I personally don't believe that Normal monters suck.

[JesusofChaos™]

^Stay on topic please

[Master Hyperion]

In order:

1. What are Gene-Warped Werewolf and Frostosaurus? And I'm pretty sure those are effect monsters!

*facepalm*

 

Yep' date=' these cards are definity Effect Monsters.

 

2. I didn't put Dark Magicain and Blue-Eyes 'cause of support cards.

Therefore, they suck.

3. Some effects NEED normals. Examples: Lycanthrope and Man Thro' Tro'

Lycanthrope: You need to fill the graveyard with half of your normal monsters in your deck to do major damage.

Man Thro' Thro': Cannon Soldier says hi.

 

Also, Exodia that uses Normal Monster with HOTU engine sucks, since they rely too much on luck.

[Sander]

well too bad . in rpg' date=' u wanna have a duel right now. i can proove to you that i can beat you cristal beast deck with mine

[/quote']

 

lolrpg, he means by dueling online for gods sake -_-

 

Also, RPG dueling sucks mostly, what's stopping you from making cheap moves and having cheap draws? Yeah, only morons do that -_-

 

Anyways, 37 normal monsters? Thanks, I'm going to puke now -_-

[Zephkaaa]

Listen, normals are ok if high in DEF like mellenium shield and high ATK like summon skull, but there are way better effect card even though the could get pouned easily, like man eater bug,marthmalon,and cyber jar

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

No, Millennium Shield and Summoned Skull suck. They're just wastes of tributes. Consider that with two tributes, you could summon Diabolos, King of the Abyss instead of Millennium Shield (the latter can be cleared with pretty much every card in the game). And with one tribute, you could summon Caius the Shadow Monarch instead of Summoned Skull.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Guys, comparing Kourmaroai Dragon and Mechanical Snail? If you compare Normal Monsters, make them actually decent. Remember, there are many good normal monsters, but effects are better. Normal Monsters are not a waste. There has to be SOME Normal Monsters around. Otherwise, all Monsters would have effects and now be conidered normal monsters, since every Monster would have an effect. I dont know why people are mad with this thread, its just his opinion. He's just sharing it with you guys, he didnt ask for a flamefest. Im thinking this should be locked, to stop this nonsense.

[EliminateHRN]

Guys' date=' comparing Kourmaroai Dragon and Mechanical Snail? If you compare Normal Monsters, make them actually decent. Remember, there are many good normal monsters, but effects are better. Normal Monsters are not a waste. There has to be SOME Normal Monsters around. Otherwise, all Monsters would have effects and now be conidered normal monsters, since every Monster would have an effect. I dont know why people are mad with this thread, its just his opinion. He's just sharing it with you guys, he didnt ask for a flamefest. Im thinking this should be locked, to stop this nonsense.

[/quote']

 

That is why I hardly ever come here. They are just harsh/mean members that if they don't like someone options on it they start flaming that member. That why I never come, trying to stay away from the harsh/mean members that stay here.

[J-Max]

I feel more relaxed and open to talk TCG these days. They're not bad at all, It's just the discussion of Yu-Gi-Oh has to be honest and true.

 

Back on subject. I admit when I first started playing I played the Video Games and always went with a Deck of lots of Vanillas and Equips to go with them. These days I devote my time to perfecting the Crystal Beast Deck I have. In the olden days High Atk could help you. But now their is some awesome effects making most Vanilla's Pointless.

[「tea.leaf」]

Guys' date=' comparing Kourmaroai Dragon and Mechanical Snail? If you compare Normal Monsters, make them actually decent. Remember, there are many good normal monsters, but effects are better. Normal Monsters are not a waste. There has to be SOME Normal Monsters around. Otherwise, all Monsters would have effects and now be conidered normal monsters, since every Monster would have an effect. I dont know why people are mad with this thread, its just his opinion. He's just sharing it with you guys, he didnt ask for a flamefest. Im thinking this should be locked, to stop this nonsense.

[/quote']

 

That is why I hardly ever come here. They are just harsh/mean members that if they don't like someone options on it they start flaming that member. That why I never come, trying to stay away from the harsh/mean members that stay here.

Apparently logic, intelligence, and well-established arguments mean nothing to you.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Smarts are good, its flaming that goes along with it. Arguements are stupid, they just make members mad, it doesnt help anybody except that one person who's being annoying.

[「tea.leaf」]

Smarts are good' date=' its flaming that goes along with it. Arguements are stupid, they just make members mad, it doesnt help anybody except that one person who's being annoying.

[/quote']

I lol'd.

