# 3rd NBD Debate Tournament: Discussion Thread



## Ryuzaki -- Questions and concerns (Oct 13, 2016)

*The 3rd NBD Debate Tournament: Information, Rules & Regulations*​*What is the Debate Tournament?*
This is a debating tournament which will take into account your debating skills, for instance, it will be a 1 vs. 1 debate, where you will argue why a certain character (from Naruto) will win against another character (from Naruto). Personal attachments to favorite/non-favorite characters should be left out on the door however, your goal should be to persuad readers as to why your character would win the fight.

*What happens in the debate:*
Your are _encouraged_ to make two posts:

Introductory post:
Introduce your points, address your position and persuade the audience to your line of thinking. This post is more about persuasion and not about if your character is going to dominate, we may already know the foregone conclusion but it is up to you to present a different case and think critically.
*Not everything is important here*, you do not need to go to the Narutopedia page and substitute their jutsu arsenal and state you are done. We already know what they have, we need you to present a feasible manner in what you think they will employ, what is important for them to insure their victory and how they will achieve victory.

Rebuttal post:
At this stage, you take your opponent's introductory post and dissect it; exploit it for weakness and holes in their original argument in order to discredit their view-point.

*Debate Posting Limit:* 2 posts per debate in the 1st round (this will change in subsequent rounds)
Introduction
Rebuttal

Remember this, *please do NOT refute your opponents rebuttal*, this happened so many times last time, it was just abhorrent!
*Some additional rules:*

Word count: *500 words maximum* for each post (introduction, rebuttal); quoted text does not count towards your specific word count.
You may not edit your post after it has been posted, any post edited after it has been posted, will be disqualified.
No plagiarism, we are in the 3rd iteration of this tournament and there are several threads in the past in which matches maybe revisited. While it would be pertinent to get your point across, but contriving a new methodology and showing innovation should garner better results.
e.g. Might Gai can beat nearly every shinobi with 7th Gate but that's an easy cop out, it'd be better to explain why 7th Gate is not needed for this specific opponent and how/why he could get the job done without going all out.

Each round will be restricted to a certain pool of characters, the initial round will have single 1 vs. 1 matches but that will change in the 2nd round and then again in the 3rd round and again in the finals.
Generally speaking, it's upon voter discretion which of the posts hold more weight. Some voters believe the introduction is the most important while others believe the fruit of the argument is in the rebuttal, so make sure to provide the best piece of work you can on both fronts. Use manga pages as references from sites like MangaPanda.
*Tips:*

Do not just reference for the sake of referencing, some posters don't know the difference and voters will be the first to call that out. For example, if you reference a page of Sasuke using the lightning element to prove he can use it, that's not a good method of referencing since it is common knowledge that Sasuke uses lightning element. However, if you have multiple references of Sasuke using variations of the lightning element, you can make a solid argument that he is the most versatile raiton user.
Here is an example of a match between  and  to get an idea of what you'll be in for. The characters are generally picked at random, however, as I said the matches will be themed, so the character pool may fluctuate.
*How voting works:*
Public voting and assigned voting will be decided as the matches are set-up and organized for the tournament. All votes must include a couple of sentences as to why you believe person-x has a better argument than person-y. Votes that will be disregarded are those that exude a personal bias against/for the manga character or individual.

Members participating in the tournament are required to vote in at least one match-up per round. The bare minimum requirement for the voter is to speak only on behalf of who he is voting for (a couple of sentences as to why he was convinced).

*Seeding*
New members to this style of debating tournament will be automatically added to the bottom of the pool. Returning members from the previous debate tournament will be seeded according to how they finished in their last showing. Members of the final four will not participate in the first round and will start in the second round. At the moment, Baroxio, Alex Payne and Empathy are returning members and therefore they will get a bye for the first round.

*Current Bracket:*


*Current Registrants:*

@Bonly
@UchihaX28
@Saru
@HandfullofNaruto
@ARGUS
@Rocky
@Empathy
@WorldsStrongest
@Goose
@Matty
@DaVizWiz
@Alex Payne
@Baroxio
@Sapherosth
@PhantomSage
@Daenerys Stormborn 
*Registration Status: Closed
Tentative Start Date:* 10/16/2016 @ Noon EST.
*
Prizes*
The prizes will be awarded to the top 3 finishers and they will be unveiled in the 3rd round of the tournament (aka semi-finals/final four).

Reactions: Like 2 | Creative 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 13, 2016)

*Voting*​I encourage you guys to vote in all matches that aren't your own, but if you are still confused, I've come up with something to help you guys out:

@Alex Payne, @Sapherosth , @Matty, @WorldsStrongest , @Baroxio, @UchihaX28, @Bonly and @Saru have to vote in the following matches:

Empathy vs. PhantomSage


DaVizWiz vs. ARGUS
@Empathy, @PhantomSage, @Atlantic Storm, @Rocky, @Daenerys Stormborn, @HandfullofNaruto, @DaVizWiz and @ARGUS have to vote in the following matches:



Baroxio vs. UchihaX28


----------



## WorldsStrongest (Oct 13, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> Here is an example of a match between  and  to get an idea of what you'll be in for. The characters are generally picked at random, however, as I said the matches will be themed, so the character pool may fluctuate.


I thank you for this, as it is my first debate tournament, i appreciate being able to review the format of a post prior to constructing my own.


----------



## Bonly (Oct 13, 2016)

For the love of god, please give me a match where the Great Katsuyu-Sama is fighting. No Sakura, no Tsunade, just the Great Katsuyu-Sama and watch me wreck everyone and show the light that is the queen of solo

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 13, 2016)

Wow, DaVizWiz huh? I'm actually not surprised I have to battle him ... * again * ...

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 13, 2016)

The brackets aren't set in stone @UchihaX28, they will change as I add new participants. 

I suggest you check the link in the brackets.


----------



## Matty (Oct 13, 2016)

16 people would be optimal. And then just shuffle up all the people in matchups and it should be fine.

Should be a lot of fun

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 13, 2016)

Yeah, I'm capping at 16, because anymore, I won't be able to keep up.

I'll still need help running this, so if you aren't the 16th member to join, then you can help in oher aspects. Even if we don't hit 16, it's okay, the way it is fine, only Empathy will be left out of the mix I think and I'm okay with him starting next round anyway since he won the last tournament, as a bye that would be in his favor.

He's just itching for this, so I figured let him wait more

Reactions: Like 1 | Creative 1


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 13, 2016)

I'm not very fond of just everyone voting

Why? Because most people won't even be reading the arguments and because of personal bias or beef/friendship for some posters
There would be a conflict of interest

I suggest we get 3 just and unbiased judges
Each of whom would read the whole debate and give a thorough summary of their opinion on who wins

As for this debate
I'm interested to see what @Saru @DaVizWiz and @HandfullofNaruto bring to the table

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 13, 2016)

In the past, only participants from within the tournament could vote for matches outside of the others. I left it open because I wasn't sure if many people would vote within the system. Whoever is organizing with me will be required to vote regardless so that's about 3 people right there, including myself.

Well since you are participant ARGUS, I will look into it and I'll tell you guys before the first batch starts. But as for the tournament schedule, everything starts on Sunday @ Noon (Round 1)

Character match-ups will be posted Saturday night after my fantasy draft.

Sunday / Monday: Introduction
Tuesday / Wednesday: Rebuttal
Thursday - Saturday: Voting

These are tentative schedules, if both of you guys have posted your introductions on the first day, you can post your rebuttals afterwards. This was just to state that this is the maximum window period.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Butthurt McWowimacunt (Oct 13, 2016)

I'm excited to read these debates. The brackets look kinda flawless the way they are right now. 
I think @WorldsStrongest vs @Rocky will be gold to watch also  @Saru vs @HandfullofNaruto . 
& @Matty vs @ARGUS are you kidding me? Please don't change these brackets. I'm dying to read these debates "as is".

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 13, 2016)

FYI, for those not participating directly in the tournament, I'll send you guys the link for bracket predictions once I start the tournament and you guys can make your picks on who you think will win.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## WorldsStrongest (Oct 13, 2016)

Butthurt McWowimacunt said:


> I'm excited to read these debates. The brackets look kinda flawless the way they are right now.
> I think @WorldsStrongest vs @Rocky will be gold to watch also  @Saru vs @HandfullofNaruto .
> & @Matty vs @ARGUS are you kidding me? Please don't change these brackets. I'm dying to read these debates "as is".


Thanks for the hype, its gonna be my first debate tournament so it should be fun, looking forward to it

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parallaxis (Oct 13, 2016)

Wait didn't you say Baroxio, Empathy, and Alex Payne auto pass the first rounds? Why do the brackets show otherwise then?


----------



## Parallaxis (Oct 13, 2016)

ARGUS said:


> I'm not very fond of just everyone voting
> 
> Why? Because most people won't even be reading the arguments and because of personal bias or beef/friendship for some posters
> There would be a conflict of interest
> ...


Well, you are required to give a couple sentences on why you think that person wins.


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Oct 13, 2016)

PhantomSage said:


> Well, you are required to give a couple sentences on why you think that person wins.


That doesn't change the fact that it's easy for someone to vote for their friend. Anyone could write a couple sentences.


----------



## Parallaxis (Oct 13, 2016)

HandfullofNaruto said:


> That doesn't change the fact that it's easy for someone to vote for there friend. Anyone could write a couple sentences.


True. true


----------



## Bonly (Oct 13, 2016)

Do we have to wait until Tues+Wednes to do the rebuttal or are we allowed to work on our Rebuttals early if both intros are done, example: both intros are done on Sunday so can the rebuttals be done right away(if the people want to, no rush) or do they have to wait until Tuesday to put up the rebuttal?

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 13, 2016)

Bonly said:


> Do we have to wait until Tues+Wednes to do the rebuttal or are we allowed to work on our Rebuttals early if both intros are done, example: both intros are done on Sunday so can the rebuttals be done right away(if the people want to, no rush) or do they have to wait until Tuesday to put up the rebuttal?


No you can post it whenever you feel like, those are just guidelines for the maximum time allowed, heck, if both of you guys have your introduction up by Sunday, you can post a rebuttal on Sunday evening and I'll just wait 72 hours after the rebuttal for voting.

Reactions: Useful 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 13, 2016)

Things will get rolling on Sunday for sure, everyone will have their matches for preview on Saturday morning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Baroxio (Oct 14, 2016)

What is the purpose of seeding when we have a perfect 16 candidates?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 14, 2016)

The seeding is only for returning members, everyone else after that is in the order they asked to join or will be in that order. The only returning members I have are:

Alex Payne
Empathy
Baroxio
_Daenerys Targaryen_


----------



## Empathy (Oct 14, 2016)

Goose (Atlantic Storm) ) has participated before, I think (at least in the first one for sure).


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 14, 2016)

Is that AS? Wtf, I can't with these name changes


----------



## Baroxio (Oct 16, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> Word count: *500 words maximum* for each post (introduction, rebuttal);



Ouch. You're killing me here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 16, 2016)

Matches will be posted tomorrow when I wake up.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 17, 2016)

A tough opponent off the bat, huh? I'll post my argument at some point tonight (probably just before the deadline), as I have classes today and I'm also ill. Good luck, @Rocky.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 17, 2016)

Sick Distracted Atlantic Storm vs. V2 Senjutsu Hiraishin-using Rocky


----------



## Rocky (Oct 17, 2016)

Goose said:


> A tough opponent off the bat, huh? I'll post my argument at some point tonight (probably just before the deadline), as I have classes today and I'm also ill. Good luck, @Rocky.


Same to you. Feel better man.


----------



## Matty (Oct 17, 2016)

So my intro will be done before midnight tonight. Just busy with a few things and then ill post it

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 17, 2016)

Just realised I still have 24 hours to begin writing (and hopefully finish) my introduction post. Thank God.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 17, 2016)

I just realized that @Baroxio also has 24 hours left to write his introduction post.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 17, 2016)

@Baroxio will get around to it, I'll be lenient about the timings (i.e. as long as everything is up in time for voting). 

That's the most important thing. Just courtesy is I like to have intros up so that the other person has enough time to do a rebuttal.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 17, 2016)

I'll also try my best to vote in every match, keep it up guys.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 17, 2016)

Before I decide whether I'll be voting or not, I'd like to know if this is suppose to be all feats based or if portrayal is also suppose to be accounted for. Because if the latter is the case it will heavily effect my voting, as from the posts I read no one has talked at all about portrayal and it's by far more important than feats in my mind, so basically if someone makes an effective portrayal argument and the other person doesn't even address it, they automatically get my vote, because strength of argument is so much better then imo.

Just want clarification.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Useful 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 17, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Before I decide whether I'll be voting or not, I'd like to know if this is suppose to be all feats based or if portrayal is also suppose to be accounted for. Because if the latter is the case it will heavily effect my voting, as from the posts I read no one has talked at all about portrayal and it's by far more important than feats in my mind, so basically if someone makes an effective portrayal argument and the other person doesn't even address it, they automatically get my vote, because strength of argument is so much better then imo.
> 
> Just want clarification.



@Turrin: Both, actually, but there is a twist. You are free to use whatever rubric you deem necessary, the debaters can use whatever they deem necessary to convey their point. If you feel that you are in a match where both posters are using only feats, call them out on it and vice versa.

This tournament is a bit different, the biggest change is the introduction of a 500-word limit for the introduction and rebuttal (images, links and etc are not included). The debaters should present an argument convincing us *how* the character they have selected will win their match up and then push that point home *with* only the most pertinent information from the manga that they can squeeze into the 500 word-limit. This includes, portrayal (if that's what they want to base it off) or feats, but a great post will have both. I guess one of the other aspects you as a voter have to look for is, if I was presenting this discussion, would I establish my reasoning on the points the debaters chose or not. If not, just explain how it could have been better and where they went wrong.

The trick is to hit all the major points and persuade us without breaking the 500-word limit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Turrin (Oct 17, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> @Turrin: Both, actually, but there is a twist. You are free to use whatever rubric you deem necessary, the debaters can use whatever they deem necessary to convey their point. If you feel that you are in a match where both posters are using only feats, call them out on it and vice versa.
> 
> This tournament is a bit different, the biggest change is the introduction of a 500-word limit for the introduction and rebuttal (images, links and etc are not included). The debaters should present an argument convincing us *how* the character they have selected will win their match up and then push that point home *with* only the most pertinent information from the manga that they can squeeze into the 500 word-limit. This includes, portrayal (if that's what they want to base it off) or feats, but a great post will have both. I guess one of the other aspects you as a voter have to look for is, if I was presenting this discussion, would I establish my reasoning on the points the debaters chose or not. If not, just explain how it could have been better and where they went wrong.
> 
> The trick is to hit all the major points and persuade us without breaking the 500-word limit.


So wait, if I vote in a match based on their Opening Post and Rebuttal, they can then respond again to my post to try and influence my vote, or is that not allowed


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 17, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Before I decide whether I'll be voting or not, I'd like to know if this is suppose to be all feats based or if portrayal is also suppose to be accounted for. Because if the latter is the case it will heavily effect my voting, as from the posts I read no one has talked at all about portrayal and it's by far more important than feats in my mind, so basically if someone makes an effective portrayal argument and the other person doesn't even address it, they automatically get my vote, because strength of argument is so much better then imo.
> 
> Just want clarification.



I tried to incorporate a combination of both feats and portrayal (in my introduction) as well as how Pain's defense was portrayed as, but ultimately, it's the debater's choice what they to focus on. Feats play a pivotal role in this debate IMO mostly because when we write to explain, persuade, or even in general, one crucial aspect we have to take into consideration is the audience and what they're seeking for the most. Majority of members are ravenous for feats which is why most of our premises are based on feats just because that's the most effective way of convincing the audience that our argument is the correct one.

 I myself would've liked to focus more on portrayal, but for me to write a compelling argument, I knew that I had to focus more on feats than portrayal. If we look at the big picture, feats in the end are an element of portrayal, but I understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 17, 2016)

Turrin said:


> So wait, if I vote in a match based on their Opening Post and Rebuttal, they can then respond again to my post to try and influence my vote, or is that not allowed


They are not allowed to influence your vote whatsoever, the debaters are only allowed to post introduction and rebuttal, ignore everything else.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 17, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> I tried to incorporate a combination of both feats and portrayal (in my introduction) as well as how Pain's defense was portrayed as, but ultimately, it's the debater's choice what they to focus on. Feats play a pivotal role in this debate IMO mostly because when we write to explain, persuade, or even in general, one crucial aspect we have to take into consideration is the audience and what they're seeking for the most. Majority of members are ravenous for feats which is why most of our premises are based on feats just because that's the most effective way of convincing the audience that our argument is the correct one.
> 
> I myself would've liked to focus more on portrayal, but for me to write a compelling argument, I knew that I had to focus more on feats than portrayal. If we look at the big picture, feats in the end are an element of portrayal, but I understand where you're coming from.


My biggest problem with arguments that are primary feat based is that they are almost always going to be unbalanced and heavily favor one character over another. For example comparing someone like Kakashi whose a MC and has gotten a shit ton of panel time throughout the manga to accumulate feats and has had major entries in all 4 Data-Books, as well as most Fan-Books, to even someone like Sasori whose had in comparison a fraction of time to accumulate feats, is really unfair. This is without even getting into the common fallacious claim that X-Shinobi doesn't have the feats to counter Y-Ability and therefore looses against it, despite the fact that X-Shinobi has had nowhere near the necessary panel time to show anywhere close to his/her entire arsenal. So to go back to Sasori/Kakashi example, this will automatically give whoever is arguing for Kakashi an enormous advantage just in the feats pool they have to draw from in comparison to the person arguing for Sasori.

Now of course even with portrayal, a character with less panel time will be at a disadvantage to one with more panel time potentially, but it doesn't take as much time to convey portrayal as it does to give an accurate sense of a Shinobi's full arsenal of abilities. So we can get a sense of where say Mu is portrayed to be at strength wise in a few chapters, but can't get any real sense of his complete arsenal.



Ryuzaki said:


> They are not allowed to influence your vote whatsoever, the debaters are only allowed to post introduction and rebuttal, ignore everything else.


Okay

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 17, 2016)

@Turrin

 I wholeheartedly agree, especially with the idea around "X Shinobi has no feats that show he can counter Y-Shinobi, therefore he loses," even when that's promoting a logical fallacy by arguing out of sheer ignorance without any regard for logical deduction, common sense, and statements made inside and outside of the manga. Honestly, just doing a little bit of extra thinking would tell us that Sasori is a very percipient and intelligent fighter not having the feats explicitly shown right in front of us. It's unfortunate that numerous people in the Naruto community tend to gravitate towards feats without taking into consideration of the aforementioned factors that we've both listed previously and simply argue out of sheer ignorance because that's the simplest approach.

