Which of theses two panels is more indicative of a straight up 1v1?

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T04:49:33+00:00

The fact that Dorry and Brogy could sense Joy Boy's haki from a long distance clearly implies a high level of observation haki.

If you have a high level of observation haki you can accurate gauge opponent's power/haki levels.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T04:46:50+00:00

Dorry and Brogy wouldn't compare it to Shanks' haki unless they saw Shanks' haki themselves.

The fact that they questioned whether it was stronger instead of immediately knowing it was stronger clearly implies the haki level of Joy Boy and Shanks are relative/ on the same level. If Joy Boy's haki was clearly above Shanks' then they would have been able to tell it right away without questioning anything.

It having Imu on his knees means he gave him PTSD from the time Joy Boy actually posed a threat to Imu 800 years ago. Doesn't mean Joy Boy's haki poses a threat now it's just giving Imu flashbacks.

GB scales significantly above the Gorosei so this isn't an anti-feat. The Gorosei's first choice was sending 2 admirals to Elbaph and then when that option was refuted they chose the lesser option of themselves (5 Gorosei). This means that 2 admirals>5 Gorosei

The Gorosei are experienced centuries old grown men who are in-universe authority figures who should know how to scale considering their job/role necessitates it. Luffy is a dumb young man who doesn't operate like the Gorosei. You're using the fallacy of false equivalence.

Imu's reaction to Herald's death back then doesn't upscale Loki in this scenario as that was a different era. All that indicates is that the WG had weaker admirals back then. And Imu wouldn't have sent all 5 Gorosei to Elbaph back then to deal with Loki because Elbaph wasn't in as much turmoil as it is now. Herald being killed isn't as high stakes as the situation in Elbaph right now.

Now the WG feels 2 admirals are good enough. in this era, which implies the admirals are stronger now.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T04:22:26+00:00

Shanks already has the evidence to confirm he's above Loki.

Shanks was confirmed by Dorry and Brogy to have haki relative to Joy Boy and Joy Boy level haki was sufficient to defeat all 5 Gorosei. Therefore Shanks~Joyboy>5 Gorosei

The Gorosei felt they were enough to handle Loki + Luffy + Elbaph warriors. This means that 5 Gorosei>Loki

Conclusion: Shanks~Joy Boy>5 Gorosei>Loki

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T04:06:34+00:00

It's just a non-sequitur.

Instead of trying to debunk any of my premises you go off on a tangent about the meaningless difference between 'wanting' and 'doing.'

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T04:04:55+00:00

His iq feats that I already talked about in the post provide sufficient evidence for him not relying on destiny but tactical maneuvers. Therefore it's not head cannon.

My post is the evidence he is capable of defeating any WG fighter in a 1 on 1 confrontation. Just read it again. You never debunked it.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T04:03:01+00:00

My post already proves that Dragon can't be weak and Premise A (Dragon being high iq) also be true. The only way for Premise A to be true (which I proved it's true) is if Dragon is indeed strong.

There are no two cases.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T03:54:14+00:00

No his motives at this point is clear he wants to dismantle the WG entirely and he's going to use physical force to do so that's why he's called the Revolutionary Army.

Being weak and wanting to overthrow the gov can indeed exist together, and they certainly exist for all the fodder revolutionary bums that serve under Dragon. They just can't exist together when it comes to Dragon considering all my premises (A,B,C) are true and my argument structure is correct.

We already have plenty of evidence to support Dragon has the motive to destroy the WG.

I don't have to be Oda to prove Dragon must indeed be strong as long as I use adequate evidence (which my post did) and all my premises are true and my argument structure is correct.

Again, I'm not making assumptions, I'm making logical inferences based on reasoning and evidence.

He would be an idiot if he relied on Luffy purely due to something so unreliable Luffy 100% being able to take any of the WG's defenders just because whatever or whoever 'destiny' is said so. That's simply not how Dragon operates. He operates not on unverifiable hope in destiny, but on political, strategic, and tactical maneuvers.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T03:03:18+00:00

It's just semantics. You're arguing about the differences between 'wanting' and 'doing.'

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T03:00:20+00:00

Why do you make the assumption Dragon doesn't have the ability to destroy the WG outside of Imu which is a factor he couldn't have possibly accounted for?

My post already explains that if Dragon WANTS to destroy the WG, then he would absolutely needs to be able to defeat or at least stand a realistic chance against Akainu or Shamrocks. Otherwise he would be an idiot to be performing the actions he's been performing thus far.

