Super Buu vs Thanos

Originally posted by Creshosk
Appearently I didn't expressmyself correctly ... or you weren't bright enough to pick up on the sarcasm.

Using slothful induction to justify a lack of evidence on your part?

Cute, real cute.

Stop whining and start proving. All you two are doing is dancing around the issue. Prove your claims.
Wrong, that's what we do in these debates. Don't like it? Don't participate. Simple as that.

I guess i wasnt bright enough then?

Anyway, im not sure what your asking me to prove? Unless your reffering to what i am talking about, in that case i will continue.

Your absolutely right, it is what we do in these debates and i expressed that. I will continue to do so.

Your asking for evidence for things that cannot be evidenced for, furthermore being that these are fictional mediums -- to a point what evidence can the authors provide? They have no clue what its like to move in light speed, punch at 142.71 Tonnes of strength, exert energies that do not even exist in real life. So what do they do? They Imply it.

An example. Batman has been said to be the greatest fighter on earth, or atleast a very skilled one. Captain america, Wolverine (and likewise, batman) have both been stated to have mastered 100+ Martial arts. Say i asked them to prove it.

How do you do that?

What's the "smokeing gun" evidence for knowing 100+ martial styles? Draw batman in every possible position? Show captain america beating 400 ninjas? Devote 100 issues of Wolverine to him practiceing forms?
In a less extreme sense, that answer is yes. But to the person asking for 'hard evidence', there is nothing the author can do to "Prove" that they are really doing what they say they are doing. When flash says hes running at the speed of light, why do i believe him? Because the author and artist use methods which very strongly imply that that is infact what he is doing. Superman lifts a space ship and claims it weighs 400 Tons.

-- But there was no scale benieth him. So why should i believe it? Because thats what the author (or character, rather) said. If he wanted you to think otherwise it would be stated on panel in a plot related contradction. But beyond that, again -- you take it for what it is. What you are asking for in proof some of which i have allready provided, is un-proveable -- in the sense that you are asking. You cant "Prove" flash is running at the speed of light because the comic book captions said so, you cant "prove" Silver Surfer opened a black hole just because he said he did, you cant "prove" death exists outside of the physical realm just because hes sitting in a dark and hellish cavern, you cant "prove" iceman is actually createing ice simply becuase you see ice in the panel.

The "proof" you ask for beyond what people have given you cannot be given, becuase it does not exist. You either agree that this is the case, or you disagree. But if you want to take it there, no one on this fourm or planet can prove it -- and thus, by this train of thought you cannot have a debate with ANY character in any entertainment medium.

Originally posted by Sparkz
Yeah I know it doesn't define it, but Goku couldn't move with 40 tons on him without becoming Super Saiyan, so at his max he could possibly punch at 40-50 tons of power but he couldn't go higher because his chi wouldn't go higher.

No I think your statement of saying that his max is 50 is speculation. He went Super Saiyan and then... Who knows. Did they add more weights and tell us then how much more stronger he got? Otherwise we don't know. What we do know is that in his base form 40 was too much.

And please don't get me wrong. I am not saying he went from 40 and in super saiyan went to 1 billion.

Originally posted by King Kandy
She can?

Wolverine, Cap and Goku are all guys.

Have some smarts and wisdom about you and stop nitpicking.
Its obvious that is was a copy and paste job.
We all here easily know that they are guys.

Originally posted by ExtraMision5555
I guess i wasnt bright enough then?

Anyway, im not sure what your asking me to prove? Unless your reffering to what i am talking about, in that case i will continue.

Your absolutely right, it is what we do in these debates and i expressed that. I will continue to do so.

Your asking for evidence for things that cannot be evidenced for, furthermore being that these are fictional mediums -- to a point what evidence can the authors provide? They have no clue what its like to move in light speed, punch at 142.71 Tonnes of strength, exert energies that do not even exist in real life. So what do they do? They Imply it.

