• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

MASSIVE Gravity Falls Upgrade

Honestly, yeah I disagree. Absolutely none of the arguments are new, nor are any of the refutes exactly good. Considering how Time Baby quite literally told us HOW Bill could've destroyed the multiverse, any implications and statements of him being a threat (which you don't even need destruction to be considered a threat, unsure why that's the assumption being used. You could poison a water source and be considered a threat to the planet) would all draw back to what Time Baby said, because that it is all we can link it to. Anything else is more of an assumption, so it's clear that this would've been done via a chain reaction.
 
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.

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.

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.


Saying its his rip takes many assumptions (read my previous post)
 
Just a quick note here, I don't think being a threat to the multiverse warrants a 2-A or anything of that sort. There are a bunch of characters from other series' who stated to be a threat to the universe, yet they are only tier 5-4 dudes.

For the record, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, since idk jack about Gravity falls.
 
Last edited:
Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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.
Click to expand...
...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.
 
Threat means likely to cause danger or harm. Danger is to damage something to the point where it ceases functioning properly which should fall under "significantly affect"
 
@DatOneWeeb Sad to see some people won't read my messages.

Ill just copy and paste it for you since you dont want to scroll up
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

Next. Damaging a water source wont make the planet stop functioning what are you talking about how are you going to threaten earth by putting some bleach in the water The planet itself will remain unaffected.

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.
 
Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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
Click to expand...
There is plenty, the fact that it coincides with the threat statement as I showed above.

It's an involuntary action that he caused, I think anyone here would agree someone being able to cause a chain reaction that could destroy everything would be considered a threat.

I can show you dozens of characters that are stated to be threats and it's not because of their strengths but because of their abilities and they never once elaborate cause of an ability, that makes no sense. If the character has the ability they are ergo a threat.

Seeing as Time Baby figured out rather quickly, there's reason to assume.

That's not too many assumptions at all, correlation. He's called a threat, the one true 2-A feat we see from him is a chain reaction feat. Put two and two together.
 
Sadistic_Sleuth said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
There's nothing that suggests Bill would've threaten the universe via chain reactions
Click to expand...
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.
 
We don't even know what his "wrath" is going to entail. It's vague as hell. You saying "no it's not vague" doesn't actually mean it's not. I know it says he poses a threat and that the multiverse needs to be spared from his wrath. That's it.
 
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
 
Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
While I'm not against 2-A Bill, the current arguments in this thread are not any different from ones that have been addressed in the past.

"So from this we can infer that

1. The multiverse needs to be saved from his "wrath"

2. Bill is a threat

3. Bill is extremely feared by the multiverse

So we can infer that he can destroy it. Duh."

None of this directly entails 2-A. The first statement means nothing without further context because it's far too ambiguous; you could have someone's "wrath" as just massively affecting everything within it rather than threatening to destroy the whole structure. You could give an example with any world leader and realize why this argument is flawed. Bill being a threat is fine, but it doesn't automatically entail 2-A. It needs more context as to how it's done. Lastly, unless there are other 2-A beings afraid of Bill, then being feared across the multiverse means nothing. Darth Vader is feared across the galaxy, but he's not galaxy level, is he? See, this is the problem with the 2-A Bill arguments. They could be 2-A with further elaboration, but they don't amount to anything on their own.

"I honestly have no idea why this argument was founded.

There is no proof he was going to destroy it over time at all.

Now let me introduce you to my little friend. His name is Occams Razor. Occams Razor dictates that argument is flawed.

Theres also the "saved from his wrath" statement which backs up the fact he has the ability to destroy it.

That would also mean Bill has infinite speed which hey if you want lets make Bill infinite speed I'm not against it (I will explain this later in my cosmology section)"

I believe Giver already explained how it could be overtime via a chain reaction. It's a similar thing that the Daleks have with the Reality Bomb have on their profile. You'd need to explain why Occam's Razor actually favors your interpretation. It's not an Exodia where you just instantly win the point by bringing it up. "Save from his wrath" doesn't automatically imply he can destroy it in one bust, as we've been over. It would just further show 2-A if Bill is the one controlling the rift (which is implied by Time Baby's statement).

At this point, I'd honestly wager that most of these statements pertain to him being a threat to the inhabitants rather than the actual structure. You posted a scan talking about he's feared by everyone in the multiverse; that literally comes from the same source as him posing a threat to the multiverse. Furthermore, one of the scans outright shows he has the range to do what we're suggesting. Your third scan talks about how he can tamper with alternate realities, so it seems much more like he'd overtake different dimensions and spread weirdness to them (almost as if your first scan also states he'd do this) rather than outright destruction. It seems much more of a stretch to say Bill is just going to infinitely hold back and we need the highest interpretation we can garner out of these statements than it is to just say Bill can't destroy the multiverse in one bust. The only thing that even supports outright destruction would be Time Baby's statements about the rip.

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.
 
I explained this earlier. Bill is not the kind of character to stay mad over time. His character is always contradictory to itself. Bill would never inact a wrath over a long period of time. It only makes sense for it to be a quick one.
 
Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Me saying that the chain reaction statement correlates with the threat statement doesn't form a circle at all.
 
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.
 
Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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
Click to expand...
"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."

I am against him being physically 2-A, but he could be 2-A via the rift.
 
2-A via rift no not, Idc. He's probably 2-A.

As for his dura, I could see "possibly Multiversal+ (Wasn't concerned about his rift was going to destroy existence)"
 
Now, 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
 
Sadistic_Sleuth said:
Now, 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
Click to expand...
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 fine
 
Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
From what I see of Bill Cipher's profile, he has low godly regen, hence why I think possibly 2-A dura is being mentioned since he alternatively isn't afraid of the destruction of the dimension cause he can just regen back.
 
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?
 
Meliodas_On_Point_Yessir said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
There is no correlation. You haven't proved at all it was referring to his ability to create a rift.

1. Prove he can do it at will

2. Prove the people of the multiverse know he can

These are two things you need to do to make the assumption that these statements are referring to his rift. Otherwise this argument makes no sense.

But I do agree his durability shouldn't scale to his rift, he does have low godly regeneration like Giver said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lord_Farquaad69420
Gravity falls: Bill Cipher a/p downgrade
Replies
39
Views
2K
Monsters_fight
Monsters_fight
Ti58
Tiny update to that Bill Cipher galaxy travel speed feat thing
Replies
4
Views
822
Random_Bill_Cipher_tard
Random_Bill_Cipher_tard
StrymULTRA
Bill Cipher addition
Replies
23
Views
2K
AbaddonTheDisappointment
AbaddonTheDisappointment
StrymULTRA
Gravity Falls: Cosmology Revamp + Adding some stuff
Replies
32
Views
3K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
Bill Cipher CRT
Replies
13
Views
4K
VIZION99
Back
Top