# Strength Debate: SM Naruto vs KCM Naruto



## ATastyMuffin (May 27, 2013)

There are a lot of conflicted opinions and perspectives on this specific matter, but it's time to finally settle this long-argued question. Who is the physical superior, Naruto utilizing Sage Mode or the power of Nine-Tails Chakra Mode?

Consider not only hype, but also feats.


----------



## Sablés (May 27, 2013)

SM Naruto has the feat of tossing Rhinos as well as Frog Kumite at his disposal. KCM seems to focus more on granting much greater stamina and versatility to Naruto's Rasengan.

I'm inclined to side with SM.


----------



## katanalauncher (May 28, 2013)

I'll say KCM's stats are hyped to be above SM in every aspect.
I doubt SM could smash BB against the barrier as casual as KCM.
The rhino toss is just a exaggerated feat, not really applicable to in universe battle.


----------



## DaVizWiz (May 28, 2013)

There are three types of strength.

*Lifting*
*Striking*
and
*Grappling*

SM Naruto, by far, takes *lifting*.

*Striking *could be around equal, SM Naruto's kick sent Deva Path across a battlefield. At the same time, KN1 Naruto sent Orochimaru rippling a kilometer through a forest off a bridge- by simply grappling his head and thrusting it. KN1 is not KCM, but they are certainly similar. KCM Naruto showed striking capacity when he laid a punch down on SameKisame, causing him pain and drawing blood. 

*Grappling* is a rarity in this verse, breaking a neck by squeezing it or simply tearing a body apart is something you don't see very often. Though grappling is similar  to lifting, I would argue neither have decent grappling ability, unless we're adding in KCM Naruto's chakra arm release, which would certainly win that debate.

However, Superman reserves the crown in all three strengths.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

I'd say striking strength should go to KCM Naruto if he gets speed momentum behind his hits.

His punching strength in* this scan* is hyped to be on par with the hachibi's punch.  The same hachibi that could *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*

Straight up physical strength is arguable.  Naruto decided to use KCM instead of SM to try and pry Roshi's mouth open and KCM was strong enough to push a large bijuudama through multiple barriers, but at the same time SM Naruto has his rhino toss into the clouds and kurama toss onto the ground.


----------



## ATastyMuffin (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> His punching strength in* this scan* is hyped to be on par with the hachibi's punch.  The same hachibi that could *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*



Just because they were depicted punching the same opponent at the same time does not denote equality in their physical strength, at all. By that logic, is KCM Naruto's Rasenshuriken or Itachi's Yagatama on par with Hachibi's Bijudama on merit of striking the exact same target simultaneously (the core of Chibaku Tensei)?



> Straight up physical strength is arguable.  Naruto decided to use KCM instead of SM to try and pry Roshi's mouth open



That's because prior, Naruto was in base and flying before witnessing the Four-Tails' jaws looming over and about to bifurcate him. I ask you, what's smarter, trying to charge Sage Mode in mid-air (lol) or using an instantaneous activation of KCM to resist the jaws? He also couldn't exactly utilize said Sage Mode do so even while trapped by Roshi's jaws; the technique requires you remain absolutely still. 

How on earth can you remain still whilst attempting to withstand the tremendous biting force of a Bijuu?



> and KCM was strong enough to push a large bijuudama through multiple barriers, but at the same time SM Naruto has his rhino toss into the clouds and kurama toss onto the ground.


 
Not only lifting, but launching the rhino several *hundreds* of meters into the air by the_ tip_ of its horn is much more impressive than merely pushing the Bijudama.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

ATastyMuffin said:


> Just because they were depicted punching the same opponent at the same time does not denote equality in their physical strength, at all. By that logic, is KCM Naruto's Rasenshuriken or Itachi's Yagatama on par with Hachibi's Bijudama on merit of striking the exact same target simultaneously (the core of Chibaku Tensei)?


And KCM Naruto's rasenshuriken, itachi's YM and the hachibi's bijuudama would be on par if feats didn't falsify that.  Thus since feats do not falsify KCM Naruto's momentum punch being on par with the hachibi's punch, then the comparison isn't falsified.




ATastyMuffin said:


> That's because prior, Naruto was in base and flying before witnessing the Four-Tails' jaws looming over and about to bifurcate him. I ask you, what's smarter, trying to charge Sage Mode in mid-air (lol) or using an instantaneous activation of KCM to resist the jaws? He also couldn't exactly utilize said Sage Mode do so even while trapped by Roshi's jaws; the technique requires you remain absolutely still.
> 
> How on earth can you remain still whilst attempting to withstand the tremendous biting force of a Bijuu?


that's not what I was referring to when talking about him opting to use KCM over SM.  *This* is what I was referring to.  Naruto had ample time to enter SM, and was in an environment that he was *canonically shown to be able to go SM in.* Yet he decided to use KCM instead.




ATastyMuffin said:


> Not only lifting, but launching the rhino several *hundreds* of meters into the air by the_ tip_ of its horn is much more impressive than merely pushing the Bijudama.



He's not merely *pushing a huge bijuudama*, he's pushing it through multiple lairs of barriers and it is arguably more impressive due to the weight of smaller bijuudama being able to *crater the ground* by merely being held.


----------



## Source (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> I'd say striking strength should go to KCM Naruto if he gets speed momentum behind his hits.
> 
> His punching strength in* this scan* is hyped to be on par with the hachibi's punch.  The same hachibi that could *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*
> 
> Straight up physical strength is arguable.  Naruto decided to use KCM instead of SM to try and pry Roshi's mouth open and KCM was strong enough to push a large bijuudama through multiple barriers, but at the same time SM Naruto has his rhino toss into the clouds and kurama toss onto the ground.




Yes. I'd say KCM wins in striking strength due to speed. If he doesn't have momentum I'm not so sure.

Seems to me like SM Naruto's rhino throwing feat is greater than anything KCM has shown in the lifting department, though. I remember someone saying that because SM Naruto's FRS is faster than KCM's (apparently ~ Mach 20), SM Naruto does have greater physical strength. It is because the FRS doesn't have any form of self propulsion, and so it relies completely on the user's physical strength.

The BD pushing feat is notable, as it is very heavy. We don't know much about those layers though.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

TailedMalevolence said:


> Seems to me like SM Naruto's rhino throwing feat is greater than anything KCM has shown in the lifting department, though.


I'd say pushing a huge bijuudama through multiple layers of giant barriers can be comparable or arguably greater in addition to the fact Naruto tried to pry the jaws open using KCM instead of SM.



TailedMalevolence said:


> I remember someone saying that because SM Naruto's FRS is faster than KCM's (apparently ~ Mach 20),


yeah, they probably get that number from the attack crossing chibaku tensei crater in a second.  However unless they can give a number on KCM Naruto's FRS, that comparison doesn't work since for all the speed the calc gives the FRS, Deva still dodged it at point blank.  Deva would have to be faster than Sandaime raikage in order for SM FRS to be faster than the KCM version.



TailedMalevolence said:


> SM Naruto does have greater physical strength. It is because the FRS doesn't have any form of self propulsion, and so it relies completely on the user's physical strength.


Even if SM Naruto could throw it faster, being able to throw an object that isn't very heavy for the user faster does not equate to greater physical strength.  I'm sure a professional baseball pitcher can throw a baseball far faster than Olympic weight lifters.  That doesn't mean that the pitcher is physically stronger.


----------



## Source (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> I'd say pushing a huge bijuudama through multiple layers of giant barriers can be comparable or arguably greater in addition to the fact Naruto tried to pry the jaws open using KCM instead of SM.
> 
> 
> yeah, they probably get that number from the attack crossing chibaku tensei crater in a second.  However unless they can give a number on KCM Naruto's FRS, that comparison doesn't work since for all the speed the calc gives the FRS, Deva still dodged it at point blank.  Deva would have to be faster than Sandaime raikage in order for SM FRS to be faster than the KCM version.
> ...




Haha, yeah. I was actually arguing against the guy. 

I really don't know which feat is greater. Whichever is though the difference is probably not too great.


----------



## Jad (May 28, 2013)

I'm liking this convo, because Gai 3rd gate (or below) was able to destroy the Coral on Naruto's back, something he even couldn't do.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

Jad said:


> I'm liking this convo, because Gai 3rd gate (or below) was able to destroy the Coral on Naruto's back, something he even couldn't do.



that's most likely 5th gated Gai...

and of course Naruto couldn't destroy the coral on his back, how would he be able to momentum punch his own back while the coral prevents him from even standing?  All it shows is that gated Gai's attack called "rock destroyer of the leaf" is stronger than the crushing grip of a KCM chakra arm.


----------



## Jad (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> that's most likely 5th gated Gai...
> 
> and of course Naruto couldn't destroy the coral on his back, how would he be able to momentum punch his own back while the coral prevents him from even standing?



Give me a break, he had pupils, 4th Gate and above you lose your pupils. He couldn't pull the coral off his back because he needs momentum? Really....He is a chakara machine and couldn't do jack shit by his using chakara arm to (crush) or remove the coral on his back. Whether punching it or pushing more chakara.

Don't play me Ueharakk. It gets quite annoying with your underestimation.


----------



## blk (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk;47350326
His punching strength in [B said:
			
		

> this scan[/B] is hyped to be on par with the hachibi's punch.  The same hachibi that could *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*



Just because _you think_ that it was hyped to be on par, doesn't mean that it was so.
This is a non-sequitur.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

blk said:


> Just because _you think_ that it was hyped to be on par, doesn't mean that it was so.
> This is a non-sequitur.



You wouldn't agree that both bee and naruto punching GM at the same time, and only one attack FX being shown would not be hype for the two attacks being on par with each other?

And in case you didn't know, pretty much every post in the battledome is what the poster thinks or is their own opinion.  I didn't think I had to make the effort to type an IMO in front of every statement that I make in order to not get "you can't prove it" type of responses.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (May 28, 2013)

Feats-wise, sennin mōdō has the superior strength feats, whereas the Kyūbi chakra mode seems to have a higher focus on enhancing Rasengan and just general ninjutsu usage. This is most likely because against new foes, simple ninjutsu spam would be a lot more efficient and effective than just taijutsu, since most enemies of Naruto's level can probably just block or at least somehow defend against close quarters, whereas Rasengan is comparatively harder to block against (because it would blow apart what ever body part you were using to defend with). Moreover, given the nature of sennin mōdō and the kyūbi chakra mode, it's natural which abilities he would use more: sennin mōdō doesn't last for very long, and using ninjutsu spends a large amount of very limited sage energy, and so he's more inclined to try and save it and use close combat more often. The Kyūbi chakra Mode, however, is much less limited and lasts as long as Naruto doesn't push himself over the limit, and since the Kyūbi's chakra grants the ability to enhance ninjutsu as well as add range to techniques, it's obvious he'd be more inclined to throw jutsu at people rather than go martial arts.

Based on hype, however, the Kyūbi transformation has the upper hand in this. We've only seen glimpses of his strength in the actual controlled transformation - nearly one shotting Kisame, pushing a Bijū-dama, and actually having more trouble not destroying a rock than holding one before he mastered it. However, based on what we've seen from his previous transformations, it might be accurate to powerscale a little. The KN3 was strong enough so that a single roar was enough to destroy a bridge, and the KN4's physical strength was to the point where arm swings could make huge shock waves. Due to the fact that Naruto avoids using his full physical strength in this transformation, as well as the fact that he uses ninjutsu more often than taijutsu, it's probably impossible to gauge whether or not he could ever reach this level, and while I doubt his raw strength is at the same level as KN4, I think it should at least be stronger than sennin mōdō, given that all Naruto uses it for these days is to sense and for it's precognition.

So, in summary: sennin mōdō has the better physical strength feats while Kyūbi chakra mode is superior based on hype simply because of how much hype surrounds the Kyūbi's chakra in general.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

Jad said:


> Give me a break, he had pupils, 4th Gate and above you lose your pupils.


what's your argument to support this.



Jad said:


> He couldn't pull the coral off his back because he needs momentum?


Read my posts in this thread and what I attribute KCM Naruto's striking strength to.



Jad said:


> Really....He is a chakara machine and couldn't do jack shit by his using chakara arm to (crush) or remove the coral on his back. Whether punching it or pushing more chakara.


him being a chakra machine means nothing about what we are talking about.  You also quoted too quickly as I said that gai's feat would mean his gated elbow attack would be much stronger than the crushing grip of a chakra arm.



Jad said:


> Don't play me Ueharakk. It gets quite annoying with your underestimation.


arguments, we'll talk about underestimation after we flesh them out.


----------



## blk (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> You wouldn't agree that both bee and naruto punching GM at the same time, and only one attack FX being shown would not be hype for the two attacks being on par with each other?
> 
> And in case you didn't know, pretty much every post in the battledome is what the poster thinks or is their own opinion.  I didn't think I had to make the effort to type an IMO in front of every statement that I make in order to not get "you can't prove it" type of responses.



Of course not, the FX thing is not enough for conclude that the two punches had equal strength (or that the Hachibi and KCM Naruto are at the same level in strength, which is different).


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

blk said:


> Of course not, the FX thing is not enough for conclude that the two punches had equal strength (or that the Hachibi and KCM Naruto are at the same level in strength, which is is different).



1) you're guilty of the exact same thing you accused my previous post of, and it's the fact that it's YOUR opinion that the FX is not enough to conclude the two punches had equal strength.

2) an instance doesn't have to be conclusive in order to be considered hype


----------



## Jad (May 28, 2013)

*punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*

Does it look like his eyes are completely white (flip a page before, you will see pupils)? If you want a reference of Lee losing his pupils, 3rd Gate you lose them. *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*

So I was wrong, Gai isn't even in third gate. He was at least second gate or below. I say this because the constant aura of chakara is still there.

