Doffy became a shichibukai... bad example and you know it. We have good evidence how active jack is and how cruel he is. You can't get much worse than jack. So if someone has a higher bounty than jack, they must be stronger.
And actually they have been and always will be power levels. Remember when luffy first met Bellamy and they didn't take him seriously because of his 30 mil bounty. Then later after Bellamy was beat they damn near died of shock when they dicovered his actual bounty of 100 mil. Yeah case in point. Oda has always used it as a rough gauge of strength. You think oda didn't know what he was doing when he made the bounties. It was clearly his intention. You act like oda whimsically gave katakuri a higher bounty than jack. Lol no, it was intentional. There is a clear correlation between strength and bounty.
Especially when we are talking about established pirates. Not ones on the rise.
People who try and say bounties have nothing to do with strength usually bring up frozen bounties, rookie pirates, or young pirates on the rise. All outliers, more or less.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAA BRO U SHOULD BE MAKING COMMERCIALS PROMOTING THINGS 'sanji has proven to be unpredictable' YEAH I KNOW RIGHT i totally didnt expect him to lose that quickly against doffy
I really have a hard time understanding what everyone has been reading luffy fights cracker 1 on 1 and has Nani there and she makes it rain and luffy eats the cracker soldiers that means luffy can't defeat cracker 1 on 1 but the second they make actually physical contact luffy basically one shots him. And sanji can't when against katakuri because he's a sweet commander the same position that his captain basically beat with one attack. Well I'm calling it now no trolling sanji will defeat katakuri 1 on 1 luffy beat cracker 1 on 1 sanji is part of the monster trio meaning sanji + anybody else will be over kill 1 on 1 will force sanji to go all out and show the results of his training over the timeskip just as luffy did against doflamingo.
The fact that bounties don't have to indicate strength doesn't obligate in any sense that they don't in all cases. That's just ludicrous and a blatant composition fallacy.
The fact that bounties don't have to indicate strength doesn't obligate in any sense that they don't in all cases. That's just ludicrous and a blatant composition fallacy.
There have too many cases of people getting high bounties due to threats outside of sheer combat power and having smaller bounties than people they're stronger than for bounties to be used as confirmation that Katakuri is the strongest just because he has the highest bounty.
Bounties haven't been consistent enough for it to function as confirmation; at best it's a hint. If you want to include bounties in your argument, fine, but you need other information from the manga to supplement that if you want to say the manga has given you confirmation. If not, then it's nothing more than hints and gut feelings.
There have too many cases of people getting high bounties due to threats outside of sheer combat power and having smaller bounties than people they're stronger than for bounties to be used as confirmation that Katakuri is the strongest just because he has the highest bounty.
Bounties haven't been consistent enough for it to function as confirmation; at best it's a hint. If you want to include bounties in your argument, fine, but you need other information from the manga to supplement that if you want to say the manga has given you confirmation. If not, then it's nothing more than hints and gut feelings.
That's the thing, it isn't just the bounty, which is precisely why the bounty is so indicative in this specific case. It isn't as if Katakuri was some weak-looking fodder running errands for Cracker with a bounty that high. He executed the greatest CoO feat in the verse, which doubles for the best general haki feat among the BM pirates and is also a Sweet Commander, AND his bounty is almost twice Crackers. You've been arguing why all of these things mean nothing, which may be true on their own, but together they serve as clear indication of something more. This cannot be denied.
The main point is that while there are many cases where bounties are not indicative of battle prowess, more often then not, they actually are. You'd be picking cherries to regulate the opposite position.
Even if we do operate under your assumption, how many cases are there where bounty holders are weaker than people with bounties half as large? Really, not counting Usopp, how many characters can you honestly name? Now, compare that number to the amount of pirates with bounties twice as high as someone else's and are stronger than said person. You don't have to actually do those calculations to understand that the chances of Katakuri being weaker than Cracker based on bounty alone and precedents set by the verse itself are actually slim to none.
Hm. I think I just might do those calculations to get some solid numbers based on all known bounties. Would make for a nice resource.
There have too many cases of people getting high bounties due to threats outside of sheer combat power and having smaller bounties than people they're stronger than for bounties to be used as confirmation that Katakuri is the strongest just because he has the highest bounty.
Bounties haven't been consistent enough for it to function as confirmation; at best it's a hint. If you want to include bounties in your argument, fine, but you need other information from the manga to supplement that if you want to say the manga has given you confirmation. If not, then it's nothing more than hints and gut feelings.
I want evidence to prove everything you just said in that first paragraph. The only example of people having smaller bounties than their actual strength is shichibukais which have had their bounty frozen. When has anyone with a higher bounty lost to someone with a lower bounty with the exception of the straw hats who are risin pirates getting stronger. Their bounties are always updated after defeating opponents with higher bounties. For pirates who have been in the game sometime, it's pretty stagnant.
I don't know about weak-looking fodder or doing it for Cracker, but how do you know that Katakuri running errands for Big Mom isn't precisely why his bounty is so high? If he's the most active of the Three Commanders in the view of the World Government when it comes to crimes committed for Big Mom, then his bounty would be the highest. If he's the one most often destroying cities or seen killing innocents, then he'll be the one with the most amount in his bounty.
Note Aokiji's words:
You must be registered for see images
A bounty includes too much to say "Yup, that's his power level." That's why Usopp has a higher bounty than Nami, Chopper, Franky, Brook, Robin, and Sanji despite being weaker than all of them. That's why pre-skip Buggy has a higher bounty than Chopper does now: It depends on what the WG perceives you as in terms of danger, not a means to simply give strength level.
He executed the greatest CoO feat in the verse, which doubles for the best general haki feat among the BM pirates and is also a Sweet Commander,
We should probably hold off on the whole "greatest CoO feat" thing, cause I'm pretty sure we could attribute Fujitora, Enel, and Rayleigh spanning their CoO across entire countries as pretty great feats(scale vs potency).
Secondly, the hype around Katakuri's CoO isn't even combat power based. Take Katakuri's stats(strength, speed, durability, stamina, etc.) and make them all the same level as Usopp's while keeping his Observation Haki level the same as it is now, and he'd still be the exact same threat level to Bege's plan because all he needs to do to throw the wrench in Bege's plan is to speak to Big Mom.
We've also seen Observation Haki fail to make a difference in the past. Katakuri being able to see an attack coming at him, even with the absolute clarity of his CoO, still requires him to have the strength and/or speed to do something about it. He can see an attack coming, but it's too fast for his bodily speed or too strong for his durability, then what good does it actually do?
AND his bounty is almost twice Crackers. You've been arguing why all of these things mean nothing, which may be true on their own, but together they serve as clear indication of something more. This cannot be denied.
I don't think they mean nothing, I just don't think they're confirmations as people here have been trying to make them out to be to justify gut feelings.
The main point is that while there are many cases where bounties are not indicative of battle prowess, more often then not, they actually are. You'd be picking cherries to regulate the opposite position.
More often? Robin and Sanji. Chopper and Usopp. Usopp and Franky. Usopp and Sanji. Usopp and Robin. Usopp and Brook. Usopp and Nami. Blackbeard and Ace. Eustass Kid and Luffy. Bege and Pekoms. Caesar and Sanji. Chinjao and Luffy. Blackbeard and literally almost anyone who's had a bounty reveal.
All of these are cases where people on a similar enough timeframe of activity have someone who isn't necessarily stronger with a higher bounty(except for Luffy and Chinjao) due to either ignorance on the WG's part to the lesser's activity, or the superior's activity being more striking in terms of a crime.
Even if we do operate under your assumption, how many cases are there where bounty holders are weaker than people with bounties half as large? Really, not counting Usopp, how many characters can you honestly name?
What the hell is this? "Give me examples of this thing happening, but you can't use this example because it perfectly demonstrates what you're saying."
The fact that extremities/ridiculous moments like Usopp's case occurs is why bounties aren't as trustworthy as you're trying to make it out to be. Blackbeard was active for 20 years, and his bounty never reached near Ace's despite him being stronger because the WG was ignorant to him.
Robin as an 8 year old got a higher starting Bounty than Sanji did as a grown man because of her knowledge. And Sanji got his first bounty for Enie's Lobby, the second biggest spectacle caused by the Strawhats as a group.
Aokiji says that he's fought countless people in the past but the Strawhats are what genuinely scare him the most out of all of them because of Robin's knowledge. All of this stresses that power is only a fraction of what makes a bounty and threat to the World Government. It's nothing more than a hint.
I want evidence to prove everything you just said in that first paragraph. The only example of people having smaller bounties than their actual strength is shichibukais which have had their bounty frozen. When has anyone with a higher bounty lost to someone with a lower bounty with the exception of the straw hats who are risin pirates getting stronger. Their bounties are always updated after defeating opponents with higher bounties. For pirates who have been in the game sometime, it's pretty stagnant.
Robin and Sanji. Chopper and Usopp. Usopp and Franky. Usopp and Sanji. Usopp and Robin. Usopp and Brook. Usopp and Nami. Blackbeard and Ace. Eustass Kid and Luffy. Bege and Pekoms. Caesar and Sanji. Chinjao and Luffy. Blackbeard and literally almost anyone who's had a bounty reveal.
Most of these are within the Strawhats themselves, so the arguments of "Shichibukai have their bounty frozen" and "They're up and coming" no longer apply since the Strawhats are coming up together with active bounties, as are the Worst Generation.
While Blackbeard was a Shichibukai when he fought Ace and defeated him, his bounty remained "0" for over 20 years of continuous activity before he became a Shichibukai, so he's still worth mentioning.
