OBD Rulings, Guidelines and Definitions

[Masterblack06]

Alright so I've noticed recently that we lack a lot of definitions for some of the terms we use and as such, people are either using things incorrectly or getting confused on what something means, or attributing something to something else.

So in this thread we will be defining some/all of those terms and then hopefully we can put them on the wiki as well.

Im gonna start with something that recently came up in another thread. the Terms: No Selling, Tanking, Enduring, and Surviving. Below I will be providing what my interpretation of these terms are as well as providing examples of it and we can go from there

Terms

No Selling: The act of taking an attack with little to no defense put up without taking damage of any kind in any form.
Example:

Tanking: Taking an attack or putting up defense in such a way that the reciever of the attack may recieve some damage but is relatively unharmed for the most part and seems to be okay
Example:

Enduring: Taking an attack that overcomes the users defense but through sheer willpower and fortitude is able to withstand the attack and continue fighting/resisting their opponent
Example:

Surviving: Taking an attack that completely overwhelms ones defense, leaving them completely out of the fight either through significant injury or by being KO'd but they are not dead.

Example:

 

[Masterblack06]

courtesy of @Endless Mike here are logical fallacies and examples

I'm making this thread to explain a number of commonly used logical fallacies in debate, so people can recognize them and avoid using them.

This is not to say that I never have used a fallacy, everyone occasionally slips up and makes a mistake, but hopefully this will inform people and help them avoid using fallacious arguments.

One thing to keep in mind, is that even if someone is using a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their argument is not true. It merely means that they are attempting to argue for it improperly.

Anyway, on to the list:

1. Ad hominem. This means "argument against the man, not the point". It's when you rebut an opponent's argument by insulting them instead of their argument.

Example:

"Your argument is wrong because you're a troll".

Even if it is true that the person in question is known for trolling, it does not invalidate their argument, the argument must be considered on its own objective merits, no matter who or where it comes from.

NOTE: There is a difference between an ad hominem and a plain insult. Saying "Your arguments are wrong because you're stupid" is an ad hominem, but simply saying "You're stupid" is not a fallacy.

2. Strawman. This is when one person corrupts an opponent's argument into something different, a "straw man" that they set up just to knock it down.

Example:

Person A: Luffy is so fast due to Gear 2, he would easily blitz Naruto.

Person B: Luffy isn't lightspeed! You're wrong.

Person A never said Luffy was lightspeed, person B is making that up to make Person A's argument look bad.

NOTE: This is a very simple example, usually strawmen are much harder to spot than this.

3. Burden of proof fallacy. This is when someone attempts to make someone else prove a claim when the burden of proof is really on them to prove it. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, and the person who makes the claim.

Example:

"Goku is faster than lightspeed because you can't prove he's not!"

In this case, the person in the example makes a claim (Goku is FTL), and without providing evidence for it himself, he asks his opponent to prove him wrong. In reality, the person who made that claim would be the one required to prove it.

4. Appeal to motive. This is when someone attempts to rebut an argument by speculating on what ulterior motives the person making the argument might have, instead of addressing the argument itself.

Example: "You only think Superman could beat Goku because you hate DBZ!"

In this case, the person is not actually debating the point (Superman vs. Goku) and is only attempting to invalidate his opponent's argument based on a possible motive.

5. Appeal to popularity. This is when someone claims that if more people think one thing than another thing, then the one supported by the majority is correct.

Example: "The poll in this thread has more votes for character A than character B, so character A wins".

The person in this example is ignoring any actual evidence and facts and just basing his reasoning on what the majority of people said.

6. Appeal to authority. This is when someone claims that since an authority figure, someone who (apparently) knows a lot about the subject in question, says something, then it must be true.

Example: "Wizard magazine says Goku would beat Superman, so he can".

The person in this example is only basing his argument on what another person or group of people think, other than actually debating the points.

More to come later.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

7. Circular reasoning. This is when someone's conclusion is buried in their premise.

Example: "Luffy is faster than Gai because One Piece characters are faster than Naruto characters".

The premise here (One Piece characters are faster than Naruto characters) is simply stated as if you should be expected to just accept it, and the conclusion is only true if the premise is true.

8. Non - Sequiter. This is when someone's conclusion is not implied at all by the premise.

Example: "Goku leaves afterimages, therefore Goku is faster than light".

The person in this example starts with a true premise (Goku leaves afterimages), but then jumps to a conclusion which is in no way implied by that premise (Goku is FTL).

9. Red Herring. This is when someone attempts to rebut an argument by bringing up a completely unrelated point, a "Red herring", to lure his opponent away from the real point of the argument.

Example: "Even though Ichigo deflected over a million of Byakuya's senbonzakura petals using his Bankai speed, he still couldn't really beat Byakuya."

This argument's claim (Ichigo didn't really defeat Byakuya, it was more like a tie) is true, but that is irrelevant to the point of the opponent's argument (to show Ichigo's speed). Therefore it's not a real refutation of the argument.

10. Association fallacy. This is when someone claims that since A has certain qualities, and B is in some way associated with A, then B has those qualities as well, without actual proof of this.

Example: "Many Naruto ninjas use genjutsu. Therefore Gai knows genjutsu as well."

While this could be possible, there is no confirmation, and merely because other ninjas know it doesn't mean he does.

11. Argument from ignorance. This is when someone states that since there is insufficient evidence of something, it cannot possibly be true.

