Talk:Yasuo/@comment-26869721-20170125163931/@comment-4091261-20170216072548

You are right. Did you know it is normal for my to create 5 whole different iterations of a reply before actually replying once? It's because the first few are usually the blatantly biased responses that hold little meaning.

I do this as a sign of respect. Respect for the community. Respect for my dignity. Respect for the chicken, whose life choices are questioned in mass. Though most importantly, respect for the purpose.

Call me insane, but I'm legitimately impressed with User:Fleedling Hyneken. Not ironically, as in impressed with how he could be this arrogant or anything like that. Rather impressed with how he handles his process.

When I assess someone, one's faults does not strike as heavily as normal. Partly because I do reassess at least 5 times. Now, we clearly have seen his fault. It is presented in broad daylight given how we have explicitly explained it. However, I also look past that fault and see the value of what was given. You, Fleedling Hyneken, have structured your arguments quite well.

You employ new arguments as contributions to his point. You have the humility to at least ask why there is a problem--a trait that not many people deemed arrogant has. You have shown usage of all forms of rhetoric in a purposeful manner. As such I respect your opinion, which is why I must challenge it.

The purpose of a debate is to explore different perspectives. Diving headfirst into some conflicts in order to see how issues interact with each other. Each party potentially learning something new by poking at a topic with a stick until it does something cool. Debates run under the guise of winning or losing. However, in the end the gains are from what can be gleaned from the challenge itself. Is it pointless meandering, or is it a beautiful development?

As I have assessed that a person who I respect is encountering a fundamental issue. I must dive in and fix this issue. The issue being a lack of respect. A lack of respect for the potential of differing opinions from influencing his own. It is now sullied with unnecessary emotional chaos that perhaps even this comment is not even helping alleviate. An issue is an issue, and talking about it will always be an issue--because it's an issue.

As such, we have been harsh on the emotional spectrum, but ironically we have been babying this argument from the very start.

"Oh um, you know... well, you see mang... There is- you know- an item called: ." Just go out with it and say that the entire point of a nonexistant anti- item is invalid because an item does exist and it is significant to make a weakling if used in the right hands.

The very reason why Fleedling Hyneken's flawed approach to these problems is even possible is precisely because there is no weight to them that reveals that his entire statement has been contradicted. Explicitly pointing these things out is a pivotal part of something I like to call not wasting time talking about useless things. When a contradiction occurs, anything goes, because anything other than a contradiction is true. So any arguments connected to a contradiction is completely pointless given its fundamentally based on a flaw.

The purpose of my will is to fix these fundamental flaws so that you, Fleedling Hyneken, may become someone who can supercede my performance for debating. I see the potential, and I cannot let this chance simply slip by from mundane development.

I will go as far as supporting a point I disagree with to show the might of having one's argument completely invalidated on a credible and logical scale. This is because one needs to respect the possibility of a crazy chicken like me coming in like a storm with silly arguments that somehow are influential enough to fool the average joe while leaving the entire discussion null until the conflicting contradictions are resolved.

Perhaps Theorem: Swiggity Swooty ~(*~* )~ will actually be resolved. Find out next time, on Dragon Ball Z.