Pokemon vs Mortal Kombat!

Originally posted by TacDavey
No..... If my body is indestructible I don't care how many times you punch me in the head. It won't have any effect. It won't hurt. You have to do damage to knock someone unconscious. Indestructible means no damage. At all.

Really? What about Charizards fire? The Pokedex has found that Charizards fire can melt anything. The Pokedex has also found that Tyranitars body can't be harmed by any attack. So Charizards fire should be able to melt Tyranitars body... except it can't... because Tyranitar can't be hurt by any attack.

🙄

No, no you don't. Shake that brain enough and you'll lose consciousness pretty quickly.

And no, you're wrong.

"Breathing intense, hot flames, it can melt almost anything."

Granted, the Emeral Pokedex says otherwise but considering Professor Birch and the Hoenn region actually rarely see a Charizard, it would make since for them to be wrong.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Stating that because there's nothing to support the statements from the pokedex, they therefore are hyperbole, is not an argument. There's nothing in the games that shed any light on any pokemon what-so-ever, by the very nature of the game itself, so you can't fault it for that. Wither you like it nor not, because the pokedex's are in the game and provide some description for the pokemon, from an argument/logical perspective the only way to discredit those pokedex entries would be to provide canon that is contrary.

Case in point, your consistent protest of the pokedex entry stating that Machamp can launch people across the horizons. Do you have any evidence whatsoever from the games that implies that Machamp is too weak to launch someone across the horizon? Do you? If you don't then there is nothing that would imply that the pokedex is being hyperbolic in that instance. Hence, you have no argument.

I never said that. So you agree there's nothing to support the entries? And no, they are fallacies, actually. I am not to blame if the entries are written inaccurately, I'm just pointing out the existence of inconsistences. Whether you like it or not we cannot trust this source in a versus fight. Too many issues. It's fallible.

No, the burden of proof is in fact on you if you support the idea of Machamp moving mountains. I already did my work here, read my posts.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Laboratories are where scientists run test. I said the Pokedex being based on offscreen testing makes the most sense. Where would said testing be? In the lab.And people in that world probably don't comment on such exaggerations because their used to it. And no, I don't think it would. Because for starters there are not a lot of Machamp in the wild and most trainers have no reason to tell their Machamp to toss that mountain over there. Oh, I have nothing huh? Where do you get the right to question the Pokedex to begin with? It's a device in game that records information on Pokemon. That's it. How it does so is irrelevant to the player's experience of the game.

I would actually say my comparison works nicely, considering it is the Armor Pokemon. It's armor is immune to attacks outside, it itself will still feel some of the damage. And it is a no limits fallacy only because you don't want to accept another explanation. And the only reason to do that is because you don't want to accept the Pokedex.

Here's an issue with your argument: Lack of evidence. And PROBABLY the people are used to it? That's how you support all of your arguments? Look: They're PROBABLY not because such an event has never happened. There are not much Machamp in the wild? Just two or three of 'em can cause catastrophes. Trainers have no reason to tell their Machamp to move mountains? That's unrelated, back it up. But even so that means such an event has never occured then, since according to you no one has a reason to make it happen, huh? You contradicted yourself 'cause you claimed the Pokedex recorded data of off-screen events. The Pokedex is garbage. Yes, you've got nothing. And no offense, but you're adding even more problems to the Pokedex, every time you guys post the Pokedex is less credible.

Wrong, the statement itself is clear and it's a no limits fallacy. You're adding stuff that is not present to it. It says it can't be harmed, the end. No limits fallacy. Machamp can toss anyone. No limits fallacy. Charizard can melt anything. No limits fallacy.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
No, the burden of proof is in fact on you if you support the idea of Machamp moving mountains. I already did my work here, read my posts.

The game says it can.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Here's an issue with your argument: Lack of evidence. And PROBABLY the people are used to it? That's how you support all of your arguments? Look: They're PROBABLY not because such an event has never happened. There are not much Machamp in the wild? Just two or three of 'em can cause catastrophes. Trainers have no reason to tell their Machamp to move mountains? That's unrelated, back it up. But even so that means such an event has never occured then, since according to you no one has a reason to make it happen, huh? You contradicted yourself 'cause you claimed the Pokedex recorded data of off-screen events. The Pokedex is garbage. Yes, you've got nothing. And no offense, but you're adding even more problems to the Pokedex, every time you guys post the Pokedex is less credible.

