Have you taken and passed a college level logic course? If not, you really should, it's one of those classes that makes you a little better at tons of things.
If you have, here's an entry level refresher.
...now Wireless Joe Jackson, there was a blern hitting machine...Yeah man, when I was a teenager I had a helluva time getting away from blowHe'll look to see if anyone else was paying attention and get back up on his feet. I did it all the time in Amtgard.Notice that all of those statements are in the past tense. From these statements, I can draw a logically consistent conclusion about the past. Subject 1 was a robot constructed to hit blerns, Subject 2 did cocaine as a teenager, Subject 3 violated Amtgard rules.
These statements do not contain sufficient information to draw logically consistent conclusions about the present. In the time that has elapsed since the time referenced in these statements, Subject 1 could have been made into paperweights, Subject 2 could have kicked his cocaine habit, and Subject 3 could have stopped violating Amtgard rules.
Have you discovered your failed logic yet?
Elebrim wrote:He himself said he has cheated in the past, ergo calling himself a cheater.
Your argument is logically inconsistent unless you honestly consider everyone in the sport to be a cheater. Your argument unequivocally states that anyone who has ever cheated is a cheater, and by any logically consistent definition of 'cheating', there is no one in the sport who hasn't cheated at least once.
Elebrim wrote:He himself said he has cheated in the past, ergo calling himself a cheater, and used that as the launching point for the rest of his argument.
I am quite certain that if it were the launching point of the rest of his argument it would have been near the very beginning of his post, as opposed to being generally near the end.
Elebrim wrote:he is creating a straw man by focusing on abuse potential as a reason against healing.
This is also part of what makes me question your understanding of logic, since that is not even mildly similar to what a straw man fallacy is. For your sake, here is a definition of a straw man fallacy, courtesy of the back corner of my closet shelf.
A Concise Introduction to Logic, Ninth Edition wrote:The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been demolished.
I am going to sum up Giggles argument as follows:
I am against bringing back healing because I feel it is too wide open for abuse.I fail to see how that is distorting or destroying anyone's argument, rather he is expressing a dissenting opinion and providing support for it. What you're doing to his argument is, ironically, similar to a straw man fallacy, but I think it's actually an ad hominem, or maybe a mix of the two. For your edification:
A Concise Introduction to Logic, Ninth Edition wrote:Argumentum ad Hominem
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an argument against the person.
So by focusing on Giggles, instead of on his argument, and by calling him a cheater, you are committing an ad hominem attack. Additionally, since you are also misrepresenting his argument and declaring it invalid, you are committing a straw man fallacy yourself.
Elebrim wrote:Every rule can be abused in just as blatant or more blatant ways. It's a bad standard to judge by, and I think I can safely say that such a tactic of argument is therefore, in fact, wrong for this conversation.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I am led to conclude from this statement that you have never done any significant amount of creation, playtesting, or adjudication of rulesets. If you had, you would know that potential for abuse is always a valid concern when creating anything inside any kind of competitive ruleset.