• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

KingTempest

He/Him
VS Battles
Thread Moderator
21,022
29,906
Brought up in this thread.

An additional fallacy that isn't technically a logical fallacy, but when it comes to powerscaling and such, it's required.

52. Area of Effect Fallacy

This is when someone uses a Destructive Capacity feat to counter an Attack Potency feat.

Possible Examples:
  1. "The Raikage barely punched a hole in a hill with his full power punch, so he's barely above wall level".
  2. "Goku Black was harmed by Vegeta's ki blasts which couldn't even destroy a city block, so he doesn't qualify for City Block level, much less Universal".
  3. "Sonic hasn't been shown to destroy a planet, so he has no justification for his Planet Level tier on his profile".
The person in this example is ignoring the definition of attack potency, which states "A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces."
 
What Bobsican said. Although I think that instead of having VS-specific fallacy we should just try to see under which real fallacy it falls under.
 
Looks like some kinda fallacy that ignore other points and focus on just one they can attack.
Btw why is this a Staff Discussion with no staff? (For now)
 
Is anyone respecting the fact that Staff Discussion is supposed to be staff only to begin with?
 
Screw it, I'll request for it to be moved into Wiki Management.
 
If it's no longer staff discussion I think that creating a new fallacy purely because people keep abusing this argument isn't exactly a smart idea, I don't think you can even give it the qualifications of a logical fallacy.
"A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. It is also called a fallacy, an informal logical fallacy, and an informal fallacy. All logical fallacies are nonsequiturs—arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it. "
"A logical fallacy is a false statement that weakens an argument by distorting an issue, drawing false conclusions, misusing evidence, or misusing language."
The conclusion follows logically from what preceded it, it's just that in the case of fiction and such it's wrong. Something being wrong doesn't denote a fallacy at all. If anything there should just be a page on the wiki along the lines of "Area of Effect" or whatever that explains how Area of Effect works. I also would not say it's distorting the issue, drawing a false conclusion, or misusing evidence/language.
 
I agree with GiverOfThePeace. This would not be a legitimate fallacy, and you would be better off just finding something that dismisses area of effect otherwise.
 
I think this could be classified as a sort of Confirmation Bias, but if not then it could probably be added to the Fallacy page since it seems quite prevalent.
 
I apologize for my lateness in the thread. I thank the staff and the other members that came here as well.
This is not a wiki management thread. Since it concerns a wiki policy, the staff forum is fine to use.
Understood, thanks for confirming.
Isn't this literally just the AOE Fallacy?
It is, but it's not shown on the fandom anywhere. The main point of the OP was a general idea about it's position on the fandom (specifically, the fallacy page, if
"A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. It is also called a fallacy, an informal logical fallacy, and an informal fallacy. All logical fallacies are nonsequiturs—arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it. "
Your argument is not wrong, but your definition fits this situation as well.
The law of Attack Potency has been ignored in so many debates by those who think DC matters more.
Thinking that DC matters more than AP is an error in reasoning. Wouldn't this count?
 
Your argument is not wrong, but your definition fits this situation as well.
The law of Attack Potency has been ignored in so many debates by those who think DC matters more.
Thinking that DC matters more than AP is an error in reasoning. Wouldn't this count?
That's not an error in reasoning, that's a lack of understanding. An error in reasoning is a purposefully or unintentionally manipulative form of reasoning that could fool the average person, I could show you a bunch of non vs debating friends that would not fall for something that simple or else society would follow the logic of us punching through a wall is stronger then a bullet. It doesn't fit this situation as in this case the person is just wrong, which isn't enough to be a logical fallacy.
 
Should this instead be mentioned in the Attack Potency page? Since this seems to be an issue of people not understanding that having a power output equal to the destruction of a planet does not equate to being able to destroy a planet with every attack.
 
Should this instead be mentioned in the Attack Potency page? Since this seems to be an issue of people not understanding that having a power output equal to the destruction of a planet does not equate to being able to destroy a planet with every attack.
It already is mentioned on the Attack Potency page as follows (In a way):

"Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent. Hence, characters that destroy mountains or islands are not automatically mountain or island level, especially if they are small. The attack potency depends on the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack."

But yeah, I also think the AOE fallacy should be added to the Fallacies page. Would save us a lot of headaches in the long run.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Oh wait, KingTempest's statement is already the definition of AP. NVM.
 
Last edited:
But, IMHO, KingTempest's "A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces." statement is more appropriate to add to the Attack Potency page, provided additional context about the fallacy can be added, of course.
This is verbatim on the Attack Potency page😗
 
But yeah, like DDM and Ovens said, I'm in agreement with KingTempest that this issue must be properly explained in the Fallacy and AP pages so that next time people don't make the same mistake of favoring Destructive Capacity over AP.
 
So far, DarkDragonMedeus and Sir Ovens have agreed to it. It should be a relatively uncontroversial change, but if you want any more users to give their opinion on this, lemme know.

So, how will we word it? The new fallacy that we'll add in.
 
I don't personally see why it still needs to be added.

Giver already went over how it's not technically a fallacy, and we already have an explanation for it on the AP page. If people are really that annoyed about this being a recurrent problem, then link the AP page rather than consistently going through that trouble to explain. Or heck, you could just expand the note if you feel like it doesn't adequately go over the issue.

Adding a completely different "fallacy" is simply redundant and unneeded, especially when it doesn't really qualify as one.
 
Seriously making up fallacies to try and make people think they're committing a logical flaw in reasoning and causing them to spread that across a bunch of communities isn't a good idea, it's a much smarter idea just to either further elaborate on the attack potency page's AoE portion or make a page regarding the process of AoE.
 
It really doesn't need a separate page of its own since the entire topic falls under Attack Potency, so it should be explained in detail in the AP page as is.

That being said, we'd still need to word the explanations properly so any suggestions on that side would be helpful.
 
Can somebody remind me what we should do here please?
 
It really doesn't need a separate page of its own since the entire topic falls under Attack Potency, so it should be explained in detail in the AP page as is.

That being said, we'd still need to word the explanations properly so any suggestions on that side would be helpful.
 
I feel like the AP page explains it pretty well already.

Maybe adding a single sentence to the existing explanation to make it even clearer is enough?
If so, one could write behind "A character with a certain degree of attack potency does not necessarily need to cause destructive feats on that level, but can cause damage to characters that can withstand such forces" another sentence, like:
As such it isn't proof of a low attack potency, if a character's attacks only cause a small amount of destruction.
 
Here's an idea of how it could be worded:

"Attack Potency is only about the energy put in an attack, not its area of effect. Just like how a bullet does a hole way smaller than a normal human's fist, a character doesn't need to be able to destroy the basis of its tier, but only to damage something or someone requiring the same amount of energy to do so".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top