# Haruhi vs Tsunami (Tenchi Muyo)



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 14, 2009)

both are full power. Who wins?


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jul 14, 2009)

This Haruhi?

Tsunami stomps.


----------



## Tendou Souji (Jul 14, 2009)

inb4theharuhitards

Tsunami stomps btw.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 14, 2009)

She's just human physically and universal at best. Tsunami, hell Z could stomp.


----------



## ragnara (Jul 14, 2009)

Not that I know anything about Tsunami, but Haruhi is obviously going to win. 
She is Haruhi after all, Haruhi always wins.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 14, 2009)

Against a Multiversal Goddess?


----------



## Seyta (Jul 14, 2009)

I really wonder how Raigen will respond to this one... especially since he's spent his time arguing absolute omnipotence for both characters in this match...


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 14, 2009)

Maybe he'll go for the most attractive  (tsunami)


----------



## ragnara (Jul 14, 2009)

Well, if Haruhi really IS God, no one would stand a chance. Omnipotence isn't limited to one universe, or any form of logic for that matter. Then again, Haruhi being God is probably nothing more than superstition, just like 99,99% of all supposed omnipotents.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 14, 2009)

I await Raigen......


----------



## Hellspawn28 (Jul 14, 2009)

Haruhi durability is at a peak human level from what I have seen in the Show. Tsunami will just use LHW wings and Haruhi would be fucked.


----------



## Tendou Souji (Jul 14, 2009)

ragnara said:


> Well, if Haruhi really IS God, no one would stand a chance. Omnipotence isn't limited to one universe, or any form of logic for that matter. Then again, Haruhi being God is probably nothing more than superstition, just like 99,99% of all supposed omnipotents.


It is nothing more than a superstition. All she's shown is universal-level reality warping. That's all she can do. If she's god then Genie is god.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 14, 2009)

Tsunami is god.. sort of.


----------



## Hellspawn28 (Jul 14, 2009)

Sorry to arm-chair mod. This should be in the anime section BTW.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 14, 2009)

yeah, sorry about that, i realized to late.


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Jul 14, 2009)

Tsunami's one of the Choushin isn't she?


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 14, 2009)

yessiree, that she is.


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Jul 14, 2009)

Why would you think Haruhi stood a chance then?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 15, 2009)

God = make so never existed. 

Or put em in an infinite loop of going to strike her but never hitting. Like the current anime is doing 

Really, anything v. an omnipotent being will lose. Even if they are not conscious of their power, unconscious survival instincts will change the universe to ensure survival. >_>


----------



## NemeBro (Jul 15, 2009)

Haruhi is not LITERALLY God, virtually, she is, but not literally.

Also, if I recall right, isn't it directly stated there are powers above her, that she is only part of or some shit?

Tsunami wins.


----------



## Gekigangar (Jul 15, 2009)

Tsunami will take this 1.

She has knowledge of her powers and how to use it on command.

Haruhi on the other hand, no knowledge of her powers and no idea how to use it upon command.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Tsunami is omnipotent and omniscient, she takes this.


----------



## Abigail (Jul 15, 2009)

A said:


> Tsunami is omnipotent and omniscient, she takes this.



Except Kami Tenchi is above them so no, they aren't omnipotent.

Tsunami still wins though.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Ranmyaku Arashi said:


> Except Kami Tenchi is above them so no, they aren't omnipotent.


Tenchi Kane no Kami being superior to them would disprove the argument of them being supreme, but not omnipotent. You seem to be getting the two confused--you can be omnipotent without being supreme just as you can be supreme without being omnipotent.

_"om?nip?o?tent  (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the."_

- Source

They have infinite power, hence they're omnipotent by definition. Just as "An omnipotent sovereign." is a correctly constructed statement. Saying that the Chousin are omnipotents are literally correct as well.


----------



## skiboydoggy (Jul 15, 2009)

Gekigangar said:


> Tsunami will take this 1.
> 
> She has knowledge of her powers and how to use it on command.
> 
> Haruhi on the other hand, no knowledge of her powers and no idea how to use it upon command.


This. Haruhi should never be used in a match, ever.

And A.


----------



## Abigail (Jul 15, 2009)

A said:


> Tenchi Kane no Kami being superior to them would disprove the argument of them being supreme, but not omnipotent. You seem to be getting the two confused--you can be omnipotent without being supreme just as you can be supreme without being omnipotent.
> 
> _"om?nip?o?tent  (m-np-tnt)
> adj.
> ...


Yet by definition because Kami Tenchi is stronger they would have to answer to him. Therefore they do not have unlimited authority or force and are not all powerful.

So try again.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 15, 2009)

Isn't Haruhi only universal? Tsunami is massively Multiversal. In hindsight, i think i made a rape thread.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Ranmyaku Arashi said:


> Yet by definition because Kami Tenchi is stronger they would have to answer to him. Therefore they do not have unlimited authority or force and are not all powerful.


Straw man argument. I proved that they were omnipotent and infinite, nothing more. Furthermore the definition of almighty isn't absolute either, you implying that fancy wording can account for power is nothing more than an Equivocation fallacy.

_"al·might·y  (ôl-mt)
adj.
1. Having absolute power; all-powerful: almighty God.
2. Informal Great; extreme: an almighty din.
adv. Informal
Used as an intensive: almighty scared.
n. Almighty
God. Used with the."_

- Source

Saying that a din is almighty is literally correct.



Ranmyaku Arashi said:


> So try again.


The irony.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jul 15, 2009)

Ugh, we've been over this before... Per OBD rules to be classed as omnipotent in vs debates here you have to be the absolute supreme being in your particular fiction... Also without limits. This is not in any way saying the systems used in various fictions are in any way wrong. Trying to apply other systems that were not designed with vs debates in mind only causes unnecessary headaches.

Thank you, have a nice day!


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Per OBD rules to be classed as omnipotent in vs debates here you have to be the absolute supreme being in your particular fiction... Also without limits.


That's a appeal to tradition fallacy, using our own created definitions would confuse a lot of members as they obviously doesn't translate with literal definitions.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jul 15, 2009)

It's not a fallacy, it's the rules per majority decision. Want to argue it make a meta-dome thread.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 15, 2009)

Wait, A says Kami Tenchi is not omnipotent and thus can't beat Lucifer due to lacking feats. He now says the Chousin are omnipotent but someone above them is not?


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> It's not a fallacy, it's the rules per majority decision.


Actually it is, you suggest that it's the case because it has always been the case here, as if it was set in the rules somewhere--which I'd like to remind you isn't the case--is an appeal to tradition fallacy.



Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Want to argue it make a meta-dome thread.


There is nothing to argue, I brought absolute evidence and all I got in return was logical fallacies. When you have a well constructed hypothesis PM me and I'll make a thread about it.



Tranquil Fury said:


> Wait, A says Kami Tenchi is not omnipotent and thus can't beat Lucifer due to lacking feats. He now says the Chousin are omnipotent but someone above them is not?


Contextomy fallacy, you're quoting out of context to support your case.

What I said was that there's no proof of that Kami Tenchi can do anything.

