CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
If your goal was that why say tier 1 as well?
-
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.
Tier Possibly 2-A to Possibly Tier 1 Sonic Cosmology
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #162
That's fine, you're free to think that but next time please make better arguments.
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #163
It was an extra I wanted to add. I figured giving Time Eater adimensional existence was fair since he's not a spatial or temporal being he just eats space and time.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
When you hold an object within yourself, such as in your hand, it does not necessarily make you physically larger than the object. The act of holding something simply means you have the capability to contain or grasp it, but it does not determine your overall physical size or superiority. The concept of size is often associated with physical attributes and can refer to the spatial extent or magnitude of an object. Dimensions, on the other hand, can have multiple meanings depending on the context. In mathematics and physics, dimensions can refer to the number of coordinates needed to describe a space. While dimensions may not be completely physical in the sense of tangible objects, they are often used to describe physical phenomena and properties. Size can encompass various aspects, including physical dimensions, quantities, capacities, or even abstract concepts. It is not solely restricted to physical dimensions. For example, one can be considered larger in terms of influence, knowledge, or capabilities without any direct correlation to physical size.
A. When a mother contains a baby during pregnancy, it is true that the physical size of the baby is smaller than the mother's body. However, this is a specific case of biological development and not a general rule that applies to all situations. The size difference between the mother and the baby does not imply inherent superiority or inferiority between them.
B. This is not accurate in terms of physical size. The universe is a vast and incomprehensibly large entity, while the Earth is a relatively small planet within it. However, the size relationship between the Earth and the universe does not imply superiority or inferiority. The comparison is more about scale and context rather than direct size comparison.
C. When people are contained within a building, it is true that the group of people is smaller in physical size compared to the size of the building. However, this size difference does not determine superiority or inferiority. Buildings are constructed to provide shelter, workspace, or other functional purposes for people, but the size of the building does not inherently make it superior to the individuals within it.
No lets say in dragon ball, A space contains a 4D constructs dimensions yet it stated it lacks space and time, its inconsistent because how can a space lack space and time when it contains a 4D constructs.
Set theories doesn't scale anywhere here but I read the argument towards it and no I disagree.
Yea but I pointed out how BOP can be used completely different in debates. Yea ok
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Yea I have nothing to say on the time eater point since I am not to much aware of time eater but solaris no
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #166
Can you prove that? If you can fit something in you, you're containing it which means you're bigger. Size is not always associated with physical attributes, same with dimensionality, magnitude isn't inherently spatial either it can refer to numbers or aggregates which aren't physical nor spatial. yadayadayada a bunch of unnecessary text to make your response longer and doesn't address what I said.
A. it's an instance of something containing another thing.
B. So is the white space, the dimensions are blatantly small shown small compared to it despite these dimensions being infinite.
C. It does, unless the building is made of twigs and fragile sticks it's larger and has more weight and mass, are you trying to say that the people can collapse the building with punches alone and lift it? (this is not a fictional story).
I'm not starting a problem with you though, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your arguments.
Because it's an aspatiotemporal realm, It can be outside of spacetime while having things contained within it.
Set theory is used to scale dimensionality here, R^n (or n-dimensional) is part of set theory so the idea that it doesn't scale anywhere here is disingenuous.
Debates use reasoning to determine validity so it would inherently follow the same rules.
- 17,279
- 11,497
Either for making it just 2-A or for making it Low 1-C?
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
While containing something does imply a larger capacity or size relative to the thing being contained, it does not necessarily imply superiority. Size can indeed refer to various aspects beyond physical attributes. It can encompass concepts such as numerical magnitude or abstract qualities. However, the notion of superiority involves a more comprehensive evaluation that goes beyond just containment or size. A person's mind can hold vast amounts of knowledge and information, but this does not mean the person's mind is physically larger than the knowledge it contains. The act of containing knowledge does not inherently confer superiority. Do you think something that contain an object means that thing trascend the object?
