Naruto to Boruto Discussion Thread

[NeoKingOfLight]

Hold up… I just checked the Durability Page, the Striking Strength Page AND the Attack Potency Page and it doesn’t touch upon this specific topic, unless my reading is shit and I overlooked it.

Are we to take this as VsBW doesn’t have a set standard on Striking AP scaling from Durability? Beyond obviously using common sense when debating or discussing it?

 

[Damage3245]

Are we to take this as VsBW doesn’t have a set standard on Striking AP scaling from Durability?

We don't scale a character's striking strength from their own durability. If they hit and damage another character then that's fair game.

We probably don't have that written down anywhere because it's never been needed to be written down.

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

We don't scale a character's striking strength from their own durability. If they hit and damage another character then that's fair game.

We probably don't have that written down anywhere because it's never been needed to be written down.

Why? And if so, why is that not expressly stated on any of the pages? And no, it’s not “Common Knowledge” type of thing. That would be a standard that is fundamentally against a fundamental aspect of reality, which then contradicts us simultaneously using Newtons Laws.

Edit: Lol, I think you edited before I quoted.

 

[HelloThere1089]

This is honestly weird… we are using Newtons 3rd Law, but simultaneously ignore the fact that all humans hit hard enough to hurt ourselves. And that’s not an opinion or anything, just a fact of reality. We can easily bruise our skin and muscles, and if we strike as hard as we can, we can even tear tendons & break our own bones.

This is probably because durability comes from the density and shock absorption of bones, toughness of skin, and cushioning of muscles. If a character has a very high durability, that means that it has all of the above. But striking strength comes from all of the above plus fast twitch muscles (I do MMA). The more you train these muscles, the harder and quicker you can strike. So if someone has a high enough durability, it doesn't automatically mean that they have to have proportionate striking strength. But if someone has high enough striking strength, it kind of guarantees they would have proportionate durability. Think of it as a venn diagram.

Outside of special instances in fiction where this is stated or shown to be otherwise (Again, a Naruto example would be Kakuzu using his Diamond Skin Jutsu), why are we denying this part of reality?

Correlation does not equal causation. High durability doesn't cause high striking strength. In reality most people can hit hard enough to hurt themselves because we don't have super powers enhancing us. But if we did have superpowers enhancing specifically our dura, there are still components missing to increase striking.

Edit: I have no idea about the wiki standards. I'm just talking Biology.

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

This is probably because durability comes from the density and shock absorption of bones, toughness of skin, and cushioning of muscles. If a character has a very high durability, that means that it has all of the above. But striking strength comes from all of the above plus fast twitch muscles (I do MMA). The more you train these muscles, the harder and quicker you can strike. So if someone has a high enough durability, it doesn't automatically mean that they have to have proportionate striking strength. But if someone has high enough striking strength, it kind of guarantees they would have proportionate durability. Think of it as a venn diagram.

Correlation does not equal causation. High durability doesn't cause high striking strength. In reality most people can hit hard enough to hurt themselves because we don't have super powers enhancing us. But if we did have superpowers enhancing specifically our dura, there are still components missing to increase striking.

Edit: I have no idea about the wiki standards. I'm just talking Biology.

Now THIS is what I’m talking about… But I do have some push back.

Those instances in which a Character has a super durability factor, generally are circumstantial and not a “standard” so to speak. Of course this is fiction and you “can” have that be the case, but from a writing pov (And I am a writer) it is generally intentional making this be the case for some characters but when you look at most verses, it generally is just “Special” Occasions. Sticking with Naruto: Jutsu Enhancements (Such as Kakuzu’s or Cloaks, etc), Third Raikage, Etc.

Going back to my issue irl, as you said, those areas can be increased through working out and exercise and repetition, but you can’t then use that to suggest Striking wouldn’t exceed Durability because even for those who do the work, their ability to hurt themselves would also increase. So there is no correlation irl. There will never and has never been an instance where someone whether they work out or not, does not have or has not had the capability of hurting themselves, and that is a biological fact sans outside factors such as armor or what have you.

