Atomic theory is just a theory and somehow atomic bombs work, interesting isn’t it?
Electromagnetic theory is just a theory but we are able to communicate through phones and computers now right?
The GERm theory is just a theory too right? But somehow we know all about bacteria, germs, viruses and diseases?
Please google the definition of scientific theory and don’t assume scientists use the word “theory” in the same way regular people do. Scientific theory is not a mere guess. Its the highest possible title a scientific hypothesis can be lifted to.
“Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is”
You most definitely can prove evolution and not all evolution requires billions of years. You did start to get into that later on in your argument by saying vaccines evolve fast which is a contradiction of “we cant prove it bc its so slow” . You can and you did just prove that bacteria or viruses evolve much faster than animals which CAN be observed in a lab. It happens way faster because viruses reproduce extremely fast and are able to create multiple generations very quickly. You just need more details on that in my opinion and maybe a different less controversial example.
1.okay lets see, I have never argued for perfect jinchuriki powers that obviously come at the end of the war (sorry i know you dont know what war im talking about). I have argued for powers that kurama can give naruto at any time and powers that have been seen in the og show. I have argued for speed, durability, healing factors, chakra hands and power (all shown in the debate with sources and with naruto being 1 tail) .I never brought up perfect jinchuriki, only jinchuriki. My point about fire and the age was that Aang in his base mode did not master fire yet so he cannot use it in the beginning to just burn Naruto as PRO mentioned. Then after that I acknowledged that in AS Aang can use firebending but I provided sources to why I think Naruto will tank most of the fire attacks.
2.”his buddy shows up?” His buddy never left. Thats strawman but unfortunately Kurama is a part of Naruto and his powers are too so thats not a separate individual fighting Aang. Its still Naruto boosted by his character powers. And yes if Naruto dies and Kurama revives him DURING (not later) the fight is not over. Avatar State cannot revive Aang if he dies (idk where you got that from either, Aang literally died in AS and AS did not save him). If after the battle Naruto dies from battle damage that does not mean he did not win the battle. If i go in the ring to fight anybody and win but later on die from brain damage I still won the boxing match. Also please dont put in your definition of victory that PRO never used. How many times someone dies is irrelevant if he keeps coming back until he wins. Im not saying Naruto will keep coming back forever Im just commenting on your weird definition of victory.
3.lol no again,,,… what kind of biases broo I said general knowledge FOR BOTH shows… naruto being able to create hundreds of clones is shown in the freaking first or second episode of the og naruto… like sorry I assumed the people voting on an aang vs naruto debate will have at least some basic information about who naruto and aang are.. Good thing you have watched Avatar at least because you would have said something stupid about Aang too like: “oh idk what aang can do … some kind of circus acrobat that bends over and has magic water and air idk (seriously???)”
“A statement like this doesn't mean anything to a lay person, and voters are supposed to act like they are lay persons.”
-lol
“I don't much care for ultimate powers”
-lol
“if either loses they have a power which takes over and kills the other”
-lol no Aang doesn’t have that
“and at least for Naruto it might also kill him if he uses it”
-yea lol he might die sure, AFTER he kills Aang and already has won the battle
“Was of course wise to point out that Kurama is apparently not mastered until after episode 300; much like how con tried to argue Aang couldn't use fire (avatar state I'm unclear on).”
-lol not even remotely close to what was argued about Kurama and the fire bending
“Not to mention, trying so hard to dismiss his fire powers, implicitly says Naruto is weak against them”
-lol just watch the sources pls
“. Likewise for trying to shift focus off of those other non-kinetic attacks.”
-lol this is me not responding to “Aang can just drown him with water style”.
-the durability analysis was botched again and everything about Naruto is dismissed because a Kunai harmed him …
“Yet it's pro who lists Naruto's skills there”
-yes , thanks pro for mentioning that naruto can throw knives idk why i didn’t think to include that
“Those are a ninjas best ways to counter Aang maintaining distance with his wind powers”
-lol no again, I would assume the chakra hands are much better than kunai. Ht obviously they are much underestimated and not proven to be effective
“Something about he collects fox tails”
- lol what
“, and the fox tails are sometimes toads, and that lets turn himself into any inanimate objects and him make 1000 clones of himself (seriously?)... Need I go on”
LOL WHAAT…. have you not ever watched the show lol
“Whereas Aang can manipulate X, Y, and Z (elements), and those counter G, H, and I from Naruto.”
-yea that makes sense, so what are the XYZGH
“That would be the script you were just talking about. It's not about one lone skill alone to win a fight. Fights are dynamic things, which inevitably end up utilizing more than one skill, and unexpected things happen.”
Yes, all Im saying is that scripts should not be a significant part of your decision imo but since they are Im asking you to provide the script that convinced you that Aangs skills would win this fight for him. About everything else I think we are saying the same thing.
Fair enough, I would only add that while I agree both have plot armor my argument for durability does not rely on that since I have mentioned healing abilities that Naruto have because of Kurama and the general superior physical endurance in that Universe. Naruto is not the only one that just smashes through rocks when he is thrown at them for example meaning thats not just plot armor. Fights in general are more intense and characters from that verse are able to take and inflict more damage solely with their bodies. Thats in the debate as well.
Plot armor is real yes but it was never argued by PRO, and just because you find it maybe ridiculous that we discuss it, its very important. The simplest way to judge durability is simply looking at the healing factor of Naruto. Even if you don’t recognize anything else from the show.
Like the brutal damage Naruto has been shown to take with his bare body without shielding himself with elements or jutsus.
Btw after I said that Naruto has vasts amount of chakra reserves PRO agreed. I have no idea why this chakra argument of PRO is taken so seriously when in reality is nothing problematic. Naruto was never shown in the show losing a fight due to chakra insufficiency. PRO also never gave such examples. Saying something takes chakra is obvious. If voters dont know what a jinchuriki and uzimaki is idk if they are fit to vote on this debate. Just like voters researched PROs sources on their own, they could google those two words if they really dont know what they are. PRO obviously knew them and dropped that chakra argument. Maybe also because it wasn’t leading anywhere since I also mentioned that when Naruto dies or is out of Chakra, Kurama can intervene.
Firstly I want to mention that everything I will say here has been said in some form in the debate and if I go into heavier detail about certain things thats only because PRO has not challenged me on those topics and has not continued his line of questioning after my rebuttals.So my details are strictly for clarification purposes for the voter and not extra arguments. I will definitely go into heavier detail since multiple voters are including things PRO never came up with in the debate.
Secondly and more important to me is the method a voter will judge this debate and what do they value more. If at the end you value PROs method of reasoning more Im willing to accept the results. This is why I have no problem with whiteflame’s vote since he explained to me how he values tactics and mentioning of scenarios a lot and I didn’t do that (bc i think they are biased).