But yes, he as the Chousin are omnipotent.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jul 15, 2009)

Read and move on...


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> Read and move on...


Yes it's an appeal to tradition fallacy. It doesn't seem like we're moving on, but rather backwards.

And I'm not sure what Eru Illúvatar and the King of All Cosmos is doing on the list other than disproving it's credibility severely.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jul 15, 2009)

That is the majority decision. If you want to argue it make a thread. End of debate.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 15, 2009)

How are the Chousin all powerful again? They are roughly equal in power and they have someone above them. Omnipotent is one who holds maximum power. God is Omnipotent because no one is above him.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> That is the majority decision.


Appeal to popularity fallacy.



Ultimate Deathsaurer said:


> If you want to argue it make a thread. End of debate.


As i said, there is no need for me to argue against fallacious arguments as they don't hold. When you have a logically constructed hypothesis send me a personal message and I'll make a thread out of it.



Tranquil Fury said:


> How are the Chousin all powerful again?


I proved their omnipotence by bringing up footage from the series, and the definition of the term.



Tranquil Fury said:


> They are roughly equal in power and they have someone above them.


No, Washu could stripe any of the other Chousin of their powers.



Tranquil Fury said:


> Nigh-Omnipotent?


Contradiction in terms, you're either omnipotent (infinite) or you're not omnipotent (finite).



Tranquil Fury said:


> Sure. Omnipotent is different.


There's indisputable proof of their omnipotence in this thread, scroll up.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 15, 2009)

A said:


> Straw man argument. I proved that they were *omnipotent and infinite*, nothing more. Furthermore the definition of almighty isn't absolute either, you implying that fancy wording can account for power is nothing more than an Equivocation fallacy.


But they are not. Having a being above them puts down a limit. It's not a strawman argument when he's not taking what you said and changing it, just stating facts. Kami Tenchi trumps whatever character she makes about herself in a past tense.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

neodragzero said:


> Having a being above them puts down a limit.


There are levels of infinity, just because something is lesser doesn't mean it's finite. Look up Cardinal numbers for further information.



neodragzero said:


> It's not a strawman argument when he's not taking what you said and changing it, just stating facts.


Wrong, he distorted my argument into something he could defeat, that's a straw man



neodragzero said:


> Kami Tenchi trumps whatever character she makes about herself in a past tense.


Never said he didn't.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 15, 2009)

A said:


> There are levels of infinity, just because something is lesser doesn't mean it's finite. Look up Cardinal numbers for further information.


Yes it does. Either it's infinite or it's not. Levels still denote a limit. Transfinite still isn't simply infinite.


> Wrong, he distorted my argument into something he could defeat, that's a straw man


Wrong, he simply stated his viewpoint on the definition. It's not a straw man. He's obviously referring to the sourced definition rather than your viewpoint on what you believe it to mean.


> Never said he didn't.


You basically are as you keep bringing up a past tense statement made before Kami Tenchi even existed. Does she make her statement after Kami Tenchi popped up?


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

neodragzero said:


> Yes it does. Either it's infinite or it's not. Levels still denote a limit. Transfinite still isn't simply infinite.


Actually it is, infinite and transfinite are synonymous.

_"trans?fi?nite 
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)tran(t)s-ˈfī-ˌnīt\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
German transfinit, from trans- (from Latin) + finit finite, from Latin finitus
Date:
1902
1 : going beyond or surpassing any finite number, group, or magnitude
2 : being or relating to the cardinal and ordinal numbers of infinite sets"_

- Source



neodragzero said:


> Wrong, he simply stated his viewpoint on the definition. It's not a straw man. He's obviously referring to the sourced definition rather than your viewpoint on what you believe it to mean.


I'm not sure you follow, because seemingly you haven't read the thread. Because I was the only one who brought any sources to affirm my position.

I brought the screenshot of where Tsunami confirms the Chousin's omnipotence, followed by a picture were it's confirmed that they're infinite.

I further developed this by using the definition at thefreedictionary.com were I proved that the state of being infinite in power is enough to be addressed as omnipotent.



neodragzero said:


> You basically are as you keep bringing up a past tense statement made before Kami Tenchi even existed. Does she make her statement after Kami Tenchi popped up?


She said this after Kami Tenchi saved them, you'd know this if ...

You've seen the series
You've seen episode 19 of the Tenchi Muyo! OVA
Read what I said on the previous page of this topic


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 15, 2009)

A said:


> Actually it is, infinite and transfinite are synonymous.
> 
> _"trans?fi?nite
> Pronunciation:
> ...


But not absolutely infinite. It's still limited.


> I'm not sure you follow, because seemingly you haven't read the thread. Because I was the only one who brought any sources to affirm my position.
> 
> I brought the screenshot of where Tsunami confirms the Chousin's omnipotence, followed by a picture were it's confirmed that they're infinite.
> 
> I further developed this by using the definition at thefreedictionary.com were I proved that the state of being infinite in power is enough to be addressed as omnipotent.


Your image is still that of a past tense statement of a situation before Kami Tenchi existed.


> She said this after Kami Tenchi saved them, you'd know this if ...
> 
> You've seen the series
> You've seen episode 19 of the Tenchi Muyo! OVA
> Read what I said on the previous page of this topic



Did she actually make this statement in a present tense or was she just commenting on the past before Kami Tenchi was in the equation? You act like what she's describing is an event after Kami Tenchi existed.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

neodragzero said:


> But not absolutely infinite. It's still limited.


Can you read?

_"2 : being or relating to the cardinal and ordinal numbers of *infinite* sets"_



neodragzero said:


> Your image is still that of a past tense statement of a situation before Kami Tenchi existed.


Irrelevant. She's aware of Kami Tenchi's existence--and that Kami Tenchi created the Chousins, hence exiting before them--yet still refers to herself as omnipotent at that point.



neodragzero said:


> You act like what she's describing is an event after Kami Tenchi existed.


Kami Tenchi created them.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 15, 2009)

So we agree Tsunami wins? we should make it say that on the wiki.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 15, 2009)

A said:


> Can you read?
> 
> _"2 : being or relating to the cardinal and ordinal numbers of *infinite* sets"_


But not absolute infinite. Transfinite is still surpassed by absolute infinite.


> Irrelevant. She's aware of Kami Tenchi's existence--and that Kami Tenchi created the Chousins, hence exiting before them--yet still refers to herself as omnipotent at that point.
> 
> 
> Kami Tenchi created them.



In other words, you simply believe character statements as fact. Limited omnipotence isn't much of a thing to use when the word gets thrown around on a whim throughout general fiction.


----------



## Raigen (Jul 15, 2009)

It's pretty obvious Tsunami wins. Unless this was a contest of who is more bossy, then I don't see how Haruhi could ever possibly win. Nagato has already jacked Haruhi's power before and I don't see what keeps Tsunami from just stripping them completely.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

neodragzero said:


> But not absolutel infinite. Transfinite is still surpassed by absolute infinite.


I wasn't talking about absolute infinity, I was talking about infinity--which is simply without end.

*Absolute infinity is a transfinite set* created by Cantor which contains all possible subsets, which would mean that it would contain itself as well. Either way absolute infinity can be surpassed by adding more dimensions into the equation.



neodragzero said:


> In other words, you simply believe character statements as fact.


