• 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.

The Lady of Pain vs Alphamon

"Your rude, so I'm not going to argue against you."

Claiming someone has an attitude problem therefore means that you cannot argue is a way of discrediting your detractors as well as misdirecting the argument from the actual point, LoP vs Alphamon to "You have an attitude problem."
 
I don't care anymore. At this point I am being accused of things I did not do and I am not in the mood for it.
 
Accused:

Claiming the Wiki is NLF via Invulerabilities as well as saying Azzy is wrong for putting them as Invulerabilities instead of Resistances:

"Uhh, yes. Have you not seen the countless times "Immunity" and "Invulnerability" have been brought up? It's widely considered to be NLF, period. So I don't need to take it up with anyone."

"Also Alphamon has Chrono Breaker which can Time Stop Immeasurables. Invulnerability is NLF btw. It's simply resistance."

Claiming attitude problem to distract from the overall reason the thread exists:

"I'm not even going to address that attitude. If you are going to throw a hissy fit because we are debating back, I'll just leave. Not in the mood to get into a screaming fest here."

There you go, those are the reasons.
 
Udlmaster said:
"Your rude, so I'm not going to argue against you."
Claiming someone has an attitude problem therefore means that you cannot argue is a way of discrediting your detractors as well as misdirecting the argument from the actual point, LoP vs Alphamon to "You have an attitude problem."
Click to expand...
Not really tho? I'm sorry, but I just refuse to cause a mess seeing as you want to give a little tude when I have not been disrespectful in the slightest. I'm not trying to discredit you, I am pointing out how rude you are being, especially when you have started accusing people of stuff.

"you cannot change something just because it disagrees with you."

" just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to change it to suit your whims"

"And just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a NLF, in the Invulerabilities section, it literally counters your claim, I'd say Try again, but you didn't even try, you just tried to discredit your detractors"

You know, things I have not done even once.
 
Also,not sure why you're saying I claimed you called me a Liar, I didn't even reference lying or liars in any of my posts?
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
Discrediting your detractors?
When did I try to discredit you? At all? Never said you were lying about any of her abilities. Not once. I just said that invulnerability to hax of all things is NLF, and that it should be "Resistance".
Click to expand...
 
Decredit means I am trying to say you are just lying about her abilities, something I never did. Ruining you reputation because I don't believe the abilities on her profile. When in fact all I had was a problem with a term.
 
Discredit does not just mean that you're saying I'm lying: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discredit

You had a problem with a term, but then said this: "It's widely considered to be NLF, period. So I don't need to take it up with anyone." "Also Alphamon has Chrono Breaker which can Time Stop Immeasurables. Invulnerability is NLF btw. It's simply resistance."

That isn't having a problem with a term, that's you outright going against a profile and term used that would swing the favour of the battle to "Resistance" which Alphamon would most likely overcome.

So, if you think Immunities/Invulnerabilities needs to go, then try to convince people instead of just saying: "So I don't need to take it up with anyone."

Because that is more rude than anything I've said.
 
Accusing someone of lying is a way to discredit someone. And that's the only way I could even see you saying I tried to discredit you.

Resistance doesn't change potency. I am going by every thread Immunity and Invulnerability is involved in terms of haxes. It's common sense. Why would I need to take it up with Azzy when consistent discussions on this topic reach this conclusion. Let me find some.
 
@Udlmaster

Please calm down. This is not an important enough issue to get upset about.
 
Honestly, I'm actually not upset. I'm afronted, but not upset.

Back to the main point, there is a clear difference between Resisting and being Immune to something.

I can resist the Cold, but I am not Immune to it. But a being made out of Ice would be immune to the cold.

Saying it resists cold would make things much more confusing for those just reading the profile.

Claiming a term is a NLF, when the definition used literally negates this by having a very specific clause at the end.

No "Changed to Resistance" needed.

Also, the Discrediting part, I already explained that part, so you can just read my previous comments.
 
Well, tone down the hostility in any case. Others find it tiresome to deal with.
 
I have heard my dialog can sound more hostile then it is supposed to come off as, without tone and inflection, it's hard to give off the way I am saying it.
 
Except said page doesn't even mention hax abilities, just normal damage. When you start talking about haxes, you get into NLF territory.

Nonexistent beings get a Resistance to EE.

I plan on making a thread for robots to get a Resistance to Conventional Mind Manipulation.

You have no right to be afronted when I have done nothing to cause you to be. Instead you have ignored the reasoning behind what I said and dished out false allegations. If anything, I should feel insulted when nothing I said was made to discredit anything nor was rude.
 
No, I'm affronted because you'd expect me to take that and run with it.

