Yes you do because it directly goes against the time frame argument you are using.You didn't explain where I conceded anyway,you just said I conceded twice.You only showed me what Matthew said in that thread which is contradicting the logic used in the blog and also on attack potency page.Since you keep on asserting that logic then you would have to make CRT yourself downgrading him not me.Not reading my comment and saying I am repeating myself isn't a valid counter
It really does not as I explained above. I explained where above. The page you used is not an encompassing reality attack, it's a condensed charged energy ball that he can create via ki, two completely different things. I read your comment, it was literal ad naeseum. No once again, you have to make the CRT.
You didn't.You just said that I conceded.You didn't explain as to where and how I conceded.If you did explain where I conceded then quote that part of the statement where you said I conceded.Condensed charged ki attack which then explodes omnidirectionally?You aren't even explaining why it isn't a omnidirectional explosion attack like ki attacks are,you are just merely asserting that they are condensed ki attack(It being condensed doesn't make it non omnidirectional by the way).Nope it wasn't because I wasn't just repeating the same thing over and over again,I was explaining my points and correcting you.That isn't ad naesum.No I dont becuase you didn't explain why I have to make a CRT at all.Just asserting claims without any sort of explanation is empty
You can either close this one or that one.Well depends on the staff members honestly.I would prefer that earlier thread gets resolved as it was made much earlier than this thread and it's close to conclusion
The fact that you don't realize the difference between a condensend blast and an omni-directional AoE, proves you don't understand the encompassing concept. Yes this is objectively ad naeseum, quote one new argument from here rn, I'm waiting.
There is no such thing as "condensed AOE always being non omnidirectional in direction".A omnidirectional attacks can be condensed into specific range as well.Your point is invalid.So yes I do understand what encompassing means.No this isn't lol.Just explaining my points because you aren't getting it isn't ad naeseum.Condensed blast being omnidirectional is a new argument here.Again you didn't address any of my argument meaning time frame argument to lowball Chrono navigator is henceforth invalidated
Yes there is. Do you understand what a condensed blast is, like at all? It's not omni-directional as it's not shooting from all directions. It's shooting at a specific focal point, hence it's condensed.
Never argued against this point, I directly stated that this scenario doesn't fit the Ben 10 one, hence a false equivalence, but of course you seem to just not understand that. Still doesn't suddenly stay omni-directional, I legit do not believe you know what this word means by how you've portrayed yourself thusfar.
You do not as shown by this argument thus far.
"Explaining" your points to me does not suddenly stop something from being ad naeseum.
It is not, it has been brought up in our prior refutes, you're being dishonest.
I did, and you repeated yourself and showed me you clearly don't understand nor grasp how this works, thus I have no reason to continue the discussion.
Yes I know what it is,its focusing the output of the attack into specific range instead of wide range that doesn't mean that attack isn't omnidirectional
Yes you did argue this point when you said that condensed attack aren't same as omni directional attacks just a paragraph above mine.You didn't explain how it doesn't fit in Ben 10 one and also strawman fallacy you have committed since I never said that it fits with Chrono navigator scenario,I was merely debunking the time frame part of the argument people use to debunk Chrono navigator being 2-B when its likened to like Omega case.So no I perfectly understand what I am saying and I even corrected your concept.That speaks alot.Just saying it doesn't stay omnidirectional doesn't make it non omnidirectional.You are misinterpreting my arguments then if you have such views from my argument so far
Its just your misinterpreted views of how my arguments are.It amounts to nothing in actuality
Explaining my points becuase you are not being able to understand and making different claims doesn't equate me to repeating the same claim over and over.Also I know how ad naesum works like.So no need for fallacy links
I merely made a claim that "Condensed AP can be omnidirectional".I didn't explain how or why that's the case so me just mentioning it doesn't make it a argument which was already repeated in the past.
You only did at the start and got addressed so after 2 or 3 more tries you started using what looks like excuse of "ad naesum" in order to further avoid addressing my argument.You started this discussion and now you aren't even addressing it means you conceded.Meaning time frame cant be used a as valid basis to debunk Chrono navigator 2-B rating if its likened to like Omega's case.
This is interesting. @ProfessorKukui4Life do you agree with this sentiment since I remember that you argued that Alien X’s haxes which he already has on his page would scale above those same haxes from everyone in Ben 10?
You can only account for this conceptually and not via timeframes as previously brought up in this thread.
Can you elaborate? Cause the exact quote I showed was completely based off time frames.
I don't see exactly what this goes against though, I think everyone was fine with an over-time 2-B feat for it, just not immediately 2-B, might be wrong though.
Dude are you in drugs? You can't combine reality Warping to survive something since reality Warping ≠ Durability in the first place, what the creator meant is that they need to make a decision to combine theire AP and durability to survive a multiversal AP attack
Exept Alien x never demonstrated that kind of ability so no its a big assumption
Just because a part of the statement is contradicted doesn't mean the statement as whole is not valid I'm pretty sure they didn't meant to say only a singular timeline destruction, this is probably a mistake
Having better hax ability =/= scaling above hax potency. Also why is this thread flooded with DB analogies.
Yes it is. Having the ability to do almost anything limited to your imagination is more reliable and versatile than simple timeline destruction.
Possibly doesn’t work in this scenario because as Zamasu put it before, there’s nothing about this that’s possibly 2-B
So you agree with at least 2-C?
Why would this be at least 2-C again?
Most users and staff, besides Firestorm, seem to agree to At Least Low 2-C or At Least 2-C. Matter is figuring out which ig.
Firestorm argument for 2-C :
That's wog that's blatantly contradicted by canon events. That doesn't mean much.
your argument was :
No it isnt. Celestialsapiens can stop timeline destruction, which equals Low 2-C. Fits with the WoG
The WoG says they can’t survive a singular timeline destruction on their own.