1. Naruto couldn't use his arm strength to break the coral that was wrapped around his biceps.
2. Couldn't, even with amount of chakara he has, pump enough to extend his chakara arm underneath the coral to break it off.
3. Couldn't crush the rock coral with his grip
4. And I am very certain that he would have used an extended chakara arom from the front of his body to extend backwards and break it off with a punch. Yet Kishi made Gai smash it. Just down right point was made that NARUTO couldn't break the Coral off his back in KCM.

You even see Naruto struggle with "Guh!!..." and the strain on his face. Meaning he was pushing as hard as he could.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

K lets see what notions your evidence supports.



Jad said:


> *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*
> 
> Does it look like his eyes are completely white (flip a page before, you will see pupils)? If you want a reference of Lee losing his pupils, 3rd Gate you lose them. *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*


okay, so gai has pupils while in that gated form and lee doesn't have pupils while in his 3rd gated form.



Jad said:


> So I was wrong, Gai isn't even in third gate. He was at least second gate or below. I say this because the constant aura of chakara is still there.


This is only true if you pressuppose Gai and lee both show the same physical signs while opening the same level of gates, and that's an argument you'd have to support via feats.  

I would argue against that as even in the 6th gate, Gai's skin doesn't turn red, his nose doesn't bleed, and his face isn't even veiny.  In addition to that, Lee doesn't even gain an aura that encompasses his body when he enters the 3rd gate.  Gai was able to use MP while in that same gated puppil-present gated form, I highly doubt that he'd be in a form lower than 5 if he can use both the attack that was suppose to be 6th gate-specific and has a total body-encompassing aura .




Jad said:


> 1. Naruto couldn't use his arm strength to break the coral that was wrapped around his biceps.


okay.



Jad said:


> 2. Couldn't (even with amount of chakara he has) pump enough to extend his chakara arm underneath the coral to break it off.


you mean push it off with a chakra arm? Sure.



Jad said:


> 3. Couldn't crush the rock coral with his grip


yep



Jad said:


> 4. And I am very certain that he would have used an extended chakara arom from the front of his body to extend backwards and break it off with a punch. Yet Kishi made Gai smash it. Just down right point was made that NARUTO couldn't break the Coral off his back in KCM.


In the position he was in and via all the options you've addressed, yes I'd agree, Gai's hit was stronger than the pushing strength, grip, and circled around punch of a KCM chakra arm in addition to KCM Naruto's biceps.


----------



## blk (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> 1) you're guilty of the exact same thing you accused my previous post of, and it's the fact that it's YOUR opinion that the FX is not enough to conclude the two punches had equal strength.
> 
> 2) an instance doesn't have to be conclusive in order to be considered hype



Nope, it is a fact that the FX is not nearly enough: there is no logical connection between general striking strength equality and one FX shown during a coordinated attack.
Hence why it is a non-sequitur.

You are the only one that has to prove that the FX is enough.


----------



## Jad (May 28, 2013)

Gai and Lee both have pupils in Gated form (1st and 2nd).

Lee loses his pupils at 3rd Gate. Which would be the same of all Gates, there is nothing to suggest losing your pupils is something that isn't universal. 

Lee probably only opened the Gates once. He wasn't to ever allowed to open them unless it was a life threatening situation. Quite honestly that was probably the second time in his life he opened them. Considering Neji never saw him open them ever. At the same time, Lee is a genin.

Veiny forehead, 6th Gate. *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*

Skin is dark here: Link removed

Just isn't always colored in constantly.

3rd Gate aura of chakara from Lee. You can see it coming off of him. Link removed


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

blk said:


> Nope, it is a fact that the FX is not nearly enough: there is no logical connection between general striking strength equality and one FX shown during a coordinated attack.
> Hence why it is a non-sequitur.


And what is both Naruto and bee striking their target at the same time with similar attacks and their attacks producing the same FX 'not being nearly enough' to be considered hype based on?  

Your own subjective criteria for what would be considered 'enough'!  So you are back to combating the exact same statement you used against my very own post from the beginning.



blk said:


> You are the only one that has to prove that the FX is enough.


Nope, I don't have to prove anything as no one or argument can withstand that kind of burden of proof when dealing with a subjective manga with little information and limited showings.  And even moreso, when dealing with hype which is way more subjective than feats in that said manga.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

Jad said:


> Gai and Lee both have pupils in Gated form (1st and 2nd).
> 
> Lee loses his pupils at 3rd Gate. Which would be the same of all Gates, there is nothing to suggest losing your pupils is something that isn't universal.


there is evidence to suggest that losing your pupils at the same level of gates isn't universal.



Jad said:


> Lee probably only opened the Gates once. He wasn't to ever allowed to open them unless it was a life threatening situation. Quite honestly that was probably the second time in his life he opened them. Considering Neji never saw him open them ever. At the same time, Lee is a genin.


then that would also explain why his eyes go white while in the lower gates: since he isn't use to the transformation.



Jad said:


> Veiny forehead, 6th Gate. Link removed
> 
> Skin is dark here: Link removed
> 
> Just isn't always colored in constantly.


No veins or color were ever present when Gai entered the 6th gate, even the 7th gate against Kisame.  If you say art inconsistency, then it could be argued both ways.



Jad said:


> 3rd Gate aura of chakara from Lee. You can see it coming off of him. Link removed


doesn't come close to covering his whole body like Gai's aura does, and even if it did, that would falsify the notion that eyes = gates since Gai has the aura with eyes while lee doesn't.

You also have to explain how Gai can use his 6th gate-specific MP while in that same form he busted the coral with.


----------



## blk (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> And what is both Naruto and bee striking their target at the same time with similar attacks and their attacks producing the same FX 'not being nearly enough' to be considered hype based on?
> 
> Your own subjective criteria for what would be considered 'enough'!  So you are back to combating the exact same statement you used against my very own post from the beginning.



Dude, your argument is based upon a logical fallacy, that's all.

Or, are you telling me that you accept logical fallacies as valid arguments?



> Nope, I don't have to prove anything as no one or argument can withstand that kind of burden of proof when dealing with a subjective manga with little information and limited showings.  And even moreso, when dealing with hype which is way more subjective than feats in that said manga.



How so? If you make an assertion, you have to provide evidences for it.
Otherwise, you have to accept that no one is compelled to believe it and that your argument is non-existent.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

blk said:


> Dude, your argument is based upon a logical fallacy, that's all.
> 
> Or, are you telling me that you accept logical fallacies as valid arguments?


It's only a logical fallacy based on your own subjective interpretation of what denotes 'hype' or is convincing enough to allow for an instance to be considered hype.



blk said:


> *How so? If you make an assertion, you have to provide evidences for it.*
> Otherwise, you have to accept that no one is compelled to believe it and that your argument is non-existent.


reread what you typed.  In no way are you just asking me to provide evidence for my assertion and in no way am I saying that I don't have a burden of proof to provide an argument for my assertion.  You are telling me that I have to PROVE my stance or to PROVE that the FX is enough, which no one can do for any argument, especially since hype is very subjective and you are the one who is setting the criteria for what would be acceptable as 'proof' and what would not.


----------



## Raiken (May 28, 2013)

I would say:

Lifting: Sage Mode

Grappling: Sage Mode

Striking: Chakra Mode


----------



## blk (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> It's only a logical fallacy based on your own subjective interpretation of what denotes 'hype' or is convincing enough to allow for an instance to be considered hype.



How can you equate such a vague thing as clear hype? How can you accept hype itself as evidence for your argument?

Again, there is no logical connection between that FX and hype (even less clear cut strength equality).

If you are willingly to utilize similar standards... you won't be ever able to render any argument more probable than another without going against your own standard and thus making other fallacies (such as special pleading).



> reread what you typed.  In no way are you just asking me to provide evidence for my assertion and in no way am I saying that I don't have a burden of proof to provide an argument for my assertion.  You are telling me that I have to PROVE my stance or to PROVE that the FX is enough, which no one can do for any argument, especially since hype is very subjective and you are the one who is setting the criteria for what would be acceptable as 'proof' and what would not.



I used the word "prove" because i didn't know any other word that could have been adequate in that phrase.
Either way, you now know in which sense i was using that word.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

blk said:


> How can you equate such a vague thing as clear hype? How can you accept hype itself as evidence for your argument?


er... because arguments are based on feats and hype and if no feats contradict the hype, then there's no reason to reject said hype...



blk said:


> Again, there is no logical connection between that FX and hype (even less clear cut strength equality).


based on your own subjective interpretation of what a single FX for two attacks would denote from a literary point of view.  



blk said:


> If you are willingly to utilize similar standards... you won't be ever able to render any argument more probable than another without going against your own standard and thus making other fallacies (such as special pleading).


of course I can't render any hype-based argument more probable than another since hype is extremely subjective.  All I can do is lay my hype based argument on the table along with the alternatives and see if the viewer thinks mine is the most plausible or best explains the manga.  



blk said:


> I used the word "prove" because i didn't know any other word that could have been adequate in that phrase.
> Either way, you now know in which sense i was using that word.


'provide evidence', 'produce an argument', 'argue', 'reason' are all better words for what you think you are trying to ask me.

And even in the sense you are using the word is still not a fair burden of proof as by 'prove' _you_ mean 'convince' _you_ or generate an argument that is convincing enough to _you_ by _your_ own standards and subjective opinions/beliefs that you already hold when coming in to look at my argument.  

If I wanted to convince a person who suffers from arachnophobia that spiders are evil, do you think I would have to present an argument as strong as the one I'd have to present Steve Erwin or Bear Grillis that spiders are evil?  Of course not, it might not even be possible to present a 'convincing' argument to those two guys.  Thus does the truth of my argument depend on whether it's convincing to _you_ or not? No, and thus I don't have a burden of proof to convince you.

I don't know how many times I've argued over and over again that that's a completely unfair burden of proof to assert on an argument as it allows _you_ to set the standard for what counts as 'proof' and what does not, and thus _you_ can simply play the super skeptic card and generate any counterargument you want no matter how ridiculous, farfetched or nonsensical to the notion in order to render any argument 'illogical' or 'not proof'.  

Thus all my argument would have to do is try and show that it is the most plausible argument or explanation, and we do that by fleshing out the arguments into underlying assumptions and seeing which caters to the least amount of assumptions, and even then determining which assumptions are the 'least' are also subjective.


----------



## Alex Payne (May 28, 2013)

Imo - SM grants a more "fair/true" strength to the body. Every muscle in user's get boosted. Both strength and speed of shinobi lies in body+chakra usage. 

We have physical powerhouses(Kisame, Gai), we have Sakura who uses special chakra application, we have Tsunade who is both a physical powerhouse and a special-chakra-tech-user, we have expert shunshin users(Itachi, Minato, Kakashi, Sasuke), we have Gated Gai and Lee whose pure physical speed is unrivaled when in higher Gates, we have Raikages who are hybrids with both physical speed and advanced shunshins. SM Jiraiya and SM Naruto are in physically fast camp. A very debatable system with a fair  share of assumptions but I like it. 

SM boosts body and chakra. KCM boosts chakra like 10x times of SM and grants chakra arms which are likely to be high if not top tier in physical strength(they also are larger = better grip). 

So, imo, SM Naruto is overall stronger but KCM Naruto has applications of strength where he is decisively better. His best strike with all Chakra Arms is superior to SM punch. And his grips are superior due to larger size(KCM can crush the whole body into a pulp similarly to what Sasuke with Susano did to Danzo). SM on other hand would have allowed Naruto to smash Kisame through the wall(it wasn't very thick), free his foot easily and free himself from that Coral jutsu imo.


----------



## blk (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> er... because arguments are based on feats and hype and if no feats contradict the hype, then there's no reason to reject said hype...



Not if the hype is not a sufficient evidence (which is the case).



> based on your own subjective interpretation of what a single FX for two attacks would denote from a literary point of view.



There are tons of possible and different reasons for why Kishimoto wrote that FX and tons of possible meanings, and everyone are almost equally possible.

So, not only the premise of your argument is not supported by evidence in any way, but even if it was, _still_, there wouldn't be a clear logical connection between it and the conclusion.




> of course I can't render any hype-based argument more probable than another since hype is extremely subjective.  All I can do is lay my hype based argument on the table along with the alternatives and see if the viewer thinks mine is the most plausible or best explains the manga.



_Or_, you can drop your argument (and belief) by virtue of lack of evidences and logical validity.

What the viewers think about an argument is totally irrelevant; soundness and validity are what matters.



> 'provide evidence', 'produce an argument', 'argue', 'reason' are all better words for what you think you are trying to ask me.
> 
> And even in the sense you are using the word is still not a fair burden of proof as by 'prove' _you_ mean 'convince' _you_ or generate an argument that is convincing enough to _you_ by _your_ own standards and subjective opinions/beliefs that you already hold when coming in to look at my argument.
> 
> ...



Whoever said that you have to convince me particularly? You only have to make a sound argument, something that you didn't so far.
My standard is simply logic, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Bonly (May 28, 2013)

I'd always found SM to be physically stronger then KCM. Lifting that Rhino and tossing Kurama always seemed more impressive then anything KCM did physically wise.


----------



## Bkprince33 (May 28, 2013)

DaVizWiz said:


> There are three types of strength.
> 
> *Lifting*
> *Striking*
> ...