 

[HelloThere1089]

Those instances in which a Character has a super durability factor, generally are circumstantial and not a “standard” so to speak. Of course this is fiction and you “can” have that be the case, but from a writing pov (And I am a writer) it is generally intentional making this be the case for some characters but when you look at most verses, it generally is just “Special” Occasions. Sticking with Naruto: Jutsu Enhancements (Such as Kakuzu’s or Cloaks, etc), Third Raikage, Etc.

Can you clarify your point here a bit more? Are you saying that usually amps cover everything and not just durability? If so then yes they do seem so, but if not stated we can't assume.

Going back to my issue irl, as you said, those areas can be increased through working out and exercise and repetition, but you can’t then use that to suggest Striking wouldn’t exceed Durability because even for those who do the work, their ability to hurt themselves would also increase.

It doesn't though. Specialized trainings improve separate aspects of the body. A strongman is the peak of lifting strength but he can't punch as hard as a boxer. Sumo wrestlers striking strength doesn't increase even though he is more durable. The reason why you never see a person who works out to increase his durability to the point that they can't even hurt themselves is because potential for human growth isn't much compared to fiction. There are absolutely people who can take more force than they can put out. But the difference is usually small because in reality you can't have stupendous growths. But in fiction if not stated otherwise, a person with high durability could have localized amps, which wouldn't automatically result in a high striking strength. Because this possibility exists, we can't make a generalized rule that high dura = high striking.

So there is no correlation irl. There will never and has never been an instance where someone whether they work out or not, does not has has not had the capability or hurting themselves, and that is a biological fact sans outside factors such as armor or what have you.

It's not a fact tho. There are plenty of people who don't have the force output to hurt themselves. There are people who can't throw a punch even if their life depended on it. There are people with Arthritis who can't hurt themselves. You are taking an observation and trying to make a rule out of it without considering what makes these things work. I hope that makes sense.

 

[MeidoIzayoi]

Opinion on Danzo vs pain arc SM Naruto?

 

[Damage3245]

Opinion on Danzo vs pain arc SM Naruto?

Naruto clears easily.

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Opinion on Danzo vs pain arc SM Naruto?

Naruto high diff if he has clones gathering NE, otherwise Danzo probably outlasts

 

[HelloThere1089]

Deez

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

Can you clarify your point here? Are you saying that usually amps cover everything and not just durability? If so then yes they do seem so, but if not stated we can't assume.

My point there was generally when you have a case of character whose durability is significant (And by this I mean the author or artist has made it a point to emphasize that aspect moreso than others), that’s a special case. Using Naruto I gave examples of that being Kakuzu’s hardening Jutsu, Chakra Cloaks, Third Raikage, etc.

It doesn't though. Specialized training improve separate aspects of the body. A strongman is the peak of lifting strength but he can't punch as hard as a boxer. Sumo wrestlers striking strength doesn't increase even though he is more durable.

I disagree. For starters, my position isn’t that anyone who works out would be able to deal more damage to a comparable degree to say a Boxer or MMA fighter. Even though different avenues (Lifters, Fighters, etc) focus on different parts of the body to emphasize, these individuals ability to hurt themselves doesn’t go away to any significant degree. Someone like Mitchell Hooper may not be able to hit as hard as Mike Tyson, but he still hits harder than before be became a Lifter and put in the work to get those gains and those gains don’t diminish his ability to hurt himself and that ability did Infact grow. Same with any other profession you name. Sumo, Wrestling, Boxing, Lifting, etc.

The reason why you never see a person who works out to increase his durability to the point that they can't even hurt themselves is because potential for human growth isn't much compared to fiction.

Of course. It was never a “thing” irl for that to be case anyways. Humans have always had the ability to hurt themselves if they wanted and tried, it doesn’t matter if they were in the peak of human fitness or not.

There are absolutely people who can take more force than they can put out. But the difference is usually small because in reality you can't have stupendous growths.

I’m sorry but that is just not true unless you’re Stephen Hawking… for obvious reasons. I know you address it more down below, I’ll respond to that as well.

But in fiction if not stated otherwise, a person with high durability could have localized amps, which wouldn't automatically result in a high striking strength. Because this possibility exists, we can't make a generalized rule that high dura = high striking.

