Giving Toneri a Second Chance (Obito Style)

[Deceived3596]

I disagree with this reasoning, and thus, the thread at large. The scene wasn't really "wrong" in the sense that it still accomplished showing us what it was meant to show. The distance between the two halves was not the focal point of what they were trying to display, and at that scale it would be very challenging to meaningfully represent the split without exaggerating it just a bit. I feel that the "contradictory" scans take priority here, but even if they didn't, I would strongly prefer option 2. Coming up with headcanon to resolve an inconsistency that allows a feat to stay more powerful than it seems to be is not a good approach, IMO.

Regardless if the split itself was the focal point of the scene or not, it's still a much more clearer, detailed and accurate representation of the split when compared to farout shots which are innately less detailed on specifics like the width of destruction caused by Toneri's attack. The more detailed shot would inherently hold higher value in our situation compared to multiple farout shots which are less detailed, simple as.

Don't agree, these contradicting shots are less detailed oriented when compared to the close up shot we're given previously, if we're trying to find out what the author intended, or invision how wide the destruction caused by Toneri's attack would be, we would go with evidence that gives us clearer information about that specificity than multiple shots which don't give us that clarity.

Arc isn't "coming up with headcanon" just to wank the series (or as you put it "to allow a feat to stay more powerful than it seems to be"), first: trying to imply malicious intent like that as a mod is unbecoming, don't do that again, and second, making deductively sound assumptions is completely fine, if it's logically consistent and doesn't contradict anything set by the author themselves, then it's completely allowable on our site.

Acting like we don't allow deductive reasoning on the site doesn't make sense, like at all, most of our ratings for characters come from us deductively, and inductively reasoning specificities about them, the author doesn't tell us that Naruto's 5-B, we reason that he's 5-B through statements, calcs etc.

 

[Deagonx]

Arc isn't "coming up with headcanon" just to wank the series (or as you put it "to allow a feat to stay more powerful than it seems to be"), first: trying to imply malicious intent like that as a mod is unbecoming, don't do that again

I didn't imply malicious intent, I pointed out what he was doing. There's no indication anywhere in the material that the Tenseigan pulled the two halves back closer together. It literally is headcanon that is made up to resolve an inconsistency. That's not even a subjective assessment.

 

[Damage3245]

I didn't imply malicious intent, I pointed out what he was doing. There's no indication anywhere in the material that the Tenseigan pulled the two halves back closer together. It literally is headcanon that is made up to resolve an inconsistency. That's not even a subjective assessment.

Deagonx is correct here.

This also isn't a case of us seeing the two halves moving closer together and then trying to deduce a reason for why the two halves moved closer together... We're shown no movement at all of the two halves that would explain why the depiction of the width between them is suddenly different.

So for this explanation to work, we'd have to assume off-screen events took place in a timeframe too quickly for them to have taken place.

 

[Deagonx]

Deagonx is correct here.

This also isn't a case of us seeing the two halves moving closer together and then trying to deduce a reason for why the two halves moved closer together... We're shown no movement of the two halves that would explain why the depiction of the width between them is suddenly different.

Exactly. And look, if your argument is that making these inferences is the best way to solve the contradiction (rather than concluding one of the two depictions is just wrong), that is an entirely valid opinion to have. I disagree with it, but it's a valid opinion.

However, that doesn't change the fact that these inferences are being written into the story by a reader in order to reconcile a discrepancy in the artwork.

 

[SlendVeny]

the author doesn't tell us that Naruto's 5-B, we reason that he's 5-B through statements, calcs

That is not the same thing

 

[MrKerf]

Wait, so... The feat happened, the showings are calced, then after some time we can see the feat's damage changed?

If that's the case, why are we even reinventing the wheel? Just calc the feat itself, and what happened afterwards, be it inconsistent or Moon reassemble itself, isn't really part of the equation, no?

 

[Damage3245]

Wait, so... The feat happened, the showings are calced, then after some time we can see the feat's damage changed?

