That unfortunately seems likely, yes. It will be hard to get anything productive done if they keep continuously stonewalling and derailing.
Look Ant, I am saying this respectfully but do take it seriously. Do not, ever, jump to conclusions, purely based on what was said by one party of an argument. This is an extremely biased approach, the unbiased thing would be to read through the arguments, or to not jump to conclusions in the first place. Deagon said that I am arguing the Macroverse is not an inverse of Microverse, now the correct thing to do here to wait for what I have to say instead of saying I am derailing and stonewalling. He has done this multiple times before and basically, he's doing this thing where he takes a portion of his opponent's argument and ignores everything else stated by that person. In some cases, this extends to ignoring the entire reasoning provided by his opponent and to only respond to the conclusion.
To find proof that Deagon is strawmanning me, you don't even have to read through the entire argument, this reply by me alone is enough-
Refer to my last point.
This is the only actual point.
So is Earth-8 the opposite of Earth-0 because they were both shown in the same comic(JLI #1)?
Why are you ignoring my points? I directly addressed this-
And you should spend more effort in addressing my points instead of ignoring them and explain how your points actually support your stance-
You do understand my scan is older than the Silver Surfer scan, correct? So the Microverse being a parallel universe wasn't a recent retcon.
He's saying that because the Microverse was shown in the same comic the Macroverse was, and because the inhabitants of the Microverse called Macroverse the main universe, that they are inverse to each other. I used two analogies to prove his arguments were flawed, I am not necessarily saying his conclusion is wrong but rather that his reasons were wrong. He never addressed my analogies, in fact, he deliberately ignored them, proven by the fact he put out replies even after I presented my analogies.
But the important thing here is that this is completely irrelevant to what we were mainly arguing about. I asked him how the Microverse being an inverse of the Macroverse proves the Macroverse contains the Microverse, as that was his argument, he NEVER explained this. I would like to post this chart he himself has used before once-
He made a claim(the Macroverse contains the Microverse and Sama-D was referring to the Microverse) and he gave some evidence(that the Microverse is the inverse of Macroverse), but he failed in the reasoning aspect. He failed to explain WHY his evidence supports his claim, and this is the fundamental problem here.
This is like if I say Batman>Superman, and my evidence for that is that Batman represents Justice and Superman represents Hope. It's a Non-Sequitur.
On the other hand, I made a claim, gave evidence, and explained how my evidence supported my claim with a reasoning. I claimed that Sama-D was not referring to the Microverse, provided evidence that Sama-D was referring to universes-within-universes, and not parallel universes, and explained how my evidence supported my conclusion with a reasoning that the Microverse is a parallel reality.
I request you to give a thorough reading of everything, and that if you do agree with Deagon, to tell me his reasoning because I legitimately don't understand it.
