Hate Mail
Adarx Page 8
My fourth reply
As for the bit about my trying to say that it took damage because we never see it not take damage, this is plain untrue.  My contention the entire time was that it took an unknown, not zero, not eight hits from a  battlecrab,an unknown amount of damage.  I am not saying that it conclusivly did, I am not saying it didn't.
 

That isn't what you said.
To quote you from your third reply (http://www.babtech-onthe.net/adarx/adarx5.html), you said "I don't have to fight in either way you described, I am going to show evidence that the Vorlon Fighter had recieved prior damage to the "single volley" which you claimed destroyed it. I do not dispute the whole line, only the final 18 words of it."
You said you are "going to show evidence that the Vorlon Fighter had recieved prior damage."
Are you changing your mind now, or just lying about it?

You also said, in that same message "Yes. I believe the Vorlon Fighter was damaged before hand and thus the one volley line is invalid."
 
 
 

I am saying that we don't know.  I am sure I have posted this at least 5 or 6 times at spacebattles and at least in one e-mail.
Keep in mind that zero can be the unknown value too.
 

Nope.  You said "I am going to show evidence that the Vorlon Fighter had recieved prior damage."
Zero damage, by definition, is not prior damage.
 
 

So my statement that it took an unknown amount of damage before being destroyed is true.
 
 

Playing semantics, are we?  You said "I am going to show evidence that the Vorlon Fighter had recieved prior damage."
The amount is irrelevant.  You have to prove that the fighter took previous damage at all.
 
 

And your statement that it had not taken damage is specualtion.
 

You will now quote me where I supposedly said that the fighter definitely did not receive prior damage, Mr. Strawman.
 

You have no evidence that it didn't take damage other than we didn't see it on screen.
 

Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.
And you have no evidence that it did.  Thus, you have no evidence to support your argument.
My statement is exactly correct.  The Vorlon fighter was destroyed by the Earthforce fighter.
It was intact before the volley, it was not intact after the volley.  The Vorlon fighter was destroyed by the Earthforce fighter.  It doesn't matter if the fighter took a previous hit from the Death Star, my statement is still 100% accurate.
 

When a post is lacking conclusive proof it is still specualtion.
 

Nope.  We agreed to use the Scientific Method, which does not involve proof.  It involves determining which hypothesis stands up to testing.
Also note that your argument "is lacking conclusive proof," and according to your own words, is speculation.
Also note that your statement is a "Slippery Slope" fallacy.  Remember that the burden of proof is on you.
 

Specualtion is a valid tool to disprove other specualtion when someone contends the first speculation is the only valid solution to the scene.
 

Strawman.
I never said I have the only possible solution.  But I did follow the Scientific Method, use unquestionable sources (the series itself), formulate a hypothesis that stands up to testing, and make a statement that is 100% accurate.
You've done none of those things, thus your argument is inferior to mine.

On to the Debate!