fanboyism vs logic

Originally posted by Creshosk

Do you have ANY ****ing idea of how the god damned scientific process for dsicovering the truth works? Don't lie to me ******* of course you don't. Otherwise you'd have to look at the actual evidence provided, so far DBZ has nothing to prove it's up to par with Superman.
"Proove that Superman could survive a kamehameha" My ****ing ass you're just after the truth, You're trying to prove that the DBZ side is better, and doing it based mostly on blind faith. Truth my ass. "I'm only after the truth" Which is why you're arguing so heavily in favor of the side without substantial enough evidence to draw a conclusion that they could win at all. but no, "No body wins in debate" Certainly not you, which is what you were actually trying to do. "I provided evidence of Buu's ability to win" Yeah like him blowing up a planet really shows he's on par with a black hole.
You're just a petty little fanboy who can';t bare the thought of your side losing so you adopt this bullshit idea of "You don't win in debate!" Only because you can't win mr BARDOCK.

Again I don't think the DB side wins.....I stated that repeatedly....going by Deus Ex'S "The Winner takes it all" Method Superman wins hands down....but observing a little further might help, or not?

Oh and please don't call me names..I feel uncomfortable when you do that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No not that....that is actually a very reasonable thing...since Buu most probably would lose. I have to admit I misused the word Fanboy I am sorry....he just dismissed any doubt ...anyone who says he's 100% sure Superman can beat Buu is either an idiot or a liar since there is no evidence as to how powerful and how durable Buu is...now Superman showed feats that are amazing and put him ahead on my list..but saying that Buu would absolutely always lose is unfair since no one knows how much it took to beat buu...and how owerful his strongest Ki Blasts actually were, nor how strong hios punches are....from what we have seen Superman would take it...but it's what was only said in the books not actually wshown that should give some sort of doubt.

Again sorry for the Fanboy thing..I guess I was unreasonable since I was repeatedly called fanboy, which I found from my POV rather offensive.

Oh and you just interpreted all what you just posted..I didn't actually say that....so answer to my posts and not what you thought my posts might have meant or what I could have implied....

"Since I can't prove how storng and durable Buu is you're an idiot for siding against me when I say that he's durable enough."

God, more blind faith arguments.

You still can't prove Buu is up to snuff, but we're idiots for doubting Buu's ability to do anything to Superman because Buu hasn't PROVEN (Do you have ANY ****ing idea how the scientific process works, Don't lie to me fanboy, you know two things about finding the truth, jack and shit. Jack already left town)

You still have to back your ****ing claims up with evidence. You have none because there is none. My asking you for proof is sardonic irony. You've taken an absolutley unproveable side that you'd have to be relying soley on blind ****ing faith to take. and yet you claim we're idiots for opposing your veiw, you goddamned fanboy.

anyone who says he's 100% sure Superman can beat Buu is either an idiot or a liar

And you had BETTER not call me a superman fanboy, not after the dream I had last night. I had a DBZ dream last night, not a Superman one, it was filled with DBZ characters.

After the truth my ass, you're just sore you can't win.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again I don't think the DB side wins.....I stated that repeatedly....going by Deus Ex'S "The Winner takes it all" Method Superman wins hands down....but observing a little further might help, or not?

Oh and please don't call me names..I feel uncomfortable when you do that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
anyone who says he's 100% sure Superman can beat Buu is either an idiot or a liar

Originally posted by Creshosk
"Since I can't prove how storng and durable Buu is you're an idiot for siding against me when I say that he's durable enough."

God, more blind faith arguments.

You still can't prove Buu is up to snuff, but we're idiots for doubting Buu's ability to do anything to Superman because Buu hasn't PROVEN (Do you have ANY ****ing idea how the scientific process works, Don't lie to me fanboy, you know two things about finding the truth, jack and shit. Jack already left town)

You still have to back your ****ing claims up with evidence. You have none because there is none. My asking you for proof is sardonic irony. You've taken an absolutley unproveable side that you'd have to be relying soley on blind ****ing faith to take. and yet you claim we're idiots for opposing your veiw, you goddamned fanboy.

You are a goddamned ****ing fanboy, as THIS line purely shows it.

And you had BETTER not call me a superman fanboy, not after the dream I had last night. I had a DBZ dream last night, not a Superman one, it was filled with DBZ characters.

