It makes me a little sad that you think I'm just attempting a silly gotcha. I'm trying to make a more fundamental point about your approach to rhetoric. I'm also aware that you find it somewhat frustrating how concise most of my replies are, so here is far more verbiage than this topic deserves.
It's possible I misinterpreted what you wrote. I see two ways to interpret "Nobody thinks you are correct simply because you say so.": 1) emphasizing 'because'; this is accusing Troxx of an appeal to authority, "this is true because I say it is true". I considered and discounted this interpretation because I don't see Troxx making an appeal to authority. If this is what you meant, I'd like to see where you think he is doing that. 2) emphasizing "say"; what you say is insufficient to convince anyone. This is what I assume you meant, because the previous sentence, "Please start providing evidence for your claims.", is discussing the
content of his argument. If you had preceded this sentence with something like "You're no credible authority on EQ", I would have been more inclined to the first interpretation.
But yes, I
agree with Troxx. Not because of who he is or any authority he has, but because the content of what he says makes sense to me. I find his argument to be reasonable and convincing. I find your argument to be unconvincing. OP mentions "I will have access to all or most of group content gear at level 1"; if you want to convince me, show an Iksar SK magelo with 180-200 strength at that level of gear. Not raid BIS, but "all or most of group content gear". (I'm also curious what the OP would find convincing)
But I think the larger, more fundamental point I'd like to make regards what I would characterize as your preoccupation with "evidence". You're constantly asking for evidence. You frequently mention that your motivation is to put information out there and let the audience make their own decisions. As someone who is far less experienced or knowledgeable than any of y'all, I believe I'm qualified to speak as a representative for the cohort of people you claim to be addressing. Your constant emphasis and demand for "evidence" makes you less credible.
Not all forms of disputes or arguments require evidence. If there is a factual dispute, then obviously evidence is pertinent. But this dispute, like most that you seem to find yourself in, is not factual. It's about which of several mutually exclusive options is
better. And
better is subjective. As far as I can see, there's three positions one can hold:
- Intelligence is best, because the other relevant stats will be capped easier late-game, and more mana is always better.
- Stamina is best, because an SK's main job is tanking, and it's important to cap stamina/HP as quickly as possible.
- Strength is best, even though it might eventually be overcapped, because late game stats won't make much difference, whereas it will make a measureable difference in quality of life while leveling and uncapped.
Evidence has very little to do with the strength of the argument when everyone is in rough consensus as to the mechanics affected by each of these attributes. It's the quality of the reasoning that matters.
And so this is my unsolicited feedback for you: I find how you structure your arguments to be weak. When you say "no one will be convinced by what you say" to someone I find credible, it makes you less credible. When you demand evidence in a subjective dispute, it makes you less credible.
If I'm the sort of person you're trying to convince, I hope this feedback is helpful. If not, please feel free to disregard it. Either way, I hope you're having a great day.