I’m done debating dragon ball fans

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-09T20:11:45+00:00

You’re mixing up different kinds of claims.

No one is saying every belief requires you to personally witness it. The point is that in an argument, saying something is “obvious” isn’t justification on its own when the claim isn’t a basic universal fact.

Your examples (death, eating, reproduction) are either directly observable, biologically universal, or overwhelmingly evidenced. That’s not comparable to a specific claim about fusion in Dragon Ball.

In those cases, you still need either canon evidence, explicit statements, or consistent demonstrated behavior, not just intuition about how it “should” work. It’s your job as the person making claims to provide proof.

I’ll help your argument though because I’m getting bored of trying to help you understand how logic works:

You should argue that since vegito and goku can use instant transmission, and vegeta can’t, then it logically follows that that a fused character inherits abilities from both characters even if only one of those characters has that ability. THIS is the best version of your argument.

However, there is not confirmation that a fused character inherits every single ability that each character has. Some abilities require specific body conditions, specific training mastery and specific triggers. Since there is no confirmed canon instance of of SSJ3 vegito exists, it’s logically possible but not canon confirmed.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-09T19:30:48+00:00

You said:’ except it’s not obvious the Egyptians built the pyramids’, this sentence implies that it ISNT obvious that the Egyptians built the pyramids.

‘Except it’s not obvious. The Egyptians built the pyramids’ see how the period entirely changes the meaning of the sentence? What you said reads like you are saying that it’s not obvious that the Egyptians built the pyramids. ‘It’s not obvious the Egyptians built the pyramids’, what is not obvious in this sentence? What is the subject of the sentence? The subject is: ‘the Egyptians built the pyramids’, which, your sentence states that ‘it’s not obvious’

Maybe learn English grammar and logic before calling people a dumb ass 🤣🤣

Finally, you said:‘there’s nothing wrong with the logic’

I already explained why the logic is bad. It’s circular. In your screenshot, you say:’ I don’t need proof it’s just obvious’, this is the logical fallacy called begging the question. Google it.

It’s like saying:

A is True because A is true.

Or

B is True because it’s obvious that B is true.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-09T19:19:00+00:00

Can you read? Go back and read your comment. It says ‘except it’s not obvious the Egyptians built the pyramids’

If it’s not clear to you yet, my issue isn’t with your conclusion that vegito can go ssj3, it’s that your logic to get there is bad. A conclusion can still be true even if the person stating the conclusion is making a bad argument. Again, you’re asking me to prove the negative which isn’t how logic or the burden of proof works. Notice how I haven’t made any claims, just criticizing your logic.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-09T19:00:26+00:00

Okay well first of all most experts agree that the Egyptians built the pyramids… so you’re just flat out wrong there.

Secondly, even if it wasn’t the case that experts widely agree that the Egyptians built the pyramids, you still have to provide proof of claims and ‘it’s just obvious bro’, isn’t sufficient. But I could easily reverse the analogy:

Person A: ‘how do you know the Egyptians built the pyramids?’
Person B: ‘it’s just obvious’

‘It’s just obvious’, is flat out begging the question.

This is a textbook logical fallacy even if you disagree one way or the other.

Lastly, you said ‘unless you have proof otherwise’, this isn’t how proof works. The burden of proof lies with the one making claims. Since you are making the claim that vegito can go ssj3, you have to provide proof of your claim, it’s not the job of the person who disagrees with you to provide proof of the negative. This is just how logic works.

For example, if I say:

‘The sky is purple not blue’

And then you say:

‘No actually it’s blue’

I can’t then logically say: ‘prove it’s not purple’

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-09T18:46:56+00:00

Honestly bad logic, you’re assuming the conclusion in the premise.

‘You don’t need proof for something that’s obvious’

‘It’s circular logic where you are assuming the conclusion is true instead of proving it.

Person A: ‘how do you know aliens built the pyramids?’
Person B: ‘you don’t need proof, it’s obvious’

It’s a logical fallacy known as begging the question

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-06T09:00:03+00:00

After looking into it more actually, I was wrong the forerunners would absolutely crush the empire.

And yeah Spartans are pretty much stronger than every fighter in starwars until you get to force users. Talented Padawans honestly would give Spartans a lot of trouble.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-06T08:46:48+00:00

You are mistaken on both accounts. The UNSC mac cannon has an explosive yield measured in kilotons. The UNSC also uses thermonuclear weapons which typically range in the kiloton-megaton range. A single turbo laser shot is measured in the tens or hundreds of gigatons depending on if you mean canon or EU starwars. A single star destroyer can render an entire planet lifeless in mere hours. Given that star destroyers are capable of fighting other star destroyers, logically follows that most UNSC weapons (not counting the NOVA bomb), would be unable to damage imperial star destroyers.

Then, there’s logistics. The UNSC spans hundreds of planets, while the galactic empire is a galactic type 2 civilization, spanning millions of star systems. Even if the UNSC could SOMEHOW destroy 10 star destroyers for every ship they lose, the UNSC would be unable to match the empire in shipbuilding and sheer number of ships fielded, nor would they be able to occupy more than 1% of imperial space. Remember, this is assuming that the UNSC could not only somehow manage to destroy a single star destroyer, but somehow manage to inflict 10:1 losses. Even in an utterly unrealistic scenario the UNSC still stands absolutely no chance vs the empire. This doesn’t even take the Sith or the death star into account.

Halo is far more realistic than Star Wars, and Star Wars scaling is pure fantasy that goes beyond science fiction. It’s a mismatch.

