u/Quimeraecd

I'm about to print a few german models to have a forcé to fight against in introduction games, trying to get maybe 400 points in models. What do You think is necessary?

I'm thinking about 30 models would work about 6 smgs, 20 rifles and LMG teams.

As an additional question I come from building US list where there is very little reason to add SMGs to a rifle squad. Is it different for Germany?

To be honest, this is a universal human mistake, and I know non-believers fall into it too. But since this is a space for debating Christians, I want to point out a specific tactical error I see constantly from your side: You are bombing an empty hill.

Imagine a General preparing an attack. Instead of sending scouts to see where the enemy actually is, he stays in his tent and assumes the enemy's numbers and motivations based strictly on his own war manual. In the end, he spends all his ammunition attacking a position the opponent doesn't even hold.

A real example of this:

I was recently explaining why certain logical arguments don't convince me. The response I got was: "It’s not the logic; it’s that deep down you just don't want to follow Jesus."

From my perspective, this is a total strategic failure. That person assumed a "moral resistance" that isn't even in play yet. Before I can decide if I want to "follow" someone, I first have to know if that person is real. If I don’t believe a deity exists, the question of whether I want to follow them is as irrelevant as asking if I want to follow the laws of Narnia.

This is why your arguments usually fail:

1. Strawman Intel: You often assume we don't believe because we "want to sin" or because we are "angry." Those are labels from your system. You aren't talking to us; you’re talking to a character in a book you wrote yourselves. You are attacking a motivation we don't actually have.
2. Different Yardsticks: Many of your arguments rely on internal coherence (making sure everything fits the system). But we prioritize correspondence (making sure ideas fit physical reality). You are using a ruler to measure something we weight; that’s why it doesn't click.
3. Pointless Attacks: Until you make a real effort to understand how the person in front of you actually thinks, your work will be useless. You can’t convince someone if you don't even know where they are standing on the map.

Do you realize that as long as you fail to answer the actual questions being asked, and ignore the real objections of the other person, you are just playing solitaire? You are just shooting at an empty hill.

You might feel like you’re winning debates in your own simulator, but you aren't gaining an inch of ground in the real conversation.

So, are you here to "win" a script against a caricature, or to actually talk to the human being in front of you?

Why does completely coherent and true apologetic arguments fail to convince the unbeliever?

Because of lack of correspondence. Because annarguemnt being true meams different thing depending on what You value.

If You value coherence a well designed argument that is enough to be true and convincing.

But if You value correspondence the internal validoty of the argument is not enough. It needs to correspond with reality.

I'm sure believes don't usually find this as a problem because god exists. But that is an axiom that needs to be proven. And if You are thinking about an argument to prove it that gives You coherence, not correspondence, so You are basically stick in a loop.