A. The size difference between the mother and the baby during pregnancy is a result of biological processes and the natural development of a human fetus. It is not a reflection of superiority or inferiority. The mother's body provides the necessary environment and support for the baby's growth and development
C. The point I'm trying to convey is that size alone is not a sufficient criterion for determining superiority or inferiority in a broader sense. And no don't manipulate my words.
You proceeds to make fun of me, Lol but again be civil and don't try to act toxic since Ik certian things about- nvm
Wait you think it being outside = transcends?
Yk what just explain to me why you think a space containing dimensions means the space is supior to those dimensions. Because that sums up this debate No no I am not disagreeing with set theory being scale here was more saying it doesn't scale to sonic
Last edited:
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #169
So basically you don't have proof and are just assuming things? Gotcha. A person's mind doesn't inherently scale anywhere we're talking about entire realms, dimensions and spaces here.
A. yes it is as the mother is containing the baby, it doesn't matter that the result is due to biological processes, the result is the same.
C. Can white space be obliterated by the same yield of power that obliterated the dimensions? Y or N? if Y we can stop right there but if N then we move on to the second question: does white space contain the erased dimensions and still contain them after they're restored? Y or N? if Y then that leads onto the next question: Is the white space affected by the activities of the things it contains? No? Last question! Is the white space vast enough to contain multiple infinities? Yes? Then we hold these truths to be self evident that white space is superior to the dimensions in size and is independent of it. The question I have for you is what is your evidence that it isn't superior to it in size?
I already explained I don't find it necessary to explain again and are you trying to say that Sonic doesn't possess set theory?
I hope you're not saying that because if so I got news for you.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
I am not assuming anythig but explaining it why it doesnt mean its supior but that's your opinon. Same goes with your anology as well buddySo basically you don't have proof and are just assuming things? Gotcha. A person's mind doesn't inherently scale anywhere we're talking about entire realms, dimensions and spaces here.
A. yes it is as the mother is containing the baby, it doesn't matter that the result is due to biological processes, the result is the same.
C. Can white space be obliterated by the same yield of power that obliterated the dimensions? Y or N? if Y we can stop right there but if N then we move on to the second question: does white space contain the erased dimensions and still contain them after they're restored? Y or N? if Y then that leads onto the next question: Is the white space affected by the activities of the things it contains? No? Last question! Is the white space vast enough to contain multiple infinities? Yes? Then we hold these truths to be self evident that white space is superior to the dimensions in size and is independent of it. The question I have for you is what is your evidence that it isn't superior to it in size?
I already explained I don't find it necessary to explain again and are you trying to say that Sonic doesn't possess set theory?
A. Thats cool in all but the concept of containment in the context of a mother and baby during pregnancy is not the same as the notion of superiority or inferiority. When we say that a mother contains a baby during pregnancy, we are referring to the physiological process in which the developing fetus is enclosed and nurtured within the mother's womb. This containment is a result of biological processes and does not inherently imply superiority or inferiority.
The relationship between a mother and a baby is a unique and complex one, characterized by a nurturing and protective bond. The mother's body provides the necessary environment and resources for the baby's growth and development. This relationship is not based on a hierarchical or superior-inferior dynamic. The containment is a result of the biological relationship between the mother and the baby, not a statement of superiority.
C. I don't see how these reasons justify that the white space is somewhat above whats its inside. It's just proves that the white space contains those dimensions. What's your point here? It's basically assuming that the white space is above the dimensions because it contains them.
I am somewhat not understanding your reason why the white space is above those dimension, is it because it contain an infinite size dimension or what? because that alone doesn't matter. No I am not against the idea of that but the reasons are just dumb
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Now re reading back at it I understand the argument “white space shows no inferiority to dimensions and even contains it while also having no spatial and temporal characteristics implies it's above dimensions." this is just wrong.
1. "A space shows no inferiority to dimensions" assumes that the absence of inferiority automatically indicates superiority. However, the absence of inferiority does not necessarily imply superiority. It merely suggests that two entities may not be directly comparable.
2. This alone does not establish superiority. Containment is not equivalent to superiority or dominance. Many things can contain or encompass other things without being inherently superior to them.