 

1. You did not properly comprehend the definition of argument in my context.

2. You're making a huge deal out of this.

3. I see no flaming of other members. (If there were, someone would have reported it.)

[Cryo]

I really don't know about the game now, but still i consider fusion and ritual monsters with out and effect still normal so it kinda even things out. If you ,like me also think this, consider the following monsters.

 

Red Eyes- it's might cost tribute but has alot of support to it

Blue Eyes- Same and Red Eyes

Blue Eyes Ulti- it's might be impossible to summon with the time you have to live in a dual, BUT HEY "This card has the highest ATK and DEF of any non-Effect Monster in the game".

Carb Turtle- Idk if this is still use able today, but back then this card would crush any monster in it's way.

Dark Magicain- COMN, you rember when every one back then want this card, and hey look and all that support.

Skull Knight- The only reason i post this is because it's makes 2 useless monster have some potential.

Gemini Elf- The frist normal monster with a 1900 ATK

 

Also you kinda have to repect normal monster becuase they are the founding fathers of the game :).

[「tea.leaf」]

I really don't know about the game now' date=' but still i consider fusion and ritual monsters with out and effect still normal so it kinda even things out. If you ,like me also think this, consider the following monsters.

 

Red Eyes- it's might cost tribute but has alot of support to it

Blue Eyes- Same and Red Eyes

Blue Eyes Ulti- it's might be impossible to summon with the time you have to live in a dual, BUT HEY "This card has the highest ATK and DEF of any non-Effect Monster in the game".

Carb Turtle- Idk if this is still use able today, but back then this card would crush any monster in it's way.

Dark Magicain- COMN, you rember when every one back then want this card, and hey look and all that support.

Skull Knight- The only reason i post this is because it's makes 2 useless monster have some potential.

Gemini Elf- The frist normal monster with a 1900 ATK

 

Also you kinda have to repect normal monster becuase they are the founding fathers of the game :).

[/quote']

Now you side like one of those characters from the show. lol@respect

 

These monsters have no real, practical applications in the card game today outside of VERY specific deck types. Thus, they have little no play value.

[Dad]

I've yet to see a good Normalcy deck anyways. Sadly, Normal monsters aren't useful anymore. D. Magician, BEWD maybe. But a number of NORMAL monsters are just. . .wrong.

 

~Kenpachi Zaraki

[Guest Supreme Gamesmaster]

If you compare Normal Monsters' date=' make them actually decent.[/quote']

 

We would, but there are no decent Vanillas to make a comparison with.

 

Red Eyes- it's might cost tribute but has alot of support to it

Ultimately' date=' REDRUM (how does that work? I mean, I know it's murder backwards, but...) was the only good card in the WHOLE GAME that mentioned the words Red-Eyes.[/b']

Blue Eyes- Same and Red Eyes

No. Blue-Eyes support is fail.

Blue Eyes Ulti- it's might be impossible to summon with the time you have to live in a dual, BUT HEY "This card has the highest ATK and DEF of any non-Effect Monster in the game".

Who cares? Effect Monsters exist.

Carb Turtle- Idk if this is still use able today, but back then this card would crush any monster in it's way.

It isn't.

Dark Magicain- COMN, you rember when every one back then want this card, and hey look and all that support.

DM support is fail, except MAYBE Magical Dimension. I remember vividly when this card was good. That time isn't now.

Skull Knight- The only reason i post this is because it's makes 2 useless monster have some potential.

No, no it doesn't. ATK is worthless.

Gemini Elf- The frist normal monster with a 1900 ATK

But the effect monsters with 1900 ATK are superior.

[「tea.leaf」]

Gemini Elf- The frist normal monster with a 1900 ATK

But the effect monsters with 1900 ATK are superior.

lolyes Thunderking says hi.

[Flame Dragon]

I really don't know about the game now' date=' but still i consider fusion and ritual monsters with out and effect still normal so it kinda even things out. If you ,like me also think this, consider the following monsters.

 

Red Eyes- it's might cost tribute but has alot of support to it

Blue Eyes- Same and Red Eyes

Blue Eyes Ulti- it's might be impossible to summon with the time you have to live in a dual, BUT HEY "This card has the highest ATK and DEF of any non-Effect Monster in the game".

Carb Turtle- Idk if this is still use able today, but back then this card would crush any monster in it's way.

Dark Magicain- COMN, you rember when every one back then want this card, and hey look and all that support.

Skull Knight- The only reason i post this is because it's makes 2 useless monster have some potential.

Gemini Elf- The frist normal monster with a 1900 ATK

 

Also you kinda have to repect normal monster becuase they are the founding fathers of the game :).