After the truth my ass, you're just sore you can't win.

Your interpretation again...

Dude what the hell...I ****ing said you are right....Superman would beat Buu imo. But maybe not 10/10.......

Anyways you are still insulting me please stop that.

Now...that's what I am saying...the probem is we do not have enough evidence to use the scientific method....we only have hints as to how powerful Buu was...we never have seen him show his real strenght.....or are you claiming we know exactly how strong, fast, powerful, durable Buu is?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Way to contradict yourself *******.

"The Winner takes it all" Method is a method where the majority gets all the points.....so going by that method Superman winning 51% of the fights would ean "Superman Wins" ...tjhat way I agree

The other method is cmparing the ratioon...and that'S where I am saying anyone saying Suoperman takes 100% ust be dismissing facts...

Originally posted by Bardock42
What I did not contradict myself.

You're a liar.

Superman wins hands down

anyone who says he's 100% sure Superman can beat Buu is either an idiot or a liar

Originally posted by Bardock42
"The Winner takes it all" Method is a method where the majority gets all the points.....so going by that method Superman winning 51% of the fights would ean "Superman Wins" ...tjhat way I agree

The other method is cmparing the ratioon...and that'S where I am saying anyone saying Suoperman takes 100% ust be dismissing facts...

You can make all the claims you want, but without any supportitive evidence to back them up they are invalid arguments. Which ammounts to little more than a pack of lies.

You're a liar, and a petty little fanboy who's bitter that he can't win so your sore little ass starts attacking the other side, calling them fanboys, and idiots for going through the scientific process to discover the truth. You're sore theat the truth isn't on your fanboyish ass's side so you say "there's no winning in debate". And then you say that those who disagree with you are fanboys, and that they are idiots. AND THEN you whine about "Don't insult me it makes me feel uncomfortable."

"A liar and a hypocrite and a fanboy." That should be your custom title if you really were in such support of the truth as you claim.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your interpretation again...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude what the hell...I ****ing said you are right....Superman would beat Buu imo. But maybe not 10/10.......

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways you are still insulting me please stop that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now...that's what I am saying...the probem is we do not have enough evidence to use the scientific method.

Since you fail to prove your case then the side with the most evidence is the default state.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...we only have hints as to how powerful Buu was..

Originally posted by Bardock42
.we never have seen him show his real strenght.

Originally posted by Bardock42
....or are you claiming we know exactly how strong, fast, powerful, durable Buu is?

Originally posted by Creshosk
You're a liar.

You're dismissing the fact that you're relying on blind fanboy faith to say that Buu has even the slightest chance. Because as I said before you have NO evidence to support your claims.

You can make all the claims you want, but without any supportitive evidence to back them up they are invalid arguments. Which ammounts to little more than a pack of lies.

You're a liar, and a petty little fanboy who's bitter that he can't win so your sore little ass starts attacking the other side, calling them fanboys, and idiots for going through the scientific process to discover the truth. You're sore theat the truth isn't on your fanboyish ass's side so you say "there's no winning in debate". And then you say that those who disagree with you are fanboys, and that they are idiots. AND THEN you whine about "Don't insult me it makes me feel uncomfortable."

"A liar and a hypocrite and a fanboy." That should be your custom title if you really were in such support of the truth as you claim.

You dismissed the "IF...." before the first statement..

Ahhhhh...but that#S what I am saying I don't have evidence.......it's not there......is there any evidence that Batman could beat Ranma? No....could he?...Maybe....

But I am not here to proof anything....as I said I think you proved that Superman would take that fight more than he wouldn't...now I just want to see why you are so sure of that.....

I am neither a liar notr a fanboy...I don't want to win since you convinced me that Superman is more powerful, I am not atacking, I apologized for the misusage of the word, I did not call you idiots, there is no Truth in Comich book Versus Threads, there actually is no winning a debate, Apologized for it, never did that, I would still prefer if you'd stop calling me names...someone as enlightened as you surely doesn*t need to do that?

Your interpretation. I am no liar...I gave you credit....I am no hypocrite since I didn't break any of my moral values or beliefs and I am not a DBZ fanboy (I admit being a Batman fanboy but that's a whole different thing) ...I said that Buu would probably lose...I am almost sure that Goku would lose...against the Eradicator even more so....but on the other hand I don't come to conclusions just as easy as you seem to do....

