Kengan Revision: Agito Reactive Evo

[Yobo_Blue]

Agito should probably get Reactive Evolution. Not only does his precision improve, but as he fights, he creates new forms of martial arts to counter his enemy, like when Gaolang’s style forced him to fight using nothing but boxing because of it’s efficiency, with his evolution creating a martial art to mitigate it and force him to use Muay Thai as well. Furthermore, his martial arts adapt to Okubo’s synthesis of mma which are usually impossible for enemies to adapt to.

(also of note is that it applies to note power or speed related downsides like lag time in switches between personalities)

 

[LordGinSama]

He also developed Foresight against his fight with Okubo iirc, so yeah I can agree with this.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Bump

 

[Overlord775]

agree with the revision

 

[Gonzalo]

Agree

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Bump

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Bunp

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Bump

 

[DivineAura44]

He also developed Foresight against his fight with Okubo iirc, so yeah I can agree with this.

How exactly?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

How exactly?

He predicted the grab Okubo was doing and stopped it before it happened by grabbing his arms

 

[DivineAura44]

He predicted the grab Okubo was doing and stopped it before it happened by grabbing his arms

No from what I remember, Okubo kept reacting to Kanoh's move with the same shot and so Kanoh baited it out and countered. That's not Foresight, that's a common strategy.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Not really? nowhere was it said that he baited it out, just that he evolved, and Okubo outright called it prediction

No from what I remember, Okubo kept reacting to Kanoh's move with the same shot and so Kanoh baited it out and countered. That's not Foresight, that's a common strategy.

 

[DivineAura44]

Not really? nowhere was it said that he baited it out, just that he evolved, and Okubo outright called it prediction

1. I don't think it necessarily has to be stated.
2. He called it a prediction because it was, doesn't mean it's foresight. If a frog sees the color green and jumps every time he does, saying "He's gonna jump if I put this green piece of paper in his face" is a prediction but even if you are right, it's not foresight. Afaik that is not good enough to count as foresight.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

1. I don't think it necessarily has to be stated.
2. He called it a prediction because it was, doesn't mean it's foresight. If a frog sees the color green and jumps every time he does, saying "He's gonna jump if I put this green piece of paper in his face" is a prediction but even if you are right, it's not foresight. Afaik that is not good enough to count as foresight.

While this is true wiki standards mean inferences without a lot of evidence behind them are generally way less reliable to use for revisions. Even at the highest possible level of doubt, if you go to experienced martial artists and show them the episode or panel, they do say it’s closer to reading patterns than bait, so even if we did use the logic of inference, it’d be in favor or something based on precog

The second point is also false because even Cosmo just barely evolving to 1 or 2 steps foresight during his fight and even when he wasn’t even there was considered evolving foresight. This is definitely in the same vein

 

[DivineAura44]

While this is true wiki standards mean inferences without a lot of evidence behind them are generally way less reliable to use for revisions. Even at the highest possible level of doubt, if you go to experienced martial artists and show them the episode or panel, they do say it’s closer to reading patterns than bait, so even if we did use the logic of inference, it’d be in favor or something based on precog

The second point is also false because even Cosmo just barely evolving to 1 or 2 steps foresight during his fight and even when he wasn’t even there was considered evolving foresight. This is definitely in the same vein

1. Way less reliable for upgrades, however I'm taking the negative stance here.
2. Can I see these martial artists you speak of watching the show? I've seen the opposite from my experience.
3. Absolutely reading your opponents 1-2 moves ahead is way more impressive then trying a move seeing a counter than expecting the counter coming and preparing for it.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Theyre not really any more reliable for a negative stance? The fact still remains it’s not a statement, feat, or any other measurable thing besides personal interpretation, which can be pointed out as wrong, as opposed to the explicit statements of prediction



Circular logic Fallacy. “It’s not foresight because it’s reading your opponent’s moves after you baited it out, therefore it’s not foresight so he must have baited it”. This assumption only works if you go into it assuming that it has nothing to do with any ability to predict, which is quite the opposite of what’s actually said. The a amount of mental hoops and assumptions we have to make to assume it’s that is simply not feasible, that’s part of why statements are more reliable than inferences.

Occam’s razor clearly applies here
we have

evolution let Agito counter okubo by reading his moves

Okubo getting grabbed was actually him getting baited into a grab, he was completely wrong about the grab being predicted, and instead he simply happened to bait the grab out and the attempted leave out, and neither the grab being called prediction or the very clear prediction on Okubo’s attack were foresight related at all.

The first one is simply way more feasible because it requires less assumptions

 

[DivineAura44]

Theyre not really any more reliable for a negative stance? The fact still remains it’s not a statement, feat, or any other measurable thing besides personal interpretation, which can be pointed out as wrong, as opposed to the explicit statements of prediction



Circular logic Fallacy. “It’s not foresight because it’s reading your opponent’s moves after you baited it out, therefore it’s not foresight so he must have baited it”. This assumption only works if you go into it assuming that it has nothing to do with any ability to predict, which is quite the opposite of what’s actually said. The a amount of mental hoops and assumptions we have to make to assume it’s that is simply not feasible, that’s part of why statements are more reliable than inferences.

