Jetstream Sam vs Stella Vermillion

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

"You can't break the sword without magic."


I'm sorry Earl but this sounds like wank to the highest degree and a blatant No Limits Fallacy.

 

[SpookyShadow]

I mean, it can be invulnerable to magic, but Murasama is not magic

 

[Twellas]

And remember that Sam is used to fighting people who are 2 tiers above him at the very least, so Stella becoming stronger is not a problem for him

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Invulnerability really doesn't work like that. It is not "resistance".

Saying "invulnerability doesn't work against cases it has not shown" is like saying "Durability negation doesn't work against materials it has not shown to work".

@Prince

When it resists causality hax that induces "death" on to any element or person. A vibrator ain't bypassing it.

@Spooky

It is the opposite. It is invulnerability to anything that's not more magic. Otherwise Wallenstein who cuts everything with 0 resistance would've cut through.

@Twellas

Yes, because it is an invulnerability mechanic not resistance. Know the difference. Reducing all resistance an element has, still doesn't break the sword because it is not physical. It is a soul, it is magic.

 

[00potato]

How does resisting causality Hax protect you from HF blades? Can you stop with the NLFs?

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

When it resists causality hax that induces "death" on to any element or person. A vibrator ain't bypassing it.


Two completely different abilities that **** shit up differently. If her sword hasn't been shown to be able to withstand something that can cut beyond a Macro Quantum level then it cannot be assumed said sword can withstand it. That's a complete and total fallacy on your part mate.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Not resisting causality. Resisting being whithered completely. Dying as matter.

Also i absolutely love the argument here.

>Physics manip and Causality hax cannot get past the invulnerability without having more magic.

>Yes but that's NLF cus i got a vibrator.

I mean a vibrator calling NLF on causality, probability and Physics hax is just beyond me.

 

[Twellas]

Yeah, you are right, we can't assume that Dura negation works on EVERYTHING, which is why I narrowed the amount of stuff the Murasama works on by looking at what it does and saying that it only works on "physical materials that follow our universe's chemical laws".

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Two completely different abilities that **** shit up differently. If her sword hasn't been shown to be able to withstand something that can cut beyond a Macro Quantum level then it cannot be assumed said sword can withstand it. That's a complete and total fallacy on your part mate.

Yes but that's not really the case cus she has endured worse shit, all because of the same reason. It doesn't have more magic. Despite this attack lacking magic, you're saying it will break their soul. Ok have some sort of argument to back it up. This is not resistance it is invunerability.

If i were to say "X is beyond physics and is as such unaffected by damage, to prove it he resisted being cut" are you gonna say "well i got a drill so GG". Yes, you got a drill, but you're still not saying why having that drill would do anything if X has a invul mechanic based on being beyond physics.

 

[Twellas]

you do realize that the Murasama doesn't use neither Physics nor Causality hax, right? What we are saying is that it's NLF because you are saying "it resisted this, which means it resists everything", and if there's 4 people all telling you that it's NLF, then maybe you should start to consider the idea that, you know, it IS NLF

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

It being beyond you is irrelevant, unless she's shown resisting high level matter hax then you can't say that she can resist from her resisting other hax. It's completely different in the way they work, and literally any staff ( regular users as well ) members will tell you this Earl.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yeah, you are right, we can't assume that Dura negation works on EVERYTHING, which is why I narrowed the amount of stuff the Murasama works on by looking at what it does and saying that it only works on "physical materials that follow our universe's chemical laws".

I see, so you're saying i can make an argument like;

It cut through all kinds of metals and Diamond. But we don't know for sure if it can cut through cloth and butter cus it has never shown.

?

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

False Equivalency Earl, don't try to misconstrue arguments to benefit your own argument. Your throwing out No Limit Fallacies, False Equivalencies and Straw-man fallacies left and right.

 

[Twellas]

Does that "you need more magic" ***** even work on stuff that is not magical in nature? It would be like me saying that you can only cut an HF blade with a better HF blade, this might be true when talking about 2 hf blades, but not when talking about 1 hf blade and one different kind of sword

 

[Firephoenixearl]

It being beyond you is irrelevant, unless she's shown resisting high level matter hax then you can't say that she can resist from her resisting other hax. It's completely different in the way they work, and literally any staff ( regular users as well ) members will tell you this Earl.

That is because you're confusing "defensive hax/invunlerability" with "resistance to hax".

Think of Accelerator's shields. We don't think "well resistance to bullets" if he pushes bullets away. It's plainly just "his defensive hax can push bullets cus they can get vectors". We can't argue "well what if it were a shaper bullet maybe it would". Cus we're not really giving anything against the defensive hax, just giving another example.

That is the difference between "resistance to hax" and "defensive hax".

 

[Twellas]

Yeah, you are right, we can't assume that Dura negation works on EVERYTHING, which is why I narrowed the amount of stuff the Murasama works on by looking at what it does and saying that it only works on "physical materials that follow our universe's chemical laws".

I see, so you're saying i can make an argument like;


It cut through all kinds of metals and Diamond. But we don't know for sure if it can cut through cloth and butter cus it has never shown.

?

