Devourer vs Eevolutioner

[Dragomer]

You must prove that he can, the burden of proof is on your side. We dont need to prove that he can't, and your reasoning isnt enough proof. If you created a CRT on that basis it'd get rejected.

Because basic logic isn't a proof anymore ?

i never said you had to prove anything , i just stated my reasoning ,you tryed to point out flaw in it and i explained why it wasn't making my reasoning invalid

that's your opinion , only you can judge what is enought proof for yourself , just like i can do the same , but my reasoning is still a valid proof

because the staff has it's own standard and decide what is on the wiki's page , since it's their wiki , but it's my argument so i can use anything i deem suffisant in it , simple as that

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Because basic logic isn't a proof anymore ?

i never said you had to prove anything , i just stated my reasoning ,you tryed to point out flaw in it and i explained why it wasn't making my reasoning invalid

that's your opinion , only you can judge what is enought proof for yourself , just like i can do the same , but my reasoning is still a valid proof

If there is no proof then no, assumptions arent proof

Your reasoning is 100% based on assumptions, hence why it isnt valid

No, proof is proof, youre just making assumptions

 

[PaChi2]

We are telling you why your reasoning isnt accepted.

 

[Dragomer]

Resisting having your soul erased =/= resisting having your soul sucked out of your body, theyre two completely different things

someone trying to erase your soul and someone trying to suck it of your body are doing two different thing , yes BUT they are still closely related and you are doing the same thing in both case : you protect your soul and if your energie can protect your soul from one , it logicaly can protect it from the other , to at least some extent

 

[WeeklyBattles]

someone trying to erase your soul and someone trying to suck it of your body are doing two different thing , yes BUT they are still closely related and you are doing the same thing in both case : you protect your soul and if your energie can protect your soul from one , it logicaly can protect it from the other , to at least some extent

No, that's not how it works. If you show you can do one but dont show you can do the other, you cannot just randomly assume you can do the other with no proof whatsoever.

 

[Dragomer]

Because basic logic isn't a proof anymore ?

i never said you had to prove anything , i just stated my reasoning ,you tryed to point out flaw in it and i explained why it wasn't making my reasoning invalid

that's your opinion , only you can judge what is enought proof for yourself , just like i can do the same , but my reasoning is still a valid proof

If there is no proof then no, assumptions arent proof
Your reasoning is 100% based on assumptions, hence why it isnt valid

No, proof is proof, youre just making assumptions

it's not an assumption as it is based on an actual feat

my reasoning is 100% based on an actual feat and how the serie has always portrayed it's hax resistance

no , i'm not , a working reasoning is proof in and of itself , because if it wasn't representing a reality or a fact , it would have flaw and wouldn't work with what we already know as facts

 

[Dragomer]

We are telling you why your reasoning isnt accepted.

you can accept it or refuse it based on your own standard but it's still a proof and it's still a valid reasoning

 

[WeeklyBattles]

it's not an assumption as it is based on an actual feat
my reasoning is 100% based on an actual feat and how the serie has always portrayed it's hax resistance

no , i'm not , a working reasoning is proof in and of itself , because if it wasn't representing a reality or a fact , it would have flaw and wouldn't work with what we already know as facts

No its not

Once again no its not

Your argument ISNT repesenting a reality or fact, hence why it IS flawed

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

No, it wasn't based on an actual feat, if it was, you would have to show Goku resisting his soul being sucked, all he did was resist the sould being erased, and you're assuming this would help against soul sucking, so, yeah, your argument is based on a assumption.

 

[Dragomer]

someone trying to erase your soul and someone trying to suck it of your body are doing two different thing , yes BUT they are still closely related and you are doing the same thing in both case : you protect your soul and if your energie can protect your soul from one , it logicaly can protect it from the other , to at least some extent

No, that's not how it works. If you show you can do one but dont show you can do the other, you cannot just randomly assume you can do the other with no proof whatsoever.

the proof that you can do one is already a proof that you can do the other , not the most solid one but it is still at least an indication and it's solidified by how the serie in general portray hax resistance

that's a faulty reasoning since if the author placed that feat here to cover 'soul hax' in general , soul hax will never be mentionned again in the serie , especialy when you see that most fictional author consider existence erasure is a step up to soul erasure or soul manipulation , just like most people do

 

[WeeklyBattles]

the proof that you can do one is already a proof that you can do the other , not the most solid one but it is still at least an indication and it's solidified by how the serie in general portray hax resistance
that's a faulty reasoning since if the author placed that feat here to cover 'soul hax' in general , soul hax will never be mentionned again in the serie , especialy when you see that most fictional author consider existence erasure is a step up to soul erasure or soul manipulation , just like most people do

No its not, the fact that there's no solid proof means its not legitimate.

