• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

BAN-KAI! Bleach General Discussion

Deagonx is incapable of actually arguing.

He's just so laughably dishonest that his only response is to give some strawman that I never even once implied.

Deagonx, if you could be so kind, could you actually point out where I said something is true in virtue of the Negation is unproven. Can you actually point to where I made this fallacious argument? Stop strawmanning me.
Deagonx said:
Your stance requires considering your own conclusion the default that must be disproven, rather than you proving your own claim. That's not how it works, if you are advocating for an ability addition you need to prove it
Click to expand...
Complete strawman with no relevance to anything I said.
Deagonx said:
Right, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of a burden of proof. I was not convinced by the argument for it being literal, this does not incur a burden of proof.

It needs to be proven to be literal to be added as an ability. It does not need to be proven to be metaphorical to not be added. It's essentially "innocent until proven guilty." A defense attorney needn't prove innocence, their job is to demonstrate that the evidence for guilt is insufficient. Your stance is akin to saying "unless they have sufficient prove their client didn't do it, they're guilty" which for obvious reasons isn't an acceptable approach.
Click to expand...
This is again you dishonestly rephrasing the claim to avoid the criticism.

I linked where you made the claim.
 
Okay, if you aren't making that claim then I suppose we have no disagreement? My stance was simply that the evidence was insufficient. I needn't prove the alternative in order to take that stance, that's not how burden of proof works.
 
I still have a problem with your.... less than honest debate tactics that were on full display here.
Deagonx said:
Okay, if you aren't making that claim then I suppose we have no disagreement? My stance was simply that the evidence was insufficient. I needn't prove the alternative in order to take that stance, that's not how burden of proof works.
Click to expand...
Again, you're just lying here, you explicitly made the claim it was figurative and I quoted it in a previous message. The fact you couldn't prove that is what I was initially arguing/joking about. You didn't initially make a possibly claim, you made a certain one, then retreated to this argument when I refuted it.

This is the dishonesty I pointed out. See Motte and Bailey tactics.
 
Arcker123 said:
I still have a problem with your.... less than honest debate tactics that were on full display here.

Again, you're just lying here, you explicitly made the claim it was figurative and I quoted it in a previous message. The fact you couldn't prove that is what I was initially arguing/joking about. You didn't initially make a possibly claim, you made a certain one, then retreated to this argument when I refuted it.

This is the dishonesty I pointed out. See Motte and Bailey tactics.
Click to expand...
Irony, thy name is man. Accusing someone of the very thing you are doing is an interesting approach, to be sure.

The first thing I said was:
I needn't prove it was flowery language (although it certainly seemed that way to me and others I spoke to, given Gerard's manner of speaking), the absence of evidence of it being literal is itself a sufficient reason to remove the ability
Click to expand...

I'm going to be generous here and assume that you aren't characterizing the phrase "seemed that way to me" as a "certain claim" because you saw the word "certainly" in front of it. Especially considering that this was in the middle of a sentence where I took the stance that my stance was there was a lack of evidence for it being literal. But you are free to rebuff that generosity.
 
Deagonx said:
I needn't prove it was flowery language (although it certainly seemed that way to me and others I spoke to, given Gerard's manner of speaking)
Click to expand...
Deagon. This is a claim. I'm not sure if you're aware of that.

You saying you don't have to prove that was the criticism. So unless you want to say you don't actually believe it's figurative and you never argued for that, the criticism holds.
 
Arcker123 said:
Deagon. This is a claim. I'm not sure if you're aware of that.
Click to expand...
I am, but I think a misunderstanding of English grammar has led you to believe a different claim was made than what I actually said.

Try to identify the difference between these two statements:

1. That statement is figurative.
2. That statement seemed figurative to me.

I suppose you could claim both have a burden of proof, but if you are demanding proof for statement 2, you're basically asking me to prove my internal mind state of having that impression. The second statement doesn't incur a burden of proof that it is figurative. It's really odd that you would claim that.
 
Deagonx said:
I am, but I think a misunderstanding of English grammar has led you to believe a different claim was made than what I actually said.

Try to identify the difference between these two statements:

1. That statement is figurative.
2. That statement seemed figurative to me.
Click to expand...
Dude you can't accuse me of that and then think this is an intelligent argument.

These statements express the exact same claim. The only difference is 2. includes a description of your confidence in your claim, but that has no bearing on the claim itself.
Deagonx said:
I suppose you could claim both have a burden of proof, but if you are demanding proof for statement 2, you're basically asking me to prove my internal mind state of having that impression. The second statement doesn't incur a burden of proof that it is figurative. It's really odd that you would claim that.
Click to expand...
No this is ridiculous.