If that's the case, why are we even reinventing the wheel? Just calc the feat itself, and what happened afterwards, be it inconsistent or Moon reassemble itself, isn't really part of the equation, no?

No, that's not what is happening.

 

[Deceived3596]

I didn't imply malicious intent, I pointed out what he was doing. There's no indication anywhere in the material that the Tenseigan pulled the two halves back closer together. It literally is headcanon that is made up to resolve an inconsistency. That's not even a subjective assessment.

I don't believe you when you say this, but okay.

The specific indication doesn't even need to exist for the claim to be true or not, if it's consistent and doesn't contradict anything set my the author themselves, than it's possible that action did happen. Acting like since it's deductively reasoned, or your words "headcanon" into existence, it means we can't assume it's true just doesn't make sense, especially within the context of powerscaling.

Also, Arc himself is arguing that this action did occur, and is using the after examples as proof of the action occurring, he's saying there is indication of this action happening, it's you job to argue against said assumption as his debate opponent, not hand waving away his argument by appealing to "headcanon" like that address anything.

Deagonx is correct here.

This also isn't a case of us seeing the two halves moving closer together and then trying to deduce a reason for why the two halves moved closer together... We're shown no movement at all of the two halves that would explain why the depiction of the width between them is suddenly different.

So for this explanation to work, we'd have to assume off-screen events took place in a timeframe too quickly for them to have taken place.

He isn't.

We don't need to see the entire motion of the two halves moving closer together for us to infer that the two halves did, in-fact, move back together. If we have evidence which supports that idea, than we can make that logical deduction.

Like, that isn't an argument, appealing to silence doesn't strengthen your point Damage.

Why would it be "too quickly for them to have taken place", what is the evidence which proves this?

That is not the same thing

Yes they're, calcs in specific are innately deductively reasoned, we can't given exact values for the vast majority of attacks we see within fiction, instead, we appeal to general metrics to gain said values, that's fundamentally what deductive reasoning, making specific conclusions (which in our case would be a tier of AP) off of general notions (which in our case would be things like irl formulas for specific types of destruction)

 

[SlendVeny]

Yes they're, calcs in specific are innately deductively reasoned, we can't given exact values for the vast majority of attacks we see within fiction, instead, we appeal to general metrics to gain said values, that's fundamentally what deductive reasoning, making specific conclusions (which in our case would be a tier of AP) off of general notions (which in our case would be things like irl formulas for specific types of destruction)

This some motte and bailey shit, cuz I did not disagree with that.

 

[Deceived3596]

This some motte and bailey shit, cuz I did not disagree with that.

You literally did.....

That is not the same thing

You said my example wasn't the same, my example was about how we allow deductive reasoning on the wiki, using our tiering, and specifically calcs as an example. i'm arguing in our case Arc's argument is based on deductive reasoning, both examples are about deductive reasoning, these are the same bruh.

 

[Damage3245]

The specific indication doesn't even need to exist for the claim to be true or not, if it's consistent and doesn't contradict anything set my the author themselves, than it's possible that action did happen. Acting like since it's deductively reasoned, or your words "headcanon" into existence, it means we can't assume it's true just doesn't make sense, especially within the context of powerscaling.

Just to clarify, are you arguing that a 5-C+ feat definitely took place, or are you saying that it's possible a 5-C+ feat took place?

 

[Deceived3596]

Just to clarify, are you arguing that a 5-C+ feat definitely took place, or are you saying that it's possible a 5-C+ feat took place?

I'm saying it's possible, and arguably probable for the feat to have taken place (when compared to the oppositional claim), it definitely isn't concrete however, I'd never make the claim this action concretely happened, because we ultimately just don't know.

My opinions basically the same as Arc's tbh.

 

[Lynieryz]

Disagree FRA

 

[Golden_Void]

"Claiming it did do that is indeed an assumption, just as claiming that it didn't do that is also an assumption. So, in a vacuum the it did or didn't move the halves back together are both assumptions."