Authorial intent doesnt matter here, if he doesnt have feats in the show itself then you cant just assume he does.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

It doesn't matter if "the author placed that feat here to cover 'soul hax' in general", if the author's intent goes against what was shown in the series, we don't use it, we use what was shown.

 

[Dragomer]

it's not an assumption as it is based on an actual feat
my reasoning is 100% based on an actual feat and how the serie has always portrayed it's hax resistance

no , i'm not , a working reasoning is proof in and of itself , because if it wasn't representing a reality or a fact , it would have flaw and wouldn't work with what we already know as facts

No its not
Once again no its not

Your argument ISNT repesenting a reality or fact, hence why it IS flawed

not an argument

once again not an argument

that's the other way around , if you find a dissonance between fact and the reasoning , then the reasoning isn't representing reality but you can't just go 'i don't see the reality represented in that reasoning so it's flawed' , you can't disprove a reasoning if the reasoning isn't contradicting already known facts

 

[PaChi2]

Well. Enough.

@Dragomer if you want your vote to be counted, then give another reasoning.

Since its clear both sides wont come into an agreement.

 

[Dragomer]

It doesn't matter if "the author placed that feat here to cover 'soul hax' in general", if the author's intent goes against what was shown in the series, we don't use it, we use what was shown.

and what does the series show that contradict that ? absolutly nothing

 

[The_Everlasting]

What does the series show to support it, though?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

not an argument
once again not an argument

that's the other way around , if you find a dissonance between fact and the reasoning , then the reasoning isn't representing reality but you can't just go 'i don't see the reality represented in that reasoning so it's flawed' , you can't disprove a reasoning if the reasoning isn't contradicting already known facts

Your argument is based on an assumptio

Your reasoning has no basis on an actual feat or portrayal

You want me to disprove your argument, fine: Goku has no feats to prove he has the resistances youre listing, therefore he does not have them.

 

[Dragomer]

the proof that you can do one is already a proof that you can do the other , not the most solid one but it is still at least an indication and it's solidified by how the serie in general portray hax resistance
that's a faulty reasoning since if the author placed that feat here to cover 'soul hax' in general , soul hax will never be mentionned again in the serie , especialy when you see that most fictional author consider existence erasure is a step up to soul erasure or soul manipulation , just like most people do

No its not, the fact that there's no solid proof means its not legitimate.
Authorial intent doesnt matter here, if he doesnt have feats in the show itself then you cant just assume he does.

just saying 'no it's not' is not an argument

by that logic , since Thresh never tanked a punch in the face by a normal human , he can't tank it , even if the author intended him to be stronger than a normal human

 

[WeeklyBattles]

just saying 'no it's not' is not an argument
by that logic , since Thresh never tanked a punch in the face by a normal human , he can't tank it , even if the author intended him to be stronger than a normal human

Except Thresh has feats to back up his tier, the things youre claiming Goku can do have no evidence to back them up

 

[Dragomer]

not an argument
once again not an argument

that's the other way around , if you find a dissonance between fact and the reasoning , then the reasoning isn't representing reality but you can't just go 'i don't see the reality represented in that reasoning so it's flawed' , you can't disprove a reasoning if the reasoning isn't contradicting already known facts

Your argument is based on an assumptio
Your reasoning has no basis on an actual feat or portrayal

You want me to disprove your argument, fine: Goku has no feats to prove he has the resistances youre listing, therefore he does not have them.

just saying it doesn't make it true

just saying it doesn't make it true again

Thresh never tanked a banana being thrown at him , therefor , he can't tank it , awesome argument we are having with those standard

 

[Dragomer]

Well. Enough.
@Dragomer if you want your vote to be counted, then give another reasoning.

Since its clear both sides wont come into an agreement.

why only my reasoning should be discounted over a partial disagreement ?

if both side had to give another reasoning to have their vote count , i would say nothing but here it's clearly unfair

especialy since my only point people are arguing against is the soul thing , nobody said anything about the rest

 

[WeeklyBattles]

just saying it doesn't make it true
just saying it doesn't make it true again

Thresh never tanked a banana being thrown at him , therefor , he can't tank it , awesome argument we are having with those standard

Then show proof that makes it true

Once again, show proof that makes it true

Thresh destroyed the universe so yes he can. Gotta love how instead of giving proof or admitting youre wrong youre just trolling now.

 

[Kaltias]

Look man, i'm going to the profile, and i'm not seeing "resistance to soul manipulation" anywhere. If you want Goku to have it, make a CRT, and debate it in the CRT because you are derailing right now.

