Whats complicated from what I said? Is TDDVP (you skip one D all the time) not a theoretical framework full of complex and abstract concepts that attempts to explain the nature of reality, consciousness, and the human experience (“multidimensional understanding of reality”)? Or am I talking about a different theory with the same name?
Does this theory not attempt to explain emotions, space, time, matter, consciousness, spirituality and the interconnections between all of them?
Is this not by definition versatile? What else can you think of thats not in this?
Are you not aware that the authors call it “theory of everything”? Do you not think “everything” is “versatile”? Isn’t this a lil bit of truism? Why don’t you debate if this thing is true rather than versatile? Let me guess, because its a random unproven theory but it includes a dimension for spirituality (God) and some science so you just like it.
I have not read the paper from Neppe and Close but as the authors describe it - it’s a theory trying to explain literally everything. There’s one more theory with the same name but I think it also tries to explain the nature of reality (aka everything). TDDVP is often referred to as a "grand unified theory" by its proponents. You literally put it in the description - “aims to provide a holistic and multidimensional understanding of reality”… how can this be not versatile.
This framework is created with the sole purpose of explaining reality and everything in it so ofc it will be versatile and touch on pretty much everything. So Im not sure what exactly are you trying to debate here. If the theory makes sense or not? If the theory is provable? Because if’s its just “is it versatile” I think it’s pretty obvious. Unless you want someone to challenge the validity of its methods and calculations but you say “do not get hung up too much on sources and evidence here, this matter is more theoretical than evidential”.
Noted! I have no problem with the debate itself do the talking. I personally treat the comments like a chat room and I enjoy when people show interest in a debate and I try to respond to mostly everything. Reading through the comments as Sidewalker suggests is indeed pointless and unnecessary.
You will notice that during the debate and also just now in the comments Sidewalker tries to straw man me and imply that just because I think something is predetermined that means no consequences should follow for anybody. As if Im arguing that we should just allow psychopaths to just murder freely just because they don’t choose their actions.
Thanks for showing that you still don’t even get what this topic is about.
Whether the votes were predetermined or not, illegitimate votes are still illegitimate votes based on the rules of the website. I didn’t get votes deleted because they are predetermined, they got deleted because they were obvious trolls (and by a moderator not by me)
Some people are predetermined to just not get some stuff, I guess yes… 🤷♂️
Again and again, you still call everything else an illusion but not what I argue to be an illusion. Our “sense that we are in control of our decisions” is an illusion. Everything else that you have said is complete nonsense. Now you are trying to say that Im saying “votes” are an illusion lol get a grip buddy
"it's not like these elements give us the conscious control, Right? "
Consciousness refers to our awareness of ourselves and our surroundings, and our ability to have subjective experiences. Free will, on the other hand, is the idea that individuals have the power to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. Brain activity indicating a decision occurs before we become consciously aware of making that decision. This suggests that our conscious mind is not the initiator of our actions but rather becomes aware of decisions that have already been made subconsciously.
Our thoughts and actions are influenced by a complex interplay of genetics, upbringing, environment, and past experiences. These factors operate largely outside of our conscious awareness and control, guiding our behavior in ways we do not choose. This deterministic framework suggests that while we may feel we are making free choices, these choices are pre-determined by prior causes. Our consciousness can rationalize and justify decisions after the fact, giving us the false impression that we were in control all along. This phenomenon, known as post-hoc rationalization, shows that our sense of free will might be constructed after the unconscious decision-making processes have already occurred.
Research in psychology, such as studies on priming and conditioning, demonstrates that our behavior can be significantly influenced by stimuli we are not consciously aware of. This indicates that much of what we consider to be conscious decision-making is heavily influenced by unconscious factors.
If free will truly exists, it would require us to be completely independent of any influence, able to make choices that are not shaped by our biology, psychology, or environment. However, all available evidence points to the fact that our decisions are influenced by numerous factors beyond our control, making the concept of absolute free will impossible.