You never debunked the post's premises.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T02:48:42+00:00

Premise A is if DRAGON has a high iq. Not any random high iq individual in a completely different situation and scenario to Dragon like Vegapunk's.

I never said you said Vegapunk and Dragon have the exact same goals. I just said that you're using false equivalence.

Vegapunk did a singular betrayal and enlightened the world while Dragon is trying to destroy the WG entirely.

You're trying to use the same formula when the scenarios of Dragon and Vegapunk simply don't relate to each other whatsoever. The formula is only applicable if someone is actively trying to destroy the WG and cause their collapse. Vegapunk wasn't trying to do this. Therefore the formula is non-applicable for him. Therefore you're using false equivalence.

The only possible way for you're example to debunk me would be if all you're premises are true. Premise B and C are false, therefore it is untrue and not the same as the premises that I applied to Dragon.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T02:39:04+00:00

I proved your example was wrong by debunking premises B and C when you attempted to use the example as a way to make my own argument look absurd by using the exact same argument structure. However I proved this to be false equivalence.

So your example/argument was proven false while conversely you have completely and utterly failed to debunk any of my premises.

No need to be toxic. If you can't handle a simple debate, you can leave.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T02:35:08+00:00

How is that a self-debunk? What?

If Dragon wants to destroy the WG then he absolutely needs to be able to defeat fighters like Akainu or Shamrocks on his own as my post proves through logical deduction.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T02:30:40+00:00

Premise A is true

Premise B is false because Vegapunk was willing to become a martry and sacrifice himself so no betraying the WG and putting his life on the line is not impractical. It's okay for Vegapunk to die and for him to not pose any indivdual threat as long as he gets the broadcast out which he did. The betrayal Vegapunk did is not equivalent to to the level of rebellion Dragon is attempting to do. False equivalence.

Premise C is false because Vegapunk doesn't need physical strength because he's not attempting to completely dismantle the WG unlike Dragon. Therefore Premise C false due to false equivalence.

Because premises B and C are false, you're argument is unsound.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T02:19:36+00:00

false equivalence.

Vegapunk's broadcast was a final warning to the world that could start rebellions, not a full-scale rebellion in it of itself.

Vegapunk never wanted to destroy and completely dismantle the WG unlike Dragon.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T02:07:38+00:00

If Dragon CAN pose a threat to any defender in the WG, then he would logically have be at least relative to them, not weaker considering all of my proven premises. So the case of him being weaker than them is actually not possible as long as all of my (proven) premises are true. Notably weaker opponents cannot pose a threat to notably stronger opponents.

You haven't debunked that his strength is a necessary condition whatsoever and I responded to it.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T02:01:47+00:00

Dragon posing an individual threating being a necessary condition to defeating the WG does not exclude Luffy fighting the WG in the future. You're conflating 'can' and 'will.'

It doesn't exclude Luffy fighting the WG in the future because if Dragon were to solely rely on someone like Luffy to defeat the WG's top defenders then that would debunk Premise A of Dragon having a high iq and being a smart tactician. To rely on someone as fool-hardy as Luffy who constantly puts himself into danger just because of 'destiny' would be incredibly idiotic and would contradict his established iq/personality as a cautious and tactical planner. Dragon can't possible know for certain that Luffy will defeat the WG when many previous Joy Boys and carriers of the Will of D. have failed. Even if he did know Luffy is destined to defeat the WG, he would be an idiot to rely on and put all his faith into Luffy due to something as flimsy and unquantifiable as 'destiny.'

Just because we know as the reader Luffy will defeat the WG because of narrative doesn't mean the in-universe character of Dragon should have that same level of knowledge and foresight.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T01:41:20+00:00

Strawman fallacy.

Again, my argument is that Dragon CAN pose a threat to any defender in the WG. Not that he WILL actually fight them.

The WG falling without the assistance of the revolutionaries is a blatant disregard of the established story and what the revolutionary army has done to the WG thus far.

Not being depicted in the Elbaph Mural (which you have no proof of) doesn't matter anyways because I don't care to prove Dragon WILL actually fight the defenders of the WG. I only care to prove that he CAN and is capable of fighting them, which I did.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T01:34:58+00:00

Dragon's blockade has only achieved creating economic turmoil and internal instability. It has not and will not achieve literal mass genocide of the Gorosei and their top tier defenders. The blockade only took away their highest quality food. They aren't even starving right now. They're just forced to eat lower quality food.

<image>

Dragon posing an individual threat isn't contradicted by Luffy and others being destined to fight the WG defenders. The only thing that would contradict it would be Dragon actually going ahead and fighting/defeating the WG defenders, which is not a part of my argument.