No you can't, because we are given precise details on how it works and its mechanics DO apply to those materials without the shadow of a doubt

 

[Firephoenixearl]

False Equivalency Earl, don't try to misconstrue arguments to benefit your own argument. Your throwing out No Limit Fallacies, False Equivalencies and Straw-man fallacies left and right.

Not really false equivalency because im talking about the same ability. Both cases are Invulnerability.

@Tw

Ofc it works against things that are magical in nature.

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

Think of Accelerator's shields. We don't think "well resistance to bullets" if he pushes bullets away. It's plainly just "his defensive hax can push bullets cus they can get vectors". We can't argue "well what if it were a shaper bullet maybe it would". Cus we're not really giving anything against the defensive hax, just giving another example.


That's a terrible comparison, first of all what Accel does is reflect and manipulate vectors and in this case the two cannot be compared at all.

 

[SpookyShadow]

''is every rakudai thread like that?''

 

[Twellas]

False Equivalency Earl, don't try to misconstrue arguments to benefit your own argument. Your throwing out No Limit Fallacies, False Equivalencies and Straw-man fallacies left and right.

Not really false equivalency because im talking about the same ability. Both cases are Invulnerability.
@Tw

Ofc it works against things that are magical in nature.

I mean, instances of this being the case?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

No you can't, because we are given precise details on how it works and its mechanics DO apply to those materials without the shadow of a doubt

Oh it is because of mechanics? Then me saying that the mechanics is "The swords are made of magic, and cannot be broken without having more magic than the user" is irrelevant because mechanics only matter when we want?

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

I've contacted a staff member since Earl can't seem to comprehend the concept of No Limits.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That's a terrible comparison, first of all what Accel does is reflect and manipulate vectors and in this case the two cannot be compared at all.

Ok so defensive hax is a bad comparison.

Invulnerability with different mechancis is a terrible comparison, but it works.

Invulnerability based on magic is not like other invulnerabilities. Mechanics do not matter.

Yeah is see the argument, go on ahead.

 

[SpookyShadow]

why can't we just leave that and go ahead

it would be just like hf blade vs hf blade, a swordfight

._.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I've contacted a staff member since Earl can't seem to comprehend the concept of No Limits.

Ok, i can then maybe talk with a staff.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have no idea what is even argued, but how is being bullet proof any type of hax? It's not really anything.

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

> Admits it's a terrible comparison

> it still works


Again, this is a blatant no limits Fallacy, it's no different than me saying Portgas D. Ace can beat Ikki because Logia's can only be attacked by the usage of Haki.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I have no idea what is even argued, but how is being bullet proof any type of hax? It's not really anything.

Basically invulnerability based on "owning magic". That has never been bypassed with raw AP, dura neg, physics manip, deconstruction or causality hax. Is gonna get surpassed because vibration, despite not breaking its invulnerability mechanic.

 

[Twellas]

No you can't, because we are given precise details on how it works and its mechanics DO apply to those materials without the shadow of a doubt

Oh it is because of mechanics? Then me saying that the mechanics is "The swords are made of magic, and cannot be broken without having more magic than the user" is irrelevant because mechanics only matter when we want?

no, it's irrelevant because it's an obnoxiously broad mechanic that you are applying on verses that don't even have the very base of said mechanic (MGR for instance doesn't have magic), while the mechanic WE are applying relies on a system that is present by default in any verse unless it's specified otherwise. Saying that needing more magic applies to a verse that doesn't have magic in the first place is like saying that the Murasama's quantic manip applies on a verse where atoms aren't a thing

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

Vibration that works on a Macro Quantum level, if it hasn't been shown to negate such an ability then you can't randomly assume it can.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That does not sound like Invulnerability.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Twellas

That actually gets covered by verse equalization assuming there is anything that could equalize to magic. If there is not, then there is not. It's like saying "Well if it can be bypassed with lawhax then it doesn't apply to a verse where there is no lawhax".

@DarkDragonMedeus

Not being broken by anything at all without satisfying a certain condition? How is that not invulnerability?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The level of matter manipulation needs to be considered, if it's not shown to work on a Macro-Quantum level, then it shouldn't be assumed.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

The level of matter manipulation needs to be considered, if it's not shown to work on a Macro-Quantum level, then it shouldn't be assumed.

Despite not breaking its invulnerability mechanic? It is still not magic, trying to break a magical sword.

Btw someone tried to use physics manip to cut through anything with 0 resistance. Still failed.

 

[The_Prince_of_Counters]

Which isn't resisting Macro-Quantum level matter hax Earl. Again, you continue with the massive no limits Fallacies and you have several users telling you this.

 

[Twellas]

Except Lawhax isn't based on some outside structure to work... man your comparisons are grotesque. Also, just to accentuate how much of a NLF thing this is, how are we supposed to know how much magic is "more magic" when we are talking of outside verses? This thing just doesn't hold up

 

[Twellas]

and remember that ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION is only to prove that Stella doesn't immediately die as soon as their swords touch each other. Not a good start

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Durability Neg can be done a variety of ways, so saying the sword resists all is, by all purposes, an NLF. Having your atoms targeted is different from being frozen from the inside out, and while both of durability negation, they are different causes for similar executions.

 

[Schnee_One]

No one is saying the sword resists, we're talking the shield

 

[Firephoenixearl]

The shield? It obviously can be broken.