Everyone has their own perception. Being exposed to other points of view can help us broaden our own perspectives and that of the Halo community as a whole. With freedom comes conflict, and undoubtedly there will be such instances in which opposing ideas meet. That is the reason I am writing this today. Because I want to encourage and help construct a healthy exchange of opinions and to minimize pointless arguments for the betterment of the Halo community in general. To me, the best way to do this is for everyone to have a basic understanding of arguments in general. It’ll behoove us all to be able to recognize the types of arguments and patterns of thought deployed by our comrades to more effectively communicate our own unique opinions. Something that everyone should keep in mind is that something that is intuitive may be counter intuitive to someone else.
First of all, there are fundamental building blocks to an argument. It is simple, but if someone is not following these guidelines, it may not be worth it to continue. Most debates begin with a claim (the main point that is being argued). To make a claim there should be data (facts and evidence to support it), and third, it is very important that it is explicitly explained how the data supports the claim. Don’t rest on the assumption that a reader understands automatically what significance the data holds just by presenting it. Something that is intuitive may be counter intuitive to someone else.
You will never be able to anticipate how someone receives your claim and this brings us to counter claims. In a setting where two ideas are being exchanged it is critical for the counter claim to directly address the claim. It sounds simple, but I see people mess this up on nearly every thread. Because a counter claim addressing the same subject as the claim may not actually be addressing the claim. For example, sprint. This is not a post about sprint, I have chosen this as an example to prove a point.
One person says “Sprint is detrimental to the integrity of the Halo formula because of the impact it has had on the way maps are designed and how it affects the skill gap, etc.”
Another replies with “Halo needs to be able to compete with other modern AAA first-person shooter games and sprint is vital in that regard, etc.”
Notice how nothing happened there? The truth lies in the fact that there are two main types of arguments.
Consequential arguments reason towards the outcome. Inferably, the consequence. Things like “There should be no 4-player splitscreen because it causes resolution and frame rate drops.” or “Smart Scope unbalances the game by too greatly buffing the range of automatic weapons.” These are practical arguments.
Ontological reasoning, on the other hand, have more of a moral basis. This is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather detailing principles and ethics. Examples are “4-player splitscreen is the reason Halo was such a hit in the first place and it is wrong to abandon it.” or “The Smart Scope animation was copied from other games and is alienating Halo from its identity in an effort to recruit new players.”
In order to effectively communicate with our fellow men, both on the forums and in the real world, it is essential that we understand the difference so that our counter claim can properly address a claim. A consequential counter claim must be offered to a consequential claim just like an ontological counter claim must be given to an ontological claim. In this light, a better response to the initial example would have been “Sprint is balanced now with the shield recharge, ultimately making it harder for a player to run away from a skilled player.” and the response given might have been better suited to a claim saying “Halo, as an arena game, cannot penalize movement the way sprint does; therefore, it should not be in the game.” This is why I said that something intuitive may be counter intuitive to someone else. They might be thinking in a different manner than you are, but you can spot the difference and proceed accordingly.
I’d like to finish off with a couple arguments to watch out for. Circular arguments are where the conclusion proves the premises. For example, “The MCC multiplayer is broken because the population is low and the population is low because the game is broken.” These are dangerous for they do not actually prove anything (even if they make sense), so make sure you stop them if you see them. A Slippery Slope argument consists of a chain of events that will inevitably lead to an exaggerated, undesirable outcome. For example, “If Halo 5 releases as a broken game, the rest of the gaming industry will follow and we will get more and more broken games.” This argument rarely requires proof and rarely takes other possibilities into account and it’s generally rejected as logically inadequate.
TL;DR: Understanding arguments themselves will help us all to communicate more effectively. It will help us respond better to a claim, for something that is intuitive may be counter intuitive to someone else.