• 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.

Yet another Goku vs Naruto matchup….

YES!

There’s a bit more to the story but yeah the guy literally did just randomly decide one day to drive 2+ hours to do this.

The wildest part was that when I first saw this guy, his first words to me were “What’s up (insert my real life name here)!” Again, no prior knowledge on who tf this guy was.

And I’m literally looking back at him like this:

mqdefault.jpg


Absolute insanity.
What the actual ****...?
 
YES!

There’s a bit more to the story but yeah the guy literally did just randomly decide one day to drive 2+ hours to do this.

The wildest part was that when I first saw this guy, his first words to me were “What’s up (insert my real life name here)!” Again, no prior knowledge on who tf this guy was.

And I’m literally looking back at him like this:

mqdefault.jpg


Absolute insanity.
h-he even knew your name?

...i'm getting the chills

people are insane
 
Well, we have Reinhard vs Goku on the profiles, that one being a complete stomp for Reinhard, but because Goku have one-wincon is as added.
Since Goku wincon of hittting him once is the same here, it can probally be added.
Reinhard would revive, I don’t even know why that’s added. This and that are equally as bs. The one in a morbillion chance is insane.
 
Stupidity. There is literally no way Goku hits Naruto in any reasonable outcome with the arguments being presented here. Kaioken x 4 is gonna **** him up way too fast trying to get past shadow clone army.
 
That's mean.😔

I do have a argument for Goku hitting Naruto, but i don't want to say It.
I wasn’t calling you stupid my bad lol.

What is the argument for Goku hitting Naruto?

The speed gap is pretty big without kaiokens that leave Goku completely exhausted regardless of how much damage he takes because he is auto damaging himself.
 
Is probally a bad wincon now that i think about, but If Goku uses Solar Flare to blind Naruto for a while, he could hit Naruto by surprise.
Naruto doesn't need his eyes to fight, he has several sensory abilities that double as precog for him and if he does go blind suddenly then he's making a TSO shield around himself that negs everything thrown at him via EE.
 
Has he even done a 360 degree TSO shield around him before or anything remotely similar? I feel like you argue naruto’s abilities more than naruto himself.
 
Has he even done a 360 degree TSO shield around him before or anything remotely similar? I feel like you argue naruto’s abilities more than naruto himself.
He’s portraying Naruto more OP than Kishimoto ever did lmao. I don’t remember naruto doing half the stuff he’s said he will
 
I'm arguing that Naruto has the same capabilities as someone vastly inferior to him who has all the same powers. If ******* Jūbito can do it while not even conscious of his own state of being then Naruto can do it when we've seen him morph them into other things. The only reason he never made a shield with them is because literally the only people he fought with TSOs are people who can get around them or deal with them regardless.
 
I'm arguing that Naruto has the same capabilities as someone vastly inferior to him who has all the same powers. If ***** Jūbito can do it while not even conscious of his own state of being then Naruto can do it when we've seen him morph them into other things. The only reason he never made a shield with them is because literally the only people he fought with TSOs are people who can get around them or deal with them regardless.
That doesn’t matter, having the capability and actually being in character for him to do so are completely different things. Thus why “arguing abilities” more than the character.
 
I don't remember he ever doing that, but okay.


Anyway, did se reach grace already? Because i not sure If this should be added.
It really shouldn’t. Literally look at all the arguments made that got the votes. They’re always stompy if true.

Goku can’t harm Naruto and is considerably slower unless he uses a very draining and damaging ability just to deal with an army of meaningless shadow clones and can’t even land a hit because if he tries Naruto will EE him out of existence.
 
That doesn’t matter, having the capability and actually being in character for him to do so are completely different things. Thus why “arguing abilities” more than the character.
The problem with your argument here is that neither of them are in-character for this matchup as stated in the OP.
 
I mean, the other problem with this match is If the verse equalization should apply or not because of how different the energy they use are.
 
The same any invulnerability has, higher dimensional smurf stuff, this was already said
Ok wait so I just checked the invulnerability page and it does in fact say you have to be careful not to employ a no limits fallacy when using this ability, which I believe this argument would fall under.

It can be considered the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency, though one should be careful not to apply No Limits Fallacy.

So yeah no even if you equalize verses and say Naruto can negate “energy attacks” like regular chakra, he still wouldn’t be able to do it on a 4-C level.
 
Ok wait so I just checked the invulnerability page and it does in fact say you have to be careful not to employ a no limits fallacy when using this ability, which I believe this argument would fall under.



So yeah no even if you equalize verses and say Naruto can negate “energy attacks” like regular chakra, he still wouldn’t be able to do it on a 4-C level.
again, a limit has been set, aka it quite literally can't be NLF

the whole point of it is working opposite to how durability negation works, aka it negates all damage, a mere power difference matters not unless it is of higher dimensional existence in comparison, hax in of itself ignores stats per default on this wiki
"Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can be used to ignore/bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant."
 
Ok wait so I just checked the invulnerability page and it does in fact say you have to be careful not to employ a no limits fallacy when using this ability, which I believe this argument would fall under.



So yeah no even if you equalize verses and say Naruto can negate “energy attacks” like regular chakra, he still wouldn’t be able to do it on a 4-C level.
That isn't NLF. You're saying the equivalent of "the magic organ punching guy can't punch this guy in the organs because his skin is too dense."
 
again, a limit has been set, aka it quite literally can't be NLF

the whole point of it is working opposite to how durability negation works, aka it negates all damage, a mere power difference matters not unless it is of higher dimensional existence in comparison, hax in of itself ignores stats per default on this wiki
"Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can be used to ignore/bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant."
Again you’re not describing a “limit”, you’re describing a weakness. Those are two distinct things.

