• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Death Revisions (Puss In Boots: The Last Wish)

All this circular arguments and yet no one brought a single evidence that wolf who is a psychical entity that embodies a concept being immortal that can't age or does not die as long as a concept of death exists.
Saying "no, you haven't" doesn't change anything.
Like not a single evidence as far. All this arguments about logic and common sense that has no grounds.
Read above.
"A concept can't die" - oh ya, mind quoting which standards from vsbw states this?
I guess if it's not written in VSBW's standards, it just can't be argued anywhere with any logic or any reasoning. Let's remove the court systems of all countries, since arguments and logic don't matter, there's no standards about what's being talked about on VSBW.

Oh yeah, we also can't actually make VSBW standards since there's no standards about making standards.
 
Blatant lie? Which lie am I now sharing? That he is not immortal?

If he is immortal, then show the evidence of the statement that prove it and then accuse me being blatant liar.
Is this trolling or you genuinely don't see how stupid that statement is? Like explain how exactly a concept can die. For example, can time die?
There are characters who can destroy concepts. How am I trolling here?

There is not a single standard in vsbw that follows "A concept does not die unless verse treat it otherwise"

And if you find it, quote it. Till then, there is none.
 
The first part of this message is unimportant.
There are characters who can destroy concepts. How am I trolling here?
Characters with conceptual manipulation exist, therefore logically inherent abilities that come with being concepts don't exist
There is not a single standard in vsbw that follows "A concept does not die unless verse treat it otherwise"
Read my last comment.
And if you find it, quote it. Till then, there is none.
We have.
 
Blatant lie? Which lie am I now sharing? That he is not immortal?

If he is immortal, then show the evidence of the statement that prove it and then accuse me being blatant liar.
Lemme shut the shit down real quick.
First of all, Death fearlessly and effortlessly walked through a magic barrier which was about to murder/erase Baby Bear and DID erase Jack's henchman. He is thus resistant to Death Manip ( or possibly EE but I'm not sure if the barrier erases people once the person is fully consumed by it so... ).
..
 
Saying "no, you haven't" doesn't change anything.
It does since my first post, not a single evidence has been shared that implies immortality. I am not even asking for a feat, I am asking for a statement within the verse.

Also, according to this logic, why we don't give him immortality type 5?
Read above.
There is no evidence except AE type 2 that has no basis grounds for any secondary benefits to
  • regeneration dependent
  • Immortality thanks to it
I guess if it's not written in VSBW's standards, it just can't be argued anywhere with any logic or any reasoning. Let's remove the court systems of all countries, since arguments and logic don't matter, there's no standards about what's being talked about on VSBW.
It is not written, then why are you implying it as it is a standard?
Oh yeah, we also can't actually make VSBW standards since there's no standards about making standards.
????????? I have no clue what does this mean right now.
 
Because dying NATURALLY (like you said) =/= being destroyed by concept manip
The question was how concepts can die or be destroyed and you can destroy them. Drop the topic since we are not even talking abt someone who is purely concept, but an embodiment of said concept.
 
The question was how concepts can die or be destroyed and you can destroy them. Drop the topic since we are not even talking abt someone who is purely concept, but an embodiment of said concept.
If to get rid of Death you have to use concept manip to erase the very concept of Death, I think it's a pretty good indicator to why they don't die naturally (emphasis on naturally. concept manip is anything but natural)
 
It does since my first post, not a single evidence has been shared that implies immortality. I am not even asking for a feat, I am asking for a statement within the verse.
Evidence has been shared, though.
Also, according to this logic, why we don't give him immortality type 5?
Why not? Honestly, sure. He's literally Death, so he's not bound by conventional life or death. Fits perfectly.
There is no evidence except AE type 2 that has no basis grounds for any secondary benefits to
  • regeneration dependent
  • Immortality thanks to it
Besides the reasoning we're giving.
It is not written, then why are you implying it as it is a standard?
I'm not, that's a dumb thing to assert. It's just logically correct.
????????? I have no clue what does this mean right now.
Thank you for proving my point.
 
If to get rid of Death you have to use concept manip to erase the very concept of Death, I think it's a pretty good indicator to why they don't die naturally (emphasis on naturally. concept manip is anything but natural)
The fact is, there is not even an evidence that removing the mere concept of death is even a requirement for his non-existence.