Until then, it's not a legitimate argument here

 

[Dragomer]

just saying 'no it's not' is not an argument
by that logic , since Thresh never tanked a punch in the face by a normal human , he can't tank it , even if the author intended him to be stronger than a normal human

Except Thresh has feats to back up his tier, the things youre claiming Goku can do have no evidence to back them up

He still has no feat of tanking being punched by a normal human , by your standard , that mean he can't

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Dragomer At this point youre just trolling

 

[Dragomer]

just saying it doesn't make it true
just saying it doesn't make it true again

Thresh never tanked a banana being thrown at him , therefor , he can't tank it , awesome argument we are having with those standard

Then show proof that makes it true
Once again, show proof that makes it true

Thresh destroyed the universe so yes he can. Gotta love how instead of giving proof or admitting youre wrong youre just trolling now.

i already explained that point

same here

cool , that's still not a feat of tanking a punch , so he still can't tank a punch

i'm not trolling , i'm showing why your standard don't work

 

[WeeklyBattles]

i already explained that point

same here

cool , that's still not a feat of tanking a punch , so he still can't tank a punch

i'm not trolling , i'm showing why your standard don't work

No, you need PROOF, not some explanation about how you can assume he has a resistance when he doesnt

Devouring a universe is literally infinitely above tanking a punch

Our standards of "Show proof to back up your claims"?

 

[Dragomer]

Look man, i'm going to the profile, and i'm not seeing "resistance to soul manipulation" anywhere. If you want Goku to have it, make a CRT, and debate it in the CRT because you are derailing right now.
Until then, it's not a legitimate argument here

and ripping someone's soul isn't on Thresh's ability page either , his soul manipulation come from his ability to take souls's of already dead people

yet i see nobody using that to say that the whole 'soul thing' isn't a legitimate argument

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Now youre just flat out lying.

 

[Dragomer]

i already explained that point

same here

cool , that's still not a feat of tanking a punch , so he still can't tank a punch

i'm not trolling , i'm showing why your standard don't work

No, you need PROOF, not some explanation about how you can assume he has a resistance when he doesnt
Devouring a universe is literally infinitely above tanking a punch

Our standards of "Show proof to back up your claims"?

reasoning are proof , my reasoning show that his soul erasure resistance feat logicaly mean he has some resistance to soul manipulation

and existence erasure is litteraly above soul stuff , as portrayed in any kind of fiction

meh , 'if he didn't do it directly and exactly like that , he can't do it at all' is more akin to the standard you presented me with right now

 

[Dragomer]

Now youre just flat out lying.

i was talking about that :

 

[Kaltias]

"Existence erasure is literally above soul stuff"

This doesn't mean anything at all. Existence erasure is also above matter manipulation in terms of killing power, but this doesn't mean that Goku resists it. Hell, it's above "punch you until you die" too, but Goku can be punched to death.

 

[The_Everlasting]

Resisting something being erased doesn't mean you can resist it getting manipulated.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

reasoning are proof , my reasoning show that his soul erasure resistance feat logicaly mean he has some resistance to soul manipulation

and existence erasure is litteraly above soul stuff , as portrayed in any kind of fiction

meh , 'if he didn't do it directly and exactly like that , he can't do it at all' is more akin to the standard you presented me with right now

No, proof is proof, anything other than that isnt viable evidence and cannot be used as an argument here. You still have yet to provide one piece of evidence other than your reaching explanations.

Kalitas already explained this better than me

Exactly, if he doesnt have feats of doing something then you cant randomly assume he can. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Dragomer]

"Existence erasure is literally above soul stuff"
This doesn't mean anything at all. Existence erasure is also above matter manipulation in terms of killing power, but this doesn't mean that Goku resists it. Hell, it's above "punch you until you die" too but you can punch Goku to death

same logic as with Thresh , if being above something else mean nothing , then Thresh wouldn't tank a human's punch , as we can't extrapolate from universal feat and he has never shown to directly tank a human's punch

 

[The_Everlasting]

What does that even mea?

Also that's durability, not hax.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Dragomer Are you seriously trying to compare durability feats to feats of hax resistance? Because theyre completely different things. If youre universe level you can very obviously tanke a human level punch, but if you can resist one type of hax that doesnt mean you can automatically resist every type of hax that is even remotely related to it. That's honestly one of the most ridicuous arguments ive ever heard.

 

[PaChi2]

@Dragomer

You should stop derailing this, you may get warned.

How is the vote count?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

After all the derailing i believe it 4 for Thresh and 0 for Goku

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Make that five