My method of deciding who is going to win is much simpler and in the same time way more complex. Talking about skills and how they would interact with each other is okay and can be somewhat important but it’s highly subjective and biased. Creating fake scenarios where we say “Aang will do this and then Naruto this and then Aang that” is completely unverifiable. We can use our imagination to create fake scenarios and we can have a fun conversation doing so, which will entertain the voters more, sure but imo theres a better way to judge this. Generally accepted categories to compare characters in fights are : strength, speed, physical and magical powers, durability, special abilities etc… Now I acknowledge that in every fictional show/anime/movie there’s contradictions and theres no perfect logic in them. Yes sometimes characters look extremely powerful in some fights and in other fights their abilities “seemingly” do not translate. That does not mean we can disregard their accomplishments during their powerful moments just because they are inconsistent and have weak moments . We can objectively analyze episodes and determine the capabilities of those characters no matter how hyperbolic they might seem sometimes. That is to be expected from fictional shows. So if we can objectively verify some statements about those main categories we can compare what we know and not compare what we don’t know. The only time fake scenarios and fighting scrips can be taken into account is if they have some kind of backed up claims for both characters. For example if we have proof that Aang can use fireballs and we have video proof how Naruto tanks fireballs thats one verified very specific situation that we can have an idea for what will potentially happen. All kind of other scenarios are almost useless and use no purpose but entertaining the voters and speculating. No way to know how their abilities will interact, no way to know what they would think of doing or anything like that. Morality being outside of this debate is even better because then we would have to think also what would they even feel. Although mentioning their background and their environment could be taken into account in the “strategy” category but thats also speculative.
“I treated this as who would win in a fight, not merely who is more over powered.”
If more powerful plus faster and more durable does not win the debate idk what else does. You can say Aang skills will dominate Naruto which is technically creating a script in which you claim you know the outcome of a fictional character’s battle. And also you did not show me which skill will dominate which skill of Naruto? And how can we prove that. How can we prove thats the course of action they will take?
I showed why Naruto is physically stronger, physically faster, physically more durable and overall thats what gives him the better chance on paper. And frankly all we can do is that.
“since endless gumption from a farmer would not overpower either of them. It was used to put my conclusions from the rest into one neat place, and make a point about grit and follow-through”
Im confused here, if you can clarify what does that mean.
“Aang would fight from a power disadvantage, but would more likely than not win via skill”
Aang was indeed shown to be in power disadvantage but even if skill was discussed, nobody ever established their character winning based on skill alone. Which skill exactly wins it for you? And again the problem of how much can we really into account those skills when we can’t verify how they would interact with each other (at least most of them).
That wasn’t my main point. Forget about the multiple tails. I made my point about speed and Naruto needed only 1 tail for that argument (not even a tail in Haku fight). Same goes for durability and physical strength, he doesn’t need more than 1 tail to top Aang in those categories. Tactics and skill advantages are biased and can go either way. So even if we give those 30% to Aang the W still goes to Naruto in every other category.
Yeah okay I got that you dont like the sources and the inconsistency in the show is obvious. I think that goes both ways and it was already established. If you look for perfect logic and no contradictions in kids anime shows you wont find any. We know Aangs speed and powers are not consistent too. But we agreed that if we take into account every interpretation I have sources and material that suggests speeds as high as light and as for Aang the highest suggested speed is lighting. At minimum we can say Naruto has short bursts of hyper speed which would give him advantage in that category. Hakus speed can be confirmed to be faster than lighting because he had to be that fast to stop Kakashi from killling Zabuza. Adult Kakashi even in OG Naruto is OP compared to anything in ATLA. And that all happened while Naruto was beating Haku. What else is there to discuss? Durability? Naruto easily. And im talking about durability without Kurama and without any kind of jutsu. Whats Aangs durability without putting 4 elements between him and Naruto as a shield? How much can Aang take if he get hit once? How do you know how their abilities will interact with each other? How important are fake scenarios?
So you admit that if we use both “hyperbolic” interpretations for their speed we can say Aang ranges from faster than wind to reacting to lighting and if we apply the same for Naruto we get much wider range because we have a character moving in the speed of light. Both are inconsistent but Naruto has kept up with Haku at the end of their fight and Haku was still extremely fast by then. That means even if we give Aang the lighting feat he is still slower in everything. This is based on information in the data book I’ve linked not only on animation style.
Sorry but your vote doesn’t make sense to me. If someone can review it that could be helpful.
1. You confirm what I have said in the debate
2. You confirm what I have said in the debate again, I never said base form Naruto beast AS Aang
3. You confirm what I have said in the debate again
4. You make your own argument that PRO did not made and cant be used in his favor
5. You said “at the end of the day Aang has more speed” without analyzing anything that has been said about both characters stats and verses. I have shown that even if both characters are not light speed literally, Naruto still moves “in lighting speeds” compared to Aang.
6. What the chances of Naruto getting to a more than one tail mode are not established by PRO either. How does that count as a point for PRO?
7. Sasuke who is the second strongest character in the whole Naruto verse stabs Naruto in the heart, Naruto survives and yet in this vote this counts as a point for PRO? All of my points about Aang having trouble with regular people and being killed by Azula and by just some storm are ignored by both PRO and this voter.
8. I didn’t want to argue for the 100 years in the iceberg because at the end of the day PRO would’ve just said that he can enter Avatar State in any age just like Naruto can access Kurama at any age. And it’s more of Kurama accessing him not the other way because he is still a kid, yes (I don’t see that so much as a problem, it’s still the same power). Which is a positive not negative. Kurama can interfere even if NARUTO DIES. If Aang dies nobody is there to heal him.
9. Voter states that I overestimate something about Naruto’s speed but did not give any explanation how I did that nor any explanation how PRO is right about Aang’s speed
10. The claim that Naruto tanks fireballs is supported by a video that I provided from canon episodes where Naruto tanks fire balls multiple times (not addressed at all).
PRO gives his description of “greatest Hokage” which is combination of factor but admits that Naruto is likely “the most baddas or most powerful” .
PRO argues that CON still needs to prove Naruto is better Hokage than all of the others because right after Hashirama there’s Shikamaru and Minato who are way more intelligent than Naruto and thats one of the most important qualities.
PRO says he agreed that Naruto and Hashirama are generally similar regarding intelligent (creativity and tactics) and other characteristics (bc both are Ashuras reincarnation) but Naruto still appears dumber because of his “ADHD”
PRO states that Naruto only helped save the world not save it on his own and also that Hashirama couldve done it too.
And possibly argues that it doesn’t count because Naruto was not a Hokage yet?
PRO argues that establishing the Leaf was significant because it brought peace and that laid foundations for greater peace.
PRO admits that other clans being united and coming to Konoha is because it benefits them but that still doesn’t discredit Hashirama’s created peace.
PRO says that villages being united in Naruto’s time is because they were selfish and Naruto didn’t establish the peace.
PRO argues that Naruto “pussified” the chunin exams and Madara had a “raging boner when he was killing people” (???)
