Talk:Zen’ō (Canon)/PikabluTwo/@comment-35256776-20180408012420/@comment-32986854-20180417140804

@Mystery

He wasn't much better.

Also, accidentally posted the reply in the wrong area.

"I'm giving you one last comment only because I want to justify for future downplayers they are wrong and the justifications are indeed correct."

>I'll take that as a concession then.

"False analogy fallacy"

Not remotely. I'm using similar logic to what you've said. Relating to the topic =/= not using a similar ideology. You are heavily abusing the Fallacy Fallacy in an attempt to discredit and argument that you have yet to disprove. Either disprove it or stop labeling my arguments as fallacies just because you don't know how to debunk the argument. It's a comparison via using a similar if not ideology by "you transcend/are above something via (insert x factor)". Abusing fallacies to debunk an argument isn't getting your point across whatsoever."

>The entire idea of an analogy is that they both carry similar ideologies. Or else there's no reason to do an analogy.

a·nal·o·gy

əˈnaləjē/

noun "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies" "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia" "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature" Quote where I used the fallacy to "debunk" the argument, I pointed out the fallacy then proceeded to debunk the arguemnt. All you've shown to me is that you have no knowledge of the mere concept of an analogy. Moving on.
 * 1) a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
 * 1) *a correspondence or partial similarity.
 * 1) *a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.

"I never said that the 5th Dimension isn't 4 spatial dimensions + 1 dimensions. Don't strawman my point to have a counterargument please."

>Quote where I said you said it wasn't. Please. Oh wait, you can't because I never did. Do not false call a fallacy without knowing what it is.

"You are misrepresenting my argument as whole. Branching timelines is a 5D cosmological structure. Destroying infinite timelines on a countable scale (infinite via ad infinitum which makes it countably infinite from that process) is an Infinite 4D feat. Infinitely branching timelines that branch off each other as well IS a 5D cosmology. At that point, it isn't countably infinite because that isn't via ad infinitum. Rather, Timeline A branches into timelines B & C. Timeline B branches into D & E while Timeline C branches into F & G. It keeps on going rather than opposed to something like Pokemon's Mirror Cave. It think it is you who doesn't understand how dimensions or fallacies work at all. Your accusations are baseless and lackluster at best."

>The verse firstly needs to be stated to run on a 5th dimensional cosmology. Nothing about DBS states a 5th dimension even exists. Secondly, proof of infinite branching timelines? All that's shown is that there are 6 existing time rings.

http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Time_Ring

>"Matter manipulation doesn't affect 4Ds if it's not directly affecting their body. If you're manipulating the matter around them, that wouldn't scare them as that's an object infinitely lower to them. Atom manip would affect a 4D as you're outright manipulating their atoms. Manipulating matter to create and destroy it would do nothing to the person as it's on a far lower scale to them."

"Because fiction is going to apply the concept of matter making up the 3D scale? Your justifications would make sense if we were applying reality to fiction, but that ideology would almost be the same as arguing that nothing should able to logically time travel. Hax from lower dimensions can still affect you, but they are just better if they come from higher scales if anything. You are abusing said logic to justify why lower D hax wouldn't be potent."

>Wait, so you're arguing aginst the idea that it doesn't work because "it's fiction" but then will argue transcending time is 5D despite this being fiction? You have proven hypocrisy here.

"Let me give an example... A character with Existence Erasure can still affect higher Ds with it, but a higher D would be more potent with the same ability because it comes from a being infinitely greater than yourself naturally. You can't justify lower dimensional hax affect higher dimensional beings without incorporating your own beliefs into fiction where your word means nothing to how it is treated. I'm not even directly targeting you with this statement. In general, most of fiction doesn't apply to gap between lower and higher dimensions. Why do you think a 4D being like Android 17 can take on 5D Jiren and be fine? Or if we want to tone it to your beliefs, 3D Android 17 and 4D Jiren? Because fiction takes everything into account differently. Your argument here is INCREDIBLY fallacious if I just give you the benefit of the doubt."