No, that's why I added definitions as I explained it.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 15, 2009)

Raigen said:


> I don't see what keeps Tsunami from just stripping them completely.



kinky 
anyway, even Raigen agrees.


----------



## Raigen (Jul 15, 2009)

Don't understand why anyone would think differently. Sure, I like the Haruhi series. I think it's funny. Kyon is my favorite character and frankly I think he's the one who's really God since he's the Narrator of the whole series.


----------



## Endless Mike (Jul 15, 2009)

A said:


> And I'm not sure what Eru Ill?vatar and the King of All Cosmos is doing on the list other than disproving it's credibility severely.



Out of all of the rest of your bullshit, this is the only thing I agree with you on. I don't know who added them but I was thinking of changing it.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Endless Mike said:


> Out of all of the rest of your bullshit


Poisoning the well fallacy.

And I won't even bother by pointing out all the fallacies in the OBD-wiki, as it is now it's clearly not a valid source of information.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 15, 2009)

what about your theory doesn't work under my theory fallacy? have we used that yet?


----------



## ∅ (Jul 15, 2009)

Seyta said:


> Notice that his method of argument is more or less opinionated and worthless


I can see that you haven't followed the thread properly, as I was the only one who brought sources for my claims and didn't commit any fallacies.



Seyta said:


> and how he inefficiently attempts to avoid creating his own counter to a valid point made by another, and instead recites "fallacies" that do not fit the situation appropriately.


_"A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion."_ - 

I don't have to refute an argument that's fallacious, you're shifting the burden of proof here.

Also it's interesting to see how you suggest when each of the fallacies are improperly addressed, while in fact each and everyone of them were correctly addressed.



Seyta said:


> Notice how his rep is sealed.


Yes, because I see no reason to participate in a system where you receive bad reputation for making arguments that the main cult doesn't like. It's not as if reputation is somehow addressing my credibility as a debater as you suggest.

Either way, as you can see by checking your own reputation it was in the green as yours have been reduced.



Seyta said:


> Now put 2 and 2 together, and figure out just exactly how credible he is in the OBD.
> 
> This is what you DON'T want to become.


I'm sure you can put the numbers into your algorithms and find out that your trolling will be reported.


----------



## Raigen (Jul 15, 2009)

Either way, this seems like a big waste of time.


----------



## Endless Mike (Jul 15, 2009)

You're abusing equivocation by playing fast and loose with definitions of "omnipotence".


----------



## ~Greed~ (Jul 16, 2009)

hadomaru said:


> Isn't Haruhi only universal? Tsunami is massively Multiversal. In hindsight, i think i made a rape thread.




Technically she is a multiversal threat as of the ninth novel, since she created two universes (Alfa universe and Beta universe). So she has shown the ability to manipulate two universus at once. Not that Im saying that Haruhi would win, I'm just pointing out the facts.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 16, 2009)

Endless Mike said:


> You're abusing equivocation by playing fast and loose with definitions of "omnipotence".


Wrong. The reason I use loose definitions is to rhetorically show that we're unaware of the authors intentions. Making the assumption that the author intended to apply any specific meaning such as to have the qualities listed in the OBD wiki is a equivocation fallacy.

When the Chousin specified that they were omnipotent they were obviously going by one of the following definitions--either infinite in power or great in power.

I can refer to the Chousin as omnipotent, I can even refer to a sovereign monarch--a mere human--as omnipotent and I'd still stand literally correct.

Lets examine Red's omnipotent chart:

Can't have portrayed any limitations
Has to be supreme
Has to be the demiurge, first cause
Must have been referred to as omnipotent

As you see I've crossed two points on the chart, those are logical fallacies. The first one is a no-limits fallacy and the other one a equivocation fallacy, these arguments won't be accepted in any case by a rational thinking member. Thus disqualified.

The following points are basically a state as opposed to others within that fictional mainframe and a feat, neither of which proves that the one accomplish these feats can accomplish all other feats.

Now for a chart to be valid it has to restrict all possibilities but the desired conclusion.

Eru Il?vatar as you mentioned passes all all points on this chart, but you said that you didn't accept him as an omnipotent which I assume is because he only created what appears to be a very primitive universe.

The only valid evidence I can think of is if the writer confirms that an entity acts beyond logic and can accomplish anything. Of course this could mathematically be triumphed with a system that indicated another level of logic that wasn't specified, but at that point the outcome would be indeterminable anyway.

So if the author specifies that an entity can do anything it wants, even act outside of logic then I agree that you have a case.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jul 16, 2009)

... all of which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, i think we have made it clear that Haruhi loses. Chalk it up for a loss for her int he wiki.


----------



## Endless Mike (Jul 20, 2009)

No one cares about what the author intended. That breaks SoD.

Also, those were simply alternate timelines in the ninth novel. And IIRC there were two Haruhis, one in each.


----------



## ∅ (Jul 20, 2009)

Endless Mike said:


> No one cares about what the author intended.


If that's the case you should only base your arguments around what the characters have done and what's said that they could've done, if the suggested feats are close to those which are preformed. Since omnipotence is as far from any feat, none should be suggested to be such.



Endless Mike said:


> That breaks SoD.


What's SoD?


----------



## Knight (Jul 20, 2009)

Tsunami takes Haruhi's powers away like Nagoto did.


----------



## Ultimate Deathsaurer (Jul 20, 2009)

A said:


> What's SoD?



Suspension of Disbelief.


----------



## Lucaniel (Dec 16, 2009)

A+ matchup

Tsunami stomps.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 16, 2009)

Oh look, Haruhi gets stomped...again.


----------



## Lucaniel (Dec 16, 2009)

I think Haruhi vs. Lucifer Morningstar would be enormous fun, myself.


----------



## neodragzero (Dec 16, 2009)

It's already been done or not done because it's obviously just another one for the JBD.


----------



## Raigen (Dec 16, 2009)

Manga Tsunami stripped Ryoko of her immunity to alcohol to teach her a lesson, and still engaged in a sake-drinking contest to win a years supply of Sake, to which Ryoko beat Tsunami despite being sick and even drank a giant-size battle of Sake (was literally like 10ft tall or higher and Ryoko drank the whole thing. It was supposed to be a joke challenge, but Ryoko completed it anyway).


----------



## Hellspawn28 (Dec 16, 2009)

Z would be a better match up, but he would still likely win though.


----------



## Hotcherie (Dec 16, 2009)

Tsunami eats her soul.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

Uh, why was this revived?


----------



## Endless Mike (Dec 16, 2009)

Stupid pointless necro, complete with Raigen bringing up the non-canon manga


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

Not only did he use non-canon material, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the match.


----------



## Lucaniel (Dec 16, 2009)

The funny part is that I have no idea how I managed to find this thread to necro it 

Oh well.


----------



## Raigen (Dec 16, 2009)

Manga is still part of the multiverse. Doesn't matter anyway since Tsunami is the same in both OAV and manga. If you'd have read it you'd know that.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

Lucaniel said:


> The funny part is that I have no idea how I managed to find this thread to necro it
> 
> Oh well.



