- 99
- 10
- Thread starter
- #81
We still need more staff members though sadly
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're using the assumption that he has another method without any source of evidence, making it your own headcanon. The burden of proof is on you.No. Time Baby never said that was the only way for him to do it Time Baby just said that was the way he was going to.
Not a false analogy as a water source can literally extend and you know, is taken from the planet. You still are by definition a threat to it if you're negatively affecting it, regardless of the entire size my guy.Poisoning a water source doesn't make you a threat to a planet it makes you at best a threat to the society on the planet. Complete False Analogy.
...you realize threat and danger can be synonyms, right? Under the same context there literally is no difference. "He's a danger to the multiverse" is no different from "He's a threat to the multiverse". Unless you have any type of evidence suggesting on how Bill would destroy it, Time Baby is currently our only source, meaning it'd take priority over any other assumption.And threat wasnt even the only arguments I used, but yes danger means destroy to the point where it no longer functions so it could be interpreted as 2A. Along with other things supporting this interpretation.
There is plenty, the fact that it coincides with the threat statement as I showed above.There is no reason to assume Bill can create his rip at will, you would need to assume he can to assume that they are referring to his rip in the dimension.
In reality, Bills rip was an involuntary action that Bill was forced to do if he wanted to gain his physical form. He even had to trick Mabel to do it. It could even be argued making a rip is against his character.
Bill was stated to be a threat. As in his being. Not one of his abilities. Just his being.
And like I said, there is no reason to assume the multiverse knows about the rip in the dimension. He has never shown the ability to make one at that point nor was he stated he could. If he did make one everyone would be dead many years ago.
Far to many assumptions with no proof and leaps of logic to reach that conclusion
His wrath because he can create rips? Again, why would anyone ever mention the ability is a threat and not the person with the ability. The ability itself isn't a conscious sentient being, it can't activate without the person letting it.Wasn't Bill himself stated to be a threat, not his rips? Also, "His Wrath" implies it's not a chain reaction
I could see this meaning he could create these rips, but I'm not sure.
I literally posted above what suggests that, the very fact that the very chain reaction feat is the feat we see after all of those statements and they correlate with every implication of his being.There's nothing that suggests Bill would've threaten the universe via chain reactions
Being a "threat" to something doesn't have to mean you can obliterate it in one shot, just like real world terrorists aren't Country level for being a threat to our country's security.Next. Threat means damage. Damage means to destroy to the point where something stops functioning i didn't mean to say danger i meant to say damage.
That's not what circular argumentation is at all. If you're going to attempt to use terms like this then understand how a circular concept works.So much headcannon it hurts. Like I said you need to prove many things you can't. Circular argumentation is the only argumentation usable with Givers logic
If you read my reply, you will see my stance. I clearly expressed it in there.Ploz do you agree with 2A physically or not? If you have some new logic than go ahead and tell me.
"Either way, Bill shouldn't get anything remotely physically 2-A out of this. The current arguments are lackluster, present nothing new, and they require a lot of stretching. The most he should get is 2-A via the rift, which I'd be in favor of."Ploz you say you are not against Bill 2A and then you say he should only get 2A out of his rift I am confused
That could very easily mean the Universe they're in.The Multiverse. Time Baby mentions that it was going to destroy the very fabric of existence.
^He said existence, which is the entire multiverse AFIAK
Shouldn't he still be 2-A physically because of him scaling from the durability? Him tanking an eventual multiverse destruction as he's not bothered form the destruction of all the existence should be fineNow, as of Bill's 2-A rating being from a Interdimensional Rip, that means his Low 2-C status needs to go. What tier should be physically? I could see 4-C from calling our star underwhelming
I refuted those and you've failed to refute them back, ironically enough your response here makes me doubt you understand how debates work. I gave clear and concise reasons for why these connect via correlation and self-evidence, you on the other hand have just refuted by either using objectively incorrect terms like "circular argumentation" or just calling my stuff headcanon, that's not a refute.Giver i am seriously doubting you know how debate works. You are using head cannon and things without evidence to connect things that don't correlate. Like I've stated there are many contradictions to your interpretation and a massive lack of proof.
He should scale by the same reason he does now. He wouldn't scale to Striking Strength thoughI mean, I do suppose he has 2-A Dura, but I don't know if his AP scales to Dura.
None of your reasons were sufficient. Your only real argument was 'it happened before' which is irrelevant since correlation can apply to a past or future event. Correlation and self evidence is a concept that can be used here, like I legitimately believe you do not know what correlation is.Not what I was doing. I provided multiple reasoning as to why this was not referring to it. And all you have replied to me with is head canon. A reference never made with no proof of a reference and rather using a absence of evidence isn't a valid argument.
So what is the common consensus on this thread at this point?