Let’s make the distinction though. “High Durability” standards are relative to whatever verse is being discussed for reasons I already listed. For Naruto, ninja like Kakashi, Asuma & Gai, are not characters whom are known for “High Durability”. This is relegated to Characters like Third Raikage or Second State Jinchuriki where in their innate durability / density of their Chakra Cloaks are EMPHASIZED. In One Piece, people like Big Mom, Diamond Jozu or Katakuri’s Armor Haki. In Bleach… in MHA… In whatever verse you want to discuss. “High Durability” is emphasized.

Again, my point is simply, there is no reason not to scale Striking from Durability when even irl, it is a fact of reality that we already hit harder than the force our bodies can take, OUTSIDE of those special EMPHASIZED Cases.

It's not a fact tho. There are plenty of people who don't have the force output to hurt themselves.

Like who? Refer me to a specific group that isn’t physically disabled or impaired and tell me why they, as the example, are the rule and not the exception.

There are people who can't throw a punch even if their life depended on it.

Not having proper form isn’t disqualifying from being able to hurt yourself. In fact, it’s ACTUALLY a good way to hurt yourself. Not to mention it really doesn’t take much, and trust me, I know the type of people you are referring to very well.

There are people with Arthritis who can't hurt themselves.

I’ll ask again, why is someone with a disability or impairment the rule for your argument, not the exception? Not to mention someone with Arthritis can still very much hurt themselves depending on where it is and its severity.

You are taking an observation and trying to make a rule out of it without considering what makes these things work. I hope that makes sense.

No, what I’m asking is why is there a rule against something like this when there is no basis for it outside of obvious special instances in most verses.

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

Eh, I actually concede tbh… It’s not going to be changed and it’s not necessary for Naruto Verse anyways. Was still an interesting conversation though, even if i’m wrong @HelloThere1089, but I still look forward to your response if you want to make one.

Only @MinatoSparkle can’t respond

 

[MinatoSparkle]

 

[HelloThere1089]

I disagree. For starters, my position isn’t that anyone who works out would be able to deal more damage to a comparable degree to say a Boxer or MMA fighter. Even though different avenues (Lifters, Fighters, etc) focus on different parts of the body to emphasize, these individuals ability to hurt themselves doesn’t go away to any significant degree. Someone like Mitchell Hooper may not be able to hit as hard as Mike Tyson, but he still hits harder than before be became a Lifter and put in the work to get those gains and those gains don’t diminish his ability to hurt himself and that ability did Infact grow. Same with any other profession you name. Sumo, Wrestling, Boxing, Lifting, etc.

But you get my point that the rate at which his lifting strength increases is not equal to the rate at which his striking would increase right? That's the issue. If there isn't a direct causal relationship, we can't make a rule. He might end up having increased striking, but there is no clear formula that we can apply.

Of course. It was never a “thing” irl for that to be case anyways. Humans have always had the ability to hurt themselves if they wanted and tried, it doesn’t matter if they were in the peak of human fitness or not.

My point is that just because you don't see it irl, doesn't mean durability and striking have a causal relationship like that.

I’m sorry but that is just not true unless you’re Stephen Hawking… for obvious reasons. I know you address it more down below, I’ll respond to that as well.

I mean you were the who said there has been never a case like that, so I mentioned.

Let’s make the distinction though. “High Durability” standards are relative to whatever verse is being discussed for reasons I already listed. For Naruto, ninja like Kakashi, Asuma & Gai, are not characters whom are known for “High Durability”. This is relegated to Characters like Third Raikage or Second State Jinchuriki where in their innate durability / density of their Chakra Cloaks are EMPHASIZED. In One Piece, people like Big Mom, Diamond Jozu or Katakuri’s Armor Haki. In Bleach… in MHA… In whatever verse you want to discuss. “High Durability” is emphasized.

I'm saying if a possibility exists, we can't make a general rule. Especially when there is no line of logic behind it.

Again, my point is simply, there is no reason not to scale Striking from Durability when even irl, it is a fact or reality that we already hit harder than the force our bodies can take, OUTSIDE of those special EMPHASIZED Cases.