Listening to doctors is not appealing to authority in the same way because the doctors don’t say “thats the right thing to do because I SAY IT”. They actually have reasons for why they recommend the things they do etc and they can show them. They study medicine thats based on scientific researches and experiments. You don’t even know what an argument from authority is so go back to your North Korean pre-school. And if you listen to your doctor just because he is a doctor without asking for any explanations you’re part of the low IQ population that you’re referring to.
Somehow I knew also that you would say something stupid again like “oh btw i didn’t mention Issac I said some other smart guy that is even smarter” missing the whole point again.
You failed to provide this smart guy’s reasons that might have been reasonable but you didn’t show them. You just provided him as evidence.. “hey look at this super duper smart guy, we dont have to know why he believes what he believes we just have to know he is super duper smart”.
An argument from authority.. A doctor would actually tell you why you need to take the pills he tells you to, he will provide you his reason and show you your blood work or whatever it is that made him think you should do something. AND HE CAN STILL BE WRONG BECAUSE HE IS JUST A HUMAN LIKE EVERYONE ELSE
You obviously didn’t get quantum de coherence since mostly everything you said was brought up by me to help me… yes quantum decoherence shows that the classical cause and effect nature of reality on macro level CAN appear from the micro level indeterminacy which only HELPS MY POINT. It shows also that just because there are some things in the universe that are not deterministic and are random that doesn’t defeat my point. Because all i need is determinism on a macro level and more precisely in the brain. And I did agree that they are still things that can get affected by the quantum indeterminacy but we also have no control of them which wont bring you to free will. Radioactive decay might be random but it is totally irrelevant to this debate. It’s just another thing you have no control of and you have to deal with if it happens.
And just like Sidewalker you think just because there’s some randomness and you would have to make choices and decisions thats free will. Whenever that randomness happens and you are presented with a choice, you having to make that choice is still not free will. Your brain still has to make that choice based on the information it has gathered in the past and the current condition and state of your body. Free will is not simply making choices, its the ability to make choices independently from your physiological past which you had no control of. So again, show me a neuron system that made a choice independently from the sum of its biological past? Show me the vigorous logic that Sidewalker used to defend “free will” being self evident?
And just so i dont make the same appeal to authority as you, my arguments are relevant not because they come from R. Sapolsky or Sam Harris for example but because Im literally discussing the brain and the physical processes that are happening in it. There’s no way you can say neuroscience is irrelevant.
Let me summarize the debate for you since you’re having trouble:
“Free will” - make choices that are not determined by prior causes or external forces
PRO: here’s how the brain and our decision making works, here’s what causes the brain to work like that, here’s everything prior to that thats outside of our control. Show me one brain activity thats not determined from prior causes. Show me one decision that you make without the brain. CON: *ITS SELF EVIDENT* …Case closed.
(Scientific sources provided for my scientific claims. Philosophy not needed.)
Every argument of mine comes from neuroscientists and physicists from interviews and debates >ON THIS EXACT TOPIC<. To say that my arguments are not even relevant is simply idiotic.
Quantum mechanics was mentioned as a side note just because I knew CON would start talking about universal determinism (and he did) which is philosophical idea and not relevant. CON did not address Max T. until the final round.
CON: “my best argument for free will is “its self evident””
It is not. That was rebutted and he never answered it.
“Self-evident truths are typically axiomatic statements that are universally acknowledged (like "all bachelors are unmarried men"), which is not the case for free will.”
CON: “but, but, but our moral legal system”…
Answered by me and dropped by CON.
CONs arguments are based on intuition, false logic (shown many time in the debate) and keep asserting that everyone experiences free will. So, LOGICALdebater01 show me one argument where CON displayed ”vigorous logic”.
Btw, Im not surprised that you two think alike since Ive had a conversation about the same thing with both of you and you both said the same stupid thing.
-Why is the belief in god reasonable?
Logicaldebater and Sidewalker: Well bc Issac Newton was reasonable and he thought it is, therefore belief in God is reasonable…
Another coherent vote that analyzed the arguments thoroughly…
“First round, Pro yaps intensely”
?
“Con however opposes Pro's yapping with vigorous logic”
?
“Con probably mogs Pro in terms of reasoning.”
?