An example. Batman has been said to be the greatest fighter on earth, or atleast a very skilled one. Captain america, Wolverine (and likewise, batman) have both been stated to have mastered 100+ Martial arts. Say i asked them to prove it.

How do you do that?

What's the "smokeing gun" evidence for knowing 100+ martial styles? Draw batman in every possible position? Show captain america beating 400 ninjas? Devote 100 issues of Wolverine to him practiceing forms?
In a less extreme sense, that answer is yes. But to the person asking for 'hard evidence', there is [b]nothing the author can do to "Prove" that they are really doing what they say they are doing. When flash says hes running at the speed of light, why do i believe him? Because the author and artist use methods which very strongly imply that that is infact what he is doing. Superman lifts a space ship and claims it weighs 400 Tons.

-- But there was no scale benieth him. So why should i believe it? Because thats what the author (or character, rather) said. If he wanted you to think otherwise it would be stated on panel in a plot related contradction. But beyond that, again -- you take it for what it is. What you are asking for in proof some of which i have allready provided, is un-proveable -- in the sense that you are asking. You cant "Prove" flash is running at the speed of light because the comic book captions said so, you cant "prove" Silver Surfer opened a black hole just because he said he did, you cant "prove" death exists outside of the physical realm just because hes sitting in a dark and hellish cavern, you cant "prove" iceman is actually createing ice simply becuase you see ice in the panel.

The "proof" you ask for beyond what people have given you cannot be given, becuase it does not exist. You either agree that this is the case, or you disagree. But if you want to take it there, no one on this fourm or planet can prove it -- and thus, by this train of thought you cannot have a debate with ANY character in any entertainment medium. [/B]

Thus we debate in a realm of unknowing.

QFT

Another thing as well, when Ravenous (somoene who has never previously been in a comic, but correct me if i am wrong) Or a random one-time supervillan fights the Silver surfer, why are they able to even match the surfer in combat? We have no evidence that suggests that they can -- except for the fact that there doing it. If i ask for it to be "proven" (quotes to denote the gross misuse of the word proof as of late) again: how can it be proven beyond whats shown?

You simply take it for what it is. You assume that he is able to keep up with surfer becuase hes doing it. Not because a speed clocker is giving you live speed updates, and a scale is contatly gaugeing the velocity of their punches.

Originally posted by SeerQris
I think this is where we differ and where I say that you are wrong.

Originally posted by SeerQris
It does not prove that he is trash talking. What it is proves is that no one knows. In my hypothetical situation Goku says that he can move at light speed at some point in time. However in the show there is never a need to test this feat. This being true does not prove that Goku was just trash talking… I don’t know how much more plain I can make it. Here is a more formal way of putting it so you can see that this is not true.

1) Goku claimed that he could travel at light speeds in DBZ.
2) In the show there was no evidence of this happening.
3) Therefore Goku was trash talking.

Originally posted by SeerQris
Can you not see how the above string of statements is not true. The conclusion does not follow.

Originally posted by SeerQris
Furthermore I already gave up trying to prove that DBZ characters moved at light speeds

Originally posted by SeerQris
understanding that this is impossible to prove due to the non-metrics. I am not whining about this fact I am recognizing it to move on with fruitful discussion.

Originally posted by SeerQris
My whole point was to show that your style of accusation required proof itself as it is much like the 3 statements I put above.

Thanos IS TOAA. There's no proof of it? Prove there is no proof.
I have proof of it. You don't believe me? Prove that I don't.

Originally posted by SeerQris
I would love to get AT it would make reaching the truth of this matter easier. I never said that DBZ was an exception if that is what you are accusing me of.

Originally posted by SeerQris
Now if storm says in a comic that she can pull solar energy out of the sun(again this is just a crazy example) and does not ever do so because of a non need to display this feat, and a fan of storms says “Storm can pull solar energy out of the sun she said so in bla bla bla” does that mean that Storm was just trash talking? Sure it means that we can speculate that Storm cannot do it because she hasn’t demonstrated, but by no means does it become FALSE.

Originally posted by SeerQris
Again I say that it is unknowing currently not false.