Also, the fact that it says:

It can be considered the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency, though one should be careful not to apply No Limits Fallacy.

Inclines me to believe it’s saying to be careful not to use a no limits fallacy in regards to AP since it says it right after it says the words “negating simple attack potency.”

So from how it’s being described here, no it’s not a 1:1 comparison to durability negation nor is it a complete opposite.
 
That isn't NLF. You're saying the equivalent of "the magic organ punching guy can't punch this guy in the organs because his skin is too dense."
I’ve checked the durability negation page, and it doesn’t mention to “be careful not to apply a no limits fallacy” on the page like it does for the invulnerability page.

My question goes like this, if I made Goku high 3-A and equalized verses, would Naruto still be able to negate his energy attacks because of his invulnerability?

Because a “yes” to me seems like a clear cut example of a no limits fallacy and I can only assume is against the invulnerability standards with the way this page is worded.

If the standards have changed, then that’s another matter but from the way it is right now, I can only interpret it as you still have to be careful not to apply a no limits fallacy in regards to AP when arguing for invulnerability.
 
Again you’re not describing a “limit”, you’re describing a weakness. Those are two distinct things.
No, no they are not, a weakness is a limit

Also, the fact that it says:



Inclines me to believe it’s saying to be careful not to use a no limits fallacy in regards to AP since it says it right after it says the words “negating simple attack potency.”
Aka your personal interpretation, it doesn't say "in regards to AP"

So from how it’s being described here, no it’s not a 1:1 comparison to durability negation nor is it a complete opposite.
Yes it is, negating durability is the oposite of negating attack potency to not get hurt
 
I’ve checked the durability negation page, and it doesn’t mention to “be careful not to apply a no limits fallacy” on the page like it does for the invulnerability page.

My question goes like this, if I made Goku high 3-A and equalized verses, would Naruto still be able to negate his energy attacks because of his invulnerability?

Because a “yes” to me seems like a clear cut example of a no limits fallacy and I can only assume is against the invulnerability standards with the way this page is worded.

If the standards have changed, then that’s another matter but from the way it is right now, I can only interpret it as you still have to be careful not to apply a no limits fallacy in regards to AP when arguing for invulnerability.
Explain to me how superior power is going to overwhelm the TSBs ability to literally erase the energy powering the attacks.
 
Explain to me how superior power is going to overwhelm the TSBs ability to literally erase the energy powering the attacks.
Easy…by having too much energy for the TSB’s to erase.

Can you prove the TSB’s are capable of erasing these levels of energy? Because again, you’re essentially saying a TSB can erase a High 3-A energy attack.
 
No, no they are not, a weakness is a limit
No it is not. If I’m fire, and my weakness is water. That doesn’t mean there is a “limit” to how much fire I’m able to produce, that just means water is able to extinguish my fire because I’m “weak” to it.

Those are fundamentally different things especially in discussing a no limits fallacy.
Aka your personal interpretation, it doesn't say "in regards to AP"
It’s literally pointing out the distinction while discussing AP, I don’t need to take an English major or get a semantical argument to determine that this statement is in reference to AP when it is literally discussing AP.
Yes it is, negating durability is the oposite of negating attack potency to not get hurt
Except durability negation doesn’t give any warnings a no limits fallacy when using it for “simple attack potency.” So no, this argument is still susceptible to the no limits fallacy per the page on the ability itself.
 
Easy…by having too much energy for the TSB’s to erase.

Can you prove the TSB’s are capable of erasing these levels of energy? Because again, you’re essentially saying a TSB can erase a High 3-A energy attack.
It's literally existence erasing hax, all it needs to do is touch it and it's gone. It's not a 4-D existence so it can get nagged by 3-D hax.
 
It's literally existence erasing hax, all it needs to do is touch it and it's gone. It's not a 4-D existence so it can get nagged by 3-D hax.
Are we talking existence erasure or invulnerability here? Because I’m specifically referring to the “invulnerability” power listed on the page here with reference to not employing a NLF.

My argument is just that even if you have the power “invulnerability” listed on your page, it doesn’t mean you’re able to tank attacks way above your tier level like a 4-C or a 3-A level attack since that would seem to go against what the invulnerability page says about not applying a no limits fallacy onto this power.
 
Are we talking existence erasure or invulnerability here? Because I’m specifically referring to the “invulnerability” power listed on the page here with reference to not employing a NLF.

My argument is just that even if you have the power “invulnerability” listed on your page, it doesn’t mean you’re able to tank attacks way above your tier level like a 4-C or a 3-A level attack since that would seem to go against what the invulnerability page says about not applying a no limits fallacy onto this power.
At that point it’s not even invulnerability but exceptionally high durability which invulnerability is explicitly not.
 
What’s even the point of invulnerability if it can be negged by those with finite levels of higher AP lool. This is not a NLF. A NLF would be assuming invulnerability could shrug off higher dimensional attacks or would be unaffected by dura neg.
On the page itself it says not to apply a NLF when it’s talking about AP. If there is a problem with that by the standards then that page needs to be reworded but that’s literally what it says currently. The durability negation page makes no mention about employing a NLF even though being unable to bypass higher dimensional beings is something durability negation is unable to do either.

Things like Higher Dimensional attacks and dura negation are hax which the page isn’t talking about when it warns against employing a NLF. It’s just talking about AP. So I can only take that to mean, you can’t just say you tank an infinite level of AP just because you have invulnerability listed on your profile without some kind of proof.

Maybe we honestly just need an expert on the ability to come explain, because the way the page is worded isn’t clear like this at all when it comes to its stance on what would classify as a no limits fallacy in this case.
 
Back
Top