Give me ONE time in ANY OF THE ZELDA GAMES that takes place in Hyrule that doesn't feature or mention the existence of Ganon/dorf other than MC.
I can't name a Zelda game, but I can name plenty of literature where the main villain doesn't appear in one of the main books. But you will NEVER find a book that mentions two people who are childhood friends, while there are two characters in the backstory with the same names and were childhood friends. Because no writer is that damn stupid.
You completely disregarded that as evidence so why can't I disregard this? It's pretty much the same exact argument.
Ganon not appearing in TMC isn't evidence for its placement. It fits nicely if it goes first, but you can't use that to prove its placement because it just isn't solid enough. For example. If TMC is first it could mark the beginning of organized villainry. Now that isn't evidence for its placement, but it would fit nicely if it went first. You get what I'm saying?
Yeah, this is pretty self explanatory. It basically says that it's the lock to his locked door. It's obvious what would happen if the sword was pulled (the lock would be removed). This doesn't hint to him previously knowing what would happen because it is an extremely self explanatory statement.
He clearly didn't get tricked into pulling the sword, of course, as he knew fully well what would happen if he pulled the sword.
If I lied to you about something and then started telling you about something related to the lie, would you believe it?
If you're wrong about one thing, then correct on the other half of the tale, does that automatically make the other correct half of the tale wrong? No it doesn't. We know for a fact that the second half of the tale is 100% correct. We can't deny it because FS came out before it and it describes it perfectly.
The second half is correct. The second half makes no mistakes on what happens in FS, so why should we believe that it is wrong when it was made to describe FS and it does so perfectly and adds a few details?
I'm pretty sure that this whole thread is a debate on where MC goes. I believe it goes first, therefor I am going to try and "win" by giving more evidence for it being first. You're just trying to win too by giving evidence for it not to be first, so don't be a hypocrite.
I actually heavily lean towards TMC being first. But I'm not going to take every piece of evidence as, well, evidence when some of it just doesn't work and is fallacious and illogical.
Also that comment was about FS placement, not TMC placement.
What evidence is there for FS as first(/second after TMC or whatever...)? A developer who didn't work on the game saying their thinking of it being first before it even came out.
What evidence is against it as first? A game made by the same developer who made the original quote that gives a huge implication in the backstory which came out after the quote.
Weren't you the one who said in a previous debate game evidence > developer quotes?