I assume you saw my post in the convo thread. Could be wrong though.



Raigen said:


> Manga is still part of the multiverse. Doesn't matter anyway since Tsunami is the same in both OAV and manga. If you'd have read it you'd know that.



None of this drivel changes the fact that your comment was pointless, off-topic tripe.

In closing: shut up.


----------



## Endless Mike (Dec 16, 2009)

The manga is not part of the Kajishima canon, and contradicts the OVAs. It is about as canon as Tenchi in Tokyo.


----------



## Lucaniel (Dec 16, 2009)

Narcissus said:


> I assume you saw my post in the convo thread. Could be wrong though.



That was it!

You got me an EM neg, though in fairness I shouldn't have assumed it was a current thread.

Ah well.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 16, 2009)

Stop adding posts, fools! Oops


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

Lucaniel said:


> That was it!
> 
> You got me an EM neg, though in fairness I shouldn't have assumed it was a current thread.
> 
> Ah well.



Oops. Sorry about that, though I can understand EM's annoyance at having a thread like this revived, what with trolls such as Raigen and ∅ in combination with one of his most hated characters.


----------



## Raigen (Dec 16, 2009)

The Manga is the EU to the OAV. It has the Gems, Chousin, Tenchi's LHW, clear backstory to Kagato and Dr. Clay, more in depth showing of the Jurian Royal Family, in fact the Tenchi manga is everything the OAV isn't.


----------



## ∅ (Dec 16, 2009)

Endless Mike said:


> You're abusing equivocation by playing fast and loose with definitions of "omnipotence".


The irony.



> Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).



You're the only one misusing the term.

The reason I play fast and loose is because you're overlooking all the definitions you don't seem fit. As if the term only can have one meaning and interpretation.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 16, 2009)

What? not this argument again!


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

Nah, I doubt this argument would go anywhere this time, especially considering that it was useless to the thread before and that ∅ didn't convince anyone of his side anyway.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 16, 2009)

Didn't he say Jafar is more powerful than Tsunami or something like that?


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

hadomaru said:


> Didn't he say Jafar is more powerful than Tsunami or something like that?



His argument was "Jafar was implied to be beyond anything the Tenchiverse had shown."

Idiotic beyond belief..


----------



## ∅ (Dec 16, 2009)

Narcissus said:


> Nah, I doubt this argument would go anywhere this time, especially considering that it was useless to the thread before and that ∅ didn't convince anyone of his side anyway.


Appeal to popularity.

Either way considering how my points remain unrefuted, I've essentially won the debate.



hadomaru said:


> Didn't he say Jafar is more powerful than Tsunami or something like that?


No.



Narcissus said:


> His argument was "Jafar was implied to be beyond anything the Tenchiverse had shown."
> 
> Idiotic beyond belief..


You think? Could you prove it? Oh that's right you never watched the series you're just speaking out of your ass as usual.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 16, 2009)

^ I have watched the series. Jafar never did anything beyond planetary. Tsunami can hold a small multiverse in the palm of her hand.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

∅ said:


> Appeal to popularity.
> 
> Either way considering how my points remain unrefuted, I've essentially won the debate.



Part of the purpose of argument is to convince others of your side. You pretty much failed to do this. 



> You think? Could you prove it? Oh that's right you never watched the series you're just speak out of your ass as usual.



Prove what? Because the Burden of Proof is on you since you made the claim. The Chousin are multiversal beings with actual feats. Jafar's (and Genie's) feats only go to planetary. 

Anyway, I don't know why I'm bothering with you when I know you're just a troll.


----------



## ∅ (Dec 16, 2009)

hadomaru said:


> ^ I have watched the series.


Well Narcissius hasn't.



hadomaru said:


> Jafar never did anything beyond planetary. Tsunami can hold a small multiverse in the palm of her hand.


I never said he could, I said it was implied that he could do more--which in fact is the case. Logic is more essential than 11 universes.



Narcissus said:


> Part of the purpose of argument is to convince others of your side. You pretty much failed to do this.


No, the entire argument revolves around a logical collusion. You don't "win" arguments by convincing people.



hadomaru said:


> Prove what? Because the Burden of Proof is on you since you made the claim. The Chousin are multiversal beings with actual feats. Jafar's (and Genie's) feats only go to planetary.


Damn you're dense. I never said he had greater feats, even after you quoted me you still don't understand what I actually said.



hadomaru said:


> Anyway, I don't know why I'm bothering with you when I know you're just a troll.


The irony


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 16, 2009)

∅ said:


> Well Narcissius hasn't.
> 
> 
> I never said he could, I said it was implied that he could do more--which in fact is the case. Logic is more essential than 11 universes.
> ...


you.. kinda misquoted Narc and had it say hadomaru.


----------



## Red (Dec 16, 2009)

∅ said:


> Either way considering how my points remain unrefuted, I've essentially won the debate.



Your points? You mean improper use of fallacies in a debate and doggedly repeating yourself over and over again when you've been proved wrong?

You deserve a medal, you "won" an internet debate. Congratulations.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 16, 2009)

∅ said:


> I never said he could, I said it was implied that he could do more--which in fact is the case. Logic is more essential then 11 universes.



Totally ignoring the fact that the Chousin exist the laws of the multiverse they created and have full control over abstract concepts such as time.

You're an idiot.




> No, the entire argument revolves around a logical collusion. You don't "win" arguments by convincing people.



And our conclusion was illogical because we used a different definiton than the one you wanted to use. Right.



> Damn you're dense. I never said he had greater feats, even after you quoted me you still don't understand what I actually said.




Claiming that Jafar is in any way superior to the Tenchiverse, even in implication, is beyond moronic (which doesn't surprise me coming from you).



> Concession accepted.



There is a massive difference between giving a concession and choosing not to feed the troll.



> The irony



Considering the majority of the OBD sees you as a troll, I don't really see any irony.


----------



## ∅ (Dec 17, 2009)

Red said:


> Your points? You mean improper use of fallacies in a debate and doggedly repeating yourself over and over again when you've been proved wrong?


Improper use? When you make an accusation like that you should at least have a source, same goes for being proved wrong when in fact I never was. At least not in that specific topic.

Also I've disproved you in numerous topics many of which you've accepted.

For instance this thread. It took a lot of time from me and a lot of retarded statements from you before you realized what a radian was and how it was applied in physics (junior high level physics) but you finally got there.

But what's sad is that, even though you tried to calculate something you didn't understand and no one in the entire thread save for me was able to point out that you were wrong. Which heavily damages the credibility of the users who posted there before I disproved it. The best calculators of the board at junior high level at best.



Narcissus said:


> Totally ignoring the fact that the Chousin exist the laws of the multiverse they created and have full control over abstract concepts such as time.


And time is somehow external to the consistency of numbers?



Narcissus said:


> You're an idiot.


Seeing how you couldn't tell apart virtually from visually, even when your main argument depended on it, your judgments couldn't hold less credibility.



Narcissus said:


> And our conclusion was illogical because we used a different definiton*definition* than the one you wanted to use. Right.