PRO states that even Naruto couldn’t talk no jutsu Madara and he was much different than anyone Naruto met
PRO gives psychological analysis of the people Naruto saved
PRO wants sources for “Meaning Hokage Naruto with 100% of his chakra could defeat Kagya”
CON gives an example of half powered Naruto and Sasuke defeating Momoshiki as an evidence that full strength Hokage Naruto could beat Kaguya on his own (sufficient example but still questionable because I didn’t see Kaguya=Momoshiki being firmly established anywhere, it is common knowledge that they’re pretty close tho)
CON shows that Naruto fits PRO’s definition of “greatest Hokage” better than Hashirama (which is technically the most important thing that matters)
CON argues that we should look at Naruto’s definition of “greatest Hokage” ( this is a new argument in the final round so I would count it ). If that was also the case why even ask for PRO’s definition.
CON argues that better decision making requires empathy which Naruto is better at, and not only intelligence.
CON argues that smart characters have done stupid things also (not necessarily at this point)
CON goes on to defend some of the claims PRO made like “Hashirama couldve done everything Naruto did” which is not necessarily to me since PRO never proved that in any way and its just assumptions based on an imaginary script.
CON gives another argument why creating Konoha is not as big of a deal
(or at least bigger achievement than saving the world)
CON gives examples of how Naruto maintained the peace
Debate Summary:
Both made good points, both made some contradictions, debate could’ve been way shorter (my notes too).
All that was needed was the definition for the “greatest Hokage” first. After PRO provided his description CON made better arguments that make Naruto fit the description better than Hashirama. CON identified Hashirama as the greatest Hokage so Naruto>Hashirama means Naruto=greatest Hokage. If greatest Hokage was defined as something specific and not overall combination of factors CON could’ve argued for someone else but that was not the definition he provided. CON admitted he thinks Hashirama is overall the best and his definition of greatest Hokage was whos the best overall. So overall both PRO and CON were right about some stuff, wrong about others but most importantly CON showed Naruto fits the description PRO gave better.
PRO states that Hashiramas feat (creating the Lead Village) should be counted because that’s what made him Hokage.
PRO argues that Narutos source of power is always from somewhere else and not his own (Kurama, SoSP…)
PRO does not accept the assertions that Hashirama didn’t have to deal with a lot of people (there were many fighting clans)
PRO argues that Hashirama would’ve been able to “talk no jutsu” too and Naruto didn’t do anything special
(*Some back and forth about diplomatics*)
PRO argues that CON’s powerscale is wrong because Naruto always had help defeating those Gods, Obita, Madara, etc
PRO argues that Madara’s and Obito’s new forms were weaker than their old forms??? (No back up given for this controversial claim)
PRO states that if they look only at “most powerful version of the character” in their life then Kakashi has the best form for a small amount of time.
PRO is questioning the validity of CONs claim that Naruto was still able to use SoSP when he was Hokage (sources need to be provided)
PRO argues for Hashirama’s social intelligence (empathy, etc..) by stating that he brought numerous clans together and made peace
CON requests a definition of “greatness Hokage”and points out that theres no point comparing to other Hokages since PRO already identified Hashirama as that and Naruto only needs to surpass him.
CON argues that saving the world is a bigger feat than creating the village.
CON argues that “Establishing the leaf village is not a very great feat. It was not that hard, not that big a deal, and not that positive. It's more important what Hashirama did after becoming Hokage.”
CON argues that Hashirama is not a great leader because failed to protect the village by putting it in danger from poor decisions.
CON also gives more reasons he thinks Hashirama was a bad leader and Naruto good.
(*Some back and forth about saving friends*)
CON defends his power scales successfully showing Naruto’s power is still greater on his own since he is able to fight gods alone or with just Sasuke (which means at least 50%)
CON shares a moment from the show as his evidence for Naruto using SoSP while Hokage (no links provided)
CON kinds of doesn’t deny that “Naruto would’ve been ass raped by Pain if it wasn’t for Minato or Kurama” but says that Naruto still did more dmg than Jiraya and rest of the village (which doesn’t help his case because the comparison is with Hashirama now)
CON argues that Hashirama is not vastly more powerful than Naruto without his boosts since Naruto is Uzumaki and Naruto was also able to fight Momoshiki in his base form.
CON argues that Hashiramas powers are also not his since he’s a reincarnation and all of chakra is Kaguya’s. (Not the same as what PRO argues for imo)
He also mentions that thats all irrelevant since the power still belongs to Naruto and can still be attributed to his feats. Even if it comes from Kurama or somewhere else.
CON also supports his claims that thats Narutos power now because he worked for it and earned it by taming Kurama, etc..
Which is more impressive than having a default power like Hashirama.
Summary:
Both make good points, Naruto would’ve been indeed “ass raped” without Kurama but later on he becomes way more powerful and his base form is allowing him to go against Momoshiki who is kinda a god.
CON points out a lot of diplomatic issues with Hashirama.
There’s an argument about Naruto’s sources of power.
PRO argues that Hashirama is the greatest Hokage in general by pointing out that :
1.Hashirama is more powerful than Hokage Naruto who couldn’t use SoSP Mode
2. Hashirama already defeated Kurama with Madara’s Susanoo
3. Hashirama invented the Leaf Village and the “will of fire”
4. Hashirama had to do more for the peace and wasn’t lucky like Naruto to have friends in position of power
PRO also argues that the other Hokages also surpassed Naruto in different aspects such as:
1. Intelligence (all of them)
2. Inventions (Tobirama)
3. Strategy (Herozen)
4. Leadership / Medicine (Tsunade)
CON states that he only has to prove that Naruto is greater than Hashirama now since PRO identifies Hashirama as the greatest Hokage
CON points out that if SPSM doesn’t count as a feat for Naruto because he did not do it while being Hokage then Hashirama’s feat (creating the LV) doesn’t count as well.
CON argues that kid Naruto has not heard about who Hashirama was therefore did not copy his “will of fire” philosophy from him
CON gives a list of feats / achievements
CON argues that Hashirama actually had it way easier than Naruto when it comes to bringing peace because of less people to deal with and Hashirama’s failure to actually be at peace with Madara at the end. Naruto on the other hand made peace with multiple people.
CON argues that Naruto fought enemies much stronger than Hashirama, like Gods (later on even in his base form)
PRO and CON generally agree that H and N are on the same intelligence level
CON argues that N is more socially intelligent by giving examples of Naruto being able to figure out and connect with different people.
CON tries to argue that Naruto is wise by surrounding himself with intelligent people (Shikamaru) but sees it as a negative when pointing out that Hashirama counted on his more intelligent brother (Tobirama) for advises?
Summary:
PRO makes some good points that H. Invented the Leaf Village, will of fire and overall his significance as the first Hokage is what makes him the greatest plus that he has beated versions of Kurama already.
CON replies successfully to most of this even tho he slightly contradicted himself imo.
CON examines the powerscales as evidence that Narutos power is tiers above what Hashirama faced in his time and makes good points about Naruto saving the World and bringing peace in a much more difficult situation.
Ok you’re right, you can interpret greatest Hokage in many ways in a normal situation (I see that logic, thanks for asking) BUT not in a debate after you have already identified it and gave definition for it. Your definition of “greatest Hokage” is combination of all, not who leads the village intellectually. Which is good, this is the debate anyway. I know why you’re going back on it now but I think its kinda late. Different interpretations are not important anymore.
