You can keep re-stating the same thing, but that is simply an argument by assertion. And since logic is clearly not your strong suit, that means it is logically fallacious, and not a valid premise on which to base an argument. Let us see:
"But the very same could be said about Ronda's opponents. The only reason the most of them is relatively known is just because they fought Ronda. Bethe Correia, Faith Van Duin, Alexis Davis, Charmaine Tweet (to mention a few) aren't all that far skill-wise. Miesha Tate is a little bit above them, but considering the bigger picture, WMMA is shallow in terms of skill."
So, in a paragraph about Ronda's opponents, you list five women, four of whom fought Ronda and one of whom fought Cyborg, yet Cyborg is not mentioned. This is not a problem of interpretation, but rather one of communication as you failed to provide context. But what do I know, I only work in research and am required to do things like publish.
Let us continue, because it is not going to get any better:
Everybody knows = argumentum ad populum, yet another logical fallacy. It does not matter how many people share an opinion, that does not make it valid.
Red herring. And I would not. Fujii would be my top pick. The other would also be a Japanese fighter.
I would not, because that would be a straw-man argument. Another fallacy, and apparently in this thread we are leaving them to you.
Assertion again. Repeating it multiple times will make it an argumentum ad nauseam, which still does not make it true.
Compare the number of one-offs and losing record opponents Cyborg has. Compare their winning percentage. You know, compare actual data, which is how you get a valid assessment.
And after two posts of nothing but errors, you are critical of other people's comprehension and language skills? Outstanding.
Nice wikipedia search, dude. This is getting fun.
"And since logic is clearly not your strong suit, that means it is logically fallacious," Oh, let's see your analysis then.
"So, in a paragraph about Ronda's opponents, you list five women, four of whom fought Ronda and one of whom fought Cyborg, yet Cyborg is not mentioned. This is not a problem of interpretation, but rather one of communication as you failed to provide context. But what do I know, I only work in research and am required to do things like publish."
Ok, problem of communication. Simply dividing in paragraphs there to split the ideas would've done the job of making easier to understand, but I can see your point. No problem here.
"Everybody knows = argumentum ad populum, yet another logical fallacy. It does not matter how many people share an opinion, that does not make it valid."
Wrong. It doesn't qualify as argumentum ad populum simply because that's not my point, that's obiter dictum. Mere way of speaking. I'm not arguing that "R3 sucks and everybody knows it" which is what you're implying, that's not central in my argumentation.
"Red herring. And I would not. Fujii would be my top pick. The other would also be a Japanese fighter." Not, it's not a red herring, it's hipothetical situation. In portuguese we often refer to it like i did ("You can say..."), but would be clearer if said "Even if someone...", this would be closest to what I mean. Once again, communication problem, not a logical problem. The validity remains.
"I would not, because that would be a straw-man argument. Another fallacy, and apparently in this thread we are leaving them to you."
Wrong again. The meaning of this statement concerns to a comparison between R3 (arguably, the WMMA GOAT) and other GOAT's. Comparing R3 to Fedor, Andy, GSP, Aldo or Jones shows us how flawed she is, and it indicates how shallow is WMMA, because even being flawed as she is, she still is a GOAT candidate.
"Assertion again. Repeating it multiple times will make it an
argumentum ad nauseam, which still does not make it true."
It obviously is an assertion, since it is a conclusion from the premises I've established along the thread. It is not an argument, therefore it is impossible to be argumentum ad nauseam. If you've got a problem with it, you attack the premises from which it derives, not the conclusion, if it logically follows from them. And I've showed it.
