Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

It's not in question, that's what is directly stated in the text.

"in question" denotes for questioning the validity of the statement, I thought I made this clear beforehand seems like I didn't.

The "original forms" they return to is not "true Heroic Spirit" it is "fragment of power."

What you sent is a statement of the term "original forms", which has basis but what's followed after that is a presupposition that is not accounted for by any evidence or basis.

That's what's stated in the VN.

Statements in source materials can be questioned again.

This was already addressed, you didn't attack anything when I presented you with how the preponderance against that outweighs the preponderance supporting that, your only response was "the statement is right there" which I had to explain again that contradictory statements need not be taken if statements against them are not consistently than them.

I know for a fact that you saw this.

I can't tell you whether or not she had adequate energy to become a holy grail, I'm simply relaying what the text says, that at this point in the story

So you saying you don't know if she did or not implies you don't know if she went through the process of absorbing servants which is what you said earlier you said she did if she did she became the greater grail?

That sounds like conceding as to whether or not she actually absorbed servants to go through that process. Which the process in question was brought up because you were trying to use that as consistency for her being equal to pure heroic spirits.

she had power equal to that of a true Heroic Spirit.

This begs the question again.

Preposterous, counter guardians don't even have a proper establishment of power how does this even make sense. They get power depending on the scale of the threat to humanity, how would she be on the same level of something that doesn't have a fixed power but power that changes depending on the context. She has nothing no ability that's received from being in the same scale as counter guardians or anything that gets power from the counter force.

She can't Amp herself reactively
She doesn't get any amps reactively to adapt to threat to humanity nor the planet

She has absolutely no other scan supports her being on the same scale as counter guardians or anything that exists as an extension of the counter force, she is hardly true magic level which true ancestors who get power from the planet should be reactively at the very least.

I know for a fact you saw all of this, the bottom line the preponderance for the statement gets outweighed again by the preponderance against that statement therefore its valid to put the validity of the statement itself into question.

You continously appealing to this statement to further defend the affirmation of r>F not existing between heroic spirits and servants is begging the question, because the statement suffices your affirmation you have to account for its validity which has been put into question because of how inconsistent it is.

You haven't demonstrated any inconsistencies, apparently it just makes you upset that Dark Sakura was canonically as powerful as a true Heroic Spirit in the Throne of Heroes by absorbing a few servants

I did you decided to ignore it, you ignoring it≠I didn't demonstrate it.

Preposterous, counter guardians don't even have a proper establishment of power how does this even make sense. They get power depending on the scale of the threat to humanity, how would she be on the same level of something that doesn't have a fixed power but power that changes depending on the context. She has nothing no ability that's received from being in the same scale as counter guardians or anything that gets power from the counter force.

She can't Amp herself reactively
She doesn't get any amps reactively to adapt to threat to humanity nor the planet

She has absolutely no other scan supports her being on the same scale as counter guardians or anything that exists as an extension of the counter force, she is hardly true magic level which true ancestors who get power from the planet should be reactively at the very least.

Jussssst to...

If you're using "only the world can summon the main body", then sorry to disappoint you ort can eat information of real Heroic Spirits from the throne of heroes but can't summon himself as a true Heroic spirit, it has nothing to do with power. Outer gods can access the throne of heroes and forcibly summon servants using the information in the throne as a catalyst.

Your... Memory, so do you still think I didn't demonstrate the inconsistency of not only the statement but your reasoning thus far?

 

[Deagonx]

What you sent is a statement of the term "original forms", which has basis but what's followed after that is a presupposition that is accounted for by any evidence or basis.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Frankly, all of your comments are pretty hard to read from an English standpoint and I think you're not really engaging in this discussion in good faith. The evidence is very clear and overwhelmingly in favor of my position, and I'm fine if you remain unconvinced by it despite that. Also, you should review what "begging the question" means because none of the times you've used it have really made sense.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Seems to fit what a begging the question fallacy would be.