Also comparing Hokages and Mayors is fallacious. Just because Hokages have some of the job responsibilities that mayors have doesn’t mean mayors or the president can be a hokage. They are not the same, mayors dont have responsibilities like BEING ABLE TO PHYSICALLY PROTECT A VILLAGE FROM NINJAS WITH MAGIC. The job of the president doesn’t require for him to be able to fight at least decently.
Hokages are not only diplomatic figures like mayors from the real world. In the description of a greatest Hokage there is multiple criteria (like you said) so can’t take into account only intelligence or leadership.
Wait, so isn’t the title of the debate about ”the greatest Hokage” and not about “stuff that helps you lead a village”? You just said again basically “yea if you include everything (which is what you’re supposed to do) the “greatest” (debate title) is Hashirama BUT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT who is more intelligent its someone else. In this case why both of you are debating and arguing about power, strength and other stuff? You made plenty of arguments outside of intelligence and leading a village didn’t you?
So you would not say that Hashirama is the greatest Hokage of all time overall? In which way are you interpreting “greatness Hokage “ that Im missing? I thought you defined it as “combination of factors. This includes fighting ability, wisdom, intelligence, specific feats, and upholding the philosophy behind what it means to be Hokage.” This is what you described Hashirama as. Now are you saying Minato or someone else is better Hokage than Hashirama?
Well I see a couple problems with what you just said, I might be wrong tho idk. So one of them is that you started the debate by stating that Hashirama is THE GREATEST in general Hokage of all time, named your reasons and then defined “greatest Hokage” as a combination of multiple different factors. That means that even if Minato was better politician or more intelligent you already knew that but placed him below Hashirama because of his other feats that mentioned and labeled as more significant.
Whatever the other Hokages strong sides are is irrelevant because you weighed them out for him and proclaimed Hashirama as the best of them overall. You didn’t just say Hashirama is better than Naruto (leaving you the door of later saying “well yea naruto is greater than hashirama but I didn’t say hashirama is the greatest so that doesn’t make naruto the greatest…etc..) , you said Hashirama is greatest, the biggest Hokages from all Hokages.. So… if Naruto replaces the Number 1 Hokage he becomes a what?
To me if CON proves Naruto is greater Hokage than Hashirama he wins since PRO already identified him as the greatest of all. So theres no point comparing with others, even if there are some aspects in which someone is better than Naruto, overall they (other Hokages) are not greater than Hashirama (from what PRO stated in round1).
So if Naruto is greater than Hashirama he is greater than all of the rest also.
I did not say there is an objective reason that stops me from putting bananas in spaghetti. But that does not mean that now bananas belong on spaghetti. They still don't belong on spaghetti Carbonara by definition and just bc I can mess with my Carbonara and put M&Ms in it doesn’t mean that M&Ms BELONG in Carbonara. I can eat it, enjoy it, shit it out and M&Ms still don’t belong in Carbonara. I don’t really know if it matters that much if they subjectively don’t belong or objectively don’t belong….. they still don’t belong. By the objective standards of what Carbonara is. Every dish has objective standards that we can call a recipe.
You can objectively talk about traditions, history, culture, original recipes and the way it was invented and meant to be eaten and made. The statement “you can only objectively talk about health values” is wrong.
Just because pineapple won’t hurt you doesn’t mean it belongs on whatever you decide to put it on.
But can you still do it even if it doesn’t belong ?
Yes you can.
“I like to put bananas on top of my spaghetti Carbonara, therefore bananas belong on a spaghetti and nobody can tell me they don’t because I like it and I can put it.”
His source was a random link to Quora quoting a random guy’s comment. This source of his is completely unreliable, unverified, unscientific and so on… in short- “it cant be used to back up his claim ( not that he even attempted to present his own claims)” . “Cant be used” is equal to not having it. He literally copied someone’s comment from Quora on a topic slightly connected to this debate, posted it here and instead of giving sources to back up his stolen claims he just gives a link to where he copied the claims from lol. Just because someone posts a link to something super random doesn’t mean they have sources lol. They have bad sources, literally cant give someone points for sources when they gave bad sources. CON didn’t need sources for his rebuttal since PRO’s argument is incredibly weak. Simple logic does it
My only problem is that there’s multiple questions in this debate. Are you debating that you can just put whatever you like on whatever you like or that pineapple BELONGS on pizza?
“Pineapple belongs on a pizza” is a fair title + definition for “belongs”
“ Pineapple can go on pizza if you want it to” is too vague, subjective and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it
I’m not sure what they are but if it’s something like Astrology and you find it accurate I would probably recommend reading about the Barnum Effect and in general about cognitive biases.
Yea the word “all” in this debate ruins it for me. All he has to do is show 1 christian that wasn’t indoctrinated and its over… if it was “majority” or “most” instead of “all” I can accept
Scientists develop hypothesis that they test, evaluate, try to disprove and if they fail to disprove them, the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory which can be considered as a fact. Scientific theory is not the same and it’s used differently from what normal people mean by “theory”. The everyday meaning of the word theory is “an idea or a thought/proposal”. Scientific theory is more of a proven fact. Same as theory of gravity or the atom theory, electromagnetic theory etc etc.
I’m not going to address the same things in the comments but just going to say that “don’t bring any new arguments” doesn’t mean don’t argue more and forfeit lol ( I think that’s obvious). All it means is don’t bring up any new topics because I won’t be able to address them, the debate is over. You can still argue about the same things you brought up and respond to everything I said it’s just that it wouldve been unfair if you had the last argument in the last round and you bring up something completely new (lets say first cause argument) that I wont be able to address. Like how would you want me to start a debate about something completely different than what we’ve talked about when I have no more turns.
The reason I created this debate with this amount of letters allowed is completely random. I created my profile couple days ago, I haven’t debated anyone before so I just looked through this website and through a couple random debates on the front page to see how exactly this works. That’s all.
I really don’t know what’s a good limit so let me know and I can put it in my next debate, thanks!
I think it’s a little unfair to blame me tho since you wasted a couple rounds posting “arguments” with one word answers and now you blame me that you can’t say all you want to say. Even if you don’t I mean you accepted the debate on your own and saw the limit beforehand, I don’t know whats the point in complaining about it now.
Just to clarify something because I might've missed your point in Round 3 (and I'm still not sure this is what you're talking about) but I'm trying to argue that the belief itself is not reasonable not that there aren't reasonable people that hold that belief
“a thing changed to that of a complete human”
Are you aware that this is not the definition of “Evolution”
“Yes words are very important. Be very careful and specific with them.”
*continues to completely misunderstand the definition and the difference between A Theory and A SCIENTIFIC Theory, AGAIN* LOL
Atomic theory is just a theory and somehow atomic bombs work, interesting isn’t it?
Electromagnetic theory is just a theory but we are able to communicate through phones and computers now right?
The GERm theory is just a theory too right? But somehow we know all about bacteria, germs, viruses and diseases?
Please google the definition of scientific theory and don’t assume scientists use the word “theory” in the same way regular people do. Scientific theory is not a mere guess. Its the highest possible title a scientific hypothesis can be lifted to.
