• 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.

Bill's 2-A Downgrade II: Electric Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
The irony of you using circular reasoning...

What I am using is called burden of proof. There is no statement that says he'd destroy infinite dimensions, so I don't assume that. You need to prove that that is the case, and that the parallel world is the exception to the rule.

You assume that he destroys infinite dimensions because of the threat stament, which then you use to say that the same statement is an exception to the rule set... by that statement.


Not once is he said to destroy every dimension, he is stated to not be able to destroy every single one, and again the hurricane exemple works greatly here.
 
FloweryAlex said:
The irony of you using circular reasoning...
What I am using is called burden of proof. There is no statement that says he'd destroy infinite dimensions, so I don't assume that. You need to prove that that is the case, and that the parallel world is the exception to the rule.

You assume that he destroys infinite dimensions because of the threat stament, which then you use to say that the same statement is an exception to the rule set... by that statement.


Not once is he said to destroy every dimension, he is stated to not be able to destroy every single one, and again the hurricane exemple works greatly here.
Click to expand...
I know what the burden is, and it doesn't apply here, all it does is apply to you, I've put up my claim with the scans, it's up to you to debunk it, but that of course doesn't go well with you going against occam's razor, right? Of course there isn't, there is a statement of the Multiverse, which is infinite universes, can you tell me why that makes any sense? Wait, ,what? Why would I have to prove a negative specially when the burden falls on you?

sorry but I really didn't get this point, it doesn't seem coherent

refer to the first point, the hurricane example again, is debunked by the time baby threat defining argument and kep's points, the government analogy which shadow used in the first thread follows the same logic as it, and I refuted it in my first comment.
 
Threatening something =/= destroying it. Burden of proof is on you to show that he'd actually destroy the multiverse.

SomebodyData disagrees with Kep and even gave an example of a character not being High 3-A for threatening an infinite universe.
 
This first part is all kinds of wrong. The scans you gave only claim he is a threat, that isn't a statement of him destroying every single dimension. Again, hurricanes.

Going against Occam's Razor? I am assuming a definition of the word danger. You are assuming a definition of danger, and that my exemple is an outlier to the rule. More assumptions on you, Occam's Razor works for me.

The latter parts I don't understand the grammar of. The amount of dimensions doesn't matter. How many portal towns there are doesn't make the statement about the hurricane false. It's a general use of danger where something can harm a component of something, and still be stated a danger to the whole.

You don't need to prove a negative. Both "Bill destroys infinite dimensions" and "Parallel Fiddlefords world is the exception to the rule" are positive statements.

It isn't coherent, because it is your logic. You are assuming that Bill destroys every dimensions based on a statement that flat out says he doesn't destroy every dimensions. Because if it isn't every dimension, there is no reason to assume it is an infinite amount.

You use Kep's argument, who disagrees' with the baby argument... To the both of them. The Baby Argument isn't even aplicable to Bill's AP. He made a rip in one dimension, and two dimension fusing was going to destroy all of reality. Does that sound equatable to flat out blasting every dimension? Not only that, but Ford'd statement of him not affecting Fiddlefords world debunks the idea that he destroys all of existence, so what "fabric of existence" means in context is unknown.

Kep's argument is that in-context, Ford is referring to the destruction of the multiverse as a whole. Not only does that make no sense when there would be dimensions left unafected, but I don' t see the part that implies that. The scans given sure as hell don't.
 
""

You got the hurricane definiton from the definition of threaten

"

a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.

"hurricane damage poses a major threat to many coastal communities"

Yet you somehow don't realize damaging a infinite 4D realm's structure would require infinite 4D power, right? And threatening a multiverse is threatening every dimension within it, otherwise the statement would be invalid, jeez.


"

Going against Occam's Razor? I am assuming a definition of the word danger. You are assuming a definition of danger, and that my exemple is an outlier to the rule. More assumptions on you, Occam's Razor works for me."

????????????????????????? Your example is a one in a infinity, how am I the one making the assumptions again? And can you please refute my argument as to how infinity functions?

"The latter parts I don't understand the grammar of. The amount of dimensions doesn't matter. How many portal towns there are doesn't make the statement about the hurricane false. It's a general use of danger where something can harm a component of something, and still be stated a danger to the whole."