I already addressed this, if you understand how the body works, having high durability wouldn't cause someone to have high striking power. Just because we see a trend doesn't mean we can form conclusions like that. There is a clear line of logic for why we say striking => durability. There is no logic in saying durability => striking. Observations and trends don't equal logic.

Like who? Refer me to a specific group that isn’t physically disabled or impaired and tell me why they, as the example, are the rule and not the exception.

Not having proper form isn’t disqualifying from being able to hurt yourself. In fact, it’s ACTUALLY a good way to hurt yourself. Not to mention it really doesn’t take much, and trust me, I know the type of people you are referring to very well.

I’ll ask again, why is someone with a disability or impairment the rule for your argument, not the exception? Not to mention someone with Arthritis can still very much hurt themselves depending on where it is and its severity.

No, what I’m asking is why is there a rule against something like this when there is no basis for it outside of obvious special instances in most verses.

You want an example? Hyper obese people who can't move well. The only way they hurt themselves is if they put their body weight in an uncomfortable angle. They can take a punch, but the amount of force that is required to make them bleed is much much higher than what they can output. The existence of these cases prove that the relationship isn't causal.

Understand that observations isn't logic. You are relying on observations, patterns, and trends too much. Try to see how things work and you'll understand why it's ok to scale someone's durability to their striking but not the other way around.

Maybe I have pinpointed the issue now: A character with a high durability might be likely to have high striking strength, but high durability doesn't automatically imply high striking strength. Because of this difference, we can't just assume.

Honestly this whole argument boils down to correlation doesn't equal causation. But incase you bring up logical implication here goes:
If P implies Q, then not Q implies not P. But Q doesn't imply P. This is irrefutable logic.

So let's say P = high striking strength, Q = high durability. Then if high striking strength implies high durability, that doesn't automatically mean that high durability implies high striking strength.

This last segment isn't required but I threw that in there for extra caution.

 

[HelloThere1089]

Eh, I actually concede tbh… It’s not going to be changed and it’s not necessary for Naruto Verse anyways. Was still an interesting conversation though, even if i’m wrong @HelloThere1089, but I still look forward to your response if you want to make one.

Didn't see this before so forgive that long text lmao.

 

[SwartSter26]

Realize that, Boruto's fights are just Itachi's genjutsu showing the same scenes 500 thousand times.

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

But you get my point that the rate at which his lifting strength increases is not equal to the rate at which his striking would increase right? That's the issue. If there isn't a direct causal relationship, we can't make a rule. He might end up having increased striking, but there is no clear formula that we can apply.

My point is that just because you don't see it irl, doesn't mean durability and striking have a causal relationship like that.

I mean you were the who said there has been never a case like that, so I mentioned.

I'm saying if a possibility exists, we can't make a general rule. Especially when there is no line of logic behind it.

I already addressed this, if you understand how the body works, having high durability wouldn't cause someone to have high striking power. Just because we see a trend doesn't mean we can form conclusions like that. There is a clear line of logic for why we say striking => durability. There is no logic in saying durability => striking. Observations and trends don't equal logic.


You want an example? Hyper obese people who can't move well. The only way they hurt themselves is if they put their body weight in an uncomfortable angle. They can take a punch, but the amount of force that is required to make them bleed is much much higher than what they can output. The existence of these cases prove that the relationship isn't causal.

Understand that observations isn't logic. You are relying on observations, patterns, and trends too much. Try to see how things work and you'll understand why it's ok to scale someone's durability to their striking but not the other way around.

Maybe I have pinpointed the issue now: A character with a high durability might be likely to have high striking strength, but high durability doesn't automatically imply high striking strength. Because of this difference, we can't just assume.

Honestly this whole argument boils down to correlation doesn't equal causation. But incase you bring up logical implication here goes:
If P implies Q, then not Q implies not P. But Q doesn't imply P. This is irrefutable logic.

So let's say P = high striking strength, Q = high durability. Then if high striking strength implies high durability, that doesn't automatically mean that high durability implies high striking strength.

This last segment isn't required but I threw that in there for extra caution.