“Neither me or you will be able to actually prove that our side is correct, seeing as we can't accurately measure evolution because of how slow it is”
You most definitely can prove evolution and not all evolution requires billions of years. You did start to get into that later on in your argument by saying vaccines evolve fast which is a contradiction of “we cant prove it bc its so slow” . You can and you did just prove that bacteria or viruses evolve much faster than animals which CAN be observed in a lab. It happens way faster because viruses reproduce extremely fast and are able to create multiple generations very quickly. You just need more details on that in my opinion and maybe a different less controversial example.
Im just not sure that Pain=12yo Aang. That could be a separate debate
1.okay lets see, I have never argued for perfect jinchuriki powers that obviously come at the end of the war (sorry i know you dont know what war im talking about). I have argued for powers that kurama can give naruto at any time and powers that have been seen in the og show. I have argued for speed, durability, healing factors, chakra hands and power (all shown in the debate with sources and with naruto being 1 tail) .I never brought up perfect jinchuriki, only jinchuriki. My point about fire and the age was that Aang in his base mode did not master fire yet so he cannot use it in the beginning to just burn Naruto as PRO mentioned. Then after that I acknowledged that in AS Aang can use firebending but I provided sources to why I think Naruto will tank most of the fire attacks.
2.”his buddy shows up?” His buddy never left. Thats strawman but unfortunately Kurama is a part of Naruto and his powers are too so thats not a separate individual fighting Aang. Its still Naruto boosted by his character powers. And yes if Naruto dies and Kurama revives him DURING (not later) the fight is not over. Avatar State cannot revive Aang if he dies (idk where you got that from either, Aang literally died in AS and AS did not save him). If after the battle Naruto dies from battle damage that does not mean he did not win the battle. If i go in the ring to fight anybody and win but later on die from brain damage I still won the boxing match. Also please dont put in your definition of victory that PRO never used. How many times someone dies is irrelevant if he keeps coming back until he wins. Im not saying Naruto will keep coming back forever Im just commenting on your weird definition of victory.
3.lol no again,,,… what kind of biases broo I said general knowledge FOR BOTH shows… naruto being able to create hundreds of clones is shown in the freaking first or second episode of the og naruto… like sorry I assumed the people voting on an aang vs naruto debate will have at least some basic information about who naruto and aang are.. Good thing you have watched Avatar at least because you would have said something stupid about Aang too like: “oh idk what aang can do … some kind of circus acrobat that bends over and has magic water and air idk (seriously???)”
“A statement like this doesn't mean anything to a lay person, and voters are supposed to act like they are lay persons.”
-lol
“I don't much care for ultimate powers”
-lol
“if either loses they have a power which takes over and kills the other”
-lol no Aang doesn’t have that
“and at least for Naruto it might also kill him if he uses it”
-yea lol he might die sure, AFTER he kills Aang and already has won the battle
“Was of course wise to point out that Kurama is apparently not mastered until after episode 300; much like how con tried to argue Aang couldn't use fire (avatar state I'm unclear on).”
-lol not even remotely close to what was argued about Kurama and the fire bending
“Not to mention, trying so hard to dismiss his fire powers, implicitly says Naruto is weak against them”
-lol just watch the sources pls
“. Likewise for trying to shift focus off of those other non-kinetic attacks.”
-lol this is me not responding to “Aang can just drown him with water style”.
-the durability analysis was botched again and everything about Naruto is dismissed because a Kunai harmed him …
“Yet it's pro who lists Naruto's skills there”
-yes , thanks pro for mentioning that naruto can throw knives idk why i didn’t think to include that
“Those are a ninjas best ways to counter Aang maintaining distance with his wind powers”
-lol no again, I would assume the chakra hands are much better than kunai. Ht obviously they are much underestimated and not proven to be effective
“Something about he collects fox tails”
- lol what
“, and the fox tails are sometimes toads, and that lets turn himself into any inanimate objects and him make 1000 clones of himself (seriously?)... Need I go on”
LOL WHAAT…. have you not ever watched the show lol
“Whereas Aang can manipulate X, Y, and Z (elements), and those counter G, H, and I from Naruto.”
-yea that makes sense, so what are the XYZGH
“That would be the script you were just talking about. It's not about one lone skill alone to win a fight. Fights are dynamic things, which inevitably end up utilizing more than one skill, and unexpected things happen.”
Yes, all Im saying is that scripts should not be a significant part of your decision imo but since they are Im asking you to provide the script that convinced you that Aangs skills would win this fight for him. About everything else I think we are saying the same thing.
Fair enough, I would only add that while I agree both have plot armor my argument for durability does not rely on that since I have mentioned healing abilities that Naruto have because of Kurama and the general superior physical endurance in that Universe. Naruto is not the only one that just smashes through rocks when he is thrown at them for example meaning thats not just plot armor. Fights in general are more intense and characters from that verse are able to take and inflict more damage solely with their bodies. Thats in the debate as well.
Plot armor is real yes but it was never argued by PRO, and just because you find it maybe ridiculous that we discuss it, its very important. The simplest way to judge durability is simply looking at the healing factor of Naruto. Even if you don’t recognize anything else from the show.
Like the brutal damage Naruto has been shown to take with his bare body without shielding himself with elements or jutsus.
Btw after I said that Naruto has vasts amount of chakra reserves PRO agreed. I have no idea why this chakra argument of PRO is taken so seriously when in reality is nothing problematic. Naruto was never shown in the show losing a fight due to chakra insufficiency. PRO also never gave such examples. Saying something takes chakra is obvious. If voters dont know what a jinchuriki and uzimaki is idk if they are fit to vote on this debate. Just like voters researched PROs sources on their own, they could google those two words if they really dont know what they are. PRO obviously knew them and dropped that chakra argument. Maybe also because it wasn’t leading anywhere since I also mentioned that when Naruto dies or is out of Chakra, Kurama can intervene.
Firstly I want to mention that everything I will say here has been said in some form in the debate and if I go into heavier detail about certain things thats only because PRO has not challenged me on those topics and has not continued his line of questioning after my rebuttals.So my details are strictly for clarification purposes for the voter and not extra arguments. I will definitely go into heavier detail since multiple voters are including things PRO never came up with in the debate.
Secondly and more important to me is the method a voter will judge this debate and what do they value more. If at the end you value PROs method of reasoning more Im willing to accept the results. This is why I have no problem with whiteflame’s vote since he explained to me how he values tactics and mentioning of scenarios a lot and I didn’t do that (bc i think they are biased).
