• 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 AKM sama if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.

Question about destroying multi universes

3,781
296
if a character says he can destroy multiple universes we assume he did in one go or he did it several times?
 
3,781
296
More context is needed to make any assumptions we've been over this dude.
Damn i know you were going to derail and avoid getting my answer answered also why you assume he didnt

that happened with 8 bit and 9-A TF2 i alredy have expirience with you
 
2,519
730
How is this derailing? The answer is that we need more context to make any assumptions. Call any staff here and they'll agree with me.
 
680
52
alien x saying the character activates my secret card biases
Oh wait I saw that scan. There was really no context for it tho, it just flat out says Alien x can destroy multiple universes. So, it’s at least universal. But anything further can’t be definitive. Possibly lowmultiversal or multiversal could also work i think
 
3,781
296
what if i say than this is my master plan to downgrade several 2-B verse with this argument.... yeah is a joke BTW
 
3,257
201
I am pretty sure we use Occam's razor which is the simplest answer and defend it with the burden of proof.

I don't think we give tiers of that alone anyway for example if they are already 2-C or higher this can be used to back it up but if they are 3-A to low 2-C this can be evidence for that tier instead


 
3,781
296
Oh wait I saw that scan. There was really no context for it tho, it just flat out says Alien x can destroy multiple universes. So, it’s at least universal. But anything further can’t be definitive. Possibly lowmultiversal or multiversal could also work i think
Yeah atleast that would be Low 2-C probally 2-B
 
3,781
296
isnt the more easy is to assume he did in one go that he didnt in one go because that is what most people would assume
 
6,578
3,326
I hope you know, when it comes to universes, statements like that are 3-A without further context. Universal futon the wiki are strict.
 
3,781
296
I hope you know, when it comes to universes, statements like that are 3-A without further context. Universal futon the wiki are strict.
okay i can agree with that and is result the true i am not mad because that is a real argument instead of a pseudo avanced burden proof
 
2,141
213
Oh wait I saw that scan. There was really no context for it tho, it just flat out says Alien x can destroy multiple universes. So, it’s at least universal. But anything further can’t be definitive. Possibly lowmultiversal or multiversal could also work i think
I honestly disagree lmao if someone says he can destroy a universe then we obviously assume that he can do it in a single shot and we aren't going to assume that he is planet level just because there was no specific time Fram same goes for destroying multiple universes if someone says I can destroy multiple universes then it clears to him being able to do it in one shot with no specific time frame needed lmao
 
2,519
730
I honestly disagree lmao if someone says he can destroy a universe then we obviously assume that he can do it in a single shot and we aren't going to assume that he is planet level just because there was no specific time Fram same goes for destroying multiple universes if someone says I can destroy multiple universes then it clears to him being able to do it in one shot lmao
Why? Why would we do that? In what world would we get accurate statistics by using a statement with no context?
 
1,407
417
I honestly disagree lmao if someone says he can destroy a universe then we obviously assume that he can do it in a single shot and we aren't going to assume that he is planet level just because there was no specific time Fram same goes for destroying multiple universes if someone says I can destroy multiple universes then it clears to him being able to do it in one shot with no specific time frame needed lmao
Cell and Kid Buu both having Universe Destruction statements
 
6,578
3,326
I think you the problem here is that you guys are trying to find an objective meaning for this one statement. This kind of statement can be interpreted as 3-A, low 2-C, 2-C, or hell, maybe even 2-B to 2-A.

The problem is there’s no obvious/objective statement so to be safe, we go with the low end unless proven otherwise.
 
3,781
296
Because the situation needs more context for it to be a valid 2-C feat. We don't just assume things like that.
The situations also need more context to be proved to be Low 2-C we also dont assume things like that because you are bringing things out of nowhere
 
3,781
296
I think you the problem here is that you guys are trying to find an objective meaning for this one statement. This kind of statement can be interpreted as 3-A, low 2-C, 2-C, or hell, maybe even 2-B to 2-A.

The problem is there’s no obvious/objective statement so to be safe, we go with the low end unless proven otherwise.
and actual argument thanks
 
2,141
213
But it is a single statement with absolutely 0 context. Why would we use it?
You don't need any context while the statement itself is clear as a day if someone says I can destroy a universe then we do assume that he can do that in a single shot we aren't gonna say he is planet level because no time Fram was specified
 
680
52
Personally, it sounds to me like it’s a low 2c feat at least, because the way I see it, if they intended to say he can destroy one universe at a time, they simply would have said he can destroy a/the universe. On the other hand, I agree it’s safer to say 3A at least,
 
2,519
730
I think you the problem here is that you guys are trying to find an objective meaning for this one statement. This kind of statement can be interpreted as 3-A, low 2-C, 2-C, or hell, maybe even 2-B to 2-A.