[/quote']

Of all the monsters you listed the only good one is Red Eyes because their are Red Eyes with good effect (Red-Eyes Darkness Metal Dragon and Red-Eyes Zombie Dragon)

[Dad]

Monsters like Thunderking mop the floor with Gemini Elf, Luster Dragon, and Insect Knight. I should know cause my friend is a moron.

 

~Kenpachi Zaraki

[Pharaoh_Atem]

HOLD UP' date=' HOLD UP, HOLD UP doesn't this mean that every card in all your "pro" decks have an effect?

[/quote']

 

No, you unattentive random.

 

It means

No Normal Monster in the game is a "good card".

 

 

This topic just keeps on delivering.

 

Aye.

 

 

ITT: YCM yet again proves why good players get depressed when posting

 

Aye' date=' hence why I get depressed and everyone else in-topic just keeps lol-ing the day away.

 

 

i can proove to you that i can beat you cristal beast deck with mine

 

You're a moron if you think that "[proving] to [someone] that [you] can beat [their] {sic} Crystal {sic} Beast deck" matters.

 

ANY deck can beat ANY OTHER deck. ANY player can beat ANY OTHER player. Saying "I can beat you" or "my deck can beat yours" is useless; all you're doing is stating what we already know.

 

If you compare Normal Monsters' date=' make them actually decent.

[/quote']

 

This only works if you mean "make them the best examples we have."

 

Using the word "decent" is incorrect, as there are no "decent" Normals.

 

Remember' date=' there are many good normal monsters,[/quote']

 

Incorrect.

 

good' date=' a., adv., and n.

A. adj.

The most general adj. of commendation, implying the existence in a high, or at least satisfactory, degree of characteristic qualities which are either admirable in themselves or useful for some purpose.

I. In the widest sense, without other specialization than such as is implied by the nature of the object which the adj. is used to describe.

1. Of things: Having in adequate degree those properties which a thing of the kind ought to have. a. of material things or substances of any kind.

h. In the colloq. U.S. phrase to look or listen good = to look or sound promising.

3. Of qualities or attributes. a. of a quality generally: Commendable, conducing to the value or merit of the subject.

c. of state or condition, health, order, etc.: Such as should be desired or approved, right, satisfactory; sound, unimpaired.

4. a. Of a state of things, a purpose, a proposed course of action, etc.: Commendable, desirable, right, proper. Chiefly predicative, with inf. or clause as virtual subject.

III. Gratifying, favourable, advantageous.

IV. With reference to a purpose or effect.

14. a. Adapted to a proposed end; efficient, useful; suitable. Const. for, to (a purpose or function), to with inf. in good hour, time: see the ns.[/quote']

 

Normal Monsters are not a waste.

 

Incorrect.

 

waste' date=' n.

5. a. Useless expenditure or consumption, squandering (of money, goods, time, effort, etc.).

e. in waste, in vain, to no purpose. Obs.

III. Waste matter, refuse.

11. a. Refuse matter; unserviceable material remaining over from any process of manufacture; the useless by-products of any industrial process; material or manufactured articles so damaged as to be useless or unsaleable.[/quote']

 

There has to be SOME Normal Monsters around.

 

Incorrect. They only exist because Konami introduced them when making the game. Konami did not have to make a YGO card game; therefore' date=' no part of the game can be described as "has to be around", because the game itself does not "have to be around".

 

Otherwise, all Monsters would have effects and now be conidered normal monsters, since every Monster would have an effect.

 

1) So what?

2) There would be no need for the terms "Normal Monster" and "Effect Monster", as the terms exist solely to preserve the distinction between the two groups. We'd just probably call Effect Monsters "monsters" if no Normal Monsters existed; likewise, if no Effect Monsters existed, we'd just call Normal Monsters "monsters".

 

I dont know why people are mad with this thread' date=' its just his opinion.[/quote']

 

Simple - you don't understand the word "mad".

 

mad' date=' adj.

2. Of a person, action, disposition, etc.: uncontrolled by reason or judgement; foolish, unwise. Subsequently only in stronger use (corresponding to the modern restricted application of sense 4a, from which it is now often indistinguishable): extravagantly or wildly foolish; ruinously imprudent.

3. a. Of a person: carried away by or filled with enthusiasm or desire; wildly excited; infatuated. With about, after, for, of, on (chiefly Brit.), over, upon, with.

4. a. Of a person: insane, crazy; mentally unbalanced or deranged; subject to delusions or hallucinations; (in later use esp.) psychotic.