Again, incoherent, not sure what this is trying to entail, would you please quote what parts of my refute you are refuting? it's easy to lose track in comments like these

"You don't need to prove a negative. Both "Bill destroys infinite dimensions" and "Parallel Fiddlefords world is the exception to the rule" are positive statements."

A exception exclaims a negative implication, it implies that it is the only one which does'NT apply, you are the one making the positive as you first brought up the claim of the exception applying to more than 1 dimension (which is completely irrelevant due to infinity anyway)

"It isn't coherent, because it is your logic. You are assuming that Bill destroys every dimensions based on a statement that flat out says he doesn't destroy every dimensions. Because if it isn't every dimension, there is no reason to assume it is an infinite amount."


This is just ad nasuem at this point, this point is just completely ignoring what I am actually saying, this isn't a refute, If I say "X isn't X because ..." you can't repeat that X is X for the same reasoning even after I have adressed it, that's not how debating works.

"You use Kep's argument, who disagrees' with the baby argument... To the both of them. The Baby Argument isn't even aplicable to Bill's AP. He made a rip in one dimension, and two dimension fusing was going to destroy all of reality. Does that sound equatable to flat out blasting every dimension? Not only that, but Ford'd statement of him not affecting Fiddlefords world debunks the idea that he destroys all of existence, so what "fabric of existence" means in context is unknown."

I took the aspect of it which supports my point, not the entire argument, you shouldn't assume conclusions like that when its painfully clear what my intentions actually are. I am not using the feat itself for the 5th time, I am using how they define threat in that context with Bill, again, this is just a misgeneralization of my argument. He said the Multiverse, a single universe out of a infinite wouldn't mean he isn't a threat to the Multiverse, obviously, even if there are infinite universes protected from bill there would still be a infinite amount not, that's how the Multiverse works.

"Kep's argument is that in-context, Ford is referring to the destruction of the multiverse as a whole. Not only does that make no sense when there would be dimensions left unafected, but I don' t see the part that implies that. The scans given sure as hell don't."

refer to the "I took the aspect of it which supports my point, not the entire argument, you shouldn't assume conclusions like that when its painfully clear what my intentions actually are." statement

anyways I'm off for a bit.
 
Yup, I just read that scan again. "Although his dimension was safe from Bill, he understood the threat Cipher posed to the wider multiverse."

No reason to assume 2-A at all indeed when it even mentions that not every universe was threatened.
 
At this point I think it comes down to ones interpretation. "Threat to the wider multiverse" could mean power or just him being a threat to every universe and their inhabitants. Or it could just be a statement about how powerful Bill is and that he threatens the wider multiverse. At this point I'm pretty sure it's up to interpretation and that Unknown would be safest. That's just my opinion though.

I suggest "11-A | Low 2-C. Unknown"
 
I'm writing an answer, but explaining why "you need to prove your statement is true despite X contradicting it, you need to prove X is the outlier/exception to the rule" takes quiet a bit. It's a basic of science, so I assumed he'd already acknowledge it, but whatever.
 
TheArsenal1212 said:
At this point I think it comes down to ones interpretation. "Threat to the wider multiverse" could mean power or just him being a threat to every universe and their inhabitants. Or it could just be a statement about how powerful Bill is and that he threatens the wider multiverse. At this point I'm pretty sure it's up to interpretation and that Unknown would be safest. That's just my opinion though.
I suggest "11-A | Low 2-C. Unknown"
Click to expand...
That would be better as "Unknown, at least Low 2-C".

But I mostly find the faults in the idea of giving him AP based on it fallacious because he doesn't destroy every one of them, so everything below that would be just an arbitrary assumption.
 
Eh idk @Shadow and @FloweryAlex

I can definitely see both points of view. I'm definitely not leaning towards 2-A anymore but I believe the context could imply destruction of the wider multiverse, key word being could. Which is why I suggested unknown because it could depend on what one interprets it

So IMO "Unknown, At-Least Low 2-C" is the best choice (Thanks Flowery for the suggestion). That's just me though
 
First, a little suggestion. Putting my statements in Italic makes it far more pleasing to the eye, and look far less messy.

A very fast TL;DR to your point about why being a threat to the multiverse doesn't mean 2-A AP is:

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. X has the power to kill one human, period. Doesn't matter what they do, whomever he wishes to die, dies. This is still, however, limited to one person.

