Reply to Nate's Reply on the Issues of Framework in Debates

There is two worlds of thinking to evaluate this discussion a) We should have no framework, but we should talk about literary analysis; or b). We should have a framework and actually debate using logical claims that are backed with warrants in character comparisons.
First world of thinking: Ok. You’re right. Framework is bad and we should adopt peripatetic Methodology and Responsible Ontology.
a)	Long advocates my ideology of a “best girl” debate. If I prove that this best girl discussion should be more than saying cuss words and no warrants, then I win this point, because a stable basis should be used to find which character has the best traits. This actually works best in peripatetic methodology because, as Long says, “To become peripatetic, then, is to attend carefully to the ways things are said and to strive to respond to the saying of things in ways that do justice to what has been said.” To dismiss my arguments as bad and telling me to “fuck off,” is actually poor Ontological responsibility. You dismiss communication. You foreclose my ideas. You prevent conversations. Although best girl is a disputed position and there is no way to absolutely win it- so are all debates. In policy debate- you will never convince an opposition, or an audience, that you are fully right- because both sides are at direct opposition to each other. This is true in all forms of argumentation and forms a “race to the bottom” if you will. Well why do we debate??? Because it provides us with education. Like you say that the entire point of this was to “educate” me (Nice, by the way, make yourself the “teacher that must instruct his ignorant friends,”- Good move). The purpose of conversation, argumentation is to create education. Regardless of the ideas- if you dismiss them without acknowledging them, then you aren’t striving to respond by saying things that do justice to what has been said. You aren’t operating in a peripatetic methodology- you are hurting the necessary education that stems from argumentation and discussion. That means the only way to have the ideology you speak of is to operate attentively to my ideas, and not disregard them- therefore your interpretation of a best girl debate is wrong.
b)	Long’s interpretation of Responsible Ontology supports my ideology- “The peripatetic methodology, as a legomenology, is the philosophical practice of ontological response- ability oriented by and attentive to the saying of things. Ontological response-ability is at play wherever the expression of things opens itself to articulation.” This quote says two major things: the first is that we should always be responding with logic and warrants to all things to truly be able to operate in a Responsible Ontology. This means your interpretation of a “best girl debate” is wrong, because it is not attentive to all aspects of what is said. The second says that whenever something is expressed in articulation you must respect it, and acknowledge its merits. That means even if our discussion of this subsection of literature was completely ridiculous, you must respect all ideas, and not brush them off with swearing and unwarranted claims; or worse, not acknowledging them at all (like my Thomas Foster quote). This proves that your interpretation of a best girl debate is flawed.
c)	You have a framework (and not peripatetic methodology- so your clever preempt does not apply) - I think this is the most important section here. Your interpretation of how a “best girl” discussion should work- is not listing any warrants or logical arguments for your claim. Rather just shouting and cussing “My character is better” is best. That is a parameter, a criterion, a [Framework]. Sounds like that is contradictory to “opposing frameworks on the declarative saying of the λόγος.” You say putting a framework on a discussion is bad because it hinders education. It hinders human advancement. You have done what you have said is wrong. You have prevented education from a meaningful discussion on literary analysis of a fantastic work. (By the way: I know this is silly because we are talking about manga/anime, but you brought contradictory philosophy into this). This means your interpretation is wrong, and violates all of the Peripatetic Methodology and Responsible Ontology arguments that Long makes.
The only way to have Peripatetic Methodology and a Responsible Ontology is to operate without any sort of framework. On Both sides. Therefore, the first world of thinking is preferable- and we should respectful of previous ideas, and do them justice. Else we hurt our education (the point of conversation and argumentation) and human development.
Second world of Thinking
If, on the other hand, you believe we should pursue a best girl discussion and adopt your framework (thereby forfeiting Long’s ideology of no framework) then I can claim that a warranted discussion on the merits of characters, characterization, and further literary analysis is best for education.
a)	Your interpretation is arbitrary- I obviously was unaware of the parameters for a “best girl discussion”. As you said, you couldn’t come up with a definition for it either, and it is arbitrary because it is up to the discretion of each individual. Everyone has a different gut feeling; everyone has different interpretations for what makes a good character. That means the only way we can gain education, is through a framework that outlies what a “best girl” is. That is critical to avoid arbitrariness.
b)	Main Character Arguments- Sure, a main character will always outweigh. Like when I quoted Foster earlier, (“Characters are not real … they are subsets of an author’s imagination”), the author wants us to care about a certain character more, and we will, because they are a main character. You could have set a rule like “best supporting character” and we could have had an informative discussion/debate on the warrants of supporting characters. This would have been far more educational than just ignoring the points that I was making.
c)	Why my interpretation is best- the only way to find what character is best is to have a stable interpretation on what makes a character be the best. Without these guidelines, we quickly default into a race to the bottom in which none of our arguments are interpreted, because we all have different interpretations. This means the only way we can get education from debates is to have subset frameworks, to be able to debate. Without this, all of our points will be ignored and no education will come from these points because we do not recognize them. This is why a framework for this should be preferred over your interpretation on why framework is bad- Human Development can never be achieved when we do not acknowledge each other’s points.
There’s no point in a discussion that goes nowhere. If we agree on a simple framework- then we can achieve education from literary analysis, and even (as you label it) “advance human development.” Even if we don’t fully achieve Long’s ideology of a Peripatetic Methodology and Responsible Ontology because we set limits on what the conversation should be- it is better than the alternative, because that still has a framework and doesn’t acknowledge ideas (violating the attentiveness point Long lays out); as well as it fulfills the only way for us to have this debate and receive education from it- otherwise it becomes arbitrary.

A Final Note
-Nate, this wasn’t an effective troll. You took something that we both like (attack on Titans), and a dope discussion on how dope it is, and turned it into your testing ground for psychological ideas. That’s not cool- your using your friends, to test something that you read in a book. You say that you’re an “insufferable douche at heart,” and although I agree I think this was an incredibly douche move, I believe you aren’t inherently defaulting to irrational rudeness and patronization. The conversation (although silly), epitomizes your actions towards others. You act in the best fashion for yourself- while desperately trying to hurt others. I don’t know why you do it, I really don’t care. And let me get this straight, I enjoy a good troll. But you going out of your way to harm other people for self-satisfaction (a sort of parasitic masturbation) that is unacceptable. Sometimes you regret these things later on (that camping trip you went on when you pissed off all of your friends when you were just trying to piss off one guy you didn’t like); you normally don’t regret it- and you ignore the complaints of others.