My method of deciding who is going to win is much simpler and in the same time way more complex. Talking about skills and how they would interact with each other is okay and can be somewhat important but it’s highly subjective and biased. Creating fake scenarios where we say “Aang will do this and then Naruto this and then Aang that” is completely unverifiable. We can use our imagination to create fake scenarios and we can have a fun conversation doing so, which will entertain the voters more, sure but imo theres a better way to judge this. Generally accepted categories to compare characters in fights are : strength, speed, physical and magical powers, durability, special abilities etc… Now I acknowledge that in every fictional show/anime/movie there’s contradictions and theres no perfect logic in them. Yes sometimes characters look extremely powerful in some fights and in other fights their abilities “seemingly” do not translate. That does not mean we can disregard their accomplishments during their powerful moments just because they are inconsistent and have weak moments . We can objectively analyze episodes and determine the capabilities of those characters no matter how hyperbolic they might seem sometimes. That is to be expected from fictional shows. So if we can objectively verify some statements about those main categories we can compare what we know and not compare what we don’t know. The only time fake scenarios and fighting scrips can be taken into account is if they have some kind of backed up claims for both characters. For example if we have proof that Aang can use fireballs and we have video proof how Naruto tanks fireballs thats one verified very specific situation that we can have an idea for what will potentially happen. All kind of other scenarios are almost useless and use no purpose but entertaining the voters and speculating. No way to know how their abilities will interact, no way to know what they would think of doing or anything like that. Morality being outside of this debate is even better because then we would have to think also what would they even feel. Although mentioning their background and their environment could be taken into account in the “strategy” category but thats also speculative.
“I treated this as who would win in a fight, not merely who is more over powered.”
If more powerful plus faster and more durable does not win the debate idk what else does. You can say Aang skills will dominate Naruto which is technically creating a script in which you claim you know the outcome of a fictional character’s battle. And also you did not show me which skill will dominate which skill of Naruto? And how can we prove that. How can we prove thats the course of action they will take?
I showed why Naruto is physically stronger, physically faster, physically more durable and overall thats what gives him the better chance on paper. And frankly all we can do is that.
“since endless gumption from a farmer would not overpower either of them. It was used to put my conclusions from the rest into one neat place, and make a point about grit and follow-through”
Im confused here, if you can clarify what does that mean.
“Aang would fight from a power disadvantage, but would more likely than not win via skill”
Aang was indeed shown to be in power disadvantage but even if skill was discussed, nobody ever established their character winning based on skill alone. Which skill exactly wins it for you? And again the problem of how much can we really into account those skills when we can’t verify how they would interact with each other (at least most of them).
That wasn’t my main point. Forget about the multiple tails. I made my point about speed and Naruto needed only 1 tail for that argument (not even a tail in Haku fight). Same goes for durability and physical strength, he doesn’t need more than 1 tail to top Aang in those categories. Tactics and skill advantages are biased and can go either way. So even if we give those 30% to Aang the W still goes to Naruto in every other category.
Yeah okay I got that you dont like the sources and the inconsistency in the show is obvious. I think that goes both ways and it was already established. If you look for perfect logic and no contradictions in kids anime shows you wont find any. We know Aangs speed and powers are not consistent too. But we agreed that if we take into account every interpretation I have sources and material that suggests speeds as high as light and as for Aang the highest suggested speed is lighting. At minimum we can say Naruto has short bursts of hyper speed which would give him advantage in that category. Hakus speed can be confirmed to be faster than lighting because he had to be that fast to stop Kakashi from killling Zabuza. Adult Kakashi even in OG Naruto is OP compared to anything in ATLA. And that all happened while Naruto was beating Haku. What else is there to discuss? Durability? Naruto easily. And im talking about durability without Kurama and without any kind of jutsu. Whats Aangs durability without putting 4 elements between him and Naruto as a shield? How much can Aang take if he get hit once? How do you know how their abilities will interact with each other? How important are fake scenarios?
So you admit that if we use both “hyperbolic” interpretations for their speed we can say Aang ranges from faster than wind to reacting to lighting and if we apply the same for Naruto we get much wider range because we have a character moving in the speed of light. Both are inconsistent but Naruto has kept up with Haku at the end of their fight and Haku was still extremely fast by then. That means even if we give Aang the lighting feat he is still slower in everything. This is based on information in the data book I’ve linked not only on animation style.
Sorry but your vote doesn’t make sense to me. If someone can review it that could be helpful.
1. You confirm what I have said in the debate
2. You confirm what I have said in the debate again, I never said base form Naruto beast AS Aang
3. You confirm what I have said in the debate again
4. You make your own argument that PRO did not made and cant be used in his favor
5. You said “at the end of the day Aang has more speed” without analyzing anything that has been said about both characters stats and verses. I have shown that even if both characters are not light speed literally, Naruto still moves “in lighting speeds” compared to Aang.
6. What the chances of Naruto getting to a more than one tail mode are not established by PRO either. How does that count as a point for PRO?
7. Sasuke who is the second strongest character in the whole Naruto verse stabs Naruto in the heart, Naruto survives and yet in this vote this counts as a point for PRO? All of my points about Aang having trouble with regular people and being killed by Azula and by just some storm are ignored by both PRO and this voter.
8. I didn’t want to argue for the 100 years in the iceberg because at the end of the day PRO would’ve just said that he can enter Avatar State in any age just like Naruto can access Kurama at any age. And it’s more of Kurama accessing him not the other way because he is still a kid, yes (I don’t see that so much as a problem, it’s still the same power). Which is a positive not negative. Kurama can interfere even if NARUTO DIES. If Aang dies nobody is there to heal him.
9. Voter states that I overestimate something about Naruto’s speed but did not give any explanation how I did that nor any explanation how PRO is right about Aang’s speed
10. The claim that Naruto tanks fireballs is supported by a video that I provided from canon episodes where Naruto tanks fire balls multiple times (not addressed at all).
ROUND 3 Notes:
PRO gives his description of “greatest Hokage” which is combination of factor but admits that Naruto is likely “the most baddas or most powerful” .
PRO argues that CON still needs to prove Naruto is better Hokage than all of the others because right after Hashirama there’s Shikamaru and Minato who are way more intelligent than Naruto and thats one of the most important qualities.
PRO says he agreed that Naruto and Hashirama are generally similar regarding intelligent (creativity and tactics) and other characteristics (bc both are Ashuras reincarnation) but Naruto still appears dumber because of his “ADHD”
PRO states that Naruto only helped save the world not save it on his own and also that Hashirama couldve done it too.
And possibly argues that it doesn’t count because Naruto was not a Hokage yet?
PRO argues that establishing the Leaf was significant because it brought peace and that laid foundations for greater peace.
PRO admits that other clans being united and coming to Konoha is because it benefits them but that still doesn’t discredit Hashirama’s created peace.
PRO says that villages being united in Naruto’s time is because they were selfish and Naruto didn’t establish the peace.
PRO argues that Naruto “pussified” the chunin exams and Madara had a “raging boner when he was killing people” (???)
PRO states that even Naruto couldn’t talk no jutsu Madara and he was much different than anyone Naruto met
PRO gives psychological analysis of the people Naruto saved
PRO wants sources for “Meaning Hokage Naruto with 100% of his chakra could defeat Kagya”
CON gives an example of half powered Naruto and Sasuke defeating Momoshiki as an evidence that full strength Hokage Naruto could beat Kaguya on his own (sufficient example but still questionable because I didn’t see Kaguya=Momoshiki being firmly established anywhere, it is common knowledge that they’re pretty close tho)
CON shows that Naruto fits PRO’s definition of “greatest Hokage” better than Hashirama (which is technically the most important thing that matters)
CON argues that we should look at Naruto’s definition of “greatest Hokage” ( this is a new argument in the final round so I would count it ). If that was also the case why even ask for PRO’s definition.