I hypothesis that the ocean is made out of cheese. I have no evidence of this but you're a ****ing idiot if you think 100% that the ocean is made out of anything else.

Yeah, you know notheing about the scientific process bitter sore ass little fanboy.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I hypothesis that the ocean is made out of cheese. I have no evidence of this but you're a ****ing idiot if you think 100% that the ocean is made out of anything else.

Yeah, you know notheing about the scientific process bitter sore ass little fanboy.

You don't see the difference, now do you?

If you said th3e Ocean is made out of Water, I would usually agree...but isn't it also made out of salt, stone, sand...and what not?

I am aware of the Scientific Method to proof theories....you see that it doesn't apply to a comic Book world since we cannot actually go there and measure anything...we can give some facts...yes...and it makes it probable but we will NEVER be able to make the Assumption "Superman will win 100% of the fights" a Scientific Theory.....now if there was a Comic by an authorized Superan author and Akira Toriyama that is said by them and DC to be canon..now then we can say its a fact...but since there isn't it will stay an assumption, and stop telling me anything aboot the Scientific Method or Hyperbole...I understand you know those two terms....good for you...jsut because you heard them somewhere you don#t have to include them in every post....

Oh once again I ask you to stop insulting me, please.

A few things... comic books operate under the assumed principle that nature behaves much in the same way, with any differences notable and obvious.

Second, nothing is one hundred percent. This includes the statement "The sun will shine tomorrow." Or "The earth will spin for another thousand years," While they can be logically sound and reasonable to assume, ANYTHING can be disproven since we cannot see into the future.

But that is besides the point. When arguing battles like this, the burden of proof is on the person advocating any one side. Evidence to clearly support the more-often-than-not victory of A over B nets A the victory, period. To say otherwise is unproductive, because it tries to apply unrealistic standards to something that is essentially not up for side A or Side B's subjective ideas.

Point being? If the evidence clearly shows Supes is well above Buu, he is for the sake of the argument and the thread. That is how we operate. To assume anything else would be to argue semantics, crap and cry and to waste time with nothingness.

Why do I get the feeling that only card-carrying Mensa members and Dennis Miller can make sense of what I just wrote?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't see the difference, now do you?

If you said th3e Ocean is made out of Water, I would usually agree...but isn't it also made out of salt, stone, sand...and what not?

I am aware of the Scientific Method to proof theories....you see that it doesn't apply to a comic Book world since we cannot actually go there and measure anything.

Why don't we measure them with the measurments provided by showing their feats?

*gasp* shock!

Superman can survive a black hole, how do we know this if we can't measure his strength, durability speed and stamina?

BECAUSE WE ****ING SEE HIM DO IT YOU MORON!

Originally posted by Bardock42
..we can give some facts...yes...and it makes it probable but we will NEVER be able to make the Assumption "Superman will win 100% of the fights"

Originally posted by Bardock42
a Scientific Theory.

We provided the evidence of what Superman is capable of and WHAT do we get from YOU?

"Well I can't prove Buu is durable enough, but you're an idiot for doubting me!"

Originally posted by Bardock42
....now if there was a Comic by an authorized Superan author and Akira Toriyama that is said by them and DC to be canon..now then we can say its a fact...but since there isn't it will stay an assumption,[/red herring, we don't need to touch a fire to know its hot when we see it incinerate a peice of paper.

[QUOTE=5248341]Originally posted by Bardock42
[B] and stop telling me anything aboot the Scientific Method or Hyperbole...I understand you know those two terms.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...good for you...jsut because you heard them somewhere you don#t have to include them in every post....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh once again I ask you to stop insulting me, please.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
Second, nothing is one hundred percent. This includes the statement "The sun will shine tomorrow." Or "The earth will spin for another thousand years," While they can be logically sound and reasonable to assume, ANYTHING can be disproven since we cannot see into the future.

I'm well aware that if you were to roll a six sided die that it is not a 1 in 6 chance of landing on a one when you factor in all potential possabilities. As a truck could drive through the wall and destroy the die, or some such.

But in hypothetical stutations we remove all elements that could have an effect on the outcome that really don't need to be involved.

