>>39370599lol do you need me to fucking spell it out for you
>strawman>an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.it isn't misrepresenting any of the arguments; these responses are perfectly applicable to most shill threads
pic related shows two examples i found on /vp/ in the last few minutes
>reductionist >ignores complexities of an issue for an easier premise to defend or attackmost of the arguments i've seen are completely shallow and don't involve "complexities"
>to focus on graphicsused by GF, self-explanatory
>It's for balanceagain used by GF
>The Switch can't handle it to be fair i don't really see this one but it falls in the same line of thinking that says "it's unfeasible for Gamefreak to make several good-looking animations for over 800 pokemon aswell as hundreds of moves!" which has nothing else to the argument besides saying "boohoo making game too hard, gamefreak small indie company!"
>You're never going to use ALL the pokemon!yes, the motherload. Almost every defender of the culling uses this argument. No matter how many examples they use it always boils down to the same argument. it is commonly paired with "why should gamefreak have to program them in if people don't use them?" which falls under "small indie company, make game too hard"
i could go on but these arguments have no substance, and if they did you failed to show proof of any
my "argument" was that you are falsely identifying fallacies by simply stating their names in response to posts
doing this does not compel an interesting conversation nor does it make you look smarter
you gonna reply "AD HOMINEM FALLACY HAHA XD RETARD!" any time you get called a faggot on here?
