|
I'm just gonna tell you some problems with arguing on Teamliquid that I consistently see,especially on hot button topics, to hopefully make some people examine their posting.
An interjection
Complex Thesis: Something I learned my freshman year of highschool.
Arguing in complex thesis form on Teamliquid is incredibly rewarding, and saves you from spam posts making one counterargument, while communicating you have considered all points. It also backs up your opinion with reasons.
Basically it goes like this
Qualifier:Although (insert something here that goes against your point)COMMA
Opinion: I think/believe(insert opinion here)
Reason(s): Because of/Due to( Reason, Reason, Reason)
Example: Although Taeja won MLG arena, Terran is underpowered vs zerg because of creep spread that can block your 4th base, a 44 percent winrate if you exclude taeja and gumiho(who I believed outclassed their opponents) in korea, and the new queen range preventing hellion openings from being as effective.
^You see that? If someone argues with you, it will have to be reasonable and though out, or they will look stupid. The qualifier saves you from the following generic response post:
Terran is UP but Taeja won MLG arena? Ha.
Don't you see how useful posting arguments in complex thesis form is? If you want, you can even elaborate on your reasons below.
An optional addition is a warrant(Thanks Micronesia!). A warrant basically means you say why what you are talking about is important. It is a nice touch, especially when arguing about things that are obscure/not considered important in whatever discussion you are in.
Now, onto some mistaken posts that I see:
Flaw 1:
The burden of proof lies on the accuser
Example:
Well the raven being used in TvT doesn't really count... seeing as its a mirro match.... so if its gets buffed.. both sides get the equal same... so yea.... Tvt doesnt count.. im talking more about TvP and TvZ...
could u direct me to some top gm or pro replays where ravens are used as standard composition in the mix or used effectively?
While this seems like a rhetorical question, designed to cause the person you're arguing to search and then realize the errors of their ways, it actually is aggravating and will usually result in a reply that does not include a link to anything and more argument.
My suggestion:The same idea can be communicated in a much nicer way
Although ravens are theoretically good, the lack of Ravens used in pro and GM level lategame TvZ compositions causes me to believe that they are not a viable or useful unit to produce
Edit: I also like this Jerubaal's perspective
On August 10 2012 07:15 Jerubaal wrote:
As far as your 'burden of proof' flaw, while it may be true that the burden of proof lies with the accuser in a criminal case, it seems reasonable that in a discussion you should only demand the level of proof that you are also willing to provide. I.E., demanding replays when you have provided none seems unreasonable.
Flaw 2:
Using a biased opinion(often based on empirical knowledge) to suggest things
Example:
What if seeker missiles were faster so they forced zerg to think instead of just 1-a
Besides being a balance whine, the "OP" race often gets categorized as a 1-A race(especially due to the micro-intensity of terran). I implore you to never create ideas designed to make the game more complex for the race you don't play. You will not come across as an intelligent or worthwhile poster if you do so.
Flaw 3:
Being condescending to diminish someones opinion
On August 10 2012 03:49 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 03:43 Zrana wrote:On August 10 2012 02:47 ProfSc wrote:
The real issue, from my perspective, in the TvZ MU, is a) What avilo has already stated regarding raven HSM not being cost-effective, and b) Unit movement.
In TvZ, 2/3 of the generally viable options rely heavily on units that clump up due to pathing. Both marine-tank and pure bio have this problem. Even mech, which moves as a ball, has this problem. If the pathing were more linear/dynamic, then 12 infestors wouldn't be so incredibly cost-efficient. The other issue is how air units stack so much, which is why you need to be much more careful with ravens than with infestors.
On the other hand, since infestors are so big, their clumping isn't nearly as bad, so the two "splash" options that terran has other than the extremely cost-inefficient HSM—tanks and EMP—don't get the money hits that fungal is apt to get. Infestors, being the easiest mid-tier spellcaster to micro due to their size and comparatively quick movement speed, make them one of the cost-efficient units in the entire game.
