Instead of addressing everyone individually, I'm just going to address the points that are commonly talked about and are important to the thread.
1.
Zetsu's Statement:
It has been said throughout this thread that Zetsu is an unreliable source as the statement he gave for Kirin is contradicted, either by him claiming the attack is unavoidable, but people can perceive and react to it, or him hyping up lightning speed as impressive despite several examples of the speed of light/ning being applicable to multiple characters below Kirin or Itachi. I'll say that, while I don't find all of the examples used justifiable, I won't entirely disregard the arguments either. I do believe that Zetsu's statement can be argued to have contradictory evidence against it, but that wasn't my intention with using him as a source in the first place.
What I'm using as a source is that he describes the attack as traveling at a certain speed, which is inductively supported by it being natural lightning. Both examples above can exist without it disproving the speed statement he gave as neither entails a contradiction to it since it's discussing the speed, numerically, which is distinct from what he believes is impressive or what he believes is unavoidable.
So this constant obsession with the Black Zetsu's statement is unhelpful for this thread and doesn't even begin to address why I'm using the statement in the first place.
2.
Kirin's Speed:
People have posited several reasons why Kirin should be faster than a natural bolt of lightning would be. It ranges from Kirin producing more force compared to a natural bolt of lightning, possibly implying it has several other characteristics that aren't similar to a natural lightning bolt, or Kirin was enhanced by Chakra, and Chakra enhances things like speed, meaning Kirin's speed would also be enhanced as well.
I think all of these arguments are, in some way, missing important context.
With the first argument about it producing more force compared to a natural bolt of lightning implying other stuff is different as well. I don't completely disagree with this, it could be the case, I agree. The issue I have is that it only reaches that possibility threshold, but never goes beyond it. We can all day give possibilities, but until we can provide evidence of them being the case, either deductively or inductively, our opinions will always remain unsubstantiated and unusable for scaling.
The secondary argument just isn't contextually implied. Sasuke specifically says he's only merely funneling all of the energy from the storm cloud into a singular attack and releasing it. We have no reason to believe he's amplifying anything, unless we introduce something that is never stated or explained in any canonical medium. It's argued that since its appearance is changed, it could be or even must be the case that it's having its speed enhanced as well. A change in appearance doesn't imply a change in speed, even if it's done through Chakra, which
can enhance speed - keyword, can. Unless we have reason outside of conjecture to believe he is enhancing its speed, we would assume it isn't because it's never stated that it is.
3:
Semantics:
Finally, there is the point about semantics. Now, people believe that either the additional description hyping up the attack is not an exaggeration, or even if it is, it doesn't hold any bearing over the statement itself.
For those who believe it
isn't an exaggeration - I have a question, what exactly do you define an exaggeration to be? If you describe it in terms like "hyping up something beyond what is shown", "to exaggerate beyond or below what is known about a particular thing" or anything of the sort. I would then ask, how exactly wouldn't these fall under an exaggerated statement. Both statements, especially the second one, are described as "unavoidable" (despite the fact Itachi did avoid it, not by moving his body out of the way, but through activating his Susanoo and blocking it) or being able to "blow away the opponent with no time to even blink" (which didn't happen with Itachi)
So we have two words if assumed literal would be contradictory to what is shown, and would thus call into question the legitimacy of the statements by the law of noncontradiction, or both are hyperbolic, which in that case, would also call into question the legitimacy of the statements for the same reason. Either way you look at it, the statements require further evidence outside of what is said in the databooks to support them being literal and uncontradicted.
For those who believe
it's an exaggeration, but says it doesn't matter - by nature of exaggerations describing something in a figurative way, it would call into question the legitimacy of the statements in whole because an introduction of false evidence can cause an argument to logically explode unless dealt with. It needs to be addressed, we just can't hand wave this away and act like it doesn't matter.
In conclusion, I disagree with the criticism made against my argument. There are other arguments that I could make (
@Shadowbokunohero actually brought up an interesting idea in DMs, but I neither believe I need it right now nor do I know much about to make it convincing given the knowledge it requires of other series)