Amazo would solo superman and the rest of the dc verse


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

blk said:


> Not if the hype is not a sufficient evidence (which is the case).


once again, who is setting the standard for what is 'sufficient evidence'?  You are.  It's only by your own standard that you chose to reject or accept what you deem 'sufficient' or not, and by that logic, you'd be able to accept or reject whatever you please.




blk said:


> There are tons of possible and different reasons for why Kishimoto wrote that FX and tons of possible meanings, and everyone are almost equally possible.


based on your own subjective view.



blk said:


> So, not only the premise of your argument is not supported by evidence in any way, but even if it was, _still_, there wouldn't be a clear logical connection between it and the conclusion.


based on your own subjective view.





blk said:


> _Or_, you can drop your argument (and belief) by virtue of lack of evidences and logical validity.


except the claim that my belief lacks evidence or logical validity is only based on your subjective view and criteria of what counts as enough evidence or what you'd view as 'logically valid' hype.



blk said:


> What the viewers think about an argument is totally irrelevant; soundness and validity are what matters.


once again, you claim 'soundness and validity' yet almost any argument that you or I could pose about this subjective manga with limited feats and information can be rejected by this if the opposition wants to get skeptical enough since neither of us can really prove anything.  And that is exactly what you do time and time again whenever you don't like an argument from the opposition, you just play the super skeptic card, pose a counterargument to my own, and call it logically invalid or say that it isn't sufficient evidence just because it isn't necessarily true or because it isn't a proof while not subjecting your own arguments to that same level of scrutiny.

And what the viewer's think about the argument is relevant because all you or I can do is break down our arguments into their fundamental assumptions, and no matter how logically hashed out our arguments get there is a point where both ends will differ in opinion based purely on our different weights of those assumption.



blk said:


> Whoever said that you have to convince me particularly? You only have to make a sound argument, something that you didn't so far.


blk, are you freekin kidding me?  Who the hell is the one judging my arguments and telling me that my argument isn't a sound one?  YOU ARE.  Who's the one that's saying my  arguments aren't 'sufficient' enough for me to accept a particular conclusion?  YOU ARE.  That means that the soundness and strength of my arguments are being judged by YOUR STANDARDS and by what YOU THINK is enough to be accepted as 'sufficient evidence' or a sound argument. 



blk said:


> My standard is simply logic, nothing more nothing less.


Your standards aren't logic my friend.  Your standards are simply using logical methods to boot out arguments or evidences that you don't feel are favorable to you or don't convince you based on your own subjective take on the manga.  And these exact same logical methods, applied to your own arguments would make them guilty of the exact same things you are accusing my own of.


----------



## ATastyMuffin (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> And KCM Naruto's rasenshuriken, itachi's YM and the hachibi's bijuudama would be on par if feats didn't falsify that.  Thus since feats do not falsify KCM Naruto's momentum punch being on par with the hachibi's punch, then the comparison isn't falsified.



Except *you're* the one claiming KCM Naruto's 'momentum' punch is equal to Hachibi in that instance; I'm saying that there's a lack of evidence to prove so and that your logic is skewed, using the Naruto-Hachibi-Itachi example. 

Again, the difference between KCM Naruto and Hachibi's punches could be anything. They're not necessarily equal just because they strike the same target simultaneously, that's a false dichotomy on* YOUR* end.



> that's not what I was referring to when talking about him opting to use KCM over SM.  *This* is what I was referring to.  Naruto had ample time to enter SM, and was in an environment that he was *canonically shown to be able to go SM in.* Yet he decided to use KCM instead.



Ample time? He knew that being trapped with Four-Tails meant Tobi had the opportunity of capturing him; getting out as fast as possible (thereby, negating the possibility of SM), was the priority. 

At the same time, Naruto also opted to use Sage Mode to barge through the guards (a choice regarding strength) instead of an instantaneous Nine-Tails Chakra Mode.

Touche. 



> He's not merely *pushing a huge bijuudama*, he's pushing it through multiple lairs of barriers and it is arguably more impressive due to the weight of smaller bijuudama being able to *crater the ground* by merely being held.



Probably. Too bad we can't get a direct, quantified comparison between a Bijudama and a 100-m Rhino in terms of weight


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

ATastyMuffin said:


> Except *you're* the one claiming KCM Naruto's 'momentum' punch is equal to Hachibi in that instance; I'm saying that there's a lack of evidence to prove so and that your logic is skewed, using the Naruto-Hachibi-Itachi example.



My argument does not attempt to PROVE that KCM Naruto's shunshin punch is on par with the Hachibi's because its almost impossible to prove anything based on a subjective manga with limited feats and information.  

And the Naruto-Hachibi-Itachi example does not apply to the naruto and hachibi punch since that is falsified by feats.  If it was a standalone feat, then the three attacks would be hyped to be on par or at least in the general level of each other.  Does the Naruto-Hachibi-Itachi example mean that the attacks used in ANY attack combo are in fact NOT comparable to each other?  No, it just means that they might not be equal to each other.



ATastyMuffin said:


> Again, the difference between KCM Naruto and Hachibi's punches could be anything. They're not necessarily equal just because they strike the same target simultaneously, that's a false dichotomy on* YOUR* end.


use this same method of logical scrutiny for any argument and the result is the same: 'you can't prove your argument to be true, therefore it isn't.'

By this logic, you can't even say that KCM Naruto is faster than Konohomaru.  I'm not trying to prove anything or show that my conclusions are necessarily true because that's a kind of burden of proof that no one and almost no argument can sustain when talking about Naruto manga.  I'm trying to support my conclusions with my reasoning and show that they are the best explanation or the most plausible conclusions.




ATastyMuffin said:


> Ample time? He knew that being trapped with Four-Tails meant Tobi had the opportunity of capturing him; getting out as fast as possible (thereby, negating the possibility of SM), was the priority.



He can and has entered SM nigh instantly, yet had the time to talk to the 4 tails while unconscious, attempt to open its mouth with KCM and use tajuu kagebunshin.  



ATastyMuffin said:


> At the same time, Naruto also opted to use Sage Mode to barge through the guards (a choice regarding strength) instead of an instantaneous Nine-Tails Chakra Mode.
> 
> Touche.





ATastyMuffin said:


>


or he could have entered SM in order to try and sense just what was going on outside since it offers better sensing that KCM in that regard...  In addition to that, Iruka also told Naruto that he couldn't go outside since there was a beast that had the Kyuubi's chakra and warned Naruto he needed to stay inside since it would react to his Kyuubi chakra, thus Naruto entered SM in case Iruka was actually telling the truth.




ATastyMuffin said:


> Probably. Too bad we can't get a direct, quantified comparison between a Bijudama and a 100-m Rhino in terms of weight


I agree which is why I think it's plausible to favor either feat over the other, and in my opinion neither of them compel me.


----------



## ATastyMuffin (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> My argument does not attempt to PROVE that KCM Naruto's shunshin punch is on par with the Hachibi's because its almost impossible to prove anything based on a subjective manga with limited feats and information.



Then why the hell are you claiming it?

Don't make claims such as 'KCM Naruto's punch is = Hachibi's' if you can't be damned to provide evidence to do so.   



> use this same method of logical scrutiny for any argument and the result is the same: 'you can't prove your argument to be true, therefore it isn't.'
> 
> By this logic, you can't even say that KCM Naruto is faster than Konohomaru.  I'm not trying to prove anything or show that my conclusions are necessarily true because that's a kind of burden of proof that no one and almost no argument can sustain when talking about Naruto manga.  I'm trying to support my conclusions with my reasoning and show that they are the best explanation or the most plausible conclusions.



Except your reasoning doesn't work. Your claim doesn't hold any water at all because as I've repeated ad infintum: KCM Naruto punching Gedo Mazo simultaneously with Hachibi does NOT prove what you're trying to argue because their difference in power could be anything. It's just as likely that KCM Naruto is weak as fuck compared to Hachibi and merely struck the statue at the same time.

You haven't given me any sort of reasoning whatsoever to substantiate your claim, all you did was give your premise. No logical deduction whatsoever. Until you do so, your claim remains completely baseless.



> He can and has entered SM nigh instantly,



Yeah, good luck proving that. 

At any rate, KCM > SM in activation speed, so it's clear which Naruto would take as priority form.



> yet had the time to talk to the 4 tails while unconscious, attempt to open its mouth with KCM and use tajuu kagebunshin


.  

Talk to the Four-Tails maybe because he needed to know how to help it? How on earth was he supposed to do anything about his being unconscious? 

After waking up, he needed the quickest solution to open Four-Tails' mouth and KCM was the answer. Not Sage Mode, which undoubtedly requires more time.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (May 28, 2013)

Hype : KCM. 
Feats : SM

One notable strength feat of Naruto in KCM is when he held Goku's jaw open. Although I'd say it is topped by rhino tossing. Hypewise, KCM is shown to be a on a different level. Also Naruto was amazed by his ability of unintentionally crushing rocks during the shroud control excerise.

edit : 



ueharakk said:


> I'd say striking strength should go to KCM Naruto if he gets speed momentum behind his hits.
> 
> His punching strength in* this scan* is hyped to be on par with the hachibi's punch.  The same hachibi that could *punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*






thats like saying Yata no Kagami, FRS and Hachibee's bijuudama are equally powerful, if you interpret this scan the way you interpreted the one above.

*punch full bijuus hundreds of meters.*


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

ATastyMuffin said:


> Then why the hell are you claiming it?
> 
> Don't make claims such as 'KCM Naruto's punch is = Hachibi's' if you can't be damned to provide evidence to do so.


When did I ever say that I'm making a claim backed by no evidence?  I just said that my argument doesn't seek to PROVE that it's true, it doesn't in any way mean that my claims aren't backed by evidence.




ATastyMuffin said:


> Except your reasoning doesn't work. Your claim doesn't hold any water at all because as I've repeated ad infintum: KCM Naruto punching Gedo Mazo simultaneously with Hachibi does NOT prove what you're trying to argue because their difference in power could be anything. It's just as likely that KCM Naruto is weak as fuck compared to Hachibi and merely struck the statue at the same time.



Once again, almost nothing in the manga can be PROVEN.  Asserting a burden of proof on my argument to PROVE it's true is something that your own arguments can't bear.



ATastyMuffin said:


> You haven't given me any sort of reasoning whatsoever to substantiate your claim, all you did was give your premise. No logical deduction whatsoever. Until you do so, your claim remains completely baseless.


I have given you the reasoning: which is that if two similar attacks are used on the same target at the same time or for a combination attack, then they are most likely on a similar level.  Naruto and Bee's hits are also denoted by a single hit FX which suggests that they are of equal or similar power rather than separate powers.

Especially when the manga is portraying the attacks as a coordinated one, rather than just random attacks they get off during the heat of battle.  Gai does his pinky toe kick to trip the statue, Kakashi does his raiton chain to bring it down, and Naruto and Bee, the two jinchuriki do a punch to knock it over.




ATastyMuffin said:


> Yeah, good luck proving that.


enters SM nigh instantly
enters SM nigh instantly
enters SM nigh instantly
enters SM nigh instantly



ATastyMuffin said:


> At any rate, KCM > SM in activation speed, so it's clear which Naruto would take as priority form.


that does not logically follow.  If Naruto is significantly stronger in SM, and can enter it nigh instantly, then there's no reason that he wouldn't try to use that form in order to open roshi's jaws especially since he already knows how strong roshi's jaws are from trying to hold them up earlier with KCM.

.  


ATastyMuffin said:


> Talk to the Four-Tails maybe because he needed to know how to help it? How on earth was he supposed to do anything about his being unconscious?



um.... the same way he entered SM while fighting Kurama in his mind.....



ATastyMuffin said:


> After waking up, he needed the quickest solution to open Four-Tails' mouth and KCM was the answer. Not Sage Mode, which undoubtedly requires more time.


after waking up he had more than enough time to enter SM and considering he already knew how hard it was to pry roshi's jaws open with KCM, there's no reason why he'd assume KCM again if SM was significantly more powerful.



Grimmjowsensei said:


> thats like saying Yata no Kagami, FRS and Hachibee's bijuudama are equally powerful, if you interpret this scan the way you interpreted the one above.
> 
> the same way he entered SM while fighting Kurama in his mind.....


And if we didn't have feats for those three attacks then yes, by hype all three of them would be equally as powerful or like what I am arguing in this thread: on the same level.  However since we have feats of how powerful those attacks are, they take priority over that hype and thus falsify it.  I remember before YM got feats, every itachi supporter had placed that technique on the same level or somewhere in between a KCM FRS or a bijuudama.

By your logic, if one instance is proven to be untrue, then ALL similar instances are untrue.  That means if one statement made by a person in the manga is falsified, then EVERY statement made in the manga by any person would be false or would hold no water.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> And if we didn't have feats for those three attacks then yes, by hype all three of them would be equally as powerful or like what I am arguing in this thread: on the same level.  However since we have feats of how powerful those attacks are, they take priority over that hype and thus falsify it.  I remember before YM got feats, every itachi supporter had placed that technique on the same level or somewhere in between a KCM FRS or a bijuudama.
> 
> By your logic, if one instance is proven to be untrue, then ALL similar instances are untrue.  That means if one statement made by a person in the manga is falsified, then EVERY statement made in the manga by any person would be false or would hold no water.



No, my logic is that your arugment has no logic 
There is absolutely no reason to assume that Naruto's punch is as strong as Hachibee's punch. And just because they were posted in the same panel doesn't mean they are depicted as equals. 

We have instances of Itachi blocking Naruto's punches. Does that mean Itachi can block Hachibee's punch too ?

We have an instance of Naruto headbutting Tobi with full force and not being able to put a dent on his mask which got later on destroyed by a rasengan.

Sorry, but the fantasy  that KCM Naruto being as powerful as a fullgrown Bijuu is unfounded.


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (May 28, 2013)

"Feats only" as a stance prospers in some ways. However a "one size fit all" stance, it is not. SM Naruto's physical strength vs KCM Naruto's physical strength is a prime example of where "feats only" fails. 

SM Naruto has had more time to show its physical power, however the whole vibe around KCM suggests its strength feats are superior. Remember, this is the equivalent to KN9, a shrouded Naruto with all nine tails out. 

Also ask yourself, do you really think Naruto would consider KCM stronger than SM if it was so much weaker than SM in a key aspect such as physical strength?

By this point of the manga, if SM really had the advantage in strength it would've been noted. I mean it was noted it had one advantage over KCM - being able to sense danger more easily. However strength is one thing that has yet to be mentioned so far. 