You are making a claim, the second one just says you believe it's figurative, but implies you have a lower degree of confidence in that claim. Any statement of positive belief in a proposition is a claim, which both statements are. You are creating distinctions without difference.

You're attempts of weaseling out of your burden of proof would be funny if they weren't dishonest.
 
Arcker123 said:
These statements express the exact same claim.
Click to expand...
F.

Guacamolefletcher said:
this is probably because you spoke to people who aleady typically agree with you
Click to expand...
Probably. Though those people were staff members, so thats kinda how it works.

It isn't as though the whole "literal vs figurative" thing is unique to this scenario, it's a pretty common thing in CRTs because it's often not possible to prove whether a sentence is figurative or literal, so it ends up just being a battle of interpretations as above. To me, Gerards braggadocio and the eye-roll demeanor with which his manner of speaking gave me the impression it wasn't meant to be taken literally.
 
Deagonx said:
F.
Click to expand...
Concession accepted Ig.

Why is it that every argument you get into boils down into the same dialougue tree?
  1. You make some ridiculous claim that you can't justify. Typically in a manner that could only amount to trolling or rage bait
  2. Some poor guy attempts to challenge you to defend your claim
  3. You employ some ridiculous argument that doesn't address the objection
  4. Stonewall
  5. Whatever nonsense ensues for whatever 3 page debate you get into
  6. ????
  7. Profit
Damage still remains king of rage bait tbh. This is an obvious joke FYI.
 
images
 
Arcker123 said:
Concession accepted Ig.
Click to expand...
Writing headcanon, lol.

There comes a point where someone takes a stance so ridiculous it warrants little further discussion. In this case, the notion that describing an impression is the same as making a positive claim and incurs the same level of proof is egregious enough that I don't see how any progress could be made, you could only reach that conclusion if you were choosing to be unreasonable.

Arcker123 said:
You make some ridiculous claim that you can't justify.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's typical to ask someone to prove that something seemed a certain way to them. Usually you just sort of take them on their word that they had that impression, but yeah if your whole point was "you can't prove you had that impression" beyond me just telling you, then sure I guess we agree?
 
Deagonx said:
Writing headcanon, lol.
Click to expand...
🤓
Deagonx said:
There comes a point where someone takes a stance so ridiculous it warrants little further discussion. In this case, the notion that describing an impression is the same as making a positive claim and incurs the same level of proof is egregious enough that I don't see how any progress could be made, you could only reach that conclusion if you were choosing to be unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Dude, you just don't understand how claims work. Stop debating Semantics when you don't understand how words work.

What you described in the OP was a varying level of certainty you hold towards a claim, but that has no bearing on the claim or the fact you hold it. You still need to prove that claim. Both statements express the claim it's figurative, and that claim needs to be defended. You're making a positive claim in both, and you fail to show a distinction between the statements.

Your inability to refute the claim makes you concede the debate. Especially when you give some cope response that is unearned, when you show you don't understand anything about what's being said. Your beliefs/seemings express claims that need to be justified.
Deagonx said:
I don't think it's typical to ask someone to prove that something seemed a certain way to them. Usually you just sort of take them on their word that they had that impression, but yeah if your whole point was "you can't prove you had that impression" beyond me just telling you, then sure I guess we agree?
Click to expand...
Uh yes tf? You claim you believe something and I ask why you believe it.

The fact you have an impression isn't in dispute, i'm asking you why you hold that impression, which is perfectly reasonable to ask.
 
Arcker123 said:
Both statements express the claim it's figurative, and that claim needs to be defended. You're making a positive claim in both, and you fail to show a distinction between the statements.
Click to expand...
Right, hence the issue. If you are not able to understand the difference between "is" and "seems" then there's not much else we can do here. It's an incredible simple thing that could only be rejected by someone choosing to be unreasonable. Amplified further by the really silly claim about "conceding." Sorry, I'd prefer not to serve as your English teacher. The fact that your stance has boiled down to "claiming to have an impression of a thing is the same as claiming that your impression is correct" is sufficient for me.

Arcker123 said:
The fact you have an impression isn't in dispute, i'm asking you why you hold that impression, which is perfectly reasonable to ask.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I'm happy to explain why I got that impression (which I did above), but an impression is not a positive claim, it's a sensory experience. Perhaps this is just a vocabulary issue?

impression - an effect produced in the mind by a stimulus; sensation: he gave the impression of wanting to help
seem - give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality: he seemed upset.