X is a threat to all humans, and by extension to all of humanity, because he can inflict death upon any member of it. Whether there are 1 billion, seven billion or infinite humans, X still poses a threat to each one of them.

Bill's ability to travel between dimension trough the "foam between dimensions" that the nightmare realm is puts him in this exact situation.


I am not using the google definition of it. Your argument is flawed for several reasons, the two main one being that an immortal being destroying universes for all of eternity is more than enough to consider them a threat. Specifically, the reason you assume he'd destroy infinite dimensions is because of the "danger he poses to the greater multiverse", but it is made clear that not all of the multiverse, so why do you assume it is an infinite amount of dimensions?


I literally wrote how you are making assumptions. Both of us are, because there is no way to say the objective truth. My one assumptions is that threat is used to mean that Bill will be going around wrecking havoc forever if not stopped. Your two assumptions are that threat means infinite dimensions, and that Fiddlefords dimension is he exception to the rule. And your point about how infinite works is based on an assumptions you need to prove (ya know, burden of proof). You are claiming that any percentage (because a part of infinity can be a finite number) of infinity is infinite, by extension he destroys infinite dimensions. Problem is, you have to prove that:

1) He destroys, period. There is no statements about him destroying them.

2) He destroys an infinite number. he sole statement of being a threat doesn't mean that you will destroy or affect a percentage of something at all.

3) That he doesn't just keep ******* reality up for all of eternity, since someone destroying dimensions for all of eternity is sure as hell enough to consider him a threat regardless of him never destroying everything.

And as a bonus, by Ford's definition, weirdmageddon was already the end of the world despite nothing being destroyed.


I am refuting the very base of your argument. Your is meant to be plural here. There is one reason people are accepting 2-A, and it is Bill destroying an infinite multiverse. This is based on a statement claiming him to be a threat. I point out that the very statement on which it is founded contradicts it because he doesn't destroy the multiverse as a whole, and I also point out that it doesn't imply destruction, period. For your specific point, an immortal destroying universes one by one for eternity is more than enough to consider it a threat, regardless of it never destroying the multiverse for good.


This, again, is wrong. You are refuting the very basics of science here. In science, which is where Burden of Proof mostly originates from, if you are arguing for something and there is a contradiction to it, you need to explain the contradiction. For example, were we to find a planet that pushes things away instead of pulling them, scientists would need to prove that the planet is the exception to the law of gravity.

A more cartoonish example is saying "All gingers have no soul", then finding a ginger with a soul. Either the first statement is wrong, or the ginger with a soul is the exception. The one making the first claim (ginger=no soul) needs to prove the latter (Ginger w/ soul=Exception to the rule) to keep the first claim true.

In this case, you are making the claim that Bill destroys all of reality, except this one. That needs to be proven. Don' respond with the "part of infinity" (tough, again, percentage and not part) as I've already pointed that out above. If you have an answer for that, point it out there and let's not repeat it at nauseum.

For the last part, I am saying that he isn't destroying all of the infinite reality, so there is no reason to assume he is destroying an infinite portion of it. You seems to think that it is impossible to take a finite portion of an infinite thing, which is wrong. (It is possible that the universe is infinite, or at the very least that space stretches infinitely, but we still can take finite measurements).


I'm pretty sure I gave examples and reasoning of why I don't accept your logic. More specifically, "why would you assume that Bill is destroying a percentage of the universe?". I gave other possible examples, most with less assumptions. The above TL;DR being one of them.


"I am using how they define threat in that context" The problem here is that they don't define this. You are assuming they mean what you think. My TL;DR is just as applicable to threat, time baby's statement, the wrath statement, etc. The only thing you could argue for would be "the fabric of existence", which is then contradicted.

As for Kep's part, his argument boils down to one thing: "In-context, threat=destruction", which I countered.
 
I can work with Atleast low 2-C; though I'd be down to debate this again with @Flowery in his wall at another time.
 
No, there were multiple users derailing the discussio really. It doesn't even have to be that, one of those users just seemed to try to actively discourage users from voting the other side, who were against them. To say, "A single user did that," is a blatant statement of falsehood.

The thing is, conventional users are just dropping FRAs and aren't really contributing to the discussion. It's not trying to be elitist and saying the staff matter more than users, it quite literally is just the best method to handle this type of content revision. If you were on the last thread, you would know it persisted to keep getting heated in the discussion and the amount of derailing made the actual revision hard to discuss over, because it was still continued.