CON argues that better decision making requires empathy which Naruto is better at, and not only intelligence.
CON argues that smart characters have done stupid things also (not necessarily at this point)
CON goes on to defend some of the claims PRO made like “Hashirama couldve done everything Naruto did” which is not necessarily to me since PRO never proved that in any way and its just assumptions based on an imaginary script.
CON gives another argument why creating Konoha is not as big of a deal
(or at least bigger achievement than saving the world)
CON gives examples of how Naruto maintained the peace
Debate Summary:
Both made good points, both made some contradictions, debate could’ve been way shorter (my notes too).
All that was needed was the definition for the “greatest Hokage” first. After PRO provided his description CON made better arguments that make Naruto fit the description better than Hashirama. CON identified Hashirama as the greatest Hokage so Naruto>Hashirama means Naruto=greatest Hokage. If greatest Hokage was defined as something specific and not overall combination of factors CON could’ve argued for someone else but that was not the definition he provided. CON admitted he thinks Hashirama is overall the best and his definition of greatest Hokage was whos the best overall. So overall both PRO and CON were right about some stuff, wrong about others but most importantly CON showed Naruto fits the description PRO gave better.
Round 2 Notes:
PRO states that Hashiramas feat (creating the Lead Village) should be counted because that’s what made him Hokage.
PRO argues that Narutos source of power is always from somewhere else and not his own (Kurama, SoSP…)
PRO does not accept the assertions that Hashirama didn’t have to deal with a lot of people (there were many fighting clans)
PRO argues that Hashirama would’ve been able to “talk no jutsu” too and Naruto didn’t do anything special
(*Some back and forth about diplomatics*)
PRO argues that CON’s powerscale is wrong because Naruto always had help defeating those Gods, Obita, Madara, etc
PRO argues that Madara’s and Obito’s new forms were weaker than their old forms??? (No back up given for this controversial claim)
PRO states that if they look only at “most powerful version of the character” in their life then Kakashi has the best form for a small amount of time.
PRO is questioning the validity of CONs claim that Naruto was still able to use SoSP when he was Hokage (sources need to be provided)
PRO argues for Hashirama’s social intelligence (empathy, etc..) by stating that he brought numerous clans together and made peace
CON requests a definition of “greatness Hokage”and points out that theres no point comparing to other Hokages since PRO already identified Hashirama as that and Naruto only needs to surpass him.
CON argues that saving the world is a bigger feat than creating the village.
CON argues that “Establishing the leaf village is not a very great feat. It was not that hard, not that big a deal, and not that positive. It's more important what Hashirama did after becoming Hokage.”
CON argues that Hashirama is not a great leader because failed to protect the village by putting it in danger from poor decisions.
CON also gives more reasons he thinks Hashirama was a bad leader and Naruto good.
(*Some back and forth about saving friends*)
CON defends his power scales successfully showing Naruto’s power is still greater on his own since he is able to fight gods alone or with just Sasuke (which means at least 50%)
CON shares a moment from the show as his evidence for Naruto using SoSP while Hokage (no links provided)
CON kinds of doesn’t deny that “Naruto would’ve been ass raped by Pain if it wasn’t for Minato or Kurama” but says that Naruto still did more dmg than Jiraya and rest of the village (which doesn’t help his case because the comparison is with Hashirama now)
CON argues that Hashirama is not vastly more powerful than Naruto without his boosts since Naruto is Uzumaki and Naruto was also able to fight Momoshiki in his base form.
CON argues that Hashiramas powers are also not his since he’s a reincarnation and all of chakra is Kaguya’s. (Not the same as what PRO argues for imo)
He also mentions that thats all irrelevant since the power still belongs to Naruto and can still be attributed to his feats. Even if it comes from Kurama or somewhere else.
CON also supports his claims that thats Narutos power now because he worked for it and earned it by taming Kurama, etc..
Which is more impressive than having a default power like Hashirama.
Summary:
Both make good points, Naruto would’ve been indeed “ass raped” without Kurama but later on he becomes way more powerful and his base form is allowing him to go against Momoshiki who is kinda a god.
CON points out a lot of diplomatic issues with Hashirama.
There’s an argument about Naruto’s sources of power.
Round 1 Notes:
PRO argues that Hashirama is the greatest Hokage in general by pointing out that :
1.Hashirama is more powerful than Hokage Naruto who couldn’t use SoSP Mode
2. Hashirama already defeated Kurama with Madara’s Susanoo
3. Hashirama invented the Leaf Village and the “will of fire”
4. Hashirama had to do more for the peace and wasn’t lucky like Naruto to have friends in position of power
PRO also argues that the other Hokages also surpassed Naruto in different aspects such as:
1. Intelligence (all of them)
2. Inventions (Tobirama)
3. Strategy (Herozen)
4. Leadership / Medicine (Tsunade)
CON states that he only has to prove that Naruto is greater than Hashirama now since PRO identifies Hashirama as the greatest Hokage
CON points out that if SPSM doesn’t count as a feat for Naruto because he did not do it while being Hokage then Hashirama’s feat (creating the LV) doesn’t count as well.
CON argues that kid Naruto has not heard about who Hashirama was therefore did not copy his “will of fire” philosophy from him
CON gives a list of feats / achievements
CON argues that Hashirama actually had it way easier than Naruto when it comes to bringing peace because of less people to deal with and Hashirama’s failure to actually be at peace with Madara at the end. Naruto on the other hand made peace with multiple people.
CON argues that Naruto fought enemies much stronger than Hashirama, like Gods (later on even in his base form)
PRO and CON generally agree that H and N are on the same intelligence level
CON argues that N is more socially intelligent by giving examples of Naruto being able to figure out and connect with different people.
CON tries to argue that Naruto is wise by surrounding himself with intelligent people (Shikamaru) but sees it as a negative when pointing out that Hashirama counted on his more intelligent brother (Tobirama) for advises?
Summary:
PRO makes some good points that H. Invented the Leaf Village, will of fire and overall his significance as the first Hokage is what makes him the greatest plus that he has beated versions of Kurama already.
CON replies successfully to most of this even tho he slightly contradicted himself imo.
CON examines the powerscales as evidence that Narutos power is tiers above what Hashirama faced in his time and makes good points about Naruto saving the World and bringing peace in a much more difficult situation.
Ok you’re right, you can interpret greatest Hokage in many ways in a normal situation (I see that logic, thanks for asking) BUT not in a debate after you have already identified it and gave definition for it. Your definition of “greatest Hokage” is combination of all, not who leads the village intellectually. Which is good, this is the debate anyway. I know why you’re going back on it now but I think its kinda late. Different interpretations are not important anymore.
Also comparing Hokages and Mayors is fallacious. Just because Hokages have some of the job responsibilities that mayors have doesn’t mean mayors or the president can be a hokage. They are not the same, mayors dont have responsibilities like BEING ABLE TO PHYSICALLY PROTECT A VILLAGE FROM NINJAS WITH MAGIC. The job of the president doesn’t require for him to be able to fight at least decently.