3. You again assume that the absence of spatial and temporal characteristics places a space above dimensions. However, the absence of certain attributes does not automatically confer superiority. Different entities can have unique properties and characteristics that make them distinct but not necessarily superior or inferior to one another.
1. "A space shows no inferiority to dimensions" assumes that the absence of inferiority automatically indicates superiority. However, the absence of inferiority does not necessarily imply superiority. It merely suggests that two entities may not be directly comparable.
2. This alone does not establish superiority. Containment is not equivalent to superiority or dominance. Many things can contain or encompass other things without being inherently superior to them.
3. You again assume that the absence of spatial and temporal characteristics places a space above dimensions. However, the absence of certain attributes does not automatically confer superiority. Different entities can have unique properties and characteristics that make them distinct but not necessarily superior or inferior to one another.
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #172
You don't have proof that's it, I'm dismissing your argument. You basically argued that containing knowledge in the mind is equivalent to containing entire realms, dimensions and spaces and you didn't give proof of something being smaller than another thing while containing it which shows you can't defend that.
A. Yes it is, the mother is clearly superior to the baby, you need less power to kill the baby while you need more power to kill the mother, the mother is more vast and developed than the baby, the bond and relationship doesn't change that so I don't understand why you're using that to debunk the blatant superiority.
C. Because you don't want to understand, white space has to be infinitely more vast than those dimensions to contain them as they are infinite as well.
The white space has to be bigger than those dimensions because it's large enough to contain multiple infinities, prove it is smaller than those dimensions or I'm taking it that you don't have the proof and I will dismiss your argument with Hitchens razor.
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #173
Why is it wrong? Do you have proof it's inferior to those dimensions?
1. Well it's not equal since it's big enough to contain multiple infinities.
2. Yes it does, containing something means it can hold something within it and has more size than it. Show proof right now, I'm waiting.
3. No I don't you're strawmanning now and it's hilarious, my argument was that it contains dimensions indicating superiority in size while also being aspatial and atemporal thus making it above dimensions. Next time you distort my argument I'll consider it a concession that you can't tackle my actual argument.
I'm still wondering if you're trying to say that set theory doesn't exist in Sonic because that would be blatantly untrue.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
1. This does not inherently establish superiority. The ability to contain something does not automatically make the container superior to the contained elements. It is a characteristic of the space, but it does not imply superiority in terms of size, importance, or any other aspect.
2. Containment can imply a larger size or capacity, it does not necessarily establish superiority or dominance. Superiority is a subjective concept that depends on the criteria being considered. Size alone does not determine superiority in all contexts. Containment is a characteristic that describes the relationship between two entities, where one entity encompasses or holds another. This relationship primarily focuses on the spatial or conceptual relationship between the two entities. It does not inherently imply a hierarchical or superior-inferior relationship.
3. The assertion that containing dimensions indicates superiority in size is based on the assumption that containment inherently implies superiority. However, containment alone does not necessarily imply superiority. It is merely a relationship between two entities where one encompasses or holds the other. Again to establish the superiority of one entity over another, it is necessary to provide objective evidence that demonstrate its superiority. Merely asserting superiority based on the concept of containment or speculative properties without empirical evidence is not sufficient.
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #175
1. Why would it not be superior in size if it contains them?
2. >says containment implies larger size or capacity
What is the point you're trying to make because you've contradicted yourself rofl.
3. It's superior in size and durability based on what is shown in the game alone, there's no reason to think it isn't superior. Do you have proof it's not superior?
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #176
Guardian Doge had much better arguments than this.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
I don't really need to prove this because your reasons justify it being supior was because there is no evidence its infeior to those dimensions which is wrong. The argument that the white space is superior to dimensions solely because there is no evidence proving its inferiority is not valid because it relies on a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. (The white space and dimensions) you are arguing, asserting the superiority of the white space solely because there is no evidence proving its inferiority is an example of the argument from ignorance. It assumes that the absence of evidence for inferiority automatically implies superiority.