Why do most people here think voting is just to say your opinion lol…
I’m saying my vote might be eligible for removal because Im not sure how exactly Im allowed to vote in a situation like this. Am I allowed to not consider PROs first round statement as an argument and vote bad conduct for flippant debate approach?
To be completely fair, presenting a song is connected to the topic but that alone by itself with absolutely no elaboration of any kind doesn’t lead me to the resolution the title looks for. And hardly anyone can consider it an argument.
And? You think I should change the definition mid debate because of what Sidewalker wants to explain with it? I have already talked about feelings and “self evident truths” in the debate.
"“abracadabra ILLUSION” does not change that fact. "
VOTERS whichever side youre on I don't care, I hope you appreciate PROs entertaining approach because it makes the debate fun to read (at least for me)! Thanks PRO (no sarcasm) for this, it genuinely made me chuckle! The debate has been fun for me so far, obviously neither one of us will convince the other but maybe readers will get something out of it.
Some of you guys might be interested in this topic and other's I almost debated on this so I assume you might be curios what my arguments would have been. Just wanted to tag you if you feel like checking it out! Thanks!
Atomic theory is just a theory and somehow atomic bombs work, interesting isn’t it?
Electromagnetic theory is just a theory but we are able to communicate through phones and computers now right?
The GERm theory is just a theory too right? But somehow we know all about bacteria, germs, viruses and diseases?
Please google the definition of scientific theory and don’t assume scientists use the word “theory” in the same way regular people do. Scientific theory is not a mere guess. Its the highest possible title a scientific hypothesis can be lifted to.
“Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is”
You most definitely can prove evolution and not all evolution requires billions of years. You did start to get into that later on in your argument by saying vaccines evolve fast which is a contradiction of “we cant prove it bc its so slow” . You can and you did just prove that bacteria or viruses evolve much faster than animals which CAN be observed in a lab. It happens way faster because viruses reproduce extremely fast and are able to create multiple generations very quickly. You just need more details on that in my opinion and maybe a different less controversial example.
1.okay lets see, I have never argued for perfect jinchuriki powers that obviously come at the end of the war (sorry i know you dont know what war im talking about). I have argued for powers that kurama can give naruto at any time and powers that have been seen in the og show. I have argued for speed, durability, healing factors, chakra hands and power (all shown in the debate with sources and with naruto being 1 tail) .I never brought up perfect jinchuriki, only jinchuriki. My point about fire and the age was that Aang in his base mode did not master fire yet so he cannot use it in the beginning to just burn Naruto as PRO mentioned. Then after that I acknowledged that in AS Aang can use firebending but I provided sources to why I think Naruto will tank most of the fire attacks.
2.”his buddy shows up?” His buddy never left. Thats strawman but unfortunately Kurama is a part of Naruto and his powers are too so thats not a separate individual fighting Aang. Its still Naruto boosted by his character powers. And yes if Naruto dies and Kurama revives him DURING (not later) the fight is not over. Avatar State cannot revive Aang if he dies (idk where you got that from either, Aang literally died in AS and AS did not save him). If after the battle Naruto dies from battle damage that does not mean he did not win the battle. If i go in the ring to fight anybody and win but later on die from brain damage I still won the boxing match. Also please dont put in your definition of victory that PRO never used. How many times someone dies is irrelevant if he keeps coming back until he wins. Im not saying Naruto will keep coming back forever Im just commenting on your weird definition of victory.
3.lol no again,,,… what kind of biases broo I said general knowledge FOR BOTH shows… naruto being able to create hundreds of clones is shown in the freaking first or second episode of the og naruto… like sorry I assumed the people voting on an aang vs naruto debate will have at least some basic information about who naruto and aang are.. Good thing you have watched Avatar at least because you would have said something stupid about Aang too like: “oh idk what aang can do … some kind of circus acrobat that bends over and has magic water and air idk (seriously???)”
“A statement like this doesn't mean anything to a lay person, and voters are supposed to act like they are lay persons.”
-lol
“I don't much care for ultimate powers”
-lol
“if either loses they have a power which takes over and kills the other”
-lol no Aang doesn’t have that
“and at least for Naruto it might also kill him if he uses it”
-yea lol he might die sure, AFTER he kills Aang and already has won the battle
“Was of course wise to point out that Kurama is apparently not mastered until after episode 300; much like how con tried to argue Aang couldn't use fire (avatar state I'm unclear on).”