It is just that KCM can rely on versatility more due to the benefits it brings. That, however, isn't evidence that it is inferior to SM in physical strength. 

Ask yourself: would the author make SM stronger than KCM, physically, without at least commenting on it?


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> No, my logic is that your arugment has no logic


That's an assertion, you'd have to back that assertion up with an argument else it's circular or baseless.



Grimmjowsensei said:


> *There is absolutely no reason to assume that Naruto's punch is as strong as Hachibee's punch.* And just because they were posted in the same panel doesn't mean they are depicted as equals.


The bolded is once again, an assertion that you'd have to back up by an argument.

And I have given a reason, and it's in no way "just because they were posted in the same panel", that's a dishonest representation of my argument and shows how weak your own is if you have to stoop to attacking what's not there.





Grimmjowsensei said:


> We have instances of Itachi blocking Naruto's punches. Does that mean Itachi can block Hachibee's punch too ?


this statement just shows that you haven't even glimpsed at my argument.



Grimmjowsensei said:


> We have an instance of Naruto headbutting Tobi with full force and not being able to put a dent on his mask which got later on destroyed by a rasengan.


again, reread my argument.



Grimmjowsensei said:


> Sorry, but the fantasy  that KCM Naruto being as powerful as a fullgrown Bijuu is unfounded.


based on what?  And once again, that's not even what my argument tries to say.


----------



## Rocky (May 28, 2013)

Yeah Grimm brings up a good point. Bijuu Bee would tear Base Itachi in half if the two fought, hell even V2 would be enough to implode Itachi's torso with lariat.

If Naruto was that powerful, he would have backhanded the Raikage, dribbled Itachi, etc etc. Naruto appeared physically weaker then the Riakage, whom was even weaker than Bee in _Base_. Event through the FX of Naruto & The Hachibi's strikes appeared the same, it doesn't necessarily equate strength. Just like the Kage attacking in tandem with Ei, or Kakashi with Gated Gai doesn't necessarily equate speed.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

Rocky said:


> Yeah Grimm brings up a good point. Bijuu Bee would tear Base Itachi in half if the two fought, hell even V2 would be enough to implode Itachi's torso with lariat.
> 
> If Naruto was that powerful, he would have backhanded the Raikage, dribbled Itachi, etc etc. Naruto appeared physically weaker then the Riakage, whom was even weaker than Bee in _Base_.



I'm not arguing that KCM Naruto is Bijuu Bee's equal in physical strength.

I'm only arguing that with his momentum attributed to his extreme speed in KCM, his punch was on par with Bee's punch in that scan which would apply to his striking power.



Rocky said:


> Event through the FX of Naruto & The Hachibi's strikes appeared the same, it doesn't necessarily equate strength. Just like the Kage attacking in tandem with Ei, or Kakashi with Gated Gai doesn't necessarily equate speed.


of course it doesn't necessarily equate to equal strength just like KCM Naruto being faster than Ei doesn't necessarily mean he's faster than current Konohomaru.  Once again, it's asserting a burden of proof for the positive argument to have to PROVE itself true which is not something pretty much any argument about naruto manga can do.  

The kages attacking in tandem with Ei isn't equivalent because to bee and naruto as both bee and naruto are punching GM at the exact same time, and have parallels such as both being jinchurikis while the kages are using various attacks that are not related to each other.  Kakashi and gated Gai attacking at the same time also isn't equivalent since the logic applies to the power of attacks which is where the parrallels are drawn, not speed of the attackers.


----------



## Rocky (May 28, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> I'm only arguing that with his momentum attributed to his extreme speed in KCM, his punch was on par with Bee's punch in that scan which would apply to his striking power.




Momentum is not something Kishi really accounts for, as if it was included nothing would even come close to the strikes of Ei. Naruto flicker punched anorexic Kisame right in the back, and minor damage was done to both the surroundings and Kisame himself. Bee on the other hand swats Bijuu 100's of meters away. Seriously, V2 Bee who should logically be weaker than Bijuu Mode Bee hits harder than KCM Naruto consistently has shown to.




> Of course it doesn't necessarily equate to equal strength just like KCM Naruto being faster than Ei doesn't necessarily mean he's faster than current Konohomaru.




This is like the worst analogy I've ever seen.


----------



## Jad (May 28, 2013)

Ueharakk is just making Gai look good 

Gai physically stronger than KCM Naruto

Gai attacks faster than KCM Naruto

Gai attack must be on par with Bijuu Hachibi punch

Gai Morning Peacock eats everyone for dinner 

Keep it up man


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

Rocky said:


> Momentum is not something Kishi really accounts for, as if it was included nothing would even come close to the strikes of Ei.


er... all of Ei's best physical strikes are because of his momentum, Ei even states that he has to up his speed in order to get enough power to crush madara's guard indicating that his speed of his shunshin is what would give him the power to break Madara's guard.  KCM Naruto's best strikes are because of his momentum.  BM Naruto's best physical strikes are from momentum.  Han's are as well.  




Rocky said:


> Naruto flicker punched anorexic Kisame right in the back, and minor damage was done to both the surroundings and Kisame himself.


- Kisame was only anorexic after Samehada unmerged from him
- barfing up blood is in no way minor damage
- Naruto did all of that to a Kisame being protected by Samehada, the same samehada that can get stabbed by Base Bee's sword and take no damage
- the surroundings that Naruto damaged was accidental, and happened to be a chamber that was built to house and confine rampaging bijuu, ironically that bijuu was most likely the eight tails.




Rocky said:


> Bee on the other hand swats Bijuu 100's of meters away. Seriously, V2 Bee who should logically be weaker than Bijuu Mode Bee hits harder than KCM Naruto consistently has shown to.


V2 Bee logically is weaker than bijuu mode bee, and he does hit harder than KCM Naruto's shunshin aided hits, however that's when he uses lariat that I don't doubt is stronger than a normal punch from Bijuu mode Bee.  A correct comparison to V2 bee and full hachibi is if both used a normal punch, and thus we'd see the hachibi inflict more damage than a normal punch by V2 bee.






Rocky said:


> This is like the worst analogy I've ever seen.


That's the logic you are using when you say my argument doesn't 'necessarily' mean X, therefore it isn't valid.



Jad said:


> Ueharakk is just making Gai look good
> 
> *Gai physically stronger than KCM Naruto*
> 
> ...



The bolded shows that you have zero reading comprehension as my arguments have never stated or implied that Gai is physically stronger than KCM Naruto or his attacks are faster than KCM Naruto.

If my argument is true, Gai's attacks aren't on par with a bijuu hachibi punch unless they are on par with a momentum aided punch KCM speed.

I'll ask you to do the same thing as Grimmjow: do not attack strawmen or misrepresent arguments in order to draw false conclusions as it just shows how weak your own arguments are since you have to stoop to doing that.


----------



## Jad (May 28, 2013)

Gai > KCM Naruto because Naruto couldn't force Itachi back in mid-air, when logically his strength should have - according to you.

Gai pretty much landed a shoulder blow with no illustration of increased momentum, and completely shattered Naruto's coral. When Naruto's arms strength, his shrouded arms, nor anything else, could do jack shit to it. Also Gai tripped Gedo Mazou, better than any strength feat KCM Naruto has ever shown. And that's a FACT FEAT, not hype.

Gai attacking speed is faster than Hachibi punches because Gai's can ignite the air on fire and punch 400 to 1000 times at super-sonic speed. Naruto wasn't using Shunshin because;

1. You can see a clear line that indicated he just merely jumped not 'yellow-flashed' it, which is almost comparable to S/T.

2. Timed his punch with Hachibi's strike, and Hachibi can't keep up with Shunshin speed Naruto. And if he attacks before Bee, than the line underneath Naruto wouldn't have been drawn.


----------



## ueharakk (May 28, 2013)

Jad said:


> Gai > KCM Naruto because Naruto couldn't force Itachi back in mid-air, when logically his strength should have.


because KCM Naruto was just trying to talk to edo itachi.  



Jad said:


> Pretty much landed a shoulder blow and completely shattered Naruto's coral, when Naruto's arms strength, his shrouded arms, nor anything else, could do jack shit to it.


And that means zilch since none of what you've listed is what KCM Naruto's striking power comes from.  If you want to compare them, then you'd have to put KCM Naruto in gai's position or Gai in KCM Naruto's position and the results would have to be different.



Jad said:


> Gai attacking speed is faster than Hachibi punches because Gai's can ignite the air on fire and punch 400 to 1000 times at super-sonic speed. Naruto wasn't using Shunshin because;


I'd agree he is faster than the hachibi's punch, but....



Jad said:


> 1. You can see a clear line that indicated he just merely jumped not 'yellow-flashed' it, which is almost comparable to S/T.


and his raw movement speed is immense as well if that's what he actually used.



Jad said:


> 2. Timed his punch with Hachibi's strike, and Hachibi can't keep up with Shunshin speed Naruto. And if he attacks before Bee, than the line underneath Naruto wouldn't have been drawn.


Why does him timing his punch with the hachibi's strike mean he didn't use shunshin?  If the hachibi strikes slower than Naruto, naruto would execute his movement after Bee executes his punch so that both would make contact with GM at the same instant.


----------



## Jad (May 28, 2013)

Yeah,  because Naruto initating the kick (look at the motion of his leg) and throwing a punch while all Itachi was doing was blocking 2 to 1, is Naruto not trying. Stop emphasizing your own context and just read the manga as is.

this

Oh, and we HAVE to believe that because Ueharakk mentioned that the walls were designed to be tough because of the Bijuu's we take it as fact value. Great logic. You have no proof those walls are any better than the ones than at Konoha. Stop adding value to things so you can make your argument look better. If Kishi didn't emphasis the walls as being tougher, than there is no reason to ASSUME it.


Naruto feeling the heavy hit from Obito.
this

Gai casually blocks that shit, and from the impact forces Obito back.
this


----------



## Chad (May 29, 2013)

Senjutsu enchances everything... it's like the free version of Hashirama cells. KCM Naruto only increases speed and can use chakra arms.


----------



## ueharakk (May 29, 2013)

Jad said:


> Yeah,  because Naruto initating the kick (look at the motion of his leg) and throwing a punch while all Itachi was doing was blocking 2 to 1, is Naruto not trying. Stop emphasizing your own context and just read the manga as is.
> 
> this


That's part of sparring, initiating attacks so that your opponent has to block or cant retaliate, and if you want to take the manga as it is, then Naruto and itachi were just talking throughout the entire scuffle.  



Jad said:


> Oh, and we HAVE to believe that because Ueharakk mentioned that the walls were designed to be tough because of the Bijuu's we take it as fact value. Great logic. You have no proof those walls are any better than the ones than at Konoha. Stop adding value to things so you can make your argument look better. If Kishi didn't emphasis the walls as being tougher, than there is no reason to ASSUME it.


Amazing, just amazing.  You've just stooped to the exact same "you have to prove your argument to be true, else it's false or holds no value" argument that every other person who's tried to debate me in this thread has been trying to pull.  

The same burden of proof that would allow anyone to throw out any argument in the manga by requiring any positive argument to 100% prove that its true or to show that their evidence or arguments 'necessarily' point to their conclusions.  

If I pose a positive argument, you don't have to believe it, at the end of the day you have the right to believe whatever argument you want to.  However, if you want to argue that my argument isn't true, then you have to pose a positive argument for your own argument: that the walls are as strong aren't any more durable than a normal wall.  You can't just say "your argument doesn't prove that it is" because by that logic any argument can be rejected as with the konohomaru vs KCM Naruto's speed, almost nothing can be 'proven' or hold the burden of proof you are trying to attribute to my own arguments.



Jad said:


> Naruto feeling the heavy hit from Obito.
> this
> 
> Gai casually blocks that shit, and from the impact forces Obito back.
> this



In that instance Obito was already moving away from Gai when he phased away from him.  The wincing in pain was most likely due to it being a legendary items own attack power rather than Obito's own strength.

6th gated Gai gets slapped way back and grunts in pain from getting slapped by mere tails of V2 jinks.

Naruto blocks V2 named moves with his arm and face, yet holds his ground.


----------



## Jad (May 29, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> That's part of sparring, initiating attacks so that your opponent has to block or cant retaliate, and if you want to take the manga as it is, then Naruto and itachi were just talking and naruto throughout the entire scuffle.



And his strength didn't force him back. Glad we are on the same page.


Amazing, just amazing.  You've just stooped to the exact same "you have to prove your argument to be true, else it's false or holds no value" argument that every other person who's tried to debate me in this thread has been trying to pull.  



> The same burden of proof that would allow anyone to throw out any argument in the manga by requiring any positive argument to 100% prove that its true or to show that their evidence or arguments 'necessarily' point to their conclusions.
> 
> If I pose a positive argument, you don't have to believe it, at the end of the day you have the right to believe whatever argument you want to.  However, if you want to argue that my argument isn't true, then you have to pose a positive argument for your own argument: that the walls are as strong aren't any more durable than a normal wall.  You can't just say "your argument doesn't prove that it is" because by that logic any argument can be rejected as with the konohomaru vs KCM Naruto's speed, almost nothing can be 'proven' or hold the burden of proof you are trying to attribute to my own arguments.



The burden of proof is NEVER on me, because your the one throwing your own context around. Burden of proof is to SHOW ME that those walls are extra durable. Stop adding your flavor, say it's on the other person to prove you wrong, so you can get away with your argument as being right. You believe your right, but I'm so glad the majority of people in this thread see through the way you structure your arguments. 

I mean, you might as well flying dragons exist in Naruto, that would be your argument. Than you turn around and say "Prove me wrong". That's what your doing. Your adding new information into your arguments, telling people to prove you wrong on something that doesn't even exist. Just stick with what the manga shows and says.