What conclusion are you referring to, whether or not the Chousin were omnipotent? Sure, if you can make your own definitions for predefined terms so that it fits your argument.



Narcissus said:


> Claiming that Jafar is in any way superior to the Tenchiverse, even in implication, is beyond moronic (which doesn't surprise me coming from you).


Fine, then I assume that if something is so blatantly obvious you could prove it?

Because I proved in that very topic that universal parameters were dependent on the consistency of numbers, so is the entire omniverse as predicted by theories beyond the standard model such as string theory and loop theory--models which all surpass all the universes of Tenchi Muyo! in complexity.



Narcissus said:


> There is a massive difference between giving a concession and choosing not to feed the troll.


Well in your case its an excuse which I take as consession.



Narcissus said:


> Considering the majority of the OBD sees you as a troll, I don't really see any irony.


What is it with you and the appeal to popularity fallacy?


----------



## Densoro (Dec 17, 2009)

∅ said:


> Appeal to popularity.





∅ said:


> What is it with you and the appeal to popularity fallacy?





∅ said:


> Poisoning the well fallacy.





∅ said:


> I don't have to refute an argument that's fallacious, you're shifting the burden of proof here.





> [A whole bunch of other fallacy accusations]


----------



## Red (Dec 17, 2009)

∅ said:


> Improper use? When you make an accusation like that you should at least have a source, same goes for being proved wrong when in fact I never was. At least not in that specific topic.



Thank god, here I was going to cite all the times yous listed fallacies like they invalidate the end result and some good Samaritan comes and wrecks your shit in a three word sentence. Awesome.

But hey I'm gong to go the extra mile and explain it to you so you can't weasel out of it. Your arguments against omnipotence are the same recycled shit you've brought up since the last time me and you had this banter.

Lets recap:

- Claiming a no limits fallacy for a being who has no limits is idiotic. You've done that in the last thread and you're doing that in this thread.

- Hinging entire argument on semantics. Look at this classic gem _"I can refer to the Chousin as omnipotent, I can even refer to a sovereign monarch--a mere human--as omnipotent and I'd still stand literally correct."_. See this bullshit? Equivocation fallacy.

- Improper use of a fallacy. Stating logic is fallacious does not invalidate the outcome. Doing so is in fact a fallacy and the armchair logician's lazy way of looking smart on teh internet.

Unfortunately unlike me who can learn from a mistake you can't pull your head from the depths of your ass long enough to realize the key mistakes in your argument.

You can claim to "win" a debate. But as Narc says, when you fail to properly present your point, persuade the opposing side or bystanders and even fix the gaps and holes in your logic then you've lost. But hey, you can say you "won" this argument and list it on one of your list of achievements and pat yourself on the back. 



> Also I've disproved you in numerous topics many of which you've accepted.
> 
> For instance this thread. It took a lot of time from me and a lot of retarded statements from you before you realized what a radian was and how it was applied in physics (junior high level physics) but you finally got there.


*Ive disproved you in *many* threads* 
*posts *one* thread from six months ago* 
*Learning to count is a bitch.*

Congratulations, you helped me fact check a calc from six months ago. I'm glad you've listed that as a noteworthy achievement of 2009.



> -snip-


K


----------



## Densoro (Dec 17, 2009)

> But as Narc says, when you fail to properly present your point, persuade the opposing side or bystanders and even fix the gaps and holes in your logic then you've lost.


Especially when you consider that the fallacies were created to counter unpersuasive arguments and, in doing so, make your own more persuasive. Sure, the appeal to popularity is right ('everyone gets pregnant while still in school, it's fine mother! DX'), but completely forsaking persuasion in favor of simply nitpicking debate form (style over substance btw) is plainly forgetting one's purpose. Like those anime characters who want to get stronger to protect those they love...then end up using that strength against their loved ones.

Hence the fallacy fallacy to regulate that ^__^


----------



## Lina Inverse (Dec 17, 2009)

Densoro, you want a saber for christmas?


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 17, 2009)

∅ said:


> For instance this thread.



I can play this game with you too.


*Spoiler*: __ 





∅ said:


> Now Pilisken,* I and Narcissus thought two steps ahead* and called him on his bullshit. Whereas you thought we were directly addressing his point. You get a cookie for effort but an F for stupidity.






It's funny how when someone agrees with the opinion you have, you have absolutely no problem with said person. But as soon as anyone disagrees with you, the insults and whining start. Furthermore, I think it shows very well that you do, in fact, care what others think about you (even if they really don't. Care about you, that is).



> And time is somehow external to the consistency of numbers?



Time is an infinite, abstract concept that the Chousin have complete control over. They can do as they please with the timelines in the Tenchiverse. Speaking of time, they even say that they existed for an "infinite amount of time" which is a feat that defies logic in and of itself.



> Seeing how you couldn't tell apart virtually from visually, even when your main argument depended on it, your judgments couldn't hold less credibility.


 
Considering how moronic your claim regarding Jafar is in the first place, I think that lessens your own credibility.

But do forgive me, I do believe the more proper term for you would be an idiot savant.



> What conclusion are you referring to, whether or not the Chousin were omnipotent? Sure, if you can make your own definitions for predefined terms so that it fits your argument.



First of all, forums have rules in an effort to bring order to the way people argue. If we did not have any, then there would be chaos and far more flaming than what there is now. Which is why we have the rules and terms we do.

And furthermore, going by the definition of omnipotence you wanted to use, there was no real relevance in bringing it up because, unlike the OBD definition, it would not have proved anything.



> Fine, then I assume that if something is so blatantly obvious you could prove it?
> 
> Because I proved in that very topic that universal parameters were dependent on the consistency of numbers, so is the entire omniverse as predicted by theories beyond the standard model such as string theory and loop theory--models which all surpass all the universes of Tenchi Muyo! in complexity.



Mother of God, no wonder no one takes you seriously. I do not have to prove a thing because you are the one making the claim. And you did not prove your arguments in that thread. In fact, Endless Mike and Kage no Yume refuted your claims.

Mike proved the Chousin could defy logic as well, while Kage no Yume brought up the fact that we do not know if Jafar meant he could defy logic or merely alter a person's perception of numbers.



> Well in your case its an excuse which I take as consession *concession*.



You can claim not to be a virgin for all I care. That still wouldn't make it any less true.



> What is it with you and the appeal to popularity fallacy?



Since this was not part of the actual argument, there is nothing fallacious about it. It's merely a fact - the vast majority does indeed view you as a troll who is angry because we don't work the way you want us to.

And, as I had mentioned earlier, part of the purpose of argument is to convince others of your side. Presidential candidates must debate with each other in order to persuade the masses, or they will lose the election.

Like I said, in almost every thread I see you in, you typically fail to convince anyone of your arguments, even when those people are debating for the same side as you.


----------



## Hotcherie (Dec 17, 2009)

Hey guys, i think Tsunami wins


----------



## ∅ (Dec 17, 2009)

This would work, if and only if I made an argument based on the opposing sides use of fallacies. I didn't do this though, I simply pointed out the use of fallacies.

The fallacy you're linking to essentially applies to those who says that arguments couldn't possibly be right due to the use of fallacies in them.