 Ultimately, I can't really blame others for pivoting more on feats mostly because we're adjusting our argumentation in respect to the audience which is what a lot of writers tend to do and it's perfectly logical, even if it might not be the best approach in the grand scheme of things. In my defense, I tried to focus a bit more on portrayal in a subtle fashion, but still advocated for feats because in the end, that's what matters the most to the community.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 17, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> @Turrin
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree, especially with the idea around "X Shinobi has no feats that show he can counter Y-Shinobi, therefore he loses," even when that's promoting a logical fallacy by arguing out of sheer ignorance without any regard for logical deduction, common sense, and statements made inside and outside of the manga. Honestly, just doing a little bit of extra thinking would tell us that Sasori is a very percipient and intelligent fighter not having the feats explicitly shown right in front of us. It's unfortunate that numerous people in the Naruto community tend to gravitate towards feats without taking into consideration of the aforementioned factors that we've both listed previously and simply argue out of sheer ignorance because that's the simplest approach.
> 
> Ultimately, I can't really blame others for pivoting more on feats mostly because we're adjusting our argumentation in respect to the audience which is what a lot of writers tend to do and it's perfectly logical, even if it might not be the best approach in the grand scheme of things. In my defense, I tried to focus a bit more on portrayal in a subtle fashion, but still advocated for feats because in the end, that's what matters the most to the community.


I agree with your logic and would probably have made my arguments more feat based then normal if i was participating too, but If I do vote in matches I'm not going to adjust my standards for what is a logical argument, because posters are pandering to their audience. So if I see an effective portrayal argument and an effective feats argument, portrayal argument is probably getting my vote. But I wanted to make sure that was within the rules first, because if feats were the sole criteria then I wouldn't do that, but Ryu said they weren't, so there you have it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rocky (Oct 18, 2016)

Portrayal is a bit too difficult to center an argument around. The goal is to tell the audience why your character wins against another, not why your character is a beast. Portrayal is best used as evidence, like referencing Minato's moniker (The Yellow Flash) to support an argument that Minato is fast enough to avoid an opponent's attack.

If I were to come out and center my 500-word argument on why Minato is portrayed above Mū, it'd be a terrible argument for two reasons. One, Minato & Mū have never been compared to each other, nor have they both been compared to a common individual or group, so anything I could say would be nothing but why I thought Minato was good or Mū was bad, as opposed to why I thought Minato was directly better than Mū under the circumstances of the thread.

Two, character portrayal isn't a full-proof way of determining who a character can defeat. Gai went the entire manga being portrayed as Kakashi's rival when he had a Jūbi Jin-level technique just chilling in the back. Variables like knowledge or restrictions can change the outcomes of matches like we saw with Sakura vs. Sasori, Jiraiya vs. Pain, and Sasuke vs. Danzō. Certain unique abilities can allow weaker characters to defeat stronger ones, such as Kisame beating Bee, Minato beating Obito, Madara beating Kurama, or even a Naruto clone beating the Third Raikage. There are too many things to account for to use portrayal alone in a vs. thread.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 18, 2016)

From what I understood the basis was to explain how the character went about the matchup and employed his powerset to acheive victory.

I'm not about to waste words on the portrayal of Asuma when I only have 500 and have to provide feats to prove he's capable of what I'm implying.

Portrayal can't really be used to prove someone is capable of something you're implying anyway, just because x character is noted to be stronger than y character does not mean x defeats y or that x even has a chance against him given certain stipulations.

And considering @Ryuzaki uied to match up characters that were close in power (most are within the same tier), portrayal really isn't going to win you anything in these matchups, when I see someone beefing up a shinobi with statement hype or word of mouth accomplishments it won't translate to my vote, it's just going to disappoint me that instead of using your limited space citing feats to back up your claims and how the character goes about using thier abilities to defeat the opponent- you decided to describie a character's place on a tier list, when I already have a well detailed opinion of their place on a tier list.

The person who puts together a better construction of the shinobi's abilities and why they matter, addresses more of the opponents' arsenal in counter or does so better, and provides more feats proving their strategy will be the one implemented gets my 5 point vote. If portrayal factors into this, then it works for me. But it generally wouldn't based on these close nit matchups.

That is my rubric, for those who are interested in matches 5-8

I'm in agreement with @Rocky, portrayal at best is a supporting detail to bolster already established feats, the 500 words should be dominated by *exactly* how the character goes about defeating the opponent.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 18, 2016)

Turrin said:


> My biggest problem with arguments that are primary feat based is that they are almost always going to be unbalanced and heavily favor one character over another. For example comparing someone like Kakashi whose a MC and has gotten a shit ton of panel time throughout the manga to accumulate feats and has had major entries in all 4 Data-Books, as well as most Fan-Books, to even someone like Sasori whose had in comparison a fraction of time to accumulate feats, is really unfair. This is without even getting into the common fallacious claim that X-Shinobi doesn't have the feats to counter Y-Ability and therefore looses against it, despite the fact that X-Shinobi has had nowhere near the necessary panel time to show anywhere close to his/her entire arsenal. So to go back to Sasori/Kakashi example, this will automatically give whoever is arguing for Kakashi an enormous advantage just in the feats pool they have to draw from in comparison to the person arguing for Sasori.
> 
> Now of course even with portrayal, a character with less panel time will be at a disadvantage to one with more panel time potentially, but it doesn't take as much time to convey portrayal as it does to give an accurate sense of a Shinobi's full arsenal of abilities. So we can get a sense of where say Mu is portrayed to be at strength wise in a few chapters, but can't get any real sense of his complete arsenal.
> 
> ...





UchihaX28 said:


> @Turrin
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree, especially with the idea around "X Shinobi has no feats that show he can counter Y-Shinobi, therefore he loses," even when that's promoting a logical fallacy by arguing out of sheer ignorance without any regard for logical deduction, common sense, and statements made inside and outside of the manga. Honestly, just doing a little bit of extra thinking would tell us that Sasori is a very percipient and intelligent fighter not having the feats explicitly shown right in front of us. It's unfortunate that numerous people in the Naruto community tend to gravitate towards feats without taking into consideration of the aforementioned factors that we've both listed previously and simply argue out of sheer ignorance because that's the simplest approach.
> 
> Ultimately, I can't really blame others for pivoting more on feats mostly because we're adjusting our argumentation in respect to the audience which is what a lot of writers tend to do and it's perfectly logical, even if it might not be the best approach in the grand scheme of things. In my defense, I tried to focus a bit more on portrayal in a subtle fashion, but still advocated for feats because in the end, that's what matters the most to the community.




Lucky I mentioned the 3rd Kazekage's portrayal as the strongest in Suna then. 

But yeah, I agree with your points. It was a bit hard arguing with limited feats against 1000 jutsu's.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 18, 2016)

Yeah there are exceptions to portrayal like type-match up and when circumstances heavily favors one character over another, but 90% of the time the character portrayed as the superior Shinobi is going to win out over the one who is portrayed as inferior. But logically one should argue what is the norm and then adjust their argument if it happens to be centered around one of the outliers. I.E. argue why X-character is portrayed superior to Y-character, and then if circumstance or type-match favor Y-Charcter, argue why that isn't enough to overcome the gap suggested by portrayal. No just throw portrayal out because 10% of the time there are exceptions to the norm.



> If I were to come out and center my 500-word argument on why Minato is portrayed above Mū, it'd be a terrible argument for two reasons. One, Minato & Mū have never been compared to each other, nor have they both been compared to a common individual or group, so anything I could say would be nothing but why I thought Minato was good or Mū was bad, as opposed to why I thought Minato was directly better than Mū under the circumstances of the thread.


I disagree there is plenty I could say about Minato's portrayal being superior to Mu's. The only abilities that need to really be spent time on addressing directly are Jinton and Invis. But really it should only require around 100-200 words to address Jinton/Invis, and I would address it from both a feats and portrayal perspective. 

I thought about doing an example of how I would argue for Minato here, but since your match is still going on I don't think that would be fair.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 18, 2016)

Yeah...I don't think you'd do very well in the tournament then.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 18, 2016)

Rocky said:


> Yeah...I don't think you'd do very well in the tournament then.


If so then that's sad, because it means that voting isn't about quality of argument, only quality of feat based arguments.

But I disagree, anyway, because I feel even if I spent 300 words on portrayal I could still make a good feat based argument with my remaining 200 words; as I don't think it takes long to really argue feats as they are pretty straight forward.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 18, 2016)

I just posted my introductory post. Whichever way the match goes, I'd like to thank Ryuzaki for hosting the tournament. It's been a long time since I've consistently posted here, and even longer since I've debated seriously), so this is an incredibly nostalgic experience for me. I'll also try my best to vote in all of the matches or, at least, as many of them as possible.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Oct 18, 2016)

Both intro posts and both rebuttals are up in my match with @HandfullofNaruto . I second AS's thanks to Ryuzaki--it's nice to see people so enthusiastic about an NBD event again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 18, 2016)

I appreciate it, this is the beginning for now, I have a few more ideas after this tournament.


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 18, 2016)

How valid are the votes of voters who doesn't even read the whole thing? 

I can already see voters who ignore the rebuttals completely.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 18, 2016)

Rebuttals were optional to read, and I think my vote was written in enough depth to show that I read both your posts in detail and gave it careful thought.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 18, 2016)

Oh, I should mention that if you want a critique of your rebuttal as well, I'd be more than happy to give it. Once I get some sleep. I've been running on four hours today.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 18, 2016)

I'll bring out a solid rubric for voting after this first round ends, I just assumed people knew from previous members but I guess there are far too many new faces. It's really up to voters' discretion (most voters tend read both and grade based on both, but rebuttal posts are originally optional). I would suggest including both if both are available but if only the introduction is there, then you cannot really do anything more than that.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 18, 2016)

Thanks for the vote, @Daenerys Stormborn !


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 19, 2016)

If all of you guys can, please look at the following threads for vote placement:






These 5 matches have everything up, voting should happen in these matches. DT vs. HoN has gotten the most votes, but it is still close, the same goes for Alex Payne and Sapherosth. After 12 am tonight (EST), begin voting in all matches with or without rebuttals. Introductions have already been posted.

I encourage you guys to vote in all matches that aren't your own, but if you are still confused, I've come up with something to help you guys out:

@Alex Payne, @Sapherosth , @Matty, @WorldsStrongest , @Baroxio, @UchihaX28, @Bonly and @Saru have to vote in the following matches:

Empathy vs. PhantomSage


DaVizWiz vs. ARGUS
@Empathy, @PhantomSage, @Atlantic Storm, @Rocky, @Daenerys Stormborn, @HandfullofNaruto, @DaVizWiz and @ARGUS have to vote in the following matches:



Baroxio vs. UchihaX28

Empathy, DaVizWiz and Baroxio's matches have until tonight 12AM (midnight) EST to post their rebuttals. You guys can go ahead and start voting for their matches when you feel like after the allotted time tonight. Rebuttals are optional, if you know for a fact that you aren't going to really count it towards their discussion, then go right ahead and use the introductions


----------



## Turrin (Oct 19, 2016)

I really feel like if you do this again eliminating the rebuttals is the way to go; most people aren't even waiting for rebuttals before voting in many cases; and some contestants aren't even post rebuttals. I think Rebuttals only serve to slow the process down and nothing else.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 19, 2016)

@HandfullofNaruto 

 I honestly wanted to focus more on Intellect, but the word limit was crippling me and I had to cut it off short and just implement the main details. I still think it worked rather effectively in all honesty.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Saru (Oct 20, 2016)

and i'd have to fundamentally disagree with the removal of rebuttals, because it would eliminate a key component of debating in this format. debating is all about going head to head with your opponent, not necessarily character matchups. how can you engage your opponent if you can't attack or refute their thinking?

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Saru (Oct 20, 2016)

also



Atlantic Storm said:


> Once I get some sleep. I've been running on four hours today.



stop that you silly goose

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Turrin (Oct 20, 2016)

Saru said:


> and i'd have to fundamentally disagree with the removal of rebuttals, because it would eliminate a key component of debating in this format. debating is all about going head to head with your opponent, not necessarily character matchups. how can you engage your opponent if you can't attack or refute their thinking?


Because 99% of the time a NBD vet will know what arguments the opponent is going to present and already address them in their Opening.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 20, 2016)

I noticed that the 2nd person who posts an intro will refute the opposition's intro in some way, shape, or form which gives somewhat an advantage towards the 2nd individual.


----------



## Saru (Oct 20, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Because 99% of the time a NBD vet will know what arguments the opponent is going to present and already address them in their Opening.



uh

it's literally impossible to know what your opponent is going to argue beforehand, especially within low word limits

that's what makes it... _fun_



UchihaX28 said:


> I noticed that the 2nd person who posts an intro will refute the opposition's intro in some way, shape, or form which gives somewhat an advantage towards the 2nd individual.



this is true in theory, but there's no easy and effective solution i can think of 

if we wanted to make things more fair, though, we could introduce more random probability, i.e. roll dice to determine who must post first. the drawback of this change would be either a more drawn-out tournament (since both participants need the same amount of time) or less time to write a response (e.g. one day as opposed to 2).


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Oct 20, 2016)

Saru said:


> this is true in theory, but there's no easy and effective solution i can think of
> 
> if we wanted to make things more fair, though, we could introduce more random probability, i.e. roll dice to determine who must post first. the drawback of this change would be either a more drawn-out tournament (since both participants need the same amount of time) or less time to write a response (e.g. one day as opposed to 2).


We could just send the Introductions & Rebuttals to Ryuzaki (or a tournament helper). That way they will be posted at the same time.


----------



## Saru (Oct 20, 2016)

HandfullofNaruto said:


> We could just send the Introductions & Rebuttals to Ryuzaki (or a tournament helper). That way they will be posted at the same time.



yeah, i thought about that, but it'd just be so much more work for Ryuzaki and the helpers that i'm not sure if it'd be worth the time

you'd think it wouldn't be a lot of trouble, but having to send your post to another source, wait for them to okay it (which could be who knows when based on their schedule), then post it, then do the same thing with the rebuttal, then potentially repeat that whole process 3 times...


i'd be willing to help with that, but i don't think this issue is substantial enough to warrant Ryuzaki (and the participants) taking all of those extra steps


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 20, 2016)

@Baroxio 

 Oh, do you have the scans that suggest that it was Konan's Genjutsu Barrier? That would've been something that I overlooked and posting a scan would've helped refute that. Ultimately though, I think you missed the point where I compared Pain to Konan and Konan to Itachi. Pain's intelligence exceeded Konan's in the manga panel that I presented previously and Konan's well-known for her intellect considering she analyzed Obito's Kamui which was something Itachi failed to do which would therefore imply that Pain's a highly intellectual individual and should be capable of deducing Danzo's strategy and decipher Izanagi as a result.


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 20, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> @Baroxio
> 
> Oh, do you have the scans that suggest that it was Konan's Genjutsu Barrier? That would've been something that I overlooked and posting a scan would've helped refute that. Ultimately though, I think you missed the point where I compared Pain to Konan and Konan to Itachi. Pain's intelligence exceeded Konan's in the manga panel that I presented previously and *Konan's well-known for her intellect considering she analyzed Obito's Kamui which was something Itachi failed to do* which would therefore imply that Pain's a highly intellectual individual and should be capable of deducing Danzo's strategy and decipher Izanagi as a result.




Konan has witnessed the technique many more times than Itachi and we don't even whether or not Obito was talking about his Izanagi or Kamui when he talked about Itachi not knowing his secret. From the looks of it though, it looked like Obito was talking about Izanagi and not Kamui.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 20, 2016)

I feel so bad for @Baroxio, lol. He's been around a while and I know he can be pretty convincing in a debate, but there wasn't much he could do. @UchihaX28 really only needed the "Absolute Defense" section of his post to win. Everything we saw from Danzō during his battle with the Sauce is shut the fuck down by linked vision & ninjutsu absorption, and those two abilities were _highlighted_ in the Jiraiya fight, giving UchihaX28 a ton of evidence to support his stance. Baro's only chance was to get real creative with the possibilities of Izanagi, but Pain just has so many defensive options...

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 20, 2016)

Rocky said:


> I feel so bad for @Baroxio, lol. He's been around a while and I know he can be pretty convincing in a debate, but there wasn't much he could do. @UchihaX28 really only needed the "Absolute Defense" section of his post to win. Everything we saw from Danzō during his battle with the Sauce is shut the fuck down by linked vision & ninjutsu absorption, and those two abilities were _highlighted_ in the Jiraiya fight, giving UchihaX28 a ton of evidence to support his stance. Baro's only chance was to get real creative with the possibilities of Izanagi, but Pain just has so many defensive options...



 I honestly think this was a fucked up match-up, much like the Asuma vs. Zabuza match-up. I'm certain @Baroxio could've conjured something significantly better had the match-up been a lot more even-sided. I don't even think I could've made an argument had I been cursed with Danzo.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 20, 2016)

Saru said:


> uh
> 
> it's literally impossible to know what your opponent is going to argue beforehand, especially within low word limits
> 
> that's what makes it... _fun_


Yet there were literally only 2 arguments in the entire debate so far that I didn't already think off ahead of time. Saph's argument about Kakashi's Sharingan not seeing Kakuzu's hearts; and Rocky's argument about using Bunta's Oil to find Mu. Do those 2 instances nether of which were deciding factors in ether match, at least not for my vote or those votes I read, really justify a rebuttal portion. I'd say no.

But if anything giving participants the option to respond to voters like in the KC would be the way to go rather than a rebuttal


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 20, 2016)

I think I've got a solution figured out for this and will employ it in the next round. 

This tournament was meant to be small to work out the kinks (such as these).

The tournament proceeding this one will be far more furnished as a result.


----------



## Saru (Oct 20, 2016)

moved the thread discussions to this thread per Ryuzaki's request 

i also just read through the philosophical "portrayal" disagreement that Rocky and Viz were having with Turrin earlier on in the thread, and i wholeheartedly agree that portrayal is less effective in these formats. it's not so much about "lowering our standards" as much as it is changing our criteria. the quality of the argument does indeed win the debate in this format, and just because there's a greater emphasis on feats, matchup conditions, and skillset doesn't mean that the arguments presented aren't of high quality. the evidence used, the layout of the argument, the aesthetics, and the diction used all go a long way towards convincing the audience, and i think that's what's made Ryuzaki's tournament so fun (as a participant and as a voter).


----------



## Turrin (Oct 20, 2016)

Saru said:


> moved the thread discussions to this thread per Ryuzaki's request
> 
> i also just read through the philosophical "portrayal" disagreement that Rocky and Viz were having with Turrin earlier on in the thread, and i wholeheartedly agree that portrayal is less effective in these formats. it's not so much about "lowering our standards" as much as it is changing our criteria. the quality of the argument does indeed win the debate in this format, and just because there's a greater emphasis on feats, matchup conditions, and skillset doesn't mean that the arguments presented aren't of high quality. the evidence used, the layout of the argument, the aesthetics, and the diction used all go a long way towards convincing the audience, and i think that's what's made Ryuzaki's tournament so fun (as a participant and as a voter).