-lol not even remotely close to what was argued about Kurama and the fire bending
“Not to mention, trying so hard to dismiss his fire powers, implicitly says Naruto is weak against them”
-lol just watch the sources pls
“. Likewise for trying to shift focus off of those other non-kinetic attacks.”
-lol this is me not responding to “Aang can just drown him with water style”.
-the durability analysis was botched again and everything about Naruto is dismissed because a Kunai harmed him …
“Yet it's pro who lists Naruto's skills there”
-yes , thanks pro for mentioning that naruto can throw knives idk why i didn’t think to include that
“Those are a ninjas best ways to counter Aang maintaining distance with his wind powers”
-lol no again, I would assume the chakra hands are much better than kunai. Ht obviously they are much underestimated and not proven to be effective
“Something about he collects fox tails”
- lol what
“, and the fox tails are sometimes toads, and that lets turn himself into any inanimate objects and him make 1000 clones of himself (seriously?)... Need I go on”
LOL WHAAT…. have you not ever watched the show lol
“Whereas Aang can manipulate X, Y, and Z (elements), and those counter G, H, and I from Naruto.”
-yea that makes sense, so what are the XYZGH
“That would be the script you were just talking about. It's not about one lone skill alone to win a fight. Fights are dynamic things, which inevitably end up utilizing more than one skill, and unexpected things happen.”
Yes, all Im saying is that scripts should not be a significant part of your decision imo but since they are Im asking you to provide the script that convinced you that Aangs skills would win this fight for him. About everything else I think we are saying the same thing.
Fair enough, I would only add that while I agree both have plot armor my argument for durability does not rely on that since I have mentioned healing abilities that Naruto have because of Kurama and the general superior physical endurance in that Universe. Naruto is not the only one that just smashes through rocks when he is thrown at them for example meaning thats not just plot armor. Fights in general are more intense and characters from that verse are able to take and inflict more damage solely with their bodies. Thats in the debate as well.
Plot armor is real yes but it was never argued by PRO, and just because you find it maybe ridiculous that we discuss it, its very important. The simplest way to judge durability is simply looking at the healing factor of Naruto. Even if you don’t recognize anything else from the show.
Like the brutal damage Naruto has been shown to take with his bare body without shielding himself with elements or jutsus.
Btw after I said that Naruto has vasts amount of chakra reserves PRO agreed. I have no idea why this chakra argument of PRO is taken so seriously when in reality is nothing problematic. Naruto was never shown in the show losing a fight due to chakra insufficiency. PRO also never gave such examples. Saying something takes chakra is obvious. If voters dont know what a jinchuriki and uzimaki is idk if they are fit to vote on this debate. Just like voters researched PROs sources on their own, they could google those two words if they really dont know what they are. PRO obviously knew them and dropped that chakra argument. Maybe also because it wasn’t leading anywhere since I also mentioned that when Naruto dies or is out of Chakra, Kurama can intervene.
Thank you for voting!
Thanks for voting!
Whats complicated from what I said? Is TDDVP (you skip one D all the time) not a theoretical framework full of complex and abstract concepts that attempts to explain the nature of reality, consciousness, and the human experience (“multidimensional understanding of reality”)? Or am I talking about a different theory with the same name?
Does this theory not attempt to explain emotions, space, time, matter, consciousness, spirituality and the interconnections between all of them?
Is this not by definition versatile? What else can you think of thats not in this?
Are you not aware that the authors call it “theory of everything”? Do you not think “everything” is “versatile”? Isn’t this a lil bit of truism? Why don’t you debate if this thing is true rather than versatile? Let me guess, because its a random unproven theory but it includes a dimension for spirituality (God) and some science so you just like it.
I have not read the paper from Neppe and Close but as the authors describe it - it’s a theory trying to explain literally everything. There’s one more theory with the same name but I think it also tries to explain the nature of reality (aka everything). TDDVP is often referred to as a "grand unified theory" by its proponents. You literally put it in the description - “aims to provide a holistic and multidimensional understanding of reality”… how can this be not versatile.