Occam’s razor clearly applies here
we have




The first one is simply way more feasible because it requires less assumptions

1. I never said it was more reliable, I'm saying the burden of proof falls on you to reasonably prove all counterarguments wrong. Which you haven't.
2. He literally says it was a bait in that video LMAO.
3. That's not what I said. The sentence you made up ain't even coherent.'
4. We have "Agito suddenly developed this move for this for no reason considering he was winning (keep in mind, they usually develop moves when losing.) vs "Kanoh baited an attack and responded." The latter clearly takes less assumptions.
For the love of god, stop misconstruing my arguments. Kanoh baited Okubo in the going for a shot when he got into that stance. He caught Okubo's hand, and punished him.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

1. You do know burden of proof calls on you to prove a specific interpretation correctly, not on me after we already established the statement exists independently of any interpretation? It’s on you to prove those counter arguments before I have to disprove them

2. His only comment on the wrist grab was that he wasn’t sure it would work in real life lol. I’m not sure what part of the video you’re watching but the statement about prediction applies to that grab specifically. I’m not sure what video you’re watching, or maybe you’re thinking of a different part?

3. Its incoherent because I’m pointing out why your logic doesn’t work. I’m not misconstruing anything.

4. Agito was outrigh losing against Okubo and couldn’t react to him until evolution kicked in. The whole argument is predicated on it coming from evolution, it’s not developing a new move at all? If it was it wouldn’t be part of this discussion which is about the extent of his evolution. We know that kicks in because it’s outright stated and shown. No one is misconstuong your arguments, they just rely on them proving themselves.

You said that Agito would need to not be gaining foresight because weak uses are also considered to be gaining foresight with Cosmo, and your argument was:
“Absolutely reading your opponents 1-2 moves ahead is way more impressive then trying a move seeing a counter than expecting the counter coming and preparing for it.”

Quite literally your response to my question was “it couldn’t be foresight because foresight is more impressive, and it’s not impressive cause it’s just bait not foresight”. That is the definition of circular logic

 

[Yobo_Blue]

(Should I bring in more people though because this seems like it’s just gonna go back and forth)

 

[DivineAura44]

(Should I bring in more people though because this seems like it’s just gonna go back and forth)

Yes do that.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

working on it, probably better to have some other people make a judgement call too lol

 

[DivineAura44]

1. You do know burden of proof calls on you to probe a specific interpretation correctly, not on me after we already established the statement exists independently of any interpretation? It’s on you to prove those counter arguments before I have to disprove them

2. His only comment on the wrist grab was that he wasn’t sure it would work in real life lol. I’m not sure what part of the video you’re watching but the statement about prediction applies to that grab specifically. I’m not sure what video you’re watching, or maybe you’re thinking of a different part?

3. Its incoherent because I’m pointing out why your logic doesn’t work. I’m not misconstruing anything.

4. Agito was outrigh losing against Okubo and couldn’t react to him until evolution kicked in. The whole argument is predicated on it coming from evolution, it’s not developing a new move at all? If it was it wouldn’t be part of this discussion which is about the extent of his evolution. We know that kicks in because it’s outright stated and shown. No one is misconstuong your arguments, they just rely on them proving themselves.

You said that Agito would need to not be gaining foresight because weak uses are also considered to be gaining foresight with Cosmo, and your argument was:
“Absolutely reading your opponents 1-2 moves ahead is way more impressive then trying a move seeing a counter than expecting the counter coming and preparing for it.”

Quite literally your response to my question was “it couldn’t be foresight because foresight is more impressive, and it’s not impressive cause it’s just bait not foresight”. That is the definition of circular logic

1. I'm taking the negative, burden is on you.
2. I'll bring it up because I'm class rn and I can't turn in up or I'll get caught. (Don't worry, I'm doing my work.)
3. I'mma just drop this because this for sure ain't gonna get resolved.
4. Agito was definitely winning before he gained foresight. Don't know what you watching.
That's not circular. It would be circular if I said something like it's not foresight because it's not as impressive and it's not as impressive because it's foresight. This is not the case.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

1. I'm taking the negative, burden is on you.
2. I'll bring it up because I'm class rn and I can't turn in up or I'll get caught. (Don't worry, I'm doing my work.)
3. I'mma just drop this because this for sure ain't gonna get resolved.
4. Agito was definitely winning before he gained foresight. Don't know what you watching.
That's not circular. It would be circular if I said something like it's not foresight because it's not as impressive and it's not as impressive because it's foresight. This is not the case.

1. You’d be taking up the negative if I was trying to prove something yes. I’m not, I’m taking an explicit statement at face value, and now the burden is on you to prove that that explicit statement should be discarded in favor of a different interpretation.

4. The fact was that up until Agito unleashed his berserker face, in just grappling he was on about on even terms with Okubo and in the overall matchup he couldn’t properly react to Okubo’s synthesis of martial arts moves and was unable to counteract them. He brought out his evolution immediately after that

 

[DragonEmperor23]

Alright, it's been a while since I've read kengan so I reread the fight so I could comment on it. Like Yobo said, Agito was losing the fight because of Okubo's synthesis of moves that he kept switching between and needed to evolve to beat him. I'd say Okubo calling what Agito is doing predictions is more leaning towards foresight than just simple baits.

 

[DivineAura44]

Alright, it's been a while since I've read kengan so I reread the fight so I could comment on it. Like Yobo said, Agito was losing the fight because of Okubo's synthesis of moves that he kept switching between and needed to evolve to beat him. I'd say Okubo calling what Agito is doing predictions is more leaning towards foresight than just simple baits.

I disagree with that due to him literally seeing how Okubo reacted to it and went for it again but I've said my argument, all that I could have said has been said.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Not in a place to read the whole thread or make a long post but I currently agree. Evolving to adapt to his opponent's fighting style is his whole thing

 

[DivineAura44]

Not in a place to read the whole thread or make a long post but I currently agree. Evolving to adapt to his opponent's fighting style is his whole thing

I agree with Reactive Evo, I just don’t agree with the foresight. I need something to be Goatlang above the rest of the verse.

 

[The_man_with_the_Midas_touch]

Was this ever added? I agree that Agito should have Reactive Evo on his profile.