You asked me to basically explain how I think the offscreen testing method makes the most since in the context of the game. And you have no proof that none of this didn't happen. The only difference is the game supports me. Not really, Machamp have no need to move mountains. No one has any reason to make their Machamp move a mountain unless testing them. And really now? You think the Pokedex is garbage huh? Explain. 🙂

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Wrong, the statement itself is clear and it's a no limits fallacy. You're adding stuff that is not present to it. It says it can't be harmed, the end. No limits fallacy. Machamp can toss anyone. No limits fallacy. Charizard can melt anything. No limits fallacy.

Body, which is to say it's armor, can't be harmed. The things inside said body can very much be harmed. Which, I don't know why we're comparing two Pokemon things from the Pokedex. It's not like the Pokemon Professors would make a Charizard try to melt a Tyranitar just for science.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
No, no you don't. Shake that brain enough and you'll lose consciousness pretty quickly.

Because the brain is being damaged, yes? Last time I checked, the brain is part of the body. So if I have an indestructible body, I have an indestructible brain.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
"Breathing intense, hot flames, it can melt almost anything."

Granted, the Emeral Pokedex says otherwise but considering Professor Birch and the Hoenn region actually rarely see a Charizard, it would make since for them to be wrong.

Doesn't work that way Aura. Those pokedex entries were written by the developers. Not professor Birch. If you want to make the claim that the developers purposely gave the pokedex misinformation because "professor Birch doesn't see Charizards that much." you are going to need to back that one up.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Body, which is to say it's armor, can't be harmed. The things inside said body can very much be harmed. Which, I don't know why we're comparing two Pokemon things from the Pokedex. It's not like the Pokemon Professors would make a Charizard try to melt a Tyranitar just for science.

You're basically defining body as "skin" or "shell". That isn't what "body" means, Aura. The pokedex said nothing about an impervious shell. It said impervious body.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
[B]I never said that. So you agree there's nothing to support the entries? And no, they are fallacies, actually. I am not to blame if the entries are written inaccurately, I'm just pointing out the existence of inconsistences. Whether you like it or not we cannot trust this source in a versus fight. Too many issues. It's fallible.

No, the burden of proof is in fact on you if you support the idea of Machamp moving mountains. I already did my work here, read my posts.

Your posts have been incorrect and ignorant of how debates work. How are pokedex entries fallacies? In fact, name the fallacy. I'm not your average joe on here where you can throw words like fallacy around and I'm going to think you know what you're talking about. How are they written inaccurately? These are claims you're making, you need to provide evidence for them yourself. And the fact that you're hiding behind burden of prood just goes to show that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You have no logical basis for stating that the entries are inaccurate.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because the brain is being damaged, yes? Last time I checked, the brain is part of the body. So if I have an indestructible body, I have an indestructible brain.

Define decapitation please. Besides, it's not like Pokemon fight until one is too damaged to go on. They fight until exhaustion takes hold.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Doesn't work that way Aura. Those pokedex entries were written by the developers. Not professor Birch. If you want to make the claim that the developers purposely gave the pokedex misinformation because "professor Birch doesn't see Charizards that much." you are going to need to back that one up.

Underlined the important things. If that is truly what you think, the Pokedex should not be question because it is essentially Word of God. Word of God by the way, can be contradictory at times.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You're basically defining body as "skin" or "shell". That isn't what "body" means, Aura. The pokedex said nothing about an impervious shell. It said impervious body.

Actually, what I'm describing is armor, which multiple sources claim Tyranitar has, not the least of which it being known as the Armor Pokemon.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
It's not like the Pokemon Professors would make a Charizard try to melt a Tyranitar just for science.

Or make a Machamp throw a mountain for that matter.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Define decapitation please. Besides, it's not like Pokemon fight until one is too damaged to go on. They fight until exhaustion takes hold.

Define decapitation? What?

Come now, we all know that isn't true. Their attacks are meant to hurt the other pokemon. Not kill, but knock out.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Underlined the important things. If that is truly what you think, the Pokedex should not be question because it is essentially Word of God. Word of God by the way, can be contradictory at times.

Not if you want it to be taken seriously. This shows that the pokedex can't really be taken seriously. The developers were likely writing what sounded cool, with no regards as to what makes sense logically.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Actually, what I'm describing is armor, which multiple sources claim Tyranitar has, not the least of which it being known as the [b]Armor Pokemon. [/B]

But the pokedex didn't say it's ARMOR couldn't be damaged. It said it's BODY. If you want to claim the pokedex is infallible and what it says is fact (which you already can't really, since it directly contradicts itself.) you can't go around switching up words like that.