For instance:
_"You're wrong because you're a retard!" - Ad ad homenim fallacy.
"No, you are for using fallacies." - The fallacy fallacy_

Now if you actually looked at the context of what I wrote, I never said someone was wrong because he or she used fallacies in their argument. I simply point out that it's a fallacy, so people recognize the argument for not holding water and left it at that.

If you want to prove something you can't use fallacies, unless you prove something I don't have to disprove it.



Red said:


> Thank god, here I was going to cite all the times yous listed fallacies like they invalidate the end result and some good Samaritan comes and wrecks your shit in a three word sentence. Awesome.


Wishful thinking Red.



Red said:


> But hey I'm gong to go the extra mile and explain it to you so you can't weasel out of it. Your arguments against omnipotence are the same recycled shit you've brought up since the last time me and you had this banter.
> 
> Lets recap:
> 
> - Claiming a no limits fallacy for a being who has no limits is idiotic. You've done that in the last thread and you're doing that in this thread.


No it's not. Never is it suggested in, lets say Tenchi Muyo! that Kami Tenchi is without limits. That's something you made up yourself.

And the no limits fallacy only applies to the given scenario.

_"Hulk has been able to lift everything he's come across, therefore he should be able to lift anything." - No limits fallacy.

"The author confirmed that the Beyonder could do anything." - Not a no limits fallacy._

Study the latter, the proof of that is that it was confirmed. Hence there is proof. The former is just mere speculation with no actual evidence--hence a fallacy.



Red said:


> - Hinging entire argument on semantics. Look at this classic gem _"I can refer to the Chousin as omnipotent, I can even refer to a sovereign monarch--a mere human--as omnipotent and I'd still stand literally correct."_. See this bullshit? Equivocation fallacy.


No. I'm not saying that a Chousin, or a monarch are as powerful as The-One-Above-All. That would be an equivocation fallacy.

What I actually do in that argument is discredit yours by pointing out, that your argument rely on terminology with many interpretations. Which ironically enough is an actual equivocation fallacy.



Red said:


> - Improper use of a fallacy. Stating logic is fallacious does not invalidate the outcome. Doing so is in fact a fallacy and the armchair logician's lazy way of looking smart on teh internet.


You're not necessarily wrong for using fallacies, I've reiterated this numerous times now. But a fallacious argument is worth as much as no argument at all.



Red said:


> Unfortunately unlike me who can learn from a mistake you can't pull your head from the depths of your ass long enough to realize the key mistakes in your argument.


Perhaps because there are no key mistakes in my arguments? Because I know, and have always know what I argued for. Though I admit I've made a few mistakes back in the days, but none as severe as trying to use calculations I don't understand and getting an margin of error of 50,000.00 %



Red said:


> You can claim to "win" a debate. But as Narc says, when you fail to properly present your point, persuade the opposing side or bystanders and even fix the gaps and holes in your logic then you've lost. But hey, you can say you "won" this argument and list it on one of your list of achievements and pat yourself on the back.


No I said that I "won" that debate because I proved that the consistency of numbers, in reality, are more essential then any amount of universes according to front line scientists. Also there were no opposing arguments, and no I don't consider _"U so stopid!!!1"_ and argument.



Red said:


> *Ive disproved you in *many* threads*
> *posts *one* thread from six months ago*
> *Learning to count is a bitch.*
> 
> Congratulations, you helped me fact check a calc from six months ago. I'm glad you've listed that as a noteworthy achievement of 2009.


I took a random thread I had access to through the OBD wiki, at least one is better than none.

There are a few others just after the omnipotent argument, were I randomly pointed out when you were wrong for shit and giggles. As of late however I've learned to ignore most of what you say.

Had to split this due to the length of the conversation.


----------



## ∅ (Dec 17, 2009)

Narcissus said:


> I can play this game with you too.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...


That made me smile, why? Because in the thread I referred to I actually proved Red wrong. In the thread you just posted I merely agreed with you. See the difference? Even you can be right from time to time.



Narcissus said:


> It's funny how when someone agrees with the opinion you have, you have absolutely no problem with said person. But as soon as anyone disagrees with you, the insults and whining start. Furthermore, I think it shows very well that you do, in fact, care what others think about you (even if they really don't. Care about you, that is).


Don't say you can't take spiced up debates ... As for people caring about me? If I actually did care, I'd do as you do and nod to everything the majority finds right. I do however care about what others think of themselves, hence the spiced up debates.



Narcissus said:


> Time is an infinite, abstract concept that the Chousin have complete control over. They can do as they please with the timelines in the Tenchiverse. Speaking of time, they even say that they existed for an "infinite amount of time" which is a feat that defies logic in and of itself.


First of time isn't infinite, not in reality anyway. As for them existing for an infinite amount of time, that would still be outside the main universe. But even infinity isn't above such concepts as numbers. Five dimensions contains an infinite amount of universes, six dimensions span an infinite set of multi-verses and so forth. Any number of dimension still dependent on the consistency of numbers. Now a dimension in this sense isn't the same as the dimension in Tenchi Muyo! which's just technobabble for alternate universe.


*Spoiler*: _Imagining the 10th dimension_ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts[/YOUTUBE]






Narcissus said:


> Considering how moronic your claim regarding Jafar is in the first place, I think that lessens your own credibility.
> 
> But do forgive me, I do believe the more proper term for you would be an idiot savant.


Speaking of idiocy, you never managed to prove me wrong about the implication of that Chousin, the Counter-actor or Kami Tenchi could manipulate the consistency of numbers.



Narcissus said:


> First of all, forums have rules in an effort to bring order to the way people argue. If we did not have any, then there would be chaos and far more flaming than what there is now. Which is why we have the rules and terms we do.


Your made up definition isn't in the forum rules, I've read them. Nor should it be there since it would impede the process of proper debating.



Narcissus said:


> And furthermore, going by the definition of omnipotence you wanted to use, there was no real relevance in bringing it up because, unlike the OBD definition, it would not have proved anything.


Again, I never wanted to use any specific of the definition that were in the dictionary to support some statement. But rather to prove that certain terms can have various meanings, and aren't as specific as say "destroying a solar system." Omnipotence can literally mean anything from an medieval British lord to a god. So _"Your omnipotence"_ not literally incorrect when applied to royalty. 



Narcissus said:


> Mother of God, no wonder no one takes you seriously. I do not have to prove a thing because you are the one making the claim. And you did not prove your arguments in that thread. In fact, Endless Mike and Kage no Yume refuted your claims.


You actually do have to prove me wrong--but given your response I take it that you can't. Furthermore neither Endless Mike or Kage no Yumi refuted me. I easily refuted Endless Mike's claim with this link  and Kage no Yumi didn't hold any actual argument.



Narcissus said:


> Mike proved the Chousin could defy logic as well


No he didn't. He posted some video (which is not part of the canon OVA, btw) where a black hole was created. That is not to defy logic.



Narcissus said:


> while Kage no Yume brought up the fact that we do not know if Jafar meant he could defy logic or merely alter a person's perception of numbers.


That's why I said _"it was implied that he"_, and not _"he could"_.