The problem is there’s no obvious/objective statement so to be safe, we go with the low end unless proven otherwise.
Exactly, which is why more context to the situation would be appreciated for a more accurate rating Maybe? Perhaps? LoL, not like I know, not like I'm real.
 
1,407
417
Because their statements about destruction destroying the universe are simply hyperbole
While I’m not saying Cell and Kid Buu should be universal, Android 16 and Elder Kai are taken pretty seriously in the story and no one (not even the characters who can directly and accurately sense power levels) seem to doubt them, what makes any other universe busting statement not a hyperbole
 
2,141
213
Personally, it sounds to me like it’s a low 2c feat at least, because the way I see it, if they intended to say he can destroy one universe at a time, they simply would have said he can destroy a/the universe. On the other hand, I agree it’s safer to say 3A at least,
Omg finally someone fucking understand
 
2,141
213
While I’m not saying Cell and Kid Buu should be universal, Android 16 and Elder Kai are taken pretty seriously in the story and no one (not even the characters who can directly and accurately sense power levels) seem to doubt them, what makes any other universe busting statement not a hyperbole
Well C16 doesn't really know how strong he is so he just believed him but cell was clearly just hyping himself like really
 
3,781
296
Because we'd need more CONTEXT about the SITUATION to go with any higher end besides the low-end.
the context says that he destroyed multiple universes and there is NO prove that he did it one by one and is safer to go with it.
 
2,519
730
Can you stop? I already adressed that already
You say that we should use a single statement with no context or anything else to help us understand it or properly index it at any higher-end besides the low-end. That sounds very small brain, no offense.
 
3,781
296
You say that we should use a single statement with no context or anything else to help us understand it or properly index it at any higher-end besides the low-end. That sounds very small brain, no offense.
Okay i am gona explain you is simplier to assume that he did in one go because we dont have to assume as hard to say that he didnt in one go
 
2,141
213
You say that we should use a single statement with no context or anything else to help us understand it or properly index it at any higher-end besides the low-end. That sounds very small brain, no offense.
Saying that you need more context for a clear cut statement is kind dumb tbh why do we assume that a character is universal level just because he was stated to have the ability to destroy a universe without a specific time frame? You also need more context for that
 
2,519
730
Saying that you need more context for a clear cut statement is kind dumb tbh why do we assume that a character is universal level just because he was stated to have the ability to destroy a universe without a specific time frame? You also need more context behind that
I'm not saying it isn't some form of universal. I'm saying that for any higher ratings besides the low-end, we need more context. This is my last comment on the situation because if I keep going I'm going to lose my mind.
 
2,141
213
I'm not saying it isn't some form of universal. I'm saying that for any higher ratings besides the low-end, we need more context. This is my last comment on the situation because if I keep going I'm going to lose my mind.
If the lowest end was the safest assumption then someone who has been stated to have the ability to destroy a universe should be only planet level because there were no time frame specified so we are just going to assume that can destroy the universe by destroying each planet
 
3,781
296
If the lowest end was the safest assumption that someone who has been stated to have the ability to destroy a universe should be only planet level because there were no time frame specified
Yeah is not about the safest is about the most logical
 
3,781
296
Okay imma sleep and i will be disapointed if the wiki doesnt explode or they ban me again Please dont or if the thread doesnt have 1000 responses or isnt closed
 
1_is_that_so.jpg
 
2,141
213
I doubt so. Afaik, destroying a infinite amount of universes in a finite amount of time is still 2-A
Sorry dude that's an assumption we are just going to assume that they need to destroy a universe one at a time for ever and just give them immortality type 1 based on this problem solved
 
2,141
213
Anyway here's the statement :

Pretty sure it refers to Alien x having the ability to destroy multiple universes in a single shot
 
2,141
213
Here's what it says : "Alien x can create and destroy entire universes, so the risk is too great for Ben to use this upgrade again"
 
1,407
417
While I feel like Alien X is likely 2-B, I would say that “can create and destroy universes” isn’t a direct statement of a one shot, I can say “I can make pies”, this does not inherently mean I make 2 pies at the same time
 
