• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh ye, as seen in the thread, I proved he has infinite power with multiple statements and a literal feat of him displacing this power, which no one has yet to properly refute yet.
I honestly don't see it in the scans. All I see is statements for "destroy the universe". It doesn't say if he's gonna do it in one single attack that takes x amount of timeframe to cover up the entire structure and nuke it from existence, or if he's going to destroy it one galaxy/supercluster/whatever at a time.

Overall, I am neutral.
 
I honestly don't see it in the scans. All I see is statements for "destroy the universe". It doesn't say if he's gonna do it in one single attack that takes x amount of timeframe to cover up the entire structure and nuke it from existence, or if he's going to destroy it one galaxy/supercluster/whatever at a time.

Overall, I am neutral.
Imma assume you misunderstood what I’m saying, I’m saying the evidence for broly being able to destroy the universe like you wanted, is him having infinite power, which I proved. Firstly, I showed multiple statements but that’s not enough, so then literally my first argument I use right, is broly destroying a infinite galaxy easily and being implied he could do the same to another infinite galaxy. One feat down. I then go on to say he has multiple universe destroying statements, right. This would make sense for broly to be able to destroy the infinite dragon ball universe since he destroyed a infinite galaxy.
It’s kinda crazy to me how you said you only see the universe statements when there’s an entire separate argument I used in the thread with scans for said argument provided.
 
Imma assume you misunderstood what I’m saying, I’m saying the evidence for broly being able to destroy the universe like you wanted, is him having infinite power,
Could just very well mean infinite stamina. But since there is at least one statement I can see of him nuking the universe, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

Firstly, I showed multiple statements but that’s not enough, so then literally my first argument I use right, is broly destroying a infinite galaxy easily
It says "galaxies that exist infinitely" as a whole, it doesn't make distinctions with the 4 quadrants.

and being implied he could do the same to another infinite galaxy. One feat down.
Refer to the above.

I then go on to say he has multiple universe destroying statements, right.
Means nothing unless we have statements that he can blow it all up with a single attack, which doesn't care about timeframe.

Your only shot is to use the "He will destroy the whole universe" statement instead.

This would make sense for broly to be able to destroy the infinite dragon ball universe since he destroyed a infinite galaxy.
Read the above response to the "infinite galaxy" conundrum.

It’s kinda crazy to me how you said you only see the universe statements when there’s an entire separate argument I used in the thread with scans for said argument provided.
Most of them are "bottomless power" statements with only one concrete "he will destroy the entire universe" statement.

I have now changed my stance to slightly neutral, leaning on agreeing. If you can find more concrete statements like "He will wipe out the entire universe", it might go through.
 
Could just very well mean infinite stamina. But since there is at least one statement I can see of him nuking the universe, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.


It says "galaxies that exist infinitely" as a whole, it doesn't make distinctions with the 4 quadrants.


Refer to the above.


Means nothing unless we have statements that he can blow it all up with a single attack, which doesn't care about timeframe.

Your only shot is to use the "He will destroy the whole universe" statement instead.


Read the above response to the "infinite galaxy" conundrum.


Most of them are "bottomless power" statements with only one concrete "he will destroy the entire universe" statement.

I have now changed my stance to slightly neutral, leaning on agreeing. If you can find more concrete statements like "He will wipe out the entire universe", it might go through.
Infinite stamina, very weird interpretation, prove this interpretation is above mine.

The galaxies that exist infinitely across the universe are galaxies within each section of the universe. If there are infinite galaxies, each section would have a infinite amount.

why does it mean nothing? You didn’t explain that, you just said it and moved on, I can’t properly respond to your argument if you do that.

Explain to me why I would need a statement like the one you’re asking for when I can prove the argument without a statement like that.
 
Infinite stamina, very weird interpretation, prove this interpretation is above mine.
That's how we treat "infinite power" statements in general now, them's the standards.

The galaxies that exist infinitely across the universe are galaxies within each section of the universe. If there are infinite galaxies, each section would have a infinite amount.
Fair point.

why does it mean nothing? You didn’t explain that, you just said it and moved on, I can’t properly respond to your argument if you do that.
Because it needs "whole universe" stated verbatim to make it count. High 3-A be nitpicky like that. And you've got one scan for it.

Explain to me why I would need a statement like the one you’re asking for when I can prove the argument without a statement like that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That and our standards for High 3-A are incredibly stringent.
 
That's how we treat "infinite power" statements in general now, them's the standards.


Fair point.


Because it needs "whole universe" stated verbatim to make it count. High 3-A be nitpicky like that. And you've got one scan for it.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That and our standards for High 3-A are incredibly stringent.
This doesn’t prove why that interpretation would inherently be above mine, especially when i provided evidence to support said interpretation. Maybe this would apply to a baseless interpretation with no backing behind it.

Where is this stated? I just looked at the tiering system.
 