Burden of proof fallacy.

Originally posted by SeerQris
I don’t know why I have given you the impression that I am making DBZ an exception. I have blatantly accepted that light speed of a DBZ character so far is speculation and belief at best, but by that I only mean that there is no 100 percent truth of the matter, some of it is up in the air. This simply means that the discussion must use other talking points.

Originally posted by SeerQris
In poker there is a live dialogue going on. The truth can be revealed. In this case it cannot be revealed it can only be proven wrong.

"There's no proof that Jesus wasn't the son od God. and since he's not around his claims must be true."

Originally posted by SeerQris
So no it is up to the accuser to prove it wrong in this case if they wish to use it as a statement in their string of logic.

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who made the original claim, not on the detracters. That's the way logic works.

"My long dead uncle played with purple flying pigs that were capable of eating planets. Prove that they exist? Sorry, my uncles' dead you need to prove they don't."

Originally posted by SeerQris
Yes the accuser can speculate that something is awry but they cannot use it in a string of logic as it put it at the top of this post.

"My long dead uncle said he played with purple flying pigs that were capable of eating planets. Prove that they exist? Sorry, my uncles' dead you need to prove they don't."

Originally posted by SeerQris
Now the Thanos thing. If you say Thanos can yawn and then also tell me that he said so himself in the comic I can choose to accept Thanos’ word or I can choose to suggest that he can’t and was just lying.

Just because you're gullible isn't justifuication for the lies you believe are true.

Originally posted by SeerQris
But my accusation of his lie is only speculation. So if I said something like

“Thanos has not demonstrated that he can yawn away a universe.” This would be a True Statement

But if I said something like

“Thanos was just trash talking when he said he could yawn away a universe.” This would be a False Statement.

Originally posted by SeerQris
And finally

“Thanos is unable to yawn away a universe” - This is a false statement but here is the kicker.

Originally posted by SeerQris
With what you told me about Thanos’ comments I might be more persuaded to believe that he could. The fact that he said so is actually a form of evidence,

Originally posted by SeerQris
this evidence is not capable of proving the claim true but it is indeed evidence that may sway an unknowable situation into a believable one.

Originally posted by SeerQris
So the bottom statement is useless at getting towards the truth and so is the middle one.

[QUOTE=9351174]Originally posted by SeerQris
[B]And tying it back to DBZ as I was saying this light speed discussion so far is an unknowable one.

Originally posted by SeerQris
No I am not claiming any abilities I have claimed unknowing. I have stated quite clearly that it is unknown if it is indeed light speed. But I what I am saying is that there are bits of non smoking gun evidence that may imply light speed activity.

Originally posted by SeerQris
My analogy was to show that you are making claims after the fact. You are claiming Characters non abilities after the fact. So what is the difference accept in magnitude.

You say that I want so badly for light speed to be accepted, this is false.

Originally posted by SeerQris
I am discussing for the truth of the matter, this isn’t some sophist I’m right and your wrong situation.

Originally posted by SeerQris
And I have nothing to prove as stated over and over. The only thing I attempted to prove a few post back was that the issue of their light speed is unknowable, but not false.

Originally posted by ExtraMision5555
Your asking for evidence for things that cannot be evidenced for,

The DBZ fighters cannot move at light speeds, there is no evidence for it.

You do realize that by your own logic half the proof in comic is false as well, right Creshosk? There's no way of proving that the objects being lifted weigh as much as is stated or the characters are moving as fast as is stated or depicted. WarWorld could have really weighed 500 tons but the narrator was "trash talking".

I don't like the direction or precedent this is leading to. There's logical discourse and there's being obstinate. Can you prove that any of the punches Superman has thrown or received exerted more than 500-50,000 lbs of striking force?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Thank you that's all I require.

The DBZ fighters cannot move at light speeds, there is no evidence for it.

There's no evidence against it either...