5. Of a person: stupefied with astonishment, fear, or suffering; dazed. Obs.

6. a. Of a person: beside oneself with anger; moved to uncontrollable rage; furious.

b. Angry, irate, cross. Also, in weakened sense: annoyed, exasperated (with against, at, with, etc.). Now colloq. (chiefly N. Amer.) and Brit. regional.

7. a. Of a person: lacking in restraint; (wildly) unconventional in demeanour or conduct; marked by irresponsible gaiety; violently exuberant, outrageous, chaotic. Now freq. of an action, disposition, etc.

b. Characterizing a temporary state of fear, panic, etc.: frenetic, unrestrained, extreme.

c. slang (orig. U.S. in African-American usage). Used as a general term of approbation: (a) remarkable, appealing, exciting, wild; excellent, cool; (b) (in later use, as modifier, with stronger implications of extremity or abundance): unrestrained, total; copious, profuse; much.[/quote']

 

There's nothing "mad" going on in this thread.

 

He's just sharing it with you guys' date='[/quote']

 

And they're all sharing their opinions as well

 

he didnt ask for a flamefest.

 

Good thing that this isn't one' date=' then.

 

flaming, n.

 

Computing slang. The action or practice of sending inflammatory, abusive, or (occas.) inconsequential messages by e-mail or as a posting to a newsgroup, freq. in an impulsively angry response to a previous message or a perceived breach of Internet etiquette. Cf. FLAME v., FLAMER n., FLAMAGE n.

 

The messages sent are not inflammatory, abusive, or inconsequential. Nor are they in impulsively angry responses, nor in response to a breach of etiquette.

 

Im thinking this should be locked' date=' to stop this nonsense.[/quote']

 

Since there's no nonsense here, I'm thinking that you sometimes just don't like to see someone be told exactly how wrong they are, unless the people doing said telling treat the person being told like he or she is a little child that needs to be breastfed.

 

 

That is why I hardly ever come here. They are just harsh/mean members that if they don't like someone options on it they start flaming that member.

 

It is very possible that you misunderstand what flaming is' date=' too.

 

That said, if you think this place is harsh, and you don't feel that you belong in harsh places, you don't belong *anywhere* on the internet. This place is like a pillow at pretty-much all times. The rest of the internet is like concrete.

 

That why I never come, trying to stay away from the harsh/mean members that stay here.

 

That's nice. You have two options; either adapt to the climate here, or try to find a softer place.

 

You won't find a softer place unless you make a softer place for yourself.

 

 

Smarts are good' date=' its flaming that goes along with it.[/quote']

 

Seeing how there's no flaming in this thread, I think that you simply want to believe that there's flaming in the thread, solely because you dislike the direction the thread has taken.

 

Arguements are stupid' date='[/quote']

 

K, now you're just being a comedian.

 

argument

1. Proof' date=' evidence, manifestation, token. (Passing from clear proof in early, to proof presumptive in later usage; cf. ARGUE 3.) arch

2. Astr. and Math. The angle, arc, or other mathematical quantity, from which another required quantity may be deduced, or on which its calculation depends.

3. a. A statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition; spec. in Logic, the middle term in a syllogism. Also fig.

b. Const. (to obs.), for, a conclusion; hence (of later origin) against the contrary.

c. In certain phrases borrowed from the formal terminology of the schools, the L, argumentum is in current use, esp. in argumentum ad hominem. argumentum e (or ex) silentio, an argument from silence: used of a conclusion based on lack of contrary evidence.

4. A connected series of statements or reasons intended to establish a position (and, hence, to refute the opposite); a process of reasoning; argumentation.

5. a. Statement of the reasons for and against a proposition; discussion of a question; debate.

b. transf. Subject of contention, or debate. Obs.

6. Subject-matter of discussion or discourse in speech or writing; theme, subject. Obs. or arch.

7. The summary or abstract of the subject-matter of a book; a syllabus; fig. the contents.[/quote']

 

Arguments are actually immensely smart matters.

 

 

they just make members mad' date='[/quote']

 

1) We've established that you don't understand the word "mad", so making a claim with it helps you none

2) Even if it DOES make people "mad", those people are responsible for how they react to a post. If someone gets pissed off, that's their own fault. Blaming the concept of "argument" for the stupidity of other people... is a stupid move in and of itself.

 

it doesnt help anybody except that one person who's being annoying.

 

Incorrect.

 

Arguments help anyone who is willing to actually look at the logic involved, and use that logic to their advantage.

 

This particular argument about Normals establishes that Normals are obsolete, and that thinking otherwise is so misguided from a logical perspective that there quite literally will be a swarm of other people who disagree with you through logical basis.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

HOLD UP' date=' HOLD UP, HOLD UP doesn't this mean that every card in all your "pro" decks have an effect?