Example: "I've never heard of an anime with stronger characters than DBZ, so therefore DBZ characters must be the strongest in all of anime."

The person in this example states that since they do not know of something personally, it cannot exist.

NOTE: This fallacy is often invoked improperly, because there's a big difference between stating "There is no evidence of A, so A cannot possibly be true" (which would be a fallacy) and "There is no evidence of A, so we cannot assume A to be true" (which is correct logic).

12. Argument from incredulity. This is similar to the argument from ignorance, except it is based on the fact that the person in question cannot personally believe something.

Example: "DBZ characters are so powerful, I find it hard to believe that there are characters stronger than them."

The person in this example asserts that since he personally does not believe something, then it cannot be true.

To be continued.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

13. Argument from belief. This is when someone states that they personally believe something to be true, without providing any actual evidence.

Example: "It's my opinion that DBZ characters are faster than light, so they are."

The person in this example states that because he believes something, it should be assumed to be true, without any actual evidence.

14. Appeal to emotion. This type of argument takes many forms, but the general idea is that it works on a person's feelings to try to make them see one choice as preferable over another.

Example: "You shouldn't keep making those kinds of posts, or you'll get banned".

This is an appeal to fear, the person tries to discourage his opponent from making certain arguments or else something negative will happen to him. Also known as an appeal to consequence.

NOTE: If it was a mod that said this, it would be valid. Although it could also be construed as an appeal to force.

Another example: "You're a very smart person, surely you can see that I'm right about this?"

This is an appeal to flattery, the person complements his opponent in order to get him to concede.

Another example: "Naruto ninjas can obviously dodge bullets, what kind of fantasy shounen characters would they be if they couldn't?"

This is an appeal to wishful thinking. The person says a claim must be true because it's what he wants to be true.

There are more forms of this argument, but that's all I'll cover for now.

15. Appeal to tradition. This is when someone claims that an argument must be true because it's the way things have always been done previously, or the thing that people always believed before.

Example: "There can't be a Naruto character that can beat Luffy, because it's always been known in the OBD that Naruto characters are no match for him."

The person in this example doesn't actually try debating the Naruto character vs. Luffy, he just says that Luffy wins because he's always won previously against Naruto characters.

16. Equivocation. This is when someone uses two different meanings of a word to imply something that isn't necessarily true.

Example: "In Bleach, Arrancars use the 'Sonido' speed technique. 'Sonido' means sound in Spanish, therefore Arrancars move at the speed of sound."

This argument assumes that the word sound in this context means the same as the speed of sound, when that is not necessarily true.

17. No - limits fallacy. This is when someone states that because something has not demonstrated any limits (or only certain limits) then it has none (or only the ones demonstrated).

Example: "Itachi said that no one without a Mangekyou Sharingan can defeat him. Therefore he can beat all of DC, Marvel, DBZ, and Tenchi Muyo."

The person in this argument holds Itachi's statement to be absolute truth, ignoring the possibility that Itachi has no knowledge of certain enemies, or never expected to encounter them. The same can be said of Kishimoto: He never intended for his characters to be pitted in battle against characters from other works of fiction, so therefore statements like this do not hold true to other works of fiction necessarily. Furthermore, there is the possibility that in - universe, Itachi was lying or bluffing, misinformed, or deluded.

18. Undistributed middle. This is a fallacy where someone makes an argument of the following form: "All contents of set A are also contents of set B. X is in set B. Therefore X is in set A." The opposite would be true, though.

Example: "All omnipotent beings are gods. Enel from One Piece is a god. Therefore, Enel is omnipotent."

This argument ignores the critical factor of whether all gods are omnipotent.

More to come.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

19. The Fallacy Fallacy. This is when someone accuses someone else of making a logical fallacy, when they have not actually made one. It is an attempt to dismiss an argument by saying it is fallacious without explaining how or why.

Example:

Person A: "Luffy was moving so fast in Gear 2 that a world - class Assassin, Blueno, couldn't keep track of him."

Person B: "That's an appeal to authority fallacy."

In this example, person B doesn't explain how person A's argument is a fallacy, he simply states that it is.

20. Argument from anecdotal evidence. This is when someone tells a story of something that happened to them or another person, and it cannot be confirmed, but they expect it to prove something.

Example: "I once watched a nature show where a lion killed a pack of hyenas, therefore a lion could beat a pack of hyenas in a fight".

This argument simply recounts a story that may or may not be true, and the person in question expects it to count as evidence of their point of view. Even if the story was true, it does not necessarily mean that that is the way it will always happen, it could have been a statistical anomaly. In addition, there may have been other factors in play that the person neglected to mention (for example, the Hyenas may have been sick or injured before the fight started).

21. Proof by example. This type of fallacy involves someone citing one example of something as proof of a general rule.

Example: "Superman was tagged by Solomon Grundy, who is slow, therefore Superman can be tagged by anyone as fast or faster than Grundy."

The person ignores the fact that this could have been a statistical anomaly, and that it doesn't necessarily hold true all the time.

Another example: "Deidara defeated the Sanbi Bijuu, therefore he will always win a fight against a Bijuu, even the full nine - tails Kyuubi."

22. Affirming the consequent. This fallacy takes the form of presenting a conclusion that would logically follow from a premise, and then asserting that since the conclusion is true, the premise must be true also.

Example: "If One Piece characters could move faster than sound, then it would be difficult for people to see them move. Since fast One Piece characters seem to disappear, then they move faster than sound."

This argument ignores the possibility that characters could be difficult to track even if they moved below sound speed.

