Let's play a game: Save the Ancients!

[ZavosEsperian]

I have been playing since 3.5/late 2015. I am also an altoholic, I have multiple alts that not only have not completed endwalker, but are below level 80. It doesn't mean a damn thing. And even those who do have a job at cap generally have one or two jobs at most at cap because leveling secondary jobs is a pain in the rear.

I am guilty of doing the same thing. I am a 2.0 player who has been subbed to the game for 10 years as my Total Days Subscribed is equal to 3,660 days. I do not think there is a need for me to prove I have played a specific part of the story, particularly when I am able to cite sources related to the material without too much effort. I have done this in multiple threads so far and will absolutely post sources as needed. With this topic, it is forgotten that this is more on the whims of the writers, thus there is no definitive yes or no answer.

The individual you are interacting with has failed to cite sources that could sway my opinion away from my original argument. I ask for these since there are a lot of headcanons on the lore forums, and as such I ask the arguments against my claim are met with the same level of respect, namely citing of sources, in order to counter the claim I make which relies on a lore Q&A session from 2022 where the writers do not explicitly state a definitive yes or no to the main question of this thread and instead use "probably" as the term of choice when regarding how the Ancients would end up. As such, there is no definitive answer.

With this in mind, it is likely the person either:

- Does not entirely know the lore of the game and/or does not know about the Q&A sessions from the writers, thus is unable to find citations that are capable of refuting my points.

OR

- Knows I am correct, but wishes to discredit me via using an appeal to accomplishment argument, which is a fallacious argument since the logic of the argument is not challenged and instead what I have or have not done is challenged which is largely irrelevant to proving whether something is true or false. This argument is also a type of appeal to authority, and as such this entire thing about whether or not I played the game can be wholly discarded and does not do anything for their argument.

Based on the amount of headcanoning, I am unable to rule out the first of these two cases, though it is more likely than not the second case is true. As stated before, the person can give me citations which back up their claims and I will look them over and see if there are any logical faults or issues with their reasoning. I do not believe this should be a difficult task and I am willing to hear out the argument, provided it has actual backing and not headcanon arguments which are absolutely meaningless to me.

[Cleretic]

The individual you are interacting with has failed to cite sources that could sway my opinion away from my original argument.

Hey, guess who's still here. And who pulled this mainly to prove your real problem:

You ignored my actual argument put to you, in favor of fighting an entirely different one that doesn't actually matter, but was harder to defend on the point you decided was important. I asked you an extended interrogation of your own theory on how to save the Ancients, trying to drag us back to the central topic, asking you to use your own demanded metric to justify your own view; you're demanding an unequal burden of proof, demanding that Cilia's argument adhere to strict, citeable logic while yours (and all arguments that you aren't demanding this of) are allowed to exist unrefuted. I simply asked you to equalize this burden. Presumably you can answer that very easily.

But what you did instead says a lot more about you; you completely ignored it, and instead decided to get up in arms about something I said off-hand that cast doubt on you. Suddenly you're completely ignoring the argument you ostensibly came here to have, to instead try to beat up on me personally. You think calling out logical fallacies gives you the win, but I'm sorry to say you pulled the classic ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the argument. (It should be noted that asking for credentials or probing for bias is not a logical fallacy, that's actually a worthwhile ask to ensure someone can actually make their claims.) From what I can tell it's actually a favorite approach of yours: not to actually argue evidence, but to argue morals, to position that your view is the correct one and that your opponent is somehow bad or unfit, which is a lot easier to look like the winner with. 'Evidence' only exists as a bludgeon, and suddenly just isn't needed when someone asks it of you and you didn't already try to wield it.

This isn't the only time it's come up, you just ghost every time I've asked you for evidence. But you can prove me wrong right now.

I also see your response on the first page, and even without any bias of preference Cilia's argument is a lot more compelling than yours, largely because they admit that problems run deeper. Do you really think that just confiscating the Meteia leads to a happily-ever-after? That no more leaks may spring? Hell, you don't think Hermes is just gonna try to make more? Therapy's not a snap fix even when it works, especially when you're treating the subject poorly through means like suddenly stamping out their personal project.

If evidence is the be-all end-all, what's yours?

[ZavosEsperian]

If evidence is the be-all end-all, what's yours?

The original question asked was as follows: Is it possible for the Ancients to survive?

There are two sides to this particular argument, that being yes and no. We will first examine what both of these sides have to do in order to prove their arguments as true:

If someone is arguing for yes, they would have to show there exists a case where the Ancients do indeed survive everything. Upon seeing the words "there exists", you should know this is an existential statement that has to be proven and for these statements, all it takes is for one singular case of this happening for them to be vindicated.

If someone is arguing no, they would have to show for all cases, the Ancients do not survive under any circumstance. Upon seeing the words "for all", you should know this is a universal statement and proving a universal statement means you must be able to prove the argument remains true for all cases.

With both of these arguments laid out in this manner, it should be extremely clear there is no way to prove either side of the argument as true. The yeses obviously have yet to have a case shown in game, no matter where it is, where the Ancients survive. The noes, on the other hand, cannot prove their statement because the writers intentionally left the door open:

If you look at the dungeon, “The Dead Ends”, at the very end there’s a boss called Ra-la, and that’s sort of our vision for what probably would have happened to the Ancients if we just let them continue as they were.

Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII

These words are spoken on behalf of the writing team by Yoshi-P. The noes cannot overcome this statement unless it is clarified later, as the word "probably" cannot be used when verifying a universal statement. As such, the evidence I provided, which is a statement from Yoshi-P on behalf of the writing team, makes it impossible to fully argue the no position unless you are willing to go against the direct phasing used by the writing team, which creates a contradiction as the writing team has absolute say over what is true or not true regarding the plot/lore of FFXIV.

It is why it is pointless to argue because the writers can do whatever they want really, thus it is better off letting people have their fun.

You think calling out logical fallacies gives you the win, but I'm sorry to say you pulled the classic ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the argument.

Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I am incorrect with my argument. This is referred to as the fallacy fallacy, where someone is entirely dismissive of an argument due to poor reasoning despite the presence of the correct argument.

It should be noted that asking for credentials or probing for bias is not a logical fallacy, that's actually a worthwhile ask to ensure someone can actually make their claims.

see

NOPE

What you have stated is a logical fallacy: The Credentials Fallacy. As for probing for bias: The Genetic Fallacy.

You ignored my actual argument

Your "argument" uses poor logical reasoning coupled with no elements of the truth, it is perfectly fine to ignore because it is completely irrelevant to what is being argued. Were you arguing from a position such as Lyth was here, I would be less inclined to be as dismissive since there are kernels of truth present inside of the argument. So far, you have only provided non-sequiturs paired with various forms of faulty logic, in other words nothing of value to this conversation. Alternatively, you could provide citations yourself and bring your own evidence to the table, something you have yet to do and probably will not do for one reason or another.

If you ask me, this conversation you and I are having is rather tiresome since I do not think it will go anywhere meaningful.