The pokedex says it has an invulnerable body. The "Body = Armor and inside is damageable" theory is something you made up and is not supported in the pokedex at all.

Its true the pokedex does not point out armour, infact again its extremely general source. From unkown actual sources. I dont think anyone is going to take it as some infallible source.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
The game says it can.

You asked me to basically explain how I think the offscreen testing method makes the most since in the context of the game. And you have no proof that none of this didn't happen. The only difference is the game supports me. Not really, Machamp have no need to move mountains. No one has any reason to make their Machamp move a mountain unless testing them. And really now? You think the Pokedex is garbage huh? Explain. 🙂

Body, which is to say it's armor, can't be harmed. The things inside said body can very much be harmed. Which, I don't know why we're comparing two Pokemon things from the Pokedex. It's not like the Pokemon Professors would make a Charizard try to melt a Tyranitar just for science.

They're just a bunch of contradictory statements, which have no basis in fact. I don't have to prove the contrary, you should prove your claims since you're the one who is trying to make an argumentation here. There is nothing 'off-screen', so again, from where you get that idea? The game supports you? How? The entries don't even affects the game. Machamp have no need to move mountains? That's unrelated. Do you have proof? No one has any reason to make their Machamp move a mountain? Why? Back it up. You make a lot of assumptions without evidence, we can't run a debate purely on speculation.

It doesn't says 'armor', though. Try again.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Your posts have been incorrect and ignorant of how debates work. How are pokedex entries fallacies? In fact, name the fallacy. I'm not your average joe on here where you can throw words like fallacy around and I'm going to think you know what you're talking about. How are they written inaccurately? These are claims you're making, you need to provide evidence for them yourself. And the fact that you're hiding behind burden of prood just goes to show that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You have no logical basis for stating that the entries are inaccurate.

No limits fallacies. Nephthys, Burning thought, me and now even TacDavey provided enough reasons to reject the Pokedex entries as source of information in a versus fight. Not going to repeat myself. Tyranitar's body cannot be harmed by any sort of attack, do you think that statement has been written accurately? Rhyhorn runs in a straight line, smashing everything in its path, do you think that has been thought as accurate and to be taken literally? Honestly? Come on. And your accusations against my persona are utterly irrelevant.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Or make a Machamp throw a mountain for that matter.

Testing the limits of somethings strength by making it throw something heavy sounds logical actually.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Define decapitation? What?

Come now, we all know that isn't true. Their attacks are meant to hurt the other pokemon. Not kill, but knock out.

*sigh*

I was trying to get across that the word body is a loose term in all honesty. Body Builders isn't a kit that actually builds a body. Nor is it something that builds up all the parts of the body(nails, hair, etc.)

Or wear them out. Fainting can happen for a number of reasons.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not if you want it to be taken seriously. This shows that the pokedex can't really be taken seriously. The developers were likely writing what sounded cool, with no regards as to what makes sense logically.

So you know, Word of God amounts to a pile of dung in your eyes? Good to know. I honestly don't know what went through developers minds when they wrote these things. I don't care either. The Pokedex is a device meant to hold Word of God by your own admittance. You have no argument.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But the pokedex didn't say it's ARMOR couldn't be damaged. It said it's BODY. If you want to claim the pokedex is infallible and what it says is fact (which you already can't really, since it directly contradicts itself.) you can't go around switching up words like that.

The pokedex says it has an invulnerable body. The "Body = Armor and inside is damageable" theory is something you made up and is not supported in the pokedex at all.

Considering the fvcking armor is part of the body, I fail to see the difference. Unless someone rips the armor off of it, which would be rather graphic.

And I wouldn't say it's not supported by the Pokedex, considering the Pokedex calls it the Armor Pokemon. The anime Pokedex does explain this one in a much better fashion I must admit.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its true the pokedex does not point out armour, infact again its extremely general source. From unkown actual sources. I dont think anyone is going to take it as some infallible source.

Except for that whole "Armor Pokemon" thing right?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
They're just a bunch of contradictory statements, which have no basis in fact. I don't have to prove the contrary, you should prove your claims since you're the one who is trying to make an argumentation here. There is nothing 'off-screen', so again, from where you get that idea? The game supports you? How? The entries don't even affects the game. Machamp have no need to move mountains? That's unrelated. Do you have proof? No one has any reason to make their Machamp move a mountain? Why? Back it up. You make a lot of assumptions without evidence, we can't run a debate purely on speculation.