23. Denying the antecedent. The opposite of the previous fallacy, this is when someone presents a conclusion that logically follows from a premise, and then asserts that since the premise is false, the conclusion must also be false.

Example: "If Luffy could beat Aokiji, that would mean he is strong. He couldn't beat Aokiji, therefore he's not strong".

This argument ignores the fact that while Luffy is strong, Aokiji is simply stronger. Also, Luffy's powers have no effective counter to those of Aokiji.

Another, more common way this could be phrased is:

"Are you kidding? Luffy's not strong, he couldn't even beat Aokiji."

24. Biased sample. This is when a statistical survey only takes into consideration a sample of people or entities that are biased towards the conclusion. This only applies to matters of opinion and subjectivity, because even if the sample wasn't biased, this would not be an effective argument for an objective claim due to the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Example: "Everyone on that forum says that the PS3 is way better than the Wii."

What the person in the example is neglecting to mention is that the forum he's referring to is a Sony - centric forum populated mainly by Sony fans.

More to come.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

25. Half - truth. This is when someone presents a piece of evidence, but only presents some of it, ignoring critical factors that would cast the evidence in a whole different light, and would not necessarily support the person's conclusion.

Example: "Galactus was beaten by Thor, therefore he can be easily beaten by anyone around or above Thor's level".

What the person in this example fails to mention is that Galactus was starving and severely weakened in this instance, and also that Thor was drawing extra power from Odin to attack him.

26. Hasty generalization. This is an argument where someone takes an insufficient amount of evidence and attempts to form a conclusion from it, while ignoring or not being aware of contradictory evidence.

Example: "Flash has been tagged by people without super - speed in the past. Therefore, anyone, even if they don't have super speed, can tag him."

This person ignores all the times people both with and without superspeed were unable to tag the Flash, or were defeated by him.

27. Misleading vividness. This argument is similar to proof by example, but instead of simply citing an example, it describes the example in vivid detail, which makes people more likely to pay attention to it and think it is significant.

Example: "Flash isn't fast! He was tagged by Grodd, who grabbed his leg from behind, pulled him away, and bit into his leg!"

All of those details weren't necessary, and they don't do anything to logically advance the argument, but they do play on people's emotions to make them think this is a more significant occurence.

28. Package deal. This is when someone claims that since A is true, and A is usually (but not necessarily) associated with B, then B is also true.

Example: "Samurai Deeper Kyo characters can move faster than light. That means they can also travel through time."

This argument assumes that since FTL speed and time travel are often interrelated, then they must be in this case, even if there is no evidence of this.

29. False dichotomy. This is when someone claims that there are only a certain amount of options, and if all but one are false, then the other must be true. This ignores the possibility of other options.

Example: "Lightning travels at relativistic speed. If lightning is heading towards you, either you'll can't move that fast and you'll be hit, or you can move that fast and you can block or dodge it. Nami blocked Enel's lightning in the Skypeia arc, so therefore Nami can move at relativistic speed."

Ther person in this example ignores the possibility that Nami could have seen Enel powering up his attack before he actually fired it and set up her defense in advance.

30. Correlation implies causation. This type of argument claims that since A is associated with B, then A causes B.

Example: "Afterimages, blurry images, and speed lines usually are used in manga and comics to denote speed. Therefore, anything drawn with afterimages and blurry effects must be moving very fast."

This argument ignores the possibility that the said effects were added for some other reason, or that they are simply there to exaggerate the object's movement rather than to imply vast supernatural speed.

To be continued.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

31. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Usually abbreviated to just "post hoc", this fallacy happens when someone assumes that since two events occur in sequence, the first one must be the cause of the second one.

Example: "Luffy wore an afro when he fought Foxy. Luffy beat Foxy. Therefore, the afro gave him the power to win."

This argument ignores any other possible explanations for Luffy's victory, such as the fact that Luffy was simply stronger and tougher.

NOTE: I'm just using this as an example, I know that Afro Luffy is used as a joke, I'm not seriously commenting on that.

32. Appeal to force. This happens when someone threatens his opponent with a punishment if his opponent will not accept his argument.

Example: "If you don't agree with me, I'm going to negrep you."

The person in this argument relies on the threat of a negative rep instead of on the strength of his own arguments.

33. Slippery slope. This argument says that if you accept one thing, the chances become more likely that another thing would happen, and the second thing would have negative consequences, so the first thing is wrong.

Example: "If we don't ban trolls more often, then more people will think it's okay to get away with trolling, and soon everyone will be a troll!"

This argument assumes that since something might happen as a consequence of not banning trolls, then it will happen and therefore all trolls must be banned on sight.

34. Poisoning the well. This is similar to ad hominem, except it is directed against other observers instead of your opponent. You say that there is something objectionable about a person, therefore people shouldn't listen to their arguments.

Example: "Person A is known for being a biased One Piece fanboy, therefore you shouldn't listen to him when he says Luffy can beat Ichigo."

Whether or not this accusation is true, it has no merit on the actual arguments being presented.

35. Fallacy of accident. This is when someone uses a general rule to justify something when that thing is in fact an exception.

Example: "In a fight, the faster character usually wins. Goku can move faster than the Flash by using Instant Transmission, therefore he will win."

This ignores the fact that instant transmission is a special case: While it does allow the user to arrive at a destination faster than the Flash would in a race (if both of them started at the same time), it ignores the fact that IT is teleportation, not true speed, requires locking onto a ki signature, needs time for thought to activate it, and cannot change destination or react to attacks in between the origin and destination point.

