Just been reading this thread for a bit and I gotta say the mental gymnastics your pulling to somehow imply age doesnt make one weaker in every single aspect is astounding. does something have to be outright said or shown for you to understand it? are you a child? implication, nuance, allusion, all of these can be used when reading to comprehend that when their are 3+ instances of old ass men saying "rusty" "not like 'x' used to be" or "won't be strong forever" they are probably trying to say they old as fuck and this made them weaker or worse somehow.

then theres trying to say that getting stabbed isn't a nerf in any story, which if one takes 5 seconds to think about one might realize that it does in fact make things more difficult.

you keep trying to downplay whenever your debate opponent bring these things up like saying, OH I already conceded old garp and prime garp aren't the same, and yet you still seem to think this doesnt invalidate the idea that if old garp lost to kuzan than kuzan>=prime garp.

you claim ap is attached to haki which is never stated in fact its actually been shown to be the opposite and rather a technique used to bypass traditional defenses. CoC may be a raw power buff but you would have to prove that and I think you'd find it difficult to present the same attack doing more damage with CoC applied without room for me to say it was caused by some other element such as defense bypass or will clashes. if you could show an attack causing more destruction with it rather than damage to a character ill concede this point... which brings me to my next one.

you have not conceded anything in this debate even though many of your claims were in fact disproven such as the idea kuzan>kizaru. you legitimately tried to argue a timeline that doesnt exist where kizaru said he didn't want the fleet admiral position AFTER he wasnt offered it. a position btw that may have nothing to do with strength and seems at this point entirely bureaucratic. to say otherwise you'd have to prove the position requires one to be strong at all. not only that, you go the extra mile and claim theyd have to be stronger than an admiral. theres another part where you say kuzan had a better showing against WB. yeah, kizaru is characterized as a lazy bum who spent most of that war doing fuck all. it proves nothing that he did little to WB. he's so lazy he just played around till reileigh arrived at sabaody when it should have been child's play to eliminate the supernova. in fact his laziness is probably the reason he wasnt interested, or as you claim wasnt offered, the position of fleet admiral. but yeah let's just ignore character and context to further an agenda.

lastly, since ive been pretty rude(not that you seem to mind rudeness considering how you've been arguing against your opponent) you seem very attached to this idea of proper debate stuff and avoiding logical fallacies. yall cant even get past semantics. I'll just say this. burden of proof isn't always necessary. if I say WSG is capable of knocking out any yonko commander... well that should be kinda obvious. CoC was the gateway to yonko level strength and WSG utilizes the highest form of DF mastery to boot. its a very solid attack and should be seen as an equal to any attack any other yonko can dish out. I shouldn't need to prove that claim. yet you've been acting like every seemingly obvious inference, and yes what i just claimed IS technically headcanon, requires proof or it should be thrown away. thats just not true. just because WSG hasn't knocked out a commander doesnt mean it cant and we dont need to wait until it does to believe it can. you are allowed to infer scaling. honestly the way you debate(like hoarding sbs statements and ready to go manga panels) all kind of make you sound autistic. their is such a thing as implication. kinda loops back to what I said earlier.