Originally posted by illadelph12
You do realize that by your own logic half the proof in comic is false as well, right Creshosk? There's no way of proving that the objects being lifted weigh as much as is stated or the characters are moving as fast as is stated or depicted. WarWorld could have really weighed 500 tons but the narrator was "trash talking".

Originally posted by illadelph12
There's no evidence against it either...

Can I say that Wolverine travels at warp speeds? There's no evidence against it. 🙄

So how about actions with no captions?

*edit

Actually, nevermind. It's not worth it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The narrator is different from the character saying it. 🙄

Too bad the default is not.

Can I say that Wolverine travels at warp speeds? There's no evidence against it. 🙄

But there is evidence against it. Thats not how wolverine is depicted.

Hes depicted as being extrmely fast -- relative to a humanoid.

On the other hand, beyond that, your right -- you cant "prove it", essentially what i was addressing in my post.

Originally posted by Creshosk

Logic dictates that you are wrong. I'm sorry, but until you give concrete evidence of your claims the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

How so? This sounds like you making an empty accusation

Originally posted by Creshosk

quote: (post)
Originally posted by SeerQris
It does not prove that he is trash talking. What it is proves is that no one knows. In my hypothetical situation Goku says that he can move at light speed at some point in time. However in the show there is never a need to test this feat. This being true does not prove that Goku was just trash talking… I don’t know how much more plain I can make it. Here is a more formal way of putting it so you can see that this is not true.

1) Goku claimed that he could travel at light speeds in DBZ.
2) In the show there was no evidence of this happening.
3) Therefore Goku was trash talking.

Justify it how you want, the character simply cliaming they can is not valid evidence.

Where at in this post did I say that a character simply making a claim validates it. How many times must I say that it was unknown? How can you miss this point again and again? Your smarter than this. Did you read my post I said very clearly that it shows that he might be able to do it, I did not say that it proves it. All I said with certainty is that it does not prove that he was trash talking. Please read more carefully.

Originally posted by Creshosk

quote: (post)
Originally posted by SeerQris
Can you not see how the above string of statements is not true. The conclusion does not follow.

Wrong.

What do you mean wrong? The conclusion clearly does not follow from the premises, care to show how it does?

Originally posted by Creshosk

quote: (post)
Originally posted by SeerQris
Furthermore I already gave up trying to prove that DBZ characters moved at light speeds

Don't lie to me. You're trying to prove it by justifying false claims by saying you don't need actual proof. It doesn't work in comics and DBZ will not be an exception to the rule.

Wow, so now you are accusing me of lying. Do I need to prove to you that I accepted that I cannot prove to a degree of 100 percent that the DBZ characters can move at light speed? What sort of game are you playing at? I will say it again, I am not trying to prove light speed, I have already accepted that this is impossible to “prove”. You are falling apart sir.

Originally posted by Creshosk

quote: (post)
Originally posted by SeerQris
understanding that this is impossible to prove due to the non-metrics. I am not whining about this fact I am recognizing it to move on with fruitful discussion.

Which is why why linger on your repeating falalcies to justify a lack of vidence to give them some sort of validation?

What fallacies are you talking about. What lack of evidence? I am not trying to prove anything. Did you not read the last maybe 4 post? You are swaying so far off topic that its… kinda creepy.

Originally posted by Creshosk

That is what I'm accusing you of due to your defense that you don't need proof to prove that they can do the things they claim.

Please show how I am trying to prove that I can prove things without proof… How many times must I iterate that it is a improvable thing, so the best we have are the speculations and visuals of the show. I never said I was trying to prove light speed in fact I have said maybe 10 times by now that I wasn’t.. Your making yourself look weird here.

Originally posted by Creshosk

quote: (post)
Originally posted by SeerQris
Now if storm says in a comic that she can pull solar energy out of the sun(again this is just a crazy example) and does not ever do so because of a non need to display this feat, and a fan of storms says “Storm can pull solar energy out of the sun she said so in bla bla bla” does that mean that Storm was just trash talking? Sure it means that we can speculate that Storm cannot do it because she hasn’t demonstrated, but by no means does it become FALSE.