I doubt you'd even elaborate as to why I'm misusing the term instead you'll just say "you're misusing the fallacy" as a way to cease engaging in this discussion after realizing that you were wrong but maybe that's just me

 

[Deagonx]

Begging the question refers to an argument in which the justification provided for the conclusion is just an assumption of the truth of the argument, for instance:

"“Walking on the beach is good for your mental health because getting out in nature makes you feel better,”

This is begging the question, because the justification is simply assuming the premise is true. Me asserting that Dark Sakura is as powerful as a true heroic spirit because the narration of the VN tells us that she is, is not an example of begging the question. My argumentative basis isn't based on assuming the truth of own argument, it is based on direct evidence.

You asserting that you do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion I did doesn't mean that I am "begging the question."

Begging the question in this argument would be "Dark Sakura is equal to true heroic spirits because she's just as powerful as they are!"

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Confused as to why my message got deleted for "allegedly" having insults (it doesn't), when all the message had was a response as to how I'm using the fallacy correctly.

This is begging the question, because the justification is simply assuming the premise is true. Me asserting that Dark Sakura is as powerful as a true heroic spirit because the narration of the VN tells us that she is, is not an example of begging the question. My argumentative basis isn't based on assuming the truth of own argument, it is based on direct evidence.

Am I ever gonna get an explanation as to why my message about it being begging the question was deleted tho

Me asserting that Dark Sakura is as powerful as a true heroic spirit because the narration of the VN tells us that she is

Brother you ain't slick

Anywayssssss I'll just give you another response

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. A question-begging inference is valid, in the sense that the conclusion is as true as the premise, but it is not a valid argument.

You said A because B, B being the statement suggesting that Sakura is counter Guardian level but I questioned the validity of this statement because of it being evidently inconsistent. Which is me implicitly asking you to provide a basis as to why the statement you're using is true, so A can follow from B but you didn't. What you did was assume B is correct therefore A follows from B but you didn't justify B being true. Therefore you'd be begging the question because you're presupposing B being true to infer A from B.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

You asserting that you do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach the conclusion I did doesn't mean that I am "begging the question."

Never said that.

Begging the question in this argument would be "Dark Sakura is equal to true heroic spirits because she's just as powerful as they are!"

Begging the question in any argument is contextual based I just showed you how you begged the question.

 

[Deagonx]

Am I ever gonna get an explanation as to why my message about it being begging the question was deleted tho

Because it had rude comments in it. You were warned to stop making those.

What you did was assume B is correct therefore A follows from B but you didn't justify B being true. Therefore you'd be begging the question because you're presupposing B being true to infer A from B.

B isn't a claim, B is a piece of evidence. I'm not assuming B is "correct" as B is a piece of information, not an argument. B is the fact that Dark Sakura was stated to be as powerful as true heroic spirits. You're saying that statement is untrue, which isn't really a sensible approach to how evidence works. You're actuslly saying B is outweighed by other evidence. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary so I haven't accepted your claim.

Again, that's not begging the question. My argument doesn't rely on assuming it's own truth, it's based on evidence.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Because it had rude comments in it. You were warned to stop making those.

What rude comments

Oh naaaa

B isn't a claim, B is a piece of evidence. I'm not assuming B is "correct" as B is a piece of information. B is the fact that Dark Sakura was stated to be as powerful as true heroic spirits.

B is a claim, why are you trying to separate evidence and claim when you know that a claim can be evidence loool. B is a claim because it directly says Sakura is counter Guardian level is that not a claim or not?

Good it is, I know you know therefore it's a claim and a piece of evidence but a piece of evidence can be questioned as to whether or not that evidence is actually evidence. That's what's happening therefore you'd have to defend whether or not B acts as evidence if it's dismissed, because A follows from B it gets dismissed as well.