I like simple solutions. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but also, correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, we do nothing.

Still top 5 reply in this thread

 

[Deceived3596]

Still top 5 reply in this thread

Still top 5 L receivers on this site, sitting at the top of that mountain all alone .

 

[Golden_Void]

Still top 5 L receivers on this site, sitting at the top of that mountain all alone.

Braindead response I will enjoy watching you lose this debate from the sidelines tho

 

[Deceived3596]

Braindead response I will enjoy watching you lose this debate from the sidelines tho

Still top 5 L receivers on this site, sitting at the top of that mountain all alone .

Goober response smdh.

I'm currently dominating this debate idkwyta.

 

[Golden_Void]

I'm currently dominating this debate idkwyta.

Enough derailing serious business only below this response

 

[Damage3245]

@Golden_Void @Deceived3596 Take the flirting off of this thread, thank you both.

 

[SlendVeny]

You literally did.....

You said my example wasn't the same, my example was about how we allow deductive reasoning on the wiki, using our tiering, and specifically calcs as an example. i'm arguing in our case Arc's argument is based on deductive reasoning, both examples are about deductive reasoning, these are the same bruh.

No, you said making an assumption about the plot is the same as assigning a character a tier based on feats shown because "the author didn't say 5-B"

 

[Deceived3596]

No, you said making an assumption about the plot is the same as assigning a character a tier based on feats shown because "the author didn't say 5-B"

No I didn't, I literally explained to you the reasoning behind the post, literally just read these specific portions right here. I make myself very clear.

Acting like we don't allow deductive reasoning on the site doesn't make sense, like at all, most of our ratings for characters come from us deductively, and inductively reasoning specificities about them, the author doesn't tell us that Naruto's 5-B, we reason that he's 5-B through statements, calcs etc.

It's very clearly just talking about deductive reasoning in general, regardless of specific context. I just used Naruto's 5-B rating as an example of us allowing deductive reasoning on the wiki, that's it.

Edit: This will be my final comment on the matter, it isn't productive for what's actually being talked about, it's just derailing at this point.

 

[SlendVeny]

No I didn't, I literally explained to you the reasoning behind the post, literally just read these specific portions right here. I make myself very clear.

You really could've used a better example.

It's very clearly just talking about deductive reasoning in general, regardless of specific context. I just used Naruto's 5-B rating as an example of us allowing deductive reasoning on the wiki, that's it.

5-B feats were literally shown, the moon here was some offscreen type beat. Deductive reasoning would refer to something along the lines of Deidara scaling to a random Team Guy member.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't believe you when you say this, but okay.

The specific indication doesn't even need to exist for the claim to be true or not, if it's consistent and doesn't contradict anything set my the author themselves, than it's possible that action did happen. Acting like since it's deductively reasoned, or your words "headcanon" into existence, it means we can't assume it's true just doesn't make sense, especially within the context of powerscaling.

I'm not sure what I'm meant to respond to this with, as all you've said is that "it's possible" and that my argument "just doesn't make sense." I mean, I clearly disagree, but there's nothing here that I could say other than that. I never denied that it was possible, but we have no indication that the Tenseigan was activated to pull the halves together.

Also, Arc himself is arguing that this action did occur, and is using the after examples as proof of the action occurring, he's saying there is indication of this action happening, it's you job to argue against said assumption as his debate opponent, not hand waving away his argument by appealing to "headcanon" like that address anything.

I did argue against that assumption, by pointing out that we have no evidence of the Tenseigan activating to draw back together the halves of the moon. I am not sure there's a better argument against something other than "there is literally no evidence of this in the story."

We have a great deal of evidence that the halves of the moon weren't 61km apart. Is it possible that the 61km pixel calc was a genuine representation of how far the halves were apart, and that the dozen or so scans showing that it was closer were the result of an ability activated off-panel that we never saw and was never referenced, and therefore we should indeed stick with the initial calc?

Sure, it's possible. Never denied that, anything is possible if you're writing off-panel events. Goku and Vegeta could've shown up and pushed them back together and then left without telling anyone. That's also possible.

