You mean that thing that was clarified on page 3 and 4? Marines are better than Army, that scope? You're right, that was hard to find. I haven't quoted it 3 times.

So, seriously, are you going to actually come up with a rebuttal? Because so far, you've failed. You still don't understand what I was saying about argumentation. Didn't say it wasn't a word. Said it was unnecessary usage.

Also, my logic is sound, as you have not been able to counter me. Show me how my thesis statement is anything but clear. You distract, like going after argumentation. Which is amusing, for as I said, you're missing the point I made.

Also, every other point you have tried to tell me I'm wrong about, has been right up there.

Show me where I'm wrong, and I'll admit it. So far, you have failed to do so. You see, while you tell me I have poor grammar and "argumentation" skills, you have yet to even begin to clarify how I am wrong on the very thing you said I was wrong about. Hell, you even quoted it.

Ooh, just noticed you said I didn't know what I was talking about when I said Army Basic/Boot is shorter than Marines. That's also a good time to tell me how I'm wrong.

goddammit take this shit to a dedicated thread instead of altering the point of this one! it's getting annoying

_________________

Shh, no one cares. This is spam, dumb fuck.

I really have to spell everything out for you. Ok, here goes. You arbitrarily limited the argument of the comparison between the marines and the army to only infantry; you did so first on page ten, post 144 of this thread. That is clear and there is no denying it. You changed your argument after a contradicting rebuttal; such a change attempts to make the new rebuttal invalid by changing the meaning of your previous posts; this is the shifting sands logical fallacy, related to the equivocation and moving goalposts fallacies.

I would like to point this little exchange out since you might not remember it well.







“What I'm trying to say is that I'm not better than you, you're just worse than me.”

“Also, your assertion is so poorly defined that any attempt to "prove you wrong"—because you think that means anything—would be a waste of my time.”

That was from page four. This is around the time I stopped reading your posts since it had become obvious you were trolling. I already made the assertions that this would be a waste of my time, that you're worse than me (although you might be able respond that this was a generalization and ask me to state in which specific ways are you worse), and that your assertion is poorly defined (proven by your continuing clarification and modification of the original set of statements).

(Just so you know, I'm not responding to this, I'm just quoting it to use it as an example.)

This demonstrates that your statements were too confusing even for you to follow. “Less cohesive” is one hell of an understatement. My rebuttals are all complete within their posts. Every time I ask you to clarify you instead respond vaguely and incorrect. You continue to change your argument in some way; the premise, the scope, the assertion… there's too little consistency here for anything you say to be taken with credence. Your sad attempts to not be wrong will never stop. You are the most pathetic form of troll which doesn't know when to quit.

I offer you one final chance. If you form your argument, correctly and completely, I will give your argument the consideration it deserves and even give credit to you for being right. I will use my words to end this congenially and without rebuttal. Take your time. Read this thread. Make citations if you need. Here's a brief recap for you:

I told you that “You sure don't know what you're talking about” when you responded that the army probably had not “got its act together” since “WWI, up to at least Vietnam” and you offered as basis for this that “Their basic is still significantly shorter, They're not all rifleman” and from there I challenged the basis you offered for your assertion and so challenged your assertion. When you asked for me to clarify I refused, saying “your assertion is so poorly defined that any attempt to "prove you wrong"—because you think that means anything—would be a waste of my time. You want me to shove your nose in it? Maybe don't be such a tardlette and form a valid argument.” I then acquiesced to your request; “So what of your claims would you like me to prove wrong?” which was a continuance of my earlier statement “You sure don't know what you're talking about.”

Yeah, you've still actually failed to make a rebuttal, when you claimed that's what you were going to do. I don't need chances.

Also, I didn't really need to argue "I'm better than you". Thats a.) an Opinion and b.) False. I don't work at Subway. Pardon me, I'm not a sandwich artist/Child diddler.

Finally, you can't claim "Oh I ignored you, thus it is invalid". That's not how it works. Just because you failed to retain the information, does not mean it was not readily available. You can try it though, if you wish.


