Fallacy Revision

[KingTempest]

Fallacies

One thing to keep in mind, is that even if someone is using a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their argument is not true. It merely means that they are attempting to argue for it improperly. These are the examples that apply to this wiki, with the original list written by Endless...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Example: "Lightning travels at relativistic speed. If lightning is heading towards you, either you can't move that fast and you'll be hit, or you can move that fast and you can block or dodge it. Nami blocked Enel's lightning in the Skypeia arc, so therefore Nami can move at relativistic speed."

The person in this example ignores the possibility that Nami could have seen Enel powering up his attack before he actually fired it and set up her defense in advance.

What

Lightning doesn't move at relativistic speed
We accept Nami as having to react to that

Massively Hypersonic (Reacted to Enel's lightning[6]. Far faster than before), Massively Hypersonic+ attack speed with lightning

This is just hilariously wrong levels of coping on bad arguments

Remove this

Please find another example

 

[Kachon123]

Yuh

 

[Stryker861]

Makes sense although keeping nami as an example is funnier

 

[Shmooply]

Is it coincidence that your signature also mentions lightning?

 

[KingTempest]

Is it coincidence that your signature also mentions lightning?

My name is KingTEMPEST

My entire schist is about lightning

 

[Stryker861]

Some might even call him the King of lighting

if you dont get the refernce thats tuff

 

[Kachon123]

My name is KingTEMPEST

My entire schist is about lightning

schtick*

 

[Shmooply]

My name is KingTEMPEST

My entire schist is about lightning

Based king... I agree...

 

[Eseseso]

Agree.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Agreed

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I believe that section of the page was made when lightning was outdated, but yeah, either fix word usage or replace it.

Also keep in mind that there is a foot note in the fallacy section that "Just because someone used a fallacy doesn't mean the person making the fallacy's argument is wrong. It simply means the fallacy is a faulty reason for a justification." Like if Nami had respective statistics ratings for other reasons, that's fine but that would still mean the example feat might still be a fallacious reason.

But either way, it is something that should be changed.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

We should delete that page

 

[Ped2018]

We should delete that page

Life of king fallacy: when nothing is going your way, just delete it all

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Deleting the entire notable fallacies page seems too far. Just update that section.

 

[KingTempest]

Bump

 

[Gasper]

I agree

 

[Damage3245]

I think we just need to change the Relativistic bit to Massively Hypersonic+.

The example doesn't say that Nami did set up her defense in advance, it just gives an example that she doesn't necessarily have to have moved at Massively Hypersonic+ speed to counter lightning.

If there's a more suitable proposal to replace that though, then that too is fine.

 

[Metalballrun]

I vote for keeping it because

1. Lightning being relativistic is technically true.
2. Having an accepted feat used as an example for a fallacy in the page is really funny.

For real though, any example of aim-dodging works here. Even the example works fine if you just replace the characters (like Character A and Character B) and change relativistic to MHS+ to make it more accurate and to avoid the misunderstanding that the wiki considers the feat itself as inherently fallacious instead of the argument only.

 

[Andika_CL_atmadja]

Btw is fallacies page in general outdated ? if outdated, think it's good time to do massive revision.