This framework is created with the sole purpose of explaining reality and everything in it so ofc it will be versatile and touch on pretty much everything. So Im not sure what exactly are you trying to debate here. If the theory makes sense or not? If the theory is provable? Because if’s its just “is it versatile” I think it’s pretty obvious. Unless you want someone to challenge the validity of its methods and calculations but you say “do not get hung up too much on sources and evidence here, this matter is more theoretical than evidential”.
“Prove to me that this “theory of everything” is not about everything” 🤣
Maybe the first one, idk.
Would you mind explaining the reasons for giving significantly better conductor to CON?
Noted! I have no problem with the debate itself do the talking. I personally treat the comments like a chat room and I enjoy when people show interest in a debate and I try to respond to mostly everything. Reading through the comments as Sidewalker suggests is indeed pointless and unnecessary.
Another good one.
You can be a comedian you know. That’s what my mind just tricked me to say.
You will notice that during the debate and also just now in the comments Sidewalker tries to straw man me and imply that just because I think something is predetermined that means no consequences should follow for anybody. As if Im arguing that we should just allow psychopaths to just murder freely just because they don’t choose their actions.
Thanks for showing that you still don’t even get what this topic is about.
Whether the votes were predetermined or not, illegitimate votes are still illegitimate votes based on the rules of the website. I didn’t get votes deleted because they are predetermined, they got deleted because they were obvious trolls (and by a moderator not by me)
Some people are predetermined to just not get some stuff, I guess yes… 🤷♂️
Again and again, you still call everything else an illusion but not what I argue to be an illusion. Our “sense that we are in control of our decisions” is an illusion. Everything else that you have said is complete nonsense. Now you are trying to say that Im saying “votes” are an illusion lol get a grip buddy
I wont read it but ok
"it's not like these elements give us the conscious control, Right? "
Consciousness refers to our awareness of ourselves and our surroundings, and our ability to have subjective experiences. Free will, on the other hand, is the idea that individuals have the power to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. Brain activity indicating a decision occurs before we become consciously aware of making that decision. This suggests that our conscious mind is not the initiator of our actions but rather becomes aware of decisions that have already been made subconsciously.
Our thoughts and actions are influenced by a complex interplay of genetics, upbringing, environment, and past experiences. These factors operate largely outside of our conscious awareness and control, guiding our behavior in ways we do not choose. This deterministic framework suggests that while we may feel we are making free choices, these choices are pre-determined by prior causes. Our consciousness can rationalize and justify decisions after the fact, giving us the false impression that we were in control all along. This phenomenon, known as post-hoc rationalization, shows that our sense of free will might be constructed after the unconscious decision-making processes have already occurred.
Research in psychology, such as studies on priming and conditioning, demonstrates that our behavior can be significantly influenced by stimuli we are not consciously aware of. This indicates that much of what we consider to be conscious decision-making is heavily influenced by unconscious factors.
If free will truly exists, it would require us to be completely independent of any influence, able to make choices that are not shaped by our biology, psychology, or environment. However, all available evidence points to the fact that our decisions are influenced by numerous factors beyond our control, making the concept of absolute free will impossible.
Tell me one logical fallacy I committed 😁
🤣🤣🤣 Maybe they would if I read them. Idk if my brain will be able to understand someone with 47628 IQ (possibly) 🤣🤣
“my intelligence is immeasurable; my intelligence is within the ranges that are limited to being measured by scientific means ” pahahahhahahahah 🤣🤣
Buddy after that I’m not reading anything you say lol good luck in life 🤣
Listening to doctors is not appealing to authority in the same way because the doctors don’t say “thats the right thing to do because I SAY IT”. They actually have reasons for why they recommend the things they do etc and they can show them. They study medicine thats based on scientific researches and experiments. You don’t even know what an argument from authority is so go back to your North Korean pre-school. And if you listen to your doctor just because he is a doctor without asking for any explanations you’re part of the low IQ population that you’re referring to.
Somehow I knew also that you would say something stupid again like “oh btw i didn’t mention Issac I said some other smart guy that is even smarter” missing the whole point again.
