• 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.

Fil Necati Planetary Level Debunk (Kral Şakir)

Yaozin said:
What caught my eye when I read the discussion was that everything was based on assumptions. For example, in another and later chapter, Uranus fully appeared, and those who advocated it ignored it by saying it "could happen" earlier because of the timeline. Then they were only told about an attack on the Planet, and although there was no clear evidence that it destroyed it completely, they said things like, "They wouldn't have said that if it hadn't completely destroyed it." There is no evidence that Uranus disappeared 100%, and there is no evidence in the timeline that it existed before or after it. Since it is an idea based on simple assumptions, its foundation is very weak and it is very prone to rejection. How do we know that perhaps a metaphor is being made when we say it destroys it? This kind of thing happens often in the Bleach debate as well. Without understanding the concept of "possibly" a weak idea based on hypotheses...
Click to expand...
Here, a little Turkish semantics comes into play. The word blew up something in Turkish is never used for a minor damage. There was an attack on Uranus and the word exploded on Uranus and the disappearance of only one mountain of uranus are grammatically contradictory concepts. We can have 3 hypotheses to blow up Uranus, like it was completely shattered, every piece of it was scattered into space, or its entire surface was destroyed, or it was like half a quarter shattered. that is, the impact of the attack on Uranus must be really large for the effect to be seen from millions of km from outer space and for this word to be spoken, so 5A is probably appropriate.
 
AKUTO123 said:
Here, a little Turkish semantics comes into play. The word blew up something in Turkish is never used for a minor damage. There was an attack on Uranus and the word exploded on Uranus and the disappearance of only one mountain of uranus are grammatically contradictory concepts. We can have 3 hypotheses to blow up Uranus, like it was completely shattered, every piece of it was scattered into space, or its entire surface was destroyed, or it was like half a quarter shattered. that is, the impact of the attack on Uranus must be really large for the effect to be seen from millions of km from outer space and for this word to be spoken, so 5A is probably appropriate.
Click to expand...
Alao the fact that how worried şakir sounded by it like they did a visible danage
 
AKUTO123 said:
Here, a little Turkish semantics comes into play. The word blew up something in Turkish is never used for a minor damage. There was an attack on Uranus and the word exploded on Uranus and the disappearance of only one mountain of uranus are grammatically contradictory concepts. We can have 3 hypotheses to blow up Uranus, like it was completely shattered, every piece of it was scattered into space, or its entire surface was destroyed, or it was like half a quarter shattered. that is, the impact of the attack on Uranus must be really large for the effect to be seen from millions of km from outer space and for this word to be spoken, so 5A is probably appropriate.
Click to expand...
Millions of km? We don't even see Uranus in the scene, how do you know the distance?
 
ZawierJ said:
Millions of km? We don't even see Uranus in the scene, how do you know the distance?
Click to expand...
Also, just because Sakir saw an explosion doesn't mean they destroyed all of Uranus. You are still using insufficient assumptions.
 
ShionAH said:
It is a possiblity and makes way more sense then a small mountain exploding in this context.
Click to expand...
small mountain was just an example. It can be country level, city level, continent level but we don't know anything about that. We don't have even enough support for Possibly.
 
ZawierJ said:
small mountain was just an example. It can be country level, city level, continent level but we don't know anything about that. We don't have even enough support for Possibly.
Click to expand...
Expect we do. It is possible it might be smaller but it is entirely possible it is 5-A. Add the votes.
 
If someone says they "blew up X planet" then it's completely and utterly asinine to assume it means anything else than detonating the planet as a whole, unless it's visually contradicted.

  • Is this just a statement or do we see it happen on-screen?
  • Why are people hung up over a cartoon with no continuity?
 
Planck69 said:
If someone says they "blew up X planet" then it's completely and utterly asinine to assume it means anything else than detonating the planet as a whole, unless it's visually contradicted.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Planck69 said:
  • Is this just a statement or do we see it happen on-screen?
Click to expand...
Its a statement it goes like this
A Rocket flies across screen, a loud bang and a screen shake
”You guys blew uranus up!”
Planck69 said:
  • Why are people hung up over a cartoon with no continuity?
Click to expand...
I wish I knew. Even when I proved every episode ignores the previous one.
 
Planck69 said:
If someone says they "blew up X planet" then it's completely and utterly asinine to assume it means anything else than detonating the planet as a whole, unless it's visually contradicted.