Having an impression is a sensory experience, it's how something appears to be in your mind, but not everything is as it seems and the term implies a high level of subjectivity and uncertainty. Again, this is very simple English. It's really odd to need to explain this.
 
Deagonx said:
Right, hence the issue. If you are not able to understand the difference between "is" and "seems" then there's not much else we can do here. It's an incredible simple thing that could only be rejected by someone choosing to be unreasonable. Amplified further by the really silly claim about "conceding." Sorry, I'd prefer not to serve as your English teacher.
Click to expand...
What do you think having an impression something is true means?

What does it mean to say that "It seems to be the case the sky is green?" Is that a claim that cannot be asked to be justified? You can't ask someone to justify their beliefs if it's an impression?

You conceded by pretentiously noping from the debate which I explained to no rebuttal. You're a clown, and you do not have a better understanding of English than me you pretentious fool.
Deagonx said:
The fact that your stance has boiled down to "claiming to have an impression of a thing is the same as claiming that your impression is correct" is sufficient for me
Click to expand...
I'm asking you to justify why you hold the impression. I can ask you to justify your beliefs.

At least when Damage says some ridiculous nonsense like "We ignore feat all the time" he can at least defend it. You're not as good at being as dishonest as Damage.
Deagonx said:
Sure, and I'm happy to explain why I got that impression (which I did above), but an impression is not a positive claim, it's a sensory experience. Perhaps this is just a vocabulary issue?
Click to expand...
Thank you for conceding I am correct.

If you concede that you can explain why you have an impression, than I am correct. You're struggling to understand basic concepts and you accidentally conceded twice.
Deagonx said:
impression - an effect produced in the mind by a stimulus; sensation: he gave the impression of wanting to help
seem - give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality: he seemed upset.

Having an impression is a sensory experience, it's how something appears to be in your mind, but not everything is as it seems and the term implies a high level of subjectivity and uncertainty. Again, this is very simple English. It's really odd to need to explain this.
Click to expand...
Never made a claim against this.

You fail to understand my arguments and are just agreeing with me.
 
These arguments won't change a thing since the Manga is Secondary Canon and The Anime is Primary Canon. The anime as of Cour 2 is adding and cutting scenes, there is the possibility that the TYBW anime would go further with Gerard abilities and explain his Conceptual abilities. If the anime does that i see no reason for anyone to debunk it.
Even if the scene is cut from the anime, we can still use the manga along with anything show Concept Manipulation in the anime or just reuse the manga with a well structured argument


I saw when Deagox said that Zaraki falling into despair is Fear Manipulation, Like Fear Manipulation on The Kenpachi Zaraki?. In Bleach, Zaraki has never show fear iirc.
But my point is, we should just stop arguing please🙏🙏.
 
Arcker123 said:
What do you think having an impression something is true means?
Click to expand...
No need to ask, I provided the definition:
impression - an effect produced in the mind by a stimulus; sensation: he gave the impression of wanting to help.

An impression is a sense you get about something.

Arcker123 said:
What does it mean to say that "It seems to be the case the sky is green?" Is that a claim that cannot be asked to be justified? You can't ask someone to justify their beliefs if it's an impression?
Click to expand...
It means that the sky appears to be green to you. It is not a claim that the sky is green, it is a claim of how it looks. For instance, if one had some sort of ocular disorder which cause the sky to look green to them, then it would be true that the sky seems green to them. It would not be true that the sky is green. An statement about one's impression is not a statement about objective reality, it is about one's sensory experience.

Hopefully that is helpful to improving your understanding. Most of the rest of your comment oscillates between an overt temper tantrum and you claiming certain things were concessions to feel better, so I don't think they deserve a substantive response from me.
 
A pseudo intellectual came in here acting smug so he got clowned by everyone. Then so high on his on copium he tries to argue with us, but then conceded twice and still somehow of himself as smart.

So yeah, cognitive dissonance/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheReal7Cris
Ichigo Vs Kai
2 3
Replies
91
Views
3K
ReaperAndBlues
ReaperAndBlues
Arcker123
  • Locked
Yhwach and Aizen sniping from Galaxies away (Redux)
2 3
Replies
86
Views
7K
Arcker123
Arcker123
Sosuke Aizen vs Gotei 13 (Plus Ichigo)
Replies
5
Views
1K
Louise1959
poyraz
  • Locked
Aizen Sosuke VS Zeref Dragneel
7 8 9
Replies
321
Views
17K
Nightmarefd0
Nightmarefd0
RanaProGamer
Future Soul King vs Future Asgard King GRACE
2
Replies
68
Views
9K
RanaProGamer
RanaProGamer
Back
Top