But which one is most reasonable or likely is no more than a matter of opinion, and I've given mine, I think writing in an explanation is a bad move here and that AKM was right. You are free to disagree with me.

 

[Godernet]

how did this thread turn into everyone vs Decieved?

 

[Deagonx]

He replied to three people's comments at once.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Even though I subscribe to agreeing with the thread, I kind of think this can boil down to interpretation vs interpretation to a extent, so... This thread kinda seems like just a lot of preferences and belief's in regards to the scene...

 

[Deagonx]

Even though I subscribe to agreeing with the thread, I kind of think this can boil down to interpretation vs interpretation to a extent, so... This thread kinda seems like just a lot of preferences and belief's in regards to the scene...

That's normal. A lot of things are a matter of interpretation and one's personal sense of reason/logic. Unfortunately not everything can be completely proven or disproven, so the 'argument' if you can call it that just comes down to "What do you, personally, find to be more reasonable?" and in those circumstances the best we can do is try to reach a consensus, but there will always be disagreement that can't be resolved.

 

[Deceived3596]

how did this thread turn into everyone vs Decieved?

I'm fine with it tbh.

I'll address Deagonx's argument later.

 

[CiscoTheSoto]

I agree with this revision. Toneri was shown slicing the moon for a reason: to demonstrate the scale of his power and of his fight with Naruto. So even if the shots that are shown later aren't consistent, I think the first image should take priority. Based on the nature of the Tenseigan, it seems more likely that it was bringing the sliced pieces of the moon back together given how it could control the moon's trajectory. Granted there's no explicit proof of this, but it seems very likely considering Toneri's plan.

Besides, it's not like accepting this calculation is going to really change anything. The Naruto verse is already 5-B, so this would just be a supporting feat.

 

[Deceived3596]

I'm not sure what I'm meant to respond to this with, as all you've said is that "it's possible" and that my argument "just doesn't make sense." I mean, I clearly disagree, but there's nothing here that I could say other than that. I never denied that it was possible, but we have no indication that the Tenseigan was activated to pull the halves together.

I haven’t just said “it’s possible” and that your argument “just doesn’t make sense”, don’t strawman my contentions like that. I’m very clear on why I believe you haven’t addressed what Arc’s saying. When i’m calling out your argument, with the words “it just doesn’t make sense”, it’s in reference towards your previous point about Arc “headcanoning” reasons into existence just to address an inconsistently purely for the sake of having a higher-valued calc, I believe it’s deductively sound and supported by evidence in the movie, so when i’m seeing you address this argument by saying:

“Coming up with headcanon to resolve an inconsistency that allows a feat to stay more powerful than it seems to be is not a good approach”

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth because this statement doesn’t make an actual argument, it’s just you providing a contention and that’s it.

That’s the issue, we arguably do have an indication of Toneri using the Tenseigan to pull the halves back together, with the fact the previous scene had a measurably wider width of destruction compared to following scenes. This absolutely can be used as an indication, which means we have to argue the validity of that indication, not just question one’s motive. Like, what’s your major contentions with this assumption, why do you believe your assumption holds a higher value, why don’t you agree with a “possibly” or “likely” rating?

These questions need answers.

I did argue against that assumption, by pointing out that we have no evidence of the Tenseigan activating to draw back together the halves of the moon. I am not sure there's a better argument against something other than "there is literally no evidence of this in the story."

You did make an “argument” against his position, the problem is the argument itself doesn’t address the claim made by Arc, he’s saying we’re arguing under assumptions on what actually happened during these collection of scenes, which we both seemingly agree on, right?.

He believes his claim holds more weight compared to your claim, that means you need to actually address the evidence behind Arc’s claim, just saying “we don’t have evidence of the Tenseigan activating to draw back together the halves of the moon” doesn’t address the evidence behind Arc’s argument, that’s the entire crux of my contentions right now, is your inability to address the evidence itself, not just providing a contention of it and that’s it.