The response i feel i have to make to this is that if you want to ball my entire argument into “observations and trends”, then sure, but note the entire scientific method is rooted in that and to suggest that is illogical is wrong,“to the say least”. If you want to argue that because a small portion of the entire human population is disabled, impaired or hyper obese and thus would have a hard time hurting themselves, if at all, is proof of there not being a correlation, then be my guest.

There are so many flaws to that argument it’s ludicrous imo, but I digress. I guess if I’m going to be surgical about it, I would say that: “Most humans, except those in the categorized groups above (Whom are the exception), can easily strike hard enough to hurt themselves with a 100% success rate.”

Proof: Tens of thousands of years of empirical data of human existence and knowledge of anatomy up to current day.

Like seriously, this isn’t some novel concept or something and to act like it is would be the height of ignorance, and I sincerely mean no offense to anyone, but that would be the objective truth.

I said I concede, “even if I am wrong”, but note, I don’t think I am wrong. It’s just a pointless argument in general to be had on my behalf.

But I do want to clarify that at no time did I deny that Durability can be scaled from striking as you falsely imply I did: “Try to see how things work and you'll understand why it's ok to scale someone's durability to their striking but not the other way around.”

Like duh… we all know the third law. My stance simply says, based on this fact of life, Striking > Durability.

The REASON why people can hurt themselves striking is BECAUSE the body can’t handle the entire force a human CAN strike with. But sure, because disabled people and fat people exist, “logic” get’s thrown out because of arguments based on the margins.

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

Would these debates be considered friendly fire?

 

[HelloThere1089]

The response i feel i have to make to this is that if you want to ball my entire argument into “observations and trends”, then sure, but note the entire scientific method is rooted in that and to suggest that is illogical is wrong,“to the say least”. If you want to argue that because a small portion of the entire human population is disabled, impaired or hyper obese and thus would have a hard time hurting themselves, if at all, is proof of there not being a correlation, then be my guest.

There are so many flaws to that argument it’s ludicrous imo, but I digress. I guess if I’m going to be surgical about it, I would say that: “Most humans, except those in the categorized groups above (Whom are the exception), can easily strike hard enough to hurt themselves with a 100% success rate.”

Proof: Tens of thousands of years of empirical data of human existence and knowledge of anatomy up to current day.

Like seriously, this isn’t some novel concept or something and to act like it is would be the height of ignorance, and I sincerely mean no offense to anyone, but that would be the objective truth.

I said I concede, “even if I am wrong”, but note, I don’t think I am wrong. It’s just a pointless argument in general to be had on my behalf.

But I do want to clarify that at no time did I deny that Durability can be scaled from striking as you falsely imply I did: “Try to see how things work and you'll understand why it's ok to scale someone's durability to their striking but not the other way around.”

Like duh… we all know the third law. My stance simply says, based on this fact of life, Striking > Durability.

The REASON why people can hurt themselves striking is BECAUSE the body can’t handle the entire force a human CAN strike with. But sure, because disabled people and fat people exist, “logic” get’s thrown out because of arguments based on the margins.

You are not understanding my point. Empirical data isn't used without understanding why it yields those results. You are trying to impose empirical data from irl people onto fictional people, in which case it becomes important to understand how things work. Scientific method uses empirical data to create predictive formulae. They don't just look at empirical data and form conclusions. Which is why the whole correlation =/= causation argument exists.

My entire point of presenting exceptions was to show how the body works. Just because most humans end up having higher striking strength than their own durability doesn't mean that the body functions in a way that you'll automatically have high striking strength if you increase durability.

The problem is you are trying to argue that just because we use the third law which is rooted in reality, we need to use all observations and trends that are in reality. But we use the third law because we understand it's mechanics, not because it tends to happen most of the times. Fact of life isn't enough is what I'm saying.

The only one throwing logic out of the window here is you. Based on your responses, you don't understand my central point. We say high striking strength implies high durability because the durability needs to be high enough to sustain the recoil. This is logic. Saying that high durability implies high striking because that's what usually happens isn't logic, it's a set of observations to establish likelihood.

Edit:

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NeoKingOfLight]

You are not understanding my point. Empirical data isn't used without understanding why it yields those results. You are trying to impose empirical data from irl people onto fictional people, in which case it becomes important to understand how things work. Scientific method uses empirical data to create predictive formulae. They don't just look at empirical data and form conclusions. Which is why the whole correlation =/= causation argument exists.

