Alien X should be 1-A High part 2

[Livinmeme]

Yeah in the context the boxer was obviously K.O people one at a time while alien x did it in one go

 

[DaReaperMan]

Yeah in the context the boxer was obviously K.O people one at a time while alien x did it in one go

Prove Alien X did it in one go.

 

[azontr]

Yeah in the context the boxer was obviously K.O people one at a time while alien x did it in one go

You have been afflicted with the burden of proof now. Prove he did it in one shot.

 

[Livinmeme]

Prove Alien X did it in one go.

no? you have to prove it that is called a burden proof you cant say "you have to prove it" without scans

 

[Livinmeme]

You have been afflicted with the burden of proof now. Prove he did it in one shot.

you still know my point. he K.O people separatly while alien x didnt OH BOY HERE WE GO WITH THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS

 

[Gohanblanco217]

Because they can still destroy multiple universes. Just not in a single shot. Which is the criteria that we use to give a character a tier.

Which need evidence any Universal character can destroy multiple universes in multiple shots when we see someone saying "I can destroy multiple universes" then he clearly means that he can do it in a single shot or else there would be no reason for him to say it

 

[azontr]

you still know my point. he K.O people separatly while alien x didnt OH BOY HERE WE GO WITH THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS

Prove Alien X did it in one shot.

 

[DaReaperMan]

It's burden of proof because you just made a statement that Alien X destroyed multiple universes at once. I'm asking you to back that up with proof.

 

[azontr]

Which need evidence any Universal character can destroy multiple universes in multiple shots when we see someone saying "I can destroy multiple universes" then he clearly means that he can do it in a single shot or else there would be no reason for him to say it

So much more context to that statement is needed for it to be valid.

 

[Livinmeme]

Prove Alien X did it in one shot.

YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT GOD DAMN

 

[DaReaperMan]

YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT GOD DAMN

Prove he did it in one single hit. Now.​

 

[azontr]

YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT GOD DAMN

Why? Why should I have to prove shit when you made the claim that he could do it in one shot? I don't think you know how burden of proof works.

 

[Livinmeme]

It's burden of proof because you just made a statement that Alien X destroyed multiple universes at once. I'm asking you to back that up with proof.

Okay i am gona say this

1. you have to prove that he didnt
2. context sugest that he did it in one go

 

[Gohanblanco217]

Prove Alien X did it in one go.

You are the one who need to prove it if someone said I can destroy a car then yes he can destroy a single one but if someone says he can destroy multiple cars then we assume he can do it with a single blow or else he would have no reason to say that he can destroy multiple cars if he knows that he can destroy a single one at a time

 

[Livinmeme]

Prove he did it in one single hit. Now.​

IF YOU DO A CLAIM YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP GOD DAMN

 

[azontr]

IF YOU DO A CLAIM YOU HAVE TO BACK IT UP GOD DAMN

But you made the claim dude........

 

[Livinmeme]

But you made the claim dude........

you made the claim that he didnt do in one shot i sweard that this thread will give me a panic atack on how stupid are the claims

 

[DaReaperMan]

Okay i am gona say this

1. you have to prove that he didnt
2. context sugest that he did it in one go

Burden of Proof fallacy.

 

[Livinmeme]

Burden of Proof fallacy.

you never ever gived a evidence why he didnt in one shot. there is no reason to assume that alien x taked time to did it specially when he is refering to thinking.

 

[azontr]

you made the claim that he didnt do in one shot i sweard that this thread will give me a panic atack on how stupid are the claims

No. You made a claim that Alien X could destroy multiple universes in one-shot with barely any context backing it up. The burden of proof falls onto you since I only asked for more context.

 

[Livinmeme]

you are literally asking me to give you proves while you dont even molest to back up your acussations that is literally the giving prove of burden fallacy

 

[DaReaperMan]

you never ever gived a evidence why he didnt in one shot. there is no reason to assume that alien x taked time to did it specially when he is refering to thinking.

He could think twice. He has shown Low 2-C.

 

[azontr]

you never ever gived a evidence why he didnt in one shot. there is no reason to assume that alien x taked time to did it specially when he is refering to thinking.

Why should we have to? You made the claim that he could do it in one shot first, so support it.

 

[Livinmeme]

No. You made a claim that Alien X could destroy multiple universes in one-shot with barely any context backing it up. The burden of proof falls onto you since I only asked for more context.

the wiki assumes that he did in one shot because there is nothing to assume he didnt

 

[azontr]

the wiki assumes that he did in one shot because there is nothing to assume he didnt

What? No we don't. Why do you think he's low 2-C?

 

[Livinmeme]

Okay.. i am gona do a QA to prove you are all wrong

 

[azontr]

Okay.. i am gona do a QA to prove you are all wrong

This sounds very petty but ok.

 

[Livinmeme]

What? No we don't. Why do you think he's low 2-C?

Because the feat was never bringed in the past?

 

[Gohanblanco217]

Just like when someone says he can destroy a universe we do assume that he can do that in a single shot the same thing apply for destroying multiple universes

 

[Livinmeme]

e

this wouldnt probally matters because you will bring a convuluted argument to try to debunk it but meh

 

[azontr]

Because the feat was never bringed in the past?

No, because there is barely enough context to the situation to assume he did it in one shot.

 

[azontr]

this wouldnt probally matters because you will bring a convuluted argument to try to debunk it but meh

strawman.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Because the feat was never bringed in the past?

2-B and 2-A were. By your logic another thread for those should be made. I don't think I need to tell you how that goes.

 

[FinePoint]

Anyways, since a vast majority of people seem to agree the statement is Low 2-C, we can just move on with that.
Arguing with this one member over the burden of proof forever does not seem productive.

 

[Livinmeme]

Yeah is far more razonable that he did in one go that he didnt in one go because the context never implies that and you are acting like that is true

 

[Livinmeme]

2-B and 2-A were. By your logic another thread for those should be made. I don't think I need to tell you how that goes.

the 2-C feat the new feat dont act like you dont know that.

 

[Rez]

Oof I concede let's just agree with x's biological manipulation because that seems to be the most valid argument here and call this a day

 

[Livinmeme]

Anyways, since a vast majority of people seem to agree the statement is Low 2-C, we can just move on with that.
Arguing with this one member over the burden of proof forever does not seem productive.

another biasses. they act like he didnt in one go because "i cant prove that" while they also cant but you know wiki being a popularity contest make it so is true

 

[azontr]

the 2-C feat the new feat dont act like you dont know that.

The chances of 2-C getting accepted are smaller than a quark.

 

[Livinmeme]

2-B and 2-A were. By your logic another thread for those should be made. I don't think I need to tell you how that goes.

the 2-C feat the new feat dont act like you dont know that.