You failed to provide this smart guy’s reasons that might have been reasonable but you didn’t show them. You just provided him as evidence.. “hey look at this super duper smart guy, we dont have to know why he believes what he believes we just have to know he is super duper smart”.
An argument from authority.. A doctor would actually tell you why you need to take the pills he tells you to, he will provide you his reason and show you your blood work or whatever it is that made him think you should do something. AND HE CAN STILL BE WRONG BECAUSE HE IS JUST A HUMAN LIKE EVERYONE ELSE
You obviously didn’t get quantum de coherence since mostly everything you said was brought up by me to help me… yes quantum decoherence shows that the classical cause and effect nature of reality on macro level CAN appear from the micro level indeterminacy which only HELPS MY POINT. It shows also that just because there are some things in the universe that are not deterministic and are random that doesn’t defeat my point. Because all i need is determinism on a macro level and more precisely in the brain. And I did agree that they are still things that can get affected by the quantum indeterminacy but we also have no control of them which wont bring you to free will. Radioactive decay might be random but it is totally irrelevant to this debate. It’s just another thing you have no control of and you have to deal with if it happens.
And just like Sidewalker you think just because there’s some randomness and you would have to make choices and decisions thats free will. Whenever that randomness happens and you are presented with a choice, you having to make that choice is still not free will. Your brain still has to make that choice based on the information it has gathered in the past and the current condition and state of your body. Free will is not simply making choices, its the ability to make choices independently from your physiological past which you had no control of. So again, show me a neuron system that made a choice independently from the sum of its biological past? Show me the vigorous logic that Sidewalker used to defend “free will” being self evident?
And just so i dont make the same appeal to authority as you, my arguments are relevant not because they come from R. Sapolsky or Sam Harris for example but because Im literally discussing the brain and the physical processes that are happening in it. There’s no way you can say neuroscience is irrelevant.
Let me summarize the debate for you since you’re having trouble:
“Free will” - make choices that are not determined by prior causes or external forces
PRO: here’s how the brain and our decision making works, here’s what causes the brain to work like that, here’s everything prior to that thats outside of our control. Show me one brain activity thats not determined from prior causes. Show me one decision that you make without the brain. CON: *ITS SELF EVIDENT* …Case closed.
(Scientific sources provided for my scientific claims. Philosophy not needed.)
Every argument of mine comes from neuroscientists and physicists from interviews and debates >ON THIS EXACT TOPIC<. To say that my arguments are not even relevant is simply idiotic.
Quantum mechanics was mentioned as a side note just because I knew CON would start talking about universal determinism (and he did) which is philosophical idea and not relevant. CON did not address Max T. until the final round.
CON: “my best argument for free will is “its self evident””
It is not. That was rebutted and he never answered it.
“Self-evident truths are typically axiomatic statements that are universally acknowledged (like "all bachelors are unmarried men"), which is not the case for free will.”
CON: “but, but, but our moral legal system”…
Answered by me and dropped by CON.
CONs arguments are based on intuition, false logic (shown many time in the debate) and keep asserting that everyone experiences free will. So, LOGICALdebater01 show me one argument where CON displayed ”vigorous logic”.
Btw, Im not surprised that you two think alike since Ive had a conversation about the same thing with both of you and you both said the same stupid thing.
-Why is the belief in god reasonable?
Logicaldebater and Sidewalker: Well bc Issac Newton was reasonable and he thought it is, therefore belief in God is reasonable…
;( :(
“I recommend everyone to focus on the arguments that each individual has made” (he said without analyzing a single argument lol)
Another coherent vote that analyzed the arguments thoroughly…
“First round, Pro yaps intensely”
?
“Con however opposes Pro's yapping with vigorous logic”
?
“Con probably mogs Pro in terms of reasoning.”
?
Why do most people here think voting is just to say your opinion lol…
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
In this discussion you will realize (if you haven’t already which I doubt) that this won’t be a debate but a lecture.
Yeah I think he just saw the title and decided to give his opinion or to troll a lil bit.
The funny thing is there’s people who believe in God and don’t believe in Free Will (like Lutherans...) lol.