Narcissus said:


> You can claim not to be a virgin for all I care. That still wouldn't make it any less true.


This made me smile as well. Either way it was a concession, or at the very least an attempt to avoid the questioning of your idea.



Narcissus said:


> Since this was not part of the actual argument, there is nothing fallacious about it. It's merely a fact - the vast majority does indeed view you as a troll who is angry because we don't work the way you want us to.


I know it wasn't a part of the actual argument but I wanted you to say that. Why? Because that makes you a self declared troll.



> In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or *off-topic messages* in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of *provoking other users into an emotional response* or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.





Narcissus said:


> And, as I had mentioned earlier, part of the purpose of argument is to convince others of your side. Presidential candidates must debate with each other in order to persuade the masses, or they will lose the election.
> 
> Like I said, in almost every thread I see you in, you typically fail to convince anyone of your arguments, even when those people are debating for the same side as you.


Imagine if they held elections in courts or in scientific communities.

I recall an article where a reporter asked a hundred people whether or not laser stood for something sound related (I can't recall the exact terms) rather than light amplification by simulated emission radiation. Where the majority voted yes, which is the incorrect answer.

You can't vote for theories, but I shouldn't have to tell you this. The appeal to popularity should seal the deal.


----------



## Densoro (Dec 17, 2009)

> Originally Posted by ∅
> This would work, if and only if I made an argument based on the opposing sides use of fallacies.





> Originally Posted by ∅
> I don't have to refute an argument that's fallacious, you're shifting the burden of proof here.


Nurr?


----------



## ∅ (Dec 17, 2009)

Densoro said:


> Nurr?


Does it say--and I paraphrase--_"You're wrong because you use fallacies"_ or does it say _"I don't have to refute a fallacious argument."_

Accepting me to provide proof for a negative (which is the case in the topic from where the reply came) is a appeal to ignorance fallacy. Some things can't be proved or disproved, all of which revolves around speculative ideas.

Since the one holding the argument is unable to prove that say; there are invisible immaterial unicorns at Mars. Or in this case _"Kami Tenchi can literally do anything"_ despite the fact that there is nothing in the series which even implies this, hence the lack of proof.

Either way instead of continue the off-topic bullshitting, try to disprove these following claims.

There is nothing that implies that any entity in Tenchi Muyo! has the authority of the consistency of numbers.
There is nothing that implies that Kami Tenchi! could do anything.
If you can disprove 2, then you obviously don't have disprove 1 as 2 => 1.


----------



## Densoro (Dec 17, 2009)

Saying that you needn't bothering refuting them seems to say "You've beaten yourself, so I don't have to."

In any case, this is all useless semantics. If Kami Tenchi was indeed declared the alpha and the omega, then no amount of your wordplay and wikipedia links to cardinal numbers that hardly anybody keeps in mind when writing a fictional story will change this. Being that I haven't watched the series, I don't know if this declaration was ever made. I just couldn't hang back and watch you sling around the word 'fallacy' like a get-out-of-debate-free card.


----------



## ∅ (Dec 17, 2009)

Densoro said:


> Saying that you needn't bothering refuting them seems to say *"You've beaten yourself, so I don't have to."*


But that's not what I said.



Densoro said:


> In any case, this is all useless semantics. If Kami Tenchi was indeed declared the alpha and the omega, then no amount of your wordplay and wikipedia links to cardinal numbers that hardly anybody keeps in mind when writing a fictional story will change this.


He wasn't.


----------



## Densoro (Dec 17, 2009)

> But that's not what I said.


Then why didn't you elaborate on how wrong they were? Why did you simply list the fallacy and move to the next quote?


----------



## ∅ (Dec 17, 2009)

Densoro said:


> Then why didn't you elaborate on how wrong they were?


Because then I would've committed the fallacy fallacy.



Densoro said:


> Why did you simply list the fallacy and move to the next quote?


To make sure that they knew their reasoning was poor.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 17, 2009)

Man, i wish i could lock this thread....


----------



## Hellspawn28 (Dec 17, 2009)

Why are we still debating? Tsunami is way above Haruhi's level.


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Dec 17, 2009)

I'm giving the somewhat off-topic debates room to finish before I lock this thread.


----------



## Densoro (Dec 18, 2009)

Personally, I'm done. Dunno if you were waiting on anybody else, and sorry for all the off-topicing ^^;


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 18, 2009)

∅ said:


> That made me smile, why? Because in the thread I referred to I actually proved Red wrong. In the thread you just posted I merely agreed with you. See the difference? Even you can be right from time to time.



Well I'm happy you're amused, because I am too. Anyway, the last sentence in the above statement was actually the entire point of posting that thread. No one is neither wrong nor right 100% of the time. Everyone makes mistakes. So keeping that in mind, attacking his credibility by showing one of the times when he was incorrect is rather childish, and more than likely you would never admit when you are wrong because you have your nose so high in the air that if it rained, you would surely drown.



> Don't say you can't take spiced up debates ... As for people caring about me? If I actually did care, I'd do as you do and nod to everything the majority finds right. I do however care about what others think of themselves, hence the spiced up debates.



Wrong. I argue for the side I think would win, even if the majority thinks otherwise. THAT is where convincing others of your side comes into play.

I can give you examples where I do so, if you like.



> First of time isn't infinite, not in reality anyway. As for them existing for an infinite amount of time, that would still be outside the main universe. But even infinity isn't above such concepts as numbers. Five dimensions contains an infinite amount of universes, six dimensions span an infinite set of multi-verses and so forth. Any number of dimension still dependent on the consistency of numbers. Now a dimension in this sense isn't the same as the dimension in Tenchi Muyo! which's just technobabble for alternate universe.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: _Imagining the 10th dimension_
> ...



You're missing my point. The fact that the Chousin existed for "an ifinite amount of time" shows that they can defy logic because, logically, it is impossible to do so as infinity is never ending. Your argument is that Jafar is "implied" to be beyond anything the Chousin can do because he could alter logic. The Chousin had directly been shown to defy logic.



> Speaking of idiocy, you never managed to prove me wrong about the implication of that Chousin, the Counter-actor or Kami Tenchi could manipulate the consistency of numbers.



Because I don't have to due to the flaw in your own argument. There is no clarification as to whether or not Jafar was implying that he could alter logic itself, or rather a person's perception of logic, the second option being far less impressive.



> Your made up definition isn't in the forum rules, I've read them. Nor should it be there since it would impede the process of proper debating.



We have a set of rules regarding how to debate here. I have noticed that you disagree with them (besides the omnipotence definition, you also voiced your disagreement with the Equivalency Rule). As I said, we have rules and definitions so that people will not just come in and troll or make outrageously nonsensical claims, but rather use an organized style of argument.

And truthfully, it sounds like you are implying that you should decide what terms and rules we go by.



> Again, I never wanted to use any specific of the definition that were in the dictionary to support some statement. *But rather to prove that certain terms can have various meanings, and aren't as specific as say "destroying a solar system." *Omnipotence can literally mean anything from an medieval British lord to a god. So _"Your omnipotence"_ not literally incorrect when applied to royalty.



