Removing 2 hax

[Truth_Bullets]

1. Burden of rejoinder is very present since you're dropping the argument

2. I proved this wasn't taken out of context and you conceded

3. I don't need to prove the consistency. Consistency is when a fact can be true at the same time with other facts, so this is consistent via the reasoning I provided.

4. I did show that it referenced Silver's Chaos Control.

5. Yes, but controlling space and time has many extensions, and you don't get all of them by using some of them, that's a hasty generalization and a composition fallacy.

6. There is no burden of proof on me, I claimed the negative. Stop flinging that term around like apeshit when you've been educated several times that that isn't how it works.

7. You didn't prove the absence of evidence lmao, I gave proof for my points and backed them up. You actually did concede though, use terms you still don't understand, claimed fallacies and philosophical razors when they were unapplicable and actually applied to you, failed to realize the fallacies you yourself committed even when they were brought directly to you, and you still didn't show any evidence for what you claim.

8. I don't have to, you're asking me to prove a negative. You can't even get your rhetorical banter right. Concession accepted, pal.

 

[ElixirBlue]

"Hey Ash, use your water type Pokémon to fight team Rocket."

Misty "H-hey, I have Pokémon too."

Dumbledore: "well, I have never been shown to use "Wingardium Leviosa", so it must be an ability exclusive to the students."

 

[ElixirBlue]

By the way, I am continuingly debunking your "Blaze said this" statement. And by your words, you seem to be ignoring that fact.

You keep relying on "Blaze said this" when it's flawed evidence to your argument but the smoking gun of evidence to my argument.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

1. Except we've debunked the relevant arguments

2. I never granted you anything in that end

3. No if a guy dodged a mftl+ attack once in point blank range and then struggle to dodge a bullet that's not consistent. Consistency is a end being more evident than at least once. Where's "your" Chaos Control Of an ability that's acquired by the method of using the chaos Emeralds Power? Where is it stated that sonic and other relations use Chaos Control differently? When Is Blaze specified to mean more than a Seed, when you're raising it to a Forest?! Show me one other Game at least with a specified view of users using Chaos Control differently in a general sense and context to qualify Son.

4. No it referenced Chaos Control, Silver is using the Energy Of The Chaos Emeralds for such a trait, furthermore Blaze means you the ability acquired using the Chaos Emeralds And Nothing more.

5. Chaos Emeralds Naturally Control The Very Concept Of SpaceTime, you need to prove these extensions exist and that only certain characters each can use them that way which you don't have evidence which is why I look down upon this thread and it's meaning.

6. No, that's not how the fallacy works, I'm allowed to ask you to specify your argument which would require you to justify the absence of evidence And I would refute if it suffices and there's no loophole around it.

7. That's a literal uno reverse card, I committed no fallacies and attacked your every claim, I even showed a scan of Knuckles using Chaos Control to send an entire placement to another time/dimension. Can you prove! Sonic can't do it!? Or Shadow can't do it!? Because you're arguing from ignorance on very fragile footing.

8. Ummm no you have to show the absence of evidence to be accepted as a negative or a positive in the first place. Saying Concession Accepted makes it clear you're Mentally Untouchable That your points aren't even acceptable enough to be included or thought about. This is irrational and obnoxious behavior. There's no concession.

We are continuously debunking your "oh Blaze used this bit of Grammar" nonsense.

But now I'm back into the debate because of you.

 

[ElixirBlue]

@TheImagineBreaker121212 Actually, "Blaze said this" might be the evidence, not to prove Sonic, Shadow, and Silver only can use Chaos Energy differently from one another...

But Blaze might be the one who can prove they all can.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

^

 

[Oblivion_Lightning]

If this goes through then scaling through chaos powers gets screwed up across the franchise like conceptual manipulation through Chaos Control in Archie.

 

[Truth_Bullets]

""Hey Ash, use your water type Pokémon to fight team Rocket."

Misty "H-hey, I have Pokémon too."

Dumbledore: "well, I have never been shown to use "Wingardium Leviosa", so it must be an ability exclusive to the students.""

