>2. We already HAVE debunked your arguments (both for Tier 5 and the Monster Steven issue), but you keep bringing them up over and over again despite them already being debunked or there being a much larger amount of evidence for the opposite points.
No, you really haven't, you kept saying "We don't have time" and "No one agrees with you" which are not debunks.
Every time you have presented an argument which wans't ad nausuem, I addressed it and countered it. You don't just give a counter argument and then scream "I win."
>Meanwhile, when we properly discussed it, multiple people including the OP and a Content Mod who is a Verse-Supporter all agreed with my argument for Monster Steven only being shape-shifted
Argument ad Populum, it doesn't make you right.
>ut you continue to go over your little pieces of "evidence" based on vague statements and semantics and even misquoting things
I misquoted 1 thing which doesn't change my premise or my conclusion, you're now being intellectually dishonest by bringing up a mistake as if it actually changed anything, Blue Diamond Saying "Is he Corrupted?" or "He's corrupted?" do not change anything.
>while ignoring the larger amount of evidence on the other side.
You have 1 statement coming from Garnet, I have 3 statements from Blue, Yellow & Garnet, 2 of which say and make the obvious observation that he's corrupted, and Garnet does not disagree, she even says "Nevermind that".
>It's not just me who has debunked your arguments; Nickobloke did, as did Adem Warlock69, and Weekly himself (who is way more of an expert on this wiki's standards than any of us are) has supported the viewpoint that Monster Steven is not Corrupted.
No, they didn't, people can see I continued to address their arguments.
>That was my original goal, I wanted to be logical and evidence-based in my reasoning as per the standards of this site, but you wouldn't allow me to do so due to your own biases (when keeping out bias is the whole reason this site has standards and Mods).
That's a very illogical statement, because I don't have any biases for SU.
> AGAIN apologize for turning hostile and aggressive in my wording
This comes off very hollow when you continue to call me biased.
>the logic is indeed on my side far more than it is on yours
No, it's not, see above, I've addressed and debunked your points several times over into ad nausuem.
>and several people including the OP and a Content Mod have agreed with that, so you need to let it go
Argument ad Populum, I've already told you this before, not just in this comment.
>And yes, I'm neurotic and have OCD, those are mental issues I am officially diagnosed with. But just because you personally dislike the OCD way in which I post does not make my reasoning less valid
What are you on about? I haven't made any ad hominem attacks on your or your OCD, you need to not make things up like this.
> So I've stopped being angry/hostile
You clearly haven't.
> I'm continuing to be OCD; Whatever, the fact is that OCD is a condition well-suited to this site considering that it forces a person to want to be logical and organized.
OCD doesn't cause people to be logical, OCD is characterised by
illogical actions done repeatedly or repeated thoughts that enter the brain which cause anxiety.
>So basically, you need to just stop. Give up. Everyone including a Content Mod (who is a way bigger expert than you or I) has agreed with points that are the opposite of yours.
And that's an appeal to authority, being a content mod just means you monitor the wiki's content and fix it. Content Mod doesn't equal them being knowledgable, that's what a knowledgable member list is for, and they're all equally knowledgable until shown otherwise.
I think you guys will LOVE the quote from him I decided to use for Pink State's image-tab. It was between the one I chose, and "Steven's here to help," but I decided to go with the darker and less-funny one.