It depends. If character-X has a known ability, that you feel character-Y has shown a counter for that ability; the highest quality argument is going to be based on "feats" & portrayal. However if poster-X makes an argument that character-Y, looses because he hasn't shown the abilities to counter character-X's ability without taking into account portrayal, that is absolutely an argument of poor quality. The reason is that we intellectually know that we haven't seen all of character-Y's abilities; and in many cases we haven't even seen a fraction of said abilities. So that is one problem.

The second problem is a matter of balance. If both posters choose to focus primarily on feats based arguments, than the tournament is not balanced well at all. Why? Because look at a match like Zabuza vs Asuma; Zabuza has shown way more feats than Asuma, simply due to panel time. Zabuza was a major arc villain, while Asuma biggest role was to ultimately die at the hands of Hidan in a 2-3 chapter slow paced battle. Another example would be Mu vs Minato; Minato also showed way more than Mu due to panel time. Minato was the MC's father, a main benchmark throughout the series, and one of the greatest heroes in the verse, taking part in two of the biggest events in the entire manga as well as appearing many other times throughout; compared to Mu who appeared for a handful of chapters, most of which his actual fighting was off panel.

So ether A) there needs to be much more attention to balancing matches, I.E. only matching characters up that had a similar amount of panel time or B) portrayal arguments are an absolute must to overcome this disparity. For example it would be like if someone was assigned Prime-Hanzo while someone else is assigned Itachi, and the person assigned Prime-Hanzo limits himself to arguing only based on the feats Edo-Hanzo displayed in those 2 chapters, it's silly and poorly thought out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Saru (Oct 20, 2016)

Turrin said:


> It depends. If character-X has a known ability, that you feel character-Y has shown a counter for that ability; the highest quality argument is going to be based on "feats" & portrayal. However if poster-X makes an argument that character-Y, looses because he hasn't shown the abilities to counter character-X's ability without taking into account portrayal, that is absolutely an argument of poor quality. The reason is that we intellectually know that we haven't seen all of character-Y's abilities; and in many cases we haven't even seen a fraction of said abilities. So that is one problem.
> 
> The second problem is a matter of balance. If both posters choose to focus primarily on feats based arguments, than the tournament is not balanced well at all. Why? Because look at a match like Zabuza vs Asuma; Zabuza has shown way more feats than Asuma, simply due to panel time. Zabuza was a major arc villain, while Asuma biggest role was to ultimately die at the hands of Hidan in a 2-3 chapter slow paced battle. Another example would be Mu vs Minato; Minato also showed way more than Mu due to panel time. Minato was the MC's father, a main benchmark throughout the series, and one of the greatest heroes in the verse, taking part in two of the biggest events in the entire manga as well as appearing many other times throughout; compared to Mu who appeared for a handful of chapters, most of which his actual fighting was off panel.
> 
> So ether A) there needs to be much more attention to balancing matches, I.E. only matching characters up that had a similar amount of panel time or B) portrayal arguments are an absolute must to overcome this disparity. For example it would be like if someone was assigned Prime-Hanzo while someone else is assigned Itachi, and the person assigned Prime-Hanzo limits himself to arguing only based on the feats Edo-Hanzo displayed in those 2 chapters, it's silly and poorly thought out.



1) a character whose abilities we don't about is a character problem, not a portrayal problem. you can argue portrayal to try and hide the disparity, but it will still be there regardless. secondly, the characters with the least feats also tend to be the ones with the worst portrayal (partially due to less exposure), so i'm not sure why you think these things correlate.

2) is really the same problem (uneven amount of feats) but restated in a different manner.

ultimately, Turrin, these debate formats require that we forego tier lists to some extent and keep an open mind about things. _no one _here thinks Ohnoki can beat Minato, for example, but it could very well be a match in the next round. however, as Rocky said, i already have a well-defined tier list that qualifies each character's strength. deciding which character is stronger is not what the tournament is about, and while i do think care needs to be taken to make reasonably balanced match ups, these match ups aren't going to be perfect no matter what we do.

so i simply disagree with your mindset and your reasoning which overstates the value of portrayal, with all due respect. i disagree with your heavy emphasis on portrayal even outside of this format though, so i'm neither surprised nor bothered by this fact. i just look at things from a different perspective.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 20, 2016)

Saru said:


> 1) a character whose abilities we don't about is a character problem, not a portrayal problem. .


I don't know what you mean by a character problem.



> you can argue portrayal to try and hide the disparity, but it will still be there regardless. secondly, the characters with the least feats also tend to be the ones with the worst portrayal (partially due to less exposure), so i'm not sure why you think these things correlate


That's absolutely not true at all. Mu, Gengetsu, Rasa, &  Sandaime-Raikage are all portrayed as stronger than most of the verse, yet have less panel time to accumulate feats than someone like Ino for example. That's just one of the dozens of examples I could give. Less-feats does not at all correlate to worst portrayal.



> is really the same problem (uneven amount of feats) but restated in a different manner.


It's not though. Portrayal can be established in a few statements. For example: Hanzo is portrayed as one of the strongest Shinobi in the course of one dialog exchange between Jiraiya and the fodder Shinobi. While it would take quite a-lot of panel time to give us a good sense of Hanzo entire arsenal.



> ultimately, Turrin, these debate formats require that we forego tier lists to some extent and keep an open mind about things. _no one _here thinks Ohnoki can beat Minato, for example, but it could very well be a match in the next round. however, as Rocky said, i already have a well-defined tier list that qualifies each character's strength. deciding which character is stronger is not what the tournament is about, and while i do think care needs to be taken to make reasonably balanced match ups, these match ups aren't going to be perfect no matter what we do.


Disregarding which character is stronger, is not a good way to approach these match ups. If you are assigned the character who is portrayed superior you are fool in my mind to not bother spending some time arguing why that gives your character a clear edge. Just like your equally a fool, if your assigned the weaker character, to not spend some time on why the conditions or type match up allows your character to overcome this disparity. If you instead choose to ignore this, you are easily giving up what could be one of your most effective points of argumentation.



> so i simply disagree with your mindset and your reasoning which overstates the value of portrayal, with all due respect. i disagree with your heavy emphasis on portrayal even outside of this format though, so i'm neither surprised nor bothered by this fact. i just look at things from a different perspective.


It's not something that can be disagree on, because it's not subjective. If your telling me that a "feat" based comparison between a character whose been heavily featured in the manga with a character whose been rarely featured in the manga, is a fair and equal comparison; that's just plain faulty period. You could argue subjectivity on what is more important feats or portrayal, when we are comparing two characters with similar amounts of panel time, but those match ups are few and far between. In-fact I don't think a single one of these types of matches exists in this entire tournament, except maybe Onoki vs Ei, but even there, there is a decent disparity; and i'm very confident we haven't seen anywhere near ether's entire arsenal. All the others there is a huge disparity that doesn't allow for subjectivity.


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 20, 2016)

Nah I feel that rebuttals are really important since they let you exploit the flaws in someone else's argument and show your true skill as a debater 

Judging on just the intros is not valid enough when they're always based on self made scenarios rather than actually countering someone's arsenal 

Intro limit can stick to 500 with 10% leeway 
rebuttal should defInjtely be increased to 750

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Rocky (Oct 20, 2016)

@Turrin 

Can you give me an example of how you'd argue that Minato is portrayed above Mū?


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 20, 2016)

@Turrin

I would prefer it if you didn't.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 20, 2016)

Aw come on, it's not like I can go back & edit my posts.


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 20, 2016)

I think the title of "child of prophecy" is enough. "Once in a decade" is also good. Stopping Kyuubi and masked man...

Handling A&B briefly and made a big impression on both of them. Fastest man of his era. Flee on sight by hidden rock Ninjas and cloud. 

I'm not even a Minato fanboy.


----------



## Saru (Oct 20, 2016)

getting into a long back-and-forth discussion about this was not my intention (nor is it something i care to do). but you typed this awesome response so i'll address it before retiring the discussion.



Turrin said:


> I don't know what you mean by a character problem.



the problem being the disparity clarified in my statements above.




> That's absolutely not true at all. Mu, Gengetsu, Rasa, &  Sandaime-Raikage are all portrayed as stronger than most of the verse, yet have less panel time to accumulate feats than someone like Ino for example. That's just one of the dozens of examples I could give. Less-feats does not at all correlate to worst portrayal.



i used the expression "to tend to," which means "in most cases." it does not mean "in all cases."



> It's not though. Portrayal can be established in a few statements. For example: Hanzo is portrayed as one of the strongest Shinobi in the course of one dialog exchange between Jiraiya and the fodder Shinobi. While it would take quite a-lot of panel time to give us a good sense of Hanzo entire arsenal.



this is word for word your reasoning in the second paragraph:



> Why? Because look at a match like Zabuza vs Asuma; Zabuza has shown way more feats than Asuma, simply due to panel time.



the issue to identify here is once again a disparity in the amount of feats between both characters. it's the same issue, but restated in a different manner. feats can be established in a few statements as well, and portrayal and feats do not necessarily hold equal weight, so even your example fails to prove the utility of a greater emphasis on portrayal. Hanzo is also a bad example because he's one of the few characters in the manga whose feats don't line up with the peak of his portrayal at all.



> Disregarding which character is stronger, is not a good way to approach these match ups. If you are assigned the character who is portrayed superior you are fool in my mind to not bother spending some time arguing why that gives your character a clear edge. Just like your equally a fool, if your assigned the weaker character, to not spend some time on why the conditions or type match up allows your character to overcome this disparity. If you instead choose to ignore this, you are easily giving up what could be one of your most effective points of argumentation.



several of the participants must be fools then according to your standards then, and i'm perfectly okay with that. never should you ever concede that your character is weaker in a debate imo because it gives the other side ammo. this sort of logic applies to lots of debates, not just this one. of course none of the participants were ignorant to the inherent strength disparities in some of these matches, but acknowledging that you have a bad hand is generally a terrible strategy in any competitive environment. based on what you've said, i don't think you would've done very well in this format if given a more uphill battle, as you would rather spend time acknowledging and defending your character's weaknesses rather than focusing on your character's strengths.



> It's not something that can be disagree on, because it's not subjective. If your telling me that a "feat" based comparison between a character whose been heavily featured in the manga with a character whose been rarely featured in the manga, is a fair and equal comparison; that's just plain faulty period. You could argue subjectivity on what is more important feats or portrayal, when we are comparing two characters with similar amounts of panel time, but those match ups are few and far between. In-fact I don't think a single one of these types of matches exists in this entire tournament, except maybe Onoki vs Ei, but even there, there is a decent disparity; and i'm very confident we haven't seen anywhere near ether's entire arsenal. All the others there is a huge disparity that doesn't allow for subjectivity.



... this entire discussion is subjective. the manga is subjective. you're failing to acknowledge this fact in saying:

"You could argue subjectivity on what is more important feats or portrayal, when we are comparing two characters with similar amounts of panel time, but those match ups are few and far between."

here, you made not one, but _two_ false assertions about the "objectivity" of your reasoning, the first being that you can *only* argue whether feats is more important than portrayal only when all other things are held equal, but *that's not true*. the second false assertion is that there were few match ups that were comprehensively balanced, and once again, this is your opinion, not fact.

there is far more gray here than you've conceded.

but as i said, i digress, because i'm clearly not going to be able to sway your thinking in any way, and i've seen enough of it not to have any further interest getting your insight. your general stance is pretty clear.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 20, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> I think the title of "child of prophecy" is enough. "Once in a decade" is also good. Stopping Kyuubi and masked man...
> 
> Handling A&B briefly and made a big impression on both of them. Fastest man of his era. Flee on sight by hidden rock Ninjas and cloud.
> 
> I'm not even a Minato fanboy.


Sounds pretty weak, if you ask me.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Turrin (Oct 20, 2016)

Saru said:


> the problem being the disparity clarified in my statements above.


Maybe i'm just having a herp a derp moment, but it's still not very clear to me.



> i used the expression "to tend to," which means "in most cases." it does not mean "in all cases."


But my point is that it does not "tend to in most cases". Think about it. Mu, Gengetsu, Rasa, Sandaime-Riakage, Mei, Kakuzu, Hidan, Sasori, Zabuza, etc... are all portrayed to be incredible powerful Ninja & are some of thee most discussed/debated character in the NBD, but relative to many characters with vastly inferior potrayal, they have far less panel time and feats. And these are just some examples I'd be here all night if I listed them all.



> the issue to identify here is once again a disparity in the amount of feats between both characters. it's the same issue, but restated in a different manner. feats can be established in a few statements as well,


How so. I can't recall a single time where a few statements gave us a good sense of a characters entire arsenal of abilities.



> Hanzo is also a bad example because he's one of the few characters in the manga whose feats don't line up with the peak of his portrayal at all.


My Point is that he's not though. I already listed quite a few more above.



> several of the participants must be fools then according to your standards then, and i'm perfectly okay with that. never should you ever concede that your character is weaker in a debate imo because it gives the other side ammo. this sort of logic applies to lots of debates, not just this one. of course none of the participants were ignorant to the inherent strength disparities in some of these matches, but acknowledging that you have a bad hand is generally a terrible strategy in any competitive environment. based on what you've said, i don't think you would've done very well in this format if given a more uphill battle, as you would rather spend time acknowledging and defending your character's weaknesses rather than focusing on your character's strengths.


There's a difference between acknowledging you've been dealt the weaker character personally, and tailoring your argument around it, and acknowledging it publicly. I did not say someone should come out and say "my character is weaker". I said they should personally acknowledge this fact and focus on why their character is has a type-match up advantage or conditions would advantage their character. You can do the latter without coming out and directly saying your character is weaker.



> here, you made not one, but _two_ false assertions about the "objectivity" of your reasoning, the first being that you can *only*argue whether feats is more important than portrayal only when all other things are held equal, but *that's not true*. the second false assertion is that there were few match ups that were comprehensively balanced, and once again, this is your opinion, not fact.


No your confusing issues here. My point here was strictly center around whether a "feat" based comparison between a characters whose been featured heavily and one that has been featured much less so, is an equal comparison. For example if Character-X had 100 Panels worth of feats and character-Y had 10, it's not subjective whether a "feat" based comparison is between the two is equal. Objectively the person arguing for character-X has an enormous advantage over the person arguing for character-Y, assuming their isn't a simply massive strength gap disparity.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Saru (Oct 21, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Maybe i'm just having a herp a derp moment, but it's still not very clear to me.



by "character problem", i meant a disparity in the amount of feats both characters have.



> But my point is that it does not "tend to in most cases". Think about it. Mu, Gengetsu, Rasa, Sandaime-Riakage, Mei, Kakuzu, Hidan, Sasori, Zabuza, etc... are all portrayed to be incredible powerful Ninja & are some of thee most discussed/debated character in the NBD, but relative to many characters with vastly inferior potrayal, they have far less panel time and feats. And these are just some examples I'd be here all night if I listed them all.



the problem is that your current argument is focused on feat quantity and fails to consider feat quality. just because you have less feats does not mean that you have _worse_ feats. one could argue that Muu's feats are all more impressive than Tsunade's, for example. Muu fought KCM Naruto, Gaara, and Ohnoki, and _still_ wasn't successfully sealed; Tsunade fought... Part I Kabuto and ninjutsu-less Orochimaru, before jobbing to Madara in the War Arc. more feats is not always more impressive.

secondly, you're only considering Kage and Akatsuki (and Zabuza), and my statement took into consideration _all_ of the characters in the manga, which includes characters like Anko, Shizune, and Kurenai. these characters have a low number of feats which correspond with their portrayal. i mean, it's not exactly a groundbreaking observation: characters who are less important generally have less feats.



> How so. I can't recall a single time where a few statements gave us a good sense of a characters entire arsenal of abilities.



who said anything about detailing a character's entire arsenal? this is why earlier i was highlighting that the unpredictability of an introduction is greater than you've stated. i don't think a single debater talked about everything in a versatile shinobi's arsenal (think Jiraiya). this is intentional. we obviously can't cover everything in 500 words, and some characters are obviously easier to strategize for than others due to their limited options (think Ei). does that mean that it's unfair to pit Jiraiya against A because the person debating for Jiraiya would have much more potential they can cover (in the same word limit)? of course not. there are advantages, disadvantages, and tradeoffs to debating with different characters.



> My Point is that he's not though. I already listed quite a few more above.



and i disagree with that for reasons already stated.



> There's a difference between acknowledging you've been dealt the weaker character personally, and tailoring your argument around it, and acknowledging it publicly. I did not say someone should come out and say "my character is weaker". I said they should personally acknowledge this fact and focus on why their character is has a type-match up advantage or conditions would advantage their character. *You can do the latter without coming out and directly saying your character is weaker.*



_which is what most of us did._



> No your confusing issues here. My point here was strictly center around whether a "feat" based comparison between a characters whose been featured heavily and one that has been featured much less so, is an equal comparison. For example if Character-X had 100 Panels worth of feats and character-Y had 10, it's not subjective whether a "feat" based comparison is between the two is equal. Objectively the person arguing for character-X has an enormous advantage over the person arguing for character-Y, assuming their isn't a simply massive strength gap disparity.



once again, you're focusing solely on feat quantity and neglecting feat quality. you're also failing to take conditions into account (who the person is fighting, where they are, and their state of mind), so this issue of strength disparity cannot be addressed by neatly condensing the critieria for matchmaking into broad, variable topics like portrayal and feat quantity. it requires a more comprehensive approach and an open mind that is unhindered by the inherent ceilings of a tier list.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 21, 2016)

Rocky said:


> @Turrin
> 
> Can you give me an example of how you'd argue that Minato is portrayed above Mū?


I'm not going to do this, as in the Tournament format, but sure:

Minato was issued a flee on sight order for the entire Iwagakuru army and defeat Iwagakuru elite platoon lead by the commander of the entire Iwagakuru army in the blink of an eye. This not only shows someone who has an extremely similar move-set to Mu & was thought capable of clashing against Mu deeply feared/respect Minato's skills, but also that Minato was clearly capable of easily handling stable Iwagakuru Ninjutsu w/ zero issue; like Doton and Invis Jutsu. Additional Hiruzen was terrified at the mere prospect of facing Minato as Tensei and his conversation with Anko indicates his clear inferiority to Minato; Hiruzen was considered the strongest Gokage, I.E. stronger than Onoki, which in-turns portrays Minato well above Onoki despite him again employing many of the same Jutsu as Mu. Furthermore Mu's best accomplishment is argubly stalemating Gengetsu, while Minato has taken on the Yondaime-Raikage and a Perfect-Jinchuuriki at the same time holding the advantage, defeat MS-Obito, and sealed the strongest of the Nine Bijuu; needless to say Minato's accomplishments blow Mu's out of the water. The general respect other Shinobi hold for Minato and his overall aura of strength is also potrayed far beyond Mu's, with characters like B shacking in fear over a mere mention of his name, while other characters like Jiraiya and Ei being so enamored with his capabilities that they believed him to be the destined child, this is without even going into detail about how characters like Jiraiya, Kakashi, Ei, etc.. all believe his Genius, Talent, intellect, and skill so great that they believe him to be a once in a decade Genius that they thought would never be surpassed. 