Anyway, make a point about how I was wrong (which was your assertion), or give up How did I not know what I was talking about, which is your thesis statement. You have still failed to do that. I can't make your argument for you, as much as that would be more productive than listening to you divert(though less fun).

Ok. Make a point about how you were wrong. I can do that.

“They're not all rifleman.”

“In the United States Marine Corps, the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 0311 is for "Rifleman." It is the primary infantry MOS for the Marine Corps, equivalent to the U.S. Army MOS 11B for Infantryman. The training for Marine Corps Riflemen is conducted at the U.S. Marine Corps School of Infantry and training for U.S. Army Riflemen is conducted at U.S. Army Infantry School.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman)

So how would you like to disagree with that?

I said the army wasn't all Rifleman. I was comparing the Army, to the Marines, with the Marines being the favored. Thus, I was showing that they are better in that no matter what, they are all Riflemen.

Hell, to further the context, it was in response to "They must have got their act together", speaking about the Army by Yom.

You managed to get that wrong too, eh?

What about all these guys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Marine_Corps_MOS

If they are not the MOS 0311 then they are not riflemen.

http://www.marines.com/becoming-a-marin ... f-infantry

SOI, which is basic Infantry training. While shortened from standard length, still covers more than other branches receive.

But hey, I sure didn't know that every marine has to complete the 0311 training prior to their primary MOS. I guess that's because they have to work with so much less than everyone else. Sucks to be them.

Thus, bam, I am right. A glorious day.

However, I don't think it sucks to be them. I think it is great that despite having less than everyone else, they go further faster. Ooh Rah.

Seriously though, this is why they were able to hold off the damn Chinese in the battle of Chosin Reservoir. They were able to have ever hand available to break the lines, while vastly outnumbered.

here we have punk bitch's original statement, for all the world to see, and he even helped to requote himself rather than let it die.




here we have the contradiction to his original statement, stated by none other than himself.

this situation where they fought on opposite sides of the island is exactly like a race, each team is given equal ability to succeed, the army had significantly less casualties, thus they are better.

"get the marines killed"

I'm not sure you know how this works, it's not like the army can just say "hey, um... japanese soldiers the marines are coming from behind you could you please go fight them instead of us?" OR "hey look a large brigade of fleeing japanese going towards the other side of the island, lets ignore them and let the marines deal with it"

there is no instance where the army would not act on the enemy, there is no instance where the army could "get marines killed", the fucking dumbo marines with poor quality training got their own dumb asses killed. knowing the marines they probably got spotted coming while still on the beach and fucked up by standing there and trying to fight back against buildings full of soldiers while they were out in the open, instead of advancing the field using improvised bunkers like the army would have done.

_________________

You seriously have no idea how this works, and that is sad.

I'm not even sure how to explain this to you... You lack even the most basic idea of how this works. Point is, Army failed to do their job, and thus endangered the lives of the Marines/cost them lives. Why? Because the Marines were now forced to do the Army's job, and secure their flank while holding their front.

Also... not a race. It was never a race. It was a planned out system of taking land. You want your line to be continuous so you don't end up with enemy behind your lines. The Marines were not trying to get ahead of the Army, they were sticking to the time table set by higher up, as the Army should of been doing. Army failed to do so, and thus destroyed the line.

Also... Buildings, "got spotted on beach", etc etc. You know absolutely nothing of the battle of Iwo Jima. Hell, I posted a photo earlier. Did you see buildings? They had tunnels, all through the mountain, but no buildings.
You also act like a beach landing was a subtle thing in WWII. It was an invasion in force, on an island that was 5 miles by 5 miles. There was no hiding.

Finally, no one was making "improvised bunkers". It was hard enough to dig a fox hole in the volcanic sand.

Also, you said dumbo, that's hilarious. Are you 12?

I might enjoy hating on the air force and marines but I honestly think of them like Canadia: they keep my head warm.