If his heart was damaged by a bayonet and left him in such a state of seemingly near-death that conventional weaponry couldn't display the same effectiveness, imagine if it was destroyed or pierced by the bayonet completely. He would be dead.
Prove it.
Be open-minded and think about that.
I can think about it til the sky falls. We can speculate on it til we go insane. Prove it would kill him. Not speculation, not thoughts. Prove that the blow would be fatal.
The Major never said that directly. I addressed his metaphor of the 'castle' which refers to the souls as his soldiers of his kingdom and nothing more than pawns to which Abraham Van Helsing used the same metaphor for his servants( which were not absorbed as souls). So that's confirmed, go ahead to refute that.
The Major repeatedly says that Alucard has thousands of lives, and Alucard says, right after Walter slices him in half, that he should keep killing, he only has thousands more to go.
There were several instances that contradict and refute the soul count like when Dracula did not regenerate and retaliate despite having a multitude of souls to use
Insufficient information.
Alucard not using a soul to bypass regen negation
Having better regeneration isn't an automatic counter to regeneration negation.
(Monster of God Anderson bypassed the Jackal's regen negation, and don't bother to say that mercury damages his cells when his body doesn't work like a normal human since he stated it was of biotechnology that is beyond nanotechnology. So that point counts.
Irrelevant to the fact that the only verifiable ingredient contained in the Jackal but not the Casull is mercury. Waffling about Anderson being a regenerator is irrelevant.
Arthur Hellsing saying that regen is not what makes vampires invincible
Irrelevant.
Vlad regenerating his head off-screen after drinking the blood in defiance to God even when he had no souls, Alucard regenerating his head after being decapitated by Monster of God Anderson even when he had no souls.
Implying that only a strike to the heart while he has no souls will kill him. He survived holy bayonets to the heart while he had souls, and was seemingly going to be killed when a pipe was going to be rammed into his heart when he had no souls.
All of this contradicts the soul-based regen and you still stick to the interpretation of the use of souls to regen that contradicts what's shown?
Don't care about the soul count... Prove the holy weapon weakness...
And you reject the idea that interpretation where the major said Walter had no chance of beating Alucard when he started absorbing the blood of London because Blood empowers him
Right after Walter slices Alucard in half and Alucard says to keep killing, he's only got thousands to go.
(Affirmed by the novel itself and didn't bother to say the novel shouldn't be used as a source because, at this logic, the DMC novels shouldn't be used to scale Dante despite it's canonicity to the games)
The Stoker novel is written nearly a century prior and is its own entirely seperate canon, which Hellsing feeds upon. However, when the two stories conflict the manga takes priority. The DMC and GOW extra material is the opposite; written to be canon to the main series, and confirmed canon by the devs. That makes the DMC and GOW extra material just another entry in the series, same as any other. Stoker's novel on the other hand is an e tiredly seperate continuity in a sense, and the events and natures in the stories conflict.
even more, considering the fact of the number of kilogallons of blood he was absorbing making him, even more stronger than ever and this interpretation cancels out all the contradictions and coincides together sensibly. And you still haven't provided a refutation for it.
This is the issue. You haven't provided a solid reason to use that interpretation over the existing one. The existing one lines up exactly with Alucard's statements, whereas this new interpretation of yours just lines up conveniently with your predetermined conclusion that Alucard will always die to holy weapons, a claim you have yet to substantiate outside of trying to stretch the small issues he had with them early on.
Look, I'm going to level with you. You're arguing for two seperate things at the same time. You're arguing against the soul count regeneration, and simultaneously arguing that a holy weapon in the heart will always kill Alucard.
For the soul count, you're pitting a lot of vague information against the statements from Alucard and the Major. Basically, you're trying to argue that there's insufficient proof of the soul count regeneration.
The real problem comes in the second part. In order to argue that a holy weapon in the heart is a guaranteed kill at all times, you've pointed to a vague case of him recovering slower against Anderson, a case in which he did not die, in which Anderson admitted he couldn't kill him, and are attempting to stretch it to say he would have died if Anderson had stabbed him a few more times, essentially. This is a positive claim, meaning you have to provide some evidence that such a thing would be fatal. Instead you are telling us that this interpretation is true because we can't 100% disprove it, even though we arguably can given that Alucard did take at least a few bayonets to the heart. So you've then stretched it to say that because he didn't get his heart destroyed with a holy weapon, that such a thing would therefore kill him. And you insist that it's correct, literally unless we can prove a negative.
I should also let you know, given that you're talking about bias and whatnot, if you want to convince people to change their minds, you need a certain degree of patience and understanding of the person in question. Your accusations and insults are only going to make people defensive, which will only make them less likely to try to reach an understanding.
