QUOTE(Sturm)
I made no challenge, I interjected.
An interjection that went directly against her advice. Is that not a challenge?
QUOTE(Sturm)
So he's just as at fault as me for not explaining the conditions from the start.
When Suzu esplained her conditions, you rejected them. At that point, the discussion should've been about which conditions should've applied. You challenged her conditions, she didn't challenge yours. The burden was then on you to show why your conditions should've applied.
QUOTE(Sturm)
Fanelia Beam is far better than Disaresta against the Dark Aghart.
Is that statement wrong? No.
Does that mean you should waste your 1x Fanelia on the Dark Aghart? No.
If someone asks what is the best weapon against the Dark Aghart, one - without taking long term consequences into account - should respond "Fanelia." Would one? No. Because the final battle is a far better place to throw away your Fanelia.
Now in application: Did I ever claim that the Warp Shoes should be used for the Golden Wheat? No. Did I claim they were better than another method of obtaining it - disregarding future consequences? Yes. Do you understand now?
I already understood that. I never said that you claimed that Rosary was better under her conditions.
But your example doesn't work. I would not respond with no regard to long-term consequences, because I don't want someone coming back yelling about missing an opportunity because of bad advice. The cost of using Durant in the battle will most likely be not as high as losing the Dragon Killer. I would in fact respond with an answer for both cases.
Also, the analogy doesn't work. No one asked for the best, they just asked for a way. She provided a way, so she wasn't wrong.
QUOTE(Sturm)
Because Suzu doesn't know how to argue.
And what's your excuse?
QUOTE(Sturm)
Assumptions are bad for you.
This whole argument is about what assumptions to use.