Yet another Goku vs Naruto matchup….

[Fezzih_007]

The energies are considered borderline identical by VSB Standards.

Is kinda vague how is worded in the page, so i can't agree exactly.

 

[omegabronic]

No it is not. If I’m fire, and my weakness is water. That doesn’t mean there is a “limit” to how much fire I’m able to produce, that just means water is able to extinguish my fire because I’m “weak” to it.

Those are fundamentally different things especially in discussing a no limits fallacy.

but it is a limit on what you can burn and fight against, being made of fire doesn't make you able to burn everything, in the example you just gave, liquids such as water are a limit to the burning capability of the fire user

It’s literally pointing out the distinction while discussing AP, I don’t need to take an English major or get a semantical argument to determine that this statement is in reference to AP when it is literally discussing AP.

it isn't, at all, the whole point of it is to not get damaged by conventional attacks, that is the very basis of invulnerability, there is nothing on the page saying that higher AP alone can bypass it, it doesn't even make sense, what? does being 1% higher then the invulnerability user makes you able to harm them? if not that how much? 10%? 40%? you are discussing things that are elaborated with rules and guidelines in the page itself, and instead is just supposing how it works while making a stand for everyone to follow it, so unless you give guidelines in a thread and make it applied to the page, then your personal interpretations of the text, which not everyone here agreed with, can not be considered

Except durability negation doesn’t give any warnings a no limits fallacy when using it for “simple attack potency.”

neither does Invulnerability, but don't dodge the point, tell me the difference between the 2 haxes in function for one to work under one rule and the other to not

 

[Maitreya12]

but it is a limit on what you can burn and fight against, being made of fire doesn't make you able to burn everything, in the example you just gave, liquids such as water are a limit to the burning capability of the fire user

But not limited in how much I can produce or what temperatures? You’re basically saying that I can produce as high as a temperature as I want to with my fire so long as there’s no water around because then there’d be “no limit” to the amount of fire I can make or how hot I can achieve it to be.

Even having only “certain limits” on an ability can still mean you’re using a no limits fallacy onto the power as it literally says on the fallacy page itself.

This is when someone states that because something has not demonstrated any limits (or only certain limits) then it has none (or only the ones demonstrated).

So again, this would still classify as a no limits fallacy, even if you want to say it’s “limited” only by things like Senjutsu.

it isn't, at all, the whole point of it is to not get damaged by conventional attacks, that is the very basis of invulnerability, there is nothing on the page saying that higher AP alone can bypass it, it doesn't even make sense, what? does being 1% higher then the invulnerability user makes you able to harm them? if not that how much? 10%? 40%? you are discussing things that are elaborated with rules and guidelines in the page itself, and instead is just supposing how it works while making a stand for everyone to follow it, so unless you give guidelines in a thread and make it applied to the page, then your personal interpretations of the text, which not everyone here agreed with, can not be considered

This is not my personal interpretation, this is what’s on the page itself. I don’t need to give you a percentage on the page as to the amount of AP that “bypasses” invulnerability since that’s not my job to do or the argument I’m making. The page just says not to employ a NLF in regards to AP for the power of invulnerability. “How much” AP is needed above your opponents to “bypass” it or whatever is irrelevant to my argument since all I’m proving is that the position of AP and invulnerability is there in the page itself. Not the specifics to it.

neither does Invulnerability, but don't dodge the point, tell me the difference between the 2 haxes in function for one to work under one rule and the other to not

Well, considering there’s several different types of durability negation ranging from magic all the way to conceptual manipulation, there can be a plethora of differences between the two for one rule to work for one but not for the other just based on that fact alone since the power “invulnerability” doesn’t have these kinds of criteria in which it acts functionally similar to durability negation.

 

[omegabronic]

But not limited in how much I can produce or what temperatures?

yes it is, if the temperature was high enough, the water would evaporate before touching you, aka your fire limited temperature is your weakness

You’re basically saying that I can produce as high as a temperature as I want to with my fire so long as there’s no water around because then there’d be “no limit” to the amount of fire I can make or how hot I can achieve it to be.

no i am not, this doesn't disprove that the weakness is a limit at all, don't dodge the point

Even having only “certain limits” on an ability can still mean you’re using a no limits fallacy onto the power as it literally says on the fallacy page itself.



So again, this would still classify as a no limits fallacy, even if you want to say it’s “limited” only by things like Senjutsu.

which isn't the case at all since smurf stuff would bypass it, again, the limit you asked was given

This is not my personal interpretation, this is what’s on the page itself.

nope, i read it, it says to not apply NLF, no one is doing that by giving it limits in the first place and agreeing that 4D levels and up would not be able to be saved by it

I don’t need to give you a percentage on the page as to the amount of AP that “bypasses” invulnerability since that’s not my job to do or the argument I’m making.

yes it is if you want to impose something that you are vaguely interpreting from the page, or else the thing you are proposing in flawed in nature

The page just says not to employ a NLF in regards to AP for the power of invulnerability.

it never does that, this is again, you interpreting with your vision

“How much” AP is needed above your opponents to “bypass” it or whatever is irrelevant to my argument since all I’m proving is that the position of AP and invulnerability is there in the page itself. Not the specifics to it.

you didn't proved ANYTHING you didn't provided the logic behind of it, you didn't formed an concisse argument for it, you are just saying that "it is" without giving a good reason why, so again, why should anyone follow your personal interpretation?

Well, considering there’s several different types of durability negation ranging from magic all the way to conceptual manipulation, there can be a plethora of differences between the two for one rule to work for one but not for the other just based on that fact alone since the power “invulnerability” doesn’t have these kinds of criteria in which it acts functionally similar to durability negation.

invulnerability quite literally does have the exact same thing, it can be via law hax, or reality warping, or matter manip, or whatever else

 

[BluudyManikin777]

The argument is too complicated for what it is. Invulnerability is basically durability negation, except the complete opposite; invulnerability is, as explained in the page itself, "the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency." If Goku's energy blast (which is not anything complicated, and SIMPLY an energy blast) and Naruto has invulnerability against non-senjutsu stuff or SIMPLE energy, then the attack potency of Goku's energy being Star level doesn't matter at all. According to the Invulnerability page, this Goku doesn't have the kind of energy that can affect Naruto in the slightest. What you're trying to argue is that Naruto doesn't have invulnerability, because Goku can just bypass him with sheer power, when it wouldn't work like that at all in this case. And you're also arguing that invulnerability is an NLF power. You're saying that it's NLF when an Invulnerability user is unaffected by simple higher attack potency (WHICH IS LITERALLY EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE), when it's been stated multiple times to actually have a limit, which is higher-dimensional attacks or attacks that the user hasn't showcased being invulnerable to, to which Goku has absolutely none of in this case.
I just wanted to pitch in to my disagreement to the argument that essentially says Invulnerability, as defined on the wiki, is an NLF power. Since everyone clearly disagrees as well, I feel like it would be best to just get back on topic.

Btw, is the vote count even being recorded? I don't see it anywhere; I'd expect it to be on OP.