Yea… thats not how any of this works.
See you’re making the claims, therefore onus is on you to prove the claims you’re making… not on me to disprove them.
Nice try with the flat-earth logic though.
Prove this claim, and I shall.
Prove what claim exactly? If you don’t understand the concept of “burden of proof” then… I honestly don’t know what to tell you. Maybe take a philosophy class or something.
The claim you made here:
This is a claim. According to this claim, claims require the person making them to prove them.
You made the claim, so you have to prove it according to your own rule.
Ironic.
So you do want me to explain the concept of burden of proof huh? Ok man… That’s Philo 101 but I’ll give it a shot.
Hitchens razor or Sagan’s standard both assert more or less that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (or what can be asserted without evidence can be likewise dismissed.) What you are doing is literally the perfect example of attempting to shift the burden of truth with the “argument from ignorance” logical fallacy. IE: Asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
“Burden of proof” is actually a pretty well-established concept even outside the more abstract conversations on logic or discourse and is commonly applied in the legal and statistical fields as well.
You’re welcome. Any more tutoring and I’m gonna have to start charging you by the hour.
This is basically what was concluded in another thread:
No, I’m saying that Rogue is actually really good in Classic, so giving them a Thunderfury isn’t a waste. Most guilds are going to give a Thunderfury to a tank, of course, but on a Rogue it is at least useful.
Fury Warrior is terrible in TBC, by contrast. They’re a total waste of Warglaives.
1 Like
I’ll say it more slowly for you.
Your claim:
If: Person makes a claim
Then: Person must prove claim
The rule you stated IS ITSELF A CLAIM.
Prove it according to your own rule.
I don’t care about Hitchens’ nonsense, because the “extraordinary” addendum is even more facile than just the basic burden of proof nonsense. There is no rule of logic concerning burden of proof, it it literally a formal agreement in debate settings, nothing more.
You set a rule out, I’m simply applying your rule to itself. If the rule can’t avoid the law of noncontradiction, then it isn’t a rule regarding truth or moral “oughts” and no one is beholden to it unless they agree (or are compelled, like in legal matters).
You can literally go watch SK gamings videos and Nihlium’s videos and see the health pools of their tanks.
Modern theory craft was alive and well in TBC. Pally tanks in late T6 hover about 19-21k health, warriors are 22-24k, and druids hit 25k. You can literally go watch any old school video.
You also know that prot pallies can’t simply stack stam for the bonus, because then they will do no threat which makes them useless.
Also, you can watch recent videos with absolute modern theory craft from Atlantiss and Warmane and see health pools. To just say pallies surpass warriors in single target threat and health pool is incredibly wrong, and downright laughable.
It’s clear you just want to be right based on because you said so. Pally is my main class, and I’ve played it for 15 years. You don’t think I want you to be correct? But you’re just not.
You’re literally quoting yourself and Fasciea from another thread… That’s not exactly “conclusive” lol.
Yall can speculate and ruminate and whatever else makes you feel better about the prospects of your class in TBC. But I’m telling you… if you think most guilds are gonna be running 2-3 druid/paladin tanks you’re in for a big disappointment
Even if we ignore all the evidence from 2008 TBC. Right now… the guilds sweaty enough to be progressing in actual Tier 6 content on servers where it doesn’t even really matter, where they got to choose whatever class they wanted when they rolled with no “vanilla/classic bias” influencing that decision…
Right now those guilds are running 1-2 prot warriors, not druids/pallys.
Continue with your ruminating however. Everyone deserves to dreaem.
meh, pallies can hit the 102 avoidance and are aoe kings. I’d have them tank those fight and druids dps/ot. War seems like a wasted spot.
Ok my little neutron star. Gonna go with the Ron White rule here and just hope you tire yourself out. Arguing with solipsists is always a waste of time. BUT YOU CAN’T PROVE THE TEAPOT DOESNT EXIST. ITS LoGiC1!1!
Nobody ever said that’s what anyone was going to do. I said it was what i’d do. I’m more interested with playing with people i like then smashing a meta into the ground.
Gee… that’s useful! Wait… no it isn’t. I can’t see logs, I can’t see gems, I can’t see ilvl, I can’t see anything useful to actually compare classes apples to apples.
Also hilarious that you’re going to argue I have no end-game experience and then you rely upon kill videos that aren’t even from the Tank PoV to prop up your counterpoint.
My point is that they don’t need to stack Stamina. A Warrior needs to put on additional Stamina to match the Paladin’s baseline. Also “do no threat” is a vast hyperbole, especially when literally every piece of T6 gear for Paladins has Spell Power on it, whereas several pieces of Warrior gear has neither Agility nor Strength. The Sunwell bracers/belt/boots are notably absent of any offensive stats for Warriors.
P-servers are bad.
But also the fact you keep lumping single target threat in with health pools is just disingenuous. Paladins can get superior EFFECTIVE HEALTH without much struggle because of their vastly superior Stamina scaling compared to Warriors. That a Paladin foregoes excess EH to build up more avoidance for the combat table or more damage for better TPS/DPS is the entire point of the better scaling.
You’re relying on very bad counter evidence.
Or because the math says so…
I’m sorry you don’t actually understand the basics of philosophy but I’ll give you a hint: there is no such thing as a burden of proof.
Fair enough. I’m not saying they cant tank, (barring a few notable exceptions where you pretty much have to bring a war tank) but I assume we were talking pure meta previously.
You’re literally arguing against Bertrands Teapot but I dont understand the basics of philosophy? El oh freaking El. GTFO kiddo
just curious what are the exceptions? I dont know of any that have to be a war.
I’m not actually.
First, proving a negative isn’t an impossible task since that’s literally what the law of noncontradiction is for, you just have to work harder at some of the premises provided you’re not silly and ignore them.
Second, you seem to be laboring under the false impression that if I reject a rule regarding the burden of proof, I’m subject to just BELIEVING ANYTHING FOR ANY REASON AT ALL… which is moronic and doesn’t follow.
Burden of proof is not a rule of logic, it is an AGREEMENT, nothing more.
Kael for pyro, Illidan for Shear, Reliquary for Deaden and Nightbane/Archi for the fear. Its possible in most cases to do without a war tank, particularly once you outgear the encounter, but if you’re progressing you’re just making the fight needlessly much harder without one.
I believe what you’re trying to say is it’s not wrong to say “grass grows” just because you don’t have a timelapse video of it happening, yes?
I’m forming my own guild just to get my own glaives on my warrior.
Simple as that.