Again, my premise regarding the same happening in 1A pretty much negates it since he did knew CQC back then too.
Do you know what circular reasoning even is? And what's the difference between circular reasoning and consistency model? None of my premises assumes that it's stronger just because of the fact that it was prefered over CQC, the preferability just adds a consistency over the fact that, it was the technique that was stated to be his FP in almost all sources wether the speaker is Eugene, Zack, Yuseong or Johan himself... infact they even specifically mentioned this state to be the strongest.
Let me give another syllogism for an example:
P1: X was shown to be the strongest powerup for person P(x)
P2: X was prefered over Y in a desperate situation by P(x)
C: Therefore, X>Y (from P1 and P2)
Note: P2 is NOT an independent premise from which X > Y is inferred. Instead, it functions as a consistency model for, if P1 is true, then P2 is exactly the behavior we would expect. Using P2 alone to infer X > Y would be a non sequitur as something prefered over another doesn't automatically justifies superior of something over the other.
And if i were to write this more simply then:
S(X): X is the strongest power-up available to P.
P1: S(X)
P2: Pref(P, X, Y) [consistent with S(X)]
C: Therefore, X > Y.
I don't remember him exactly 'dodging' one attack, he was js jumping BH with the other crewheads just like how the Fist Gang boutta move the next chapter(Jumpism is real). And yes Zack>Johan but conditions were different when they fought BH, meanwhile my premises regarding BH only deals with Zack, Warren and Eli and js is there to prove that Eli>Zack(in speed), otherwise whatever happens to Johan would be conditional and would require justification from your behalf to prove that the exact conditions were met, as the burden of proof isn't on me.
This doens't 'assume' anything, i posited it as a necessity following from all my other premises. And also your negations to not lack justification, you would require for you to disprove the arguements that were pre established for this premise first as otherwise it doens't really correlates with my reasoning and justifications.
Literally not relevant with my arguements and neither it even addresses the justifications behind my C1 in which i established that UI Copy>CQC, you just proposed a possibility with seperate circumstances that says that if this happened somewhere then it could be true here, but this ignores my side of justifications and what I've posited as I've posited it as necessity(□), not possibly(◇) so your position also has the burden to justify that all conditions and circumstances in your possible countermodel matches with all the conditions with my necessity claim that I've proposed.
... blinded my whatever but I've already proven it in my syllogism, be was bloodlustes and was at FP.