[/quote']

 

No, you unattentive random.

 

It means

No Normal Monster in the game is a "good card".

 

 

This topic just keeps on delivering.

 

Aye.

 

 

ITT: YCM yet again proves why good players get depressed when posting

 

Aye' date=' hence why I get depressed and everyone else in-topic just keeps lol-ing the day away.

 

 

i can proove to you that i can beat you cristal beast deck with mine

 

You're a moron if you think that "[proving] to [someone] that [you] can beat [their] {sic} Crystal {sic} Beast deck" matters.

 

ANY deck can beat ANY OTHER deck. ANY player can beat ANY OTHER player. Saying "I can beat you" or "my deck can beat yours" is useless; all you're doing is stating what we already know.

 

If you compare Normal Monsters' date=' make them actually decent.

[/quote']

 

This only works if you mean "make them the best examples we have."

 

Using the word "decent" is incorrect, as there are no "decent" Normals.

 

Remember' date=' there are many good normal monsters,[/quote']

 

Incorrect.

 

good' date=' a., adv., and n.

A. adj.

The most general adj. of commendation, implying the existence in a high, or at least satisfactory, degree of characteristic qualities which are either admirable in themselves or useful for some purpose.

I. In the widest sense, without other specialization than such as is implied by the nature of the object which the adj. is used to describe.

1. Of things: Having in adequate degree those properties which a thing of the kind ought to have. a. of material things or substances of any kind.

h. In the colloq. U.S. phrase to look or listen good = to look or sound promising.

3. Of qualities or attributes. a. of a quality generally: Commendable, conducing to the value or merit of the subject.

c. of state or condition, health, order, etc.: Such as should be desired or approved, right, satisfactory; sound, unimpaired.

4. a. Of a state of things, a purpose, a proposed course of action, etc.: Commendable, desirable, right, proper. Chiefly predicative, with inf. or clause as virtual subject.

III. Gratifying, favourable, advantageous.

IV. With reference to a purpose or effect.

14. a. Adapted to a proposed end; efficient, useful; suitable. Const. for, to (a purpose or function), to with inf. in good hour, time: see the ns.[/quote']

 

Normal Monsters are not a waste.

 

Incorrect.

 

waste' date=' n.

5. a. Useless expenditure or consumption, squandering (of money, goods, time, effort, etc.).

e. in waste, in vain, to no purpose. Obs.

III. Waste matter, refuse.

11. a. Refuse matter; unserviceable material remaining over from any process of manufacture; the useless by-products of any industrial process; material or manufactured articles so damaged as to be useless or unsaleable.[/quote']

 

There has to be SOME Normal Monsters around.

 

Incorrect. They only exist because Konami introduced them when making the game. Konami did not have to make a YGO card game; therefore' date=' no part of the game can be described as "has to be around", because the game itself does not "have to be around".

 

Otherwise, all Monsters would have effects and now be conidered normal monsters, since every Monster would have an effect.

 

1) So what?

2) There would be no need for the terms "Normal Monster" and "Effect Monster", as the terms exist solely to preserve the distinction between the two groups. We'd just probably call Effect Monsters "monsters" if no Normal Monsters existed; likewise, if no Effect Monsters existed, we'd just call Normal Monsters "monsters".

 

I dont know why people are mad with this thread' date=' its just his opinion.[/quote']

 

Simple - you don't understand the word "mad".

 

mad' date=' adj.

2. Of a person, action, disposition, etc.: uncontrolled by reason or judgement; foolish, unwise. Subsequently only in stronger use (corresponding to the modern restricted application of sense 4a, from which it is now often indistinguishable): extravagantly or wildly foolish; ruinously imprudent.

3. a. Of a person: carried away by or filled with enthusiasm or desire; wildly excited; infatuated. With about, after, for, of, on (chiefly Brit.), over, upon, with.

4. a. Of a person: insane, crazy; mentally unbalanced or deranged; subject to delusions or hallucinations; (in later use esp.) psychotic.

5. Of a person: stupefied with astonishment, fear, or suffering; dazed. Obs.

6. a. Of a person: beside oneself with anger; moved to uncontrollable rage; furious.

b. Angry, irate, cross. Also, in weakened sense: annoyed, exasperated (with against, at, with, etc.). Now colloq. (chiefly N. Amer.) and Brit. regional.