Damn, I guess this refutes the definition of a statement directed at a single person when nobody else was present and showed to have any qualities similar to him. :/

"By the way, I am continuingly debunking your "Blaze said this" statement. And by your words, you seem to be ignoring that fact.

You keep relying on "Blaze said this" when it's flawed evidence to your argument but the smoking gun of evidence to my argument."

And I'm debunking the refute.

"Except we've debunked the relevant arguments"

No, you haven't. And you've literally conceded via burden of rejoinder.

"I never granted you anything in that end"

You do by default via burden of rejoinder, whether you want to or not.

"No if a guy dodged a mftl+ attack once in point blank range and then struggle to dodge a bullet that's not consistent. Consistency is a end being more evident than at least once. Where's "your" Chaos Control Of an ability that's acquired by the method of using the chaos Emeralds Power? Where is it stated that sonic and other relations use Chaos Control differently? When Is Blaze specified to mean more than a Seed, when you're raising it to a Forest?! Show me one other Game at least with a specified view of users using Chaos Control differently in a general sense and context to qualify Son."

If a guy dodged an MFTL+ attack and struggled to dodge a bullet, it's still consistent. He's not consistently MFTL+, because that can't be true with the bullet dodging feat, but it still happened. That'd be consistent.

No, that's not the definition of consistency. As a someone who instructs Logic it's literally not the definition.

"Where's "your" Chaos Control" doesn't make sense gramatically, I don't know what you're saying here.

It doesn't need to be stated they use it differently, it just needs to be shown, which it is, because no one has used Sonic's ability of keeping the universe together or Silver's ability of an inter-dimensional BFR sealing but them.

Blaze is literally just referring to Silver, I'm not exaggerating anything.

I don't have to. It's consistent as is.

"No it referenced Chaos Control, Silver is using the Energy Of The Chaos Emeralds for such a trait, furthermore Blaze means you the ability acquired using the Chaos Emeralds And Nothing more."

Prove it. I showed how it's referencing Silver, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it's just referencing Chaos Control.

"Chaos Emeralds Naturally Control The Very Concept Of SpaceTime"

You're the only person arguing for this headcanon which isn't supported on the wiki lmao, try again.

"you need to prove these extensions exist and that only certain characters each can use them that way which you don't have evidence which is why I look down upon this thread and it's meaning."

No one cares what you feel.

Also, I have. I've shown only Silver has shown to use his ability. Again, inductive reasoning, hasty generalizations and composition fallacies are the only ways you can prove Sonic has this ability.

"No, that's not how the fallacy works, I'm allowed to ask you to specify your argument which would require you to justify the absence of evidence And I would refute if it suffices and there's no loophole around it."

1. I don't have to prove a negative. Stop acting like your word is god and it can negate basic logical principles that everyone accepts, I don't have to do a thing you want me to, even if you think it would help my case.

2. Absence of evidence isn't even the evidence of absence.

3. Refute it then.

"I committed no fallacies and attacked your every claim, I even showed a scan of Knuckles using Chaos Control to send an entire placement to another time/dimension."

You dropped your points after attacking them, and yes you ******* did. Even now you're attempting to use burden of proof and absence of evidence on me and say I'm using a negative incorrectly, when that isn't how any of that works. Even now you're attempting to use hasty generalizations, inductive reasoning and composition fallacies to say that you're right, when that isn't how any of this works. Even now you're claiming shit that isn't true, and nobody does that except the person that's wrong.

Hell, Knuckles doing that still doesn't give Sonic the ability to use that extension.

Again, "You claimed fallacies and philosophical razors when they were unapplicable and actually applied to you, failed to realize the fallacies you yourself committed even when they were brought directly to you, and you still didn't show any evidence for what you claim."

"Can you prove! Sonic can't do it!? Or Shadow can't do it!? Because you're arguing from ignorance on very fragile footing."

My argument's very solid, thank you.

I don't have to prove they can't, because that'd be proving a negative.

I proved how Blaze's statement was significant to Silver.