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #178
No you need to prove that since it is your ASSERTION roflmao. The notion that it's not shown being inferior isn't the only base to say that it's superior, it's also the fact that's infinitely more vast since it's shown containing not one but multiple infinities so you're strawmanning again
Btw there's a such thing as a non fallacious argument from ignorance you know
The knowledge base being that it's vast enough to contain multiple infinities (which would require superior size) and the insight from Ian Flynn being that it's not spatiotemporal implies it can't be bound by dimensions, since there is no opposing evidence that suggests inferiority it would be logical to deduct that it's not inferior to those dimensions, like seriously what do you want me to do, do you want me or someone else to ask Ian Flynn whether or not white space is bigger than the dimensions it contains? It's unnecessary and I doubt the answer would be no.
Last edited:
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
1. The idea that containing something automatically implies superiority in size is not necessarily accurate. Containment alone does not determine the size relationship between the container and the contained object. Let's consider a few example to illustrate this: A large shipping container can contain numerous smaller boxes. While the shipping container has the capacity to hold multiple boxes, it does not make the container inherently larger in size compared to each individual box it contains. The white space provides the space or framework within which dimensions exist, but it does not necessarily make the white space larger in size than the dimensions it contains.
2. I said that but I expalain more in depts why that doesn't mean it's supiority, please reread again.
3. I see the problem with this debate, you believe that I am arguing that it isn't supior which is not my argument, I am neutral on both side but the reason you provided just doesnt work IMO
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
I am not asserting that it is infieor no, My assertain is that the reason the white space is beyond the dimension based of it being containment is just wrong and lacking something doesn't mean its beyond it. I am again both netural on the side if there is any evidence other than the white space lack spacetime or containament than I may see it as supior.
I'll explain this point why this is wrong since I am at school but again I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with the white space being above but the reasons you provide just dosen't justify it
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #181
1. How is it not accurate? You've provided no proof yet, in fact you've provided no example that proves something that contains something can't be larger than it. That example doesn't work because the container is large enough to hold multiple multiple boxes, obviously the box has to be bigger than those boxes otherwise it couldn't contain it, the container is larger than those boxes. If it's an environment that provides the space in which dimensions exist then it is larger than them therefore it is superior in size.
2. I already read it, it's not substantiated at all and your explanation doesn't debunk the mother being larger than the baby, you've committed a non sequitur; just because there's a biological relationship doesn't make the mother not superior to the baby.
3. Yes you are, you're implying it isn't larger than those dimensions and use irrelevant examples to justify why it isn't you either have proof it's smaller than those dimensions or you don't, it's large enough to contain multiple infinities so it must be larger otherwise they wouldn't be able to fit inside of it.
And I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on set theory not existing in Sonic, I would love to hear about that.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
1. The key point is that containment alone does not determine the size relationship between the container and the contained object. While a container must be larger than the objects it contains, the mere act of containment does not establish superiority in size. It is necessary to provide additional evidence or reasoning to support the claim of superiority. The purpose of the example was to illustrate that containment does not automatically imply superiority in size. The shipping container can hold multiple smaller boxes, but the container's size is determined by its own physical dimensions, not solely by the fact that it can contain other objects. Each individual box has its own size, and the container is designed to accommodate them. While the white space may provide the space or framework within which dimensions exist, it does not necessarily make the white space larger in size than the dimensions it contains. The size of the white space and the dimensions can be distinct concepts, and the white space's role as a container does not necessarily establish its superiority in size.
3. This is a complete misunderstanding, because I believe the reasons presenting the white space being above dimensions because it not only lacks spacetime and being containment is wrong means I am disagreeing that the white space is supiority? I am not necessarily disagreeing with the assertion that the white space is superior to dimensions. Rather, I am expressing doubts about the reasons presented to support that claim. If I find the arguments based on the white space's lack of spacetime and the concept of containment to be inadequate or flawed, it is reasonable to question their validity in establishing superiority. This is completely different from saying "disagree" to "doutbing the reason"
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #183
You never proved it was wrong, if something is larger than something it is superior to it unless proven otherwise, this is proof you're ignoring.