36. Reverse fallacy of accident. This is similar to the previous fallacy, except it works in reverse - a person attempts to use an exception to overturn a rule.

Example: "Logia characters in One Piece can't be harmed by physical attacks. Therefore all One Piece characters are immune to physical attacks."

This ignores that not every One Piece character reacts to physical attacks in the same was as a logia.

More to come.

 

[Cubey]

Good shit MB, we need formal debate back

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

37. Ad hominem tu quoque. This is a variation of the ad hominem fallacy where a person dismisses his opponent's argument by claiming that his opponent engages in the same type of practice.

Example:

Person A: "It was never stated that Buu's power level was 5 billion, that's a lie."

Person B: "Well you lied when you said that Post - Crisis Superman moved the earth by himself!"

Even if person B is right and person A did lie about that, that doesn't mean that person's B's lie about Buu's power level should just be accepted. Two wrongs don't make a right, after all.

38. Loaded question. This is when someone asks a question that presupposes a conclusion, so no matter what yes or no answer the person gives, it will fit the agenda of his opponent.

Example: "Are you still making that retarded claim?"

If the person answers yes, they will admit that they are making a retarded claim, if they answer no, they will admit that the claim they made was retarded. Of course the fallacy is that the person asking the question hasn't demonstrated what is wrong with the claim.

39. Fallacy of composition. This is when someone states that if a certain condition is true for A, then it must also be true for any larger set that A is a part of.

Example: "Luffy can beat any given Naruto character. Therefore he can beat all Naruto characters at once."

40. Fallacy of division. This is the opposite of the previous fallacy, when someone asserts that since a system has a certain property, then all components of that system must also have this property.

Example: "The OPverse is stronger than the Narutoverse. Therefore any One Piece character can defeat the entire Narutoverse."

This argument ignores that the ability to defeat the Narutoverse comes from the combined powers of all the OP characters, not one property that they all share.

41. Argumentum ad verbosium. This is when someone makes a claim and writes a long, often repetitive essay in order to prove it, when they really do not have very strong evidence whatsoever and are just trying to make their opponent accept their claim by barraging him with long, drawn - out writing.

Example: "Naruto can beat Luffy, because Naruto has the Kyuubi, and the Kyuubi is really powerful, and you know, Luffy really isn't that strong, I mean he can stretch and stuff, but he'll die if he gets thrown in the water, and lots of Naruto characters can use water techniques, (which are known as suitons, which is Japanese for "water release"), and they also have Katons (Japanese for "fire release"), and Dotons (Japanese for "Earth release") and even Mokutons (Japanese for "wood release"), although the latter cannot be created by most ninjas, only ones with a Kekkai Genkai (That's Japanese for "Bloodline limit") can use them, by combining their elemental affinities, and Naruto beats Luffy... etc."

You can see the person is trying to just exhaust his opponent with tons of words and unnecessary verbosity instead of arguing the actual points.

42. Figure of speech. This is when a person confuses a saying which is not meant to be literal, with a literal meaning.

Example: "Mr. Popo said Goku could move faster than lightning. That means he could move at relativistic speed."

The person in this example is ignoring the fact that "lightning speed" or "faster than lightning" are very common figures of speech that rarely ever denote actual speed of that level.

To be continued.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

43. Argumentum ad nauseum, or argument from repetition. This is when someone keeps making a claim over and over again, but either does not provide actual evidence, or provides evidence which is later debunked, but keeps making the claim. Eventually (or so he hopes), his opponent will get tired of arguing and he can declare victory.

Example:

Person A: "Goku has VAST senses! He would easily sense the Flash and beat him. Goku's senses are BEYOND those of the Flash."

Person B. "That is too vague, Goku has trouble sensing someone with normal human ki, even if we assume the Flash has ki (which is not necessarily true), then since he uses the Speedforce for his powers and not ki, his ki would not be any greater than that of a normal human. Goku cannot sense beings too far away in space if he does not recognize their ki, and even if he does he still cannot sense them if they are too far away (he had to get King Kai's help to locate the new planet Namek, even though he knew what a Namekian ki signature felt like). Furthermore, he often loses track of his opponents when they move around him, and these opponents usually have kis as large or larger than his. There's no way he'd sense the Flash, who only has normal human - equivalent ki, and is moving way faster than any DBZ character, and even if he did, he wouldn't be able to react in time to stop him."

Person A: "You're chatting garbage! Goku has VAST senses! He can sense people light - years and dimensions away! He can easily sense the slow - ass Flash right in front of him!"

Person B: I already explained this to you, he has trouble sensing people even with strong, familiar kis if they are too far away, and the dimension thing isn't really quantifiable, especially considering it was harder for him to sense the Nameks in his own dimension than it was to sense King Kai in the afterlife. Furthermore, he loses track of his enemies when they are moving fast around him, and they have very large kis. He would never sense someone moving at FTL speed with only average human ki.

Person A: "Stop chatting crap! Goku can sense anything anywhere. The Flash is alive, he has spirit! Goku has VAST senses, he would easily sense the Flash and beat him."

Person B: "You know what? I give up. I've already explained this to you a million times but you're just not listening."

Person A: "Ha! Concession accepted! I win!"

Here person B has refuted all of person A's arguments, but person A ignores the refutations and evidence and simply keeps stating his arguments over and over again.