I'm not sure how blizzard would go about balancing fungal, but if they are reluctant to fix the pathing, they should at least make it so that fungal can't target air units. Either or would be sufficient in terms of balance. Blizzard should make it so that a) Units don't clump as much and therefore make it easier to spread them further or b) Allow terrans to focus on microing the ground army while the vikings engage BLs/corruptors without fear of losing the viking fleet to fungals. Infestors are hardly the easiest to micro. Ghosts and HTs are waaaaaaaay easier. Also I don't know why you're complaining that HSM is cost-inefficient. That's how the game works. As you go up the tech tree units generally get more costly and more efficient (powerful) but less cost-efficient than lower tier units. Compare a marine to a broodlord for example. And as you can get potentially infinite HSMs from a raven it's not actually that cost-inefficient? There's so much random stating of facts in this thread to make it seem like zerg is OP. Overlords can drop creep to block potential expansion? omg so OP! That's like saying "omg terran can turn command centres into planetary fortresses! so op!". The races just work in different ways. LMAO. Stopped reading at Infestors being harder to use than Ghosts and Temps.
Two things need to be said here. First of all, if this same opinion was communicated in a complex thesis, it would contribute to and generate discussion. Secondly, the amount of condescension will make smart posters disregard your posts and other people who agree with you go "Yeah!" and form a mob with pitchforks. Neither of those are desirable outcomes.
One last thing:
Reputation Control
Reputation. It is what it is. It doesn't matter if the community is being unjust in how they perceive you, it only matters how they perceive you. The ends don't justify the means, you just have to deal with the ends and manipulate the means right. I'll just give you two examples,
Avilo: Poor avilo. His reputation for balance whining has overtook anything he says.The problem for him is the following(atleast from my perspective): He isn't seen in the public eye saying anything but something about balance(that is ok, but...). The problem is that he tried to present opinions held by much of the community to idra on SOTG. Idra completely disagreed and refused to give him a word in. While not his fault, the combo of idra fanboys and Avilos rep for balance whine made his reputation irreparable.
LiquidTyler: Tyler. He does post, it's just rare for me to end up in a thread where he does post. When he posts, it is usually a well thought out opinion that can only be wrong because he uses incorrect reasoning. While he sometimes rants, and often his opinions are not pleasing to the masses, when I see him post, I read respectfully. I read because I know he has put thought into what he is posting and that he can bring the perspective of a progamer without undesired bias into a discussion.
Try to end up like Tyler. I feel bad for Avilo, but that's just the way it is. Side note: Tom Cruise is building a terrible reputation for himself, and Torte de Lini has built such a reputation for himself that I follow him on twitter. Look up their posts if you don't believe me.
Where you are from
Interestingly, I have become attuned to where teamliquid posters are from. This is not meant as an insult, but Germans(I've seen a bit of denmark do this too) generally hold a strong opinion and sound condescending no matter what. I believe that talking reasonably to people who do not have english as their first language generally makes them completely fine to debate with on the forums. But always try to look at posts and then at the nationality and see if there is a connection.
Most people are not getting the point, I'll try and explain why I even added what would apparently derail the entire point of the post.
When people post on the internet, a writer's voice comes out. For example, Gheed comes off as an unlikely researcher questioning the human condition through starcraft. But, native english speakers(especially on the internet) can adjust their writer's voice depending on the situation. The same poster can go from "fuck painuser" in one thread to "STORM TOSS BOOM BOOM" in another(referring to parting :D). In the same way, native english speakers(not just native english, but also those with enough mastery of the language, obviously) can have a condescending and rude writer's voice on people they deem to be dimwitted due to holding a perceived stupid opinion. What I am saying is that because Teamliquid is an international website(not everyone learns english first), foreign posters may have an unintentional writer's voice that sounds rude to you. Notice that it may be unintentional(as I believe is the case with Germans), and keep it in perspective when arguing on TL.
Disclaimer: I used the "Call to action: Balance TvZ" thread for many examples. I have nothing against germans, or avilo, or tom cruise, besides that they could improve their posting. I am most probably a hypocrite if you look in my posting history, I admit it is hard to always be good at arguing on Teamliquid. The point of this thread is to commune what I have determined is requisite of a good arguer/poster on TL.
 
|
Should be added as a subsection under the TL Ten Commandments.
|
On August 10 2012 06:01 Flamingo777 wrote:
Should be added as a subsection under the TL Ten Commandments.
Fully agreed, if everyone would use this discussions would be soo much better.
|
Also, ad hominem. "You are bronze scrub, go away" has little to do with empirical data. Although if the bronze player tries to interpret the data, the fact they are bronze is relevant, it doesnt make the data irrelevant.
|
|
|
United States24701 Posts
When I learned the same thing, it included a warrant, which is the reason why whatever you are discussing is important. It might not always be necessary to point it out explicitly, as this isn't an essay.
|
On August 10 2012 06:10 micronesia wrote:
When I learned the same thing, it included a warrant, which is the reason why whatever you are discussing is important. It might not always be necessary to point it out explicitly, as this isn't an essay.