----------



## Jad (May 29, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> 6th gated Gai gets slapped way back and grunts in pain from getting slapped by mere tails of V2 jinks.
> 
> Naruto blocks V2 named moves with his arm and face, yet holds his ground.



Gai and Kakashi were both in mid-air when they got hit. Look at the "IMPACT" of the tail and how high it is off the ground.



> In that instance Obito was already moving away from Gai when he phased away from him. The wincing in pain was most *likely* due to it being a legendary items own attack power rather than Obito's own strength.



The bolded. Again, loving your little flavour to make your points look better. Legendary item only showed to absorb chakara based attacks and repel. Nothing else. It was his strength. Something Gai easily blocked.


----------



## ueharakk (May 29, 2013)

Jad said:


> And his strength didn't force him back. Glad we are on the same page.


because Naruto wasn't trying to beat itachi and only was trying to talk, so yes i'm glad we are on the same page.



Jad said:


> The burden of proof is NEVER on me, because your the one throwing your own context around. Burden of proof is to SHOW ME that those walls are extra durable.


nope, my burden of proof is to back up my assertion with evidence.  My assertion is that the walls are extra durable, the argument and evidence that I give for that is that they are made to house rampaging bijuu.  So I have fulfilled my burden of proof, I have stated an assertion and backed that assertion up with an argument.

Now if you want to argue a counterargument that you don't think the walls are extra durable, then you'd have to first attack my own argument and second errect your own argument to show that they are in fact not extra durable. 

The problem is that you simply don't think my argument is convincing or 'good enough' or 'necessarily proves' that the walls are more durable, however does me not being able to prove that they are more durable mean that they in fact AREN'T more durable?  OF COURSE NOT.   Neither premise can be proven by the standards you are exerting on my own yet neglecting to evaluate your own with.  Thus since we both can't prove if the walls are stronger or not, we have to give arguments to see which would be more plausible: that the walls are more durable or aren't.  If I give a positive argument for my own stance and you don't have a positive argument for your own, then why keep your own stance?  Thus if you want to say that your stance is the more plausible one than my own, you have to make an argument for it.



Jad said:


> Stop adding your flavor, say it's on the other person to prove you wrong, so you can get away with your argument as being right. You believe your right, but I'm so glad the majority of people in this thread see through the way you structure your arguments.


This post clearly demonstrates 2 things:

1) that you are immensely in need or reading comprehension skills

2) That you don't try to apply the very burden of proof you try to exert on my arguments to your own.  

In no way shape or form am I simply posing an argument and saying "prove me wrong, else I am right", you claiming I am doing that just shows that you don't even read my arguments or are blatantly trying to attack strawmen so that you can string sentences together that logically make sense and call it a counterargument.



Jad said:


> I mean, you might as well flying dragons exist in Naruto, that would be your argument. Than you turn around and say "Prove me wrong". That's what your doing. Your adding new information into your arguments, telling people to prove you wrong on something that doesn't even exist. Just stick with what the manga shows and says.


In no way shape or form am I postulating something and turning around and telling you to prove me wrong.  For everything that I've argued in this thread, I've given evidence and arguments to back up my assertions, so that immediately falsifies the notion that I am spewing baseless claims and putting a burden of proof on the opposition to disprove my claim.

You and everyone I have debated in this thread are guilty of posting "you can't prove it" or "that isn't necessarily true" as their one and only counterargument for my own.  With that exact same burden of proof nothing in the manga can be argued, all I'd have to do is play the super skeptic card and say that your arguments aren't necessarily true and your entire argument no matter how compelling or terrible the alternative argument is would be rejected.


----------



## Jad (May 29, 2013)

You assume those walls are built with extra durable walls because of the part about it being a Bijuu training arena. How do you know though? You still haven't proven it.


----------



## ueharakk (May 29, 2013)

Jad said:


> You assume those walls are built with extra durable walls because of the part about it being a Bijuu training arena. How do you know though? You still haven't proven it.



wow just wow, you still haven't even attempted to even try and comprehend what I am saying haven't you?

I'm not _assuming_ the walls are built with extra durable walls, I am _arguing_ that they are.  And what do I support my argument with?  EVIDENCE!  what is that evidence?  That they are built for housing bijuu!

Can I 'know' or 'prove' that the walls are in fact more durable than normal ones? No.  But does me not being able to prove something mean that it isn't true or that it isn't the best explanation, or most well-supported assertion?  Of course not!

If I had a jar filled with 90 red jellybeans and 10 blue jellybeans and I asserted that if you picked one from the jar, it would be a red one, by your logic I'd be assuming that I'd pick a red one, and since I can't prove that I will pick a red one, then.... I'd PICK A BLUE ONE!?  It's the exact same thing, like I can't prove that you will pick a red jellybean, neither of us can prove our arguments, but does it mean that just because I can't prove my own, that it isn't the most plausible one?  or that the alternative, no matter how improbable or unsupported is true?  Of course not.

I have given you an argument and backed it up with evidence.  Now if you disagree with the conclusions of my argument, then you'd have to first attack the evidence/logic of my own and then errect a positive argument for your own assertion.


All you are doing is sitting back and saying that my argument can't prove itself to be true, a burden of proof that no argument in the battledome can stand up to.


----------



## Aegon Targaryen (May 29, 2013)

Good god, I thought this debate should've been over already.

KCM Naruto is stronger than SM Naruto only with chakra arms.

Without chakra arms, KCM Naruto has issues with A, who is nowhere near SM Naruto in strength.


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (May 29, 2013)

Will anyone please tell me why Naruto can't use immense physical strength with his own arms, similar to how he does with chakra arms?


----------



## Aegon Targaryen (May 29, 2013)

Munboy Dracule O'Brian said:


> Will anyone please tell me why Naruto can't use immense physical strength with his own arms, similar to how he does with chakra arms?


 
RM Naruto couldn't even lift up the Yonbi's jaws, and if RM is really similar to KN9 (according to your statement), then his true strength is supposed to stem from the chakra arms, not his own body. KN1-KN3 Naruto never demonstrated super strength outside of their chakra arms. At best, KCM Naruto has KN0-level strength.


----------



## Rosencrantz (May 29, 2013)

Jad said:


> I'm liking this convo, because Gai 3rd gate (or below) was able to destroy the Coral on Naruto's back, something he even couldn't do.



Really? A thread that has nothing to do with Gai and you still manage to bring him up? Good lord what the hell. Get off your favorite character for a second damn. It kills your credibility because everything you post HAS to be Gai-centric. And for the record, how is Gai glowing and only using the first or second gate? It has to be 3 or more. And I like how you assume it is the lowest possible gate while glowing (which seemingly contradicts your previous statement). And let's use common sense here. It was on Naruto's back. Not like you can really punch something that is stuck on your back as well as something in front of one's face right? Geez think before you post.

Edit: Read some of your posts. Laughable. No aura in first and second gate. So its minimum 3rd gate. Pupil argument is ridiculous for reasons already pointed out. But I'll show you this as well.

her medical ninjutsu can't heal the type of damage that FRS does.
6th gated Gai has pupils here. So saying you lose pupils past 3rd gate only applies to part 1 Lee. Gai disagrees. So for all you know, that was 5th gated Gai. And again, someone ripping something off your back does not make that person stronger. It means you are at a bad angle to tear something off your back!


----------



## Munboy Dracule O'Brian (May 29, 2013)

Uzamaki Nagato said:


> RM Naruto couldn't even lift up the Yonbi's jaws, and if RM is really similar to KN9 (according to your statement), then his true strength is supposed to stem from the chakra arms, not his own body. KN1-KN3 Naruto never demonstrated super strength outside of their chakra arms. At best, KCM Naruto has KN0-level strength.



The chakra arms are merely extensions of Naruto. 

With the Yonbi jaws, it can count as a feat. Especially as you've no way to suggest that lifting the Yonbi's jaws is inferior to anything SM Naruto as done. 

That is you have to prove that Naruto, with Bijuu power, fighting another Bijuu's power is truly inferior to Sage Naruto throwing up a random rhino.


----------



## blk (May 29, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> once again, who is setting the standard for what is 'sufficient evidence'?  You are.  It's only by your own standard that you chose to reject or accept what you deem 'sufficient' or not, and by that logic, you'd be able to accept or reject whatever you please.



Are you insinuating that the FX is _not_ extremely vague? Are you suggesting that hype in general, and even more in this case, is _not_ a very unreliable source of evidence?

I don't care if you want to set the bar of your standard so low that it will almost impossible to make any argument more probable than any other, but at least admit that this standard _is_ low (because it is).



> based on your own subjective view.



Are you denying that there might be other reasons for that FX aside from the one that you suggested?



> based on your own subjective view.



The absence of a clear logical connection is consequence of the vagueness of your "evidence".




> except the claim that my belief lacks evidence or logical validity is only based on your subjective view and criteria of what counts as enough evidence or what you'd view as 'logically valid' hype.
> 
> 
> once again, you claim 'soundness and validity' yet almost any argument that you or I could pose about this subjective manga with limited feats and information can be rejected by this if the opposition wants to get skeptical enough since neither of us can really prove anything.  And that is exactly what you do time and time again whenever you don't like an argument from the opposition, you just play the super skeptic card, pose a counterargument to my own, and call it logically invalid or say that it isn't sufficient evidence just because it isn't necessarily true or because it isn't a proof while not subjecting your own arguments to that same level of scrutiny.
> ...



Well, in a thing you are correct; logic isn't precisely my criteria of evaluation, but rather the epistemology.

And just stop saying that whenever i don't like an argument, i use the "skeptic card" for invalidate it; that would assume that i choose what to believe while that's not true.
Infact, beliefs shouldn't be a chioce, but a compulsion based on evidences and sound arguments.

With that said, the importance of a rigorous standard becomes clear: you need the most rigorous standard possible in order to come close to the truth.
I mean, you can say "i accept this totally inconclusive shit as valid evidence, so i don't care about your skepticism", but with such mentality you are just deluding yourself into thinking that your argument is anywhere near to the truth only by virtue of your personal standard.

So, again, whether i'm convinced (or anyone else) or not by your argument is generally irrelevant (people can easily be in denial and deny sound arguments without a solid reason).
It just happens that if you made a sound argument with rigorous standards, i would have been convinced by it (or better, compelled to believe it).


----------



## ueharakk (May 29, 2013)

blk said:


> Are you insinuating that the FX is _not_ extremely vague? Are you suggesting that hype in general, and even more in this case, is _not_ a very unreliable source of evidence?




reread the first post and see if hype being a reliable source of evidence is in anyway what I am arguing.



blk said:


> I don't care if you want to set the bar of your standard so low that it will almost impossible to make any argument more probable than any other, but at least admit that this standard _is_ low (because it is).


Oh my goodness blk, you still don't get it do you.  I'm not setting any bar or making any standard because that's a fallacious way of reasoning since who's to say my own bar or my own standard would be correct in judging what can be deemed as 'acceptable' evidence or not?  

My arguments simply pose an assertion and back it up with evidence or an argument.  It's in no way impossible to make an argument more probable than any other since if you think an alternative argument is more plausible, then it would be easy for you to generate an argument for the alternative and show why my own argument isn't as plausible.

What you are doing is not that.  All you are doing is saying that the evidence of my argument isn't 'necessarily true', isn't 'strong enough' by YOUR own standards, and thus my argument holds no water.  Can you not see that by that logic ANY argument can be thrown out because it's being judged by YOUR the opposition's own subjective standards?  And why would my argument no matter how weak or unsupported you think it is, not be the best explanation if the alternatives argument IS EVEN WEAKER than my own?  




blk said:


> Are you denying that there might be other reasons for that FX aside from the one that you suggested?


  I'm getting extremely tired of repeating myself.  Does the FX not 'necessarily' meaning that my conclusion is true mean that it's not positive evidence for my conclusion to be true?  




blk said:


> The absence of a clear logical connection is consequence of the vagueness of your "evidence".


'clear logical connection' is once again, your own subjective view.  You could play super skeptical and beat down even the most obvious manga statements or implications with that same subjective method.




blk said:


> Well, in a thing you are correct; logic isn't precisely my criteria of evaluation, but rather the epistemology.
> 
> And just stop saying that whenever i don't like an argument, i use the "skeptic card" for invalidate it; that would assume that i choose what to believe while that's not true.


playing the super skeptic card is not choosing what to believe, rather it's choosing what NOT to believe.  It's rejecting any argument that you don't like by simply saying 'you can't prove it to be true, therefore false' or 'the argument does not necessarily show that the conclusion is true'.  

And at the same time, you don't use the same standard of scrutiny on your own arguments, so on one hand you are free to reject any argument that you don't like, but on the other hand your very own arguments are just as guilty.



blk said:


> Infact, beliefs shouldn't be a chioce, but a compulsion based on evidences and sound arguments.


and in a subjective manga with limited information and feats, you can only go so far with your criteria of what it means for something to be a sound argument since almost every single argument would be rejected since we don't have enough evidence to make an argument that we can 'prove' to be true, or is 'necessarily true'.  

After logically hashing arguments out, we will be left with basic assumptions that posters will have different subjective opinions on which is more plausible and which are not.



blk said:


> With that said, the importance of a rigorous standard becomes clear: you need the most rigorous standard possible in order to come close to the truth.


Not if that rigorous standard is not used on your own arguments.  If it is used both ways, you will quickly learn that the truth you will end up with in every single thread is this:

we don't know, no conclusion can be drawn.  



blk said:


> I mean, you can say "i accept this totally inconclusive shit as valid evidence, so i don't care about your skepticism", but with such mentality you are just deluding yourself into thinking that your argument is anywhere near to the truth only by virtue of your personal standard.


that's in no way shape or form what I am saying and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to attack strawmen to seem like I am arguing something that I am not.