You just admitted to purposely starting a completely off-topic conversation in this debate. Furthermore, you also just backed up another statement of mine (that part of arguing is to convince others). You wanted to prove to the masses your side of the argument (despite your claims of not caring), but you failed to do that. Instead you derailed the thread.



> You actually do have to prove me wrong--but given your response I take it that you can't.



It's called Burden of Proof. Learn what it means.



> Furthermore neither Endless Mike or Kage no Yumi refuted me. I easily refuted Endless Mike's claim with this link  and Kage no Yumi didn't hold any actual argument.



As for Mike, I was talking about his claim on the Chousin defying logic, which I'll get to in a moment.

And as for Kage no Yumi, he brought up the point about not knowing what Jafar was actually implying, in which case he was correct. We don't know, which creates that fatal hole in your argument.



> No he didn't. He posted some video (which is not part of the canon OVA, btw) where a black hole was created. That is not to defy logic.





I'm talking about when Mike mentions the fact that the Chousin make "an infinite number of calculations in a finite amount of time" which is indeed illogical.



> That's why I said _"it was implied that he"_, and not _"he could"_.



Good lord, I have a headache dealing with this drivel.

We do not know what the implication actually was. It could have either been Jafar claiming the power to alter a person's perception, or it could have been your interpretation of his claim. The point is, we do not know which, and you can't prove your view to be right because the movie does not give enough evidence on the matter.

Had he directly said he could alter logic itself to make 2+2=5, then you could still try to make your case, but he didn't.



> This made me smile as well. Either way it was a concession, or at the very least an attempt to avoid the questioning of your idea.



Like I said, there is a difference between giving a concession and not feeding the troll.



> I know it wasn't a part of the actual argument but I wanted you to say that. Why? Because that makes you a self declared troll.



Considering this entire conversation is off-topic (Tsunami vs. Haruhi), drew "emotional responses" from others, and was started by you, I'd say you fit the definition of "troll" far more than I do.



> Imagine if they held elections in courts or in scientific communities.
> 
> I recall an article where a reporter asked a hundred people whether or not laser stood for something sound related (I can't recall the exact terms) rather than light amplification by simulated emission radiation. Where the majority voted yes, which is the incorrect answer.
> 
> You can't vote for theories, but I shouldn't have to tell you this. The appeal to popularity should seal the deal.



And that is why I said it is "part of the reason" of debate. Both aspects are true. 

If you are so sure of your argument, but you can not convince anyone else of that argument regardless of claiming to have absolute proof, you clearly need to look over it again, because you did something wrong.

But just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on why no one seems to be convinced by your argument? Just asking.


----------



## ∅ (Dec 18, 2009)

Narcissus said:


> Well I'm happy you're amused, because I am too. Anyway, the last sentence in the above statement was actually the entire point of posting that thread. No one is neither wrong nor right 100% of the time. Everyone makes mistakes.


Now there are different kinds of mistakes, creating a thread trying to use calculations you don't understand and therefore failing miserably is the kind of mistake only a small fraction would ever make and for obvious reasons. 



Narcissus said:


> So keeping that in mind, attacking his credibility by showing one of the times when he was incorrect is rather childish, and more than likely you would never admit when you are wrong because you have your nose so high in the air that if it rained, you would surely drown.


You assuming started to attack my credibility with something you couldn't even prove to be wrong. That's the difference, I actually prove, or at least provide some form of evidence when I claim that people are wrong.



Narcissus said:


> Wrong. I argue for the side I think would win, even if the majority thinks otherwise. THAT is where convincing others of your side comes into play.


It's kind of difficult to argue for something you in some sense can prove for yourself. On the other hand calling someone an idiot for not realizing the obvious when repeatedly is reasonable.



Narcissus said:


> You're missing my point. The fact that the Chousin existed for "an ifinite amount of time" shows that they can defy logic because, logically, it is impossible to do so as infinity is never ending. Your argument is that Jafar is "implied" to be beyond anything the Chousin can do because he could alter logic. The Chousin had directly been shown to defy logic.


There is nothing illogical with infinity, it's actually directly applied as a concept in complex analysis, there are even at least five different symbols for it.

_"2 + 2 = 5"_ - is an logical error

_"∞ ∙ n = ∞, ∀ n ∈ ℝ"_ - is not.



Narcissus said:


> Because I don't have to due to the flaw in your own argument. There is no clarification as to whether or not Jafar was implying that he could alter logic itself, or rather a person's perception of logic, the second option being far less impressive.


_"You have a lot to learn about the genie game."_ Suggesting that genie wasn't capable of it, alter one's perception of logic (make them dumber or what not) is less impressive than say bring objects into existence or spin the world like a basket ball on your finger.

Also _"It's the curse of the lamp. All the power in the universe and I'm bound by the rules of a genie." - 21:00 ~ Aladdin Return of Jafar_



Narcissus said:


> We have a set of rules regarding how to debate here. I have noticed that you disagree with them (besides the omnipotence definition, you also voiced your disagreement with the Equivalency Rule).


Again there is no rule for faulty interpretations of these terms.



Narcissus said:


> As I said, we have rules and definitions so that people will not just come in and troll or make outrageously nonsensical claims, but rather use an organized style of argument.


But what you're referring to is not rules.



Narcissus said:


> And truthfully, it sounds like you are implying that you should decide what terms and rules we go by.


What's in the dictionary you mean?



Narcissus said:


> You just admitted to purposely starting a completely off-topic conversation in this debate. Furthermore, you also just backed up another statement of mine (that part of arguing is to convince others). You wanted to prove to the masses your side of the argument (despite your claims of not caring), but you failed to do that. Instead you derailed the thread.


 Appeal to popularity.



Narcissus said:


> It's called Burden of Proof. Learn what it means.


Straw man. Quote what you're trying to refute don't distort it.



Narcissus said:


> I'm talking about when Mike mentions the fact that the Chousin make "an infinite number of calculations in a finite amount of time" *which is indeed illogical*.


No, it isn't.



Narcissus said:


> We do not know what the implication actually was. It could have either been Jafar claiming the power to alter a person's perception


No it couldn't (as stated confirmed above).



Narcissus said:


> Had he directly said he could alter logic itself to make 2+2=5, then you could still try to make your case, but he didn't.


Do you need everything spoon fed to you?



Narcissus said:


> Considering this entire conversation is off-topic (Tsunami vs. Haruhi), drew "emotional responses" from others, and was started by you, I'd say you fit the definition of "troll" far more than I do.


Fine we're both trolls, geez 




Narcissus said:


> And that is why I said it is "part of the reason" of debate. Both aspects are true.


No, convincing other doesn't in any way shape or form make a fact more or less true.



Narcissus said:


> But just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on why no one seems to be convinced by your argument? Just asking.


Most posts with more than a thousand characters are read glimpsed on by what, 3 members? Not to mention they're _"programmed"_ by other aspects of the forum (OBD wiki, Respect threads, etc.) to reject and avoid conversations regarding certain changes.

That's why members, even in this thread ask "Why is this thread still open?" Even if I had convincing proof it would most likely be overlooked.


----------