Also don't call it a fact, a fact doesn't have contradictions because a fact is truth apt and contradictory statements are not truth apt therefore its not a fact its a claim, that's still begging the question cause you're assuming it to be a fact instead of justifying why it holds truth value.

Again, that's not begging the question. My argument doesn't rely on assuming it's own truth, it's based on evidence.

I just showed you it does, you'd be begging the question to assume it doesn't rely on its own truth despite someone else demonstrating it does.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

You haven't demonstrated any inconsistencies, apparently it just makes you upset that Dark Sakura was canonically as powerful as a true Heroic Spirit in the Throne of Heroes by absorbing a few servants.

not even possible for 2 reasons

Servants can only be summoned using the 3rd magic due to their large power

rin calls her a poor imitation of that same magic

 

[Deagonx]

B is a claim, why are you trying to separate evidence and claim when you know that a claim can be evidence

Claims cannot be evidence, no.

I just showed you it does, you'd be begging the question to assume it doesn't rely on its own truth despite someone else demonstrating it does.

That's also not what begging the question is. You haven't "demonstrated" that it does, you've claimed that. Me continuing to disagree with you has nothing to do with the concept of "begging the question."

B is a claim because it directly says Sakura is counter Guardian level is that not a claim or not?

Source material doesn't make claims. Describing the actual narration telling us something as a "claim" is totally backwards.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Claims cannot be evidence, no.

In formal logic a claim can be a proposition, a proposition acts as an antecedent to infer a consequence. Which means it acts as evidence to support the conclusion.

So what do you mean "cannot".

By the way propositions can affirm necessarily true conclusions, which is "fact" supported by claims acting as evidence.

Soo??

That's also not what begging the question is. You haven't "demonstrated" that it does, you've claimed that.

It's your burden since using that claim presupposes that the claim is true therefore is valid to be used. If you don't wanna suffice your burden and want to shift to me then that's moving the goalpost fallacy.

Source material doesn't make claims. Describing the actual narration telling us something as a "claim" is totally backwards.

There's no narration here, in what sense does a source material not make claims? Are you saying source materials don't convey anything because a claim is an affirmation therefore if it doesn't make any claims it cannot possibly convey anything outside of mere visuals?

 

[Deagonx]

In formal logic a claim can be a proposition, a proposition acts as an antecedent to infer a consequence. Which means it acts as evidence to support the conclusion.

This is a really poor understanding of what an antecedent represents in formal logic. An antecedent is the first half of an if-then hypothesis, it is the condition. A statement is not an antecedent.

It's your burden since using that claim presupposes that the claim is true therefore is valid to be used.

Using evidence from the source material is not a presupposition. The evidence is factual regardless of whether you argue it is outweighed by other evidence. This has no relation to the concept of begging the question.

There's no narration here, in what sense does a source material not make claims? Are you saying source materials don't convey anything because a claim is an affirmation therefore if it doesn't make any claims it cannot possibly convey anything outside of mere visuals?

No, I am saying that statements within a story are not argumentative claims, they are evidence. Whilst a character can simply be wrong, the narration telling us something isn't sensibly evaluated within the dichotomy of "true" or "false." It's simply information that the narration stated this. If you evaluate that one statement is outweighed by others, this doesn't mean the former statement is "false."

Using the story as evidence is not presupposing the truth of a claim, it has nothing to do with begging the question. You're being bizarrely obtuse about this subject, but I take it that English is not your first language which is why you are not understanding this very well.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Because it had rude comments in it. You were warned to stop making those.

B isn't a claim, B is a piece of evidence. I'm not assuming B is "correct" as B is a piece of information, not an argument. B is the fact that Dark Sakura was stated to be as powerful as true heroic spirits. You're saying that statement is untrue, which isn't really a sensible approach to how evidence works. You're actuslly saying B is outweighed by other evidence. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary so I haven't accepted your claim.

Again, that's not begging the question. My argument doesn't rely on assuming it's own truth, it's based on evidence.

ignoring the fact that dark sakura can only output 1000 units of magical power, or an a rank NP in strength at a time.,

Even if your statement is 100% fact, there is this.

