Who Could Beat Goku?

Originally posted by Astner
That's ironic coming from you, who believe that evidence can be dismissed on the premise that what it implies isn't absolutely certain, contrary to the conventional standard where only evidence can challenge evidence.

Take my advice. You don't want to start with me.

Hey, now that you mention that, Thanos has TP and you didn't even conceed the point back when I provided proof. Wouldn't that make me entirely justified when I pointed out you were not receptive to arguments?

Maybe you just forgot, but whatever 😕

Seemed like a good time to bring it up since you're talking about proof...

Originally posted by Bentley
Hey, now that you mention that, Thanos has TP and you didn't even conceed the point back when I provided proof. Wouldn't that make me entirely justified when I pointed out you were not receptive to arguments?

Maybe you just forgot, but whatever 😕

Seemed like a good time to bring it up since you're talking about proof...

But you're bringing up another point entirely. The point I brought up was evidence versus unfounded dismissal of evidence in a debate. To which certain people have a tendency to fall on fallacious models of interpretation.

Originally posted by Astner
That's ironic coming from you, who believe that evidence can be dismissed on the premise that what it implies isn't absolutely certain, contrary to the conventional standard where only evidence can challenge evidence.

Take my advice. You don't want to start with me.

Magnus the Red.

Couldn't.

This is kind of a tricky question..

On RAW power, lots of characters can beat Goku. Tenchi Masak and Lina Inverse are two..

But in an arena setting, Goku blitzes them before they can use their trumps.

You basically need someone with not only the raw power, but either comparable speed (Hard to find), auto defenses that can stuff a blitz, or that's simply tough enough to take their best..

So my pick is... ahh..

Dr. Strange. He has auto shields, and more than enough power to get the job done.

Originally posted by Astner
I address what I find inaccurate — assuming of course that I've read it. So if you provided sufficient evidence that I agree with then I won't reply.

But you're bringing up another point entirely. The point I brought up was evidence versus unfounded dismissal of evidence in a debate. To which certain people have a tendency to fall on fallacious models of interpretation.

Ok, the not replying part threw me off, but I get it now 👆