Board Thread:General Mod Discussion/@comment-25987328-20160413230109/@comment-26094355-20160426170755

Sinthorion wrote: Then give me the definition of "action scene". Even if you find a clear definition for that, you can't define "mostly" or "trash" (used to describe the quality of something, not for actual trash) without using more unclear or subjective terms. Therefore your so-called "facts" are not very factual.

Why is winning the debate so important for you anyway? Maybe you can convince a few dozen people of your own point of view here, but does that really matter? Why don't you do this somewhere else where you can reach more people?

Certainly. The term "action scene" actually, if you scroll up, is not the original or root term used by Catfish, but rather "fight scene" (which is undeniably objective). It was interchanged over time throughout the discussion, in favor of a more umbrella term for casual speaking ("action scene"). But again, if you scroll up, the root intent is still the same, and the term that Catfish uses throughout his posts is "fight scene". Fight scene is even still a casual term for the real definition "stage combat ", which is most definitely confirmed and validated. Nice try. Furthermore, even after this solid definition, to even try to say "it depends on what you regard as a fight scene" is flat out denial and completely illogical, there is no going around this fact.

Sinth, I know for sure I may never be able to change their opinions on it. You're missing the point: this is no longer about opinion. Tangible, disprovable assumptions have been put forth, and it is the role of the debate or factual discussing to determine whether these claims are true or false (they have been proven false). The term "trash" is defined in this debate (by Catfish's and others claims) by the tangible basis that was put forward: that the movies are somehow objectively trash because they are only fight scenes, full of romance, pure evil, and Peter Jackson was the one who ruined them. Please scroll up for the appropriate disproval of each of these claims, and it's undeniable that not only is this discussion winnable (and has been won, until more new material is put forth by the other side), but also that it is both tangible and disprovable. You would have to be in sheer denial or unwilling to face these facts to assume that there is only opinion in this discussion.

Is winning important to me? It is. But that's beside the point, don't try to change the subject. These misinformed, toxic claims being put forth against the films are innaccurate, ignorant, and just not right. I will not let the words of a misinformed few mislead the rest into buying into the lie that the films are objectively "trash", based on a false basis that was put forward (again: only fight scenes, full of romance, pure evil, and Peter Jackson was the one who ruined them). If you have nothing else left but to ask if I can validate my facts (which I have) and ask me off topic questions, then it would be wise to concede.

 Elvenking of the Woodland Realm