Especially when we are talking about established pirates. Not ones on the rise.
People who try and say bounties have nothing to do with strength usually bring up frozen bounties, rookie pirates, or young pirates on the rise. All outliers, more or less.
The fact that bounties don't have to indicate strength doesn't obligate in any sense that they don't in all cases. That's just ludicrous and a blatant composition fallacy.
There have too many cases of people getting high bounties due to threats outside of sheer combat power and having smaller bounties than people they're stronger than for bounties to be used as confirmation that Katakuri is the strongest just because he has the highest bounty.
Bounties haven't been consistent enough for it to function as confirmation; at best it's a hint. If you want to include bounties in your argument, fine, but you need other information from the manga to supplement that if you want to say the manga has given you confirmation. If not, then it's nothing more than hints and gut feelings.
That's the thing, it isn't just the bounty, which is precisely why the bounty is so indicative in this specific case. It isn't as if Katakuri was some weak-looking fodder running errands for Cracker with a bounty that high. He executed the greatest CoO feat in the verse, which doubles for the best general haki feat among the BM pirates and is also a Sweet Commander, AND his bounty is almost twice Crackers. You've been arguing why all of these things mean nothing, which may be true on their own, but together they serve as clear indication of something more. This cannot be denied.
The main point is that while there are many cases where bounties are not indicative of battle prowess, more often then not, they actually are. You'd be picking cherries to regulate the opposite position.
Even if we do operate under your assumption, how many cases are there where bounty holders are weaker than people with bounties half as large? Really, not counting Usopp, how many characters can you honestly name? Now, compare that number to the amount of pirates with bounties twice as high as someone else's and are stronger than said person. You don't have to actually do those calculations to understand that the chances of Katakuri being weaker than Cracker based on bounty alone and precedents set by the verse itself are actually slim to none.
Hm. I think I just might do those calculations to get some solid numbers based on all known bounties. Would make for a nice resource.
I want evidence to prove everything you just said in that first paragraph. The only example of people having smaller bounties than their actual strength is shichibukais which have had their bounty frozen. When has anyone with a higher bounty lost to someone with a lower bounty with the exception of the straw hats who are risin pirates getting stronger. Their bounties are always updated after defeating opponents with higher bounties. For pirates who have been in the game sometime, it's pretty stagnant.
I personally feel like the cases where a character's bounty doesn't indicate how strong or powerful they are, is less than the amount of times it actually does..
If that makes sense..
For instance, Robin's bounty as a kid didn't really mean she was stronger than every other pirate with a lower bounty.. she was obviously just a bigger threat to the WG..
But these types of circumstances are rare..
So I think it's safe to say, that, while bounties don't always indicate how strong or powerful a character is, they usually do give everyone somewhat of an understanding as to where they stand against other pirates.
@ Capn
I agree with mostly everything you're saying, but this part on Katakuri,
"He executed the greatest CoO feat in the verse"
is it really the greatest feat so far?
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just wondering what you think of Fujitora and his haki.. being blind and all.. I would consider his way of "seeing" to be haki.. but what do you think??
What? Either bounty is very indicative or it's not, dude.
I don't know about weak-looking fodder or doing it for Cracker, but how do you know that Katakuri running errands for Big Mom isn't precisely why his bounty is so high? If he's the most active of the Three Commanders in the view of the World Government when it comes to crimes committed for Big Mom, then his bounty would be the highest. If he's the one most often destroying cities or seen killing innocents, then he'll be the one with the most amount in his bounty.
Note Aokiji's words:
You must be registered for see images
A bounty includes too much to say "Yup, that's his power level." That's why Usopp has a higher bounty than Nami, Chopper, Franky, Brook, Robin, and Sanji despite being weaker than all of them. That's why pre-skip Buggy has a higher bounty than Chopper does now: It depends on what the WG perceives you as in terms of danger, not a means to simply give strength level.
We should probably hold off on the whole "greatest CoO feat" thing, cause I'm pretty sure we could attribute Fujitora, Enel, and Rayleigh spanning their CoO across entire countries as pretty great feats(scale vs potency).
Secondly, the hype around Katakuri's CoO isn't even combat power based. Take Katakuri's stats(strength, speed, durability, stamina, etc.) and make them all the same level as Usopp's while keeping his Observation Haki level the same as it is now, and he'd still be the exact same threat level to Bege's plan because all he needs to do to throw the wrench in Bege's plan is to speak to Big Mom.
We've also seen Observation Haki fail to make a difference in the past. Katakuri being able to see an attack coming at him, even with the absolute clarity of his CoO, still requires him to have the strength and/or speed to do something about it. He can see an attack coming, but it's too fast for his bodily speed or too strong for his durability, then what good does it actually do?
I don't think they mean nothing, I just don't think they're confirmations as people here have been trying to make them out to be to justify gut feelings.
More often? Robin and Sanji. Chopper and Usopp. Usopp and Franky. Usopp and Sanji. Usopp and Robin. Usopp and Brook. Usopp and Nami. Blackbeard and Ace. Eustass Kid and Luffy. Bege and Pekoms. Caesar and Sanji. Chinjao and Luffy. Blackbeard and literally almost anyone who's had a bounty reveal.
All of these are cases where people on a similar enough timeframe of activity have someone who isn't necessarily stronger with a higher bounty(except for Luffy and Chinjao) due to either ignorance on the WG's part to the lesser's activity, or the superior's activity being more striking in terms of a crime.
What the hell is this? "Give me examples of this thing happening, but you can't use this example because it perfectly demonstrates what you're saying."
The fact that extremities/ridiculous moments like Usopp's case occurs is why bounties aren't as trustworthy as you're trying to make it out to be. Blackbeard was active for 20 years, and his bounty never reached near Ace's despite him being stronger because the WG was ignorant to him.
Robin as an 8 year old got a higher starting Bounty than Sanji did as a grown man because of her knowledge. And Sanji got his first bounty for Enie's Lobby, the second biggest spectacle caused by the Strawhats as a group.
Aokiji says that he's fought countless people in the past but the Strawhats are what genuinely scare him the most out of all of them because of Robin's knowledge. All of this stresses that power is only a fraction of what makes a bounty and threat to the World Government. It's nothing more than a hint.
Robin and Sanji. Chopper and Usopp. Usopp and Franky. Usopp and Sanji. Usopp and Robin. Usopp and Brook. Usopp and Nami. Blackbeard and Ace. Eustass Kid and Luffy. Bege and Pekoms. Caesar and Sanji. Chinjao and Luffy. Blackbeard and literally almost anyone who's had a bounty reveal.
Most of these are within the Strawhats themselves, so the arguments of "Shichibukai have their bounty frozen" and "They're up and coming" no longer apply since the Strawhats are coming up together with active bounties, as are the Worst Generation.
While Blackbeard was a Shichibukai when he fought Ace and defeated him, his bounty remained "0" for over 20 years of continuous activity before he became a Shichibukai, so he's still worth mentioning.
I'll start with pointing out the fact that I am on mobile so quoting you paragraph by paragraph is way too cumbersome. You'll have to bear with me. Thankfully, you've quoted me paragraph by paragraph so I will respond to your refutations to each quoted point in chronological order for practicality's sake when the time comes for your rebuttal. I will indent before I finish each point so I will use a "·" to signify that I'm moving on to your next quote.
"Either Bounty is indicative or it's not, dude"
· First of all, that's a text-book false dilemma fallacy; limiting the number of options (usually to two), despite there being other possible options and falsely using the "or" operator. It isn't an either-or, black-and-white thing and you can't make it one. The concept of circumstance is entirely relevant. As I said, in this specific case bounty is very indicative coupled with the other factors. Secondly, again, equating all parts to a minority, or even a majority is a composition fallacy.
· Okay, this is just a complete non-sequitor. I'm utterly lost right now. What on Earth prompted all of this "What if running errands for BM is precisely why..." stuff come from? The very purpose of my analogy was to make the point that there isn't anything indicating that his bounty would be a product of some ridiculous outlier trait that caught the eye of the WG, seeing as he isn't just some fodder running errands for Cracker. By replacing cracker with Big Mom in that scenario it makes absolutely no sense because you can be extremely combat oriented with a bounty reflecting that and still be running errands for Big Mom. Moreover, it was the minorest of points.
Either way, I'll respond to the latter half. Dude, you need to take a much closer look at Kuzan's statement.
"The amount of the Bounty doesn't JUST reflect the strength of the criminal, but ALSO the danger level they post to the government.
Strength is a relevant, stand alone factor in one's bounty that has nothing to do with government threat level. The laws of the English language dictate that from Kuzan's syntax. Notice the use of "just" and "also". Either that, or he's highly illiterate and incapable of using either of the words properly.
Yes, Usopp is a major outlier. Name three more characters like him. You've yet to do so.
· Yeah, range < potency in terms of general energy in physics. Though, Katakuri has used a level of CoO that is apparently only accessible through immense training, while Fuji's CoO feats have just been the same form that even the Straw Hats can use, but with increased range due to his blatant superiority. Katakuri showcased what can only be considered a higher-level of CoO entirely. Not that Fuji couldn't replicate the same feat, though that isn't the point here.
Another non-sequitor. Combat application is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is the greatest CoO feat in the verse, but nevertheless, I can't help but rebuttle.
Excuse my french, but WHAT? So, you're telling me that because it's physically possible for someone to be faster than Katakuri's foresight that it somehow diminishes its value? What in the ****? And you can give 90% of in-verse abilities to Usopp and he'd still be fodder. What point was that supposed to make?
This last paragraph was another dictionary-worthy example of a logical fallacy, but this time it's the perfect solution fallacy. Using this fallacy you can oppose any notion based on the fact that it isn't perfect.