You're arguing from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when you say "If you can't disprove it it's true" when I'm literally doing the opposite by claiming a negative and saying "If you can't prove it, it's false."

"We are continuously debunking your "oh Blaze used this bit of Grammar" nonsense."

And I'm refuting the debunks.

 

[Truth_Bullets]

"Ummm no you have to show the absence of evidence to be accepted as a negative or a positive in the first place."

No, a negative or positive statement is completely uncorrelated to absence of evidence. I already gave you examples.

A positive says something "is", a negative denies this. You have to prove the positive. Absence of evidence both isn't the evidence of absence and is irrelevant to begin with.

"Saying Concession Accepted makes it clear you're Mentally Untouchable That your points aren't even acceptable enough to be included or thought about. This is irrational and obnoxious behavior."

No, that right there is wrong. Saying concession accepted means that I take your concession which you gave by default through burden of rejoinder. My points wouldn't even be disregarded unless I was backtracking over things which were already refuted, but I've actually been letting you backtrack this entire time and refuting the backtracking. A thank you would be appreciated for allowing that this whole time.

"There's no concession."

Burden of rejoinder.

"But now I'm back into the debate because of you."

Lmao okay, no backtracking though, because you already conceded on those points.

"If this goes through then scaling through chaos powers gets screwed up across the franchise like conceptual manipulation through Chaos Control in Archie."

No, it just means this insignificant, not combat-applicable ability that nobody but Silver has shown to do or even implied to have ability over isn't applicable to them. All your other hax is okay.

 

[ElixirBlue]

""Hey Ash, use your water type Pokémon to fight team Rocket."

Misty "H-hey, I have Pokémon too."

Dumbledore: "well, I have never been shown to use "Wingardium Leviosa", so it must be an ability exclusive to the students.""

Damn, I guess this refutes the definition of a statement directed at a single person when nobody else was present and showed to have any qualities similar to him. :/

For the record, people. Darksspine's replay was sarcasm, not debunking or refuting my examples when it comes to how he is twisting Blaze's wording.

"By the way, I am continuingly debunking your "Blaze said this" statement. And by your words, you seem to be ignoring that fact.

You keep relying on "Blaze said this" when it's flawed evidence to your argument but the smoking gun of evidence to my argument."

And I'm debunking the refute.

No you haven't since you are using selective hearing and ignore Blaze mentioning Time Stop.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

""Hey Ash, use your water type Pokémon to fight team Rocket."

Misty "H-hey, I have Pokémon too."

Dumbledore: "well, I have never been shown to use "Wingardium Leviosa", so it must be an ability exclusive to the students.""

Damn, I guess this refutes the definition of a statement directed at a single person when nobody else was present and showed to have any qualities similar to him. :/

"By the way, I am continuingly debunking your "Blaze said this" statement. And by your words, you seem to be ignoring that fact.

You keep relying on "Blaze said this" when it's flawed evidence to your argument but the smoking gun of evidence to my argument."

And I'm debunking the refute.

"Except we've debunked the relevant arguments"

No, you haven't. And you've literally conceded via burden of rejoinder.

"I never granted you anything in that end"

You do by default via burden of rejoinder, whether you want to or not.

"No if a guy dodged a mftl+ attack once in point blank range and then struggle to dodge a bullet that's not consistent. Consistency is a end being more evident than at least once. Where's "your" Chaos Control Of an ability that's acquired by the method of using the chaos Emeralds Power? Where is it stated that sonic and other relations use Chaos Control differently? When Is Blaze specified to mean more than a Seed, when you're raising it to a Forest?! Show me one other Game at least with a specified view of users using Chaos Control differently in a general sense and context to qualify Son."

If a guy dodged an MFTL+ attack and struggled to dodge a bullet, it's still consistent. He's not consistently MFTL+, because that can't be true with the bullet dodging feat, but it still happened. That'd be consistent.

No, that's not the definition of consistency. As a someone who instructs Logic it's literally not the definition.

"Where's "your" Chaos Control" doesn't make sense gramatically, I don't know what you're saying here.

