Katanagatari CRT

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Isn't the purpose of Dura Neg, well, null durability? If it cuts something above the tier shown, well, isn't that what it's supposed to do?

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

You do realize that, by that logic, durability negation doesn't exist, right?

 

[WHYNAUT]

I'm not really arguing for anything, just giving input. What I was trying to say is that the only argument for durability negation being NLF was that it hasn't cut for example a tier 6. There wasn't actually given any evidence or anti feats against the durability negation. Hl3 did give justifications for why the durability negation is legit. I can't say much on the rest because I'm not knowledgeable on the series.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am not very experienced with how we have handled Durability Negation, but I think that we usually use it when there is some ability that can attack an opponent without physical durability being able to stop it, such as Transmutation or Telepathy.

Again, it is recommended that you ask a few other administrators to comment here though.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

You do realize that, by that logic, durability negation doesn't exist, right?

Were you referring to me? I was agreeing with you, btw.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

that was to Ant

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Oh, okay.

 

[Antvasima]

You can ask some other administrators to comment here as well if you wish though: VS Battles Staff

Is somebody willing to do this?

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

That's Earl's job as the OP

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yeah ok i can get more people here, but.

@H13

"There is 0 reason for it not to be so"

Is not a good argument.

"Zeno is tier 0 cus there is no reason to have him not be so"

He has the statements, the feats just don't add up at all though. This is a similar case.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

There is a distinct difference between those two statements, especially with context, and i know that you know that.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

There is a distinct difference between those two statements, especially with context, and i know that you know that.

>There is a distinct difference.

There really isn't though. Both are trying to push sth to NLF from statements that should not put them at that level. Absolute definitions of NLF with the statement having no proof other than "statements from characters that are knowledgeable and have no reason to lie". Yet both are NLF due to severe lack of feats and even contradictions.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Ignoring the fact that the people who said that have actual info analysis and clairvoyance rather than opinions, yeah that argument has merit. Sadly that isn't the case because in doing so you'd be ignoring the entire other side of the argument.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

There also are plenty of examples of feats that would indeed imply that Kyotoryu has attributes of the other Deviant Blades, at least as far as their combat applicable attributes.

And there are explicit statements that every move within Hachiretsu sends shockwaves through armor and skin to tear apart the internal organs directly, plus Ryouran being visibly shown causing a person's heart to explode with these shockwaves. So we have a reason for that durability negation.

The only evidence against Ginkaku's durability negation is the idea that it goes faster by removing air friction, which isn't true. The only thing providing friction to the sword is its sheath, which is specially designed for that exact purpose.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Jordan

No the point against that is that it's just sharp, not sharp enough to have a dura neg mechanics like cutting atoms.

@H13

Yeah info analysis except that doesn't help. Ikki has info analysis but he has said shit like "no one can match stella in physical combat". Or info analysis ppl saying "It's impossible to beat ikki when he's on the defensive". You don't see me going NLF on those like "No one in the wiki can match stella cus he had info analysis hahaha"

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

what the **** ever Earl, you keeping jerking yourself off to your blatant attempts to make my argument look bad over actually debunking it

regardless of what you say here, it doesn't matter because you effectively forfeited any ability to change things from this CRT 3 days ago

no one needs to argue with you because it doesn't ******* matter

 

[Creaturemaster971]

HI3 stop being aggressive. We're arguing about pointy metal sticks in an anime.

Earl, temporarily disregarding Ginkaku, let's first finish discussing Kanna's statements.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

I've had to debate this salty ************ who literally admitted that he won't change his mind for nearly a full day. I have a goddamn reason to be pissed about this situation, especially when his entire current argument involves comparing my argument to that of ludicrous wank and NLF and apparently thinking that it works as a legitimate response.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Mmkay I see.

Earl if you're willing to actually give consideration to our arguments then we can continue. If not we might as well close this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am still leaning towards agreeing with Earl, and we still need more staff input.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

I agree with getting more input, but I will have to get back to this tomorrow

 

[Firephoenixearl]

There also are plenty of examples of feats that would indeed imply that Kyotoryu has attributes of the other Deviant Blades, at least as far as their combat applicable attributes.
And there are explicit statements that every move within Hachiretsu sends shockwaves through armor and skin to tear apart the internal organs directly, plus Ryouran being visibly shown causing a person's heart to explode with these shockwaves. So we have a reason for that durability negation.

The only evidence against Ginkaku's durability negation is the idea that it goes faster by removing air friction, which isn't true. The only thing providing friction to the sword is its sheath, which is specially designed for that exact purpose.

Kyotoryuu? Why we talking about this? If it's about the Shichika one, then sure, if there are Kyoutoryuu moves he has shown then he has those, regardless of whether they look like sword abilities or not. Im saying "things he hasn't shown" should best not be used.

Yes, but that is only limited durability negation. Example, something that sends shockwaves through armor and skin as you said "sends shockwaves through armor and skin", meaning that you can attack the body from the inside, but it's limited in the sense of "a tier 5 is not gonna budge from having your shockwaves sent inside of him. So it will negate "armor" but not "durability" would be the best way to put it. So like im fine if we call those "durability negation", but they aren't "true durability negation" they just serve to bypass armor or bypass some durability, if someone has durability way higher than yours, the shockwave is not gonna do much as it's still a normal attack, just from the inside instead, that'd be like saying your body doesn't have any resistance from the inside.