These are just some points that could be touched on with supporting scans/links, that I thought off in a few minutes, there are in-fact many more; and of course a much more cogent argument could be made if I spent more then a few minutes compiling this into a more effective format.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Turrin (Oct 21, 2016)

Saru said:


> by "character problem", i meant a disparity in the amount of feats both characters have.


I'm not sure how that's any different then what I'm saying then?



> he problem is that your current argument is focused on feat quantity and fails to consider feat quality. just because you have less feats does not mean that you have _worse_ feats. one could argue that Muu's feats are all more impressive than Tsunade's, for example. Muu fought KCM Naruto, Gaara, and Ohnoki, and _still_ wasn't successfully sealed; Tsunade fought... Part I Kabuto and ninjutsu-less Orochimaru, before jobbing to Madara in the War Arc. more feats is not always more impressive.


And what your arguing here is not feats, but portrayal. Your citing how Mu was portrayed to be able to take on KCM-Naruto, Gaara, and Onoki, and still evade being sealed. Versus Tsunade who was portrayed as having a tough time against X, Y, and Z; and thus reaching the conclusion that Mu is portrayed superior to Tsunade.



> secondly, you're only considering Kage and Akatsuki (and Zabuza), and my statement took into consideration _all_ of the characters in the manga, which includes characters like Anko, Shizune, and Kurenai. these characters have a low number of feats which correspond with their portrayal. i mean, it's not exactly a groundbreaking observation: characters who are less important generally have less feats.


I'm not only considering them. I'm just not bothering to list the dozens of other instances where this is the case; and instead simply gave you quite a few relevant to the NBD examples. But heck, let's look at your examples. You say Anko feats correspond proportionally to her hype, huh? Anko is like a prime example where this is not the case. Anko has the hype of being a Special-Jonin and Orochimaru's former apprentice, which should place her above, yet her sole feats are 2 instances of Hidden Snake Hands and an incomplete usage of Twin Snake Mutual Death. You really think that alone justifies her portrayal. And this disparity becomes even more exaggerated later on, as in the Boruto Data-Book she is called a Legendary Kunoichi; you going to tell me those merger feats match that portrayal too? Kurunai is even more ridiculous then that, she was portrayed as one of Konoha's top Jonin-Sensei, and has like 2 panels worth of feats in the entire manga, that nowhere near justify that. Shizune was a student of Legendary Sannin Tsunade, Captain of the Medical Corps, and another one of the main Konoha Jonin featured in the story; and actually has really solid stats in the DB. However feat-wise we get her spitting a few needles, a small poison cloud, and using mystic palm on fodder w/ unseen effectiveness. Again how is that proportional.

In literally non of the cases you cite are the characters feats proportional to their hype; or do we get a good sense from their feats a good understanding of their full arsenal and why they are at that level.



> who said anything about talking about an entire arsenal? this is why earlier i was highlighting that the unpredictability of an introduction is greater than you've stated. i don't think a single debater talked about everything in a versatile shinobi's arsenal (think Minato). this is intentional. we obviously can't cover everything in 500 words,


I think your loosing focus on what we were actually discussing with this point. I said that an argument where someone claim's X-Shinobi doesn't have a counter to Y-Shinob's Jutsu, is problematic when we don't have a full grasp of X-Shinobi's arsenal. The problem being that it takes a very long time to show a Shinobi's entire arsenal, but it only requires a few statements to portray how strong they are. You said in response to this that it required only a few statements about a Shinobi's feats to do the same, to which I said where have statements given us a full sense of a Shinobi's arsenal, to bring us back full circle to the problem I was originally highlighting.



> _which is what most of us did._


I'd say a decent amount of posters talked about conditions. But few talked about type-mismatch. Even fewer talked about how their characters was portrayed stronger, when that was the case. So I don't think Most people did this.



> once again, you're focusing solely on feat quantity and neglecting feat quality. you're also failing to take conditions into account (who the person is fighting, where they are, and their state of mind), so this issue of strength disparity cannot be addressed by neatly condensing the critieria for balance into broad, variable topics like portrayal and feat quantity. it requires a more comprehensive approach and an open mind.


The problem is nothing your citing here dispels the inequality i'm referring to or makes it subjective. Yes if Character-X whose had vastly less panel time to accumulate feats is advantaged by conditions that will help the person arguing for him, but it doesn't change the fact that the other in-equality exists, it's just another completely separate advantage.

Then Feat Quality from how you described it just sounds to me like arguing portrayal, rather than comparing feats, which is my whole point, so not much to say about that....

-------

Edit: Also just to clarify, my point here isn't that the tournament focusing primarily on feats is a bad thing. I just think that if that is the type of debates that Ryu, participants, and voters want to see, than I believe we need to make an effort to balance the match ups better, in terms of panel-time. 

Like we shouldn't have a main arc villain like Zabuza match up against Asuma, who got next to no panel time. We shouldn't have basically a main character in Kakashi matched up against Sasori who had 1.2 battles in the entire manga. We shouldn't have Mu matched up against flipping Minato. We shouldn't have Kakuzu with his 1.2 major battles matched up against Gaara whose almost an MC-lite. We shouldn't have Danzo with his 1 battle matched up against Pain who had a shit ton more time to show off his abilities. 

And i'm not saying Ryu did something wrong by doing these match ups, I think he primarily did think about them in terms of tiers though, rather than balancing feats. And that's fine, if were going to make portrayal a large aspect, but if were going to instead go by feats, we need to think about both.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 21, 2016)

Turrin said:


> Minato was issued a flee on sight order for the entire Iwagakuru army and defeat Iwagakuru elite platoon lead by the commander of the entire Iwagakuru army in the blink of an eye. This not only shows someone who has an extremely similar move-set to Mu & was thought capable of clashing against Mu deeply feared/respect Minato's skills, but also that Minato was clearly capable of easily handling stable Iwagakuru Ninjutsu w/ zero issue; like Doton and Invis Jutsu.


I didn't even know about all of this extra detail.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 21, 2016)

@Turrin

It just goes to show how your line of thinking allows more creativity. However, I am curious about where you got the information that Rocky just cited.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 21, 2016)

Actually after rereading that, Turrin's talking about Ōnoki. Ōnoki issued the flee-on-sight order.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 21, 2016)

The flee on sight order is an interesting portrayal buffer.

But to be entirely honest, every kage should issue flee on sight orders to general infranty against kage level fighters.

If Onoki himself had fled, then it would be a different matter entirely.

But this is the same guy that left the war room to engage Mu himself, clearly doubtful that an entire 5 country shinobi division could not effectively defeat him.

Any man that makes Onoki mobilize to fight him when Onoki had a versatile division of shinobi stock full of hundreds of high ranking ninja in position to stop him, has effectively gained that flee on sight order portrayal.

He basically admitted that the division with ninja that had jutsu from all 5 villages and plenty of ninja who are high ranking wasn't up to the task of defeating him, which is worse than admitting scattered, small skirmish Iwa units with only jutsu from their village, with little high ranking shinobi on average in the units wouldn't be up to the task of defeating Minato upon coming across him in random fields.

If Onoki had issued an order of full retreat for one of his divisions coming across Minato by himself, then that flee on sight order portrayal would hold more weight against Mu.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 21, 2016)

I can't see Oonoki running away from Minato after seeing him stand up to Madara in what  was relatively a death match. He had the best overall character growth in that Gokage vs. Madara arc, despite issuing the order, he's too stubborn to give up.


----------



## t0xeus (Oct 21, 2016)

Holy shit, great idea Ryuzaki.


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 21, 2016)

Atlantic Storm said:


> Sounds pretty weak, if you ask me.



Well, it's not like Muu has anything that compares to Minato's hype.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 21, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> @Turrin
> 
> It just goes to show how your line of thinking allows more creativity. However, I am curious about where you got the information that Rocky just cited.


Which part?



DaVizWiz said:


> The flee on sight order is an interesting portrayal buffer.
> 
> But to be entirely honest, every kage should issue flee on sight orders to general infranty against kage level fighters.
> .


That's not what we saw in the 4th-War though. We saw plenty Kages or Kage Class fighters engaged by none Kage-levels in groups. Yet Onoki clearly thought no matter the numbers, none within Iwagakuru's army could stand a chance against Minato.



> Any man that makes Onoki mobilize to fight him when Onoki had a versatile division of shinobi stock full of hundreds of high ranking ninja in position to stop him, has effectively gained that flee on sight order portrayal


And Mu clearly had Old-Onoki's fear/respect, which is all I was establishing with Minato's flee on sight order, that Prime-Onoki feared/had deep respect for his powers.



> is worse than admitting scattered, small skirmish Iwa units with only jutsu from their village, with little high ranking shinobi on average in the units wouldn't be up to the task of defeating Minato upon coming across him in random fields.


Your adding stipulations to the flee on sight order that don't exist. The manga never says flee on sight from Minato, but only if your in small units that don't have high ranking Shinobi.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 21, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> Well, it's not like Muu has anything that compares to Minato's hype.


I was being tongue in cheek _because_ he doesn't have anything that compares to Minato's hype.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 21, 2016)

Less than 24 hours left to vote.

Vote in all matches, despite them having rebuttals or not.


----------



## Saru (Oct 21, 2016)

Turrin said:


> I'm not sure how that's any different then what I'm saying then?







> *And what your arguing here is not feats, but portrayal. Your citing how Mu was portrayed* to be able to take on KCM-Naruto, Gaara, and Onoki, and still evade being sealed. Versus Tsunade who was portrayed as having a tough time against X, Y, and Z; and thus reaching the conclusion that Mu is portrayed superior to Tsunade.



absolutely not. do not twist my words. i compared what Tsunade and Muu did, not how they were portrayed.



> I'm not only considering them. I'm just not bothering to list the dozens of other instances where this is the case; and instead simply gave you quite a few relevant to the NBD examples. But heck, let's look at your examples. You say Anko feats correspond proportionally to her hype, huh? Anko is like a prime example where this is not the case. Anko has the hype of being a Special-Jonin and Orochimaru's former apprentice, which should place her above, yet her sole feats are 2 instances of Hidden Snake Hands and an incomplete usage of Twin Snake Mutual Death. You really think that alone justifies her portrayal. And this disparity becomes even more exaggerated later on, as in the Boruto Data-Book she is called a Legendary Kunoichi; you going to tell me those merger feats match that portrayal too? Kurunai is even more ridiculous then that, she was portrayed as one of Konoha's top Jonin-Sensei, and has like 2 panels worth of feats in the entire manga, that nowhere near justify that. Shizune was a student of Legendary Sannin Tsunade, Captain of the Medical Corps, and another one of the main Konoha Jonin featured in the story; and actually has really solid stats in the DB. However feat-wise we get her spitting a few needles, a small poison cloud, and using mystic palm on fodder w/ unseen effectiveness. Again how is that proportional.



Anko's portrayal? what portrayal? 

Orochimaru used her as a test subject for the Cursed Seal and saw interest in her for that purpose, much in the way that Orochimaru saw interest in Yamato. her feats are definitely on par with her "portrayal." it's the same with the other examples i mentioned, and this falls in line with the unsurprising observation of literary structure that i mentioned earlier: characters who are less important have less feats. relative to Kakashi, Gai and Asuma, Kurenai, Anko, and even Shizune had worse portrayal.



> In literally non of the cases you cite are the characters feats proportional to their hype; or do we get a good sense from their feats a good understanding of their full arsenal and why they are at that level.



i disagree.



> I think your loosing focus on what we were actually discussing with this point. I said that an argument where someone claim's X-Shinobi doesn't have a counter to Y-Shinob's Jutsu, is problematic when we don't have a full grasp of X-Shinobi's arsenal. The problem being that it takes a very long time to show a Shinobi's entire arsenal, but it only requires a few statements to portray how strong they are. You said in response to this that it required only a few statements about a Shinobi's feats to do the same, to which I said where have statements given us a full sense of a Shinobi's arsenal, to bring us back full circle to the problem I was originally highlighting.



this is precisely why i don't have a great interest in pursuing this conversation. the bottom line is, feats and portrayal are two very different things, and they in turn accomplish different things when incorporated into an argument. feats can show why one strategy counters another, whereas portrayal... is more or less pluming character statements to give an appearance of greater strength. it doesn't actually address matchup issues.



> I'd say a decent amount of posters talked about conditions. But few talked about type-mismatch. *Even fewer talked about how their characters was portrayed stronger, when that was the case*. So I don't think Most people did this.



and why do you think that is? 



> The problem is nothing your citing here dispels the inequality i'm referring to or makes it subjective. Yes if Character-X whose had vastly less panel time to accumulate feats is advantaged by conditions that will help the person arguing for him, but it doesn't change the fact that the other in-equality exists, it's just another completely separate advantage.



i never said it did. you've missed the point entirely, which is that quantity is not better than quality, and just because one character has more feats does not mean that they have a decisively greater advantage.



> *Then Feat Quality from how you described it just sounds to me like arguing portrayal*, rather than comparing feats, which is my whole point, so not much to say about that....



_it's not_. the example i gave you was a qualitative comparison of feats between two characters. perhaps this is the problem. you think saying "this feat was more impressive than this other one" is a way of arguing from "portrayal" when it's clearly not.

*ex:* "Ohnoki's Jinton destroyed 25 Stage 3 Susano'o, whereas Tsunade's punches couldn't destroy a single one"

_that_ is a direct comparison of _*feats*_, not an argument based on portrayal. the comparison being made here is the *lethality* of the respective attacks based on what each attack accomplished.



> Edit: Also just to clarify, my point here isn't that the tournament focusing primarily on feats is a bad thing. I just think that if that is the type of debates that Ryu, participants, and voters want to see, than I believe we need to make an effort to balance the match ups better, in terms of panel-time.
> 
> Like we shouldn't have a main arc villain like Zabuza match up against Asuma, who got next to no panel time. We shouldn't have basically a main character in Kakashi matched up against Sasori who had 1.2 battles in the entire manga. We shouldn't have Mu matched up against flipping Minato. We shouldn't have Kakuzu with his 1.2 major battles matched up against Gaara whose almost an MC-lite. We shouldn't have Danzo with his 1 battle matched up against Pain who had a shit ton more time to show off his abilities.
> 
> And i'm not saying Ryu did something wrong by doing these match ups, I think he primarily did think about them in terms of tiers though, rather than balancing feats. And that's fine, if were going to make portrayal a large aspect, but if were going to instead go by feats, we need to think about both.



i agree with you there.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 21, 2016)

> That's not what we saw in the 4th-War though. We saw plenty Kages or Kage Class fighters engaged by none Kage-levels in groups. Yet Onoki clearly thought no matter the numbers, none within Iwagakuru's army could stand a chance against Minato.


The 4th shinobi war was abit different, there were ninja from all villages meaning the divisions were considerably more versatile, considerably more powerful (more Jounin per divsion) and knowledgable.

It was also a war where all 5 kages agreed defeat wasn't an option.



> And Mu clearly had Old-Onoki's fear/respect, which is all I was establishing with Minato's flee on sight order, that Prime-Onoki feared/had deep respect for his powers.


The flee on sight order is great, but it's 99% likely the average platoon would flee from a shinobi like Mu on sight.

We saw a team of two mid kage level S-rank shinobi flee Jiraiya before engaging him. There was no flee on sight order issued for Jiraiya from the Akatsuki.

We saw a shinobi as weak as Hanzo scare an entire samurai platoon into desertion save Mifune, who had no chance. There was no flee on sight order issued from the land of Iron to do so.



> Your adding stipulations to the flee on sight order that don't exist. The manga never says flee on sight from Minato, but only if your in small units that don't have high ranking Shinobi.


Can you post a scan of Onoki fleeing from Minato?

Or an entire Iwa divsion doing so?

It's apparent the order was issued for platoons of ninja who happen to come across Minato, because they are not capable of contesting his power and are lambs to the slaughter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 21, 2016)

I agree with @DaVizWiz here.

Mu's presence was the catalyst for Onoki's involvement in the war, despite the fact that Onoki had the advantage through the collective strength and versatility of the Shinobi Division which was comprised of ninja from all Five Great Countries and had the added strength from Gaara who had the advantage through topography, so theoretically, his defense was at its absolute best and can access large amounts of it at any time yet somehow, Onoki wasn't confident in Gaara's ability in protecting the entire division. As DaVizWiz elaborated on, this is the equivalent of flee on sight orders because the best course of action had Onoki not been present or available was for the entire team to flee due to Mu's presence.

That said, it's even more impressive that Onoki would've easily been killed off hadn't Mu toy with him while the entire division would've brought down to its knees after Onoki's death. I think that in itself exceeds the flee on sight command in response to Minato's presence when the entire squadron that Onoki deployed were composed of inept Jonin that even Kakashi and Obito could compete with.

I did like the point with Iwagakure's platoon consisting of ninja with similar techniques that Mu did possess, but the only issue with that is that it neglects Mu's illustrious title as the "Invisible Man" of his era. It's rather peculiar if that title that even Kabuto praised would be associated with these Jonin as well because these Jonin's camoflauge techniques were deciphered through sound and Obito's underdeveloped Sharingan while Mu's couldn't be deciphered in an era that consisted of Elite Mangekyo Sharingan and Byakugan users.

In the end, Minato's portrayal is above Mu's, I can agree with that, but Mu has a lot of good shit going for him as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## WorldsStrongest (Oct 21, 2016)

Saru said:


> and i'd have to fundamentally disagree with the removal of rebuttals, because it would eliminate a key component of debating in this format. debating is all about going head to head with your opponent, not necessarily character matchups. how can you engage your opponent if you can't attack or refute their thinking?


I agree with this, every match-up i have voted in i waited as long as i could until both the intro and rebuttals were up, you can vote much more fairly this way, after all, you cannot do an equation without all the variables.

Its also kinda a big point in a debate, your ability to refute your opponents claims whilst substantiating your own, can make or break most voter decisions imo, its also the fairest way to allow debaters to challenge their opponents line of thinking. By making the rebuttal and the intro independent, it makes for a much more complete debate.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Empathy (Oct 22, 2016)

I apologize for no rebuttal; I've just been very busy with RL problems that seemed to arise every time I was getting ready to finish my rebuttal. Yesterday, when I was planning to go home and finally get it done, my car wouldn't start and I had to get it towed just to give you the latest example. I definitely intend to include a rebuttal with any of my subsequent matches if I manage to make it past the first round.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 22, 2016)

Saru said:


> absolutely not. do not twist my words. i compared what Tsunade and Muu did, not how they were portrayed.


