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