  • Is this just a statement or do we see it happen on-screen?
  • Why are people hung up over a cartoon with no continuity?
Click to expand...
Since there is no timeline, Uranus appearing ahead is only considered a possibility, and this possibility must be proven otherwise. However, there is only one scene, şakir, that it is not shown that the uranus disappeared after the bomb dropped by the nacati. More than one possibility comes to my mind here.

1: Here, the disciple may have made a metaphor that he "destroyed the uranus" due to the impact of the explosion, that is, he may have made a analogy because of the magnitude of the attack.

2: There may be an "exaggeration" here. Because according to the effect of the attack, the exaggerated words spoken by the characters appear many times. Since we have no idea about this scene, a lot of hypotheses greet us and we are in the episode 60. It is also unclear whether the plan
Since there is no timeline, Uranus appearing ahead is only considered a possibility, and this possibility must be proven otherwise. However, there is only one scene, şakir, that it is not shown that the uranus disappeared after the bomb dropped by the nacati. More than one possibility comes to my mind here.
DTpAjt2_d.webp
 
Planck69 said:
If someone says they "blew up X planet" then it's completely and utterly asinine to assume it means anything else than detonating the planet as a whole, unless it's visually contradicted.

  • Is this just a statement or do we see it happen on-screen?
  • Why are people hung up over a cartoon with no continuity?
Click to expand...
We don't see anything about the explosion on the screen why do we assume it destroyed the entire planet? Also, in another episode, the planet called "blown up" appears before us without any damage. In Turkis Exploding /=/ Destroying. Maybe he destroyed only a small part of it, maybe half, maybe most of it, we have no information about it. We can't even hear an explosion, the only source is a sentence. We did not see uranus during the explosion. We also don't know if Uranus was damaged. So I think the arguments are insufficient.

Also I want to reiterate that in another episode, Uranus is undamaged. We see it again as it has not disappeared.​

 
ZawierJ said:
We don't see anything about the explosion on the screen why do we assume it destroyed the entire planet? Also, in another episode, the planet called "blown up" appears before us without any damage. In Turkis Exploding /=/ Destroying. Maybe he destroyed only a small part of it, maybe half, maybe most of it, we have no information about it. We can't even hear an explosion, the only source is a sentence. We did not see uranus during the explosion. We also don't know if Uranus was damaged. So I think the arguments are insufficient.
Click to expand...
Because he blew it up as per his statement. This is enough to imply he actually made the object specified explode, which is also destroying the object. And we have no other reason to assume he for whatever reason decided to destroy a small part of it when by definition blowing something up refers to the referenced object as a whole. And statements are enough for tiering, I dunno why the source being a statement (complemented by an explosion effect at that) wouldn't count.

This thread is just needless pedantry.
ZawierJ said:

Also I want to reiterate that in another episode, Uranus is undamaged. We see it again as it has not disappeared.​

Click to expand...
Cartoons sometimes don't have continuity. Wow.
 
Planck69 said:
Cartoons sometimes don't have continuity. Wow.
Click to expand...
We find uranus in 2 scenes from the next episodes (2 different episodes) There may not be a timeline but there is no evidence that these 2 episodes were not before the episode where Uranus was destroyed.
 
ZawierJ said:
We find uranus in 2 scenes from the next episodes (2 different episodes) There may not be a timeline but there is no evidence that these 2 episodes were not before the episode where Uranus was destroyed.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. It's just a cartoon with no continuity.
 
Planck69 said:
I did. They seem to boil down to "it might be a metaphor/exaggeration" but I've not seen anything that'd make me think that.
Click to expand...
We are already hypothesizing. I said we have no idea about the scene and it could be exaggeration or metaphor. Weren't Aizen's statements about ichigo also rejected as "metaphors"? I think the same is true here, and it seems inadequate even for "possibly".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AloseVQ
  • Locked
Removing Necati's Universal Key
Replies
37
Views
2K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
ShionAH
Kral Şakir CRT Again
2
Replies
70
Views
2K
ZawierJ
ZawierJ
DimeUhDozen
Kral Şakir Ability Removal CRT
2
Replies
63
Views
2K
ZawierJ
ZawierJ
Barbar01
Necati revision
Replies
36
Views
2K
ShionAH
ShionAH
ShionAH
  • Locked
Adressing shakirs profile
Replies
21
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top