Examples
"What's the point of living, we're all going to die anyway."
That may be true, but that doesn't defeat the purpose of pursuing happiness and all of the other enjoyable aspects of life before then. Their point is fallacious.
"The new software update sucks, there are still bugs"
While no software update could ever prevent all errors it does prevent the vast majority of them. Their point is fallacious.
Katakuri's CoO isn't even all that impressive, he can still be blitzed and beaten
While it's physically possible that he can be defeated, that goes for every ability in the entire One Piece verse and does not equate to or have any affect on the numerous advantages that comes with foresight. Your point is fallacious.
Seriously, "If it's too fast for his bodily speed or too strong for his durability then what good does it do?" <- Yes, if Katakuri is up against an opponent that absolutely fodderizes him physically then he'd get destroyed. Come on, we all already knew that much. If "If he fights someone dozens of times out of his league his power will be useless" is the worst negative you can bring to the table then what negative is there? This particular point is just reach-y.
· Nothing is confirmed until seen on-panel, but the LAST thing these presumptions are is unfounded or without basis.
· Yes, more often. You do realize the utter futility in pairing Usopp with five other people to support your position, right? I mean, what's stopping you from naming every single character with a bounty under 200 million and paralleling them with Usopp to claim a hundred examples to support your agenda? Usopp is ONE example. "Blackbeard and literally everyone who's ever had a bounty reveal", we're doing that? Okay, Cracker. I win. Every single solitary person in the verse so far with a known bounty lower than his and a known strength level is weaker than him. Not including shichibukai (frozen bounties), of course. Same can be said for Luffy. What's that, a couple thousand examples right there? Do you see where your methodology is narrative-driven and totally inadequate?
· That was a genuinely confusing way of rationalizing that statement. So, discarding blatant outliers when discussing averages somehow translates to nerfing your argument? I asked you to omit Usopp because he's one of your only examples, why? Because they're outliers as you've directly acknowledged by referring to him as an extremity.
"The fact that extremities/ridiculous moments like Usopp's case occurs is why bounties aren't as trustworthy as you're trying to make it out to be" <- You're using an infinitesimal minority to make generalizations about the whole. This is a gross composition fallacy, again.
Blackbleard was stronger than Ace thanks to the Yami Yami, which he clearly didn't have for twenty years. That example is flawed and among the same five or so you've been recycling despite there being well over a hundred known bounties, likely more. What does that tell you? Didn't I say you'd wind up cherry-picking?
Cherry-picking the same outliers once again. Robin, Usopp and Blackbeard (null), Robin, Usopp and Blackbeard (null).
Power is an entirely different category when formulating a bounty, as beknownst to us by Kuzan. It has nothing to do with threat level. Not to mention that you're relying on the same outlier to make objective statements about the entire body, which is fallacious.
I'll start with pointing out the fact that I am on mobile so quoting you paragraph by paragraph is way too cumbersome. You'll have to bear with me. Thankfully, you've quoted me paragraph by paragraph so I will respond to your refutations to each quoted point in chronological order for practicality's sake when the time comes for your rebuttal. I will indent before I finish each point so I will use a "·" to signify that I'm moving on to your next quote.
"Either Bounty is indicative or it's not, dude"
· First of all, that's a text-book false dilemma fallacy; limiting the number of options (usually two), despite there being other possible options and falsely using the "or" operator. It isn't an either-or, black-and-white thing and you can't make it one. The concept of circumstance is entirely relevant. As I said, in this specific case Bounty is very indicative coupled with the other factors. Secondly, again, equating all parts to a minority, or even a majority is a composition fallacy.
No it's not. You start off saying "Dude, it's a bounty, it's not the only factor" and then end by saying "That's what makes it so indicative."
Either a bounty is simply a fraction of the whole picture, or it determines the picture. The sentiment doesn't just make sense to me.
· Okay, this is just a complete non-sequitor. I'm utterly lost right now. What on Earth prompted all of this "What if running errands for BM is precisely why..." stuff come from? The very purpose of my analogy was to make the point that there isn't anything indicating that his Bounty would be a product of some ridiculous outlier trait that caught the eye of the WG, seeing as he's running errands for Cracker. By replacing cracker with Big Mom in that scenario it makes absolutely no sense because you can be extremely combat oriented with a bounty reflects that and still be running errands for Big Mom. Moreover, it was the minorest of points.
It's really not. I don't know how I could have made that more simple. Katakuri could be weaker than Cracker, but have a bigger bounty, by being more active in terms of doing things for Big Mom. Cracker can be stronger than Katakuri, but if Katakuri is causing 10x the destruction, causing 10x the amount of civilian casualties, and committing 10x the crimes as Cracker, then his bounty will be higher.
Nothing has confirmed that Katakuri's bounty is caused by an outlier other than combat power, that is true. But the manga hasn't confirmed that that isn't the case. That possibility is equally as open as Katakuri's bounty being a result of strength, which is why no one in this thread can say for a fact that his bounty is based on him being the strongest.
Either way, I'll respond to the latter half. Dude, you need to take a much closer look at Kuzan's sratement.
"The amount of the Bounty doesn't JUST reflect the strength of the criminal, but ALSO the danger level they post to the government.
Strength is a relevant, stand alone factor in one's bounty that has nothing to do with government threat level. The laws of the English language dictate that from Kuzan's syntax. Either that, or he's highly illiterate. That was a joke, don't make that point.
I never said strength is not a relevant component of a person's bounty. I said that strength is not a component that inherently outweighs every other component in every case of a person having a bounty. One person's bounty can be 50% strength, 50% threat, and another's can be 70% threat and 30% strength, etc.
One person can be equally as strong as someone else and have a higher bounty due to posing a higher threat, and vice versa.
There has been no indication that Katakuri's bounty is more strength than threat or more threat than strength. There has been no indication that strength is the main component of Katakuri's bounty, so that call can't be made as though the manga has said so. You can say you THINK so, but that's all it exists as. Something you THINK, not something that has been told to you by the manga, and you're lying to yourself if you think the manga has.
Yes, Usopp is a major outlier. Name two more characters like him. You've yet to do so.
Though, Katakuri has used a type of CoO that is apparently only accessible through immense training, while Fuji's CoO feats have just been the same form that even the Straw Hats can use, but with added range. Katakuri showcased a higher-level of CoO entirely. Not that Fuji couldn't replicate the same feat, though that isn't the point here.
Yeah, how do you know that Fujitora being able to maintain his Observation Haki virtually 24/7 across an entire country isn't a next level Haki feat? You're saying that Katakuri's Haki is a level ahead of Fujitora's, but we don't know enough about the "levels" of Haki to say that for a fact, so it's not really something we can bring up as a feat. You have no proof that Katakuri being able to see the future is a better standard of Haki than being able to extend its range or duration, considering that we've seen cases of people faltering with maintaining their Observation Haki and limited in their range.
Another non-sequitor. Combat application is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is the greatest CoO feat in the verse, but nevertheless, I can't help but rebuttle.
****ing what? There have been many posts in here that has used the Observation Haki hype for Katakuri as evidence for his combat ability being higher than the other Commanders. I am not the one that associated his Haki with combat powers, your cohorts did.
Excuse my french, but WHAT? So, you're telling me that because it's physically possible for someone to be faster than Katakuri's foresight that it somehow diminishes its value? What in the ****? You can give 90% of in-verse abilities to Usopp and he'd still be fodder. What point was that supposed to make?
Dude, hold onto your keyboard but...you're gonna lose your mind over this: It's happened in the manga before.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Your Observation Haki can be perfect at seeing what a person is going to do, but that will mean nothing if you aren't fast or strong enough to do anything about it. Katakuri can see the future of someone rushing towards him to deliver a punch, but won't actually be able to avoid it if that person is capable of moving way, way faster than himself.
The point of me saying that is the same as what I'm gonna reply to the next section below it.
This last paragraph was another dictionary-worthy example of a logical fallacy, but this time it's the perfect solution fallacy. Using this fallacy you can oppose any notion based on the fact that isn't perfect.
Examples
"What's the point of living, we're all going to die anyway."
That may be true, but that doesn't defeat the purpose of pursuing happiness and all of the other enjoyable aspects of life before then. Their point is fallacious.
"The new software update sucks, there are still bugs"
While the software update couldn't fix all errors it did fix the vast majority of them. Their point is fallacious.
Katakuri's CoO isn't even all that impressive, he can be blitzed
While it is possible that his very reactive perception can be blitzed, it is not only unlikely, but doesn't equate to all of the numerous advantages that come with the ability. Your point fallacious.
The point was never that Katakuri's CoO feat isn't that impressive, the point was that people are taking what makes it impressive out of its proper context. Others, including yourself, have used Katakuri's CoO feat and Bege saying he's the biggest threat to the plan as an indication that he is the strongest Sweet Commander, which is false.
Katakuri's threat to Bege's plan is independent from his actual combat ability, which is why I mentioned the fact that if you give him Usopp's power, strength, speed, etc., but keep his Observation Haki the same, he'd still pose the same threat as he did before. It's like saying Sugar was Doflamingo's strongest subordinate because she was the most important part of keeping his kingdom intact.
Seriously, "If it's too fast for his bodily speed or too strong for his durability then what good does it do?" <- Yes, if Katakuri is up against opponent that absolutely fodderized him physically then he'd get destroyed. Come on, we all already knew that much. If "If he fights someone dozens of times out of his league his power will be useless" is the worst negative you can bring to the table then what negative is there? This particular point is just reach-y.