I am saying that EITHER side of this debate or almost any debate even about points in arguments about this manga is going to be inconclusive.  And this is even moreso when talking about hype.  However, it's YOU who doesn't recognize this, or you do recognize this, but still dishonestly don't evaluate your own arguments with the same standard that would make them inconclusive.  

Therefore you can't reject an argument because it's merely inconclusive, since the alternative of that argument is inconclusive as well.  If you want to reject an argument or say that it isn't true, then you have to show that your own stance is more plausible than that argument both by attacking the argument and erecting your own.




blk said:


> *So, again, whether i'm convinced (or anyone else) or not by your argument is generally irrelevant *(people can easily be in denial and deny sound arguments without a solid reason).
> It just happens that if you made a sound argument with rigorous standards, i would have been convinced by it (or better, compelled to believe it).


I don't even understand what you mean by the bolded.  Irrelevant to what?  The truth of my argument?  

The unbolded just shows how ignorant your own stance is.  By WHO'S rigorous standards are you evaluating my own logic by?  And what about your own arguments, what happens when you subject them to those same rigorous standards?  What about the counterargument, what happens when you subject that to those same rigorous standards?

An argument does not have to be conclusive at all in order for it to be recognized as the most plausible explanation, most supported explanation, or the explanation that best fits the evidence.

See the jellybean example that I've given you before.  See KCM Naruto vs Konohomaru, who is faster.  The evidence isn't conclusive as we are making assumptions to fill the gaps in knowledge assumptions that aren't necessarily true, however it doesn't mean that the conclusions that we are led to based on the evidence are not the best explanation, or that the alternatives no matter how unsupported ARE!


----------



## ueharakk (May 30, 2013)

Uzamaki Nagato said:


> RM Naruto couldn't even lift up the Yonbi's jaws, and if RM is really similar to KN9 (according to your statement), then his true strength is supposed to stem from the chakra arms, not his own body. KN1-KN3 Naruto never demonstrated super strength outside of their chakra arms. At best, KCM Naruto has KN0-level strength.



Would this count as KN1 doing a strength feat outside of his chakra arm?


----------



## blk (May 30, 2013)

*@ueharakk:*

I'll try to address your argument without quoting your responses and in the most clear and concise way possible, since it'll be kind of a waste of time to address every single part when the issue can be resolved with a much more short reply.


Why is the belief that Naruto is faster than Konohamaru, justified? Because we possess evidences for Naruto's and Konohamaru's speed, and the former have a greater one.
Is it possible that Konohamaru developed greater speed off-panel? Yes it is, but there are no evidences for such belief, hence it would be an assumption to think that it is true.

You might argue that saying the above is, in itself, an assumption, but that's not true: it is a position of skepticism. One acknowledge the existence of the possibility that Konohamaru might have developed greater speed off-panel, but is not compelled to believe it because of lack of evidences.
Arguing differently means falling into the fallacy of presupposing that something is _true_ unless proven otherwise (without proving it first).

That said, it's evident the reason for why your argument regarding the FX is not convincing anyone.
You interpret the FX as an indication of strength equality between the Hachibi and KCM Naruto.... but where are the evidences for such interpretation? Why should it be more justified than another interpretation? 
The FX itself is not an evidence for your stance: in other words, _your argument has no evidences_.


----------



## ueharakk (May 30, 2013)

blk said:


> Why is the belief that Naruto is faster than Konohamaru, justified? Because we possess evidences for Naruto's and Konohamaru's speed, and the former have a greater one.
> Is it possible that Konohamaru developed greater speed off-panel? Yes it is, but there are no evidences for such belief, hence it would be an assumption to think that it is true.
> 
> You might argue that saying the above is, in itself, an assumption, but that's not true: it is a position of skepticism. One acknowledge the existence of the possibility that Konohamaru might have developed greater speed off-panel, but is not compelled to believe it because of lack of evidences.


blk, you seriously can't see how you just evaluated KCM Naruto's speed vs Konohomaru's speed completely differently than the way you have evaluated my own arguments?  

If you evaluated the speed debate like you evaluated my other arguments, it doesn't even get to the point where you are questioning the alternative argument which is "Konohomaru is faster than naruto" because before you even look at how supported that alternative argument is, you throw out the first argument "KCM Naruto is faster than Konohomaru" because by YOUR own standards and by what YOU deem is sufficient evidence, there isn't enough evidence to say KCM Naruto is faster.

And you don't acknowledge the possibility that Konohomaru might have developed greater speed offpanel because if you did that, all your evidences for KCM Naruto having greater speed wouldn't be 'necessarily' true, and from there I can use the exact same thing you do which is play super skeptical, say your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your evidence, and thus your argument is void.



blk said:


> Arguing differently means falling into the fallacy of presupposing that something is _true_ unless proven otherwise (without proving it first).


And that's exactly what you do.  You pressupose the alternative to what I argue as true, use your own subjective standard of what you think is 'good evidence' to evaluate my argument, and if it fails, then....  your own presuppose stance is true.



blk said:


> That said, it's evident the reason for why your argument regarding the FX is not convincing anyone.


it's not convincing to YOU because it's being evaluated by your own standards.



blk said:


> You interpret the FX as an indication of strength equality between the Hachibi and KCM Naruto.... but where are the evidences for such interpretation? Why should it be more justified than another interpretation?


because kishi represents different hits with different FX, and if he wanted to represent separate hits with separate power he would have done two distinct FXs.

And for you to argue that both hits having the same FX has nothing to do with the attack's strength in relation to each other, you'd also have to provide your own reasoning once I pose a positive argument for it.

And the FX is not the only reason that I'm arguing the instance is hype, and that's not what you come into this thread accusing my arguments of.



blk said:


> The FX itself is not an evidence for your stance: in other words, _your argument has no evidences_.


reread why I'm arguing that it's hype.


----------



## blk (May 30, 2013)

This is either a bad joke, a massive misinterpretation or a lack of knowledge on how those things works.



ueharakk said:


> blk, you seriously can't see how you just evaluated KCM Naruto's speed vs Konohomaru's speed completely differently than the way you have evaluated my own arguments?
> 
> If you evaluated the speed debate like you evaluated my other arguments, it doesn't even get to the point where you are questioning the alternative argument which is "Konohomaru is faster than naruto" because before you even look at how supported that alternative argument is, you throw out the first argument "KCM Naruto is faster than Konohomaru" because by YOUR own standards and by what YOU deem is sufficient evidence, there isn't enough evidence to say KCM Naruto is faster.
> 
> ...



Naruto being faster is a justified belief, while the contrary is not. There are no evidences for assert that Konohamaru developed greater speed off-panel, you have to assume that.

And i'll repeat, is it possible that Konohamaru increased his speed off-panel to the point of being faster than Naruto, but since there are no evidences, the contrary (for which there is an ample quantity of them) is more justified.

I _never_ wrote that as long as there are other possibilities (and thus something is not necessarily true) an argument can't be more justified than another.
And i _never_ presupposed that something is true unless proven otherwise.

You have probably just took what i wrote, in the course of the debate, out of context, and therefore misinterpreted its meaning.



> it's not convincing to YOU because it's being evaluated by your own standards.



Actually, there is no one in agreement with you.



> because kishi represents different hits with different FX, and *if he wanted to represent separate hits with separate power* he would have done two distinct FXs.
> 
> And for you to argue that both hits having the same FX has nothing to do with the attack's strength in relation to each other, you'd also have to provide your own reasoning once I pose a positive argument for it.
> 
> And the FX is not the only reason that I'm arguing the instance is hype, and that's not what you come into this thread accusing my arguments of.



Provide evidences for the bolded.


----------



## ueharakk (May 30, 2013)

blk said:


> Naruto being faster is a justified belief, while the contrary is not. There are no evidences for assert that Konohamaru developed greater speed off-panel, you have to assume that.


it doesn't matter how much evidence supports konohomaru having greater speed offpanel or not because by your own logic you don't even evaluate the evidence for konohomaru's case until the evidence for naruto's case is 'good enough' by your own standard of what you think is 'good enough'.  Thus by the exact same logic you use to evaluate my arguments, anyone can have any standard and just reject KCM NAruto's evidence as not being good enough.



blk said:


> And i'll repeat, is it possible that Konohamaru increased his speed off-panel to the point of being faster than Naruto, but since there are no evidences, the contrary (for which there is an ample quantity of them) is more justified.


But that's irrelevant because you don't even evaluate the alternative unless the positive gets passed your own subjective criteria for what is good enough evidence.





blk said:


> I _never_ wrote that as long as there are other possibilities (and thus something is not necessarily true) an argument can't be more justified than another.
> *And i never presupposed that something is true unless proven otherwise.*


Of course you never flat out stated that, but that's exactly what you do when evaluating arguments that you don't like.  I bring up an argument or evidence that points to a conclusion, and you simply reject it by postulating that it doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is true, and then you say 'for all we know (insert alternative possibility)'.

And the bolded is not implied by the unbolded.  



blk said:


> You have probably just took what i wrote, in the course of the debate, out of context, and therefore misinterpreted its meaning.


in no way have I done such a thing, and I'm not just taking the logic of what you've done in this debate.  It's from pretty much any debate I have with you.

If you don't like an argument, you just play super skeptic, post a statement that shows that my arguments don't necessarily lead to my conclusion and boot out my argument.  




blk said:


> Actually, there is no one in agreement with you.


So because 5 people in this thread not thinking my argument is convincing enough by their own subjective standards of what it means to be convincing, means that 'no one' thinks my argument is convincing?  




blk said:


> Provide evidences for the bolded.


I just did provide evidence for the bolded, look at my reasoning.

And since you haven't addressed the rest of my argument for that instance being hype, then I guess you agree that it is in fact hype.  Oh and here's some evidence that suggests one FX means comparable power.  And you can see here that when kishi wants to portray one hit being stronger than another in a combination attack, he makes the stronger one more jagged and bigger than the other.  But even still, neither hit is on another level than the other.


----------



## Gibbs (May 30, 2013)

It comes down to being able to throw boss sized Pain summons hundreds of yards in the air vs Resisting Son Goku's attempt to close his jaws on KCM Naruto.


----------



## blk (May 30, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> it doesn't matter how much evidence supports konohomaru having greater speed offpanel or not because by your own logic you don't even evaluate the evidence for konohomaru's case until the evidence for naruto's case is 'good enough' by your own standard of what you think is 'good enough'.  Thus by the exact same logic you use to evaluate my arguments, anyone can have any standard and just reject KCM NAruto's evidence as not being good enough.
> 
> 
> But that's irrelevant because you don't even evaluate the alternative unless the positive gets passed your own subjective criteria for what is good enough evidence.
> ...



How about that you show me these instances where i, supposedly, stated/implied that as long as an alternative exists, an argument is not more justified than another (despite the presence of evidences).




> Of course you never flat out stated that, but that's exactly what you do when evaluating arguments that you don't like.  I bring up an argument or evidence that points to a conclusion, and you simply reject it by postulating that it doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is true, and then you say 'for all we know (insert alternative possibility)'.



1) When i reject an argument by saying that it is not necessarily true, it is because it has no evidences (like in the case of the FX).

2) Granted point 1, this would be a position of skepticism that is in no way equivalent to an assertion that falls in the fallacy at hand (since the phrase "not necessarily true" is not "not true", and acknowledges that your argument might be true, but since it has no evidence one is not compelled to believe it).



> So because 5 people in this thread not thinking my argument is convincing enough by their own subjective standards of what it means to be convincing, means that 'no one' thinks my argument is convincing?



In this thread, no one of the people that read this point yours, was in agreement with it.
Once again you misinterpreted what i said by not taking into account the context.



> I just did provide evidence for the bolded, look at my reasoning.
> 
> And since you haven't addressed the rest of my argument for that instance being hype, then I guess you agree that it is in fact hype.  Oh and here's some evidence that suggests one FX means comparable power.  And you can see here that when kishi wants to portray one hit being stronger than another in a combination attack, he makes the stronger one more jagged and bigger than the other.  But even still, neither hit is on another level than the other.



You made a statement, which is not an evidence.

In the first link, i see two completely different FX; probably, one refers to Neji and the other to the leader of the Hyuuga.
Same for the second link.

Not sure how any of those things are evidence that Kishimoto often uses different FX for coordinated hits that have not the same power and that often uses only one of them for coordinated hits with equal power (even considering that it's a lot more likely that the Kaiten, or the two kicks, are equals in power than the punches of the Hachibi and Naruto.... and yet the FX in the first two instance are totally different for each attack).


----------



## Okodi (May 30, 2013)

SM is the stronger mode for pure strength (lifting/throwing without the help of any momentum) when stationary.

KCM is better at striking. The reason being momentum. With the help of momentum KCM gives Naruto the ability to leap faster and with that he gain a stronger strike due to momentum. SM on the other hand is slower so it can't generate more momentum than KCM can and is therefore less of a striker than KCM is.


----------



## ueharakk (May 30, 2013)

blk said:


> How about that you show me these instances where i, supposedly, stated/implied that as long as an alternative exists, an argument is not more justified than another (despite the presence of evidences).



I would have given you an example of it during this thread, but seeing later in this post we have a misunderstanding of what I was arguing, then I'll hold off on that.

However, I sure as heck can find arguments from other threads.





blk said:


> 1) When i reject an argument by saying that it is not necessarily true, it is because it has no evidences (like in the case of the FX).


Then that's where you are flat out wrong, because almost no evidences or arguments we formulate for anything in this manga are necessarily true.  Not being necessarily true in no way shape or form means an argument has no evidences.



blk said:


> 2) Granted point 1, this would be a position of skepticism that is in no way equivalent to an assertion that falls in the fallacy at hand (since the phrase "not necessarily true" is not "not true", and acknowledges that your argument might be true, but since it has no evidence one is not compelled to believe it).


yep and from the blatant fallacy of thinking about point 1, it follows that this is false.



blk said:


> *In this thread, no one of the people that read this point yours, was in agreement with it.*
> Once again you misinterpreted what i said by not taking into account the context.



the bolded isn't a statement that you can claim to be true as well since just because people don't post in the thread in no way means that they haven't read the thread.  And if you actually look at the reasoning of everyone who disagreed with my statement that: "by hype, that scan indicates that his momentum punches are on par with the hachibi's punches" you'd see that they are all the same "your argument isn't necessarily true, therefore false or holds no water".