Counter Force [Others]
The Counter Force here is the safety device formed by the collective unconsciousness.
The prayer to avert the demise of mankind, Alaya.
And the prayer to extend the life of the planet, Gaia.
These are the two aspect of the Counter Force.
Both aspects have the goal of extending the existence of the current World. They will eradicate the factors that threaten to destroy the World at the moment of their occurance.
Since the Counter Force is the unconscious, its appearance draws no attention, and no one will recognize it.
The Counter Force is a formless spiral of power. It adjusts its scale based on the target that needs to be obliterated. The Counter Force will always appear with a status above the target, enough to absolutely secure a victory.
Normally, the Counter Force empowers "a normal person" to remove the factor that can trigger destruction. As a result, these individuals are worshiped as "Heroes".
Individuals who became Heroes through the aspect of Alaya are said to be integrated into Alaya after death. However, the accuracy of this statement is uncertain.
These individuals are also called Counter Guardians. The emphasis here is "Counter", because they have no autonomy and will only activate in response to an event.

counter guardians do not have 1 singular level of power. there are also grand servants,which are just basically massively amped cgs in function

 

[Deagonx]

counter guardians do not have 1 singular level of power

That's not an issue for my argument at all.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

This is a really poor understanding of what an antecedent represents in formal logic. An antecedent is the first half of an if-then hypothesis, it is the condition. A statement is not an antecedent.

This is poor understanding of what an antecedent is in formal logic, an antecedent doesn't only represent an if-then hypothesis because antecedents don't solely have an application to conditional statements and biconditional.

You didn't even attack anything you just explained the relationship between antecedents and consequences by appealing to a different property that antecedents have. I don't have to remind you again that listing a different property doesn't denounce the property I listed right? Saying the wall is black when I say it's white doesn't denounce the wall being white because it can be simultaneously black and white.

In formal logic a claim can be a proposition, a proposition acts as an antecedent to infer a consequence. Which means it acts as evidence to support the conclusion.

So what do you mean "cannot".

By the way propositions can affirm necessarily true conclusions, which is "fact" supported by claims acting as evidence.

A proposition is a claim about how things are: it repre sents the world as being some way. It is true if things are the way it represents them to be (saying it how it is) and otherwise it is false (saying it how it isn't).

Book in formal logic, a proposition is a claim and a proposition is an antecedent therefore an antecedent is a claim.

Because if x=y and y=z it implies x=z and they have a transitive relation. Never seen a refutation all you did was list a different property. Considering by your standards I'm the with a poor understanding of antecedents in formal logic can you get me anywhere in any formal logic book where they distinguish between a claim and proposition?

Using evidence from the source material is not a presupposition. The evidence is factual regardless of whether you argue it is outweighed by other evidence. This has no relation to the concept of begging the question.

Ohhhhh so you agree its outweighed, therefore it's not factual because the preponderance is against it? Okay let's suppose there's statement A established in the source material and statement B gets established which negates A, if both A and B are assumed to be true then neither A and B are true because two contradictory things cannot be truth apt. I showed you statements going against that and you still have yet to address them therefore the evidence isn't factual.

No, I am saying that statements within a story are not argumentative claims, they are evidence.

Okay???

Whilst a character can simply be wrong, the narration telling us something isn't sensibly evaluated within the dichotomy of "true" or "false." It's simply information that the narration stated this. If you evaluate that one statement is outweighed by others, this doesn't mean the former statement is "false."

It does mean the former statement is false I told you the preponderance against that implies that, if the narration isn't something to be evaluated within the dichotomy of true or false. Then it follows that your statement is still not true because we'd have to assume statements against it to be true as well.

Using the story as evidence is not presupposing the truth of a claim, it has nothing to do with begging the question.