You simply have failed to understand the context of anything I said. Realize that my post is in response to the notion "Katakuri's CoO feat and his threat to Bege's plan means he's the strongest Sweet Commander" and go re-read it.
· Nothing is confirmed until seen on-panel, but the LAST thing these presumptions are is unfounded or without basis.
Founded on hints=/=being told by the manga. I can say that Bonney's hinted to be Big Mom's daughter because of the lipstick style, her gluttony, and her ship, but that doesn't mean that the manga has confirmed that for me as many people in here are trying to claim the manga has done.
· Yes, more often. You do realize the utter futility in pairing Usopp with five other people to support your point right?
Nope. The fact that Usopp's bounty can be compared with five other people just emphasizes how much bounties can skew from "Higher bounty, higher power." It might be Usopp in each case, but it's still five different cases.
I mean, what's stopping you from naming every single character with a bounty under 200 million and paralleling them with Usopp to claim a hundred examples to support your agenda? Usopp is ONE example.
Usopp is one example, but there are multiple cases that use that example. Usopp and Sanji, Usopp and Brook, Usopp and Franky, Usopp and Nami, and Usopp and Robin are five individual examples of a person having a higher bounty than someone they're weaker than. The fact that Usopp is a common part of each example doesn't change that each are individual examples.
"Blackbeard and literally everyone who's ever had a bounty reveal", we're doing that? Okay, Cracker. I win. Every single solitary person in the verse so far with a known bounty lower than his and a known strength level is weaker than him. Not including shichibukai, of course. Same can be said for Luffy. What's that, a couple thousand examples right there? Do you see where your methodology is narrative-driven and totally inadequate?
"Here are thousands of examples of someone being weaker with a higher bounty, see how ridiculous your claim that there are higher bounties and weaker power levels is?"
The reason I bring up Blackbeard and everyone with a bounty reveal is because his bounty is a flat zero, making him the most extreme outlier in the series, hence why the example is so extreme. If that bothers you, then just read it as "Ace and Blackbeard" and see if you feel better after.
· That was a genuinely confusing way of rationalizing that statement. So, discarding blatant outliers when discussing averages somehow translates to nerfing your argument? I asked you to omit Usopp because he's one of your only examples, why? Because they're outliers as you've directly acknowledged by referring to him as an extremity.
Except that this isn't a case where you can say "Ignore all outliers." The fact that so many cases involve outliers is why bounties aren't a system that can be trusted to always be showing us who's stronger and who's weaker.
Black ears was stronger than Ace thanks to the Yami Yami, which he clearly didn't have for twenty years.
Dude, his bounty was ZERO. Do you really think that Teach was THAT weak without the Yami Yami no Mi, that Ace would maintain a half-billion gap over him under the condition that bounties are meant to reflect strength?
It also doesn't change the fact that Teach having a bounty of nothing despite being a member of WB's crew for 20 years and even clashing with Shanks shows that the WG's ignorance to activity can cause their issuing of giving bounties to be very, very flawed.
That example is flawed and among the same eight or so you've been recycling despite there being well over a hundred known bounties, likely more. What does that tell you? Didn't I say you'd wind up cherry-picking?
And you still seem to be brutally missing the point. The window of Katakuri's bounty following the same pattern as the outliers still being open is why we can't say for a fact that his bounty means he's stronger.
Power is an entirely different category when formulating a bounty, as beknownst to us by Kuzan. It has nothing to do with threat level.
The ****? You literally highlight the fact that Kuzan says it's not just power, but ALSO threat level earlier in your post, and now you're saying that threat level has nothing to do with bounty? The **** outta here
No it's not. You start off saying "Dude, it's a bounty, it's not the only factor" and then end by saying "That's what makes it so indicative."
Either a bounty is simply a fraction of the whole picture, or it determines the picture. The sentiment doesn't just make sense to me.
It's really not. I don't know how I could have made that more simple. Katakuri could be weaker than Cracker, but have a bigger bounty, by being more active in terms of doing things for Big Mom. Cracker can be stronger than Katakuri, but if Katakuri is causing 10x the destruction, causing 10x the amount of civilian casualties, and committing 10x the crimes as Cracker, then his bounty will be higher.
Nothing has confirmed that Katakuri's bounty is caused by an outlier other than combat power, that is true. But the manga hasn't confirmed that that isn't the case. That possibility is equally as open as Katakuri's bounty being a result of strength, which is why no one in this thread can say for a fact that his bounty is based on him being the strongest.
I never said strength is not a relevant component of a person's bounty. I said that strength is not a component that inherently outweighs every other component in every case of a person having a bounty. One person's bounty can be 50% strength, 50% threat, and another's can be 70% threat and 30% strength, etc.
One person can be equally as strong as someone else and have a higher bounty due to posing a higher threat, and vice versa.
There has been no indication that Katakuri's bounty is more strength than threat or more threat than strength. There has been no indication that strength is the main component of Katakuri's bounty, so that call can't be made as though the manga has said so. You can say you THINK so, but that's all it exists as. Something you THINK, not something that has been told to you by the manga, and you're lying to yourself if you think the manga has.
Blackbeard, Chopper, and Robin.
You're joking, right?
Yeah, how do you know that Fujitora being able to maintain his Observation Haki virtually 24/7 across an entire country isn't a next level Haki feat? You're saying that Katakuri's Haki is a level ahead of Fujitora's, but we don't know enough about the "levels" of Haki to say that for a fact, so it's not really something we can bring up as a feat. You have no proof that Katakuri being able to see the future is a better standard of Haki than being able to extend its range or duration, considering that we've seen cases of people faltering with maintaining their Observation Haki and limited in their range.
****ing what? There have been many posts in here that has used the Observation Haki hype for Katakuri as evidence for his combat ability being higher than the other Commanders. I am not the one that associated his Haki with combat powers, your cohorts did.
Dude, hold onto your keyboard but...you're gonna lose your mind over this: It's happened in the manga before.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Your Observation Haki can be perfect at seeing what a person is going to do, but that will mean nothing if you aren't fast or strong enough to do anything about it. Katakuri can see the future of someone rushing towards him to deliver a punch, but won't actually be able to avoid it if that person is capable of moving way, way faster than himself.
The point of me saying that is the same as what I'm gonna reply to the next section below it.
The point was never that Katakuri's CoO feat isn't that impressive, the point was that people are taking what makes it impressive out of its proper context. Others, including yourself, have used Katakuri's CoO feat and Bege saying he's the biggest threat to the plan as an indication that he is the strongest Sweet Commander, which is false.
Katakuri's threat to Bege's plan is independent from his actual combat ability, which is why I mentioned the fact that if you give him Usopp's power, strength, speed, etc., but keep his Observation Haki the same, he'd still pose the same threat as he did before. It's like saying Sugar was Doflamingo's strongest subordinate because she was the most important part of keeping his kingdom intact.
You simply have failed to understand the context of anything I said. Realize that my post is in response to the notion "Katakuri's CoO feat and his threat to Bege's plan means he's the strongest Sweet Commander" and go re-read it.
Founded on hints=/=being told by the manga. I can say that Bonney's hinted to be Big Mom's daughter because of the lipstick style, her gluttony, and her ship, but that doesn't mean that the manga has confirmed that for me as many people in here are trying to claim the manga has done.
Nope. The fact that Usopp's bounty can be compared with five other people just emphasizes how much bounties can skew from "Higher bounty, higher power." It might be Usopp in each case, but it's still five different cases.
Usopp is one example, but there are multiple cases that use that example. Usopp and Sanji, Usopp and Brook, Usopp and Franky, Usopp and Nami, and Usopp and Robin are five individual examples of a person having a higher bounty than someone they're weaker than. The fact that Usopp is a common part of each example doesn't change that each are individual examples.
LMAOOOO I can't help but laugh at this.
"Here are thousands of examples of someone being weaker with a higher bounty, see how ridiculous your claim that there are higher bounties and weaker power levels is?"
The reason I bring up Blackbeard and everyone with a bounty reveal is because his bounty is a flat zero, making him the most extreme outlier in the series, hence why the example is so extreme. If that bothers you, then just read it as "Ace and Blackbeard" and see if you feel better after.
Except that this isn't a case where you can say "Ignore all outliers." The fact that so many cases involve outliers is why bounties aren't a system that can be trusted to always be showing us who's stronger and who's weaker.
Dude, his bounty was ZERO. Do you really think that Teach was THAT weak without the Yami Yami no Mi, that Ace would maintain a half-billion gap over him under the condition that bounties are meant to reflect strength?
It also doesn't change the fact that Teach having a bounty of nothing despite being a member of WB's crew for 20 years and even clashing with Shanks shows that the WG's ignorance to activity can cause their issuing of giving bounties to be very, very flawed.
There have only been 72 bounties revealed so far.
And you still seem to be brutally missing the point. The window of Katakuri's bounty following the same pattern as the outliers still being open is why we can't say for a fact that his bounty means he's stronger.
The ****? You literally highlight the fact that Kuzan says it's not just power, but ALSO threat level earlier in your post, and now you're saying that threat level has nothing to do with bounty? The **** outta here
Let's start with your horrendously erroneous understanding of the concept of indication, alright? To indicate is to be a sign of. Period. Grouped with the aforementioned factors bounty becomes indicative. If the bounty were a lone factor, it would indicate nothing. It is case-by-case and dependant on the character, but it CAN be indicative. Again, with the increasingly comical application of the false-dilemma fallacy. This point has already been invalidated on multiple levels.