It doesn't says 'armor', though. Try again.

So you don't have to prove anything, even though the games themselves state you're wrong? I'm done proving things to you. If a game allows for this and this to fvck and lay eggs, I have no problem believing anything the games say.

The Armor Pokemon is something the Pokedex has recorded.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Testing the limits of somethings strength by making it throw something heavy sounds logical actually.

Except for that whole "Armor Pokemon" thing right?

What do you think the precedures were? The scientists pointed at the first mountain and regardless of consequences apprently told it to toss it? Its not just "something heavy", its a mountain, an ecosystem where thousands of pokemon, other creatures lived and its the same place wherever the Machamp launched it towards. It sounds completly illogical just to test something like that, probably more illogical than getting a charizard to try and burn one pokemon. Even so, the fact is assuming it did not burn the thing, clearly thats something is not tested and the claim is hyperbole.

Also, how do you suppose it picked up the mountain? balance it? stop the mountain from falling into rubble because its being put under such stresses?

It being an "armor pokemon" does not change how hyperbolic the statement is. "cannot be harmed" is a no limit fallacy and an incredibly general statement.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel

*sigh*

I was trying to get across that the word body is a loose term in all honesty. Body Builders isn't a kit that actually builds a body. Nor is it something that builds up all the parts of the body(nails, hair, etc.)

So you admit the Dex throws around loose terms?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Either way, the Dex entries are bullshit and can't be used as actual evidence because theres no way to prove the accuracy of the statements or the reliability of the source.

I think thats been clear all along. It does not matter how each statement is reasoned, we dont know how fallible the thing is. Theres only hints of "science" and "tests", mostly from the peope debating it in here.

Indeed. All I can see is Aura and Blax some dudes speculating on how it might be done. Theres absolutely no proof and so the arguments unwinnable. Every time anyone tries to use the pokedex as evidence this unending arguments going to start up again: 'the dex says so', 'verify the reliability of the dex', 'no u' etc etc.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
*sigh*

I was trying to get across that the word body is a loose term in all honesty. Body Builders isn't a kit that actually builds a body. Nor is it something that builds up all the parts of the body(nails, hair, etc.)

Or wear them out. Fainting can happen for a number of reasons.

Are you saying that attacking an indestructible object drains said objects stamina for some reason?

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
So you know, Word of God amounts to a pile of dung in your eyes? Good to know. I honestly don't know what went through developers minds when they wrote these things. I don't care either. The Pokedex is a device meant to hold Word of God by your own admittance. You have no argument.

I'm amounting the pokedex to nonsensical jibberish basically. It isn't a reliable means to show pokemon abilities because the entries make no sense half the time. Tyranitar, according to the developers, should never loose a fight, even to half the mystical pokemon. One pokemon can make black holes. Magcargo gives off heat that's hotter than the sun, yet doesn't kill every living creature around it. And one pokemon, according to the pokedex, is faster than another pokemon, yet in game has a lower speed stat. Larvatars eat mountains, yet we still have mountains left in the world. And Charizard can melt anything... except, apparently, Tyranitar.

When it isn't directly contradicting itself, it's making overly ridiculous claims. I don't think the developers ever intended anyone to think about these things mathematically or logically, which is what most people try to do when debating pokemon.

Again, I say they probably just wrote what sounded cool at the time.

Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Considering the fvcking armor is part of the body, I fail to see the difference. Unless someone rips the armor off of it, which would be rather graphic.

And I wouldn't say it's not supported by the Pokedex, considering the Pokedex calls it the Armor Pokemon. The anime Pokedex does explain this one in a much better fashion I must admit.

But the anime has no place in this discussion, right?

You are trying to rationalize how an indestructible creature can get hurt, but it can't be done. It can't be hurt by any attack according to the pokedex.

Hurt could simply mean wounded. Which means it's impervious, but it can still feel pain.

I assume you're speaking of Tyranitar.

You can't wound something that's indestructible. You wouldn't feel pain unless there was some kind of damage.

And yes, we're speaking of Tyranitar.

Yeah. So Tyranitar simply cannot be wounded. Feeling pain being what he does do.

And please note how it specifically mentions "It's body cannot be hurt by any means of attack" or whatever. Kinda helps that argument.

Right... but you wouldn't feel pain unless you get wounded... Unless Tyranitar simply feels pain from something that is doing nothing to him....