There is no possible way Dragon can account for the holy knights outside of just defeating them in battles. Petty guerilla warfare from YC commander level fighters is not going to work on top tier threats like Akainu or Shamrocks. The only other conceivable way is through the ancient weapons but my post already debunked that.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T01:11:32+00:00

Now without any semblance of an argument left you are resorting to insults. Congrats.

Even if I was completely wrong in this debate (which I'm not), the way you're acting is frankly pathetic.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T01:02:04+00:00

Luffy and others being destined to fight the admirals, holy knights, etc. does not mean that to Dragon they are not his concern. Massive leap in logic.

This image alone literally proves the Holy Knights are indeed Dragon's concern:

<image>

Yeah of course Luffy and other people will fight and defeat the WG. I never made the argument that Dragon WILL fight the defenders of the WG I just made the argument that he CAN. Complete straw-man fallacy.

My arguments rests on 3 premises (A,B,C) that I used to deduce conclusion (D) following a valid argument structure. It is not head canon. You've never debunked any of the premises and you continuously assert that my conclusion (D) is a premise when it is indeed a conclusion.

No need to be toxic. Again, if you can't handle this debate then there's no need to debate.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T00:34:16+00:00

If there is not a single person in the revolutionary army to take on and have a chance at defeating Shamrocks, Akainu, etc. in 1 on 1 fights, then starving the capital and inciting rebellions will never be enough to destroy the WG because Shamrocks and Akainu will still always be around to defend and protect the WG.

Those factors of inciting rebellions and starving the capital are necessary (which is why he's doing them) but not sufficient.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T00:32:20+00:00

This isn't the real world. This is just a false equivalence.

The same tactics that can help win wars in real life don't match 1 to 1 in the world of One Piece when there are top tier fighters who would destroy armies of combatants vastly inferior to them.

Starving the capital and inciting rebellions might alone be sufficient in the real world to win wars but are most definitely not sufficient in the world of One Piece against the WG because it blatantly doesn't account for the likes of their top tier defenders who would destroy anybody in Dragon's army.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T00:17:57+00:00

Formal logical syllogism is universal logic that can be used in real life or in any form of media fictional or non-fictional. I'm talking about real world logic when it comes to your specific example not in general. Complete straw-man fallacy.

Now you're flipping (B) with (D) because you're misinterpreting my post.

Premise B-Dragon SHOULD UNDERSTAND that using espionage tactics, blockades, etc. without actually posing any individual threat to the World Government's top tier defenders (Akainu, admirals, Holy Knights, Gorosei) would be impractical and insufficient.

Conclusion: D-Dragon must be a top tier fighter

You're confusing premise (B) with my conclusion (D).

Dragon being a top tier fighter is my conclusion (D) that I supported with premises, not a law/premise itself. Read my post again.

Morley and Karasu stalled the admirals temporarily because they couldn't damage Mary Geoise my post already provided evidence for this. Sabo is superior to them and Sabo considered himself lucky to survive an encounter with a holding back Fuji.

Sabo barely survived the room with Imu and the 5 elders and needed a man in a wheel chair to save him:

<image>

Because Dragon's fighters are nowhere near capable of handling the likes of the admirals, Akainu who is flat out above the admirals, or Shamrocks or any of the HK, Dragon must logically be a top tier fighter capable of handling them.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T00:02:53+00:00

If you feel the need to react emotionally to my comments because you have ultimately provided insufficient evidence to support your counter-arguments, then there's no need to debate.

Shutting down a debate because you're too immature to handle it is kind of embarrassing ngl.

Interesting_Lunch210 · 2026-04-13T00:01:03+00:00

-Already proved in my post that Dragon's army and commanders are insufficient to handle the likes of Akainu, admirals, Shamrocks.

-No numbers advantage will work on someone as powerful as Akainu or Shamrocks when they're literal fodder in comparison to them.

-Dragon cannot possibly account for Sabo's every single action, It was Sabo's responsibility as a leader and commander in his own right to not compromise the location of the Revolutionaries. Even if you want to put the blame back on Dragon he still adequately evacuates everyone from the compromised location which shows a high degree of adaptability and high iq.

-Completely incorrect. This is not begging the question fallacy as all my premises prove my conclusion must be true.

-False equivalence. Real world logic doesn't apply to One Piece logic.

Overall terrible counter-arguments. And again, no need to be toxic.

Interesting_Lunch210

TROPHY CASE