2,141
213
While I feel like Alien X is likely 2-B, I would say that “can create and destroy universes” isn’t a direct statement of a one shot, I can say “I can make pies”, this does not mean I make 2 pies at the same time
I don't think we should really apply real life logic tbh when someone says" I can destroy a universe " we obviously assume that he can destroy it in a single shot but if a normal human said" I can destroy a car "do we assume that he can destroy it in a single shot? Clearly no..... What I'm trying to say is people should stop using this kind of examples as those are clearly exceptions
 
2,141
213
I feel like context here suggests just 3-A.
We agreed that destroying an entire universe refers to low 2-C unless shown otherwise, 3-A means the ability to destroy all the celestial bodies of the universe but even then the statement is pretty clear as a day it clearly refers to Alien x being able to one shot multiple amount of low 2-C structures
 
1,407
417
I would agree that Low 2-C seems more viable going by Alien X’es own Feats and how “destroying/creating the universe” is treated in the show itself, pretty all of them involve timeline creation or destruction
 
9,954
1,770
Like Dragonlord said, it doesn't seem to describe itself as a one shot thing. "I can kill people" doesn't mean I can kill multiple people at once.
 
2,141
213
Like Dragonlord said, it doesn't seem to describe itself as a one shot thing. "I can kill people" doesn't mean I can kill multiple people at once.
If a character knows that he can only destroy 1 universe at a time why would he say I can destroy multiple universes instead of saying I can destroy an entire universe? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me
 
680
52
While I feel like Alien X is likely 2-B, I would say that “can create and destroy universes” isn’t a direct statement of a one shot, I can say “I can make pies”, this does not inherently mean I make 2 pies at the same time
if u are a reality warper tho, I would be tempted to put you a low multipie level
 

Rez

2,861
647
Just realised zeno also should be downgraded to low 2-c because all of his feats are individually destroying the universes
 

Rez

2,861
647
Actually never mind zeno destroyed the entire timeline in future trunks arc so his rating is fine
 
3,045
700
I'mma do this carefully and smartly.

Let's say that a character can wipe multiple planets.
What is the problem? That means he can just go planet after planet, destroying them world by world kinda like buu did. That doesn't make the feat 4-C/4-B, that makes it 5-A because assuming that he wiped out all of them at a time is a far stretch which cannot be used without further context.

The same applies to universes. If they said "destroy a multiverse" then yeah that is blatantly 2-C but they didn't, they said multiple universes which means that it might not be simultaneously.
 
2,001
334
Just realised zeno also should be downgraded to low 2-c because all of his feats are individually destroying the universes
An alternate future zeno erased a timeline that contains 12 or 18 universes and scales above the angels.
 
3,781
296
I'mma do this carefully and smartly.

Let's say that a character can wipe multiple planets.
What is the problem? That means he can just go planet after planet, destroying them world by world kinda like buu did. That doesn't make the feat 4-C/4-B, that makes it 5-A because assuming that he wiped out all of them at a time is a far stretch which cannot be used without further context.

The same applies to universes. If they said "destroy a multiverse" then yeah that is blatantly 2-C but they didn't, they said multiple universes which means that it might not be simultaneously.
How in the world does that prove he didnt in one go
 
680
52
It’s not proof. U can’t prove anything with only one sentence to go off of. He’s just saying he thinks it’s more conservative to say 5a instead of 4c/4b
 
680
52
What I mean to say is, the alien x statement is either Universal,Universal+,lowMultiversal, or higher. And most people think it’s safer to go with a lowball.
 
3,781
296
What I mean to say is, the alien x statement is either Universal,Universal+,lowMultiversal, or higher. And most people think it’s safer to go with a lowball.
No is far safer to go with Low 2-C probally 2-C because always going with the safest option isnt the most logic in this case
 
3,781
296
Also name a character that destroyed several universes and is low 2-C because we dont know if he did in one go name it
 
2,001
334
What I mean to say is, the alien x statement is either Universal,Universal+,lowMultiversal, or higher. And most people think it’s safer to go with a lowball.
No higher than low multiversal tho. That's why I proposed Low 2-C possibly 2-C.
 
2,001
334
You can make a thread on it but I think it's safe to have a conversation with knowledge staffs first or several but you can still make a thread on it for it to be possibly accepted tho you have my support on Low 2C possibly 2C.
 
Top