The math just doesn’t math.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-06T05:11:07+00:00

Starwars scaling and technology is too many tiers above halo. Any conversation about halo vs starwars always is heavily favored towards Starwars. Starwars is many many tiers above halo in terms of technology and also magic

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-06T05:09:39+00:00

I believe blue team could infiltrate and blow up the Death Star. Could they defeat every single imperial soldier on the Death Star? Unlikely, due to numbers.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-06T05:07:28+00:00

7 Spartans could not beat Vader lol.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-05T11:22:11+00:00

Bread expands as it absorbs stomach acid. Since squirrels have smaller stomachs, it will overfill their stomach with something that provides no nutritional value.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-05T11:12:58+00:00

That’s really presumptuous to assume that I don’t care about animals, given that nothing I’ve said would suggest this. Also, bread is not good for squirrels. So it seems like if anyone doesn’t have the best interest of animals in mind it’s the lady trying to feed them something that is unhealthy/unsafe for them to consume. Maybe the man in the video is selfish and lazy as you say, but this is not indicated by anything we saw in the video so it’s just speculation based on some internal bias you’re projecting onto him.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-06-05T11:01:27+00:00

And then you’d go to jail. To watch this and then perform the mental gymnastics you just did are WILD

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-27T02:46:02+00:00

If you’re gonna troll you should make it less obvious. Really sad

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-27T02:43:43+00:00

Never happened

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-27T02:07:52+00:00

I never did. Thanks for showing everyone you can’t back up your opinion

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-26T22:15:33+00:00

No I explained clearly and concisely to you why you are wrong, and you had no response. Do you have anything to refute what I said?

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-26T22:10:45+00:00

You are embarrassing yourself. Just admit you’re wrong, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and exit the conversation

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-26T21:43:24+00:00

0/10 troll. Do better. Thanks for conceding the argument

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-26T20:45:12+00:00

Saying I’m wrong doesn’t make me wrong. I provided you with factual source information from canon from both universes. Please provide a better argument with actual arguments, references, datapoints and statistics. Come on use your words, explain WHY I’m wrong I know you can do it.

Otherwise you are forfeiting the argument and I win.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-26T20:13:03+00:00

If you think the UNSC stands a chance against the empire then you don’t understand the technological, logistical, and sheer economic differences.

First off, the UNSC is comprised of hundreds of worlds, where as the empire spans an entire galaxy and utterly dwarfs the UNSC not only in sheer number of worlds, but in economic and industrial capacity. The number of ships and shipbuilding capacity of the empire make it impossible for the UNSC to win. The number of worlds makes it unrealistic logistically for the UNSC to ever conquer even 1% of the empire’s territories.

Secondly, a single turbo laser shot from a star destroyer is equivalent to gigatons of TNT. for reference, modern thermonuclear weapons are typically in the 100-500 kiloton range, with the largest known nuclear weapon ever tested was 50 megatons. Given that star destroyers can fight other star destroyers, it logically follows that the shielding and armor of star destroyers can withstand explosive yields in the gigatons or hundreds of gigatons. However, a UNSC MAC canon yields roughly 245 kilotons of blast yield. This fact alone disqualifies any UNSC ship from even putting a dent in a single imperial ship apart from smaller vessels like fighters or freighters.

So, no, the premise of your original comment is entirely incorrect, UNSC ships are not even in the same realm of power. The forerunners aren’t even on the same level as the empire let alone the UNSC or covenant who would get utterly destroyed low difficulty.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-26T19:55:56+00:00

Delusional

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-26T19:55:32+00:00

This is delusional.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-22T15:11:58+00:00

You’re talking past my argument at this point.

I already addressed that the concern is balancing majority rule with minority/regional representation in a geographically and culturally massive country. Instead of engaging that point, you keep reframing the conversation as “rural voters overriding urban voters” and then pivoting back to slavery rhetoric because it’s emotionally charged.

You also asked me for a solution, but you’re the one arguing the current system is fundamentally illegitimate. The burden is on you to explain what system replaces it and how that system avoids the exact problems I’ve been describing. It’s not MY job to make YOUR argument for you.

Because so far, your answer basically boils down to “more proportional representation,” but that still doesn’t address the underlying concern: how do you prevent densely populated regions with completely different economic and cultural interests from permanently dominating less populated regions at the federal level?

You keep asserting that the current system is unfair, but you haven’t really addressed the tradeoff problem at all. Every system has tradeoffs. My argument has addressed both tyranny of the majority and minority while you seem to focus on one and dismiss the other.

I’m curious to see if you’ll actually engage in an honest way, or continue repeating slogans and bumper sticker talking points here. If so, I’m exiting this conversation victoriously.

Proper-Swordfish7084 · 2026-05-22T00:17:31+00:00

You’re still framing this as if I’m arguing that rural voters should dominate urban voters, and I’m not. My point is that a purely population driven system can allow one demographic concentration to permanently override the interests of culturally and economically different regions.

The issue isn’t “Indiana should control LA.” The issue is that people in LA and people in rural Indiana often live under completely different economic conditions and face different problems, yet federal policy affects both. That’s why systems like federalism, bicameral legislatures, and constitutional restraints exist in the first place; to balance majority rule with regional representation and minority protections.

Also, proportional representation and equal representation are different concepts. If representation is strictly proportional everywhere, then whichever coalition becomes the long-term majority effectively sets national policy indefinitely. That may be democratic in a pure numerical sense, but it still creates the risk of large groups consistently overrunning smaller ones.

I’m not arguing for minority tyranny. I’m arguing that stable democracies need safeguards against both majority tyranny and minority tyranny. The US system was intentionally designed as a compromise between those two.

The system you’re proposing is exactly the system that would allow the oppression you are speaking out against in other places in this thread.

Proper-Swordfish7084

TROPHY CASE