Very true. I was going to add a section on being on-topic, but I didn't know what I would want to say. What you say is correct though.
|
On August 10 2012 06:08 Froadac wrote:
Also, ad hominem. "You are bronze scrub, go away" has little to do with empirical data. Although if the bronze player tries to interpret the data, the fact they are bronze is relevant, it doesnt make the data irrelevant.
This idea that Ad Hominem is some special kind of panacea for an argument can work, but its not the magical thing a lot of people think it is. it just means that you disagree because a person who doesn't have a lot of experience says a certain thing. Calling ad hominem, when the other arguer is right to call out a source because it is bad is not the same as discrediting them because they are just somehow not good enough. I see this a lot on TL and its just kind of a too easy way of getting ones way. Just my opinion however.
On a different note, I understand what the OP means, arguing on TL when not done in the first way tends to not lead to anything.
|
On August 10 2012 06:26 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 06:08 Froadac wrote:
Also, ad hominem. "You are bronze scrub, go away" has little to do with empirical data. Although if the bronze player tries to interpret the data, the fact they are bronze is relevant, it doesnt make the data irrelevant. This idea that Ad Hominem is some special kind of panacea for an argument can work, but its not the magical thing a lot of people think it is. it just means that you disagree because a person who doesn't have a lot of experience says a certain thing. Calling ad hominem, when the other arguer is right to call out a source because it is bad is not the same as discrediting them because they are just somehow not good enough. I see this a lot on TL and its just kind of a too easy way of getting ones way. Just my opinion however. On a different note, I understand what the OP means, arguing on TL when not done in the first way tends to not lead to anything.
Yeah, of course.
I mean, the perfect example of ad hominem is "you're incompetent at starcraft because you can't fix a computer".
Well, it's not good they can't fix the compouter, but it's not terribly related to their knowledge and ability in the field of starcraft.
|
On August 10 2012 05:55 Bippzy wrote:
Where you are from
Interestingly, I have become attuned to where teamliquid posters are from. This is not meant as an insult, but Germans(I've seen a bit of denmark do this too) generally hold a strong opinion and sound condescending no matter what. I believe that talking reasonably to people who do not have english as their first language generally makes them completely fine to debate with on the forums. But always try to look at posts and then at the nationality and see if there is a connection.
Fuck you and your opinions! You obviously have no idea what you're talking about!
I kid, I kid.
Interesting blog, I agree with most parts, but not in others.
|
On August 10 2012 05:55 Bippzy wrote:
Where you are from
Interestingly, I have become attuned to where teamliquid posters are from. This is not meant as an insult, but Germans(I've seen a bit of denmark do this too) generally hold a strong opinion and sound condescending no matter what. I believe that talking reasonably to people who do not have english as their first language generally makes them completely fine to debate with on the forums. But always try to look at posts and then at the nationality and see if there is a connection.
I know I've definitely learned to look at the location box, not so much to judge tone (I simply accept that anyone who's not using phrases like Noob or GTFO etc is at least attempting to be civil) but before I take claims/responses seriously, especially in strategy. I mentally down/upgrade claims of rank based on server. For context my very much gold league friend (EU) has just hit Diamond on his messing about while drunk US server account. As he's still winning he's now pushing on for "Drunken Masters". I've no doubt that at the very top it evens out more more but we all know who those guys are.
Posting using your system is probably a good idea though and might make me reconsider automatically skipping or mentally devaluing US/Cananda labelled posts. It can make obviously flawed opinions look authoritative, but it'll raise the quality of TL's abundant wrongness I'm sure. Thinking about it I'm going off the idea with the realisation that it'll be more like lawyers moot rather than a scientistific discussion... Carry on spouting TL!
|
Very good post... until the end. I really don't think it's fair, nor relevant, to pin certain behavior online to nationality. In fact, it's a bad idea. Although your experience shows you that a lot of Germans online act condescending, that doesn't mean every german you will talk to act that way, so judging prematurely based on nationality is not recommended. Better to go an individual basis, some people sound condescending without meaning to simply because of how they present themselves online, regardless of their grasp of the English language.