"It's really not. I don't know how I could have made that more simple. Katakuri could be weaker than Cracker, but have a bigger bounty, by being more active in terms of doing things for Big Mom. Cracker can be stronger than Katakuri, but if Katakuri is causing 10x the destruction, causing 10x the amount of civilian casualties, and committing 10x the crimes as Cracker, then his bounty will be higher."
It was, actually, a non-sequitor. It was a premise that did not lead to your conclusion on ANY level. First of all, this is honestly the stupidest thing I've heard today, my boy. You know, I've seen you tell plenty of people on this board that they can't argue or ought to learn how, but for someone with their nose so far up their own ass you'd think your every point wouldn't be founded upon some logical fallacy (inb4 false ad hom accusation). This point is a blatant appeal to possibility fallacy. Because the physical possibility exists that Katakuri can be weaker than Cracker (something I've never denied, which I'll get into further down when I address your appalling fleet of strawmen) you feel that one cannot assume Katakuri superior founded on manga evidence and think this suitable enough evidence to contest, which of course is dead f*cking wrong. A documented flaw in reasoning. You would need evidence that supports that possibility for it to become something that can even be considered evidential. I can posts the possibility that Katakuri raped and murdered three Celestial Dragons in an auction closet and that's why his bounty is so high. Unless there's anything supporting that he actually did do these things, they're equally inadequate.
It's seemingly foreign to you, but have you ever heard of Occam's razor? When there are two unprovable explanations the side with more evidence is the favorable one. Also, the more assumptions an explanation has, the more unlikely.
Not only are the amount of assumptions in your position incomparable to mine, but your are not backed or insinuated by a single, solitary thing. It's a mere physical possibility. Mine is supported by his CoO and manga portrayal with his seat at the head table with Big Mom. The fact that he's a sweet commander as well, insinuating that he's at least in the same general ball park as Cracker. Yes, it does insinuate that and your reasoning behind why it shouldn't is an irrational paradox.
From what I've gathered, the WB commanders' varying strength is the premise, yeah? That's why we shouldn't equate Yonkou commander strengths? Even though that's exactly what you're doing for the well-being of your breast-fed narrative? Tell me, why would BM's crew operate like Whitebeard's? Why would you equate his crew tendencies to hers? What evidence is there indicating that her crew works that way? First of all, there were 16 WB division commanders as opposed to BM's whopping three, so the power layout is already inherently different. What do you have that supports obligated variation? Not a god damn thing. Lol.
I don't care how weak you think Jozu may be in comparison to Marco, but your preconceived fan-theory is the only thing that aids the possibility of the Sweet Commanders being leagues apart. By telling others' to not equate Yonkou commanders individually you are definitionally equating Yonkou commanders positionally.
"The point was never that Katakuri's CoO feat isn't that impressive, the point was that people are taking what makes it impressive out of its proper context. Others, including yourself, have used Katakuri's CoO feat and Bege saying he's the biggest threat to the plan as an indication that he is the strongest Sweet Commander, which is false"
Please, quote exactly where I mentioned Bege on this thread or any other where I have discussed Katakuri. One quote. Stop fabricating bull shit arguments out of desperation and inability to form a half-coherent rebuttal to my actual position. Get that sh*t out of here, boy.
"You simply have failed to understand the context of anything I said. Realize that my post is in response to the notion "Katakuri's CoO feat and his threat to Bege's plan means he's the strongest Sweet Commander" and go re-read it."
No, I didn't. First of all, if you were referencing Katakuri being a threat to Bege or his reaction then who were you responding to? I haven't uttered a single word about Bege or the plan. You're attacking phantom arguments and purposely misrepresenting me, you little snake. ~~~
You began with the CoO not being combat oriented and then went on to explain how someone much faster or stronger can render it null. Blatantly using an obvious imperfection that every ability in the verse suffers from to oppose the notion, which is an undeniable perfect solution fallacy. Another one, Mr. Debater.
"Founded on hints=/=being told by the manga"
Dude, what? You do realize that this sentence didn't make any sense whatsoever, right? How does being founded on a hint from the manga not equate to being told by the manga? Where else do the hints come from? Do you mean hints don't count as confirmation? Okay, sure. But we don't need confirmation to make an educated assumption, which I explained earlier. Occam's razor, remember? If we needed confirmation to make logical assumptions then we as a species wouldn't know anything about the universe. We predicted almost half of the elements of the periodic table before we actually discovered them. That's logical assumption begetting fact. That's why we make such assumptions. There is no reason to your reasoning.
"Nothing has confirmed that Katakuri's bounty is caused by an outlier other than combat power, that is true. But the manga hasn't confirmed that that isn't the case"
Nevermind, this is easily the single stupidest thing I will read all day. That isn't how an argument works. You make a claim, you support it with evidence. If you don't have any evidence then your claim is invalid. It's a concept known as the burden of proof. You can't make a claim and proclaim that you don't have to present evidence because there is nothing that directly disproves you. In what realm is that an acceptable thought process? I can claim that Cracker kidnapped several children and keeps them locked up in his biscout basement. There is nothing in-manga supporting it, but nothing disputing it either. Is it now a tangible claim that I can attempt to argue with in an objective manner like some pseudointellectual sciolist? I would hope not. Otherwise, One Piece is whatever I want it to be.
"That possibility is equally as open as Katakuri's bounty being a result of strength, which is why no one in this thread can say for a fact that his bounty is based on him being the strongest"
No it is not, as it is the more the unlikely scenario. It requires more assumptions and has the least support. This point is nigh-gibberish, in all honesty.
"Blackbeard, Chopper, and Robin"
None of them are outliers to the same degree as Usopp, bar maybe Blackbeard, though he wasn't particularly powerful to begin with. Now, where does this support the notion of Katakuri having an outlier trait? Right now you're clumsily explaining to me the possibility, which I've openly acknowledged at the beginning of this discussion. What you're not doing is relaying to me how this aids your position. You can make ANY wild and unprovable claim and apply the same fallacy. "There's no evidence? Well, there's nothing in the manga contradicting it...", is a cancerous reversal of the burden of proof. There isn't a single facet of your argument that isn't extensively broken, objectively speaking.
"You're joking, right?"
Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll go find you a seat.
"You're saying that Katakuri's Haki is a level ahead of Fujitora's, but we don't know enough about the "levels" of Haki to say that for a fact, so it's not really something we can bring up as a feat."
Another repugnant and frankly pathetic strawman. I've never once claimed that Katakuri's CoO was a level above Fuji's or anything of the like. I noted that his feat is a level above any of Fuji's and specifically said that I was sure that Fuji could replicate the same feat, all true. Not to mention, we don't need a full understanding of anything to make accurate assumptions based available information. Nonsensical.
"Yeah, how do you know that Fujitora being able to maintain his Observation Haki virtually 24/7 across an entire country isn't a next level Haki feat?"
Yoooo, what the ****? PROVE that Fujitora keeps his haki range set to all of Dressrosa 24/7, that's absolute fan fiction. Prove that he did so for even 15 minutes straight. Prove he did so at all. Now I'm starting think you're just a troll. Lmao. Yeah, literally peering into the 4th dimension >>> Seeing a few dozen - hundred kilometers, even if he did perpetually scan the entire country, which you could never prove.
"You have no evidence proving Katakuri being able to see the future is a better standard of Haki than being able to extend its range or duration, considering that we've seen cases of people faltering with maintaining their Observation Haki and limited in their range"
This is also incorrect, of course. Why? The number one fallacy you've been suffering from since the very beginning- that rancid appeal to possibility. Firstly, Katakuri's haki is a rarity. He's the only person we've seen with it thus far as opposed to the numerous people we've met with the basic aura-sensing version, which is one reason to assume that it is harder to attain. With your range point, there is virtually nothing that would support the assumption that range is superior to straight-up potency while the fact that Enel can also cast his haki over a country radius (operating under your assertion that Fuji can) would make two people who can perform said feat as opposed to the lone Katakuri making his by default the rarest. The fact that less people are doing it is direct indication that it is harder to do. That's just common ****ing sense, mate. It doesn't take fancy debate techniques to figure that one out, there's no excuse. This is just willful ignorance. I'll reiterate, there is nothing indicating that range with basic aura sensing that even Usopp and Sanji can do > Katakuri's feat, while there is blatant evidence supporting the contrary. Inb4 "But it isn't conf4med!", it doesn't have to be, that's retarded. Occam's razor.
"Dude, hold onto your keyboard but...you're gonna lose your mind over this: It's happened in the manga before."
Dude, in the very quote that you responded to I directly stated that it was possible to blitz Katakuri and his foresight. Why did you feel the need to find an example of a phenomenon that I just acknowledged? What is the matter with you? Lmao.
"Nope. The fact that Usopp's bounty can be compared with five other people just emphasizes how much bounties can skew from "Higher bounty, higher power." It might be Usopp in each case, but it's still five different cases."
"Usopp is one example, but there are multiple cases that use that example. Usopp and Sanji, Usopp and Brook, Usopp and Franky, Usopp and Nami, and Usopp and Robin are five individual examples of a person having a higher bounty than someone they're weaker than. The fact that Usopp is a common part of each example doesn't change that each are individual examples. "
No, that's one case. Following your logic, each case is equal to the amount of characters in the verse with a lower bounty, which is narrative-driven garbage. Say Usopp was the only character in the verse with a bounty higher than people more powerful than him. You can parallel him with hundreds of thousands of pirates and deceitfully exclaim that there are hundreds of thousands of cases of pirates being weaker than other pirates with higher bounties, when in all actuality Usopp is only half of one case. It wouldn't be a seperate case if Usopp was the same example, the same way you couldn't test the same person with a vaccine, get two positive results and pretend they were two seperate cases. You aren't making a point, you just can't analyze data for sh*t, my guy. Lol.