It doesn't need to be stated they use it differently, it just needs to be shown, which it is, because no one has used Sonic's ability of keeping the universe together or Silver's ability of an inter-dimensional BFR sealing but them.

Blaze is literally just referring to Silver, I'm not exaggerating anything.

I don't have to. It's consistent as is.

"No it referenced Chaos Control, Silver is using the Energy Of The Chaos Emeralds for such a trait, furthermore Blaze means you the ability acquired using the Chaos Emeralds And Nothing more."

Prove it. I showed how it's referencing Silver, and the burden of proof is on you to prove it's just referencing Chaos Control.

"Chaos Emeralds Naturally Control The Very Concept Of SpaceTime"

You're the only person arguing for this headcanon which isn't supported on the wiki lmao, try again.

"you need to prove these extensions exist and that only certain characters each can use them that way which you don't have evidence which is why I look down upon this thread and it's meaning."

No one cares what you feel.

Also, I have. I've shown only Silver has shown to use his ability. Again, inductive reasoning, hasty generalizations and composition fallacies are the only ways you can prove Sonic has this ability.

"No, that's not how the fallacy works, I'm allowed to ask you to specify your argument which would require you to justify the absence of evidence And I would refute if it suffices and there's no loophole around it."

1. I don't have to prove a negative. Stop acting like your word is god and it can negate basic logical principles that everyone accepts, I don't have to do a thing you want me to, even if you think it would help my case.

2. Absence of evidence isn't even the evidence of absence.

3. Refute it then.

"I committed no fallacies and attacked your every claim, I even showed a scan of Knuckles using Chaos Control to send an entire placement to another time/dimension."

You dropped your points after attacking them, and yes you ******* did. Even now you're attempting to use burden of proof and absence of evidence on me and say I'm using a negative incorrectly, when that isn't how any of that works. Even now you're attempting to use hasty generalizations, inductive reasoning and composition fallacies to say that you're right, when that isn't how any of this works. Even now you're claiming shit that isn't true, and nobody does that except the person that's wrong.

Hell, Knuckles doing that still doesn't give Sonic the ability to use that extension.

Again, "You claimed fallacies and philosophical razors when they were unapplicable and actually applied to you, failed to realize the fallacies you yourself committed even when they were brought directly to you, and you still didn't show any evidence for what you claim."

"Can you prove! Sonic can't do it!? Or Shadow can't do it!? Because you're arguing from ignorance on very fragile footing."

My argument's very solid, thank you.

I don't have to prove they can't, because that'd be proving a negative.

I proved how Blaze's statement was significant to Silver.

You're arguing from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is when you say "If you can't disprove it it's true" when I'm literally doing the opposite by claiming a negative and saying "If you can't prove it, it's false."

"We are continuously debunking your "oh Blaze used this bit of Grammar" nonsense."

And I'm refuting the debunks.

None of your Arguments are solid, I am the negative not you, you're own premise is a positive which you fail to bring the abstract to Concrete, the abstract being that characters is only limited to certain sets of Chaos Control the concrete being sonic shouldn't have BFR Via Chaos Control And your argument and it's presentation is awful, you cannot provide more than one very ambiguous piece of evidence and shows the flaws, I just said i changed my mind so there's no concession or rejoinder for your reasonings. Relying on the same piece of evidence after it's been successfully debunked turns the rejoinder and proof on you to prove the works.

 

[Radical_Resident_Khan]

Well that was.....surprising here.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

"Ummm no you have to show the absence of evidence to be accepted as a negative or a positive in the first place."

No, a negative or positive statement is completely uncorrelated to absence of evidence. I already gave you examples.

A positive says something "is", a negative denies this. You have to prove the positive. Absence of evidence both isn't the evidence of absence and is irrelevant to begin with.

"Saying Concession Accepted makes it clear you're Mentally Untouchable That your points aren't even acceptable enough to be included or thought about. This is irrational and obnoxious behavior."