|
On August 10 2012 06:38 StarVe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:55 Bippzy wrote:
Where you are from
Interestingly, I have become attuned to where teamliquid posters are from. This is not meant as an insult, but Germans(I've seen a bit of denmark do this too) generally hold a strong opinion and sound condescending no matter what. I believe that talking reasonably to people who do not have english as their first language generally makes them completely fine to debate with on the forums. But always try to look at posts and then at the nationality and see if there is a connection. Fuck you and your opinions! You obviously have no idea what you're talking about! I kid, I kid. Interesting blog, I agree with most parts, but not in others.
haha <3
I was waiting for a german to reply to this blog.
On August 10 2012 06:52 Tobberoth wrote:
Very good post... until the end. I really don't think it's fair, nor relevant, to pin certain behavior online to nationality. In fact, it's a bad idea. Although your experience shows you that a lot of Germans online act condescending, that doesn't mean every german you will talk to act that way, so judging prematurely based on nationality is not recommended. Better to go an individual basis, some people sound condescending without meaning to simply because of how they present themselves online, regardless of their grasp of the English language.
I guess what I was trying to say is that if you see an American acting condescending, it's on purpose and they are purposely being that way. If you are german, I'm not so sure that the condescension is on purpose or if it just comes off that way because of something in the culture of Germany.
|
and Torte de Lini has built such a reputation for himself that I follow him on twitter. Look up their posts if you don't believe me.
How thoughtful <33
|
On August 10 2012 05:55 Bippzy wrote:This is not meant as an insult, but Germans(I've seen a bit of denmark do this too) generally hold a strong opinion and sound condescending no matter what.
lol, living in Germany right now and this cracked me up
|
Perhaps there should be another addition: Don't offer a side point that may threaten to hijack your post. Especially if it involves a nationality.
Reputations a hell of a thing. Tom Cruise is an interesting choice to highlight. Most of his posts are useless to me and it has gotten to the point where I skip over what he has to say most of the time. I could and probably am someones Tom Cruise as well.
|
As far as your 'burden of proof' flaw, while it may be true that the burden of proof lies with the accuser in a criminal case, it seems reasonable that in a discussion you should only demand the level of proof that you are also willing to provide. I.E., demanding replays when you have provided none seems unreasonable.
|
|
|
I vote we just use standard claim-warrant-impact-link for every imbalance argument, would make it so much cleaner trolololos
This is unrelated, but I think Blizzard's patches are essentially bad PICs.
|
Although this is a very-well written post, I don't think it will by itself have a major impact on the quality of posting, because the people that aren't already arguing in a reasonable manner seem to me to be the least likely to change their habits in the face of new information.
Sorry, couldn't resist 
Great post, hope others take it to heart.
|
What reputation have I built up for myself?
Or am I still just a 1k post count noob?
|
On August 10 2012 09:32 BajaBlood wrote:Although this is a very-well written post, I don't think it will by itself have a major impact on the quality of posting, because the people that aren't already arguing in a reasonable manner seem to me to be the least likely to change their habits in the face of new information. Sorry, couldn't resist Great post, hope others take it to heart.
Haha yeah, but I just wanted to lay it out there, to say that I tried.
On August 10 2012 09:40 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:What reputation have I built up for myself? Or am I still just a 1k post count noob?
Haha sorry bro but I haven't heard of you, here's an autograph *wink*
|
Nice post, have noticed some of the same things and I wanted to say that this was very well-written 
Regarding the nationality thing, as you know it might vary from person to person. For some reason I have noticed a lot of posters from France/Netherlands being very abrasive, for instance, but not any from Germany. Eventually I just decided that it's the posts I end up seeing--I'm sure there are plenty of bad/good posters from every nation and I ultimately mostly disregarded the country tag in terms of preconceived notions and whatnot (I'm sure you don't hold any either, I'm just saying).
|
You raise a lot of valid points that would improve discussions - absolutely no question about that.
However, you also made one of the worst mistakes one can do: generalizing. You made a baseless claim supported solely by anecdotal evidence. While you claim that you have experienced that German posters are condescending, I can just as well claim that German posters seem to be more intelligent on average than any other group on TL, which results in their posts often being perceived as condescending by the uneducated masses. I could just as well add that I have confirmed this fact on countless occassions since I've been on TL. Furthemore, since I am a veteran on TL compared to you my observations hold more merit than yours... and so on and so forth...