44. Golden Mean fallacy. This kind of argument supposes that when there are two opposing viewpoints, the truth must lie somewhere in - between, ignoring the possibility that one of the viewpoints is simply wrong.

Example: "Some people think that Galactus can beat Itachi, and some people think that Itachi can beat Galactus. Therefore, it's most likely that Itachi and Galactus are about even in strength."

This ignores the empirical evidence that the person who claimed Itachi can stand a chance against Galactus is simply wrong.

45. Style over substance fallacy. This has two forms: First, when a person ignores the valid points in an argument because of the way it is presented.

Example:

Person A: "You fucktard! How can you possibly believe that Goku stands a chance against the Lord of Nightmares! She's an omnipotent being, just lending her power to a human can give them the ability to destroy the universe by accident! Are you really that dense?"

Person B: "Wow, you're rude! I'm not going to debate with someone as rude as you!"

Person B is ignoring person A's valid arguments and instead concentrating on his language, as if that provides an excuse to ignore his points and evidence.

Alternatively, person B's response is often stated in the following forms:

"You seem a bit upset. You should cool down a bit and then I'll get back to you."

Or

"If you're insulting me, that's a clear sign that you know you've lost the argument."

Both of these are equally fallacious as the first.

The second form of the style over substance fallacy occurs when someone prefers one entity over another due to the way it is presented, as opposed to any actual facts.

Example: "In DBZ, all the battles have flashy afterimages, speed lines, blurs, and other effects. This obviously means that they're faster than the Silver Surfer, who rarely ever leaves afterimages or has any of those effects in his comic."

This argument simply takes the way the material is presented as objective evidence, even though there are no true facts attached to it and it just a matter of drawing style.

46. False analogy. This is when someone attempts to use an analogy to prove a point, but the conditions of the analogy differ from the original scenario enough to render the point from the analogy invalid.

Example: "A fight between KN4 Naruto and Hollow Ichigo would be a lot like a fight between a bear and a fly - one big, hulking monster against a small, fast, maneuverable enemy. A fly obviously can't hurt a bear, and eventually the bear would swat it out of the sky. So Naruto beats Ichigo".

The person in this example is ignoring the comparative power difference between a fly and a bear and Naruto and Ichigo. A bear has much more power than a fly, whereas Hollow Ichigo, though he is smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, has much greater relative attack power and durability than a fly compared to a bear.

To be continued.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

Continued.

47. False attribution. This is when someone cites a source out of context, or a source that does not even exist, to support their argument.

Example: "Akira Toriyama said in an interview from issue 299 of Super Otaku Magazine that DBZ characters move faster than lightspeed."

The problem here is that investigation has failed to confirm that "Super Otaku Magazine" ever even existed, no matter how thoroughly you search for it. That's rather peculiar for a periodical which supposedly had almost 300 issues, there should have been a record somewhere. Furthermore, no pictures or scans of this magazine or the interview have ever been seen, only a transcription of the supposed interview in text form is floating around the internet. So it seems that this evidence was fabricated.

48. False premise. This is an argument that uses a faulty premise to draw a conclusion. The conclusion logically follows from the premise, but since the premise is false, the conclusion can be in error.

Example: "If rocks fly upwards and craters are formed spontaneously around something, it must be increasing the power of its own gravitational field. DBZ characters do this when they power up, therefore they must be creating massive gravity wells."

The premise in this case (Rocks flying upwards and craters spontaneously forming means the object at the center is increasing its own gravity) is false, since not only could there be many other explanations for these effects, but if the gravity of the characters was increasing, it would pull rocks toward them, not lift them up towards the sky, and if the gravity was really strong enough to counter the earth's own gravity by lifting the rocks, it would tear the earth apart.

49. Genetic fallacy. This is when someone evaluates the merit of an argument based on its origin, or where it comes from, instead of the actual logic and evidence it contains. In this way, it is similar to an ad hominem fallacy.

Example: "You copy - and - pasted that info from another website, instead of writing it yourself. I'm not going to respond to an argument if you don't even do the work of making it yourself."

The person in this example dismisses his opponent's argument based on the fact that his opponent did not write it personally, ignoring any evidence or points it may contain that would be valid.

50. Incomplete comparison. This is when someone makes a claim that is too vague to be proven or disproven.

Example: "Dark Schneider is really powerful."

Powerful compared to what? Something powerful compared to an ant is hardly in the same league as something powerful compared to an exploding star. This example is merely a vague statement that carries no real meaning without a point of reference.

51. Inconsistent comparison. This is when someone compares something to multiple other things, but picks and chooses which things to compare it to so it seems superior to all of them, when it really is just slightly better than the ones with the lowest values in that field.

Example: "Goku will easily beat American comic characters! He's faster than Hercules, stronger than Spider-man, smarter than the Rhino, and a better tactician than Thor!"

What the person in this example neglects to mention is that Hercules is not really very fast, Spider-man, though much stronger than a normal human, is far from the top tier of physical strength for Marvel and DC, Rhino is a complete idiot, and Thor is usually not a very good tactician. So what they're really saying is simply that Goku is not slower, weaker, dumber, and a worse tactician than every American comic book character.

52. Invalid proof. This occurs when someone uses calculations to attempt to prove something, but there is an error in their math.

Example: "This bomb is said to have a yield over a billion times that of the nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima. The Hiroshima nuke was around 15 kilotons, so this bomb would have a yield of 15 petatons!"