It does justify it actually, it's larger than dimensions. You can either take a stance or leave this thread, no one is going to continue arguing with someone who isn't taking neither a positive or negative stance. Also it's obvious you disagree since you keep arguing against it, now that I've called out you dodging the burden of proof and you hiding behind the negative now you suddenly don't agree or disagree when before you said you disagreed. All of this to dodge the burden of proof, prove it's not larger than those dimensions or stop arguing. You didn't justify why white space isn't larger than dimensions and the funny thing is you can't prove that a smaller thing can contain a larger thing (because it's impossible)
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
So I have to go in more depts ok.
Containment of a dimension: If a space contains a dimension it doesn't necessairly indicates the dimension is below the white space or the white space is above the dimensions. It's simply prove the white space is an continment towards the dimensions not being above. Containment is a spatial relationship that signifies the coexistence or presence of one entity within another. It does not necessarily imply a hierarchical arrangement where one entity is above or superior to the other. The concept of superiority or hierarchy requires additional evidence or criteria to be established beyond mere containment.
Lack spatial and temporal: The absence of spatial and temporal characteristics in a space does not necessarily mean that it transcends or exists independently of space and time. It simply indicates that the nature or structure of that particular space is different from that of dimensions governed by space and time. The concept of transcendence implies going beyond or surpassing the limitations or boundaries of something. If a space lacking spatial and temporal characteristics may exhibit different properties or behaviors compared to dimensions governed by space and time, it does not automatically imply that it is superior to or above those dimensions.
I am against the reason because it's a complete argument from ignorance, just because one object doesn't exist mean the other object would exist? that's making assumption. Making assumptions based on lack of information is not a valid approach to establish the superiority. Seirously understand this. I am Netural with the argument on if the white space is beyond dimension but I am disagreeing with the reason towards it being above the dimensions. I can agree with a space can be beyond those dimension contain it if its evidence supporting its above it but if the reason relies on lack of evidence than no. OMFG
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #186
See? You're repeating yourself and using circular reason you're basically saying :containment alone doesn't determine the size relationship between the container and the contained object therefore it doesn't determine the size relationship between the container and the contained object. If it's larger than the object it contains it's superior in size lol that's literally its definition, now you're making things up to save face that your argument got debunked. Allow me to inform you about the definition of "larger"
large
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwjvwojC2Z3_AhVYFVkFHV4ECp4Q3eEDegQIKBAI
adjective
comparative adjective: larger
1. of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity.
Large
1 of 3adjective
ˈlärjlarger; largest
Synonyms of large
1
a
: exceeding most other things of like kind especially in quantity or size : BIG
a large number of complaints
b
: dealing in great numbers or quantities
a large and highly profitable business
2
a
: having more than usual capacity or scope : COMPREHENSIVE
take the large view
will take a larger role in the negotiations
Definition of LARGE
exceeding most other things of like kind especially in quantity or size : big; dealing in great numbers or quantities; having more than usual capacity or scope : comprehensive… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Being larger than something means having greater size, to deny this is appealing to an impossibility.
3. Yes by definition you're disagreeing
dis·a·gree
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwjWs4ju2p3_AhUlFVkFHegRBu0Q3eEDegQIHBAI
verb
- 1.
have or express a different opinion.
"no one was willing to disagree with him"
Similar:
fail to agree
be in dispute/contention
be at variance/odds
not see eye to eye
differ from
dissent from
diverge from
contradict
gainsay
challenge
oppose
argue
debate
quarrel
bicker
wrangle
squabble
spar
dispute
take issue
row
altercate
clash
be at loggerheads
cross swords
lock horns
fall out
have words
scrap
disaccord
Opposite:
agree
- 2.
(of statements or accounts) be inconsistent or fail to correspond.
"the results disagree with the findings reported so far"
Similar:
differ
be dissimilar
be unlike
be different
vary
disagree
verb
dis·agree ˌdis-ə-ˈgrēdisagreed; disagreeing; disagrees
Synonyms of disagree
intransitive verb
1
: to fail to agree
the two accounts disagree
2
: to differ in opinion
he disagreedwith me on every topic
3
: to cause discomfort or distress
fried foods disagree with me
Definition of DISAGREE
to fail to agree; to differ in opinion; to cause discomfort or distress… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
You're now being dishonest to prevent yourself from fulfilling the burden of proof.