As in a fight between buu and Superman a bigger more powerful being could appear and wipe the floor with the both of them.

However that has been factored out on the onset of the discussion.

So the exception to that rule "nothing is 100%" is in things that we do have control of.

Originally posted by Deus Ex
A few things... comic books operate under the assumed principle that nature behaves much in the same way, with any differences notable and obvious.

Second, nothing is one hundred percent. This includes the statement "The sun will shine tomorrow." Or "The earth will spin for another thousand years," While they can be logically sound and reasonable to assume, ANYTHING can be disproven since we cannot see into the future.

But that is besides the point. When arguing battles like this, the burden of proof is on the person advocating any one side. Evidence to clearly support the more-often-than-not victory of A over B nets A the victory, period. To say otherwise is unproductive, because it tries to apply unrealistic standards to something that is essentially not up for side A or Side B's subjective ideas.

Point being? If the evidence clearly shows Supes is well above Buu, he is for the sake of the argument and the thread. That is how we operate. To assume anything else would be to argue semantics, crap and cry and to waste time with nothingness.

Yes, again i was not clear enough. It is aboot reasonable doubt, if it was 99%, I wouldn't say anything..I just fn't see that it is that clear.....and those are assumptions based on something we cannot argue cause it lies in the future, the DB Comics and the Superman Comics we argued aboot are in the past...so we could actually make Fact-Statemeants if we had a comparable system.....

You see the problem with that? What if someone like Jackie Malfoy had to argue that the Earth circles the Sun, but someone like Alpha Centauri or you would argue that the sun does.....if we strictly go by those rules we probably had to say in the end, yes the Earth is the centre, but that's not true now is it.
Another thing if there is no evidence to support any Power of buu neither the weak nor the strong estimates....why should the weak estimate be tthe rifght then...that's where the doubt comes into play.....Buu might actually be able to destroy Solar Systems and survive Ki Blasts that destroy Solar System....we don't know since we have no clue how strong the Ki Blasts are.....does that mean buu will win? No....doe s it mean he might have a decent chance? Maybe.....

But since we established that Superman in our (Yours, Creshnoks, Illustrous and I) opinion would win a majority of the fight...so now either the Arguement is over or we go to the next Question, "How much more powerful is Superman?"

Originally posted by Creshosk
Once again you prove how useless you are in a debate with your excuses.

Why don't we measure them with the measurments provided by showing their feats?

*gasp* shock!

Superman can survive a black hole, how do we know this if we can't measure his strength, durability speed and stamina?

BECAUSE WE ****ING SEE HIM DO IT YOU MORON!

You can't because your fanboyish ass can't stand to lose.

Which we can provide evidence for, and gasp shock!

We provided the evidence of what Superman is capable of and WHAT do we get from YOU?

"Well I can't prove Buu is durable enough, but you're an idiot for doubting me!"

I have to repeat them because obviously you DON'T know as you prove time and time again.

just where they are relevent where people (like you) have no ****ing clue what the hell they are.

And once again I'm going to deny your request and further add:
YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Ok Superman can survive a Blackhole.....that is a fact
Buu can survive a Genkidama by a weakened Goku....that is a fact.

How do the two connect now? You tell me that you can be sure that a Genkidama is weaker than a BlackHole.

--

Actually Superman surviving a Black Hole is not a Theory but a fact....get your terms straight.

Not true.

Again not true.

I am not

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know...and you can compare the DC universe with other DC, maybe even Marvel because there are hundreds of Comics that show what happened, DB has 42 that not at all show how powerful some of the characters are.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, again i was not clear enough. It is aboot reasonable doubt, if it was 99%, I wouldn't say anything..I just fn't see that it is that clear.....and those are assumptions based on something we cannot argue cause it lies in the future, the DB Comics and the Superman Comics we argued aboot are in the past...so we could actually make Fact-Statemeants if we had a comparable system.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
You see the problem with that? What if someone like Jackie Malfoy had to argue that the Earth circles the Sun, but someone like Alpha Centauri or you would argue that the sun does.....if we strictly go by those rules we probably had to say in the end, yes the Earth is the centre, but that's not true now is it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Another thing if there is no evidence to support any Power of buu neither the weak nor the strong estimates....why should the weak estimate be tthe rifght then.