The problem is. It's not evidence "against" that is your problem. It's evidence for. "Being sharp" is not enough for full durability negation as it would need to be specified to what level. Kind of how "being cold" is not good enough to say "it's absolute 0". And the "it's beyond physics" is a COMPLETE NLF statement, and by that i mean it's such a huge claim that you literally need proof to assume that's true. But even without that, there is the fact that while all blades are stated to be "beyond physics", literally most of them are proven to be just normal swords that abide by physics just fine (example friction is friction, whether it comes from saccabard or air resistance, it's still beings stopped by physics forces, so it can't be beyond physics, other swords can be broken or have traits that aren't even out of the ordinary).

 

[Firephoenixearl]

what the **** ever Earl, you keeping jerking yourself off to your blatant attempts to make my argument look bad over actually debunking it
regardless of what you say here, it doesn't matter because you effectively forfeited any ability to change things from this CRT 3 days ago

no one needs to argue with you because it doesn't ******* matter

Not trying to make it look bad, trying to make you understand with examples as to why they are wrong. You seem to think that "info analysis" or "being trustworthy" is all it matters when it comes to statements. Im trying to say that "you need a lot more than that".

What i said is "you cannot prove it", not "you can't change my mind". Taking things out of context doesn't help you in a debate.

Also pissed or not, it is ideal to:

• Avoid insulting

• Avoid swearing in general

 

[Antvasima]

Also pissed or not, it is ideal to:

Agreed.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

I don't think comparing my arguments to '''''T I E R 0 Z E N ' O / S T E L L A''''' is something an honest person would do

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That's why it's for comparison sake. Im giving you a case with the same concept but where the nlf is more obvious. If i give you a completely same example you won't even understand why it's wrong.

So back to the point, as proven by examples above, your conditions of:

• info analysis
• No reason to lie
• trustworthy

Are not good enough points that can push a NLF statement into NLF. And just for context, giving stuff like 3d immunity to damage, complete dura neg and beyond the laws of physics are not small claims.

 

[WHYNAUT]

I get that no reason to lie and trustworthy aren't enough, but why is info analysis not a good point?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I get that no reason to lie and trustworthy aren't enough, but why is info analysis not a good point?

Cus the they are talking in the context of the verse unless the info analysis is useless unless it explains mechanics instead of a statement. Example if someone said "it can cut through anything cus it can cut atoms apart". That's good cus it explains why it cuts through any durabity.

A dude with info analysis in a tier 10 verse will say that a 9c sword will cut through anything. He's right cus it'll cut anything but in verse. It needs something more to prove that it goes beyond that.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

You do realize that we're using the physics atuff as part of the justification, not the sole crutch of our argument right. They also have not been shown to just be normal swords. This point is just such a blatant ******* lie that this is all i will say on it.

Additionally, if the word of Shikizaki, who made the Deviant Blades and can see thousands of years into the future, meaning that he would have seen the Tsar Bomba and any other shit we come up with in the future, isnt enough, literally nothing is going to meet your standards, which isnt really an issue because your standards dont matter

 

[Firephoenixearl]

The beyond physics needs proof on its own. So it's not good. It's like saying "X can destroy an infinite multiverse cus he's beyond dimensions". Being beyond dimensions cannot be used as proof cus it literally needs more arguments and proof that the first one. Being beyond physics needs more proof than dura neg.

It isn't enough cus again you're using the trustworthy point to push beyond physics claims. And even now we don't have anything strong that needs to be cut through. Tsar bomba is not something you need 7a ap to cut through so like...

 

[Antvasima]

Look, I am not the best person to ask about this. You need to request help from some more staff members.

 

[WHYNAUT]

here is the scan for the physics thing. This was said by Shikizaki after he stole Hoo Maniwa's body, and he also basically agreed with Togame when she, just before that scan, said that the Deviant Blades surpass the laws of physics.

There is 0 reason for this to be a lie, flowery language, or an exaggeration.

There is now 0 reason to consider durability negation and invulnerability unfounded or limited to AP, and i am done with this argument.

Hl3 actually posted proof for the physics thing. Can't say much on it, but I thought I'd point it out.

 

[Antvasima]

I will unsubscribe to this thread due to time constraints.

You should first ask some more staff members to give input, and contact me again after you reach a conclusion.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@whymaut

That's not proof, that's a statement. A statement is not enough to guarantee such a NLF trait.

 

[Schnee_One]

Agree with HI3

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think the OP makes sense.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

I'd rather discuss the physics and Invulnerability statements at this point, because if it is valid then Ginkaku would have Invulnerability negation, even if not necessarily dura negation

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I'd rather discuss the physics and Invulnerability statements at this point, because if it is valid then Ginkaku would have Invulnerability Negation, even if not necessarily dura Negation

That actually is way more than simple dura neg actually. But i'd like to hear the full argument.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Togame stated (albeit while theorizing) that Ginkaku's sword would be able to split Kanna, due to being closer to Completion than the latter. This is also supported by statements from Shikizaki regarding the nature of Completion.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That just further disproves your point "they are not complete" pushing a "complete damage invulnerability" just makes it harder. Same for "complete durability negation".