Do not generalize based on nationality! Do not use stereotypes!
|
On August 10 2012 06:10 micronesia wrote:
When I learned the same thing, it included a warrant, which is the reason why whatever you are discussing is important. It might not always be necessary to point it out explicitly, as this isn't an essay.
The OP seems to be applying a helper-english essay framework to general argumentation, which is fine (after all, theses are ultimately core arguments of written works), but yeah, the actual standard structure of an argument is Claim (what you're arguing), Warrant (why what you're arguing is true), and Impact (why it matters).
The "although" of the OP is just a teaching guide to help students focus on more substantial theses that actually respond to possible opposing claims, rather than going with the easy/obvious/blandly descriptive thesis, and in an actual structured argument, it would normally be where you signpost the argument that you are responding to.
I disagree with the OP's burden of proof claim - while not a criminal court, the standard function of argumentation demands that every legitimate argument at the very least contain a claim, warrant, and impact - the burden of proof challenge is the demand that a person has not met the sufficient warrant for their claim, and it is always the burden of the arguer to support every claim that they make. It is true, though, that this sort of challenge is a weaker argument than simply providing a counterargument, since you're simply needling the opponent's claim rather than developing the substance of your own. In fact, "no warrant" responses are pretty much the weakest responses possible in a debate.
|
On August 10 2012 11:12 ggrrg wrote:
You raise a lot of valid points that would improve discussions - absolutely no question about that.
However, you also made one of the worst mistakes one can do: generalizing. You made a baseless claim supported solely by anecdotal evidence. While you claim that you have experienced that German posters are condescending, I can just as well claim that German posters seem to be more intelligent on average than any other group on TL, which results in their posts often being perceived as condescending by the uneducated masses. I could just as well add that I have confirmed this fact on countless occassions since I've been on TL. Furthemore, since I am a veteran on TL compared to you my observations hold more merit than yours... and so on and so forth...
Do not generalize based on nationality! Do not use stereotypes!
You win. I come across wrong in that section and have added an addendum addressing your point. I was just using it as an example, not saying it was a concrete rule. Read the op again.
On August 10 2012 11:14 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 06:10 micronesia wrote:
When I learned the same thing, it included a warrant, which is the reason why whatever you are discussing is important. It might not always be necessary to point it out explicitly, as this isn't an essay. The OP seems to be applying a helper-english essay framework to general argumentation, which is fine (after all, theses are ultimately core arguments of written works), but yeah, the actual standard structure of an argument is Claim (what you're arguing), Warrant (why what you're arguing is true), and Impact (why it matters). The "although" of the OP is just a teaching guide to help students focus on more substantial theses that actually respond to possible opposing claims, rather than going with the easy/obvious/blandly descriptive thesis, and in an actual structured argument, it would normally be where you signpost the argument that you are responding to. I disagree with the OP's burden of proof claim - while not a criminal court, the standard function of argumentation demands that every legitimate argument at the very least contain a claim, warrant, and impact - the burden of proof challenge is the demand that a person has not met the sufficient warrant for their claim, and it is always the burden of the arguer to support every claim that they make. It is true, though, that this sort of challenge is a weaker argument than simply providing a counterargument, since you're simply needling the opponent's claim rather than developing the substance of your own. In fact, "no warrant" responses are pretty much the weakest responses possible in a debate.
You are much more educated on this topic than me, I'll admit that. When I set out to write this, most of these higher level thoughts never even crossed my mind. From the perspective of claim, warrant, and impact, I do understand why you can disagree with the burden of proof claim. But, as you pointed, the types of arguments with burden of proof do not have a warrant generally. Thanks for posting! I have much to think about, but I believe it may be that impact is irrelevant in a forum thread because the topic is already assumed to matter if there is a thread about. But claim and warrant, definitely.
|
The same poster can go from "fuck painuser" in one thread to "STORM TOSS BOOM BOOM" in another(referring to parting :D)
Tempted to go through Waxangel's posts to see if he ever posted " fuck painuser " because he's the only poster I have seen say " STORM TOSS BOOM BOOM " that I can remember.
Anyway, on topic. I've had a mostly very positive experience on tl.net when arguing with another poster. Of course you also get the kind of people that are unreasonable, but I spend enough time here to be able to recognize their names and skip over their posts.