Yes, yes it does.

By what Bizzaro rule? Clearly it doesn’t, just by the simplest of reasoning anybody reading will tell you that it doesn’t.

Originally posted by Creshosk

quote: (post)
Originally posted by SeerQris
Yes the accuser can speculate that something is awry but they cannot use it in a string of logic as it put it at the top of this post.

Yes, yes they can.

"My long dead uncle said he played with purple flying pigs that were capable of eating planets. Prove that they exist? Sorry, my uncles' dead you need to prove they don't."

Sorry this analogy doesn’t hold if you want to make it more applicable to the situation it would read.

"My long dead uncle said he played with purple flying pigs that were capable of eating planets. Prove that he did not? Sorry, my uncles' dead you need to prove he didn’t.”

Now using the analogy if you had been reading you would have seen that I wasn’t trying to PROVE that the uncle did said activity. I was merely showing that because I had not seen it I could not make a 100percent truth value statement based on it. Again this is a case of unknowing. Could I come to believe that the uncle did so, sure if I trusted the uncles words. Cresh you are losing it here I’m starting to think you aren’t even reading my posts….

Originally posted by Creshosk

quote: (post)
Originally posted by SeerQris
Now the Thanos thing. If you say Thanos can yawn and then also tell me that he said so himself in the comic I can choose to accept Thanos’ word or I can choose to suggest that he can’t and was just lying.
and in the latter case the burden would be on you to prove that he can't do that? Don't be ridiculous.

Just because you're gullible isn't justifuication for the lies you believe are true.

No The Burden of proof would be on me to prove that he was lying not that he couldn’t. I am the one who said he was lying. What I am saying is that I am not reasonably allowed to say something like He was lying and expect others to accept that as a true statement. As it was just my word they have to go by instead of evidence of a lie.

After skimming through the rest of your comments they stay on the same trend of you not being able to grasp the notion of unknowing and the idea of a persuasive argument. Maybe after you read Extra Missions explanation of how your are trying to force these improvable items unto others you might get it more?

I’ll let anyone who reads this discussion speak for me as you have spiraled out of control and begun to put words into my mouth that I have not spoken. The dialogue is there clearly I already said that I wasn’t trying to prove light speed but you have failed to come off of this…

Just weird actually.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The narrator is different from the character saying it. 🙄

Who is the narrator? Why should i believe him? What makes him the authority? Beyond his statements, what hard evidence did the narrorator provide? Does he have a spedometer? Does he have a scale? Is he knoweldge of all power sources -- actual and mythical?

I suck with quotations lol sorry all.

Originally posted by SeerQris
I think this is where we differ and where I say that you are wrong. It does not prove that he is trash talking. What it is proves is that no one knows. In my hypothetical situation Goku says that he can move at light speed at some point in time. However in the show there is never a need to test this feat. This being true does not prove that Goku was just trash talking… I don’t know how much more plain I can make it. Here is a more formal way of putting it so you can see that this is not true.

1) Goku claimed that he could travel at light speeds in DBZ.
2) In the show there was no evidence of this happening.
3) Therefore Goku was trash talking.

Can you not see how the above string of statements is not true. The conclusion does not follow.

Furthermore I already gave up trying to prove that DBZ characters moved at light speeds understanding that this is impossible to prove due to the non-metrics. I am not whining about this fact I am recognizing it to move on with fruitful discussion. My whole point was to show that your style of accusation required proof itself as it is much like the 3 statements I put above.

I would love to get AT it would make reaching the truth of this matter easier. I never said that DBZ was an exception if that is what you are accusing me of.

Now if storm says in a comic that she can pull solar energy out of the sun(again this is just a crazy example) and does not ever do so because of a non need to display this feat, and a fan of storms says “Storm can pull solar energy out of the sun she said so in bla bla bla” does that mean that Storm was just trash talking? Sure it means that we can speculate that Storm cannot do it because she hasn’t demonstrated, but by no means does it become FALSE. Again I say that it is unknowing currently not false.