Because its another controlled variable: No hyperbole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
..that's where the doubt comes into play.....Buu might actually be able to destroy Solar Systems and survive Ki Blasts that destroy Solar System.

Since technically surviving a double black hole IS greater than all that.

But hey lets go off of wild unproven variables why don't we?

Post crisis superman sneezes and destroys a galaxy.

But that too would be hyperbole and amounts to little more than a pissing contest.

No hyperbole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...we don't know since we have no clue how strong the Ki Blasts are.

Since
Solar system> Planet> Kamehameha from Buu

Originally posted by Bardock42
....does that mean buu will win? No....doe s it mean he might have a decent chance? Maybe.....

Can buu win? Doubtful. Does Buu even stand a decent chance? doubtful, Can buu survive a single shot from superman? doubtful.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But since we established that Superman in our (Yours, Creshnoks, Illustrous and I) opinion would win a majority of the fight...so now either the Arguement is over or we go to the next Question, "How much more powerful is Superman?"

I think you're missing the point though... The difference between your analogy and what we have here is that what we have here is decided via in-depth evaluation, logical reasoning, and structuring our arguments. Simply saying one thing or another isn't debating; it's clashing of opinions.

Debates follow rules of conduct. Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning and are a breach of this conduct.

So is the assumption that the debate can't be solved when the entire argument presupposes that there CAN be a final answer and the purpose of the debate is to FIND it. While this answers finality is subject to future data, or perhaps overlooked data is another thing... The point is the purpose of a debate or argument is to find as close to the truth as can be found with the evidence on hand.

If this is something you're ucomfortable with or unfamiliar with, you should abstain. Period.

This is the way people in the west have been agruing for centuries, and to use logic and take that step onto the road of reason implies the very first step: accepting the truth that your perceptions give to you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok Superman can survive a Blackhole.....that is a fact
Buu can survive a Genkidama by a weakened Goku....that is a fact.

How do the two connect now? You tell me that you can be sure that a Genkidama is weaker than a BlackHole.

prove that this created and only exists in this one specific place is on par with a more universal found elsewhere friom this specific place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually Superman surviving a Black Hole is not a Theory but a fact....get your terms straight.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again not true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not

"Stop calling me names, idiot."

^Hypocritical stance^

Originally posted by Creshosk
You sound like you're dodging or gett ready to dodge.

So things that have already been ruled out?
No outside help, as both sides could gain aide and then the fight would become much more involved, but once you add Falsh and GL then the fate is pretty much sealed in DC's favor. So we factor out any outside interference so as to have better control of the controlled environment.

Red herring, discarded.

Why should unproven beyond what has been proven estimates be used? If you can go beyond what Buu has shown to be able to do why Can't we do the Same for superman?

Because its another controlled variable: No hyperbole.

And without proving that we can just say say "Superman shrugs all that off easily."

Since technically surviving a double black hole IS greater than all that.

But hey lets go off of wild unproven variables why don't we?

Post crisis superman sneezes and destroys a galaxy.

But that too would be hyperbole and amounts to little more than a pissing contest.

No hyperbole.

We don't if we ignore what's been shown. When a ki blast fails to destroy a planet when all of one's energy has been put into it, kinda makes it seem like it can't destroy a solar system.

Since
Solar system> Planet> Kamehameha from Buu

Again you're going off of, "I can't prove it but you're an idiot for doubting me!"

Can buu win? Doubtful. Does Buu even stand a decent chance? doubtful, Can buu survive a single shot from superman? doubtful.

I'm all for ending this. And I'm going to have to remain on the side with all the evidence in their favor.

I don't need to dodge. I am not your opponent.

You misunderstood me, I was saying that there are possibilities to compare Comics up to 100%, something that usually doesn'toccur in nature (of course we totally rule out a Phyrric Scepticism)

It's not misleading it's an allusion not Red Herring.

But I am not even going above what he is capable of....we can't even determine what his Powers where if we take into account what he did.

Again you proved times and times again that Superman can endure much, probably more than buu can bring on, but one could argue that Superman never showed any sign to have agressive Powers that could harm Buu.

But it's more like:

Buu's weak Ki Blast > Planet

Buus Strong Ki Blast ? Solar System ? Black Holes

What shot of Superman can destroy a whole planet easily?

Yes, stay on Supermans side, but be open minded.