No, I will not be accept an assertion which is actively disproven by the page itself, if you do not like it, like I previously said, make a CRT and convince people that it shouldn't exist instead of just going around and saying it when that has not been accepted by the Wiki.

That's no better than me saying "Well, EE is NLF and is widely considered NLF so I don't need to take it up with anyone."

It's spreading misinformation at best and is lying at worst. Until there is a Correction thread to get rid of it, and it has both a case and has been accepted, I will not be taking what you claim.
 
But I am not trying to get rid of the Invulnerability page tho? I feel like you are completely misunderstanding what my point is.
 
Not being affected by a hax only grants resistence to that hax

Immunity/invulnerability can only be given to beings that literally lack the target of the hax

ex: A soulless being is immune to soul manipulation
 
Except you are not even using the Invulnerability page correctly. The page refers to physical durability. Not haxes. NLF comes when you use terms such as Invulnerability or Immunity for hax resistance. Anyone will tell you that. It is common knowledge that you should know. It easy to tell why that is easily NLF. Not to mention said page itself even mentions that the ability can be NLF.

You have failed to even any bit on context to support her being immune to these abilities and as such failed to bypass the NLF allegation.
 
Ok I have no clue why this thread fell about so quickly and I'm not even going to bother trying to read all that, but if both lead with instant death hax won't that more be inconclusive?
 
"You have failed to even any bit on context to support her being immune to these abilities and as such failed to bypass the NLF allegation."

Oh, so do you want to take this up with Azzy? Because he was the one who added all the stuff to her profile, not me.

"Except you are not even using the Invulnerability page correctly. The page refers to physical durability. Not haxes. NLF comes when you use terms such as Invulnerability or Immunity for hax resistance. Anyone will tell you that. It is common knowledge that you should know. It easy to tell why that is easily NLF. Not to mention said page itself even mentions that the ability can be NLF."

So common that one of the most respected Debaters and Admins on the site supposidly uses it wrong.
 
Your position doesn't make you 100% right 100% of the time. Everyone can make a mistake. Everyone can be wrong. Also are you now going to ignore what the page and ability says. Or should I say are you going to ignore what the site says. Read the invulnerability page and tell me I am lying. Tell me who is correct. Stop shifting the blame to Azzy. This is not just his responsibility. Azzy is not relevant as this is literally discussing the power as defined by the site and whether this fits the page in question. This is blatant Appeal to Authority.
 
Oh, you mean this?:

"It should also be noted that invulnerability will not defend a character against someone who is infinitely stronger than them, as is the case with dimensional tier jumps."

So, the NLF you was trying to claim, is literally negated by this statement that limits it, preventing it from being NLF.
 
Wrong.

"In addition, the nature and specifics of the character's invulnerability must be mentioned to provide context and avoid the No Limits Fallacy."
 
Umm no that is not how that works buddy. Not at all. Let us just ignore the fact that currently Invulnerability is geared towards physical stats and not hax.

Code: 
Like changing the term changes nothing here.
Resistance to Sealing doesn't change the fact Alphamon can't seal her, etc.
 
Precog, having perfect Knowledge of this weeks in advance, her Passive Prob manip making her go first and then Conceptual and Law Manipulating him.
 
Actually it does, Prep has nothing to do with it, you would actively have to put "Precog disabled" in the OP to stop it. Otherwise, it's fair game.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
That had nothing to do with NLF tho?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't, I thought we was finally getting back into the ACTUAL TOPIC.

Also, LoP is immune to Sealing from beings on her own level, additionally, beings who manipulate Probability to make sure it has a 100% chance of succeeding.
 
It's not that we canonically isn't a God, we just don't know if she is one, but we know you can worship her, you just won't last very long doing so.
 
Immunity is NLF. Like it is not that hard to understand. Simple Resistance is perfectly fine.

Either way, I am not too sold on this Probability Manipulation as this "causes her to attack first" sounds like game mechanics. I would like some context behind it.

How does she use her Conceptual or Law hax in combat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eseseso
The Lady of Pain vs Eru Ilúvatar
Replies
10
Views
2K
zaraus
zaraus
Fallen_Angelicx
  • Locked
Akira Tendou Vs A Giant Cockroach (1-8-0) (CONCLUDED)
2 3
Replies
90
Views
7K
Fallen_Angelicx
Fallen_Angelicx
Tllmbrg
Blaze It Man
Replies
33
Views
2K
Tllmbrg
Tllmbrg
XSOULOFCINDERX
Spike (Jurassic: The Hunted) vs Hydra (Dungeons and Dragons) [3-0-0]
Replies
29
Views
2K
Peppersalt43
Peppersalt43
Mariogoods
Ender Dragon (Dungeons and Dragons) VS Venti
Replies
19
Views
3K
Mariogoods
Mariogoods
Back
Top