You compared character accomplishments, which is portrayal, not feats.



> Orochimaru used her as a test subject for the Cursed Seal and saw interest in her for that purpose, much in the way that Orochimaru saw interest in Yamato. her feats are definitely on par with her "portrayal." it's the same with the other examples i mentioned, al.


I told you what portrayal. She was a special jonin who was personally trained by Orochimaru; and essntially only showed Hidden-Snake Hands. Her feats do not in anyway match that portrayal.



> nd this falls in line with the unsurprising observation of literary structure that i mentioned earlier: characters who are less important have less feats. relative to Kakashi, Gai and Asuma, Kurenai, Anko, and even Shizune had worse portraya


Yeah being less important correlates to less panel time and less feats. However being more centric to the story-line does not correlate to being more powerful. The rookies are some of thee most featured characters in the plot, but are in many cases much weaker, to vastly less featured characters like Akatsuki members, Kages, etc... To give only one example.



> i disagree.


Okay then please explain why you believe, Shizune showing needles, a poison cloud, and regular medical palm, justifies her being distinguished as such an amazing medic that she is put in charge of Kage Alliance's Medical Division. Why you believe Kurunai showing literally 2 Genjutsu jusitifies her being one of Konoha's elite Jonin Sensei. Why you believe Anko showing hidden-snake hands justifies her being a special-jonin former student of Orochimaru.



> this is precisely why i don't have a great interest in pursuing this conversation. the bottom line is, feats and portrayal are two very different things, and they in turn accomplish different things when incorporated into an argument. feats can show why one strategy counters another, whereas portrayal... is more or less pluming character statements to give an appearance of greater strength.


They are different things, but that doesn't have anything to do with the flaw that i'm highlighting in many feats based arguments



> it doesn't actually address matchup issues.


Firstly the match up issue is over-exaggerated as a defense for feats, because realistically how many battles in the Naruto-World has match up really altered the outcome. The answer is very few. Yes we do see instance where match up matters, but they are largely outliers, and not the norm; usually if X > Y, X will win. The factor that more heavily overcomes X > Y is conditions. Secondly unless a person argues X is a bad match up for Y, and Y directly has feats that contradict that assertion, than feats don't actually address matchup ether, because like I said before a character rarely has enough panel time for us to get a good sense of their entire arsenal, so one can't really make an effective claim of match up if he/she really doesn't know the full scope of each characters arsenals. Thirdly portrayal can address match up, for example if someone claims B's abilities as a perfect Jin makes him a bad match up for Minato, yet we have B being portrayed as trembling in fear at the mention of Minato's name, I think portrayal makes that a tough argument to sell in that instance.



> and why do you think that is?


Because they were afraid that they would not be judged on strength of argument, but simply judged on them not using feats. I.E. they were afraid of too many voters would be feat whores.



> i never said it did. you've missed the point entirely, which is that quantity is not better than quality, and just because one character has more feats does not mean that they have a decisively greater advantage.


The problem is the way you defined feat quality appears to be a portrayal argument to me, so i'm not sure how to address this point



> _it's not_. the example i gave you was a qualitative comparison of feats between two characters. perhaps this is the problem. you think saying "this feat was more impressive than this other one" is a way of arguing from "portrayal" when it's clearly not.
> 
> *ex:* "Ohnoki's Jinton destroyed 25 Stage 3 Susano'o, whereas Tsunade's punches couldn't destroy a single one"
> 
> _that_ is a direct comparison of _*feats*_, not an argument based on portrayal. the comparison being made here is the *lethality* of the respective attacks based on what each attack accomplished.


You didn't make a comparison of lethality of specific abilities. Your made a comparison of overall performance of the character. Mu took on KCM-Naruto, Onoki, and Gaara, and wasn't sealed. While Tsunade jobbed to Kabuto. Was the point you made. Not comparing a specific feat to another, like your doing above.

So again I ask for you to give a clear example of a character who has significantly less panel time then another, yet has better "quality feats", without rely on overall character potrayal, but instead directly comparing feats.



> i agree with you there.


Well that's my main anyway, so glad you agree

-----------

@Daz and Uchiha

I take your points about how the alliances reaction to Mu's presence is equivalent to a flee on sight. I think it's a fair point. However my point never was that because Onoki issued a flee on sight for Minato, that he was > Mu. My point was that a shinobi with very similar abilities acknowledge Minato's skills so much that he issued that command. Basically that part of my post was only there to establish Minato's skills were likely able to hold his own against Iwagakure signature Jutsu and Onoki's, so as to address possible claims of poor match up. 

Beyond that I'd be willing to discuss Minato vs Mu on portrayal basis, but I think we should move it to another thread, as unlike my discussion with Saru which actually has some philosophical meaning to the way the tournament can be structured in the future, I do not think discussing the merit of Minato's flee on sight or defeat of the Iwagakure Shinobi, is relevant here.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 22, 2016)

Empathy said:


> I apologize for no rebuttal; I've just been very busy with RL problems that seemed to arise every time I was getting ready to finish my rebuttal. Yesterday, when I was planning to go home and finally get it done, my car wouldn't start and I had to get it towed just to give you the latest example. I definitely intend to include a rebuttal with any of my subsequent matches if I manage to make it past the first round.


What car do your drive?

Also, I know the feeling, with car to wings at least


----------



## Saru (Oct 22, 2016)

@Turrin i don't have the motivation to continue this discussion any further, and there are other matters i'd like to pursue.

but i'll say that people argued primarily from feats rather than portrayal not out of "fear" but out of necessity. portrayal is pretty and all, but it's not conducive to constructing a technically advanced argument. secondly, i think you have difficulty discerning the difference between feats and portrayal, as i've just given you what are in my mind two _clear_ examples of qualitative feat comparison, yet you are unable to see how those examples qualify as such. i simply don't think furthering this discussion would be a worthwhile use of either of our time, as it's clear there are fundamental differences (and agreements ^^) in our train of thought, but i can appreciate that too.


----------



## Empathy (Oct 22, 2016)

What's the current bracket look like?


----------



## Turrin (Oct 22, 2016)

Saru said:


> @Turrin i don't have the motivation to continue this discussion any further, and there are other matters i'd like to pursue.
> 
> but i'll say that people argued primarily from feats rather than portrayal not out of "fear" but out of necessity. portrayal is pretty and all, but it's not conducive to constructing a technically advanced argument. secondly, i think you have difficulty discerning the difference between feats and portrayal, as i've just given you what are in my mind two _clear_ examples of qualitative feat comparison, yet you are unable to see how those examples qualify as such. i simply don't think furthering this discussion would be a worthwhile use of either of our time, as it's clear there are fundamental differences (and agreements ^^) in our train of thought, but i can appreciate that too.


The people I talked to said it was out of fear of feat that voters would be turned off by a portrayal argument because they value feats more; I.E. Feat whoring. As far as the rest goes I simply request to you provide a more clear definition of how your using the term "feat quality", I don't think that's an issue of me not knowing the difference between feats and portrayal, that's an issue of me not being a mind reader and you giving me a unclear example that seemed to be more portrayal based than feats, I.E. comparing how Kishimoto portrayed Mu performing against Gaara, KCM-Naruto, and Onoki, to how Kishi portrayed Tsunade performing against Kabuto.


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 22, 2016)

Yeah please don't vote until the rebuttals are posted 
becuse that's just like voting without reading a debate

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## WorldsStrongest (Oct 22, 2016)

ARGUS said:


> Yeah please don't vote until the rebuttals are posted


I agree, but the voters have no choice but to vote after a point, you can only wait on a rebuttal for so long after all. Voters should definitely wait as long as they can tho, just to give the debaters a chance.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 22, 2016)

Empathy said:


> What's the current bracket look like?




Current Bracket, I've added the pie-charts to the previous round with their respective matches.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 22, 2016)

WorldsStrongest said:


> I agree, but the voters have no choice but to vote after a point, you can only wait on a rebuttal for so long after all. Voters should definitely wait as long as they can tho, just to give the debaters a chance.


Yeah true 
Ofc I'm only including a scenario where the debaters have met the deadline


----------



## Android (Oct 22, 2016)

Many votes are based on member's friendship , homies , and personal favoritism .
Got nothing to do with who made a better intro , or who presented his case better .


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 22, 2016)

ARGUS said:


> Yeah please don't vote until the rebuttals are posted
> becuse that's just like voting without reading a debate





WorldsStrongest said:


> I agree, but the voters have no choice but to vote after a point, you can only wait on a rebuttal for so long after all. Voters should definitely wait as long as they can tho, just to give the debaters a chance.


All voters are allowed to vote after the 4th day, whether rebuttals are up or not.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 22, 2016)

I think you can vote before rebuttal is up in a certain situation: And that situation is where X-Contest Posted both their Main Post and Rebuttal, while Y-Contestant hasn't posted their Rebuttal, but you still think Y-Contestant already wins on the merit of their first post alone. This shouldn't happen often, but there are some cases where it can. What you should not do is Vote against X-Contest, before X-Contestant has a chance to rebuttal

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Saru (Oct 23, 2016)

cctr9 said:


> Many votes are based on member's friendship , homies , and personal favoritism .
> Got nothing to do with who made a better intro , or who presented his case better .



well i didn't vote that way

i despise you all equally

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 23, 2016)

We are old enough now where we should be able to vote for whoever without people holding grudges. That shit is high school man, I mean, I know most of you guys but if an argument is just bad, don't expect me to cut you any slack. That's the kind of attitude you should have going into this—if anyone does make a big deal about it, then that's just childish behavior. I expect most of us to be above that kind of nonsense.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Atlantic Storm (Oct 23, 2016)

Congratulations on winning, Rocky, and thanks for the match. Truthfully, I wasn't expecting to win (Mū vs. Minato isn't exactly an easy match-up to argue), so it was more than a little surprising when I started gaining the lead—especially when I thought that you presented your arguments in a better and more reality-grounded way.

To finally address some of the criticisms in the votes, I'm aware that I exaggerated a lot of Mū's feats and cited some that were misleading (like the Jinton explosion example). That was on purpose as, if I'm being honest, Mū doesn't really have a lot to write about and I felt I needed to get as much hype as possible when facing against a character with as much in-story and out-of-story hype as Minato. I would have expanded more on some of those examples and made them seem 'less' exaggerated, but the word limit made that incredibly hard and I wasn't sure if it was worth spending characters on points others may have considered tenuous. One of those points was the possibility that Mū could feasibly use a large area of effect Jinton attack similar to the one Ōnoki used against Madara. It was used by an unboosted Ōnoki who likely has worse stamina than a healthy Mū, and the cylindrical pillar-like shape seemed to be based on _Mū's version_ of the Jinton attack.  

In any case, I highly recommend increasing the word limit to 750 for both posts. Being able to convey your points in a concise manner is an important ability in formal debates, but there's a fine line between being concise and simply not being allowed to debate effectively. 750 words is still restricting in a way that makes it hard for the contestants to be superfluous with their arguments, and I strongly urge you to consider it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Matty (Oct 23, 2016)

Congrats, @WorldStrongest. You deserved it with the effort you put in. Sadly Idk how to incorporate scans 

Next Tourney I will be ready

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 23, 2016)

All Round 2 Matches are posted, if you have any questions, let me know.


----------



## Dr. White (Oct 23, 2016)

Real nice set up you guys got going here. I like the creativty with the debate topics. I will try to vote in some this batch even though my Naruto interest has waned away.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Oct 23, 2016)

Congratulations to everyone who's moving on to Round 2!  


EDIT: All the Round 2 matches are stickied now, so it should be easier for you to find them. (Ryuzaki, I almost stickied your "Team Danzou vs Pain" thread by accident, lol.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 23, 2016)

Daenerys Stormborn said:


> Congratulations to everyone who's moving on to Round 2!
> 
> 
> EDIT: All the Round 2 matches are stickied now, so it should be easier for you to find them. (Ryuzaki, I almost stickied your "Team Danzou vs Pain" thread by accident, lol.)


Haha, oh man, that's hilarious, I made that solely based of the Danzo vs Pain match in the 1st round to see where everyone that it was.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 23, 2016)

Dr. White said:


> Real nice set up you guys got going here. I like the creativty with the debate topics. I will try to vote in some this batch even though my Naruto interest has waned away.


Yes, go for it, the more the merrier.


----------



## WorldsStrongest (Oct 23, 2016)

Matty said:


> Congrats, @WorldStrongest. You deserved it with the effort you put in. Sadly Idk how to incorporate scans
> 
> Next Tourney I will be ready


Thanks man, ill be looking forward to your posts in the next tourney for sure then.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parallaxis (Oct 23, 2016)

Matty said:


> Congrats, @WorldStrongest. You deserved it with the effort you put in. Sadly Idk how to incorporate scans
> 
> Next Tourney I will be ready




Use a spoiler tag, and paste the image inside.
Or highlight a sentence that you want to incorporate the scan into, click the little chain icon(it'll let you link the image) and then paste the URL of the scan.

for example


or

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Android (Oct 23, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> We are old enough now where we should be able to vote for whoever without people holding grudges. That shit is high school man


It's not about holding a grudges against someone , it's more about people sticking up to homies code and giving your vote to your man//dude/friend .


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 23, 2016)

That's not good, I wouldn't want you to vote for me if I ever argued in a shitty manner, I'd rather you call me out on my stupidity than support it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 23, 2016)

Before you guys come to any surprise, I will have (2) dedicated voters for all 4 of the matches:

@Turrin 
@Saru 
Dedicated voters will have the same amount of influence as contestant participants, although Saru was both, when I asked he was more than willing to participate to this extent. All of the contestants that lost in the 1st round also retain their '5-point' weight advantage. For NBD regulars, I've increased the weight of their votes to 3 points (as 2 regular voters should be able to out do a participant vote/dedicated voters weight).


----------



## Empathy (Oct 23, 2016)

Those are both pretty high if you're shooting for the weakest. I think it's gonna hard on both arguing how base Jiraiya wins in the rebuttal.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 23, 2016)

We can address their character selection in the voting, if you think they choose to high or low, you guys can give what you would have chosen. I agree the rebuttals are going to be difficult to all together, so here's what I'll do, both contestants can both re-select characters should they want to and all they have to do is just PM me by the end of the day today.


----------



## Troyse22 (Oct 23, 2016)

Easily the matchup I was anticipating most, both participants are among the best debaters in the NBD, good luck to both of you guys!

Although, given the restrictions i'd say @ARGUS has quite an uphill battle ahead of him, considering Mei was able to stalemate MS Sasuke at the Kage summit!

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Parallaxis (Oct 23, 2016)

Bonly said:


> I'll be picking Mr. Kisame Hoshigaki and Mr. Might Gai





Ryuzaki said:


> *Mindset: *In Character


----------



## Turrin (Oct 23, 2016)

When I first saw this I was like what does Ryu have against Handful; then I read the restrictions, and was like what does he have against Argus

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 23, 2016)

Restricting Tsukuyomi/Yata/Tosuka is nothing major. He still has 3T genjutsu, V4 Susano durability and offense. Tbh it's not even a restriction. 

Not sure what Turrin is on about.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 23, 2016)

Turrin said:


> When I first saw this I was like what does Ryu have against Handful; then I read the restrictions, and was like what does he have against Argus



You lack faith in what is known as the "Amaterasu GG".

It's a very powerful art indeed.

 I will say however, that Mei is surrounded by a large body of water, so this makes it a more even-sided match and I'd honestly want to root for Mei here.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Turrin (Oct 23, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> Restricting Tsukuyomi/Yata/Tosuka is nothing major. He still has 3T genjutsu, V4 Susano durability and offense. Tbh it's not even a restriction.
> 
> Not sure what Turrin is on about.


I thought Susano'o was banned, my bad


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 24, 2016)

Congrats @ARGUS, a fun one

A good amount of voters noted I failed to provide a good enough counter to Hidden Mist and that was the different maker, yet not one of them provided an alternative to Asuma tactically countering it themselves, or why the cloud and storm combination would fail to clear LOS.

I thought that was funny, but I kind of saw it coming.

"Elements countering Hidden Mist?! Naaahhhh!"

Basic elemental techniques are frowned upon pretty often here, I should have argued from another perspective taking that into consideration.

I'll be waiting for Ryu's next tournament though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 24, 2016)

@DaVizWiz 

 I would've given an alternative had time permitted, but unfortunately, the match-up was horrendous. Zabuza was portrayed to be the better fighter and location certainly didn't do you any justice at all.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 24, 2016)

Portrayal & Location were irrelevant as it pertains to the debating competition.

Portrayal was brought up very briefly and I addressed it, location wasn't brought up at all by either debater.

Not sure how either tied in.

From what I read it was clear almost all opposing votes hinged on Hidden Mist counter.

I'm merely pointing out I found it funny that no alternatives were provided.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 24, 2016)

Sure, but it's more difficult to persuade the audience up against a better fighter with a location advantage to boot.

 Quite frankly, that's most likely the reason why nobody could provide an alternative because Zabuza's just that good while Asuma has a disadvantageous element.


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 24, 2016)

DaVizWiz said:


> Congrats @ARGUS, a fun one
> 
> A good amount of voters noted I failed to provide a good enough counter to Hidden Mist and that was the different maker, yet not one of them provided an alternative to Asuma tactically countering it themselves, or why the cloud and storm combination would fail to clear LOS.
> 
> ...


Yeah tbh it was pretty close. Low tiers were never my forte, and after your intro, we had guys like rocky be 100% sure that you had already won. 
Honestly even I thought I might lose

And you're right, as a judge I gave out recommended counters for anything the debaters do wrong. Shame to see none of them do that for you, and for me tbh

I saw people complain about not using the location as an advantage but it was obvious as anything that employed the usage of Suiton took that into account.
I also used water clones as feints or attacking with suitons yet not many took that into account
Butt hurtmcwow was the only one who did

As for the hidden most counters, the best strategy is to retreat. Or forming clones, to surround asuma.and watch his back 
Doesn't make sense for asuma to have 0 clone abilities and if they don't poof instantly, it means that asuma can capitalize with numbers to strike zabuza down the second he attacks one 

I was lucky you didn't bring that up


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 24, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> Sure, but it's more difficult to persuade the audience up against a better fighter with a location advantage to boot.
> 
> Quite frankly, that's most likely the reason why nobody could provide an alternative because Zabuza's just that good while Asuma has a disadvantageous element.


If you couldn't provide an alternative you probably shouldn't have discredited mine.

Votes shouldn't hinge upon scenarios where one character can't logically counter, it should hinge upon how well one argued the case for their character.

If an alternative was provided I wouldn't have even brought the topic up.

I'm actually interested in whether someone had a different idea on what he could have done to counter it.