"The reason I bring up Blackbeard and everyone with a bounty reveal is because his bounty is a flat zero, making him the most extreme outlier in the series, hence why the example is so extreme. If that bothers you, then just read it as "Ace and Blackbeard" and see if you feel better after"
That's the entire point of my example with Cracker. Blackbeard is also only one case.
"LMAOOOO I can't help but laugh at this.
"Here are thousands of examples of someone being weaker with a higher bounty, see how ridiculous your claim that there are higher bounties and weaker power levels is?""
What? Your reading comprehension is on dead-iguana right now. Where did you get that from?
"Except that this isn't a case where you can say "Ignore all outliers." The fact that so many cases involve outliers is why bounties aren't a system that can be trusted to always be showing us who's stronger and who's weaker"
No, WHENEVER you're discussing averages you discard outliers. That's how math works. Outliers are uncommon irregularities that are different from the majority. An average is literally denotated as a typical value within a set of data. An outlier is directly contradictory to the very concept of average. It's weird as sh*t that I'm actually here explaining this to someone. "So many cases involve outliers", no. No, that's not true. That's precisely WHY their outliers, they're a vast minority. The nigh-gibberish has evolved into full-blown unintelligible static.
"Dude, his bounty was ZERO. Do you really think that Teach was THAT weak without the Yami Yami no Mi, that Ace would maintain a half-billion gap over him under the condition that bounties are meant to reflect strength?"
What point are you even trying to get across? That bounties can be an inaccurate? I said that in my first comment on this thread. Furthermore, what do you mean by "THAT much weaker than Ace"? He was an unknown pirate and and didn't even have a bounty. You're acting as if not having a bounty would insinuate a strength of zero, which is an idea you've yanked from god knows where. Luffy was stronger than 20 million berry bounties before he had his own. Being bountiless means that your power is unknown, not that you're weak. Blackbeard not having a bounty did not make him weaker than Ace or anything of the like. In fact, it's a complete non-sequitur when discussing the accuracy of bounties regarding physical strength. He didn't have a bounty. And another thing, he didn't have a bounty of zero. He just didn't have a bounty whatsoever. Calling it a bounty of zero insinuates that it is still a bounty.
Adding onto that point, it doesn't have to be 100% linear to reflect battle prowess. That's yet another predictably fraudulent prerequisite that you've conjured from absolutely nowhere. Blackbeard wouldn't have to be 500,000x weaker than Ace in your scenario, that's just a brain-dead misrepresnation of my argument you made to give yourself something to attack.
"****ing what? There have been many posts in here that has used the Observation Haki hype for Katakuri as evidence for his combat ability being higher than the other Commanders. I am not the one that associated his Haki with combat powers, your cohorts did."
Are you kidding me? So, because there are other people in my general vicinity making seperate points they all get equated to me and my argument? Despite the fact that I've said none of those things? Are you drunk, my *****? I don't give a **** what similar claims you think my "cohorts" made, that was a bombastic, incohrent non-sequitor. "I made an ass-backwards point, but you can't call me out on it because a few strangers who share similar opinions made the same stupid point" <- Get that fodder bullish*t out of my face.
"It also doesn't change the fact that Teach having a bounty of nothing despite being a member of WB's crew for 20 years and even clashing with Shanks shows that the WG's ignorance to activity can cause their issuing of giving bounties to be very, very flawed"
That actually doesn't make it "very, very" flawed. One bountiless pirate who would have gotten pile-drived by Ace isn't actually that bad. Hell, even if BB were Yonkou level and without a bounty back then, it wouldn't hurt the system's validity. Why? Because he is a stark minority. An outlier. I know the concept has failed to penetrate the confines of your skull every time thus far, but that's a composition fallacy. You can't make generalizations about the whole (Bounties aren't very indicative of strength) due to a small minority (... because of people like Blackbeard, Robin and Usopp). It's unsightly.
"There have only been 72 bounties revealed so far.
And you still seem to be brutally missing the point. The window of Katakuri's bounty following the same pattern as the outliers still being open is why we can't say for a fact that his bounty means he's stronger"
Okay, fun fact. Irrelevant though.
No, the possibility of his bounty being a product if of an outlier trait is infinitely irrelevant without any indication. The sheer fact that the possibility physically exists is not in itself valid reason to assert the notion. A dictionary-worthy example of appealing to possibility, one of the same fallacies you've been choking on all day. Surprise.
"The ****? You literally highlight the fact that Kuzan says it's not just power, but ALSO threat level earlier in your post, and now you're saying that threat level has nothing to do with bounty? The **** outta here"
I said POWER has nothing to do with government threat level and is its own stand-alone component. Did I say your reading comprehension was on par with that of a dead-iguana? Make that a dead iguana's coprolite. Learn how to debate properly. Wait, why does that sound so familiar?
Let's start with your horrendously erroneous understanding of the concept of indication, alright? To indicate is to be a sign of. Period. Grouped with the aforementioned factors bounty becomes indicative. If the bounty were a lone factor, it would indicate nothing. It is case-by-case and dependant on the character, but it CAN be indicative. Again, with the increasingly comical application of the false-dilemma fallacy. This point has already been invalidated on multiple levels.
"It's really not. I don't know how I could have made that more simple. Katakuri could be weaker than Cracker, but have a bigger bounty, by being more active in terms of doing things for Big Mom. Cracker can be stronger than Katakuri, but if Katakuri is causing 10x the destruction, causing 10x the amount of civilian casualties, and committing 10x the crimes as Cracker, then his bounty will be higher."
It was, actually, a non-sequitor. It was a premise that did not lead to your conclusion on ANY level. First of all, this is honestly the stupidest thing I've heard today, my boy. You know, I've seen you tell plenty of people on this board that they can't argue or ought to learn how, but for someone with their nose so far up their own ass you'd think your every point wouldn't be founded upon some logical fallacy (inb4 false ad hom accusation). This point is a blatant appeal to possibility fallacy. Because the physical possibility exists that Katakuri can be weaker than Cracker (something I've never denied, which I'll get into further down when I address your appalling fleet of strawmen) you feel that one cannot assume Katakuri superior founded on manga evidence and think this suitable enough evidence to contest, which of course is dead f*cking wrong. A documented flaw in reasoning. You would need evidence that supports that possibility for it to become something that can even be considered evidential. I can posts the possibility that Katakuri raped and murdered three Celestial Dragons in an auction closet and that's why his bounty is so high. Unless there's anything supporting that he actually did do these things, they're equally inadequate.
It's seemingly foreign to you, but have you ever heard of Occam's razor? When there are two unprovable explanations the side with more evidence is the favorable one. Also, the more assumptions an explanation has, the more unlikely.
Not only are the amount of assumptions in your position incomparable to mine, but your are not backed or insinuated by a single, solitary thing. It's a mere physical possibility. Mine is supported by his CoO and manga portrayal with his seat at the head table with Big Mom. The fact that he's a sweet commander as well, insinuating that he's at least in the same general ball park as Cracker. Yes, it does insinuate that and your reasoning behind why it shouldn't is an irrational paradox.
From what I've gathered, the WB commanders' varying strength is the premise, yeah? That's why we shouldn't equate Yonkou commander strengths? Even though that's exactly what you're doing for the well-being of your breast-fed narrative? Tell me, why would BM's crew operate like Whitebeard's? Why would you equate his crew tendencies to hers? What evidence is there indicating that her crew works that way? First of all, there were 16 WB division commanders as opposed to BM's whopping three, so the power layout is already inherently different. What do you have that supports obligated variation? Not a god damn thing. Lol.
I don't care how weak you think Jozu may be in comparison to Marco, but your preconceived fan-theory is the only thing that aids the possibility of the Sweet Commanders being leagues apart. By telling others' to not equate Yonkou commanders individually you are definitionally equating Yonkou commanders positionally.
"The point was never that Katakuri's CoO feat isn't that impressive, the point was that people are taking what makes it impressive out of its proper context. Others, including yourself, have used Katakuri's CoO feat and Bege saying he's the biggest threat to the plan as an indication that he is the strongest Sweet Commander, which is false"
Please, quote exactly where I mentioned Bege on this thread or any other where I have discussed Katakuri. One quote. Stop fabricating bull shit arguments out of desperation and inability to form a half-coherent rebuttal to my actual position. Get that sh*t out of here, boy.
"You simply have failed to understand the context of anything I said. Realize that my post is in response to the notion "Katakuri's CoO feat and his threat to Bege's plan means he's the strongest Sweet Commander" and go re-read it."
No, I didn't. First of all, if you were referencing Katakuri being a threat to Bege or his reaction then who were you responding to? I haven't uttered a single word about Bege or the plan. You're attacking phantom arguments and purposely misrepresenting me, you little snake. ~~~
You began with the CoO not being combat oriented and then went on to explain how someone much faster or stronger can render it null. Blatantly using an obvious imperfection that every ability in the verse suffers from to oppose the notion, which is an undeniable perfect solution fallacy. Another one, Mr. Debater.
"Founded on hints=/=being told by the manga"
Dude, what? You do realize that this sentence didn't make any sense whatsoever, right? How does being founded on a hint from the manga not equate to being told by the manga? Where else do the hints come from? Do you mean hints don't count as confirmation? Okay, sure. But we don't need confirmation to make an educated assumption, which I explained earlier. Occam's razor, remember? If we needed confirmation to make logical assumptions then we as a species wouldn't know anything about the universe. We predicted almost half of the elements of the periodic table before we actually discovered them. That's logical assumption begetting fact. That's why we make such assumptions. There is no reason to your reasoning.