You've just begged the question to justify it not begging the question, by assuming statements of narration are necessarily true. Which I already explained why they are not but you assume what you said was right initially to infer you not begging the question which begs the question by assuming something again instead of justifying it.

You're being bizarrely obtuse about this subject, but I take it that English is not your first language which is why you are not understanding this very well.

If anything you're bizarrely obtuse in regards to the flaws in your own argument, but I take it you haven't read anything about epistemology and formal language to understand what criteria's need to be met to say something is "true" or "truth apt" which is why you are not understanding this very well.

 

[Deagonx]

Eh, I'm not reading that. I mentioned the "begging the question" thing as a quick tip to let you know you were using it wrong. It wasn't supposed to be an argument, because it's the kind of thing where you just google it and realize you've been using it wrong and then move on. The fact that you're trying to argue otherwise is just bizarre and I guess it doesn't really matter if you continue to use it wrong.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

no kojirou?

Sadly none
As for the current CRT, i'm all for it if it's mean to get ridd off that stupid invul thing lmao

 

[Tdjwo]

As for the current CRT, i'm all for it if it's mean to get ridd off that stupid invul thing lmao

So you rather Nasuverse caps at 3D based on obnoxious and repeated reddit debunks just because of the invul stuff rather than it reaching Tier 0(which it will)? Stop the

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

So you rather Nasuverse caps at 3D based on obnoxious and repeated reddit debunks just because of the invul stuff rather than it reaching Tier 0(which it will)? Stop the

I rather want Nasuverse have so much fun matches instead indexed to tier 0 so you can't stop me lel

 

[Fezzih_007]

"Tier 0 Nasuverse" lmao super funny stuff.

 

[Tdjwo]

I rather want Nasuverse have so much fun matches instead indexed to tier 0 so you can't stop me lel

You can literally create matches and restrict the invul stuff.

"Tier 0 Nasuverse" lmao super funny stuff.

SuPeR fUnNy StUfF

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

You can literally create matches and restrict the invul stuff.

Yeah, but that mean it can't be added and that's feels so wrong for me
There's some of satisfaction when a matches is added to a profiles, win or lose

Note that i'm not against the tier 1 stuffs you guys working, it just this verse has became so funless because of it, so i'm hoping that servants matches can return even if it mean opposed to what has been presented, even tho the chance are low considering the state of that thread might resulted on no removal on anything with Ultima is very supportive on tier 1 and higher dimensional on Nasuverse, but we'll see

 

[Tdjwo]

Yeah, but that mean it can't be added and that's feels so wrong for me
There's some of satisfaction when a matches is added to a profiles, win or lose

Note that i'm not against the tier 1 stuffs you guys working, it just this verse has became so funless because of it, so i'm hoping that servants matches can return even if it mean opposed to what has been presented, even tho the chance are low considering the state of that thread might resulted on no removal on anything with Ultima is very supportive on tier 1 and higher dimensional on Nasuverse, but we'll see

I disagree entirely with your logic. Downgrading a verse just to create some matches seems pointless to me. And it seems you forget that tier 1's in general don't have win or lose added to their profile. And it seems you have problem with Nasuverse invul hax rather than its dimensional tiering itself which Deagonx is trying to debunk. So yeah, I would rather the verse remain "matchless" than someone claiming higher dimensions aren't infinitely higher in Nasuverse. That downgrade thread should burn

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

I disagree entirely with your logic. Downgrading a verse just to create some matches seems pointless to me. And it seems you forget that tier 1's in general don't have win or lose added to their profile. And it seems you have problem with Nasuverse invul hax rather than its dimensional tiering itself which Deagonx is trying to debunk. So yeah, I would rather the verse remain "matchless" than someone claiming higher dimensions aren't infinitely higher in Nasuverse. That downgrade thread should burn

I'm more talking about a matches that aren't tier 1 and tbf that only applied to tier 1-A where you can't add win/lose on the profiles
Also while i'm not saying that downgrading a verse just for a matches, this is also has a points so i can see that

Sometime you lose something from winning something, simple as that, "matchless" = no fun but that just for me >.>

 

[Fezzih_007]

This is a index site, so what matters here is what's more acuratte for the verse, is not about upgrading or downgrading stuff.

