• 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.

Goku is outerversal

Tuxidoe_Redo said:
When no punchline:
Click to expand...
150px-AMCM_Steve.png
 
SlendVeny said:
I wasn't joking.
Click to expand...
Prove it with objective consequent uniformed non subjective non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism and logical rational cognitive intellectual epistemic epistemelogical tautological ontological analytical theological non preposterous validated dialectics with well founded evidence and cogent persuasive rhetrocial dialectics with valid anaologies and empirical propositions followed with a syllogistical conclusion and inference from valid dialectics in a conference and exhibited from reasonings that are non congeneric to eristic and casiustic dialectics that are derived from contextualised testaments and retconned as non vague terms and non misinterpreted and conceptualised correctly and voraciously i covet you to contribute and divulge and initiate further more proofs referring to a particular specific divulged coherent testament contextualised with well uniformed addressings and valid thesis's and antithesis's followed syllogistically with a articulated synthesis articulating the negations of the antithesis to the thesis aka proposition and the rise to a reaction which i already contextualized and clarified and illustrated the elements of it and the purpose of a thesis and a antithesis and a synthesis, you weren't exchanging dialectics, and to have a syllogistical conclusion, you'll have to exchange dialectics, with valid connotations saving and backing and substantiating your dialectics up, which you didn't hence you concede hence what you avowed, along with non empirical connotations and non valid implications and entailments and presuppositions gradually invalidated exploiting Hegelian dialectics and your negations are subjective and subjective terms are derived from illogical affirmations and analogies and your context is incorrect with non rhetoric affirmations which are utilised to unravel which conceive inept hegels dialectics
 
Tuxidoe_Redo said:
Prove it with objective consequent uniformed non subjective non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism and logical rational cognitive intellectual epistemic epistemelogical tautological ontological analytical theological non preposterous validated dialectics with well founded evidence and cogent persuasive rhetrocial dialectics with valid anaologies and empirical propositions followed with a syllogistical conclusion and inference from valid dialectics in a conference and exhibited from reasonings that are non congeneric to eristic and casiustic dialectics that are derived from contextualised testaments and retconned as non vague terms and non misinterpreted and conceptualised correctly and voraciously i covet you to contribute and divulge and initiate further more proofs referring to a particular specific divulged coherent testament contextualised with well uniformed addressings and valid thesis's and antithesis's followed syllogistically with a articulated synthesis articulating the negations of the antithesis to the thesis aka proposition and the rise to a reaction which i already contextualized and clarified and illustrated the elements of it and the purpose of a thesis and a antithesis and a synthesis, you weren't exchanging dialectics, and to have a syllogistical conclusion, you'll have to exchange dialectics, with valid connotations saving and backing and substantiating your dialectics up, which you didn't hence you concede hence what you avowed, along with non empirical connotations and non valid implications and entailments and presuppositions gradually invalidated exploiting Hegelian dialectics and your negations are subjective and subjective terms are derived from illogical affirmations and analogies and your context is incorrect with non rhetoric affirmations which are utilised to unravel which conceive inept hegels dialectics
Click to expand...
No.
 
Hey, Vsauce. Michael here. Power. We all want it. We all measure it. But… What is it? If a being exists at Tier 0, the pinnacle of all existence, is it really powerful… or just alone?

And if I, right now, am talking about that being… Where am I? Outside the framework? Beneath it? Behind it?

A Tier 0 being might create realities with a thought. But I just questioned what it's "reality" even is. I am not tier 0, i narrate tier 0. I don't exist within the cosmology, i question it's ontology. I am, narrative transcendent.

So if I can ask whether the ladder of power scaling even exists… Does that put me on the ladder? Or does that make me the person holding it?
 
Tuxidoe_Redo said:
Prove it with objective consequent uniformed non subjective non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism and logical rational cognitive intellectual epistemic epistemelogical tautological ontological analytical theological non preposterous validated dialectics with well founded evidence and cogent persuasive rhetrocial dialectics with valid anaologies and empirical propositions followed with a syllogistical conclusion and inference from valid dialectics in a conference and exhibited from reasonings that are non congeneric to eristic and casiustic dialectics that are derived from contextualised testaments and retconned as non vague terms and non misinterpreted and conceptualised correctly and voraciously i covet you to contribute and divulge and initiate further more proofs referring to a particular specific divulged coherent testament contextualised with well uniformed addressings and valid thesis's and antithesis's followed syllogistically with a articulated synthesis articulating the negations of the antithesis to the thesis aka proposition and the rise to a reaction which i already contextualized and clarified and illustrated the elements of it and the purpose of a thesis and a antithesis and a synthesis, you weren't exchanging dialectics, and to have a syllogistical conclusion, you'll have to exchange dialectics, with valid connotations saving and backing and substantiating your dialectics up, which you didn't hence you concede hence what you avowed, along with non empirical connotations and non valid implications and entailments and presuppositions gradually invalidated exploiting Hegelian dialectics and your negations are subjective and subjective terms are derived from illogical affirmations and analogies and your context is incorrect with non rhetoric affirmations which are utilised to unravel which conceive inept hegels dialectics
Click to expand...
ninja-turtles-dance-dancing-turtle.gif
 