> As for the hidden most counters, the best strategy is to retreat. Or forming clones, to surround asuma.and watch his back
> Doesn't make sense for asuma to have 0 clone abilities and if they don't poof instantly, it means that asuma can capitalize with numbers to strike zabuza down the second he attacks one


Retreat would have probably gotten me 0 votes instead of 4. I had no choice but to construct a legitamate counter argument no matter how flawed it was viewed by some, hidden mist was clearly the key of the debate and leaving it unaddressed would be practically not debating at all.

I have no scans of clones and there are situations where Asuma should have used them, and didn't, it's a fairy tale argument.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 24, 2016)

DaVizWiz said:


> If you couldn't provide an alternative you probably shouldn't have discredited mine.
> 
> Votes shouldn't hinge upon scenarios where one character can't conceivably counter, it should hinge upon how well one argued the case for their character.
> 
> ...



 Except I said I could.

 I honestly feel as if you're misinterpreting what I'm saying and I'm quite baffled that you think the strength of one's character has no relevance in a debate. I partially agree with what you're saying, but it's significantly more difficult to create a more compelling argument when a character is weaker in literally almost every single facet of combat There was absolutely nothing you could do when Asuma held such a significant disadvantage in CQC and Ninjutsu.

 The only thing I disagree with is presentation because no matter how effectively you present your case, there's absolutely no way I'm going to conform to that sort of logic when I know the logic being applied is absolutely garbage. If someone were to claim how Sasuke's Raiton countered Sasori's Satetsu through scientific principles, no matter how effectively you conveyed your point, if you made a faulty argument that blatantly contradicts fundamental principles of the manga, I'm going to call you out on it. 

 That said, I would've focused more on Kage Bunshin usage and expressing why Asuma could use Kage Bunshin and how Asuma can use larger scale Futon to disperse the mist instead of clinging to the presumption that Asuma's minuscule level of Futon can still disperse it even after ARGUS addressed it.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 24, 2016)

How can you imply using kage bunshin is a more logical counter to it, when Asuma has not shown the ability or intention to use them?

And Asuma never displayed the ability to use larger scale futon, which is why he's at the position he is on most people's tier list.

I don't agree with either of your alternatives, thank you for addressing it though.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 24, 2016)

I thought your counter to the mist was brilliant Wiz. I don't see why it wouldn't work. Asuma's Katon doesn't work like a regular fireball. I would have voted if I had the time, but I struggled just getting my mandatory votes up. My vote apparently wouldn't have changed the outcome, though. :/

To be honest, you had a terrible character. I'd stay away from people like Asuma in the future, @Ryuzaki. He's displayed a grand total of three jutsu: ash katon, stream fūton, and Hien (read: basic chakra-flow through a weapon). For comparison's sake, that is tied with Anko. Motherfucking Anko. Somebody like Yamato, Darui, or even Hidan (who actually has a one-technique fighting style) in his place would have been way better. From both a feat & portrayal standpoint.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 24, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> That said, I would've focused more on Kage Bunshin usage and expressing why Asuma could use Kage Bunshin


If he had done that I wouldn't have voted for him. I know that Kage Bunshin is basically Konoha's signature clone jutsu and that mostly everyone worth their salt in the leaf can probably use it, but when there is literally no evidence whatsoever that _specifically Asuma_ can use them, Wiz can't just say he can in a debate tournament. That'd be like arguing that Tsunade can use Shadow Clones, or that Mei can use Water Clones, Ay can use Lightning Clones, etc.


----------



## DaVizWiz (Oct 24, 2016)

The outcome wasn't as important, I thought ARGUS did a fine job and that's all that needs to be said about that.

I was just baffled no alternatives or explanations were provided as to what other argument I could have provided in counter to Hidden Mist, and exactly why everyone came to the conclusion that my strategy wouldn't work, because no one went into any detail on that at all, when everyone implied the hidden mist was a key component in their choice and that I didn't offer enough for them in that regard.

@Daenerys Stormborn did offer an explanation as to why she thought it wouldn't work, as wet gun powder (mist) might not even ignite. I thought that was a brilliant point, but that's just about all anyone elaborated on it.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 24, 2016)

Imo, this is still a bit unfair. I think that Itachi with no Mangekyō Sharingan _at all_ would spank Mei, and I'm on Team Minato. Itachi has one-paneled people comparable to Mei. He's like, objectively superior.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Alex Payne (Oct 24, 2016)

I was expecting Bonly to pick Minato+Danzo, the most broken combo.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Alex Payne (Oct 24, 2016)

Rocky said:


> Imo, this is still a bit unfair. I think that Itachi with no Mangekyō Sharingan _at all_ would spank Mei, and I'm on Team Minato. Itachi has one-paneled people comparable to Mei. He's like, objectively superior.


I was thinking the same thing but Itachi starting half-dead and Mei having full knowledge makes this somewhat balanced.


----------



## Alex Payne (Oct 24, 2016)

Rocky said:


> That'd be like arguing that Tsunade can use Shadow Clones


Happened once in KC. Didn't work that well.


----------



## Alex Payne (Oct 24, 2016)

I fully agree with you here. I meant that knowledge and illness allow HoN to make at least some sort of a case for Mei. Plus there are quite a few people around that don't think highly of Itachi. Previous Mei vs Itachi BD thread was pretty heated. For some weird reason.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 24, 2016)

Yeah not only that you can argue the location and etc, I mean I think it should workout. I restricted Itachi's Overpowered jutsu. At the same time I handicapped Itachi without giving Mei a crazy leeway to win either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Turrin (Oct 24, 2016)

Don't really understand the fact that nether contestant picked the most powerful character here (Minato)


----------



## Turrin (Oct 24, 2016)

DaVizWiz said:


> If you couldn't provide an alternative you probably shouldn't have discredited mine.
> 
> Votes shouldn't hinge upon scenarios where one character can't logically counter, it should hinge upon how well one argued the case for their character.
> 
> If an alternative was provided I wouldn't have even brought the topic up.


Daz you argued a point; that Asuma could blow away the Mist. Considering in the end the Majority of Voters didn't believe Asuma could dispel the mist, that means you did not argue your point well enough. It doesn't matter if Voters can or can't come up w/ an alternative, because even if their is not a direct alternative, it still means you wasted words on a point that is not effective or to some disingenuous, which hurts overall strength of argument. Though I did give you an alternative in my post, and it was you should have argued primarily based on portrayal, rather then feats. Still an uphill battle, but there would have been at least a chance you could have gotten my vote and perhaps a couple others, while their is no effective argument I can think off myself feat-wise.

However as I've said before in this thread, the underlying problem is that feats are not a good measurement of who would win 1v1, or whose superior in most cases, because in most match ups their is a huge disparity in amount of panel time each Shinobi had to accumulate feats; and even with ones with a-lot of panel time they some-times never went up against specific types of abilities, so it's hard to say how they'd fair in certain situations or what the full breath of their arsenal is. For example by feats I see Asuma getting easily WTFPWN'd by Zabuza, because he has no realistic counter to Hidden-Mist, but by portrayal, I think Asuma would at least put up a decent fight against Zabuza. So as I said before whoever does matches, whether it be Ryu or someone else in future iterations of the tournament has to know the audience, and if were mostly going to be focusing on debating from a feats perspective in matches then we need to carefully select characters with at least similar panel time to accumulate feats.

So yeah you were dealt a bad hand, but I think Ryu and people heavily involved such as myself are looking at this as a trial Tournament, to see what works and what doesn't; so hopefully this will be amended for the future. Though, also if you look at say the KC matches plenty of times people are dealt bad hands and still triumph, so I wouldn't completely base your loss on a failure of the system.



Ryuzaki said:


> Yeah not only that you can argue the location and etc, I mean I think it should workout. I restricted Itachi's Overpowered jutsu. At the same time I handicapped Itachi without giving Mei a crazy leeway to win either.


I would have probably limited Susano'o to V3 myself, simply because we don't have much to go on when it comes to how much greater V4 is than V3, while V3 has clear limits as we saw in the Sasuke vs Danzo and Madara vs Kages fight. So my fear is V4 hyperbola among Itachi-fans will effect neutrality of voting, but we'll see.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 24, 2016)

Itachi is basically as he was before he fought and Hebi Sasuke, meaning things he used as Edo can be discredited if a viable argument is put together.


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

Nor do I 
How did you guys miss Minato 
Who ever picks Minato wins the argument 
No character from that pool can beat Him


----------



## Turrin (Oct 24, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> Itachi is basically as he was before he fought and Hebi Sasuke, meaning things he used as Edo can be discredited if a viable argument is put together.


He used V4 when alive though

Reactions: Funny 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

I vote for @ARGUS
Again with the much easier character  To argue for he doesn't have to do much to convince the voters
He Will do the bare minimum which will be enough

Reactions: Funny 1 | Dislike 3


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 24, 2016)

Your voting privledges are revoked for the rest of the tournament, if you think that based on who it is easier to argue for. 

You are supposed to vote for the discussion

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> Your voting privledges are revoked for the rest of the tournament, if you think that based on who it is easier to argue for.
> 
> You are supposed to vote for the discussion



Fair enough
But honestly would it not make more sense to have both competitors argue for characters which stand an equal chance of winning ?
I mean that makes sense no 
Curious to see what anyone can come up with for Mei


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 24, 2016)

So just a notice to everyone and this should be common sense to all of you, but you know there is always that one guy, that one guy.

Please *do not vote* for the match before the introductions and rebuttals are posted. You aren't supposed to vote based who it is easier to argue for but who presents the best argument. I can present a decent argument for Hidan beating Sakura but doesn't mean that is precisely what would happen most of the time. We should vote based on argument style, completeness, format and accuracy.


----------



## Empathy (Oct 24, 2016)

I won against Minato/Danzo team in the last tournament, so it's not unbeatable even if one of then did go with Minato. Kudos to both contestants for not going with easy mode.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Empathy (Oct 24, 2016)

A case can be made for Mei.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

Curious to see how the participants rank 
all I would say is my vote would have a lot to do with how and where and why they place tsunade where ever they put her


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

Empathy said:


> A case can be made for Mei.



I await the contestant post defending Mei and how easily argus will rip holes in it 
Let's wait and see cuz once Ms is involved no case in my opinion can be made for Mei

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

Empathy said:


> I won against Minato/Danzo team in the last tournament, so it's not unbeatable even if one of then did go with Minato. Kudos to both contestants for not going with easy mode.



Impressive you got a link for that 
Would love to read it


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

Good arguments are made on both sides
When they have decent characters to argue for 
Quite obviously it doesn't matter how good a writer a person is they can't make a case for Sakura beating hashirama for example 
So while the argument style and completeness is aimed for 
Won't it be common sense to give both competitors a shot at it


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 24, 2016)

Icegaze said:


> Good arguments are made on both sides
> When they have decent characters to argue for
> Quite obviously it doesn't matter how good a writer a person is they can't make a case for Sakura beating hashirama for example
> So while the argument style and completeness is aimed for
> Won't it be common sense to give both competitors a shot at it




Your example is skewered. The gap between the characters Ryuzaki chose is not as big as the gap between Sakura and Hashirama. These 2 shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. 100 Sakura's wouldn't beat Hashirama.


----------



## Icegaze (Oct 24, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> Your example is skewered. The gap between the characters Ryuzaki chose is not as big as the gap between Sakura and Hashirama. These 2 shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. 100 Sakura's wouldn't beat Hashirama.



i agree but i was making a point. while the gap isnt nearly as large, there cant be much argument for how mei who failed to do anything reasonable to clones with the same jutsu is supposed to somehow deal with itachi using a stronger version of said jutsu. Case in point susanoo

as such allowing MS, makes it simply too skewered in itachi favour. Any argument made for mei though good would be mostly far fetched as such its content riddled with hopeful suggestions


----------



## Icelerate (Oct 24, 2016)

I think I should start debating on this site instead. NB is pretty much dead.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Oct 24, 2016)

Rocky said:


> To be honest, you had a terrible character. I'd stay away from people like Asuma in the future, @Ryuzaki. He's displayed a grand total of three jutsu: ash katon, stream fūton, and Hien (read: basic chakra-flow through a weapon). For comparison's sake, that is tied with Anko. Motherfucking Anko. Somebody like Yamato, Darui, or even Hidan (who actually has a one-technique fighting style) in his place would have been way better. From both a feat & portrayal standpoint.



I actually like Asuma, though I still think it would've been cool if he'd summoned Enma.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 24, 2016)

He's terrible in a Battledome sense because he hasn't gotten much panel time. His character itself didn't bother me.


----------



## Bonly (Oct 24, 2016)

Damn I barely just got my intro up in enough time for the deadline. Working all these doubles and all this other RL crap was kicking my ass, hopefully I didn't make to many mistakes and didn't forget to much while in a rush

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 24, 2016)

My match is moving fast. Only 1 more rebuttal from Thestronngest and it's done and ready for voting.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 25, 2016)

Fuck, just read 145 pages for a book essay. Time to type up some of my introduction, god dammit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rocky (Oct 25, 2016)

Trying to explain a tier list in 825 words is


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 25, 2016)

I was typing up my introduction and I was almost done at ~800 words.

God dammit, mfw word limit is actually too big.


----------



## Turrin (Oct 26, 2016)

When exactly is the deadline for everything suppose to be?


----------



## Empathy (Oct 27, 2016)

Turrin said:


> I think you can vote before rebuttal is up in a certain situation: And that situation is where X-Contest Posted both their Main Post and Rebuttal, while Y-Contestant hasn't posted their Rebuttal, but you still think Y-Contestant already wins on the merit of their first post alone. This shouldn't happen often, but there are some cases where it can. What you should not do is Vote against X-Contest, before X-Contestant has a chance to rebuttal



That's what happened in my vote in Handfull vs. DS match.



Icegaze said:


> Impressive you got a link for that
> Would love to read it



 My post used to look a lot better before the update. : (


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Oct 27, 2016)

Not sure if you saw this in the message board:

@Ryuzaki
ARGUS's introduction was barely posted this morning, & the due date for rebuttals is in a few hours. I would've worked on my rebuttal yesterday had it been posted on time but I don't see how I'm expected to write it up in this narrow time frame. I know there are no extensions but it's not fair that ARGUS has had double the time to work on his rebuttal than I will have.


----------



## Sadgoob (Oct 27, 2016)

The issue with these tournaments is that the votes often don't reflect debating skill so much as they reflect opinions on the matches/issues themselves. This is unfortunate, because that means in order to win, you would be wise to tailor your argument to be broadly popular and as close to the center as possible, which often makes them dull. The true joy and reward in debating is relentlessly backing _solidly unpopular_ views (Itachi extremism, Trump, etc.) and bathing in the controversy.

For these reasons, I'd suggest making the prompts absurd. Like asking the contestants to make a case for Hashirama somehow defeating Itachi. That's more entertaining, inspires more innovation, and is a better reflection of persuasive ability. Let's make Battledome debating great again. Mei vs gimped Itachi was a good start. Keep going in that direction.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Rocky (Oct 27, 2016)

Sadgoob said:


> The true joy and reward in debating is relentlessly backing _solidly unpopular_ views (Itachi extremism, Trump, etc.) and bathing in the controversy.


How did I not make the connection before...


----------



## Turrin (Oct 27, 2016)

So if the deadline hits without rebuttals from one or both contestants how am I suppose to evaluate those contestants, are they disqualified or just evaluated based on what they did post


----------



## Empathy (Oct 27, 2016)

Some matches rebuttals are mandatory and some they're optional, so it depends.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 27, 2016)

HandfullofNaruto said:


> Not sure if you saw this in the message board:
> 
> @Ryuzaki
> ARGUS's introduction was barely posted this morning, & the due date for rebuttals is in a few hours. I would've worked on my rebuttal yesterday had it been posted on time but I don't see how I'm expected to write it up in this narrow time frame. I know there are no extensions but it's not fair that ARGUS has had double the time to work on his rebuttal than I will have.


It shouldn't take you so long to rip through it though, even though he had more time, you should be able to work through it in under an hour, I have a word limit for a reason. This isn't supposed to be writing a book or anything, I understand he had more time to work on his rebuttal and I'll give you til tomorrow mid-day to get your rebuttal if you really need time. But the posts were designed to be quick and easy, not much more than an hour.

Voters aren't stupid, they can read time stamps, you think people won't know that so-so took 2-3 days to come up with stuff and you had about an hour at most.



Turrin said:


> So if the deadline hits without rebuttals from one or both contestants how am I suppose to evaluate those contestants, are they disqualified or just evaluated based on what they did post


If the deadline hits and the rebuttals aren't posted, just go based off the introduction, you can go back in and change your vote later if you feel the rebuttal was far superior than normal. For instance, in Empathy's match, rebuttals are mandatory, so they need to be up soon, but I won't penalize someone for not posting a rebuttal if an introduction wasn't even posted.



Empathy said:


> Some matches rebuttals are mandatory and some they're optional, so it depends.


Basically, this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Oct 27, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> It shouldn't take you so long to rip through it though, even though he had more time, you should be able to work through it in under an hour, I have a word limit for a reason. This isn't supposed to be writing a book or anything, I understand he had more time to work on his rebuttal and I'll give you til tomorrow mid-day to get your rebuttal if you really need time. But the posts were designed to be quick and easy, not much more than an hour.


I don't want the extension because I need over an hour for my reply Ryuzaki. I have a life too.. I have shit to do, exams to take, students to tutor, meals to make. Just because I'm not complaining about it like everyone else doesn't mean i don't have shit on my plate. It's whatever. Il post my rebuttal tonight. I just don't want to be disqualified for taking the time I'm entitled to.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Saru (Oct 27, 2016)

walked into Rocky and Empathy's thread for the first time

the hype is real

just glancing over things, it looks like both of you have some pretty solid arguments

good luck to both 

i'll be checking out the rest of the matches over the next couple of days too, but i think UchihaX28 and Bonly's match had the highest word limit, so i'll probably be starting with that

hopefully UchihaX28 can avenge me

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Rocky (Oct 27, 2016)

I think Empathy's rebuttal destroyed my intro tbh. I couldn't explain my rationale as much as I would have liked to because I was at the cap. Something like a tier list is so subjective anyway. But I won't be upset if I lose. Empathy has been really good since before I even joined.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Dislike 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 27, 2016)

I'll vote in each match, but good work to all participants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 27, 2016)

Arsu said:


> hopefully UchihaX28 can avenge me



 If senpai lost to Bonly, there's no way I can win. Sorry.

Reactions: Optimistic 1


----------



## Saru (Oct 27, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> If senpai lost to Bonly, there's no way I can win. Sorry.





ordinarily i would have advised blasphemy by questioning the power of the slug god

but that's not an option here, so gl


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 27, 2016)

What's the prize for winning?


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 27, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> What's the prize for winning?



 Bragging rights.