Yeah i’m just gonna be straight up with you, this statement you keep making makes no sense because we already know all factors involved, why it’s happening, what’s happening, how it happens, etc. You’re trying to spin it off into something it’s not. You yourself aren’t understanding how this works, and yet you keep trying to tell me to.

My entire point of presenting exceptions was to show how the body works. Just because most humans end up having higher striking strength than their own durability doesn't mean that the body functions in a way that you'll automatically have high striking strength if you increase durability.

You are actually trying to argue against how the body works. Your “exceptions” are margins and doesn’t negate the fact that is present in the entire group. They are not even major enough parts of the group to be relevant to the conversation. At worst we can account for those exceptions and that STILL wouldn’t have any bearing what is a standard human capability. It’s not something people just “end up able to do” by chance, lol. It’s an inherent quality of human anatomy and that is what you are not understanding.

The problem is you are trying to argue that just because we use the third law which is rooted in reality, we need to use all observations and trends that are in reality. But we use the third law because we understand it's mechanics, not because it tends to happen most of the times. Fact of life isn't enough is what I'm saying.

I don’t know what part of my argument you’re lost at but it is not a happen stance thing and keep trying to assert that it is. It is a capability under human anatomy. It is the same reason why we can kick a ball at great speeds, heights and distances vs other animals on the planet. It’s not a “trend” just because amputees and disfigured people exist who can’t “kick” a ball, lmao!

Like seriously, is that what this is? You don’t think this is the case? It’s a trend, not inherent?

The only one throwing logic out of the window here is you. Based on your responses, you don't understand my central point.

No. You are throwing logic out the window and your central point seems to just be a lack of understanding of human anatomy. Let’s do a little experiment…

If we had 2000 people in a room (Different backgrounds and professions) and of that 2000, 600 were “Hyper Obese” (Since this is one of the categories you threw out). Every day, we have that remaining 1400 punch themselves in the face, leg, wherever… not at their hardest but what they could consider “serious”…. Every single one of them would develop bruising and soreness to varying degree’s, and depending on where they hit themselves, bleeding. The 600 would be unable to because they are fat and can’t move right? You call this a “trend” because a portion themselves can’t do it. And to you, this is logical…

I tell you this not a “trend” and that it is inherent to human anatomy, right? So if your disqualifying factor is that they are fat and can’t move to generate the force to hurt themselves, is it not true that if they lost this weight, they would then be able to hurt themselves, just like 1400 others?

They would, and this is because the human anatomy allows us to swing our arms, extend our arms, engage our muscles and generate force through these actions that exceeds our body’s thresholds for said force. And that’s just a fact. Feel free to punch yourself or a solid wall if you disagree. Being obese or having a physical disability can prevent this depending on the degree of that impairment, you are right here… but that doesn’t negate what human anatomy affords us the ability to inherently do, and if you are doing so, you are “arguing the margins”, which is inherently illogical because they don’t represent the whole group.

We say high striking strength implies high durability because the durability needs to be high enough to sustain the recoil. This is logic. Saying that high durability implies high striking because that's what usually happens isn't logic, it's a set of observations to establish likelihood.

You see, you are not representing my stance correctly at all. I’ll say it again, I never said or implied durability doesn’t scale in part from striking. What I AM saying is, irl, our bodies can’t withstand the entirety of that force. Understand that nothing you say here changes that fact. Period. So when discussing Newton’s Third Law in relation to this… understand it is “up to a point”.

Now, in discussing it’s relevance to fiction… If a verse doesn’t showcase Durability being > one’s striking outside of exceptions (Third Raikage, Cloaks, Jutsu Enhancements, etc), what is the BASIS for applying that logic (Striking Can’t scale from Durability) to the verse? THIS is where I will say, if we are applying N3rdL, remember that even irl, in regards to what bodies can handle, it is “up to a point” because people can strike harder than their bodies can handle as a matter of anatomy.

And honestly, as I said, I concede because it is a clearly pointless endeavor, but at this point, if you disagree, go punch something hard and “observe” what happens next.