If Tier 1 Nasuverse make sense, is the one i stand for, but If is not acuratte, It should be downgrade, yeah.

 

[Tdjwo]

I'm more talking about a matches that aren't tier 1 and tbf that only applied to tier 1-A where you can't add win/lose on the profiles
Also while i'm not saying that downgrading a verse just for a matches, this is also has a points so i can see that

Sometime you lose something from winning something, simple as that, "matchless" = no fun but that just for me >.>

Has anyone ever correctly debunked the invul stuff? No. It's explicitly stated in the verse. We can't just remove it because it's preventing us from creating matches. We have to stick to its accuracy. Nasu is just built different and that's the author's fault. I still don't see what's spectacular in adding win-lose to profiles. It doesn't add or diminish anything. We can still create match ups with restrictions. The only thing is that it wouldnt be added to their profiles and tbh, who really cares about looking at the win-loss on profiles? Most are shit anyways. Robin literally has a win over Boros on her profile. Chaos currently has a vs match up another character and its going well.

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

fgo reddit is removing sprite comics

 

[1997KD]

Ordeal call servant will get their profile in upcoming weeks or after 2 years?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

if you want no 4d invul then use non servant chars

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

if you want no 4d invul then use non servant chars

They are not exciting to use tbh

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Has anyone ever correctly debunked the invul stuff? No. It's explicitly stated in the verse. We can't just remove it because it's preventing us from creating matches. We have to stick to its accuracy. Nasu is just built different and that's the author's fault. I still don't see what's spectacular in adding win-lose to profiles. It doesn't add or diminish anything. We can still create match ups with restrictions. The only thing is that it wouldnt be added to their profiles and tbh, who really cares about looking at the win-loss on profiles? Most are shit anyways. Robin literally has a win over Boros on her profile. Chaos currently has a vs match up another character and its going well.

As i said, there are some satisfaction when a matches is added to the profiles, especially if the matches are ended very well, and that's what i mean for fun

Anyway that's all i want to say at this point lel, you guys can go back on the project

 

[Fezzih_007]

They are not exciting to use tbh

Why?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Nasuverse is tier 0 above SRE. Marshadow has shown me the way of "God".

 

[Tdjwo]

Nasuverse is tier 0 above SRE. Marshadow has shown me the way of "God".

S
H
U
T

U
P

 

[Tdjwo]

Ah shit. Shin Megami Tensei is in big trouble. Downgrades incoming. If you love the verse, go rescue it.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Ah shit. Shin Megami Tensei is in big trouble. Downgrades incoming. If you love the verse, go rescue it.

I hope Milly, and Ultima (as well as other supporters) can clutch. But if it means Persona is no longer 1-A then...... I am conflicted.

 

[Tdjwo]

I hope Milly, and Ultima (as well as other supporters) can clutch. But if it means Persona is no longer 1-A then...... I am conflicted.

I don't give a shit lol. SMT fans love to shit on Nasu. Would be funny if SMT gets back to tier 7 while Nasu remains in Tier 1 or even 0(in the future). But since Ultima is there, SMT might escape lol.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I don't give a shit lol. SMT fans love to shit on Nasu. Would be funny if SMT gets back to tier 7 while Nasu remains in Tier 1 or even 0(in the future). But since Ultima is there, SMT might escape lol.

SMT is still tier 1. 1-A is just currently debatable.

 

[Tdjwo]

SMT is still tier 1. 1-A is just currently debatable.

I thought 1A was the only Tier 1 feat/statement the verse had.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I thought 1A was the only Tier 1 feat/statement the verse had.

That "1-A" statement would still be atleast +1 to the current cosmology which already has Low 1-C structures.