The error in math here is that he skipped a prefix. It would really only be 15 teratons.

More to come.

 

[Masterblack06]

Continued:

53. Special pleading. This is when someone tries to explain away a piece of evidence against him by saying that extra considerations apply, ignoring the point of how these extra considerations would actually affect the evidence.

Example: "Yes, Goku was tagged by Uub, who has no speed feats whatsoever, but Uub is the reincarnation of Majin Buu, the most powerful villain in the series!"

While the extra consideration (Uub was the reincarnation of Buu, and Buu was the strongest villain in the series), is true, it ignores the fact that Uub never demonstrated any of the other capabilities of Buu, such as his speed, transmutation, ki blasts, amorphous body, absorption, etc.

54. Affirming a disjunct. This fallacy consists of a situation when there are two possibilities, and if one is known to be true, claiming that the other one is false, when in fact they both could be true.

Example: "The Flash is fast, but he either has fast travelling speed, or fast combat speed. We've seen him travel long distances in a short time, so he has fast travelling speed. That means he can't have fast combat speed."

Obviously the person in this example is ignoring the possibility that the Flash has both fast travelling and combat speed.

55. Existential fallacy. This is when someone makes a syllogistic argument that relies on the existence of a set that is not known to exist.

Example: "In One Piece, the Cipher Pol units grow progressively stronger as their numbers increase. CP10 is a higher numbered Cipher Pol unit than CP9. Therefore, the members of CP10 must be even stronger than the members of CP9!"

The fallacy here is that, as far as we know, there is no CP10.

56. Fallacy of exclusive premises. This occurs when someone makes an argument with two negative premises.

Example: "No Bleach characters are faster than light. Some Bleach characters cannot perform a speedblitz. Therefore, some characters that are faster than light cannot perform a speedblitz."

The End

 

[Masterblack06]

This is courtesy of a user from a while ago named Ippy so thank him for these wherever he is

These are all terms that those new to the OBD, or more specifically, character debate forums in general, might be confused about when they see these thrown around in pretty much every thread.

Fear not! You don't have to look newbish(read: like fresh meat) by asking the sometimes embarrassing "What does CIS/DEM/____ mean?"

Common terms:

character induced stupidity (CIS): Basically, it's when even though a character can use the full extent of their power, or take advantages of an opponents mistakes, they instead either consciously choose to squander the opportunity, or for reasons unknown to readers, just don't go all out.

For OBD purposes, threads where "CIS = on" indicate that even though the characters involved might be able to use their full abilities, they're still bound by what their tendencies are in battle.

(ex. Ikkaku foregoing the use of his own defense or working around another's.)

plot induced stupidity (PIS): This is also known as plot no jutsu(PNJ).

This is when a character loses a fight against another for reasons that can only be described as "for plot." Case in point: an antagonist is bigger, stronger, faster, more skilled, and has better and more useful techniques than a protagonist opponent, but for reasons that oftentimes almost defy logic... somehow lose anyway.

For OBD purposes, PIS is pretty much always off, or else main protagonists would always have the edge over antagonists in battles.

(ex. almost every series)

jobbing: This is basically the Western comic fan term for a type of PIS.

Jobbing is losing to someone to make them look powerful -- to hype them. (info provided by Spy_Smasher)

Jobbing is when a character/entity loses a battle/confrontation against a much weaker character/entity, due to reasons ranging from the unlikely to the sheer ridiculous. Characters/entities who frequently job are known as 'jobbers'. A character/entity who wins numerous battles/confrontations against characters/entities that he/she/it should not really win possesses what fans label as 'jobber aura'. (info provided by Comic Book Guy)

The term "jobbing" comes from Professional Wrestling, where it came a person who was supposed to lose said to "do their job", since all the results are scripted. Eventually, they'd just say that they were supposed to "job" tonight, and now we apply it to things like Comics and Manga, where people lose due to 'plot restrictions'. (info provided by Guy Gardener)

(ex. Silver Surfer jobbed against Black Panther)

jobber aura: A character who wins numerous battles or confrontations against other characters that they should not really win possesses what fans label as 'jobber aura'. (info provided by Comic Book Guy)

(ex. Wolverine, Black Panther, Batman, Captain America)

deus ex machina (DEM): This isn't as common as most of the others, but it pops up from time to time.

This is when an unexpected character, device, or event gets brought into a work of fiction to resolve a situation.

(ex. most powerups, like Ishida's against Mayuri)

canon: These are bodies of works that are considered to be "genuine" or "official" within a certain fictional universe.

For OBD purposes, this would mean any form(s) of a series that the original author or creator had the largest part, and near full autonomy, in creating.

(ex. most manga came before their anime counterparts, and are considered canon by most)

retroactive continuity (retcon): This is purposefully changing previously established facts and truths about a work of fiction. It mostly applies to Western comics, but there are exceptions(read: post-skip Sharingan).

For OBD purposes, retcons affect which versions of characters might be used, since certain versions of characters may have vastly different abilities than the others.

(ex. pre- and post-Crisis Superman, although arguable)

curbstomp: Also known as rape, and rapestomp.

To my knowledge, these are OBD specific terms.

It's an adjective to describe battles created by members where one character's abilities and strengths far exceed another's to the point where the other character simply has no chance to win.

(ex. SSJ3 Goku vs. pre-skip Naruto)

babyshake: Used before even my time here. It was described as being the highest level of pwned one can attain in the OBD.

