[Googi]

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Uh, believe it or not, the entire basis of having solid logic and a solid arguement comes through research itself. You need to know logic, you need to train yourself to think and present a rational arguement, and you need to have facts to back your arguement lest it will be proven invalid. All this comes through researching topics, be it the topic under debate, or the topic of logic itself.

One can't just research "logic" and in doing so "learn" it. How do you know that whatever you're reading about "logic" isn't total nonsense? You know by thinking about it and analyzing it rationally. It's that part that's really important. The greatest purpose that the words you're reading can serve is to trigger this thinking. If you think about the topic without being triggered by researched data (by coming up with your own stuff to think about, though sometimes you have to have reached a fairly high level to do this effectively), you still improve your ability, whereas if you just read the stuff without thinking about it you do not.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

I'm cheapening what you do no more than I would by saying a basketball player's main strengths are his free throws and 3 point shots.

And if the player has some even greater strength that is even more important to his game than his free throws and 3 point shots then cheapening what he does is exactly what you would be doing.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Again, you're making everything I'm saying into some abstract version of my real meaning, seemingly on purpose.

I'm not judging what you mean to say. I'm judging what you do say. I even said that you may be doing this unintentionally, but that doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

I said he makes his points, thus his arguements, seem unbreakable. That's exactly what I meant. I'm not going to claim every single time Kai argued, he was totally correct in all or most of his points, because I'm sure this is not the case. However, his ability to present his arugement well probably has stopped people from being able to disprove him at times, too. If you want to call this deception and tricks, fine then. I just call it being a sound debater.

Deception is where you make things seem different from what they are (by the way, Kaimetsu did not make it seem as though he was "always right", and we can find cases of him saying he was mistaken about something.)