I have a proposition for you: if you don't disagree or agree then leave this thread and stop arguing with me.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
It is but I am just making my point that I am not neccisarly disagreeing if the white space is beyond dimensions but the reasons towards it I am in a disagreement.
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #188
especially when one person keeps repeating himself and keeps dodging the burden of proof? Yeah.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Anyways Containment doesn't always mean its supior in every context,
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #190
Doesn't really matter when it necessitates the dimensions are smaller than then white space therefore the dimensions are necessarily below the white space in size. Containment has nothing to do with a spatial relationship lmfao for example the world of forms contains the forms but neither the world of forms nor the the forms have a connection with space. It doesn't require additional evidence you just want to want to be right without having to prove your claims. It's not spatial and isn't temporal so it cannot be within space or time and it contains dimensions and is more than infinite in size compared to those infinite sized things therefore it can't be below dimensions therefore it's larger than dimensions.
I already told you that's not the only base for why it's superior to the dimensions, you just keep strawmanning rofl. Dimensions are spatiotemporal since they are coordinates within space, since it's aspatial and atemporal it cannot be within space as spatial would mean to be within space or belong to it.
I just explained why the argument from ignorance isn't fallacious, are you assuming my argument is wrong because it happens to use a principle from the argument from ignorance fallacy. You're certainly not neutral otherwise you wouldn't argue with me on this, you clearly have contentions with the arguments and are actively arguing against it but I'll play your game: if you're neutral then prove that white space isn't larger than the dimensions
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #191
Stop repeating yourself especially when the thing being repeated was addressed, no one said it's superior in every context but it's more vast and larger than those things. Are you asserting that being larger isn't automatically a quality of being above something in Sonic? Prove it.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Anyways just came back from school but this will be my last respond to Busydude Aka zastando alt As I am currently feeling ill as everyday I wake up I always see blood either driping from my noes or just any body part. I prob have cancer since I vomit blood before
Disagreeing with someone's reason or argument does not necessarily mean disagreeing with the overall idea or concept being discussed. In this case, I am disagreement with your reasoning about superiority based on it lacking spacetime or there is no evidence supporting it isn't superiority. This does not automatically imply that I disagree with the concept of space being beyond dimensions. It simply means that I have reservations or concerns about the specific argument you are presenting.
If I disagree with the reason justifying a character being transcendent towards spacetime it doesn't indicate I am disagreeing with the fact transcendent towards spacetime being higher dimensional, No I am just disagreeing with the reason. That's just false dichotomy
Disagreeing with someone's reason or argument does not necessarily mean disagreeing with the overall idea or concept being discussed. In this case, I am disagreement with your reasoning about superiority based on it lacking spacetime or there is no evidence supporting it isn't superiority. This does not automatically imply that I disagree with the concept of space being beyond dimensions. It simply means that I have reservations or concerns about the specific argument you are presenting.
If I disagree with the reason justifying a character being transcendent towards spacetime it doesn't indicate I am disagreeing with the fact transcendent towards spacetime being higher dimensional, No I am just disagreeing with the reason. That's just false dichotomy
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #193
Okay ~~You have to be joking rofl~~ but okay
My argument isn't based solely on it lacking spacetime though and it isn't just the fact that there's no evidence proving inferiority but the simple fact it's shown to be larger than dimensions we've went through this.
That's still disagreeing and you have to justify why you disagree with the proof to back it up.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Yes I was joking the only time I would call someone a zastando alt if they are just a walking one.
Ok we can agree to disagree here, I believe size alone(even in this wiki if I remember) means its not above it. (Problem with dimsional tiering) cause this was the same argument use to support DBH to Low 1-C but that was rejected.
I mean tbh someone can disagree with reasons and justification towards characters being 5D but not neccisarly disagree with the tiering of 5D. But Ok
- 532
- 288
- Thread starter
- #195
Alright fair enough.
Similar threads
