Sure, while not everything is necessarily going to be accepted and all, beyond that that's not how the site works, the intent of a CRT is to aim for accuracy, which can be argued from the current status quo, especially with how the matter in terms of acceptance has been shifting across three staff members from one side to the other, so it's far from definitive as things currently stand
It might as well be a concession since you have repeated the same points with basically little to no variation on top of repeatedly ignoring the one thing I asked, which was defining "standard causality". It was asked of you because it's important to determining whether Sora is bound to it or not, which you didn't answer and thus I have to take that as you can't reply.
BTW, I didn't ignore anything, I gave you
examples that debunk what you said and thoroughly explained why your premise wouldn't work under the site's own standards. I don't need to focus on whether it's "inherent" or not because I explained why acausality and other state of being abilities
can be gained through other means, meanwhile your points rely on "standard causality", something you didn't even bother to define or explain how Sora is bound to
The bottom line is that I've explained my points and refuted your premises, on the other hand, you haven't even defined the basic thing you are arguing, which is "standard causality" and you failed to elaborate on how Sora is bound to it, and so by extension you're indirectly conceding you can't, thus debunking this poor argument, Acausality doesn't require direct mentions of causality to qualify for it to say the least.
You are trying to say Sora is bound to "standard causality", yet don't even bother defining it like I've bothered requesting for the
sake of you having an argument to begin with. The closest thing of my requests that was fulfilled was explaining how Sora is "bound" to standard causality, even so, your example ignores the refutation I already gave you already covers that.
States of being can be gained and this extends to Acausality, alongside the fact that we have several profiles that show overturning predestined outcomes and defying fate is prerequisite for Acausality Type 4. You have yet to actually explain how it isn't or explain why this isn't a standard that this site evidently has based on the consistently accepted CRTs
Oh and BTW, this doesn't debunk it either. The book literally records fate and destiny within the timeline, meanwhile the Power of Waking caused two contradictory histories in the same, singularly timeline. It not only overturned a predestined outcome, defied fate but also shows that it isn't bound by the linear timeline and was able to generate two outcomes that contradict one another
despite there being only one timeline.
This is Type 4 or at the very least, a type of Acausality no matter how you look at it. You didn't even bring up why Simon's is wrong beyond "figure of speech", which doesn't refute the fact it is considered Type 4 Acausality to begin with, which further proves my point about the standards, which you have been ignoring the entire debate up until now. You'd do a favor to everyone if you bothered
actually reading the points given, as opposed to assuming what they were and worsening your own reputation.
Didn't explain how Sora is bound to regular causality but okay, I'll take the hint on your part, you have no legitimate argument and are functioning on ad nauseam.
I already explained why it would be Type 4 by the site's standards, I explained why it's Acausality to begin with and I did all sorts of stuff over the course of this debate. Meanwhile you didn't even define the premise in which you are arguing here, which automatically is a bad sign to the fact you aren't arguing in any reasonable form of good faith or curiosity.
Fine, I'll just use bolding.
Anyways, let's define a Non-Sequitur then:
Except my premise was that states of being can be obtained through other means and you are trying to imply that Sora not having Acausality naturally is a point against him when that's just objectively wrong by the standards of the site itself. N.E.O is used as an example among others because it shows you can gain a state of being through other means, which BTW, you can't normally do for obvious reasons. Me absorbing flames doesn't mean I become fire and so on, so just saying "N.E.O absorbed Barbamon explains this" isn't a handwave argument against this, doesn't explain how, by your own premise, that's possible.
In fact, when I argued Enryu had the same thing as the Power of Waking, this was one of your replies:
And so I'd appreciate if you'd please just admit you are shifting the goalposts or quit compromising everyone's time by being difficult for no real reason.
"Blood" is just a figurative, it's actually shown to be something more like a sort of golden energy and
not literal blood. So no, it's not a part of the Gods' beings, and even if it was, not all aspects of someone are going to be of a same nature. Just because I'm nonexistent, doesn't mean my mind and soul are, which is why nonexistence physiology was separated into aspects as I pointed out many times at this point, for instance.
Sure, if you lack the time/will to evaluate in good faith we're forced to just rely on other staff, you're still more than welcome to do a CRT to change this if you go back into the topic way after it was applied (if it gets accepted), but I'd still appreciate some more legitimate arguments that don't lean into double standards and fallacies