No, that right there is wrong. Saying concession accepted means that I take your concession which you gave by default through burden of rejoinder. My points wouldn't even be disregarded unless I was backtracking over things which were already refuted, but I've actually been letting you backtrack this entire time and refuting the backtracking. A thank you would be appreciated for allowing that this whole time.

"There's no concession."

Burden of rejoinder.

"But now I'm back into the debate because of you."

Lmao okay, no backtracking though, because you already conceded on those points.

"If this goes through then scaling through chaos powers gets screwed up across the franchise like conceptual manipulation through Chaos Control in Archie."

No, it just means this insignificant, not combat-applicable ability that nobody but Silver has shown to do or even implied to have ability over isn't applicable to them. All your other hax is okay.

I never conceded on anything on the contrary which would be you, give another piece of evidence that's not ambiguous and dodgy that says only certain characters can use this and that this way, you can't even ground the abstract to the concrete because there's nothing solid enough to ground it there, you're asking us to research your refuted and it's a concession by default right there. Give actual pieces of evidence they can't do this or that with a solid statement and signs of consistency. Oh wait...

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

Well that was.....surprising here.

Uh huh

 

[ElixirBlue]

@TheImagineBreaker break down the text in the quote to the points you are responding to. I'm not liking I have to see an unnecessary Giant wall of text when I'm scrolling down.

 

[Truth_Bullets]

"For the record, people. Darksspine's replay was sarcasm, not debunking or refuting my examples when it comes to how he is twisting Blaze's wording."

Don't strawman me, I inserted my response in my sarcasm.

"nobody else was present and showed to have any qualities similar to him. :/"

If it's a specific "your" when nobody else is present or has shown to be similar to him in that ability. How is that referring to people in general?

"No you haven't since you are using selective hearing and ignore Blaze mentioning Time Stop."

Saying Silver can stop time doesn't mean anything, it just confirms he has the ability. It doesn't mean others that can time stop can use his inter-dimensional BFR sealing.

"None of your Arguments are solid"

Yes they are, because they're still holding up when yours keep getting refuted.

"I am the negative not you"

Lmao, how are you the negative? I need a genuine answer, because I'm the one saying Sonic can't when you're saying Sonic can.

"you're own premise is a positive which you fail to bring the abstract to Concrete"

No, saying "Sonic can not" is a negative.

"And your argument and it's presentation is awful"

I mean, it's still above yours, so I don't see your point. Is yours worse than awful?

"you cannot provide more than one very ambiguous piece of evidence and shows the flaws"

I don't need more evidence than that. You still have yet to show a scan of Sonic using this ability.

"I just said i changed my mind so there's no concession or rejoinder for your reasonings"

You gave a concession and you're back to debating. It was burden of rejoinder. Now it's another argument.

"Relying on the same piece of evidence after it's been successfully debunked turns the rejoinder and proof on you to prove the works."

And I fulfilled the burden and gave it back after refuting the debunk. Then it was on you. Then you conceded. Now you're back to arguing.

"I never conceded on anything on the contrary which would be you"

Lmao I never once suffered burden of rejoinder and I ignored your burden of rejoinder numerous times, don't try to put that on me pal.

"give another piece of evidence that's not ambiguous and dodgy that says only certain characters can use this and that this way"

I don't have to, one statement can be consistent. In case you didn't read the debunk, which you didn't address and therefore concede on via burden of rejoinder, your definition of consistent is wrong.

"you can't even ground the abstract to the concrete because there's nothing solid enough to ground it there,"

Besides my deductive reasoning and scans and refutations to the silly debunks provided.

"you're asking us to research your refuted and it's a concession by default right there."

No, that's not burden of rejoinder. And coming from the source, I'm not asking that, that's another strawman fallacy on your part. I'm saying prove the positive. Which you still haven't. You tried to refute the negative, but you need to prove the positive to do that. And you haven't even refuted the negative with your own attempts.

"Give actual pieces of evidence they can't do this or that with a solid statement and signs of consistency. Oh wait..."