I’ve heard of things like that but I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to. Can you be more specific?
Thanks Casey!
I also never claimed a lot of other things that CON thought I did but it’s okay lol
I’m saying my vote might be eligible for removal because Im not sure how exactly Im allowed to vote in a situation like this. Am I allowed to not consider PROs first round statement as an argument and vote bad conduct for flippant debate approach?
To be completely fair, presenting a song is connected to the topic but that alone by itself with absolutely no elaboration of any kind doesn’t lead me to the resolution the title looks for. And hardly anyone can consider it an argument.
Oh okay my bad, maybe I misunderstood you. So we are saying the same thing! :)
And? You think I should change the definition mid debate because of what Sidewalker wants to explain with it? I have already talked about feelings and “self evident truths” in the debate.
“Free will” has a definition in the description of the debate that nobody challenged but thanks for providing your definition
Didn’t mean it in a bad way damn lol… whether you are right or not abracadabra just sounds funny
CON’s* lol I forgot I’m PRO
"“abracadabra ILLUSION” does not change that fact. "
VOTERS whichever side youre on I don't care, I hope you appreciate PROs entertaining approach because it makes the debate fun to read (at least for me)! Thanks PRO (no sarcasm) for this, it genuinely made me chuckle! The debate has been fun for me so far, obviously neither one of us will convince the other but maybe readers will get something out of it.
If I had a dollar every time someone said not having a religion is a religion….
That’s also a quote I used from PhD physicist Prof. Matt Young in Colorado, could’ve posted it as a source too.
Some of you guys might be interested in this topic and other's I almost debated on this so I assume you might be curios what my arguments would have been. Just wanted to tag you if you feel like checking it out! Thanks!
Tag
“a thing changed to that of a complete human”
Are you aware that this is not the definition of “Evolution”
“Yes words are very important. Be very careful and specific with them.”
*continues to completely misunderstand the definition and the difference between A Theory and A SCIENTIFIC Theory, AGAIN* LOL
Atomic theory is just a theory and somehow atomic bombs work, interesting isn’t it?
Electromagnetic theory is just a theory but we are able to communicate through phones and computers now right?
The GERm theory is just a theory too right? But somehow we know all about bacteria, germs, viruses and diseases?
Please google the definition of scientific theory and don’t assume scientists use the word “theory” in the same way regular people do. Scientific theory is not a mere guess. Its the highest possible title a scientific hypothesis can be lifted to.
“Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is”
You most definitely can prove evolution and not all evolution requires billions of years. You did start to get into that later on in your argument by saying vaccines evolve fast which is a contradiction of “we cant prove it bc its so slow” . You can and you did just prove that bacteria or viruses evolve much faster than animals which CAN be observed in a lab. It happens way faster because viruses reproduce extremely fast and are able to create multiple generations very quickly. You just need more details on that in my opinion and maybe a different less controversial example.
Im just not sure that Pain=12yo Aang. That could be a separate debate
1.okay lets see, I have never argued for perfect jinchuriki powers that obviously come at the end of the war (sorry i know you dont know what war im talking about). I have argued for powers that kurama can give naruto at any time and powers that have been seen in the og show. I have argued for speed, durability, healing factors, chakra hands and power (all shown in the debate with sources and with naruto being 1 tail) .I never brought up perfect jinchuriki, only jinchuriki. My point about fire and the age was that Aang in his base mode did not master fire yet so he cannot use it in the beginning to just burn Naruto as PRO mentioned. Then after that I acknowledged that in AS Aang can use firebending but I provided sources to why I think Naruto will tank most of the fire attacks.
2.”his buddy shows up?” His buddy never left. Thats strawman but unfortunately Kurama is a part of Naruto and his powers are too so thats not a separate individual fighting Aang. Its still Naruto boosted by his character powers. And yes if Naruto dies and Kurama revives him DURING (not later) the fight is not over. Avatar State cannot revive Aang if he dies (idk where you got that from either, Aang literally died in AS and AS did not save him). If after the battle Naruto dies from battle damage that does not mean he did not win the battle. If i go in the ring to fight anybody and win but later on die from brain damage I still won the boxing match. Also please dont put in your definition of victory that PRO never used. How many times someone dies is irrelevant if he keeps coming back until he wins. Im not saying Naruto will keep coming back forever Im just commenting on your weird definition of victory.