You can't destroy something infinite within a finite timeframe that's a ******* huge contradiction, either you one shot either you don't + the huge possiblity for this to be flowery language.

Hard Disagree
 
You can't destroy something infinite within a finite timeframe that's a ******* huge contradiction, either you one shot either you don't + the huge possiblity for this to be flowery language.

Hard Disagree
You’re like the second person to make this Time frame argument but literally show 0 proof backing it up. Explain the argument and show scans for said argument
 
You’re like the second person to make this Time frame argument but literally show 0 proof backing it up. Explain the argument and show scans for said argument
Him destroying the South Galaxy (which represents 1/4 of the universe) in seconds is more than enough proof that it's not infinite
 
Him destroying the South Galaxy (which represents 1/4 of the universe) in seconds is more than enough proof that it's not infinite
So you’re arguing the galaxies aren’t infinite as a way to refute my argument ? Okay, I would easily refute all of this but look here, I don’t even have to bc it’s already accepted on the wiki LMFAOOO
 
So you’re arguing the galaxies aren’t infinite as a way to refute my argument ? Okay, I would easily refute all of this but look here, I don’t even have to bc it’s already accepted on the wiki LMFAOOO
Don’t even need to waste my time
 
So you’re arguing the galaxies aren’t infinite as a way to refute my argument ? Okay, I would easily refute all of this but look here, I don’t even have to bc it’s already accepted on the wiki LMFAOOO
Huh? This nonsense got accepted in this wiki ? Well in that I case I have to agree only because the wiki said so
 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That and our standards for High 3-A are incredibly stringent.
I think I'm fine with Broly being Multi-Galaxy only, and also one of the directors said that Broly is not allowed to destroy the universe, but if he were to destroy it, it would take some time, so I kind of disagree, I think we can close this topic and wait for the CRT of the infinite Universe to see what happens.
 
This doesn’t prove why that interpretation would inherently be above mine, especially when i provided evidence to support said interpretation. Maybe this would apply to a baseless interpretation with no backing behind it.

Where is this stated? I just looked at the tiering system.

 

Koyama a director of the film responds strongly to the destruction of the universe and he says that he cannot destroy it.



Could you tag someone to close this? I don't think this will lead anywhere.
 
Koyama a director of the film responds strongly to the destruction of the universe and he says that he cannot destroy it.



Could you tag someone to close this? I don't think this will lead anywhere.

He says he’s not allowed too, implying that something is stopping him from doing it, not that he can’t do it. probably beerus. Secondly, Koyama stated multiple times he’s not a reliable source multiple times.
 
He says he’s not allowed too, implying that something is stopping him from doing it, not that he can’t do it. probably beerus. Secondly, Koyama stated multiple times he’s not a reliable source multiple times.
If you want scans for that btw, lmk
 
Him destroying the South Galaxy (which represents 1/4 of the universe) in seconds is more than enough proof that it's not infinite
The space being infinite doesn't mean all matter inside that space is infinite.
The evidence to support my interpretation of these statements is broly destroying south galaxy which is made up of dozens of galaxies, arguably a infinite amount, 1/4 of infinity is still infinity, basic math
Lel
he’s also stated to be able to destroy the universe multiple times, the universe is infinite which is also acceptable on the wiki now.
The universe as in the entire spatial dimensions, space time or just matter? The time frame needs to be specified too.
Broly is stated to have bottomless power multiple times
You should probably send scans for that.
 
The space being infinite doesn't mean all matter inside that space is infinite.

Lel

The universe as in the entire spatial dimensions, space time or just matter? The time frame needs to be specified too.

You should probably send scans for that.
… who gonna tell him??
 
902476396381736960.gif

Dragonball guys should start counting their days. Lmfao.

Neutral.
 
If you nuke the entire structure within a specified timeframe after which it no longer exists, yes.

But if you destroy it one cosmological structure at a time (Like say, blow up one galaxy, move to the next, blow up another one), and not all of its infinite contents in one shot, no.
The south galaxy, which is infinite, is literally the first thing to happen in the movie.
 
Gonna be neutral rn, arguments look decent but i am still kind of iffy
I don't see what's so iffy when Broly was 3-B for the same reasoning. The only difference now is that the universe is accepted as infinite making it high 3-A. If you assert it's not high 3-A, then we're stuck with infinite speed. So pick your poison.
But if you destroy it one cosmological structure at a time (Like say, blow up one galaxy, move to the next, blow up another one), and not all of its infinite contents in one shot, no.
KLOL, didn’t you accept the calc that put Broly at 3-B? Why are you asserting Broly is going by one galaxy at a time?
 
I don't see what's so iffy when Broly was 3-B for the same reasoning. The only difference now is that the universe is accepted as infinite making it high 3-A. If you assert it's not high 3-A, then we're stuck with infinite speed. So pick your poison.
The universe, including the dark regions outside the visible universe, is infinite. Not the galaxies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top