We have a great deal of evidence that the halves of the moon weren't 61km apart. Is it possible that the 61km pixel calc was a genuine representation of how far the halves were apart, and that the dozen or so scans showing that it was closer were the result of an ability activated off-panel that we never saw and was never referenced, and therefore we should indeed stick with the initial calc?

Sure, it's possible. Never denied that, anything is possible if you're writing off-panel events. Goku and Vegeta could've shown up and pushed them back together and then left without telling anyone. That's also possible.

If the 61km value comes from more clear and detailed evidence, we should assume it’s more inline with what the author intended compared to less clear and detailed shots based on the simple fact clearer scenes are able to express more of the author's intentions than less clearler scenes. Especially when the “dozen or so scans” can be addressed by our claim of Toneri bringing the halves back together.

Most of this point is just you appealing to silence, like the lack of statement or visibility of the ability activating to do this action doesn’t mean the action itself didn’t occur. If we have evidence which can imply this action did occur, we can make a completely fine and consistent stance. Just restating already entailed premises of our claim doesn’t address the claim basically.

We aren’t arguing purely possibilities, we’re arguing it’s also probable, reducing our arguments to absurdity isn’t addressing that probability.

But which one is most reasonable or likely is no more than a matter of opinion, and I've given mine, I think writing in an explanation is a bad move here and that AKM was right. You are free to disagree with me.

This post just reads as “I’m not going to change my mind, so don’t bother trying” tbh. But hey, if I can't change your mind than it is what it is, i'm not losing sleep over it.

 

[Deagonx]

That’s the issue, we arguably do have an indication of Toneri using the Tenseigan to pull the halves back together, with the fact the previous scene had a measurably wider width of destruction compared to following scenes. This absolutely can be used as an indication

No. At best it could be considered evidence for the halves of the moon moving closer together after being initially split, but even that claim is under contention, the basis of which being that the one single scan which was pixel calced to 61km~ is an accurate proportional reflection of what was happening in the scene, and that the best way to explain the discrepancy with later visualizations is off-panel movement of the halves. I do not take that claim for granted, because I do not believe the discrepancy between panels is sufficient to justify this claim all by itself, but I have never denied that it is evidence of it, in a sense.

Is it evidence of the Tenseigan being activated? Absolutely not, no. The Tenseigans activation is an ad-hoc addition that explains how the above claim could have occurred, if we were to agree that the halves moved back together at all.

Most of this point is just you appealing to silence, like the lack of statement or visibility of the ability activating to do this action doesn’t mean the action itself didn’t occur.

You may call it an "appeal to silence" but the basic principle remains the same: We do not accept things as having occurred without sufficient evidence for it having occurred.

This post just reads as “I’m not going to change my mind, so don’t bother trying” tbh. But hey, if I can't change your mind than it is what it is, i'm not losing sleep over it.

Rather, I want to avoid extending an argument needlessly. The basic facts were known since the initial post. The discussion that followed was just expanding upon our respective reasonings. I am aware of your reasoning, but I haven't changed my mind. You are aware of my reasoning, but you have not changed your mind. We can reply back and forth in perpetuity, and I can further belabor the point that I don't think "Tenseigan activation" is a sound assumption to make or that the best way to reconcile this discrepancy is with off-panel lunar movement, and you can further belabor the point that you do. But at the end of the day, have we really said anything new that wasn't already clear about our respective viewpoints from the first few comments?

 

[Deceived3596]

No. At best it could be considered evidence for the halves of the moon moving closer together after being initially split, but even that claim is under contention, with the alternative being that the one single scan which was pixel calced to 61km~ is an accurate reflection of what was happening in the scene. I do not take that claim for granted.

Is it evidence of the Tenseigan being activated? Absolutely not, no. The Tenseigans activation is an ad-hoc addition that explains how the above claim could have occurred, if we were to agree that the halves moved back together at all.