(possible ex. Dr. Strange vs. Claymoreverse)

pwn: Term originally came into use because of the Half Life: Counterstrike games.

When one person managed to perform a clean kill, it was said that the other player was "owned," but in the heat of a game, and with the close placement of the "p" button to the "o," many ended up saying "pwned" in the game's chat function by accident.

It is mistakenly misspelled on purpose all across the internet now.

The term "pwn" is under contention. The original iteration is either in counterstrike, or more likely a Warcraft 2 map that was added in. Losing said map produced the maxim, "you got pwned". (info provided by Pipboy)

For OBD purposes, this is when a character... basically gets cleanly hit in almost any fashion. It can also apply to one OBD member making another look stupid using logical reasoning or from posting scans that undoubtedly disprove their words.

(ex. pick a series, and you will find someone getting pwned)

OP: This can be used interchangeably with either "One Piece" manga or the "opening/original poster" of a thread, depending on the context.

fallacy: This is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in it's logic, thus rendering an entire argument invalid.

See Endless Mike's thread for a more in-depth analysis with examples.

hyperbole: Fancy word for "exaggeration," used by OBDers to make themselves sound more intelligent.

(ex. "Tsunade is like a 'god of war'")

GAR: A term used towards male characters and individuals who are so overwhelmingly manly that your own masculinity is absolutely buried, leaving you naught but a whimpering, swooning girl-child before them.

The best possible definition of this term can be found here.

(ex. Gutts, Gara, Kenshirou)

faster than light (FTL): This is pretty much self explanatory.

The acronym form of this term is very often used throughout the OBD to describe characters who's speed can exceed 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186,282.392 miles per second.

(ex. Dark Schneider and The Shrike, among others)

speedblitz: This is the word used to describe an action that is likely to occur when one character is significantly faster than the other.

For OBD purposes, this is likely the end of a battle thread almost before it even starts, since if the combatants involved are comparable in strength and durability, yet their potential speeds are vastly different, it ends up leading to a one-sided battle.

(ex. The Flash vs. nearly anyone)

"gg _____": The "gg" stands for "good game" and the "_____" is a blank for any character mentioned after the gg.

This is actually misleading, since it's use is actually to indicate who an OBD member believes would lose a fight.

(ex. gg Itachi = "I believe Itachi will lose")

battle field removal (BFR): Also known as "by fucking ringout".

It's when a character is able to win a match or a fight by removing their opponent from the battlefield. This could be anything that constitutes as the ring, and being unable to return. (info provided by Id)

(ex. causing a character to be shot into space, taken to another dimension, etc...)

continuity: Continuity refers to diegetic world of fiction.

Continuity is essentially cause and effect. Comic books are like a soap opera most of the time. Each issue will follow roughly from the last one. Over time a person can make enemies, fall in love, etc. If someone is married and in love one issue then the next issue they should still be married and in love. Over time and the course of many issues their love might start to fade and they could get a divorce. However you wouldn?t expect that in one issue a character is happily married and the next he?s divorced for no reason. Comic Books are continuous and so follow what?s happened before, also known as their continuity.

Some comic books and issues are out of continuity. An example of this is the graphic novel Superman: Red Son I mentioned earlier. It shows what would have happened if Superman landed in Russia. However Superman actually landed in Kansas, and the whole Red Son story has no effect on the main Superman story that is ongoing in the comics. Television series, movies and videogames are almost without exception out of continuity.

 

[Masterblack06]

non-canon: Non-canon is a term that is used to identify the events, actions, and/or characters of one or more stories that are not in continuity within a fictional universe. (info provided by Comic Book Guy)

filler: Similar to non-canon, filler is a term that is used to identify the events, actions, and/or characters that are not in continuity within a fictional universe. Whereas non-canon is the broader of the two terms, filler is more specific; the term is used with regards to Japanese anime and/or manga. (info provided by Comic Book Guy)

(ex. Bikouchuu arc of Naruto anime)

prep time: Short for preparation time, prep-time is where a character is granted time to prepare prior to the battle/conflict at hand.
Note that prep time is dependent on the resources that the character is allowed to access (and possess in battle, if applicable) as specified by the vs. thread creator. (info provided by Comic Book Guy)

bloodlust: Bloodlust is a state of being where a character utilizes their abilities, capabilities, and/or powers to their maximum extent in the battle. Inhibitions and/or self-imposed limits and/or restraints such as morals or beliefs are not in effect.

Note that bloodlust does not mean berserker rage, where the character becomes solely driven by animalistic, feral rage and a single-minded drive to kill. (info provided by Comic Book Guy)

trope: In story-telling, a trope is a conceptual figure of speech, a storytelling shorthand for some sort of concept that the audience will recognize and understand instantly.

Above all, a trope is a convention. It can be a plot trick, a setup, a narrative structure, a character type, a linguistic idiom. It's like porn; you know it when you see it. (info provided by Pintsize)

omnipotence: This is a property of a character that can only be described of as absolute power. Seemingly nothing is above the realm of possibility for characters that exhibit this trait.

Note that there is a paradox concerning this trait, since in order to be omnipotent, nothing should be above your realm of power. For example, theoretically, an omnipotent being should be able to create a rock that is too heavy for them to pick up, but in doing so, they have just made something that is above their realm of power.

This is largely ignored in the OBD, however.

(ex. Kami Tenchi)

IIRC: The lazy way to say "if I recall correctly".

bullet timer: This can be described as a character that has reflexes fast enough to dodge supersonic attacks.

