Board Thread:Moderation Desk/@comment-5722194-20160209164539/@comment-6335668-20160210011727

I'll argue it here, actually, since you want to make public allegations.

My argument was actually that there was no evidence to support your assertion that there were no wars between the nations of the Seven Kingdoms prior to the Second War. I provided evidence that conflicts took place between some of those nations, which disproves your assertion that there was peace between these nations. It also disproves your assertion that nations which entered the Alliance of Lordaeron could not have had recent conflicts, by the way, as Alterac was an Alliance of Lordaeron state prior to its treachery.

I at no point claimed there was, in fact and in lore, a war between Gilneas and Lordaeron. I asserted that there was no lore to prevent it, while you asserted that there was. You refused to provide any evidence of this. You further provided only strange and bizarre statements - that it was 'established' that such wars did not take place, that 'trade relations' prevented any possibility of war completely, etc - which were rebutted in due form and with reference, where appropriate, to real history.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the burden of proof. When you came to another user's page to make the argument, 'there was no war between Lordaeron and Gilneas in the years prior to WC2', you made a positive argument. This is an argument that alleges a state of facts. If you are questioned on this claim, the burden of proof falls on you. You failed, consistently, to provide a lore basis for your argument, or a basis in human behaviour. You, being the first instance of positive argument, had the first burden of proof, and failed to meet it.

My argument was, if you actually reread it, that there was no evidence to say that such a war did not take place, no reason to believe it could not, and reason to believe that there was warfare between the Seven Kingdoms in the past. Nothing more, nothing less - so yes, I did in fact meet the burden of proof of my assertions.

Let us also look at your use of the term 'argument from ignorance.' An argument from ignorance is an argument that  is positive (that is, real or true) because there is no evidence it is not positive. My argument was at no point that 'there is no evidence Gilneas and Lordaeron did not go to war, therefore they went to war', it was 'there is no evidence Gilneas and Lordaeron did not go to war, therefore, the possibility remains open.' This is an important distinction, as I do not assert said conflict to be a fact, but rather, a possibility. By definition, it is thus not an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Step off or step up, Aretain. You were in the wrong when you tried to claim 'lore' to force a guy not to write what he wanted without the lore backing you.