Also, as the statement goes, nature takes the path of least resistance. Which do you think is the one we should go with? Allow everyone to comment again, when there were still people effectively not contributing any worthwhile discussion which will just make this another failed discussion, or make it Staff Only, where everything can be managed over in a more calm and observed manner? Let this be specified, Staff Only isn't a "screw you" mentality to every single user, it's that way because there are people who ruin it for everyone else. That's how everything works in general, you cannot say that we shouldn't make it Staff Only just because there were only a few users doing it, because then that already shows there is a decent portion of people not helping the discussion. Instead of having mods surf the threads to have to keep repeating themselves, it is far more effective and beneficial to everyone at the end of the day if this just goes Staff Only. Quite frankly even, it's not even elitist when you actually go over the correct reasons as to why.
 
Regardless, I'll just play in favor an at least Low 2-C rating here if the majority is going for it, as it seems irrelevant to try to argue against it at that point. I'll make a revision probably in the future though considering I'm juggling other threads right now and Kepleky seems to have died in the middle of the discussion sadly.
 
I suggest you hold your tongue instead. I've said I'm settling with this if others who were majorly against Bill being downgraded, aka Kep, Hykuu, and Giver, agree to it.

And that's not really something you can control either, which is why I said this should still be Staff Only if it's that important. I don't know why you're trying to be as hostile as "Speak up or shut up," but I've told you to wait for others to migrate to this thread.
 
Dude, I'll just summarize what I wanted to write because I can't bother right now.

1) Antvasima was the one agreeing with putting a note to restrain people from attempting to make a crt, not me.

2) "I'll make a revision probably in the future" This is against the very point of this thread. If you have a reason, discuss it. If they have a reason, they can come and dicuss it. If they don't, then there is no reason to make another crt.

And if they can't respond because personal matter this'll just get reopened when they can.
 
This thread is already 70 something comments in, kinda too late to make this thread staff only.

However, you guys could make a separate staff only thread (Just put it in the right topic board) and close this. But if that does happen we will still take into account the normal users who voted for specific sides.
 
I mean... you could, but all the stuff stopped arguing.

I'd like to have my point at leat refuted if people are going to disagree with it.
 
That implies that everyone mature were just comfortable on this chaos, which I assure you isn't the case.
 
Is that a response to my comment? Because I have no idea which part implies that in mine at all. I sure as hell didn't bring people being mature into a thread about a heated discussion about a disney villain ability to destroy all of reality.
 
I will keep insisting on this downgrade being unfounded. "Saving the multiverse" is 2-A when said multiverse is infinite.
 
"This, again, is wrong. You are refuting the very basics of science here. In science, which is where Burden of Proof mostly originates from, if you are arguing for something and there is a contradiction to it, you need to explain the contradiction. For example, were we to find a planet that pushes things away instead of pulling them, scientists would need to prove that the planet is the exception to the law of gravity."

I'm sorry Flowery, but that argument, I simply cannot get behind it. We are debating about the powers of a 2d dorito with an eye. Let's not go down that road too far. Burden of Proof is a good rule of thumb to go by, but we must aslo remember to give verses a suspension of belief as that is one of the basic requirements for fiction.
 
Kepekley23 said:
I will keep insisting on this downgrade being unfounded. "Saving the multiverse" is 2-A when said multiverse is infinite.
Click to expand...
You mean being a threat to it?

Because I still don't see how that counters my explaination of it.

"A very fast TL;DR to your point about why being a threat to the multiverse doesn't mean 2-A AP is:

Imagine a hypothetical scenario. X has the power to kill one human, period. Doesn't matter what they do, whomever he wishes to die, dies. This is still, however, limited to one person.

X is a threat to all humans, and by extension to all of humanity, because he can inflict death upon any member of it. Whether there are 1 billion, seven billion or infinite humans, X still poses a threat to each one of them.

Bill's ability to travel between dimension trough the "foam between dimensions" that the nightmare realm is puts him in this exact situation."

The situation would be exactly this if he won and was Low 2-C (Except he can destroy more than once.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ShadowWarrior1999
  • Locked
Debunking Bill Cipher's 2-A tier + Axolotl downgrade
11 12 13
Replies
494
Views
11K
Wokistan
Wokistan
Back
Top