And I didn't take into account the context that you wanted to make that statement in because in that context, your statement doesn't mean anything.




blk said:


> You made a statement, which is not an evidence.


nope, I made a statement and provided reasoning, which is evidence and an argument for it.



blk said:


> In the first link, i see two completely different FX; probably, one refers to Neji and the other to the leader of the Hyuuga.


Then I think there's been a misunderstanding about what I've been referring to FX, and if so then I apologize for that since I should have made myself clearer and FX is a vague term. 

 I'm not referring to FX as in the sound FX, I'm referring to the visual FX, that white splash looking thing that indicates a punch or a hit.  In the scan I'm giving, we only see one FX for neiji and his uncles hitting the juubi's arm.  



blk said:


> Same for the second link.






blk said:


> Not sure how any of those things are evidence that Kishimoto often uses different FX for coordinated hits that have not the same power and that often uses only one of them for coordinated hits with equal power (even considering that it's a lot more likely that the Kaiten, or the two kicks, are equals in power than the punches of the Hachibi and Naruto.... and yet the FX in the first two instance are totally different for each attack).


If I produced scans of Kishi giving two simultaneous hits the same FX, and we know the power of those simultaneous hits are comparable, then it's evidence that if two attacks of the exact same or similar nature simultaneously hit the target, then their power is comparable.

Conclusive? No, but correlative?  Yes, and that's evidence especially when we are talking about hype.


----------



## blk (May 31, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> I would have given you an example of it during this thread, but seeing later in this post we have a misunderstanding of what I was arguing, then I'll hold off on that.
> 
> However, I sure as heck can find arguments from other threads.



I'm pretty sure that if you search, you'll find that i'll always argued that arguments _without evidences_ are not more justified than the alternatives.




> Then that's where you are flat out wrong, because almost no evidences or arguments we formulate for anything in this manga are necessarily true.  Not being necessarily true in no way shape or form means an argument has no evidences.



You've got it wrong again.
What i wrote meant: an argument has no evidences -> i dismiss it as not necessarily true (or something similar).
Not the other way around.



> yep and from the blatant fallacy of thinking about point 1, it follows that this is false.



Given the above, point 2 stands.



> the bolded isn't a statement that you can claim to be true as well since just because people don't post in the thread in no way means that they haven't read the thread.  And if you actually look at the reasoning of everyone who disagreed with my statement that: "by hype, that scan indicates that his momentum punches are on par with the hachibi's punches" you'd see that they are all the same "your argument isn't necessarily true, therefore false or holds no water".
> 
> And I didn't take into account the context that you wanted to make that statement in because in that context, your statement doesn't mean anything.



You have to look more carefully at the arguments of others; it's not that since something is not necessarily true, it is rejected and accused of lacking evidences.
It's when the arguments lack evidences that they are rejected as not necessarily true.

And that's because no one accepted the FX as evidence of your argument, from the moment that it needs an interpretation (that must be supported by evidences) in order to become one.



> nope, I made a statement and provided reasoning, which is evidence and an argument for it.



Simple logical reasoning is not an evidence.



> Then I think there's been a misunderstanding about what I've been referring to FX, and if so then I apologize for that since I should have made myself clearer and FX is a vague term.
> 
> I'm not referring to FX as in the sound FX, I'm referring to the visual FX, that white splash looking thing that indicates a punch or a hit.  In the scan I'm giving, we only see one FX for neiji and his uncles hitting the juubi's arm.
> 
> ...



Yep, it seems that i've misunderstood what you referred to.
Anyway, this changes very little.

1) Unless Kishimoto consistently uses just one of those FX for indicate equality between coordinated attacks, we can't utilize the given examples as evidences that he did so even in the case under consideration.

2) By feats KCM Naruto's strength is no where near at the Hachibi level.


----------



## Xusasu Basasu (May 31, 2013)

I feel like logically KCM should be the strongest because it's backed up by Kyuubi's power and Kyuubi is like mad strong, but logic doesn't really apply in this manga lol.


----------



## ueharakk (May 31, 2013)

blk said:


> I'm pretty sure that if you search, you'll find that i'll always argued that arguments _without evidences_ are not more justified than the alternatives.



sure, I would argue the same thing, however that's not what I am accusing your own of.





blk said:


> You've got it wrong again.
> What i wrote meant: an argument has no evidences -> i dismiss it as not necessarily true (or something similar).
> Not the other way around.


But that's not what you do, and that's not even logically coherent since for an argument to be necessarily true, the evidence would have to necessarily point to the conclusion it entails.  An argument being necessarily true would mean that if the premise is true, then the conclusion logically and necessarily follows, and that there are no alternatives regardless of how plausible or supported those alternatives are.



blk said:


> You have to look more carefully at the arguments of others; it's not that since something is not necessarily true, it is rejected and accused of lacking evidences.
> *It's when the arguments lack evidences that they are rejected as not necessarily true.*


Once again, you don't even know what he phrase "necessarily true" means.  And because of that, you can pin arguments that you don't think are strong enough due to your own subjective criteria of what is 'good enough' evidence as "not necessarily true" while other arguments which are also "not necessarily true" you accept.  

So the problem still persists, you still are the judge and the standard of your opponent's own arguments, and thus by that standard you are able to freely reject any argument by first calling it 'not necessarily true' and then showing why it is not, yet that's something you can do for ANY argument, all you'd have to do is deny more basic assumptions.



blk said:


> *And that's because no one accepted the FX as evidence of your argument,* from the moment that it needs an interpretation (that must be supported by evidences) in order to become one.


Reread why people didn't accept my argument for hype.  




blk said:


> Simple logical reasoning is not an evidence.


Logical reasoning explains why what the scan that I bring to the table is evidence.  




blk said:


> Yep, it seems that i've misunderstood what you referred to.
> Anyway, this changes very little.
> 
> 1) Unless Kishimoto consistently uses just one of those FX for indicate equality between coordinated attacks, we can't utilize the given examples as evidences that he did so even in the case under consideration.


Well, I've given you two very recent examples of coordinated attacks of similar power undergoing the same treatment of the single FX.  

And then there's the fact that if he wanted to depict the attacks as different in power, he'd do what he did with Gai and Lee: he'd make one side of the attack more rigid, animated and slightly bigger and one side not.

And then there's the fact that if he wanted to depict them as different in power, he could have made two separate hit FX's one bigger than the other.

Finally, Kishimoto doesn't even have to consistently use just one of those FX to indicate equality, all I have to show that there's a positive correlation between a single FX and attacks of similar nature being on par or at the same level.  That's all my argument has to do in order for it to show that its positive evidence for the notion that by hype, the attacks are equal.  

Now if you want to pose a counterargment, you have to try and attack my own arguments and errect your own.



blk said:


> 2) By feats


  



blk said:


> KCM Naruto's strength is no where near at the Hachibi level.


----------



## Jinemba (May 31, 2013)

Strength = physical strength that Naruto can generate naturally with no enhancements, based on feats Sage Mode Naruto can throw a boss sized summon a town away on the spot.

Power = How much force Naruto can generate with whatever enhancements he can use at the time. Because Bijuu Mode Naruto has so much speed he can potentially use the speed to create force which by feats allowed him to smack away 5 Bijuu-dama like they were flies.


So basically face to face with no movement, Sage Mode Naruto will outpower Bijuu Naruto, he has more physical strength at his disposal naturally because Sage Mode enhanced Naruto's strength the most (or sensing w/e).

But in a battle Bijuu Mode Naruto (Taijutsu strikes only) has the potential to hit with more force than Sage Mode Naruto because Bijuu Mode Naruto can use his speed to create force that far surpasses Sage Mode's strength.


----------



## blk (Jun 2, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> sure, I would argue the same thing, however that's not what I am accusing your own of.



Didn't you said that i rejected your arguments just because an alternative to them might exist?




> But that's not what you do, and that's not even logically coherent since for an argument to be necessarily true, the evidence would have to necessarily point to the conclusion it entails.  An argument being necessarily true would mean that if the premise is true, then the conclusion logically and necessarily follows, and that there are no alternatives regardless of how plausible or supported those alternatives are.
> 
> 
> Once again, you don't even know what he phrase "necessarily true" means.  And because of that, you can pin arguments that you don't think are strong enough due to your own subjective criteria of what is 'good enough' evidence as "not necessarily true" while other arguments which are also "not necessarily true" you accept.
> ...



I dismiss something that _has no evidences_, as not necessarily true.

The "not necessarily true" phrase is simply a method of communicating my position of skepticism towards a non-justified argument (that's because if i would say "not true" or "false", it wouldn't be a position of skepticism since it wouldn't acknowledge the existence of such possibility, and thus evidences would be required).

The bold part perfectly shows what you are misinterpreting: something is not rejected because it is not necessarily true, but because it lacks evidences (the reason for why the phrase "not necessarily true" is used, is the above).

This doesn't imply in any way that your argument must be necessarily true, but only that it must have evidences.




> Reread why people didn't accept my argument for hype.



From TastyMuffin:



> Except you're the one claiming KCM Naruto's 'momentum' punch is equal to Hachibi in that instance; I'm saying that there's a lack of evidence to prove so and that your logic is skewed, using the Naruto-Hachibi-Itachi example.



He says that there is a lack of evidences for your interpretation of the FX.
In other words, he doesn't accept the FX as evidence for your argument.

From Grimmjowsensei:



> No, my logic is that your arugment has no logic
> There is absolutely no reason to assume that Naruto's punch is as strong as Hachibee's punch. And just because they were posted in the same panel doesn't mean they are depicted as equals.



He says that there are no reasons for why the interpretation for which the two punches are depicted as equals should be accepted.
In other words, he doesn't accept the FX as evidence for your argument.

Rocky agreed with Grimmjowsensei, so same as above for him.




> Logical reasoning explains why what the scan that I bring to the table is evidence.



1) As you are saying here, the logical reasoning itself is not the evidence.

2) Logical reasoning is not enough for establish that the FX is an evidence for your argument.



> Well, I've given you two very recent examples of coordinated attacks of similar power undergoing the same treatment of the single FX.
> 
> *And then there's the fact that if he wanted to depict the attacks as different in power, he'd do what he did with Gai and Lee: he'd make one side of the attack more rigid, animated and slightly bigger and one side not.
> 
> ...



To me, the single FX is indicative only of coordination, it just happens that in those two instances the attacks might have been equals.

The bold part needs evidences.
The last part especially, since it seems much like a sweeping generalization.




>



Didn't you said that if the hype was contradicted by feats, it wouldn't be valid?

Bee was able to send hundreds of meters away the five tail, just with one punch; i don't remember KCM Naruto doing anything of that level.


----------



## ueharakk (Jun 2, 2013)

blk said:


> Didn't you said that i rejected your arguments just because an alternative to them might exist?


Yes, that's correct, but that's not the same thing as saying that arguments without evidences are not more justified than their alternatives.




blk said:


> I dismiss something that _has no evidences_, as not necessarily true.


and you can't do that since that's not the definition of what not necessarily true is.  And who's the one who deems my arguments as "not having evidences"?  YOU ARE, it's by your same old subjective view on what passes your criteria of what is strong enough to be considered evidence that you reject an evidence as "no evidence".  Thus, you are still free to reject any argument you want no matter how compelling or not, by simply saying it 'has no evidence'.



blk said:


> The "not necessarily true" phrase is simply a method of communicating my position of skepticism towards a non-justified argument (that's because if i would say "not true" or "false", it wouldn't be a position of skepticism since it wouldn't acknowledge the existence of such possibility, and thus evidences would be required).


You can't make up your own definition for 'not necessarily true' especially when I have shown you why your definition is false.  When you make up your own definition, then you can use your own definition when it suits your own agenda and then use the real definition when it wouldn't suit your own agenda.  Use the correct terminology.

And once again, who's the judge of what is considered a non-justified argument?  YOU ARE.



blk said:


> The bold part perfectly shows what you are misinterpreting: something is not rejected because it is not necessarily true, but because it lacks evidences (the reason for why the phrase "not necessarily true" is used, is the above).


and who's the one who determines what is good evidence, or what is not?  YOU ARE!  So once again, you can simply dismiss any argument you want since you can deem that it 'lacks evidence' based on your own subjective standards.



blk said:


> This doesn't imply in any way that your argument must be necessarily true, but only that it must have evidences.


And who's the one who's determining what is 'evidence'?  YOU ARE! So you are still 100% guilty of what I have been accusing you of: being free to boot out any of your opponent's arguments by saying that they have 'no evidences'.  And how do you do this?  By using the 'not necessarily true' card to boot out any evidence that are used to support that argument.  





blk said:


> From TastyMuffin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, he's not saying there's a lack of evidence for my interpretation, he's saying there's a lack of evidence to PROVE my interpretation.  And that's a burden of proof no argument can bear.  And even if he just said 'there is a lack of evidence for my interpretation" that's just based on his own subjective view on what would be enough evidence to convince him.



blk said:


> From Grimmjowsensei:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't even say FX, he was talking about the entire author's intent portrayal argument that I was trying to give, and I gave him a reason as to why the two punches are depicted as equals.  him saying 'there's no reason why it should be accepted' is just another way of him saying that the evidence doesn't convince him.




blk said:


> Rocky agreed with Grimmjowsensei, so same as above for him.


he agreed with Grimmjowsensei's conclusion, not his reasoning as Rocky's reasoning was that the 





blk said:


> 1) As you are saying here, the logical reasoning itself is not the evidence.