3.lol no again,,,… what kind of biases broo I said general knowledge FOR BOTH shows… naruto being able to create hundreds of clones is shown in the freaking first or second episode of the og naruto… like sorry I assumed the people voting on an aang vs naruto debate will have at least some basic information about who naruto and aang are.. Good thing you have watched Avatar at least because you would have said something stupid about Aang too like: “oh idk what aang can do … some kind of circus acrobat that bends over and has magic water and air idk (seriously???)”
“A statement like this doesn't mean anything to a lay person, and voters are supposed to act like they are lay persons.”
-lol
“I don't much care for ultimate powers”
-lol
“if either loses they have a power which takes over and kills the other”
-lol no Aang doesn’t have that
“and at least for Naruto it might also kill him if he uses it”
-yea lol he might die sure, AFTER he kills Aang and already has won the battle
“Was of course wise to point out that Kurama is apparently not mastered until after episode 300; much like how con tried to argue Aang couldn't use fire (avatar state I'm unclear on).”
-lol not even remotely close to what was argued about Kurama and the fire bending
“Not to mention, trying so hard to dismiss his fire powers, implicitly says Naruto is weak against them”
-lol just watch the sources pls
“. Likewise for trying to shift focus off of those other non-kinetic attacks.”
-lol this is me not responding to “Aang can just drown him with water style”.
-the durability analysis was botched again and everything about Naruto is dismissed because a Kunai harmed him …
“Yet it's pro who lists Naruto's skills there”
-yes , thanks pro for mentioning that naruto can throw knives idk why i didn’t think to include that
“Those are a ninjas best ways to counter Aang maintaining distance with his wind powers”
-lol no again, I would assume the chakra hands are much better than kunai. Ht obviously they are much underestimated and not proven to be effective
“Something about he collects fox tails”
- lol what
“, and the fox tails are sometimes toads, and that lets turn himself into any inanimate objects and him make 1000 clones of himself (seriously?)... Need I go on”
LOL WHAAT…. have you not ever watched the show lol
“Whereas Aang can manipulate X, Y, and Z (elements), and those counter G, H, and I from Naruto.”
-yea that makes sense, so what are the XYZGH
“That would be the script you were just talking about. It's not about one lone skill alone to win a fight. Fights are dynamic things, which inevitably end up utilizing more than one skill, and unexpected things happen.”
Yes, all Im saying is that scripts should not be a significant part of your decision imo but since they are Im asking you to provide the script that convinced you that Aangs skills would win this fight for him. About everything else I think we are saying the same thing.
Fair enough, I would only add that while I agree both have plot armor my argument for durability does not rely on that since I have mentioned healing abilities that Naruto have because of Kurama and the general superior physical endurance in that Universe. Naruto is not the only one that just smashes through rocks when he is thrown at them for example meaning thats not just plot armor. Fights in general are more intense and characters from that verse are able to take and inflict more damage solely with their bodies. Thats in the debate as well.
Plot armor is real yes but it was never argued by PRO, and just because you find it maybe ridiculous that we discuss it, its very important. The simplest way to judge durability is simply looking at the healing factor of Naruto. Even if you don’t recognize anything else from the show.
Like the brutal damage Naruto has been shown to take with his bare body without shielding himself with elements or jutsus.
Btw after I said that Naruto has vasts amount of chakra reserves PRO agreed. I have no idea why this chakra argument of PRO is taken so seriously when in reality is nothing problematic. Naruto was never shown in the show losing a fight due to chakra insufficiency. PRO also never gave such examples. Saying something takes chakra is obvious. If voters dont know what a jinchuriki and uzimaki is idk if they are fit to vote on this debate. Just like voters researched PROs sources on their own, they could google those two words if they really dont know what they are. PRO obviously knew them and dropped that chakra argument. Maybe also because it wasn’t leading anywhere since I also mentioned that when Naruto dies or is out of Chakra, Kurama can intervene.