That evidence would support our conclusions though, like if the halves move back together, and we're arguing that the Tenseigan did it, than the feat of the halves moving back together would support that assertion.... Also that's not the only evidence provided in the OP which supports the interpretation, it's also the fact that, given the amount of destruction caused in the amount of time provided, the Tenseigan would make the most sense since natural re-pulling together of structures that large, from the amount of destruction caused, in that amount of time, through one's GBE is pretty much impossible from my knowledge.

It's our most accurate value we have, we should assume it's the accurate reflection until similarly qualified evidence is brought forth.

It definitionally is evidence, we make the claim the Tenseigan did this action, the consequence of the claim is if that action occurred, it would support our interpretation, we didn't pull this shit out of our ass bruh, we have evidence which supports the interpretation.

You may call it an "appeal to silence" but the basic principle remains the same: We do not accept things as having occurred without sufficient evidence for it having occurred.

It's absolutely an appeal to silence, actions don't need to be stated or shown for them to have happen, simple as.

I believe we have sufficient evidence this action did occur, that's why i'm in support of the OP's conclusions. Also you still didn't address why you aren't fine with a "possibly" or "likely" rating, actually you didn't address most of my post at all.

Rather, I want to avoid extending an argument needlessly. The basic facts were known since the initial post. The discussion that followed was just expanding upon our respective reasonings. I am aware of your reasoning, but I haven't changed my mind. You are aware of my reasoning, but you have not changed your mind. We can reply back and forth in perpetuity, and I can further belabor the point that I don't think "Tenseigan activation" is a sound assumption to make or that the best way to reconcile this discrepancy is with off-panel lunar movement, and you can further belabor the point that you do. But at the end of the day, have we really said anything new that wasn't already clear about our respective viewpoints from the first few comments?

This is just you re-explaining yourself in more words, I already know you aren't changing your mind bruh.

 

[Deagonx]

That evidence would support our conclusions though, like if the halves move back together, and we're arguing that the Tenseigan did it, than the feat of the halves moving back together would support that assertion....

It's our most accurate value we have, we should assume it's the accurate reflection until similarly qualified evidence is brought forth.

It definitionally is evidence, we make the claim the Tenseigan did this action, the consequence of the claim is if that action occurred, it would support our interpretation, we didn't pull this shit out of our ass bruh, we have evidence which supports the interpretation.

This is what I meant about needlessly extending an argument. I recognize that you believe yourself to be objectively and non-negotiably correct about whether or not it's evidence for Tenseigan activation, but I don't share that assessment, at all. I know you won't change your mind, so what's the point in going in circles about it?

It's absolutely an appeal to silence, actions don't need to be stated or shown for them to have happen, simple as.

See? Here again, you dogmatically assert yourself. I didn't really feel it was prudent enough to go over in the last comment, but it literally just isn't an argument from silence. The term "argument from silence" (btw, it isn't "appeal to silence") has two general uses: The first is in historical studies which refers to when an event is argued to have not occurred because if it had, it would've surely been written about, so the "silence" of historical sources on the matter is taken as an indication of it not occurring. Less commonly, it has been used to refer to drawing a negative conclusion based on a debate opponents silence (refusing to respond, therefore, their argument is wrong or they lack evidence/knowledge), etc.

An argument from silence -- if we were to awkwardly attempt to transpose it's usage in historical studies to this manga -- could maybe be something like "this event is too important for it to have happened off-panel without any character referring to it, therefore, it didn't happen." First, and this is crucial: an argument from silence isn't a fallacy. It can be often considered weak (not fallacious) in historical studies because our access to historical sources is very sparse, but the premise is not actually invalid or an improper way to make an argument. Most of written history is lost. It's entirely possible that a historical source did exist, but didn't survive the hundreds or thousands of years it would've needed to for us to be aware of it, that's why it isn't a terribly strong argument in historical studies, but that concept doesn't apply here. Even with that said, it isn't always weak in historical studies, either. There are a number of instances where it has widespread acceptance amongst historians.