 

[HelloThere1089]

@NeoKingOfLight I have made peace with the fact that you are not gonna get it. You don't understand the difference between a law of nature that is constant, and a correlation that occurs and has a lot of exceptions. If it isn't guaranteed then there is no point in having a rule is it? Because newton's third law has no exceptions. It is impossible to land a strike unscathed without having proportionate durability. The opposite isn't the case. And no amount of yapping about observations is gonna change that lmao. It's also funny that you tell me I don't know about human anatomy when I explained to you in detail how the body works while striking. You are yet to explain how anything works and are going off of just what you observe from outside. Even if 99% of the population exhibit the same phenomena, it still doesn't become a law of nature. Which is required for these kinds of rules.

 

[SlendVeny]

Y'all really be arguing a lot about this, huh?

 

[HelloThere1089]

"The"

 

[SlendVeny]

"The"

Yeah. The.

 

[Daoist_Pepe]

Realize that, Boruto's fights are just Itachi's genjutsu showing the same scenes 500 thousand times.

Ikemoto definitely needs to improve on drawing taijutsu battles.

 

[karo_senpaii]

My predictions for the upcoming chapter is jura goes under cover to the hidden leaf. Erases his chakra and hides himself while learning about the village and naruto, probably goes and read konoha scrolls, those forbidden jutsu and other top information. Along the line he encounters someone maybe hinamawri or so and he learns more about naruto. Something happens and he gets detected and bronco or kawaki fights him. He's hesitant to fight at first but eventually one taps her or him. Daemon tries to step in to catch some fun but he leaves either by saying he isn't evolved enough to take him on or it's not his fight but bugs fight.

If it is kawaki that get slammed it would probably strengthen his resolve and make him start training again as he'd see the otsusuki powers he got on it's own is just not enough right now

 

[HelloThere1089]

Yeah. The.

Sensational

 

[Apollonir.Scale]

Says he can open the first door for Hokage Kakashi. Naruto>First gate Kakashi is the door and raise the characters that take scales from Naruto and Naruto. So I don't think anyone will say BE Kakashi beats Naruto with Gate 1. It is already stated in Shonen Jump magazine that Naruto is at the peak of his power and is the strongest shinobi. Even without such a magazine Adult Sage Naruto>First gate Kakashi. I think we should think about this.

What do you think about this? Can Kakashi's first gate multiplier be used?

 

[Kayzz]

Opinion on Danzo vs pain arc SM Naruto?

Danzo, if he starts with koto.

SM Naruto, if koto is restricted.

 

[KingogKings777]

Latest chapter wrapped up in a nutshell.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

Kawaki the fraud still stands

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Kawaki the fraud still stands

Bro didn't understand that he doesn't actually have to become Isshiki 2.0

 

[HelloThere1089]

Crazy how Boruto is the only person to actually acknowledge Hinata.

 

[SlendVeny]

Crazy how Boruto is the only person to actually acknowledge Hinata.

People just forget about Hyuga when they die.

 

[Gokukid2005]

Does the highlighted part kinda confirm if you're as tough as guys like Sage Mode and the Third Raikage you can survive the rasenshuriken?

 

[SlendVeny]

Does the highlighted part kinda confirm if you're as tough as guys like Sage Mode and the Third Raikage you can survive the rasenshuriken?

It means you can survive using it

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Gotta match with Kisame if anyone is interested

Irma Lair vs Kisame Hoshigaki

Water Witch tries to tame a Man Shark Match Rules Both in Character Speed is Equalized Arc 7-11/8-A Irma | Base Kisame Standard Battle Assumptions (Everything Else) Irma Lair: Kisame Hoshigaki: Inconclusive:

vsbattles.com

 

[MinatoSparkle]

Does the highlighted part kinda confirm if you're as tough as guys like Sage Mode and the Third Raikage you can survive the rasenshuriken?

The blow back of using a machine gun =/= the force of the bullets hitting you

 

[AnimesFreak2]

So Small Planet level Mitsuki when?

 

[karo_senpaii]

So Small Planet level Mitsuki when?

Never. Where do you even come up with that scalling?