If more posters followed your suggestions it would get even better around here, so hopefully people who argue in the manner you demonstrated will read this!
On the topic of generalizing users based on country, I myself don't generalize based on country but by someones post count or if they have a special icon.
I will usually only read someone's post in a big thread if it is a name I recognize, or they have a certain number of posts which makes me believe their post is worth reading. Usually this number for me is 1000, I know I shouldn't be skipping over low-post count users' posts but I do it anyway to save time and because I feel that those who contribute more to tl.net are the ones that I should be paying attention to.
|
This is actually a very informative and entertaining read. I'll definitely be sure to check out any future blogs you write .
EDIT:
Brohoof! /)
|
I prefer to simply ignore people who respond with the most obvious, stale counter point instead of preemptively qualifying it myself in order to immediately recognize which individuals are not worth arguing with in the first place. They think they've won the argument, and I've saved myself some wasted time, it's a win/win.
When you find that rare poster who knows the obvious counter and knows you know the obvious counter and thus decides to respond with a compelling, unexpected argument, then you know you've hit upon gold.
|
On August 10 2012 13:06 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 11:12 ggrrg wrote:
You raise a lot of valid points that would improve discussions - absolutely no question about that.
However, you also made one of the worst mistakes one can do: generalizing. You made a baseless claim supported solely by anecdotal evidence. While you claim that you have experienced that German posters are condescending, I can just as well claim that German posters seem to be more intelligent on average than any other group on TL, which results in their posts often being perceived as condescending by the uneducated masses. I could just as well add that I have confirmed this fact on countless occassions since I've been on TL. Furthemore, since I am a veteran on TL compared to you my observations hold more merit than yours... and so on and so forth...
Do not generalize based on nationality! Do not use stereotypes! You win. I come across wrong in that section and have added an addendum addressing your point. I was just using it as an example, not saying it was a concrete rule. Read the op again. Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 11:14 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On August 10 2012 06:10 micronesia wrote:
When I learned the same thing, it included a warrant, which is the reason why whatever you are discussing is important. It might not always be necessary to point it out explicitly, as this isn't an essay. The OP seems to be applying a helper-english essay framework to general argumentation, which is fine (after all, theses are ultimately core arguments of written works), but yeah, the actual standard structure of an argument is Claim (what you're arguing), Warrant (why what you're arguing is true), and Impact (why it matters). The "although" of the OP is just a teaching guide to help students focus on more substantial theses that actually respond to possible opposing claims, rather than going with the easy/obvious/blandly descriptive thesis, and in an actual structured argument, it would normally be where you signpost the argument that you are responding to. I disagree with the OP's burden of proof claim - while not a criminal court, the standard function of argumentation demands that every legitimate argument at the very least contain a claim, warrant, and impact - the burden of proof challenge is the demand that a person has not met the sufficient warrant for their claim, and it is always the burden of the arguer to support every claim that they make. It is true, though, that this sort of challenge is a weaker argument than simply providing a counterargument, since you're simply needling the opponent's claim rather than developing the substance of your own. In fact, "no warrant" responses are pretty much the weakest responses possible in a debate. You are much more educated on this topic than me, I'll admit that. When I set out to write this, most of these higher level thoughts never even crossed my mind. From the perspective of claim, warrant, and impact, I do understand why you can disagree with the burden of proof claim. But, as you pointed, the types of arguments with burden of proof do not have a warrant generally. Thanks for posting! I have much to think about, but I believe it may be that impact is irrelevant in a forum thread because the topic is already assumed to matter if there is a thread about. But claim and warrant, definitely.
Impacts are always necessary for a sufficient argument, forum or not ^.^ - "why does it matter" doesn't just mean that both debaters care about the topic they're arguing about (otherwise it would be a moot point, since they obviously cared enough to engage in the discussion in the first place); rather, it refers to the conclusion that is drawn from the argument. Most of the time, the argument is simple enough that the impact is a mirror reflection of the claim (eg: if someone argued "claim: people should exercise more - warrant: exercising improves their health so they can live longer - impact: therefore, people should exercise more"), but it also operates implicitly to connect the "conclusion" of an argument to a broader point. To use an example you mentioned in the OP, if people were debating the role of ravens in the terran arsenal, the argument that ravens are not viable in late-game can have several different possible impacts: a person might say "therefore Ravens should be buffed," or they might say "Terran lacks reliable tier 3 units and is underpowered!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