7. a. Of a person: lacking in restraint; (wildly) unconventional in demeanour or conduct; marked by irresponsible gaiety; violently exuberant, outrageous, chaotic. Now freq. of an action, disposition, etc.

b. Characterizing a temporary state of fear, panic, etc.: frenetic, unrestrained, extreme.

c. slang (orig. U.S. in African-American usage). Used as a general term of approbation: (a) remarkable, appealing, exciting, wild; excellent, cool; (b) (in later use, as modifier, with stronger implications of extremity or abundance): unrestrained, total; copious, profuse; much.[/quote']

 

There's nothing "mad" going on in this thread.

 

He's just sharing it with you guys' date='[/quote']

 

And they're all sharing their opinions as well

 

he didnt ask for a flamefest.

 

Good thing that this isn't one' date=' then.

 

flaming, n.

 

Computing slang. The action or practice of sending inflammatory, abusive, or (occas.) inconsequential messages by e-mail or as a posting to a newsgroup, freq. in an impulsively angry response to a previous message or a perceived breach of Internet etiquette. Cf. FLAME v., FLAMER n., FLAMAGE n.

 

The messages sent are not inflammatory, abusive, or inconsequential. Nor are they in impulsively angry responses, nor in response to a breach of etiquette.

 

Im thinking this should be locked' date=' to stop this nonsense.[/quote']

 

Since there's no nonsense here, I'm thinking that you sometimes just don't like to see someone be told exactly how wrong they are, unless the people doing said telling treat the person being told like he or she is a little child that needs to be breastfed.

 

 

That is why I hardly ever come here. They are just harsh/mean members that if they don't like someone options on it they start flaming that member.

 

It is very possible that you misunderstand what flaming is' date=' too.

 

That said, if you think this place is harsh, and you don't feel that you belong in harsh places, you don't belong *anywhere* on the internet. This place is like a pillow at pretty-much all times. The rest of the internet is like concrete.

 

That why I never come, trying to stay away from the harsh/mean members that stay here.

 

That's nice. You have two options; either adapt to the climate here, or try to find a softer place.

 

You won't find a softer place unless you make a softer place for yourself.

 

 

Smarts are good' date=' its flaming that goes along with it.[/quote']

 

Seeing how there's no flaming in this thread, I think that you simply want to believe that there's flaming in the thread, solely because you dislike the direction the thread has taken.

 

Arguements are stupid' date='[/quote']

 

K, now you're just being a comedian.

 

argument

1. Proof' date=' evidence, manifestation, token. (Passing from clear proof in early, to proof presumptive in later usage; cf. ARGUE 3.) arch

2. Astr. and Math. The angle, arc, or other mathematical quantity, from which another required quantity may be deduced, or on which its calculation depends.

3. a. A statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition; spec. in Logic, the middle term in a syllogism. Also fig.

b. Const. (to obs.), for, a conclusion; hence (of later origin) against the contrary.

c. In certain phrases borrowed from the formal terminology of the schools, the L, argumentum is in current use, esp. in argumentum ad hominem. argumentum e (or ex) silentio, an argument from silence: used of a conclusion based on lack of contrary evidence.

4. A connected series of statements or reasons intended to establish a position (and, hence, to refute the opposite); a process of reasoning; argumentation.

5. a. Statement of the reasons for and against a proposition; discussion of a question; debate.

b. transf. Subject of contention, or debate. Obs.

6. Subject-matter of discussion or discourse in speech or writing; theme, subject. Obs. or arch.

7. The summary or abstract of the subject-matter of a book; a syllabus; fig. the contents.[/quote']

 

Arguments are actually immensely smart matters.

 

 

they just make members mad' date='[/quote']

 

1) We've established that you don't understand the word "mad", so making a claim with it helps you none

2) Even if it DOES make people "mad", those people are responsible for how they react to a post. If someone gets pissed off, that's their own fault. Blaming the concept of "argument" for the stupidity of other people... is a stupid move in and of itself.

 

it doesnt help anybody except that one person who's being annoying.

 

Incorrect.

 

Arguments help anyone who is willing to actually look at the logic involved' date=' and use that logic to their advantage.

 

This particular argument about Normals establishes that Normals are obsolete, and that thinking otherwise is so misguided from a logical perspective that there quite literally will be a swarm of other people who disagree with you through logical basis.

[/quote']

 

I agree

Off topic: Atem should be in the goverment

[Dad]

HOLD UP' date=' HOLD UP, HOLD UP doesn't this mean that every card in all your "pro" decks have an effect?

[/quote']

 

No, you unattentive random.

 

It means

No Normal Monster in the game is a "good card".

 

 

This topic just keeps on delivering.

 

Aye.

 

 

ITT: YCM yet again proves why good players get depressed when posting

 

Aye' date=' hence why I get depressed and everyone else in-topic just keeps lol-ing the day away.