(ex. Kirin)

feat: In the context of the OBD, it's an action or event that displays a character's abilities which may be useful in combat.

(ex. Rock Lee moving faster than the eye can see after removing his weights)

area of effect(AoE/AOE): This is an attack or ability that can affect an entire area, possibly affecting more that just a single target, and instead multiple targets and/or surroundings.

(ex. all of Cross' attacks)

End

 

[Masterblack06]

Another set of guidelines once again from Ippy

There seems to be some confusion as to what governs the assumed standards of fights. I've noticed that newer members to the OBD, and even some older ones, don't seem to know what the general assumptions are. Also, there even seems to be quite a bit of variance in what some consider to be the standards.

By standards and assumptions, I mean the assumptions that get made when the original poster isn't specific in the setting or details of the fight they create. (Note: If the original poster is specific in the details, all other posts in that thread should be made with those specific details in mind.)

I'm making this in the hopes that newer members know exactly what to base their arguments, in non-specific threads, on. I also hope that most, or all, ambiguity is removed by a general consensus by all that give their input in this thread.

I intend to add to and update this thread as different ideas are brought forth.

Whenever possible, battle descriptions should be detailed, including:

1. What versions of the characters are being used.
2. The location of the battlefield and any special conditions thereof.
3. Whether the combatants are blood lusted and/or in character.
4. The interaction of any inherent characteristics/powers/vulnerabilities available to one character but not the other (ie. chakra, reiatsu, ki) for the purpose of this battle.
5. Any further specific restrictions for the purpose of this battle.

When these items are not specified, the following will be assumed:

Canon:
This is pretty much clear cut in most people's minds.

Any form of a series that the original author or creator had the largest part, and near full autonomy, in creating. This would of course mean manga for most series, and anime for a select few. In 99% of most cases, whatever form of a series came first is what is considered to be canon.

There are some special cases though, like with Final Fantasy VII, where two of the creators of the original game, Nomura Tetsuya and Nojima Kazushige, were also the directors of the movie Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. In this case, the movie is also considered canon, even though it isn't the original form of the series.

Another is s-CRY-ed, where both the anime and manga were written by the same person, but both series ended up being totally different. It is completely up to those replying in the thread to choose which version of the characters involved should be used.

Settings:
Even though this is called the Battledome, often times I've seen people speak as if the fight is occurring on a street or in a forest. This is a fairly important issue, because many fighters game plans drastically change depending on their surroundings.

Unless otherwise stated, the battle should take place in an unobstructed dome similar to the Room of Spirit and Time, thus allowing for large-scale fighters, like Dark Schneider and Vegitto, to still have space move around.

Character Knowledge:
The safe assumption would be that unless it is otherwise stated by the original poster, it should be assumed that the characters involved have no knowledge of each other's abilities.

Plot Influences:
Null and void, unless there are certain acceptable exceptions that should be made that I haven't taken into account while typing this.

Character Induced Stupidity:
It should be on, but the characters should be out to win.

CIS refers to a character's tendencies in battle. Basically, just because a character can go all out from the start and use their most powerful abilities, or use tactics that would ensure victory, they most likely won't, if CIS is in effect.

Starting Distance:
Combatants start 20 paces apart from one another.

Blood Lust:
It should be on, unless otherwise stated.

One would think that if you take two characters and pit them against each other, they would try to end it as quickly and brutally as possible.

Why?

There would not even be a battle for a good deal of these threads without some sort of blood lust.

Powers/Character Version Allowed:
This is one of the most argued rules/assumptions. There are multiple perspectives on which version of a character should be used.

The explanation that I like the most is PDQ's belief that we should make fights multi-conditional, where we allow the posters replying to the thread pick and choose which versions of a character they want to use.

The reason that this should be done is to allow for posters to pick and choose which characters' versions would create the best fight to debate on.

In the end, it may avoid possible rapestomps.

Former rule that some may still want to defend the use of:
I believe that most would agree that unless an original poster is specific, we should use the most current/last living developed incarnations of the characters.

In other words, the character would be at their peak performance from the last time they appeared.

Ability Overlap/Universe Equivalence:
This is where things become even more unclear.

I still see the odd new member say something along the lines of "that won't work because they have no reiatsu/reishi/chakra/ki/yoki/spiritual power/etc..."

To make it fair for all combatants, any ability that they have which is prevalent upon their opponent having the same type of power, that everyone in their universe has, is still usable. You may wonder "why is that?"

It's simple, not only does it give everyone a fighting chance, but it's also because all of the above mentioned forms of power are at least somewhat based on the same principle. Spirit.

Also, just because one character lives in a universe where there is no magic, that doesn't mean that all magical attacks from the other combatant aren't usable.

I admit that this one is veeery highly disagreed upon.

Notable Issues or Exceptions to the Power Overlap rule:
Next, it should be noted that any general universal ability that allows for an automatic win shouldn't be allowed, like Bleach character's invisibility due to them being spirits.

Another example is Kujaku's intangibility. Just because it makes him unable to be hurt, for the most part, it doesn't mean that he is able to withstand spiritual attacks. It also doesn't mean that his ultimate technique of causing all of his surrounding opponents to become intangible would work on someone with no physical body. (You may be going "No shit!", but I can seriously see some people trying to argue against this.)

There may be others that I haven't thought of at the time that this was posted.

 

[Darth Nihilus]

Ippy was a modfag



I'm just gonna tell you because the OGs remember Haterade which was his real name