Warning: I am about to make a rant about something that’s in the long run probably not a big deal. I will be dismissive and hyperbolic overall so if you don’t like it you can just click away now.

So as a card game community inevitably the subject of viability and strategy come up in conversation. A lot of people, myself included, can get very animated about the use of certain cards. When you have a lot of people together and getting worked up about a card arguments will likely start. So today I wanna talk about some of the non-arguments that tend to popup in these conversations. These are the kinds of responses where, let’s be blunt here, you’re not fucking saying anything when you use them. As someone who likes to discuss cards, and will throw out harsh criticism when needed, these non-arguments are a huge peeve. This is definitely a rant so strap in.

Non-Argument #1: “It’s just a game don’t be so serious lol”

I will give one caveat to this. I think if your first (and only) comment on a matter “who gives a shit?” that that’s fine. Sometimes someone says something so pointless or stupid (recent example was someone complaining about deck flippers) that you just feel the need to publicly dismiss them.

But typically I see this kind of statement at the end of some 20 comment chain argument. Personal example I saw was someone complaining about D.Robos using Daihawk cause he thought it was bad. And so some typical back and forth ensued “but he’s a -4” “who cares guaranteed first stride is a huge strategic advantage” ect ect. Finally someone just laid out in numbers what you got from using Daihawk into Daiearth vs Sebreeze (which was one of his counter arguments) and the complainer fired off the “Lol just a game don’t be so serious comment”.

So my question is if this topic was so not serious and you so don’t care why’d you spend 8 comments arguing back? If you’re so adamant about your ways and it totally doesn’t matter why did you bother engaging in the first place? Whenever someone throws out this half-baked passive aggressive bullshit all I think is “Okay so you don’t have an actual response so now you’re gonna pretend like you have some moral high ground to save face”. Cause that’s what this is is a face saving measure. If it was just that you stopped giving shit you could walk away cold or just say outright “arguing with you is a waste of time I’m out”. I’ve reached a point where I will just leave and ignore someone if its clear I’m not getting through. Going “lol just a game” is a bunch of passive aggressive bullshit and I want to strangle you through my monitor if you decide to end an argument with that.

Non-Argument #2: When someone explains why a card is good by simply reading the effect of the card

“Ketchgal Liberator is so good in Gurguit, you can shuffle it back into the deck and call a new card!”

“Domination is so OP you can use your opponent’s cards to attack AND their skills”

Yes I know what it does, I called it shit cause I think the effect sucks. I actually don’t understand what people try to accomplish by doing this. If I am stating an opinion on a card then presumably I know what the fuck it does. All this accomplishes is affirming that I do in fact have eyes and they function properly. So thanks for reminding me that I don’t need glasses.

Non-Argument #3 “It’s only a common/rare”

Yes and? How does its rarity disprove my comment on a card? I understand that there will inevitably be set filler and not everything will be playable but why does this stop me from calling the bad card bad? If I cared enough to comment in the first place that means I was either asked my opinion or felt invested enough in that particular clan. If you wanna defend the card then refute my actual comment. Telling me its rarity accomplishes the same thing as reading its effect, nothing. I have eyes. I can see its a common. Thanks for affirming that my vision still works.

Non-Argument #4 “Just manage your resources/time your skills right”

The next few examples are gonna be kinda similar but I’m gonna be splitting them up because I have different reasons why they aren’t arguments. So onto “manage your resources”

First off, this one is very context dependent for when it’s a non-argument. There are times when you can say this legitimately and times where it doesn’t actually refute what the other person is saying.

If someone is complaining about a problem and it’s obvious they’re playing sub-optimally this argument is fine. I remember I had a friend say Darkness was CB heavy, and we all gave him shit because many cards refund themselves or CC. So in a situation like that telling him “manage your resources better” is legitimate.

In contrast I recently had an argument about this piece of shit where this exact argument came out, after I pointed out that basically everything in Chronofang soul blasted. In this case the argument is far less legitimate because my point isn’t that I SB too much, my point is I would rather be spending my soul on better things. Also Duplex’s shitty skill is literally all it does. So the argument of “but you can just not play the skill” falls apart so much faster. If I am choosing not to play his skill in favor of Warp Drive or Bind Time ect. and I choose to do so all the time, maybe I should just not play the shitty card.

Non-Argument #5 “Personal Preference”

“I run both Scharhrots because he’s muh avatar”

So despite my sarcastic comment if you comment on your deck with the specific intent of running it a certain way. Like fine whatever if you’re dead set on playing the deck sub-optimally do you, as long as you’re willing to acknowledge its sub-par. This stops when you are arguing about advice though. Keeping with the DI example if someone asks me what a Darkness deck looks like I’m gonna tell them to play Glanzend Vampir. If someone is asking for advice I just assume they want the most optimal cards (unless stated otherwise) and will give that to them with an explanation of why. So if you counter my argument with “Well I run both Scharhrot cuz personal preference” you’ve just said absolutely nothing. That doesn’t refute my explanation, or explain how your choice is superior to mine. Or alternatively if someone gives both options and says its personal preference which to run, as if they were equal. So like in Glanzend vs OG Scharhrot you’re trading the ability to recycle Engimatic, draw, and potentially CC with a targeted retire for having to pay more CBs to SC and having a retire that your opponent controls. Glanzend’s GB1 is just clearly a better value overall, and citing personal preference for OG Scharhrot is just not an argument in his favor.

Non-Argument #6 “Just play/build the deck right”

“I can consistently get 12 attacks in Pale Moon”

The reason I separate this from the other 2 above is because this tends to come up more regarding full decks than specific card choices. In fact someone saying this in regards to my Amon post is kinda what inspired this rant in the first place.

Okay wise guy if you’re so smart and you just have this perfect formula to make this shitty deck amazing then please share it with us. It’s a simple request, provide evidence to backup your argument. They teach you this shit in high school. This is so goddamn common, people will comment that some deck sucks and there will be that one guy (or several) who’s like “well actually this deck is amazing if you play it right” and then they never actually explain what “right” is. Hell a lot of times these people will adamantly refuse to share citing netdecking or just telling people to “figure it out”.

Let’s say I was a math tutor and I was helping someone with some equation like 2x + 4 = 10. If you wanted to teach someone how to solve that you’d walk them through all the steps to figure out the value of x. You wouldn’t just slap the problem in front of them and go “alright just solve the equation”. That doesn’t tell them anything. How the hell do they solve the equation if you don’t teach them the steps to do it its just gibberish to them.

Going back to my Amon post if you wanted to refute my points they are all clearly laid out for response. A proper argument would be something like “here is my deck list and this is how my card choices solve the problems you lay out”. You make a clear argument with explainations to why your choices work. A shitty non-argument is “If u play the deck right, not of that will happen, and it depends how u balance the deck aswell.” (This was a real comment btw bad spelling and all). Its vague and provides no card choices to actually tell me what this so called balance is.

I always like to leave the little comments/criticism welcome at the end of my posts cause I do like to read what people have to say. However these non-arguments are a real pain to sift through because they are unhelpful and unengaging. It’s hard to muster up the energy to engage with the community when half of it is just spouting inane nonsense that has no actual point. This post was mainly just me venting so thats it for today. Comments/criticism are welcome as always even if this post is mostly just complaining. Hope you enjoyed me being pissy