 

 

i can proove to you that i can beat you cristal beast deck with mine

 

You're a moron if you think that "[proving] to [someone] that [you] can beat [their] {sic} Crystal {sic} Beast deck" matters.

 

ANY deck can beat ANY OTHER deck. ANY player can beat ANY OTHER player. Saying "I can beat you" or "my deck can beat yours" is useless; all you're doing is stating what we already know.

 

If you compare Normal Monsters' date=' make them actually decent.

[/quote']

 

This only works if you mean "make them the best examples we have."

 

Using the word "decent" is incorrect, as there are no "decent" Normals.

 

Remember' date=' there are many good normal monsters,[/quote']

 

Incorrect.

 

good' date=' a., adv., and n.

A. adj.

The most general adj. of commendation, implying the existence in a high, or at least satisfactory, degree of characteristic qualities which are either admirable in themselves or useful for some purpose.

I. In the widest sense, without other specialization than such as is implied by the nature of the object which the adj. is used to describe.

1. Of things: Having in adequate degree those properties which a thing of the kind ought to have. a. of material things or substances of any kind.

h. In the colloq. U.S. phrase to look or listen good = to look or sound promising.

3. Of qualities or attributes. a. of a quality generally: Commendable, conducing to the value or merit of the subject.

c. of state or condition, health, order, etc.: Such as should be desired or approved, right, satisfactory; sound, unimpaired.

4. a. Of a state of things, a purpose, a proposed course of action, etc.: Commendable, desirable, right, proper. Chiefly predicative, with inf. or clause as virtual subject.

III. Gratifying, favourable, advantageous.

IV. With reference to a purpose or effect.

14. a. Adapted to a proposed end; efficient, useful; suitable. Const. for, to (a purpose or function), to with inf. in good hour, time: see the ns.[/quote']

 

Normal Monsters are not a waste.

 

Incorrect.

 

waste' date=' n.

5. a. Useless expenditure or consumption, squandering (of money, goods, time, effort, etc.).

e. in waste, in vain, to no purpose. Obs.

III. Waste matter, refuse.

11. a. Refuse matter; unserviceable material remaining over from any process of manufacture; the useless by-products of any industrial process; material or manufactured articles so damaged as to be useless or unsaleable.[/quote']

 

There has to be SOME Normal Monsters around.

 

Incorrect. They only exist because Konami introduced them when making the game. Konami did not have to make a YGO card game; therefore' date=' no part of the game can be described as "has to be around", because the game itself does not "have to be around".

 

Otherwise, all Monsters would have effects and now be conidered normal monsters, since every Monster would have an effect.

 

1) So what?

2) There would be no need for the terms "Normal Monster" and "Effect Monster", as the terms exist solely to preserve the distinction between the two groups. We'd just probably call Effect Monsters "monsters" if no Normal Monsters existed; likewise, if no Effect Monsters existed, we'd just call Normal Monsters "monsters".

 

I dont know why people are mad with this thread' date=' its just his opinion.[/quote']

 

Simple - you don't understand the word "mad".

 

mad' date=' adj.

2. Of a person, action, disposition, etc.: uncontrolled by reason or judgement; foolish, unwise. Subsequently only in stronger use (corresponding to the modern restricted application of sense 4a, from which it is now often indistinguishable): extravagantly or wildly foolish; ruinously imprudent.

3. a. Of a person: carried away by or filled with enthusiasm or desire; wildly excited; infatuated. With about, after, for, of, on (chiefly Brit.), over, upon, with.

4. a. Of a person: insane, crazy; mentally unbalanced or deranged; subject to delusions or hallucinations; (in later use esp.) psychotic.

5. Of a person: stupefied with astonishment, fear, or suffering; dazed. Obs.

6. a. Of a person: beside oneself with anger; moved to uncontrollable rage; furious.

b. Angry, irate, cross. Also, in weakened sense: annoyed, exasperated (with against, at, with, etc.). Now colloq. (chiefly N. Amer.) and Brit. regional.

7. a. Of a person: lacking in restraint; (wildly) unconventional in demeanour or conduct; marked by irresponsible gaiety; violently exuberant, outrageous, chaotic. Now freq. of an action, disposition, etc.

b. Characterizing a temporary state of fear, panic, etc.: frenetic, unrestrained, extreme.

c. slang (orig. U.S. in African-American usage). Used as a general term of approbation: (a) remarkable, appealing, exciting, wild; excellent, cool; (b) (in later use, as modifier, with stronger implications of extremity or abundance): unrestrained, total; copious, profuse; much.[/quote']

 

There's nothing "mad" going on in this thread.