We are still assuming based on nothing. Like is there any instance where he got killed (his body) and did not die from it?

Any feats? Any statements?
 
The fact is, there is not even an evidence that removing the mere concept of death is even a requirement for his non-existence.

We are still assuming based on nothing. Like is there any instance where he got killed (his body) and did not die from it?

Any feats? Any statements?

Baby Bear is about to die from this magic barrier ( saved by Goldilocks but y'know ).
Death passes through the same barrier very easily and proceeds to fight Puss.
You can connect the dots.
 
I think, Death has still Abstract Existence Type 1.
Simply, Concept of Death use a wolf shaped physical body to scare Puss in Boots.
I disagree for İmmortality Type 8.
Possibly at least İmmortality Type 1 is fine.

"Everyone thinks they’ll be the one to defeat me, but no one’s escaped me yet" by Death.
Death has always existed and will continue to exist.
 
That's it, I am sending Dread a pirate link to the movie
Oh thank god, I had one but it was a bit fishy and when I click the play button it tries to open to another tab on top of it, though it doesn't give me a virus so maybe I'm just built different.
I still was able to watch the movie though.
 
Oh thank god, I had one but it was a bit fishy and when I click the play button it tries to open to another tab on top of it, though it doesn't give me a virus so maybe I'm just built different.
I still was able to watch the movie though.
give me your discord. Idk if it will work in your country but give me your discord.
 
Me arriving to a thread, ready to give people pirate links

Can I join too?

27ll716mwv721.jpg
 
"There was a miller, who left no more estate to the three sons he had, than his Mill, his Ass, and his Cat."
-Puss in Boots 1922 first sentence
 
I just want to state for the if Death is an abstract force or not. It's clear that Puss made the connection that laughing in the face of death is a concept, pieced it together that what's standing in front of him is that.

"But you didn't even notice me because Puss in Boots laughs in the face of death, right? But you're not laughing now."
It makes it pretty clear that the concept of death that Puss laughed at was him being laughed at. Then in the same sentence says that he isn't laughing because he's staring right at him.

The best way to describe is the implications he made at the beginning. Like Abstracts, they are things that exist. Death specifically uses the wording with Puss in Boots like a concept.
"If it isn't Puss in Boots himself, in the flesh."
----------[Concept]--------------[Physical]

I'm mixed on the topic, could mean that Death the concept has a conscience and happens to have a body in flesh of his concept, or just that his body is his only conscience with the concept of death following/connecting him. Either way in VS debates this shouldn't be bad, because if you destroy Death's body, we don't have proof he can come back to fight the opponent either way.
 
Last edited:
Glad other people joined in and got that cleared up, now I don't even need to respond.

So basically; Likely Abstract Existence (Type 2; Exists as the literal embodiment of the concept of death) and Likely Immortality (Type's 1 and 8; As he physically represents the concept of death, he more than likely wouldn't be capable of perishing unless the concept itself died)?
 
Also why does he have "The Grim Reaper" classification? I get his gimmick is the same but he should only be called what he has been called, and he is never called that a single time anywhere. Just call him Death, it's his name.
 
Also why does he have "The Grim Reaper" classification? I get his gimmick is the same but he should only be called what he has been called, and he is never called that a single time anywhere. Just call him Death, it's his name.
I mean he is death and has sickles which are mini scythes and he wears a hood so it fits
 
When exactly did Puss in Boots lose his 9 lives, was it after Shrek? If so I think he should have a key with his 9 different lives and pointing out in the weakness section that having those lives makes him really reckless.
 
When exactly did Puss in Boots lose his 9 lives, was it after Shrek? If so I think he should have a key with his 9 different lives and pointing out in the weakness section that having those lives makes him really reckless.
Yeah, it'll be quite relevant, Type 4 Immortality is still a notable power after all.
 
When exactly did Puss in Boots lose his 9 lives, was it after Shrek? If so I think he should have a key with his 9 different lives and pointing out in the weakness section that having those lives makes him really reckless.
You can also add in weaknesses that Puss won't even acknowledge that his lives are lost, especially since outside help doesn't apply in VS debates, and in this case, the Doctor doesn't tell him since it's Pre-Puss In Boots 2, and he only realized till Lobo struck it in him.
 
Back
Top