"Nothing has confirmed that Katakuri's bounty is caused by an outlier other than combat power, that is true. But the manga hasn't confirmed that that isn't the case"
Nevermind, this is easily the single stupidest thing I will read all day. That isn't how an argument works. You make a claim, you support it with evidence. If you don't have any evidence then your claim is invalid. It's a concept known as the burden of proof. You can't make a claim and proclaim that you don't have to present evidence because there is nothing that directly disproves you. In what realm is that an acceptable thought process? I can claim that Cracker kidnapped several children and keeps them locked up in his biscout basement. There is nothing in-manga supporting it, but nothing disputing it either. Is it now a tangible claim that I can attempt to argue with in an objective manner like some pseudointellectual sciolist? I would hope not. Otherwise, One Piece is whatever I want it to be.
"That possibility is equally as open as Katakuri's bounty being a result of strength, which is why no one in this thread can say for a fact that his bounty is based on him being the strongest"
No it is not, as it is the more the unlikely scenario. It requires more assumptions and has the least support. This point is nigh-gibberish, in all honesty.
"Blackbeard, Chopper, and Robin"
None of them are outliers to the same degree as Usopp, bar maybe Blackbeard, though he wasn't particularly powerful to begin with. Now, where does this support the notion of Katakuri having an outlier trait? Right now you're clumsily explaining to me the possibility, which I've openly acknowledged at the beginning of this discussion. What you're not doing is relaying to me how this aids your position. You can make ANY wild and unprovable claim and apply the same fallacy. "There's no evidence? Well, there's nothing in the manga contradicting it...", is a cancerous reversal of the burden of proof. There isn't a single facet of your argument that isn't extensively broken, objectively speaking.
"You're joking, right?"
Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll go find you a seat.
"You're saying that Katakuri's Haki is a level ahead of Fujitora's, but we don't know enough about the "levels" of Haki to say that for a fact, so it's not really something we can bring up as a feat."
Another repugnant and frankly pathetic strawman. I've never once claimed that Katakuri's CoO was a level above Fuji's or anything of the like. I noted that his feat is a level above any of Fuji's and specifically said that I was sure that Fuji could replicate the same feat, all true. Not to mention, we don't need a full understanding of anything to make accurate assumptions based available information. Nonsensical.
"Yeah, how do you know that Fujitora being able to maintain his Observation Haki virtually 24/7 across an entire country isn't a next level Haki feat?"
Yoooo, what the ****? PROVE that Fujitora keeps his haki range set to all of Dressrosa 24/7, that's absolute fan fiction. Prove that he did so for even 15 minutes straight. Prove he did so at all. Now I'm starting think you're just a troll. Lmao. Yeah, literally peering into the 4th dimension >>> Seeing a few dozen - hundred kilometers, even if he did perpetually scan the entire country, which you could never prove.
"You have no evidence proving Katakuri being able to see the future is a better standard of Haki than being able to extend its range or duration, considering that we've seen cases of people faltering with maintaining their Observation Haki and limited in their range"
This is also incorrect, of course. Why? The number one fallacy you've been suffering from since the very beginning- that rancid appeal to possibility. Firstly, Katakuri's haki is a rarity. He's the only person we've seen with it thus far as opposed to the numerous people we've met with the basic aura-sensing version, which is one reason to assume that it is harder to attain. With your range point, there is virtually nothing that would support the assumption that range is superior to straight-up potency while the fact that Enel can also cast his haki over a country radius (operating under your assertion that Fuji can) would make two people who can perform said feat as opposed to the lone Katakuri making his by default the rarest. The fact that less people are doing it is direct indication that it is harder to do. That's just common ****ing sense, mate. It doesn't take fancy debate techniques to figure that one out, there's no excuse. This is just willful ignorance. I'll reiterate, there is nothing indicating that range with basic aura sensing that even Usopp and Sanji can do > Katakuri's feat, while there is blatant evidence supporting the contrary. Inb4 "But it isn't conf4med!", it doesn't have to be, that's retarded. Occam's razor.
"Dude, hold onto your keyboard but...you're gonna lose your mind over this: It's happened in the manga before."
Dude, in the very quote that you responded to I directly stated that it was possible to blitz Katakuri and his foresight. Why did you feel the need to find an example of a phenomenon that I just acknowledged? What is the matter with you? Lmao.
"Nope. The fact that Usopp's bounty can be compared with five other people just emphasizes how much bounties can skew from "Higher bounty, higher power." It might be Usopp in each case, but it's still five different cases."
"Usopp is one example, but there are multiple cases that use that example. Usopp and Sanji, Usopp and Brook, Usopp and Franky, Usopp and Nami, and Usopp and Robin are five individual examples of a person having a higher bounty than someone they're weaker than. The fact that Usopp is a common part of each example doesn't change that each are individual examples. "
No, that's one case. Following your logic, each case is equal to the amount of characters in the verse with a lower bounty, which is narrative-driven garbage. Say Usopp was the only character in the verse with a bounty higher than people more powerful than him. You can parallel him with hundreds of thousands of pirates and deceitfully exclaim that there are hundreds of thousands of cases of pirates being weaker than other pirates with higher bounties, when in all actuality Usopp is only half of one case. It wouldn't be a seperate case if Usopp was the same example, the same way you couldn't test the same person with a vaccine, get two positive results and pretend they were two seperate cases. You aren't making a point, you just can't analyze data for sh*t, my guy. Lol.
"The reason I bring up Blackbeard and everyone with a bounty reveal is because his bounty is a flat zero, making him the most extreme outlier in the series, hence why the example is so extreme. If that bothers you, then just read it as "Ace and Blackbeard" and see if you feel better after"
That's the entire point of my example with Cracker. Blackbeard is also only one case.
"LMAOOOO I can't help but laugh at this.
"Here are thousands of examples of someone being weaker with a higher bounty, see how ridiculous your claim that there are higher bounties and weaker power levels is?""
What? Your reading comprehension is on dead-iguana right now. Where did you get that from?
"Except that this isn't a case where you can say "Ignore all outliers." The fact that so many cases involve outliers is why bounties aren't a system that can be trusted to always be showing us who's stronger and who's weaker"
No, WHENEVER you're discussing averages you discard outliers. That's how math works. Outliers are uncommon irregularities that are different from the majority. An average is literally denotated as a typical value within a set of data. An outlier is directly contradictory to the very concept of average. It's weird as sh*t that I'm actually here explaining this to someone. "So many cases involve outliers", no. No, that's not true. That's precisely WHY their outliers, they're a vast minority. The nigh-gibberish has evolved into full-blown unintelligible static.
"Dude, his bounty was ZERO. Do you really think that Teach was THAT weak without the Yami Yami no Mi, that Ace would maintain a half-billion gap over him under the condition that bounties are meant to reflect strength?"
What point are you even trying to get across? That bounties can be an inaccurate? I said that in my first comment on this thread. Furthermore, what do you mean by "THAT much weaker than Ace"? He was an unknown pirate and and didn't even have a bounty. You're acting as if not having a bounty would insinuate a strength of zero, which is an idea you've yanked from god knows where. Luffy was stronger than 20 million berry bounties before he had his own. Being bountiless means that your power is unknown, not that you're weak. Blackbeard not having a bounty did not make him weaker than Ace or anything of the like. In fact, it's a complete non-sequitur when discussing the accuracy of bounties regarding physical strength. He didn't have a bounty. And another thing, he didn't have a bounty of zero. He just didn't have a bounty whatsoever. Calling it a bounty of zero insinuates that it is still a bounty.
Adding onto that point, it doesn't have to be 100% linear to reflect battle prowess. That's yet another predictably fraudulent prerequisite that you've conjured from absolutely nowhere. Blackbeard wouldn't have to be 500,000x weaker than Ace in your scenario, that's just a brain-dead misrepresnation of my argument you made to give yourself something to attack.
"****ing what? There have been many posts in here that has used the Observation Haki hype for Katakuri as evidence for his combat ability being higher than the other Commanders. I am not the one that associated his Haki with combat powers, your cohorts did."
Are you kidding me? So, because there are other people in my general vicinity making seperate points they all get equated to me and my argument? Despite the fact that I've said none of those things? Are you drunk, my *****? I don't give a **** what similar claims you think my "cohorts" made, that was a bombastic, incohrent non-sequitor. "I made an ass-backwards point, but you can't call me out on it because a few strangers who share similar opinions made the same stupid point" <- Get that fodder bullish*t out of my face.
"It also doesn't change the fact that Teach having a bounty of nothing despite being a member of WB's crew for 20 years and even clashing with Shanks shows that the WG's ignorance to activity can cause their issuing of giving bounties to be very, very flawed"
That actually doesn't make it "very, very" flawed. One bountiless pirate who would have gotten pile-drived by Ace isn't actually that bad. Hell, even if BB were Yonkou level and without a bounty back then, it wouldn't hurt the system's validity. Why? Because he is a stark minority. An outlier. I know the concept has failed to penetrate the confines of your skull every time thus far, but that's a composition fallacy. You can't make generalizations about the whole (Bounties aren't very indicative of strength) due to a small minority (... because of people like Blackbeard, Robin and Usopp). It's unsightly.
"There have only been 72 bounties revealed so far.
And you still seem to be brutally missing the point. The window of Katakuri's bounty following the same pattern as the outliers still being open is why we can't say for a fact that his bounty means he's stronger"
Okay, fun fact. Irrelevant though.
No, the possibility of his bounty being a product if of an outlier trait is infinitely irrelevant without any indication. The sheer fact that the possibility physically exists is not in itself valid reason to assert the notion. A dictionary-worthy example of appealing to possibility, one of the same fallacies you've been choking on all day. Surprise.