 

He's just sharing it with you guys' date='[/quote']

 

And they're all sharing their opinions as well

 

he didnt ask for a flamefest.

 

Good thing that this isn't one' date=' then.

 

flaming, n.

 

Computing slang. The action or practice of sending inflammatory, abusive, or (occas.) inconsequential messages by e-mail or as a posting to a newsgroup, freq. in an impulsively angry response to a previous message or a perceived breach of Internet etiquette. Cf. FLAME v., FLAMER n., FLAMAGE n.

 

The messages sent are not inflammatory, abusive, or inconsequential. Nor are they in impulsively angry responses, nor in response to a breach of etiquette.

 

Im thinking this should be locked' date=' to stop this nonsense.[/quote']

 

Since there's no nonsense here, I'm thinking that you sometimes just don't like to see someone be told exactly how wrong they are, unless the people doing said telling treat the person being told like he or she is a little child that needs to be breastfed.

 

 

That is why I hardly ever come here. They are just harsh/mean members that if they don't like someone options on it they start flaming that member.

 

It is very possible that you misunderstand what flaming is' date=' too.

 

That said, if you think this place is harsh, and you don't feel that you belong in harsh places, you don't belong *anywhere* on the internet. This place is like a pillow at pretty-much all times. The rest of the internet is like concrete.

 

That why I never come, trying to stay away from the harsh/mean members that stay here.

 

That's nice. You have two options; either adapt to the climate here, or try to find a softer place.

 

You won't find a softer place unless you make a softer place for yourself.

 

 

Smarts are good' date=' its flaming that goes along with it.[/quote']

 

Seeing how there's no flaming in this thread, I think that you simply want to believe that there's flaming in the thread, solely because you dislike the direction the thread has taken.

 

Arguements are stupid' date='[/quote']

 

K, now you're just being a comedian.

 

argument

1. Proof' date=' evidence, manifestation, token. (Passing from clear proof in early, to proof presumptive in later usage; cf. ARGUE 3.) arch

2. Astr. and Math. The angle, arc, or other mathematical quantity, from which another required quantity may be deduced, or on which its calculation depends.

3. a. A statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition; spec. in Logic, the middle term in a syllogism. Also fig.

b. Const. (to obs.), for, a conclusion; hence (of later origin) against the contrary.

c. In certain phrases borrowed from the formal terminology of the schools, the L, argumentum is in current use, esp. in argumentum ad hominem. argumentum e (or ex) silentio, an argument from silence: used of a conclusion based on lack of contrary evidence.

4. A connected series of statements or reasons intended to establish a position (and, hence, to refute the opposite); a process of reasoning; argumentation.

5. a. Statement of the reasons for and against a proposition; discussion of a question; debate.

b. transf. Subject of contention, or debate. Obs.

6. Subject-matter of discussion or discourse in speech or writing; theme, subject. Obs. or arch.

7. The summary or abstract of the subject-matter of a book; a syllabus; fig. the contents.[/quote']

 

Arguments are actually immensely smart matters.

 

 

they just make members mad' date='[/quote']

 

1) We've established that you don't understand the word "mad", so making a claim with it helps you none

2) Even if it DOES make people "mad", those people are responsible for how they react to a post. If someone gets pissed off, that's their own fault. Blaming the concept of "argument" for the stupidity of other people... is a stupid move in and of itself.

 

it doesnt help anybody except that one person who's being annoying.

 

Incorrect.

 

Arguments help anyone who is willing to actually look at the logic involved' date=' and use that logic to their advantage.

 

This particular argument about Normals establishes that Normals are obsolete, and that thinking otherwise is so misguided from a logical perspective that there quite literally will be a swarm of other people who disagree with you through logical basis.

[/quote']

 

 

OWNAGE. Literary OWNAGE.

 

I won't comment more on the literary stuff, but it's been said once, so I'll reitterate. "There are no "good" Normal Monsters."

[Tekken Ham]

I don't think Normal Monsters suck, they burn very nicely on camping trips.

 

However, they suck in the game. Hence why I burn them.

[Dad]

I lol at that post, cheeselord, simply because it's remarkably true.

 

~Kenpachi Zaraki

[「tea.leaf」]

Lesson of the day: On average, if I see someone quoting Pharaoh, it'll usually be a comment along the lines of I agree/Q4E/Q4T or any other variation thereof.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Okay, I see where you are going Pharoh... Normals do kinda suck. Not fully, but on a certain level. Sorry about the stupid reply guys. I have a condition of emotion, so please excuse me. My life sucked at one time, and now I have something inside me biting away life. So, sorry about the reply. ^_^