Originally posted by Black bolt z
I'm not even going to post anymore because if I decided to play your game(which I wan to really badly but I won't) I would get warned for spamming.So i'm stopping here.
Mindset is on the right track.
What you are doing is called shifting the burden of proof. We acknowledge that Dr. Manhattan can make clones, however the moment someone claims these “are” perfect clones. Burden of proof sit squarely on their shoulders. It’s their obligation, to submit evidence to back up his claim.
Simply stating “there isn’t any proof that they aren’t” isn’t enough. Following up with “prove that they are”, is the direct moment when the failing debater attempts to shift the burden of proof by asking to prove a negative.
In lame terms. Because its you bringing up the subject, and claiming that they are. Its not our job to prove that they aren’t.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Same statement applies for Black Bolt, and h1 is just hopeless.Can't believe ppl can't seem to grasp that idea.
Actually no the original argument was for the people saying SS can bring him to astral plane and TP wipe him if not physically. I asked them to prove that they would have any effect on him. Counter argument was asking me to prove he was immune.
Like I said I am all for removing Dr. Manhattan from discussion because everything is a moot point. Dr. Manhattan does not have enough on panel info to say that anyone herald could beat him or would be beaten by him.
Originally posted by h1a8Umm, you realize those are completely different things, right?
This shows it"Dr. M was able create himself from nothing."
If you still don't see it then sorry.
Originally posted by h1a8Evidence and proof are synonymous.
Proof and evidence is two different things. There is evidence supporting that they are. There is 0 evidence supporting that they aren't.
Originally posted by Black bolt z
I'm not even going to post anymore because if I decided to play your game(which I wan to really badly but I won't) I would get warned for spamming.So i'm stopping here.
Good God, man! What part of:
"Never ask for negative proof in a debate" is so hard to grasp?? :-/
Read the above stamement and repeat it 10x or until you get it, pls.
Originally posted by Black bolt z
What stawman fallacy?I said I think surfer would win.But I also think people aren't giving manhattan the credit he deserves.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
My point in my previous statement was flawed logic not your position itself.
Originally posted by Uriel005
Actually no the original argument was for the people saying SS can bring him to astral plane and TP wipe him if not physically. I asked them to prove that they would have any effect on him. Counter argument was asking me to prove he was immune.
It was proven that Surfer can assault enemies within the Astral Plane and destroy them there. This was proven thru feats on-panel.
You now need to prove via feats that Dr. M has feats that would protect him from extradimensional attacks of a similar nature. Barring this, then you MUST concede that he has not shown any defenses in this area.
Get it now???
.... Remove Dr. Manhattan from vs. boards... It goes nowhere because people can demand all the proof they want but it can't be proven one way or another that anything would effect Manhattan for a KO or kill. Dr. Manhattan has almost no feats and no known weaknesses again I ask you prove that surfer or anything anyone would do would have an effect.
For proof of not being effected by astral plane... Reconsitution from nothingness at will. Instantaneous teleport. Prove that surfer can specifically block Dr. Manhattan's form of teleport.
Originally posted by Black bolt zNah i see Surfer bfring DM to the ****ing stone age
I don't think either can BFR the other.DM just doesn't have enough feats to really debate with.I mean its obvious he beats most people in meta and below but besides obviously winning and losing theres not much debate.
Originally posted by "Id"
Mindset is on the right track.What you are doing is called shifting the burden of proof. We acknowledge that Dr. Manhattan can make clones, however the moment someone claims these “[b]are
” perfect clones. Burden of proof sit squarely on their shoulders. It’s their obligation, to submit evidence to back up his claim.Simply stating “there isn’t any proof that they aren’t” isn’t enough. Following up with “prove that they are”, is the direct moment when the failing debater attempts to shift the burden of proof by asking to prove a negative.
In lame terms. Because its you bringing up the subject, and claiming that they are. Its not our job to prove that they aren’t. [/B]
Basing it on the fact that he can reconstitute himself from nothing to peak levels. Why wouldn't created clones be the same.
Your taking a distinctive account, to bring up a flawed point of reference. It bottles down to; “because Dr. M can reconstruct himself, then his clones are perfect copies or equally as powerful as the original“.
I don’t understand, how one ties in with the other. What I do understand is that Dr. M is energy based, keeping this in mind its my theory that if Dr. M is creating copies of himself (since they sprout out of the Original) then Dr. M must be exerting energy to create them.
Since the book never established how much energy was invested, then we can only make second hand guesses but nothing concrete.