to anyone can just read these books and come to your conclusion. Which we both know is not true.
So no, the books do not support the idea that Ares created in universe within seconds.
If you take the visuals of the god of war 2 game out the equation there is literally no way to come to this conclusion.
The entire argument is based on the visuals of that game and nothing else
this wasn't addressing you but this give the time to talk about the zgtfreak tactic number 2 : tag team gish galloping.
now it's your turn to jump with a half dozen terrible arguments then when I'm addressing your terrible arguments Maul will come in with half dozen terrible arguments of own.
for bouns points! : use the same points I already addressed and rephrase them as if they new and weren't just debunked! remember the point isn't make a good or logically sounded argument. it's just to make so many bad arguments they are overwhelms.
for even more points have buddy come in a mention his inability to debunk over a dozen shitty arguments the span of 15 minutes is a sign he's running out of arguments .
Back to the point , Ares created a visually bigger Dimension and had better control over it , scales above Primordials and has better scaling in general so he stomps pretty much.
I will await for the time I said that adjective thing, tho I know it doesn't exist.
aaah the classic Maulmacker tactic of rephrasing old argument that that were debunked pages ago and pretending like it wasn't already debunked and adressed.
let's keep this circus going.
let's look at the same 4 garbage arguments you keep rephrasing as if they were not debunked already.
Vortex doesn't mean portal... like at all! there is literally NO Dictionary in world that actually acknowledge this. you kind of made that up! but your pal will swallow anything you say not matter now much it defies the dictionary, logic, and basic English.
In fiction Portal that look like vortexes are sometimes very rarely called a vortex. but that's like saying because sometimes some people would call another a person a "fruit" that "fruit automatically means person".
In the context of the novel it is without a doubt talking about tornadoes. why? because both Tornado and Vortex are synonyms to describe WHIRLWINDS NOT PORTALS..
and it's literally called a freaking tornado
So No! The second novel doesn't support your fan fiction. There is literally no way someone is going to the read this book fresh without looking at any of the game and logically come to your conclusion. there no mention of portals and no mention of other dimensions being created any point at all. So please tell me how they support the argument that "Ares creating a universe within seconds" again?
I love it how you can't even admit that an objectively terrible argument that is grammatically impossible is objectively bad. Because you got to stick up for your bud, I get it. But this kind of tribalism is the worst thing ever if you actually value versus debating. you should probably side for the person who makes the objectively better argument and not just whoever you like more. It's kind of the very definition of being biased.
Too long didn't read.
TLDR: You are sort of biased if you can't admit that a bad argument is bad!. thank you.
Claiming that a noun is actually an adjective would yes
I have no context of the debate, and it's based on interpretation of the prose of a novel, you tagged me and called me illiterate in the eventuality of me disagreeing with your PoV, thus an insult, I don't want apologies, do not tag me, I asked it a few times already, didn't I?
Sorry I though you agreed with what he said about tornado being a descriptive word/adjective. if not, I take it back.
"You guys", implies I care enough of this "debate", you randomly tagging me and calling me an illiterate, doesn't help your case.
@bossmountain: Sure?? I mainly make threads bro, and its a hit-or-miss types i made due to spite, and what are Zgt's tactics that i use??
Oh well it's really simple all you really have to do is take a bunch of scans that are completely out of context it's spinning around and then either befriend a whole bunch of people or mods on the site or make alts whatever. And just have them all agree with everything you say regardless of how objectively bad it is. Some folk didn't even challenge Zgtfreak out of fear of getting overwhelmed by this dude and his posse so they just went with the flow just said nothing. It wasn't until he was ban off the site temporarily that people actually stopped and analyzed his arguments and realized they were actually god awful. But very effective strategy if you want to take any subs planet level fodder and wanking them multiversal. Because you don't actually need to be a good debater you just need a bunch of people to agree with you it's all
Tell me do you agree with his argument? That tornado is an adjective?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. This thread is for sure a tornado of entertainment though!
I love it how you can't even admit that an objectively terrible argument that is grammatically impossible is objectively bad. Because you got to stick up for your bud, I get it. But this kind of tribalism is the worst thing ever if you actually value versus debating. you should probably side for the person who makes the objectively better argument and not just whoever you like more. It's kind of the very definition of being biased.
If yes then that's a Fair observation and not an insult.
Implying that if I have a different opinion than yours, I am illiterate. I see, that's not nice.
Claiming that a noun is actually an adjective would yes.
If someone said one plus one was 97 I don't think it would be unfair or insulting to say that they suck at math
Why is maths, being equated to the interpretation of a novelization's writing and prose...?
Okay I forgot I can't use fancy examples with you guys so I'll make it simpler next time.
Log in to comment