Again, consistency is when one thing can be true at the same time as another. My argumentation is very consistent, and I don't need to fulfill your definition fo it to be.

Anyhow, I suggest two options.

A.) Show a scan where Sonic uses inter-dimensional BFR sealing

B.) Get mods like you said to read over this, because this thread is nothing but "you're wrong!" and "no you're wrong!" which is ad nauseum anyhow. We're all getting tired of this shit.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

You're asking us to prove your argument. You are being ignorant and oblivious.

 

[ElixirBlue]

"No you haven't since you are using selective hearing and ignore Blaze mentioning Time Stop."

Saying Silver can stop time doesn't mean anything, it just confirms he has the ability. It doesn't mean others that can time stop can use his inter-dimensional BFR sealing.

Blaze's statement does prove something.

Blaze's quote: "Come on. Make it quick. Use your Chaos Control... to stop time. Then... seal us into a different dimension."

Shadow has used Stop Time before, like in Sonic Heroes as his party's special attack.

However, Blaze has never met Shadow or seen Sonic use Stop Time. Before 06, Blaze never learned of Sonic or the rest before time traveling from the future. Blaze's past was recon for 06.

"Use your Chaos Control to stop time and seal us."

You can't ignore that Blaze didn't differentiate between Stop Time and Dimensional Travel as abilities Silver can use. She paused because she was struggling to handle Iblis.

Blaze said Stop Time and Dimensional Travel are what Silver can use with his Chaos Control. For this statement with Stop Time to work, either:

A. Blaze knows Silver's use of Chaos Control and thinks Silver is the only one who can use those abilities, obviously never meeting Shadow to know if he can do the same Stop Time, meaning she clearly doesn't know other people can use these abilities.

B. Blaze knows Stop Time and Sending people to another Dimension is what Chaos users can all do.

 

[ElixirBlue]

If Blaze said ""Come on. Make it quick. Use Chaos Control... to stop time. Then... seal us into a different dimension with your power.", then this whole debate would indeed come to a conclusion that all characters can use Stop Time and only Silver have BFR.


BUT that's not what Blaze said. Blaze said ""Come on. Make it quick. Use your Chaos Control... to stop time. Then... seal us into a different dimension."

She said BFR And Stop Time as Silver's abilities and made BFR just as special as Stop Time.

 

[Antvasima]

I have been asked to close this thread before it grows more heated.

What are the conclusions here?

 

[Theuser789]

There's still a debate of wheter or not those abilities should be removed or not

I already argued against it being removed and only Darksspine is arguing in favor right now

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Radical_Resident_Khan]

Its already proven that Chaos Control users can perform feats like that. Even Elise's father sealed Iblis with a Chaos Emerald. Its not far fetch to think Sonic can do it as well.

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

All people using Chaos Control is the same power and same abilities. When people who use Chaos Energy clash they warp SpaceTime or Open a Hole within it like with Sonic And Shadow And Shadow With Silver. There's no concrete evidence and the one shown has been refuted so many times it's becoming underwhelming.

 

[Antvasima]

So should I close this thread?

 

[Theuser789]

If you wish

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Truth_Bullets]

I will come back to this later.

 

[Radical_Resident_Khan]

Wasn't this thread closed?

 

[Theuser789]

Darksspine asked it to be restored after saying I was a liar

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

Yeah from Antvasima I'm going to request it be closed again because this "I'll come back to this later" is going to be an ad Circulum over and over again over a ambiguous claim based off an ambiguous sentence.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know what I should do here, as I am too tired and overworked to properly read though everything in the discussion.

 

[Theuser789]

Get other staff in here so that it wouldn't be just Darksspine and the rest arguing with each other in circles

Or let the thread die or close it ovo

 

[TheImagineBreaker121212]

^

 

[Antvasima]

I have the impression that the other staff members largely do not want to help out with Sonic threads anymore, since several of the participants keep being relentlessly disrespectful and unreasonable. As such, I doubt that there will be a lot of Sonic revisions anymore in this wiki.

Anyway, since this won't lead anywhere anyway, I suppose that I can close the thread.