I don’t know why I have given you the impression that I am making DBZ an exception. I have blatantly accepted that light speed of a DBZ character so far is speculation and belief at best, but by that I only mean that there is no 100 percent truth of the matter, some of it is up in the air. This simply means that the discussion must use other talking points.

In poker there is a live dialogue going on. The truth can be revealed. In this case it cannot be revealed it can only be proven wrong. So no it is up to the accuser to prove it wrong in this case if they wish to use it as a statement in their string of logic. Yes the accuser can speculate that something is awry but they cannot use it in a string of logic as I put it at the top of this post.

Now the Thanos thing. If you say Thanos can yawn and then also tell me that he said so himself in the comic I can choose to accept Thanos’ word or I can choose to suggest that he can’t and was just lying. But my accusation of his lie is only speculation. So if I said something like

“Thanos has not demonstrated that he can yawn away a universe.” This would be a True Statement

But if I said something like

“Thanos was just trash talking when he said he could yawn away a universe.” This would be a False Statement.

And finally

“Thanos is unable to yawn away a universe” - This is a false statement but here is the kicker. With what you told me about Thanos’ comments I might be more persuaded to believe that he could. The fact that he said so is actually a form of evidence, this evidence is not capable of proving the claim true but it is indeed evidence that may sway an unknowable situation into a believable one.

So the bottom statement is useless at getting towards the truth and so is the middle one.

And tying it back to DBZ as I was saying this light speed discussion so far is an unknowable one.

No I am not claiming any abilities I have claimed unknowing. I have stated quite clearly that it is unknown if it is indeed light speed. But I what I am saying is that there are bits of non smoking gun evidence that may imply light speed activity.

My analogy was to show that you are making claims after the fact. You are claiming Characters non abilities after the fact. So what is the difference accept in magnitude.

You say that I want so badly for light speed to be accepted, this is false. I am discussing for the truth of the matter, this isn’t some sophist I’m right and your wrong debate.

And I have nothing to prove as stated over and over. The only thing I attempted to prove a few post back was that the issue of their light speed is unknowable, but not false.

First of all, it is given that all these characters don't exist in real life. So everything about them is false. Now you and Creshosk
are obviously misunderstanding each other. That is why you two are not coming to an agreement (along with some earlier fallacies too). What Creshosk is saying is that "talk" isn't good enough to accept as the truth (unless it comes from narration) and Creshosk is not saying that "talk" is automatically false just because of the non-showings. (this is what you think he is saying). But in one aspect you are right, the "talk" can either be true or false depending on what the writer thinks. It just that people can't use it to prove truth. Now it is also given that whoever makes the first claim must prove it. Creshosk is just saying that the proof can't be in the form of "talk" (as you would agree too) for it can be false. Thus making it effectively equivalent (giving same results as) to "trash talking".

In conclusion, one should prove their initial claims but without "talk" as the proof. So since one can only prove a falsity by either finding a counterexample or by assuming the truth of the falsity and logically deducing absurdity from it then it stands that since it isn't proven that DBZ can move light speeds then no one can bring it up as the truth.

And I add my opinion on how the rules of this forum should be.
"A positive is regarded as false until proven to be true". Otherwise many comic debates will not get anywhere and just become a waste of time and energy.

To further my point let me cite another example of something relavent to what were disgussing. (along the lines of the thanos yawn)

Hulk has clearly displayed awesome physical strength. Say, hulk tells jubilee that if she doesnt be quiet -- he will bend her in half. Does jubilee in character foolishly ignore it, simply becuase shes never seen him do it? Of course not.

But why?
Because hulk has shown the ability to do extremely powerful things. To what point? No idea. We know hes strong, we have implied evidence of it through suspension of belief. But beyond that, whats to say that skyscraper he broke down on tuesday wasnt made of clevarly painted driftwood?

Furthermore, Dr. Strange, in deep combat with Black Panther decides to transmutate him into a snickers bar. The next week, Dr. Strange's beloved assistant yells at him for doing something so inhumane to a human being. Dr. Strange chastizes him and threttens to turn him into a zombie if he doesnt shut up.