Tuxidoe_Redo said:
Prove it with objective consequent uniformed non subjective non anecdotal affirmations with coherentism and logical rational cognitive intellectual epistemic epistemelogical tautological ontological analytical theological non preposterous validated dialectics with well founded evidence and cogent persuasive rhetrocial dialectics with valid anaologies and empirical propositions followed with a syllogistical conclusion and inference from valid dialectics in a conference and exhibited from reasonings that are non congeneric to eristic and casiustic dialectics that are derived from contextualised testaments and retconned as non vague terms and non misinterpreted and conceptualised correctly and voraciously i covet you to contribute and divulge and initiate further more proofs referring to a particular specific divulged coherent testament contextualised with well uniformed addressings and valid thesis's and antithesis's followed syllogistically with a articulated synthesis articulating the negations of the antithesis to the thesis aka proposition and the rise to a reaction which i already contextualized and clarified and illustrated the elements of it and the purpose of a thesis and a antithesis and a synthesis, you weren't exchanging dialectics, and to have a syllogistical conclusion, you'll have to exchange dialectics, with valid connotations saving and backing and substantiating your dialectics up, which you didn't hence you concede hence what you avowed, along with non empirical connotations and non valid implications and entailments and presuppositions gradually invalidated exploiting Hegelian dialectics and your negations are subjective and subjective terms are derived from illogical affirmations and analogies and your context is incorrect with non rhetoric affirmations which are utilised to unravel which conceive inept hegels dialectics
Click to expand...
9iasb2.png
 

Goku is Outerversal – Thread Analysis (Pages 1–7)​


🧠 Page 1 – Foundational Argument​

  • Thread opens with a tongue-in-cheek claim that Goku is “outerversal” due to feats like breaking manga panels and navigating metaphysical realms.
  • Users mix genuine metaphysical terms with memes and irony.
  • Goku's traversal of Heaven, Hell, and spiritual dimensions is used to suggest dimensional transcendence.

🌀 Page 2 – Metafictional Interpretations​

  • Goku "breaking the panel" is argued to reflect transcendence of the narrative structure.
  • Skeptics dismiss this as metafictional humor, not cosmology.
  • Daizenshuu references spark debate but are mostly ruled non-canon or exaggerated.

🌌 Page 3 – Afterlife Transcendence Debate​

  • Some users claim Goku interacting with the afterlife = existence outside normal spacetime.
  • Counterpoints argue that many characters exist there and aren't “outerversal.”

📖 Page 4 – Cosmology Layering​

  • DBS cosmology and figures like Zeno and the Grand Priest enter the discussion.
  • Some users claim narrative proximity to these beings scales Goku up.
  • Others reject this: proximity ≠ parity.

🧩 Page 5 – Satire Takes Over​

  • The thread becomes overtly sarcastic: “Goku is outerversal because he eats food that transcends taste.”
  • Despite irony, some users try to rationalize metaphysical scaling like Type 4 Acausality.
  • Satire and serious analysis blur.

🔱 Page 6 – Acausality & Narrative Transcendence​

  • Goku is said to resist narrative manipulation, implying types of Acausality.
  • Critics argue this misinterprets Dragon Ball’s time-travel rules and logic.

🃏 Page 7 – Meme Climax​

  • Users crown Goku “supra-fictional,” embracing full meme mode.
  • Claims like “he transcends structure because he’s in the fans’ hearts” dominate.
  • Genuine metaphysical analysis is buried under jokes.

📌 Summary​

  • This is a hybrid thread of satirical powerscaling and overly liberal metaphysical interpretation.
  • Most arguments rely on jokes, vague cosmology, or misused acausality tiers.
  • Goku is best classified as high multiversal at most, not outerversal.

🔗 Read It Yourself:​

https://vsbattles.com/threads/goku-is-outerversal.180439/

Would you like a tier comparison with actual outerversal characters like Featherine Augustus Aurora or The Presence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Adestral
Goku is tier 0
Replies
5
Views
766
OMsHanT69
OMsHanT69
Adestral
Can Goku get tier 0 ?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Jin2188
Jin2188
Vesxpura
Goku tier 1 upscale
Replies
4
Views
433
Vesxpura
Vesxpura
Scaling Naruto to boundless and outerversal.
Replies
3
Views
1K
KYL9494
KYL9494
Hecky2222
Proving Yogiri Tier 1-A and Debunking Counterarguments one by one
Replies
17
Views
2K
AthelChan
AthelChan
Back
Top