Second, that wasn't my argument in the first place. I never argued that the event was so significant that surely the Mangaka would've shown it to us. I have merely pointing out that there is a lack of evidence for such a thing happening, which is an entirely valid way to undermine a claim being made that isn't related to the "argument from silence."

My skepticism towards this claim is entirely reasonable, and isn't based on a fallacious premise. I understand that this is hard for you to accept, but you cannot simply demand that others agree with you simply because you've explained your own perspective in a way that makes sense to you.

I believe we have sufficient evidence this action did occur, that's why i'm in support of the OP's conclusions.

I'm aware. I believe we don't, and that's why I'm not.

This is just you re-explaining yourself in more words, I already know you aren't changing your mind bruh.

Indeed, and neither are you.

 

[Damage3245]

Just want to note that the other scans contradicting the 61 km value no less clear and detailed than the first one.

 

[Deceived3596]

There's so much wrong in your post Deagonx, especially your breakdown on how your claim isn't an argument from silence (Note: I'm not appealing to general cases in which it's used in, as those have different connotations, i'm just appealing to the baseline, fundamental idea itself), but there's no point of continuing this conversation, we aren't going to convince each other, so it's just an action in futility on both of our parts.

Let's just wait and see what the other mods think about this.

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

We already have the image used for the scaling

This one is taken from right before they shown Kurama wrote on the moon so right after Toneri was defeated

No split is shown it means weither it was Toneri or just gravity the moon got back together with no signs of having been split
So this is a confirmation that the moon was put back together so any claim of any other thing is baseless assumptions.
So in the end the size inconsistence being because the moon got back together is much more likely reason than any other reason. The main point here is that the size being inconsistent is a probable as the halves got back together, which clearly seems more likely to be the halves.

 

[Deagonx]

i'm just appealing to the baseline, fundamental idea itself

I understand, but noting insufficient amount of evidence isn't argument from silence. The fundamental idea is that the absence itself is specifically considered remarkable in contrast to what is expected. This is the difference:

"We don't have any historical sources that attest to the existence of King Arthur, therefore we cannot confidently conclude he was a real figure due to insufficient evidence."

"We don't have any historical sources that attest to the existence of King Arthur, therefore he likely didn't exist as historians of the era surely would've written about him."

This type of argument isn't always weak, you just have to consider the variety of factors that may have precluded the survival of such works, or why such a thing simply wouldn't have been written about. But again, here, the only way to make an "argument from silence" about this moon feat is if I said the Tenseigan activation couldn't have happened because surely such a significant ability activation would've been referred to or drawn by the author. But that isn't my argument, I just don't think the evidence is sufficient.

Let's just wait and see what the other mods think about this.

Sure.

@Damage3245 Should we call anyone else here to help decide this matter?

 

[Damage3245]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234

Can you comment here please?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

"We don't have any historical sources that attest to the existence of King Arthur, therefore we cannot confidently conclude he was a real figure due to insufficient evidence."

"We don't have any historical sources that attest to the existence of King Arthur, therefore he likely didn't exist as historians of the era surely would've written about him."

This is a false equivalence with my actual argument.

Because in contrast to your example in which we have no evidence of King A’s existence, we have explicit evidence that the Tenseigan can move the moon. All I am doing in the OP is using deductive reasoning to explain how a scene doesn’t have to be inconsistent. While the opposition is trying to shoehorn in that it is inconsistent without giving any evidence to support their conclusion outside of reiterating their claim.

The Tenseigan can move the moon -> Toneri wants to use the Tenseigan to slam the entire moon into earth -> Toneri split the moon and the halves would’ve kept drifting apart -> it’s likely the Tenseigan kept the moon together as to not ruin Toneri’s plan as it has portrayed capabilities of doing such.

VS

In later scenes the moon is closer together than the split scene -> the split is inconsistent

My argument jumps from evidence to observation to explanation to conclusion. The opposing argument jumps from an observation to a conclusion without providing substantial evidence or explanation.

 

[Trihexa102]

Agree