@EnglishPower
Just reread all this after taking a nap. I guess i indeed misunderstood you with bullet. Yep, could have read you better. But you could also have formulated it better in #15, like "which is one of the reasons why @Sarg0n considers bullet to be unfair" So replace paragraph 3 from #18 with: "Third, 'bullet is considered unfair' - That is an unproven claim. Who considers bullet to be unfair?" and strike paragraph 3 from #20.
Also, thanks for correcting my english. However, it is wrong to conclude from bad language skills that the argument itself is weak ( yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy ). There are indeed no amoral moves in chess, even if Kaspy loves to say such things.
In case you are interested, it is "amoralisch" -> "amoral" but its "narkotisch" -> "narcotic", "idiotisch" -> "idiotic". I first intuitively wrote "amoral" and then changed it without checking at Google Translate. Should have done that.
Just reread all this after taking a nap. I guess i indeed misunderstood you with bullet. Yep, could have read you better. But you could also have formulated it better in #15, like "which is one of the reasons why @Sarg0n considers bullet to be unfair" So replace paragraph 3 from #18 with: "Third, 'bullet is considered unfair' - That is an unproven claim. Who considers bullet to be unfair?" and strike paragraph 3 from #20.
Also, thanks for correcting my english. However, it is wrong to conclude from bad language skills that the argument itself is weak ( yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy ). There are indeed no amoral moves in chess, even if Kaspy loves to say such things.
In case you are interested, it is "amoralisch" -> "amoral" but its "narkotisch" -> "narcotic", "idiotisch" -> "idiotic". I first intuitively wrote "amoral" and then changed it without checking at Google Translate. Should have done that.