The logical reasoning explains an instance that you have deemed 'not evidence' and why it should be considered evidence.  



blk said:


> 2) Logical reasoning is not enough for establish that the FX is an evidence for your argument.


based on what?  Unless you attack the assumptions and logic of my reasoning, your assertion is baseless.




blk said:


> To me, the single FX is indicative only of coordination, it just happens that in those two instances the attacks might have been equals.


and what convinces you to think that?  What evidence or logic?  What about the fact that kishi illustrated Gai's half of the hit as bigger and more animated than lee's half?  



blk said:


> The bold part needs evidences.


no it does not, it only needs evidences to convince YOU based on YOUR own subjective criteria.  And what evidence or argument can u support your assertion that the bolded does need evidences with?



blk said:


> The last part especially, since it seems much like a sweeping generalization.


only based on your own subjective criteria of what you'd deem as 'evidence' or 'good enough evidence'.  And of course if you want to accuse my own arguments of this, you have to errect an argument and bring evidence to the table to support those accusations. 





blk said:


> Didn't you said that if the hype was contradicted by feats, it wouldn't be valid?


Completely irrelevant to what we are talking about since we are talking about hype, you attacked my argument that by hype, naruto's punch is on the same level as the hachibi's. 

When you take into account both hype and feats, that's when you are talking about the overall concluding argument of the point: whether KCM Naruto with momentum can punch on the level of the hachibi.

And it's not my stance that when hype and feats contradict each other, hype is invalid, it's that if they contradict each other, feats are taken over hype. 



blk said:


> Bee was able to send hundreds of meters away the five tail, just with one punch;* i don't remember KCM Naruto doing anything of that level.*


Once again, irrelevant to what we are talking about since you are contending that by hype, KCM Naruto's punch isn't on the same level as the hachibi's own. 

And the bolded is just the statement that "naruto hasn't done anything of that level" in disguise as a question, thus unless you want to support that assertion with evidence, it's baseless.


----------



## blk (Jun 4, 2013)

ueharakk said:


> Yes, that's correct, but that's not the same thing as saying that arguments without evidences are not more justified than their alternatives.



Of course it's the same.
The justification of an argument is dependant on its evidences.




> and you can't do that since that's not the definition of what not necessarily true is.  And who's the one who deems my arguments as "not having evidences"?  YOU ARE, it's by your same old subjective view on what passes your criteria of what is strong enough to be considered evidence that you reject an evidence as "no evidence".  Thus, you are still free to reject any argument you want no matter how compelling or not, by simply saying it 'has no evidence'.
> 
> 
> You can't make up your own definition for 'not necessarily true' especially when I have shown you why your definition is false.  When you make up your own definition, then you can use your own definition when it suits your own agenda and then use the real definition when it wouldn't suit your own agenda.  Use the correct terminology.
> ...



Your interpretation of the FX is not supported by evidences, therefore it is not an evidence of your argument (you are just assuming that it is hype for Naruto's strength).
So your belief is..... not necessarily true, or not justified if you prefer (i can't say that it is false because, again, there is the possibility that it is correct). It is that simple.

But anyway, since you say that i'm "guilty" of using a certain standard of evaluation (while you are doing the same), how about that you suggest what method should be used?
Because as long as we don't settle a common approach, the discussion won't go anywhere.




> Nope, he's not saying there's a lack of evidence for my interpretation, he's saying there's a lack of evidence to PROVE my interpretation.  And that's a burden of proof no argument can bear.  And even if he just said 'there is a lack of evidence for my interpretation" that's just based on his own subjective view on what would be enough evidence to convince him.



You are clearly misinterpreting him if you think that he did mean that you would have to prove your argument in a mathematical sense.
Regardless, you said it, he's accusing you of lack of evidences.



> He didn't even say FX, he was talking about the entire author's intent portrayal argument that I was trying to give, and I gave him a reason as to why the two punches are depicted as equals.  *him saying 'there's no reason why it should be accepted' is just another way of him saying that the evidence doesn't convince him*.



Yeah, as i said, he thinks that your interpretation has no evidences.



> he agreed with Grimmjowsensei's conclusion, not his reasoning as Rocky's reasoning was that the



Grimmjowsensei's conclusion is that there are no reasons for accept your interpretation (i.e it has no evidences).


It seems like you are trying your best for disagree, no matter the argument, while you write the same things as me but with different words.




> The logical reasoning explains an instance that you have deemed 'not evidence' and why it should be considered evidence.
> 
> 
> based on what?  Unless you attack the assumptions and logic of my reasoning, your assertion is baseless.



As you are stating, the instance is the evidence, not the logical reasoning.

Based on the fact that the logical validity of an argument is not an evidence.



> and what convinces you to think that?  What evidence or logic?  What about the fact that kishi illustrated Gai's half of the hit as bigger and more animated than lee's half?
> 
> 
> no it does not, it only needs evidences to convince YOU based on YOUR own subjective criteria.  And what evidence or argument can u support your assertion that the bolded does need evidences with?
> ...



Where are the evidences for the assertion that "Gai's half of the hit as bigger and more animated than lee's half" indicates anything in particular?

You are just stating that the FX indicates equality in strength, while we don't even know if this is true in the additional examples that you bring up.

This point is by definition an hasty generalization (i confused this with the sweeping one in previous post), since you are using what _you think_ happens in few instances (because we don't even know if the attacks in the additional examples are truly equal) as a general rule applicable without a problem in Naruto's case.




> Completely irrelevant to what we are talking about since we are talking about hype, you attacked my argument that by hype, naruto's punch is on the same level as the hachibi's.
> 
> When you take into account both hype and feats, that's when you are talking about the overall concluding argument of the point: whether KCM Naruto with momentum can punch on the level of the hachibi.
> 
> ...



We saw the strength of Naruto with momentum when he punched Kisame and kicked the Zetsu; those feats are not at the same level of Hachibi's own.

So, as you are stating here, we should take those feats over the hype.


----------



## ueharakk (Jun 4, 2013)

blk said:


> Of course it's the same.
> The justification of an argument is dependant on its evidences.


it's not the same and that's not even what you are stating.  The statement that "an argument should be rejected because alternatives exist" is not the same thing as "arguments are dependent on their evidences" as the former statement that gives credibility to an argument not based on the evidence for said argument, but by the mere existence of alternative arguments.

so me accusing you of "rejecting my arguments because alternatives exist" does not seek justification of an argument due to evidences, but by mere existence of alternatives.





blk said:


> Your interpretation of the FX is not supported by evidences, therefore it is not an evidence of your argument (you are just assuming that it is hype for Naruto's strength).


that's an assertion that you would have to support with your own argument.



blk said:


> So your belief is..... not necessarily true, or not justified if you prefer (i can't say that it is false because, again, there is the possibility that it is correct). It is that simple.


Not justified by WHOS STANDARD!?



blk said:


> But anyway, since you say that i'm "guilty" of using a certain standard of evaluation (while you are doing the same), how about that you suggest what method should be used?
> Because as long as we don't settle a common approach, the discussion won't go anywhere.


I'm in no way guilty of using a certain standard of evaluation to accept and reject what I deem as "good" or "passable" evidence.  That's what you are doing. 

The best method and my method would be support your assertion with an argument.  If you don't agree with the reasoning of the opposing argument, assert you don't agree and back that assertion up with evidence.  By this way, you'll reach underlying assumptions in which your and the opposing argument disagree on, and thus if the opposing argument is really terrible, then the underlying assumptions that they will have to hold to be true will be terrible as well.

At the end of the day, what we will have are basic assumptions that opposing views cater to, and thus in order to accept one view, you'd have to accept the assumptions that are attached to them.





blk said:


> You are clearly misinterpreting him if you think that he did mean that you would have to prove *your argument in a mathematical sense.*
> Regardless, you said it, he's accusing you of lack of evidences.


Concessionary dishonesty on your part as in no way does my post state or imply mathematics.




blk said:


> Yeah, as i said, he thinks that your interpretation has no evidences.


completely and utterly false.  An argument can have evidences, yet not be a CONVINCING argument based on the person's subjective criteria of what would convince them.




blk said:


> Grimmjowsensei's conclusion is that there are no reasons for accept your interpretation (i.e it has no evidences).


and what is that conclusion based on?  



blk said:


> It seems like you are trying your best for disagree, no matter the argument, while you write the same things as me but with different words.


Nope, if you look at what Rocky says in his post, it's exactly as I state: that my arguments aren't necessarily true, which means he agrees with grimmjows overall conclusions and NOT his reasoning.  And I'm not trying my best to disagree as I'm explaining my reasoning that I've had the moment I looked at these fellow's posts.





blk said:


> As you are stating, the instance is the evidence, not the logical reasoning.
> 
> Based on the fact that the logical validity of an argument is not an evidence.


Yet you reject that instance as evidence based on no logical reasoning.  Thus I bring logical reasoning in order to show you WHY that instance is evidence.  Yet after I bring it in, you call both the evidence and my logical reasoning for why it is evidence "just a statement" and back that assertion up with zero evidence or arguments.  So what you just deemed now as "evidence" you deemed "not evidence and just a statement" in the last page.  Can you see the double standard on your part yet?




blk said:


> Where are the evidences for the assertion that "Gai's half of the hit as bigger and more animated than lee's half" indicates anything in particular?


Unless you want to cater to the assumption that Gai and Lee's kicking strength are exactly equal, or you want to come up with an alternative reason for why kishi clearly made Gai's side of the kick more jagged and larger than lee's, then that's the logical conclusion: that Kishi animated the hit like that because Gai's hit was stronger than lee's.

Now unless you want to cater to that logic, then it follows that you agree with my argument.



blk said:


> You are just stating that the FX indicates equality in strength, while we don't even know if this is true in the additional examples that you bring up.


We don't have to "know" something is true because once again that's placing a burden of proof to 100% prove my argument is true.  So once again, you're playing the super skeptic card asserting that I have to PROVE my point.

In order for my argument to be true, the assumptions are that Lee and Gai's kicks are on the same level, and that Hiashi and Neiji's rotations are on the same level. Base Lee isn't in a different league from Base Gai's own strength based on feats and hype, Hiashi and Neiji's rotations are exactly equal in size.  

So what you'd have to argue in order for my stance to not be true is that Base Lee and Gai's kicks are levels appart in power, or Hiashi's and Neiji's rotations are levels apart in power, and I allow you to try and make the case to show that.  If you don't think those alternative assumption are more plausible than not, then it follows logically that the hits are most likely of equal power.



blk said:


> This point is by definition an hasty generalization (i confused this with the sweeping one in previous post), since you are using what _you think_ happens in few instances (because we don't even know if the attacks in the additional examples are truly equal) as a general rule applicable without a problem in Naruto's case.


Once again, playing the super skeptic by simply saying "we don't even know if the attacks are truly equal" trying to assert a burden of proof on my argument to PROVE the attacks are equal, which neither of us can do for any argument.

however, what are the assumptions that the argument that "the attacks are equal or in the same league" have to cater to vs what are the assumptions that "the attacks aren't equal" have to cater to?  

And in no way shape or form am i guilty of "using what I think happens in a few instances as a general rule applicable without a problem in Naruto's case", I use the same logic for every case that I argue: I make an assertion, I back up that assertion with an argument.  If you don't agree with the argument that I'm making you can't just say "your argument doesn't prove your assertion" which is the equivalent of what you are doing right here when you type "we don't even know if the attacks in the additional examples are truly equal" since that same logic would apply to ANY argument even the most convincing and compelling.





blk said:


> We saw the strength of Naruto with momentum when he punched Kisame and kicked the Zetsu; those feats are not at the same level of Hachibi's own.


That's just a baseless assertion.  Why is his punch on Kisame and kick to the zetsu not on the same level of the Hachibi's own?



blk said:


> So, as you are stating here, we should take those feats over the hype.


----------



## blk (Jun 4, 2013)

This is becoming a huge mess.

Let's start again, in hope of a more easy communication.

You say that in the instance of Gai and Lee and Hiashi and Neji, the attacks were equal: provide evidences for this claim.

You assert that the FXs in the instances of above are an indication of equality, and not that those attacks just happened to be equal (assuming for a moment that they are): provide evidences for the existence of such pattern.

Lastly, assuming that the two points of above are justified, provide evidences for your claim that the interpretation of the previous FX can be used even for the one regarding Naruto.


----------



## ueharakk (Jun 4, 2013)

blk said:


> This is becoming a huge mess.
> 
> Let's start again, in hope of a more easy communication.
> 
> You say that in the instance of Gai and Lee and Hiashi and Neji, the attacks were equal: provide evidences for this claim.


Both Hiashi's and Neiji's kaitens are the exact same size when they deflect the juubi's hand.  I never stated that Lee's and Gai's attacks are equal, only that they are at the same level, and thus since Gai is the stronger of the two his attack is animated as the stronger of the two.  Both attacks however are are not on different levels since Lee shouldn't be a level below Gai's own strength as both use the exact same taijutsu, both enter the 5th gate just as easily, lee and Gai's strength in the databook last published in 2007/08 only differ by .5, etc.



blk said:


> You assert that the FXs in the instances of above are an indication of equality, and not that those attacks just happened to be equal (assuming for a moment that they are): provide evidences for the existence of such pattern.


Because 2 of the 2 times we see the attacks occur in other instances, both attacks are on the same level.  And in one of those instances, we see that Kishi displays the stronger attack with a bigger and more animatedly rigid FX (the gai and lee example).  



blk said:


> Lastly, assuming that the two points of above are justified, provide evidences for your claim that the interpretation of the previous FX can be used even for the one regarding Naruto.


 if the two above are justified which means that the FX indicates equality is justified, then obviously if Naruto and Bee generate a single FX then it means their attacks are on the same level as well.

Now if you disagree with any of my reasoning, why do you disagree with it?


----------

