Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3546635" data-attributes="member: 2525">It was not.&nbsp; Actually deal with the position I put forward.&nbsp; Explain how it is not relevant to discuss how human beings should resolve an impasse in a debate.It's not circular.&nbsp; If you have two intepretations of the rules, and both are based on the rules, and both are reasonable intepretations, then you need a way to break that impasse.&nbsp; One way to break an impasse is to see if both parties agree that one position makes more sense than the other.&nbsp; That's not circular.&nbsp; So have we.That is a meaningless statement in a debate where two sides think they &quot;do and say&quot; different things.You've gone too far into the depths of sophistry if you think that sentence makes sense to you in this debate.No, I am not.&nbsp; I am comparing one interpretation of the rules against another one.&nbsp; That you don't intepret the rules the way we do does not mean we are not arguing from the rules.&nbsp; I am trying to get to &quot;which postion makes more sense&quot; because both positions are based on the same body of rules, and are mutually exclusive.You've lost the forest for the trees.&nbsp; You think logic doesn't overule the rules, but you think logic is the only way to intepret the rules.&nbsp; Every argument you have made depends on logic being used.&nbsp; If this is the best your side of the debate can muster, then I guess we have our answer.&nbsp; Does anyone else aside from irdeggman have any explanation or logicial support for the position that a blind person loses their dex bonus versus an attack, and a person being attacked by an invisible person loses their dex bonus versus that attack, but a person being attacked by a hidden person who they fail to spot does not lose their dex bonus versus that attack?&nbsp; Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3546635, member: 2525"] It was not. Actually deal with the position I put forward. Explain how it is not relevant to discuss how human beings should resolve an impasse in a debate. It's not circular. If you have two intepretations of the rules, and both are based on the rules, and both are reasonable intepretations, then you need a way to break that impasse. One way to break an impasse is to see if both parties agree that one position makes more sense than the other. That's not circular. So have we. That is a meaningless statement in a debate where two sides think they "do and say" different things. You've gone too far into the depths of sophistry if you think that sentence makes sense to you in this debate. No, I am not. I am comparing one interpretation of the rules against another one. That you don't intepret the rules the way we do does not mean we are not arguing from the rules. I am trying to get to "which postion makes more sense" because both positions are based on the same body of rules, and are mutually exclusive. You've lost the forest for the trees. You think logic doesn't overule the rules, but you think logic is the only way to intepret the rules. Every argument you have made depends on logic being used. If this is the best your side of the debate can muster, then I guess we have our answer. Does anyone else aside from irdeggman have any explanation or logicial support for the position that a blind person loses their dex bonus versus an attack, and a person being attacked by an invisible person loses their dex bonus versus that attack, but a person being attacked by a hidden person who they fail to spot does not lose their dex bonus versus that attack? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? [/QUOTE]

Verification