Hokages are not only diplomatic figures like mayors from the real world. In the description of a greatest Hokage there is multiple criteria (like you said) so can’t take into account only intelligence or leadership.
Wait, so isn’t the title of the debate about ”the greatest Hokage” and not about “stuff that helps you lead a village”? You just said again basically “yea if you include everything (which is what you’re supposed to do) the “greatest” (debate title) is Hashirama BUT IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT who is more intelligent its someone else. In this case why both of you are debating and arguing about power, strength and other stuff? You made plenty of arguments outside of intelligence and leading a village didn’t you?
So you would not say that Hashirama is the greatest Hokage of all time overall? In which way are you interpreting “greatness Hokage “ that Im missing? I thought you defined it as “combination of factors. This includes fighting ability, wisdom, intelligence, specific feats, and upholding the philosophy behind what it means to be Hokage.” This is what you described Hashirama as. Now are you saying Minato or someone else is better Hokage than Hashirama?
Well I see a couple problems with what you just said, I might be wrong tho idk. So one of them is that you started the debate by stating that Hashirama is THE GREATEST in general Hokage of all time, named your reasons and then defined “greatest Hokage” as a combination of multiple different factors. That means that even if Minato was better politician or more intelligent you already knew that but placed him below Hashirama because of his other feats that mentioned and labeled as more significant.
Whatever the other Hokages strong sides are is irrelevant because you weighed them out for him and proclaimed Hashirama as the best of them overall. You didn’t just say Hashirama is better than Naruto (leaving you the door of later saying “well yea naruto is greater than hashirama but I didn’t say hashirama is the greatest so that doesn’t make naruto the greatest…etc..) , you said Hashirama is greatest, the biggest Hokages from all Hokages.. So… if Naruto replaces the Number 1 Hokage he becomes a what?
To me if CON proves Naruto is greater Hokage than Hashirama he wins since PRO already identified him as the greatest of all. So theres no point comparing with others, even if there are some aspects in which someone is better than Naruto, overall they (other Hokages) are not greater than Hashirama (from what PRO stated in round1).
So if Naruto is greater than Hashirama he is greater than all of the rest also.
Maybe you can say it’s useful to you (for some reason) but I don’t see how it’s scientifically accurate
I think Benjamin said pretty much everything that could be said about this topic unless you wanna change your title?
What’s your definition of “woman”
I did not say there is an objective reason that stops me from putting bananas in spaghetti. But that does not mean that now bananas belong on spaghetti. They still don't belong on spaghetti Carbonara by definition and just bc I can mess with my Carbonara and put M&Ms in it doesn’t mean that M&Ms BELONG in Carbonara. I can eat it, enjoy it, shit it out and M&Ms still don’t belong in Carbonara. I don’t really know if it matters that much if they subjectively don’t belong or objectively don’t belong….. they still don’t belong. By the objective standards of what Carbonara is. Every dish has objective standards that we can call a recipe.
You can objectively talk about traditions, history, culture, original recipes and the way it was invented and meant to be eaten and made. The statement “you can only objectively talk about health values” is wrong.
Just because pineapple won’t hurt you doesn’t mean it belongs on whatever you decide to put it on.
But can you still do it even if it doesn’t belong ?
Yes you can.
What if I want poison in my spaghetti Carbonara? Does poison belong in spaghetti?
“I like to put bananas on top of my spaghetti Carbonara, therefore bananas belong on a spaghetti and nobody can tell me they don’t because I like it and I can put it.”
SOURCES;
https://avatartimeline.wordpress.com/
https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/Aang
https://avatar.fandom.com/wiki/History_of_Aang_(12_BG_-_100_AG)
https://naruto.fandom.com/wiki/User:Seelentau/Naruto_Timeline#Databooks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja
https://narutodb.xyz/
Yeah I was thinking of posting something in the last round for that reason
Do I need to post any arguments to win if my opponent is full forfeiting?
His source was a random link to Quora quoting a random guy’s comment. This source of his is completely unreliable, unverified, unscientific and so on… in short- “it cant be used to back up his claim ( not that he even attempted to present his own claims)” . “Cant be used” is equal to not having it. He literally copied someone’s comment from Quora on a topic slightly connected to this debate, posted it here and instead of giving sources to back up his stolen claims he just gives a link to where he copied the claims from lol. Just because someone posts a link to something super random doesn’t mean they have sources lol. They have bad sources, literally cant give someone points for sources when they gave bad sources. CON didn’t need sources for his rebuttal since PRO’s argument is incredibly weak. Simple logic does it
You haven’t stated your position
My only problem is that there’s multiple questions in this debate. Are you debating that you can just put whatever you like on whatever you like or that pineapple BELONGS on pizza?
“Pineapple belongs on a pizza” is a fair title + definition for “belongs”
“ Pineapple can go on pizza if you want it to” is too vague, subjective and already set for PRO to win because you can say you can put anything you want if you personally like it
I’m not sure what they are but if it’s something like Astrology and you find it accurate I would probably recommend reading about the Barnum Effect and in general about cognitive biases.
I’m not sure if it’s connected to astrology but you can argue and present anything you think can help your case.
Yea the word “all” in this debate ruins it for me. All he has to do is show 1 christian that wasn’t indoctrinated and its over… if it was “majority” or “most” instead of “all” I can accept
Correction:
Scientists develop hypothesis that they test, evaluate, try to disprove and if they fail to disprove them, the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory which can be considered as a fact. Scientific theory is not the same and it’s used differently from what normal people mean by “theory”. The everyday meaning of the word theory is “an idea or a thought/proposal”. Scientific theory is more of a proven fact. Same as theory of gravity or the atom theory, electromagnetic theory etc etc.
Find out in the debate Benjamin 🙃
Maybe should’ve set more time for the voting, is 1 week usually not enough? If nobody votes I guess it’s a tie
I’m not going to address the same things in the comments but just going to say that “don’t bring any new arguments” doesn’t mean don’t argue more and forfeit lol ( I think that’s obvious). All it means is don’t bring up any new topics because I won’t be able to address them, the debate is over. You can still argue about the same things you brought up and respond to everything I said it’s just that it wouldve been unfair if you had the last argument in the last round and you bring up something completely new (lets say first cause argument) that I wont be able to address. Like how would you want me to start a debate about something completely different than what we’ve talked about when I have no more turns.
The reason I created this debate with this amount of letters allowed is completely random. I created my profile couple days ago, I haven’t debated anyone before so I just looked through this website and through a couple random debates on the front page to see how exactly this works. That’s all.
I really don’t know what’s a good limit so let me know and I can put it in my next debate, thanks!
I think it’s a little unfair to blame me tho since you wasted a couple rounds posting “arguments” with one word answers and now you blame me that you can’t say all you want to say. Even if you don’t I mean you accepted the debate on your own and saw the limit beforehand, I don’t know whats the point in complaining about it now.
Just to clarify something because I might've missed your point in Round 3 (and I'm still not sure this is what you're talking about) but I'm trying to argue that the belief itself is not reasonable not that there aren't reasonable people that hold that belief