These responses are also fallacious, and sparse in value.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that Kakuzu should be able cast an infinite number of Ration: Gian when the page of the databook you have provided claims that increases the number of lightning bolts make it possible to slay multiple
You must be registered for see links
?
You premises do not follow your conclusion; it’s a non-sequitur. The argument is not structurally sound because it draws an incompatible conclusion with its premise; the claim expressed in the premise and the conclusion cannot be both true. In the case of incompatible premises, the law of non-contradiction (not both A and not A) prevents the drawing of a conclusion that is contradictory to one of the premises. The premise, then, is an improper one. The flaw in your argument has the form of:
- Since, A (premise)
- and B, (premise)
- Therefore, A. (conclusion)
Translation:
- Since the databook is a source of proof, then Kakuzu should be able to cast an infinite number of Ration: Gian, (premise)
- and the databook claims: If the number of lightning bolts is increased, this attack gains the ability to slaughter multiple enemies in an instant, converged. (premise)
- Therefore, Kakuzu casting an infinite number of Ration: Gain is true. (conclusion)
Since the conclusion of the argument’s form and its second premise cannot both be true, the argument inappropriately draws the conclusion of
“therefore A” and is therefore structurally flawed.
Your argument’s conclusion misses the thrust of the evidence provided to support it. Did you perhaps draw the an inadequate conclusion in haste, was it deliberate, or did you genuinely believe that the evidence your provided supported the conclusion?
This response does the opposite of a non-sequitur in that it gives bad reasons for the conclusion. I think this can be assigned to you already being convinced of the respond you've provided, rather than carelessness. In any case, you have arbitrarily assigned functions for this technique, and this technique; and then you have criticized the respective techniques for not fulfilling the functions you've assigned for them.
I am at fault here. If this is to be discussed logically, you have to realize you took what I mean by the word
“smothering.” Kakuzu would only be “smothered” insofar asa configuration entrapping Kakuzu, and covering him entirely with said structure, that conceivably uses swift strikes and an overwhelming plunging force to incapacitate him.
Unfortunately for your argument this still argues from
You must be registered for see links
.
Fortunately, for your argument to have any validity and soundness, you must address this point.
Regrettably, you are unaware the fact that in arguing on the matter, your ares using your own lack of knowledge as a basis; it’s a textbook case of an
You must be registered for see links
, Zex.
I do not I can explain much better than what you quoted of me — perhaps, this
You must be registered for see links
would be of some value.
Yes in fact; you are using your lack of knowledge of a subject as the basis for your argument. This, again, is
You must be registered for see links
or
You must be registered for see links
. If you cannot acknowledge this and take fallibility , then I will respectively refuse to response to any of your future posts on the matter.
I did not counter it because it was not brought up during my quoted scenario; however, if you would a counter, one is to for Sasori to utilize the Iron Sand to create a highly dense object that will certainly withstand the force of the wind.