Reactions: Winner 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 27, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> It shouldn't take you so long to rip through it though, even though he had more time, you should be able to work through it in under an hour, I have a word limit for a reason. This isn't supposed to be writing a book or anything, I understand he had more time to work on his rebuttal and I'll give you til tomorrow mid-day to get your rebuttal if you really need time. But the posts were designed to be quick and easy, not much more than an hour.
> 
> Voters aren't stupid, they can read time stamps, you think people won't know that so-so took 2-3 days to come up with stuff and you had about an hour at most.


So lemme get this straight
An intro posted 2 days later had only 1hr to post it
But when I take the same time to post mine, it turns into all the time in the world? 


HandfullofNaruto said:


> I don't want the extension because I need over an hour for my reply Ryuzaki. I have a life too.. I have shit to do, exams to take, students to tutor, meals to make. Just because I'm not complaining about it like everyone else doesn't mean i don't have shit on my plate. It's whatever. Il post my rebuttal tonight. I just don't want to be disqualified for taking the time I'm entitled to.


Wow are you complaining that much

For your information, you also posted your intro 2 days later
I could just say that you had 2 days to construct your intro.

Don't go around telling ppl that Yu only had 1 hr whilst I had all the time in the world
I posted my intro before the dead line and that's what should matter. I literally had 1 hour at 3am to post this. And I did the same for my rebuttal, literally one hour at like 2am

Asking for time is one thing but complaining about what I did when I have followed the rules is not justified in any way whatsoever

We are all busy people so I understand if you have excuses for yourself 
But don't go around assuming I don't have shit to do whilst you are a busy noble man who doesn't say much


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Oct 27, 2016)

ARGUS said:


> So lemme get this straight
> An intro posted 2 days later had only 1hr to post it
> But when I take the same time to post mine, it turns into all the time in the world?
> 
> ...


Dude. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Everything you are saying is so factually wrong I'm crying.  Maybe your computer is broken or something but I can't imagine what excuse you have for spewing so much nonsense at once.

I mean honestly what the fuck are you saying. I am genuinely confused here.


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 27, 2016)

HandfullofNaruto said:


> Dude. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Everything you are saying is so factually wrong I'm crying.  Maybe your computer is broken or something but I can't imagine what excuse you have for spewing so much nonsense at once.


Really? 
Bcz this is the second time I have seen you complain 
The first time I just let it slide and told you "my bad, I was busy " and this was after I told you that I'll be a day or so late on my intro 

But this time you're trying to have double standards for each of the things. Tryna say I had everything to work with while the poor you had nothing 

Nothing Is factually wrong, the fact you don't have anything to say and are spewing something irrelevant already shows 


Kindly take my advice and man up 
Bcz asking for votes/leniency in this way is truly pathetic


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 27, 2016)

Rocky said:


> I think Empathy's rebuttal destroyed my intro tbh. I couldn't explain my rationale as much as I would have liked to because I was at the cap. Something like a tier list is so subjective anyway. But I won't be upset if I lose. Empathy has been really good since before I even joined.



I think you guys did a great job. My only concern is that you guys underrated Tsunade which I shall mention why in my evaluation if I ever have time to construct it.

 Edit: Actually, never mind, it looks all right I suppose.


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Oct 27, 2016)

@ARGUS
*-snip-*

Do you know what a deadline is ? Let me repeat myself.

*DEADLINE. *_Deadline. _Deadline.

I was 3 hours past the INTRODUCTION deadline ok? You were an entire day late for the introduction deadline. *An entire day. 
*
Now , there is a rebuttal deadline(must be posted before voting starts). Since YOUR introduction came an entire day later, I was left with only A FEW HOURS for a rebuttal before the deadline for THE REBUTTAL passed. Do you understand?

My intro was up on time so if you needed to, you had two days to work on a rebuttal.

Yours was late. I have a life so I NEED those entire two days opposed to a "few hours after class" to type my rebuttal.

I deserve the equal amount of time before deadlines than you, don't I ?

I think the reason you're confused is either because you're too incompetent to measure when your deadline is arriving due to timezone differences (which I have too , it's no excuse ) OR you just don't give a shit & the rules of the Tournament are butt crack to you.
But yea, we actually have deadlines. Forgive me for wanting to extend mine due to your inability to follow them.


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Oct 27, 2016)

Almost forgot my sassy cat emoji. You got me that worked up bro.


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 27, 2016)

Nah that's fine 
I feel that to avoid confusion ryuzaki should use dates instead of just time/second day or something 
That way there'll be less confusion


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 27, 2016)

ARGUS said:


> So lemme get this straight
> An intro posted 2 days later had only 1hr to post it
> But when I take the same time to post mine, it turns into all the time in the world?


Honestly, my whole thing is I don't want you guys to spend days contriving an intro, the time-limits weren't supposed to be met at their very ends.


----------



## ARGUS (Oct 27, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> Honestly, my whole thing is I don't want you guys to spend days contriving an intro, the time-limits weren't supposed to be met at their very ends.


Yeah that's cool 
Just for future reference can you please uuse actual dates as deadlines not like "day 1" or "day 2"


----------



## Empathy (Oct 28, 2016)

Especially at this time of year with November approaching, it's essential to stress the importance of voting. Let your voice be heard and vote in Rocky vs. Empathy.



Rocky said:


> I think Empathy's rebuttal destroyed my intro tbh. I couldn't explain my rationale as much as I would have liked to because I was at the cap. Something like a tier list is so subjective anyway. But I won't be upset if I lose. Empathy has been really good since before I even joined.



Ha, there were plenty of claims in my intro that I knew warranted explanation or they'd just sound bad, and I originally did explain them, but had to gut them just to get my point across as concise as possible for word count. I don't think there was any of that you didn't burn me for in your rebuttal, and I don't think anyone could've pointed out the flaws in my argument better.


----------



## Saru (Oct 28, 2016)

Time to vote.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 29, 2016)

ARGUS said:


> Yeah that's cool
> Just for future reference can you please uuse actual dates as deadlines not like "day 1" or "day 2"


I will


----------



## Saru (Oct 29, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> Hey Saru, if you don't mind, can you go ahead and announce that a voting extension has been implemented til 5PM on Sunday EST.





39 more hours left to vote!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 29, 2016)

So is my match finished now or is the voting period extended like others? 

So tempted to refute some stuff right now.


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 29, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> So is my match finished now or is the voting period extended like others?
> 
> So tempted to refute some stuff right now.



 I don't think that's allowed though I think it should if someone's evaluation is heavily flawed.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 29, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> So is my match finished now or is the voting period extended like others?
> 
> So tempted to refute some stuff right now.


I've extended the matches for everyone, you can quote the post here and discuss it with them here if you want to, just as long as you don't post in the match thread.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Rocky (Oct 29, 2016)

Tfw everybody thinks your tier list has the characters in a specific order.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 29, 2016)

I am not sure why people think that Manda wouldn't cooperate with Sasuke and be difficult against Jiraiya/Gamabunta? 
What I meant by having "history" is Manda getting stabbed in the mouth during that three way battle. Manda will be seeking revenge.


----------



## Parallaxis (Oct 29, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> I am not sure why people think that Manda wouldn't cooperate with Sasuke and be difficult against Jiraiya/Gamabunta?
> What I meant by having "history" is Manda getting stabbed in the mouth during that three way battle. Manda will be seeking revenge.


Oh damn. You should have mentioned that


----------



## Sapherosth (Oct 30, 2016)

PhantomSage said:


> Oh damn. You should have mentioned that



I thought everybody knew haha


Edit -

I really want to see these match ups in the tournament

Troysee (Kisame) vs Raikiri (Kakashi)

and

Troysee (Kisame) vs Izaya (Orochimaru)


I would genuinely pay to see this.

5,000 word limit too.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Saru (Oct 30, 2016)

Rocky said:


> Tfw everybody thinks your tier list has the characters in a specific order.



Yeah, I was surprised by that, and although I wasn't sure myself at first, it became clear when you said something along the lines of "Kakashi may be the weakest in this group (along with support Goddess Tsunade)" and Kakashi wasn't at the bottom of that support group. I think "ranked" tier lists are so common that everyone just auto-assumes you're ranking everyone in order.


----------



## Saru (Oct 30, 2016)

Also, as a note, voting for all matches is now closed. Voting for Saph and WS's match is closed too, I just can't edit the title due to the character limit.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 30, 2016)

Arsu said:


> Yeah, I was surprised by that, and although I wasn't sure myself at first, it became clear when you said something along the lines of "Kakashi may be the weakest in this group (along with support Goddess Tsunade)" and Kakashi wasn't at the bottom of that support group. I think "ranked" tier lists are so common that everyone just auto-assumes you're ranking everyone in order.


Dude, I just read PhantomSage's explanation for his vote and it makes me want to cry. He thought I put the bridge characters (you know, the characters I said were in between certain tiers) at the bottom of my tier list just because I had them at the bottom of my post.  I mean, surely that isn't me...

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Empathy (Oct 30, 2016)

That sounded more like an organizational gripe than a misunderstanding to me.


----------



## Saru (Oct 30, 2016)

Rocky said:


> Dude, I just read PhantomSage's explanation for his vote and it makes me want to cry. He thought I put the bridge characters (you know, the characters I said were in between certain tiers) at the bottom of my tier list just because I had them at the bottom of my post.  I mean, surely that isn't me...





Of course not.


----------



## Alex Payne (Oct 30, 2016)

I was planning to support Rocky but after seeing that avatar... Nah, it was Rocky's own fault.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rocky (Oct 30, 2016)

Empathy said:


> That sounded more like an organizational gripe than a misunderstanding to me.


I sure hope so, and even then it's a meh kind of thing to bring up. I don't think I should have won our match anyway (I thought I was going to get blown out after reading your rebuttal), but reading "I don't know why Gengetsu is above Mū" over & over again is mind-numbing. 


Alex Payne said:


> I was planning to support Rocky but after seeing that avatar... Nah, it was Rocky's own fault.


Brah she's like the most well-written, likable character ever. Come on now.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Oct 30, 2016)

It's all updated guys, congrats to the winner again!


----------



## Empathy (Oct 30, 2016)

Great match with Rocky. I'm not trying to sound humble by saying this, but I honestly wasn't expecting to win. Factoring team battle effectiveness was such a creative and original idea that I thought it made my broad 1v1 tiers look like garbage, plus I was forced to show off some of my unpopular opinions (Kakashi/Gai, Sannin). The back and forth lead changes were really bugging me, to the point where I wished Rocky would just run away with it already.

Reactions: Like 2 | Friendly 1


----------



## Icelerate (Oct 31, 2016)

ARGUS said:


> Each of whom would read the whole debate and give a thorough summary of their opinion on who wins
> 
> As for this debate
> I'm interested to see what @Saru @DaVizWiz and @HandfullofNaruto bring to the table


Indeed it was quite interesting to see HandfullofNaruto bring your defeat to the table. 


Icegaze said:


> I vote for @ARGUS
> Again with the much easier character  To argue for he doesn't have to do much to convince the voters
> He Will do the bare minimum which will be enough


So where did your logic take you?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 31, 2016)

@Icelerate talking shit, that's quite unusual ... even for you.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Turrin (Oct 31, 2016)

I'm not sure if I understand why participants aren't allowed to respond to Voters.  For instance in UchihaX2 vs Bonly match, Uchihax2 in response to my vote clarified that she did not mean to say AT/MP wouldn't work at Long-Range, which is something I was unclear off on my first read through and I think was a perfectly reasonable clarification. Not sure why this is not allowed. 

I can understand not allowing contestants to come up with new points to counter voter opinion, but clarification should be okay imo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Icelerate (Oct 31, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> @Icelerate talking shit, that's quite unusual ... even for you.


Your defeat is also very disappointing because other than Argus, I was rooting for you as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## UchihaX28 (Oct 31, 2016)

Turrin said:


> I'm not sure if I understand why participants aren't allowed to respond to Voters.  For instance in UchihaX2 vs Bonly match, Uchihax2 in response to my vote clarified that she did not mean to say AT/MP wouldn't work at Long-Range, which is something I was unclear off on my first read through and I think was a perfectly reasonable clarification. Not sure why this is not allowed.
> 
> I can understand not allowing contestants to come up with new points to counter voter opinion, but clarification should be okay imo.



 You honestly did a great job analyzing my argument though in spite of that slight misunderstanding. I honestly thought you dissected and synthesized my argument rather well since you looked at the overall picture rather than compartmentalizing and treat each supporting detail as separate pieces.


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Nov 1, 2016)

I've also been consistently impressed by the amount of thought @Turrin has put into all his votes in this tourney.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 5


----------



## Troyse22 (Nov 5, 2016)

When do the next round/s start?


----------



## Saru (Nov 5, 2016)



Reactions: Winner 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 5, 2016)

There's only 2 matches, it shouldn't have taken this long to post it imo


----------



## Bonly (Nov 5, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> There's only 2 matches, it shouldn't have taken this long to post it imo



I work at a hospital like Ryu does and having to work doubles(16 hours) and/or longer at a time is pretty draining especially when you gotta be at work in 8 hours or less and that's not even taking in personal life so I can see why it's been so long


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 5, 2016)

Bonly said:


> I work at a hospital like Ryu does and having to work doubles(16 hours) and/or longer at a time is pretty draining especially when you gotta be at work in 8 hours or less and that's not even taking in personal life so I can see why it's been so long



That's understandable.

Perhaps this is something to think about for the next tournament. Share responsibilities with the tournament assistants to ensure that if anyone was really busy, another can come in and take the role. Maybe something like creating a tournament plan prior starting the tournament by coming up with all the match ups/conditions etc for all the matches beforehand. That way anyone assistant can just post it on Ryu's behalf and make things go smoother and reduce the burden on 1 person.

Maybe even have a voting process of some sort where everyone in BD can vote what kind of match we all like to see in the tournament and make a plan for that, especially the semi-finals and final match. I think this will get more people involved with the tournament.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 5, 2016)

Bonly said:


> I work at a hospital like Ryu does and having to work doubles(16 hours) and/or longer at a time is pretty draining especially when you gotta be at work in 8 hours or less and that's not even taking in personal life so I can see why it's been so long


Yeah, basically man, I'll have your guys match up tomorrow. At the moment, I have to study my ass off, I worked 3-4 call days in a row, I was so beat Thursday. My only escape was some Arrow/Flash episodes this week and the OP chapter.


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 6, 2016)

What version of SM Naruto are we talking about?  War Arc pre Rikudou power up? @Ryuzaki


----------



## Bonly (Nov 6, 2016)

@Ryuzaki I'm a bit burnt out from work but just to be clear for our thread both of us are suppose to explain how Team Sage would do better against Edo Madara and then we're suppose to refute what the other said? Also since our thread went up a day after the other one, can we get an extension by one day on everything so that we have the same amount of time.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 6, 2016)

You can explain whatever you think about the thread, for instance, if you think Team Sage will win, then go for it, if you think they'll lose go for it. The argument your present will be what we are judging as voters. You can also make it a narrative comparison to canon if you want to or you can include the both (whether they win or not and how they perform). It's entirely up to you.


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Nov 6, 2016)

Behold, the second thread has been stickied! Now, please hurry up and post your intros so I can be distracted from my country's dumpster fire of a presidential election.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 9, 2016)

I am actually quite disappointed that I haven't got the chance to debate about Itachi yet. 

It's the only reason I joined the tournament.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Troyse22 (Nov 9, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> I am actually quite disappointed that I haven't got the chance to debate about Itachi yet.
> 
> It's the only reason I joined the tournament.



We saw what happened when someone debated Itachi, they got stomped.


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 9, 2016)

Troyse22 said:


> We saw what happened when someone debated Itachi, they got stomped.


----------



## Bonly (Nov 11, 2016)

Alex Payne said:


> Bonly's opening post in my opinion had quite a lot of missed opportunities + lack if details. Post looks rushed to me. Lack of time maybe?



Yeah it was a case of being tired after working a 20 hour shift and being in a rush to get it up by Tuesday night, I was hoping it wouldn't show but I can't get nothing past you


----------



## Saru (Nov 13, 2016)

*bump*



Saru said:


> On a more serious note, the voting deadline has been officially extended to Monday, November 14 @ 12PM EST.



@Everyone who was late voting: it's alright, we have about 36 more hours.


----------



## Troyse22 (Nov 13, 2016)

Had to extend the deadline. "some people" are probably out protesting the outcome of the election, despite having no clue exactly what they're protesting against


----------



## DaVizWiz (Nov 14, 2016)

@Saru why did you count Ryuzaki's vote in the Kage Summit thread, when he provided no reasoning before the deadline?

I'm not so sure a vote that breaks a tie in a final 4 should be one where no reasoning was provided, especially considering 3 more people voted for the opposing argument - all with reasoning.

Reactions: Like 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## Saru (Nov 14, 2016)

DaVizWiz said:


> @Saru why did you count Ryuzaki's vote in the Kage Summit thread, when he provided no reasoning before the deadline?
> 
> I'm not so sure a vote that breaks a tie in a final 4 should be one where no reasoning was provided, especially considering 3 more people voted for the opposing argument - all with reasoning.



Mainly because @Ryuzaki said he'd explain his reasoning later, but wanted to get the vote in before the deadline, and I thought that was fine (so long as Ryu does follow through on the explanation). I expect that Ryuzaki will follow through, this being his tournament and all, but I do understand your concern about the lagging explanation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 14, 2016)

Sorry, yeah, I will definitely explain, I have a quarter of the post written up, I've just got certification exams to study for this friday.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DaVizWiz (Nov 14, 2016)

If I may, allow me to explain where I'm coming from.

You basically called one of the most important matches on a vote where no reasoning was provided.. so there's an extension for reasoning to be provided by one user - but not an extension for other people to type one sentence with a name in it and add that to the tally?

A blowout in the first round- that's different. Who cares if you add one more on top of it then. Third Round chance to go to the finals dead tie called on an unsubstaniated vote to be explained at a time when it's best for the voter- HoN got ripped badly here.

If nothing else I would suggest we don't count votes that aren't explained, for later more important rounds, such as this. Just my thoughts on the tournament.

If you're wondering why I'm continuing to pursue this having not even voted in the match myself, I couldn't find myself choosing a clear winner in that scenario after having looked over the thread many times in fear of my unconfident vote screwing one side- which it may well have considering the end count.

Regardless, congrats to @Empathy, I really liked the evaluation.

And my apologies to @Ryuzaki if he feels I'm trying to undermind his tournament or obviously his right to vote, I'm just voicing my opinion on behalf of a good user who's efforts I think got the raw deal here. And of course we know you're busy this time of year Ryu, I'm not implying you necessarily had the time to provide your best explanation (which I know will be detailed and legit).

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## Butthurt McWowimacunt (Nov 15, 2016)

It's the DNC SuperDelegates controversy stuff all over again. Next thing we know, a contestant no one thought would win will end up taking the entire tournament DTrump style. The madness..