Why should i believe that? Becuase dr strange has clearly demonstrated the ability to do such things in that spectrum of ability, more importantly -- to such a high degree. Dont constrew the fact and try to equate that to Wolverine lifting a mountian off the ground simply because he has shown the ability to throw dumptrucks around. When a character clearly has a set "range" of abilities, we can safely assume they can do similar things. Scales, Spedometers, and Power gauges simply do not exist in comics. Infact - they dont even exist in real life in the sense that a sign on a dumpster says "2 Tons". You take it for what it is.

Originally posted by h1a8
First of all, it is given that all these characters don't exist in real life. So everything about them is false. Now you and Creshosk
are obviously misunderstanding each other. That is why you two are not coming to an agreement (along with some earlier fallacies too). What Creshosk is saying is that "talk" isn't good enough to accept as the truth (unless it comes from narration) and Creshosk is not saying that "talk" is automatically false just because of the non-showings. (this is what you think he is saying). But in one aspect you are right, the "talk" can either be true or false depending on what the writer thinks. It just that people can't use it to prove truth. Now it is also given that whoever makes the first claim must prove it. Creshosk is just saying that the proof can't be in the form of "talk" (as you would agree too) for it can be false. Thus making it effectively equivalent (giving same results as) to "trash talking".

In conclusion, one should prove their initial claims but without "talk" as the proof. So since one can only prove a falsity by either finding a counterexample or by assuming the truth of the falsity and logically deducing absurdity from it then it stands that since it isn't proven that DBZ can move light speeds then no one can bring it up as the truth.

And I add my opinion on how the rules of this forum should be.
"A positive is regarded as false until proven to be true". Otherwise many comic debates will not get anywhere and just become a waste of time and energy.

Yes which is what I have been saying all along. I tottaly agree that talk cannot be used to be accepted as truth, I have said it a million times. But talk with a non-showing cannot be shown to prove falstivity. Which is what I think you already also said.

But if you keep reading you may find something shocking. I really do think Cresh thinks that talk with a no showing means False instead of unknown.

Originally posted by h1a8
First of all, it is given that all these characters don't exist in real life. So everything about them is false. Now you and Creshosk
are obviously misunderstanding each other. That is why you two are not coming to an agreement (along with some earlier fallacies too). What Creshosk is saying is that "talk" isn't good enough to accept as the truth (unless it comes from narration) and Creshosk is not saying that "talk" is automatically false just because of the non-showings. (this is what you think he is saying). But in one aspect you are right, the "talk" can either be true or false depending on what the writer thinks. It just that people can't use it to prove truth. Now it is also given that whoever makes the first claim must prove it. Creshosk is just saying that the proof can't be in the form of "talk" (as you would agree too) for it can be false. Thus making it effectively equivalent (giving same results as) to "trash talking".

In conclusion, one should prove their initial claims but without "talk" as the proof. So since one can only prove a falsity by either finding a counterexample or by assuming the truth of the falsity and logically deducing absurdity from it then it stands that since it isn't proven that DBZ can move light speeds then no one can bring it up as the truth.

And I add my opinion on how the rules of this forum should be.
"A positive is regarded as false until proven to be true". Otherwise many comic debates will not get anywhere and just become a waste of time and energy.

I fully agree with you, no one disagrees on the point you stressed.
On the other hand -- several people (myself included) have allready provided physical evidence for the claims the characters have been makeing. But what creshok is suggesting is that the proof provided was insufficient. That despite the characters actions -- becuase it wasnt done "a certian way", that it can be refuted. That essentially why i am saying to a certian point, you cannot prove anything. The statement in Illadelph's post is essentially the fallicy on creshoks behalf that is being addressed here.

An example would be that flash says hes running at the speed of light. On panel, he has little flashes behind him and wavy lines beside him -- this is sufficient. Creshok is asking for an unknown shard of evidence beyond that. That is the evidence that does not exist.