>Existence erasure once again, '''is not dimensional hax. '''Time manipulation is literally manipulating the dimension time resides on. Same with spatial manipulation, This is once again a false analogy fallacy. Your entire argument is lackluster and hypocritical.

"Fallacy Fallacy again. Objectively disprove it as a comparison instead of trying to discredit arguments you are hardly addressing. Again, you are applying false ideologies to fiction. Time Manipulation would work on higher dimensional beings regardless even if it came from a 4D being. Why is Time Manipulation an exception while Plot Manipulation is? The short answer is that it isn't. All hax should work on higher dimensional beings regardless of what it is. You are justifying that since time is the 4th Dimension from what you've learned. I've already told you that time exists throughout ALL dimensions. You are ignoring my comment. Address my points and stop cherrypicking just because you can't you debunk something to satisfy your beliefs."

>A fallacy fallacy is me saying your entire argument si wrong soley because of the fallacy my argument wasn't that alone. Time Manipulation only works on higher dimensional beings if said time manipulation is a higher time dimension. Not the other way around. Nothing about this argument shows any knowledge in dimensions nor how hax works.

"I've explained this above. You are clearly ignoring how hax works in general."

>The irony in this statement is stunning.

"It's not ignorance. I've justified my thoughts on the statement from OP if you were actually looking at the comment chain. I don't need to reiterate on something that I've already addressed should I?"

>You're still ignroing the page on resistance. This is still objectively argument from ignorance.

"Zamasu became one with the timeline and the very universe if not the multiverse itself. The Daizenshuu states there are infinite galaxies in DB meaning the universe is infinite in size. And if you use the Kais governing over quadrants as an argument, that doesn't disprove the argument whatsoever as you have not directly addressed the point and are making a fallacious claim to debunk it. The universe being infinite in size justifies infinite space-time as well due to the space-time having a similar size as the actual universe itself."

>The daizenshuu is the least helpful thing to use here as it openly contradicts itself in the size of the dragon ball universe. It literally states there is a kai for every galaxy. Are you trying to imply there's an infinite number of kais despite the canon lore showing there is a finite number of kais? If so that is completely fallacious. Occams razor suggest I'm in the right here.

"Justifying a size based on belief can't substantiate a debunk on the infinite space-time in DB. The 4D size of a universe is comparable to the 3D size as it acts as a frame of reference. Destroying infinite space-time is Multiversal+ or becoming one with it in this case. By your logic, destroying infinite matter isn't High Universal as it uses similar logic to justify the rating. Zamasu became infinite space-time itself. Again, Jiren was established to be above him."

>Nothing about this was belief. Infinite space-time =/= infinite timelines. It's literally High 3-A to Low 2-C. Infinite matter would be high 3-A by my logic, you openly *ignored* this. 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A is destroying a numerical amount of timelines, not the size of a singular timeline.

"Except you never debunked anything. All you did was complain and cherrypick to make completely ignorant statements to the point at best. And can you prove why they are lackluster? Please do tell because you are committing Burden of Proof as your statement is meaningless without the justification for it. And I've conceded how so? Because I told you that I don't want to debate with someone who I know will refuse when their ideologies to the very core are questioned? That's human nature that people will defend what they believe because you are challenging something they view. I can already tell from how arrogant you come off that you view my points as bullshit. If it is such a waste of time to you, then why should I bother in the first place? If you can justify so, I might actually be interested if my opponent isn't trying to act like I'm an idiot and won't see my view for what it is or acknowledge it. You've clearly established your view of me with that last sentence of yours. Again, I don't need to bother with someone who has such an aggressive mentality. Case and point closed."

>This entire argument was lackluster and laughable. You clearly have failed to understand the concept of dimensions, analogies, and fallacies as a whole. Nothing about my mentality was "agressive" whatsoever. You have now openly admitted to making an excuse in order to run from the debate. Trying to use an in depth dicussion of human nature is irrelevant to a fictional debate. Calm yourself, you've won nothing.