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Saru (Nov 15, 2016)

DaVizWiz said:


> If I may, allow me to explain where I'm coming from.
> 
> You basically called one of the most important matches on a vote where no reasoning was provided.. so there's an extension for reasoning to be provided by one user - but not an extension for other people to type one sentence with a name in it and add that to the tally?
> 
> ...



No, I completely understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad you said something. Everything you said makes perfect sense, and I agree, there should be some sort of clause that requires votes to have an explanation to be counted, particularly if this is seen as an issue for the participants.

The reason that I made the call was because Ryuzaki got the vote in before the deadline, and gave his word he'd provide an explanation later. A few other people did this I believe (I know Empathy did), but they were able to get their explanation in on time. I still would've counted their votes if they hadn't. This is mainly because a) there no explanation requirement in the OP and b) I take everyone here at their word.

In general, I don't think this practice is a good thing, not because people are untrustworthy but because of timeline concerns. We shouldn't be starting one round when the explanations for another round are still trickling in, and anything could happen between the vote and the explanation.

HoN gracefully accepted defeat though, so this is something we can implement in the next round.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Empathy (Nov 15, 2016)

I'll copy verbatim what I said in Saru, Handfull, and I's PM convo on the matter: 

_"I don't want to sound overly-defensive of my victory, but the purpose of providing a brief explanation when voting is just to prove that the voter read both of the contestants' posts. Not to say that Ryu's exempt from his own rules, but being the tournament host, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt that he did read both posts instead of just voting for me without having read Handfull's post. That said, I'd be open to calling the match a tie and going into something like overtime/sudden death round, a brief period where more votes can come in; winning when Handfull got way more votes than me really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If Ryu wants to finish his vote, he could do it then."
_
Handfull responded by declining this idea and saying that he's actually really looking forward to his match against Saph, and he's wished me luck in the finals.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 15, 2016)

Me and Handfull both planned to lose so we could face each other.

Reactions: Like 2 | Friendly 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 15, 2016)

@Empathy:
I thought you did a much better job presenting your argument within the scope of reference and clearly explaining that SM Naruto has visible limitations. In order to achieve that, I can understand why you had to parallel him with the slower Sandaime Raikage and I thought that point was one of the key factors in pushing your post to the top.  Where I thought you shined most was Naruto vs. Ay, Naruto vs. Mei, Naruto vs. Oonoki, though with Gaara both of you guys came to the same conclusion, I was assured one of you would have brought up the fact that Naruto already beat Gaara in the past and could likely neutralize him with a toad summon shooting water-based attacks.

Here are some aspects of the Raikage vs. Naruto discussion I thought you really pushed your introduction through the ceiling:


> A's durable, but how many frog katas and _Senpou: Rasenga_n variants can he really take before going down? I couldn't think of a really good common denominator to gauge A's durability against Naruto's offense by, except that Sasuke's _Chidori_ was merely able to reach a few fingers into A's chest, meanwhile Kakashi's _Raikiri_ couldn't finish Asura Path, who had already been crushed by the Akimichi family and presumed defeated; Naruto  a completely healed Asura Path with just a single _Senpou: Rasengan_.


Establishing SM Naruto's destructive force with Rasenagan was instrumental in proving that he can defeat the Raikage, without it Naruto is really on the defensive here. He could attempt a full frontal assault with the technique but we needed to be sure that it would have the juice required to take out the Raikage. From the Gokage, I find the Raikage to be the toughest match up for Naruto simply because he doesn't let Naruto play to his strengths (i.e. stamina, speed and offense), for each of those categories the Raikage can push back too.


> The location is cramped, which isn't good for her. She doesn't have the speed feats to suggest that she can evade a blitz from _Sennin_ Naruto, if he catches her in close-quarters it's game-over with either _Rasengan_ variant or _Kawazu Kumite_. Her only chance would be to set up a lot futton to prevent him from getting close, which she wouldn't know to do without knowledge and she must also be cognizant of her fellow Kages in the vicinity.


I thought this was also an exceptional contrast to Sasuke (for whom the tight enclosed space was detrimental and without the assistance of Zetsu, he likely would have died), whereas the tight space here for serves as an advantage for Naruto. I do think it would be prudent to admit that there's a good chance after assuming that Naruto has fought and defeated the Raikage and Gaara it would be worth it for him to rely on Kurama a tad bit more here.  I also thought you did a good job in this part about including Choujuro and that would definitely make this scuffle for Naruto all the more difficult, especially in an exhausted state. I guess you could argue that he would be on his final SM clone (since I gave him 3 from the start).​
@HandfullofNaruto:
Your introduction to me was really bland, sure it had the feats but there was no explanation of how the interactions would happen.  I thought you glossed over Ay's ability to react to Sasuke's near-instant Amaterasu but somehow will fall to Naruto's Rasengan? I do agree that Naruto will require a distraction or some form of a feint to handle Raikage, however, I do not believe that Naruto (in his then current condition) could use Oodama Rasengan without giving away his position or at least allowing the Raikage to move away. It would have been easier for Naruto to launch a senjutsu-enhanced FRS with a distraction in the middle than using Oodama Rasengan. As fast as Naruto is, he's never going to be able to connect with Oodama Rasengan, you could make an argument for a regular senjutsu-enhanced fuuton rasengan but Oodama Rasengan is too large and Naruto, even while in SM was about as fast MS Sasuke. It was much more difficult for me to see this as a believable argument for Naruto's victory. I thought you used excellent strategy to get him there but from where I view SM Naruto (he's probably marginally faster than Base Jiraiya during that arc), best case scenario.

I thought you did a great job explaining how Naruto would defeat the sand-siblings and how Naruto could avoid Mei's Lava but that doesn't automatically equate to him being able to hit her with a Rasengan. At that point, I do not know if Naruto would have the stamina to pull of a rasengan that size without the assistance of Kurama, although it would likely be more believable for him to hit her with it than the Raikage. The Raikage is an exceptionally tough opponent for Naruto so I think it'll take him at least 1-2 SM clones used there to bring him down. That leaves him with just 1 clone worst case scenario to deal with Gaara, Mei and Oonoki. The rest of your post was properly littered with good amounts of references and ideas, just the first part with the Raikage I thought you botched a little too much.​
@Empathy @HandfullofNaruto: Where you guys both seemed to drop the ball is that I felt like HoN overestimated Naruto far too much and didn't include anything involving Kurama. Naruto has enormous amount of stamina, but I do not see him making it the very end and fighting Oonoki without relying on Kurama to some extent, I feel as if these Gokage would provide a much tougher challenge than the Pain/Nagato did and evidently he needed to use Kurama's power for Pain/Nagato. The only reason I say that is because unlike Pain, each of these Goakge are much tougher, versatile than most of the Pain bodies with the exception of Deva of course.

As for your rebuttal posts, I thought Empathy edged it out here, he was in the lead before but from my perspective, HoN made a few great points too. Overall, I thought both did an excellent job, I was enthused to read both of their posts and rebuttals, I weighed the introductions more this time around because it was clearly the most even aspect about the debate (neither of you saw each others post and it was checked for accuracy).

*Regular NBD Member Vote: Empathy*

@DaVizWiz: All good my friend.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## theRonin (Nov 15, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> I am actually quite disappointed that I haven't got the chance to debate about Itachi yet.
> 
> It's the only reason I joined the tournament.


Make an appreciation thread about Itachi.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 15, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> Me and Handfull both planned to lose so we could face each other.


Have I been deceived?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Saru (Nov 15, 2016)

Empathy said:


> Match would be even more interesting if the scroll wasn't invincible; that way they'd have to kill Jiraiya while also preserving the scroll.



Yeah, I wanted to, but Jiraiya has so many ways of screwing them over (which AP pointed out) I decided against it.


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 15, 2016)

Pretty much finished my intro now. Should I wait, or should I just post now.


----------



## Saru (Nov 15, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> Pretty much finished my intro now. Should I wait, or should I just post now.



I say no need to wait if you feel confident. I usually do mine then come back to it the next day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 17, 2016)

I recommend we not count any votes for anyone wearing sets reminding us of how much absolute shit SAO was.


----------



## Troyse22 (Nov 17, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> SAO



What's SAO?


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 17, 2016)

Sword Art Online, it was meant as a joke to call out @UchihaX28 for his poor set choices

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## DaVizWiz (Nov 17, 2016)

Don't be hating on my girl Asuna, in SAO she takes Kakashi neg diff. 

That's right, I said it, @Ryuzaki

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 17, 2016)

I bet she does take him, much to Kirito's surprise 

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## DaVizWiz (Nov 17, 2016)

I'm talking about old man Kakashi who still owns that 90s corded phone.

We all know everyone in Anbu gets their nuts clipped as a display of commitment.

That's why Kakashi, Gai & Yamato never had a woman.

Oro in Anbu doesn't count either, he stumbled into medical science in an attempt to regenerate his sack and actually wound up a snake, that's how he made that mini luffy that barely constitutes as human.

Sai never got his nuts clipped, Danzo came up with the tongue seals by that point and killing his brother was enough

Itachi's nuts didn't need clipping because he was already a natural born Uchiha, they knew he probably wouldn't use them anyway and most thought they didn't have them to begin with given how Konoha had already clipped their nuts in the political and civil spectrum 

It's all true, don't goggle it

Reactions: Funny 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 17, 2016)

Huh!!!!!

How dare you?!!! !!! !!!!

Kakashi's phone game still beast even though he's got a corded phone

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DaVizWiz (Nov 17, 2016)

Kakashi just isn't tech saavy @Ryuzaki

I'm trying to help you see the truth here man

Asuna is big on technology, she stayed and mastered a virtual gaming world over the span of years

He's just not her type man

Asuna neg diff

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bonly (Nov 17, 2016)

I don't get off work until 3 and I prolly won't get home until 4 or 5 something so my intro will sadly be late since I'm stuck to mobile until then so yeah


----------



## UchihaX28 (Nov 17, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> Sword Art Online, it was meant as a joke to call out @UchihaX28 for his poor set choices



 

 At least Asuma lost her virginity unlike a certain anonymous sensei that will not be named even though everyone knows who it is.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 17, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> At least Asuma lost her virginity unlike a certain anonymous sensei that will not be named even though everyone knows who it is.


You son of a...

He's been hitting the Ramen lady in the fillers.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 18, 2016)

Mine and Hanfull's Intro and Rebuttals are done.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Parallaxis (Nov 18, 2016)

UchihaX28 said:


> At least Asuma lost her virginity unlike a certain anonymous sensei that will not be named even though everyone knows who it is.


That scene was cringy af tho


----------



## theRonin (Nov 19, 2016)

Ryuzaki said:


> You son of a...
> 
> He's been hitting the Ramen lady in the fillers.


Iirc, there was a gal in one of the fillers, named Hanare or something.


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 19, 2016)

Usually I don't respond to votes because i cba, no matter how outrageous their reasoning are, but this one deserves some defending. 



JiraiyaFlash said:


> My Votes goes to; @HandfullofNaruto
> 
> Sapherosth doesnt try to give an proper answer to HoN in his rebbutal or doesnt achieve to lecture fine strategy about his man's aproach (except cqc part). He just played with portrayal, *try to lowballing somewhere and giving some hypes to his participant.* I think this is doesnt necessarly. HoN keep so tiny and clear his portrayal ıntro contrary to Saph..



This is absolutely BS. I mentioned portrayal once in intro my very briefly, and another in my rebuttal briefly. 




> Portrayal wise, he was going toe to toe with enemy boss leader such as Obito+Jins. Muu is portrayed as equal to TrollKage who later portrayed himself as being below the enemy leader at the time (Obito). As for Jiraiya, he was nearly killed by a V2 Naruto, and Kakashi was handling several V2 Jins during the war arc. This alone will put him on the same pedestal as his opponents in this match.



and in my rebuttal 



> Kakashi, on the other hand, went toe to toe with several V2 Jins (V2 version Naruto nearly killed Jiraiya once) and then later faced the enemy boss. That is remarkably more impressive than Muu.





And how was it unnecessary?   Hon brought up Kakashi's portrayal saying he was weaker than Wind Arc Naruto and so forth and used it as a way to get Muu to be better. Obviously I had to bring in Kakashi's war arc portrayal to defend that. 




> And after from that HoN always has the logical highground on Saph.. Cuz he is try to create more ways to get his mission done and also able to shows some ways for Jiraiya's avoid options on Kakashi too. (Which is Saph doesnt even botter to try it)
> 
> Saph just abuse the feat about "stand against v2 jinc"



I think you're just upset because I said Kakashi went against the V2 Jins while Jiraiya nearly died to one. I only brought up the V2 jins twice, or three times if you count my point about Raiton chain.

What do you mean I didn't even bother to try? Lmfao.

I gave Kakashi Kamui as offensive and defensive measures. Mentioned pretty much all of its relevant feats, not to mention Kakashi's sharingan and clone games + Intelligence. And you're saying I didn't even try? Not to mention the fact that no counter to Kamui was mentioned at all apart from trying to downplay Kakashi's stamina. 

Hon's way of "getting the mission done" was literally go invisible and steal it from Jiraiya's side pocket, which was completely countered when I brought up the Movement sensing barrier that counters invisibility. On the other hand, I brought up ways Jiraiya can defeat Muu with FCD and rasengan when Muu tries to ambush him.




> Armless, Temporary Body's out Orochimaru played with V2 Naruto And Suigetsu was able to wrestle against Hachibi.. So Saph talk about that like game changer or victory gatherer for him but sadly ıt wasnt ...
> 
> HoN on the other hand, more reasonable, versatile and clear than his opponent on this one.. So thats why my vote goes to HoN



It's ridiculous to criticize my point about Kakashi vs V2 Jins when Hon brought up some points about Muu holding his own against Naruto, Gaara and Onoki as if he didn't get owned within 2 seconds.

The game changer was Kamui and Kakashi's intelligence. 




Poor analysis over all.


----------



## JiraiyaFlash (Nov 19, 2016)

@Sapherosth 

One match before ı try fair to you and also said about your opponent he didnt play the game within the rules of it. 
And now (when ım not voting you) you accuse me with "poor analysis" and "char biased comment"  Oh Boy ?!

and ıf ı remember correctly during the time of voting you dont have to right for judge me ... 

Whatever think you like,, you just rumble/mumble on same 2-3 asset and you just overrate your feats and lowballin HoN's arguments.. Again ı dont care this is my own free will to judge and vote.


----------



## Sapherosth (Nov 19, 2016)

JiraiyaFlash said:


> @Sapherosth
> 
> One match before ı try fair to you and also said about your opponent he didnt play the game within the rules of it.
> And now (when ım not voting you) you accuse me with "poor analysis" and "char biased comment"  Oh Boy ?!
> ...




I never agreed with your analysis, I only agreed with the fact you didn't forget the rules.

But this analysis (has nothing with rules), is abysmal at best. 

It's ok to criticize your vote if it's not in the actual thread itself. Which is what I did.... Considering the fact that you're the first vote that I've had to criticize throughout my 4-5 matches so far speaks volume in itself.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Nov 19, 2016)

Sapherosth said:


> It's ok to criticize your vote if it's not in the actual thread itself.


Is this true @Saru / @Ryuzaki ??

Reactions: Agree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## JiraiyaFlash (Nov 19, 2016)

@Sapherosth 

I dont want to involve this immaterial discussion with you.. If you think you're perfect in that debate.. Keep thinkin, ıf you think ım biased, keep thinkin that too, if you think that was abysmal ım ok with it.. Basically HoN was better than you in my opinion this was the basic explanation.. So dont try to speculate or exaggerate it.. I have a right to vote for exchange of explanation and ı explained my opinion .. ı dont have any obligation about satisfatin' you. So congrats for your good run. It was good.. But dont become more smaller as talking like this.. Have a nice day...


----------



## Empathy (Nov 19, 2016)

Ah, can I ask for some clarification on the Daimyo being unallowed to leave the battlefield rule? I interpreted it to mean stuff like Kakashi safely storing them in the _Kamui_ dimension or Jiraiya having them reversed summoned to Myoboku inside a toad gourd was forbidden, because then it'd be too easy. But they're not allowed to physically travel to Kirigakure even? It's suppose to be an escort mission, correct? In my opinion, that's a bit unfair to me because Bonly can win either by killing everyone on my team or just killing a Daimyo, while I have to kill everybody on Bonly's team to win while also protecting the fragile Daimyo, and can't win by my team successfully retreating. 

Regardless, I don't think it affects my game-plan that much and still think I have a chance either way. Both intros and rebuttals are finally up in Bonly and I's finals match, so please go vote!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## theRonin (Nov 19, 2016)

@Empathy  It makes battle more challenging to your team. Imo. After all, protectors always face some challenges everywhere. 

I still haven't read your rebuttal, yet. Youve submitted it already, I'll read it in a few hours and decide my vote.

Good luck.

Reactions: Friendly 1


----------



## Saru (Nov 20, 2016)

HandfullofNaruto said:


> Is this true @Saru / @Ryuzaki ??



I'll wait for Ryuzaki's confirmation on the rules for this, but from what I understand, the contestants weren't supposed to address the reasoning of the voters outside of this thread.


----------



## Alex Payne (Nov 20, 2016)

I thought it was up organizers and other participants to challenge questionable votes.


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 20, 2016)

HandfullofNaruto said:


> Is this true @Saru / @Ryuzaki ??


Yup just not in that thread.

Because it's considered expanding your argument and you only have 2 posts maximum to establish your discussion. Plus it makes voters wary of voting for fear they may have to deal with your scrutiny.


----------



## Bonly (Nov 21, 2016)

Welp congrats on your win Empathy and winning the whole thing, 'twas a fun match

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1 | Friendly 1


----------



## JiraiyaFlash (Nov 22, 2016)

Congrats to all last NBDT participants.. All of them did some good job on this. 

But ı'll specialy want to congrats Top 3  HoN, Bonly and Emphathy they're pretty smooth  

And thanks to Ryuzaki ,Saru and DS for organization.

Reactions: Like 2 | Friendly 1


----------



## Parallaxis (Nov 22, 2016)

What are the prizes for the winners?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Nov 22, 2016)

Congratulations to Empathy, Bonly, and HoN!

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## HandfullofNaruto (Nov 22, 2016)

PhantomSage said:


> What are the prizes for the winners?


I almost forgot about the prizes! Have you decided what the prizes are yet? @Saru / @Ryuzaki


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 22, 2016)

Congrats on winning @Empathy!

Great job to everyone who entered the Final Four! I am very proud of all of you guys. My apologies for being away and I'd like to send a special thank you to Saru/DS for helping me with tournament during the tail end. I was caught up in real-life stuff and wasn't available.

I'll post the final seeding list.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryuzaki (Nov 22, 2016)

Also, the sign-up for the next tournament will start at some point in December, there will be a few distinct changes in rules but expect the same except I'll be available. The tournament will run for 6-weeks, that much is guaranteed. 

Thanks again everyone!

Reactions: Like 2


----------