"The ****? You literally highlight the fact that Kuzan says it's not just power, but ALSO threat level earlier in your post, and now you're saying that threat level has nothing to do with bounty? The **** outta here"
I said POWER has nothing to do with government threat level and is its own stand-alone component. Did I say your reading comprehension was on par with that of a dead-iguana? Make that a dead iguana's coprolite. Learn how to debate properly. Wait, why does that sound so familiar?
Let's start with your horrendously erroneous understanding of the concept of indication, alright? To indicate is to be a sign of. Period. Grouped with the aforementioned factors bounty becomes indicative. If the bounty were a lone factor, it would indicate nothing. It is case-by-case and dependant on the character, but it CAN be indicative. Again, with the increasingly comical application of the false-dilemma fallacy. This point has already been invalidated on multiple levels.
Okay, fair enough. Then I ask you, what are you combining with the bounty to make it indicative?
"It's really not. I don't know how I could have made that more simple. Katakuri could be weaker than Cracker, but have a bigger bounty, by being more active in terms of doing things for Big Mom. Cracker can be stronger than Katakuri, but if Katakuri is causing 10x the destruction, causing 10x the amount of civilian casualties, and committing 10x the crimes as Cracker, then his bounty will be higher."
It was, actually, a non-sequitor. It was a premise that did not lead to your conclusion on ANY level. First of all, this is honestly the stupidest thing I've heard today, my boy.
"If a person commits more crimes and severely worse crimes than someone else, their bounty will be higher" is the stupidest thing you've read all day? Now you're just inserting filler insults into your posts to make it look like you're definitely right.
You know, I've seen you tell plenty of people on this board that they can't argue or ought to learn how, but for someone with their nose so far up their own ass you'd think your every point wouldn't be founded upon some logical fallacy (inb4 false ad hom accusation). This point is a blatant appeal to possibility fallacy. Because the physical possibility exists that Katakuri can be weaker than Cracker (something I've never denied, which I'll get into further down when I address your appalling fleet of strawmen) you feel that one cannot assume Katakuri superior founded on manga evidence and think this suitable enough evidence to contest, which of course is dead f*cking wrong.
This doesn't make sense. You say that Katakuri being weaker than Cracker is still left open by the manga, and then say that there isn't enough evidence to say assume that Katakuri is weaker while also saying the manga has provided evidence that Katakuri is stronger. These two things cannot coexist. If there is manga evidence that Katakuri is stronger to the point that we can't assume Cracker is stronger, then the window is no longer open.
As of right now, that window is still open, so the manga hasn't confirmed that. This isn't a appeal to possibility fallacy, this is a simple issue: The manga can't simultaneously tell you Katakuri is stronger while still leaving the window open that Katakuri is weaker. It has to do one or the other.
A documented flaw in reasoning. You would need evidence that supports that possibility for it to become something that can even be considered evidential. I can posts the possibility that Katakuri raped and murdered three Celestial Dragons in an auction closet and that's why his bounty is so high. Unless there's anything supporting that he actually did do these things, they're equally inadequate.
That's been my point this entire time. There is no evidence to say for a fact that Katakuri's bounty is higher for one reason or another. Look through all of my posts here, and you'll see me saying exactly this: We are too ignorant to say the manga has told us one way or another.
It's seemingly foreign to you, but have you ever heard of Occam's razor? When there are two unprovable explanations the side with more evidence is the favorable one. Also, the more assumptions an explanation has, the more unlikely.
Yeah, BOTH of these explanations are very presumptuous. One assumes Cracker is weaker, the other assumes Katakuri is a worse criminal. Neither of them are carrying more complications than the other.
Not only are the amount of assumptions in your position incomparable to mine, but your are not backed or insinuated by a single, solitary thing It's a mere physical possibility. Mine is supported by his CoO
You mean...the table that also has the dude that runs a newspaper company? That seat indicates power to you, the one that is also occupied by the leader of a whorehouse?
The fact that he's a sweet commander as well, insinuating that he's at least in the same general ball park as Cracker. Yes, it does insinuate that and your reasoning behind why it shouldn't is an irrational paradox.
Do we have evidence or confirmation that Big Mom's commanders are this close in power?
From what I've gathered, the WB commanders' varying strength is the premise, yeah? That's why we shouldn't equate Yonkou commander strengths? Even though that's exactly what you're doing for the well-being of your breast-fed narrative? Tell me, why would BM's crew operate like Whitebeard's? Why would you equate his crew tendencies to hers? What evidence is there indicating that her crew works that way? First of all, there were 16 WB division commanders as opposed to BM's whopping three, so the power layout is already inherently different. What do you have that supports obligated variation? Not a god damn thing. Lol.
I don't think I've ever sighed this hard at any person's ability to miss the point completely. All of my posts are following the exact same point: There is a lack of evidence for both sides to accurately talk about Katakuri's power placement. There's no proof that Big Mom's Commanders aren't close knit in power. There is no proof that they are.
I can say right now that they're far apart, and have just as much evidence to support it as you do if you said they're close together.
I don't care how weak you think Jozu may be in comparison to Marco, but your preconceived fan-theory is the only thing that aids the possibility of the Sweet Commanders being leagues apart. By telling others' to not equate Yonkou commanders individually you are definitionally equating Yonkou commanders positionally.
I'm equating ranks of the same title as positions? Sherlock ****ing Holmes over here. It's almost like the commanders of one Emperor's crew are the same concept as the commanders of another's. I don't think the world is ready for the paths you're leading them on, give us time to process such complicated thoughts.
"The point was never that Katakuri's CoO feat isn't that impressive, the point was that people are taking what makes it impressive out of its proper context. Others, including yourself, have used Katakuri's CoO feat and Bege saying he's the biggest threat to the plan as an indication that he is the strongest Sweet Commander, which is false"
Please, quote exactly where I mentioned Bege on this thread or any other where I have discussed Katakuri. One quote. Stop fabricating bull shit arguments out of desperation and inability to form a half-coherent rebuttal to my actual position. Get that sh*t out of here, boy.
Greatest CoO feat in the verse, highest known bounty in the verse, is Yonkou's de-facto First Mate. That's enough to call this a low-diff, tbh. Especially when scaling from weaker commanders, ie; Cracker.
Mine is supported by his CoO and manga portrayal with his seat at the head table with Big Mom. The fact that he's a sweet commander as well, insinuating that he's at least in the same general ball park as Cracker.
Twice you used his CoO feat and hype as indications that he's the strongest/support to your belief that he is the strongest.
"You simply have failed to understand the context of anything I said. Realize that my post is in response to the notion "Katakuri's CoO feat and his threat to Bege's plan means he's the strongest Sweet Commander" and go re-read it."
No, I didn't. First of all, if you were referencing Katakuri being a threat to Bege or his reaction then who were you responding to? I haven't uttered a single word about Bege or the plan. You're attacking phantom arguments and purposely misrepresenting me, you little snake. ~~~
For a guy who loves pointing our fallacies, you sure do fluff your argument with ad hominem quite a lot.
You began with the CoO not being combat oriented and then went on to explain how someone much faster or stronger can render it null. Blatantly using an obvious imperfection that every ability in the verse suffers from to oppose the notion, which is an undeniable perfect solution fallacy. Another one, Mr. Debater.
You have a really bad habit of dismissing valid arguments. This paragraph is basically you saying "You're talking about how combat factors like speed and strength can trump Observation Haki in actual combat to support the argument that Observation Haki can be rendered null in combat despite being potent."
You make no ****ing sense when you do this. Yes, every ability in the OP world can fall victim to this. That's precisely why you can't say a person will win a fight based on any one ability. The entire point of my post isn't that Katakuri's Observation Haki can't be useful in battle, but that by itself without other combat factors like adequate speed, durability, strength, and stamina added in, it can only do so much.
We need feats from Katakuri from those other categories in order to make an accurate judgement about where he fits in the power scale, we can't make that judgement based on the fact that he has great Observation Haki alone.
"Founded on hints=/=being told by the manga"
Dude, what? You do realize that this sentence didn't make any sense whatsoever, right? How does being founded on a hint from the manga not equate to being told by the manga?
Being told by the manga=confirmation. It means we know this for a fact. Things like Luffy is a member of the Worst Generation, Akainu is an Admiral, Sanji is from North Blue, Dragon is leader of the Revolutionaries. These are things that, fundamentally, are readily presented as truth.
A hint is something like Bonney being related to Big Mom. A hint is Dragon was a former Admiral. A hint is Big Mom might be a Homie. Things that cannot be readily attributed to be truth. Sometimes they're baseless, sometimes they are not, but they are not facts either until they are confirmed so. My post was in response to people acting as though the manga has confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that Katakuri is the strongest. It has not done so.
"Nothing has confirmed that Katakuri's bounty is caused by an outlier other than combat power, that is true. But the manga hasn't confirmed that that isn't the case"
Nevermind, this is easily the single stupidest thing I will read all day.
Yeah, you are literally saying this to fluff your argument. You're just throwing around petty insults because you really don't have much else to say. Great look for your argument.
That isn't how an argument works. You make a claim, you support it with evidence. If you don't have any evidence then your claim is invalid. It's a concept known as the burden of proof. You can't make a claim and proclaim that you don't have to present evidence because there is nothing that directly disproves you. In what realm is that an acceptable thought process?
Okay. Then show me the proof that Katakuri's bounty given on his strength. If no evidence=invalid claim, then surely you can back up this claim with evidence.
I can claim that Cracker kidnapped several children and keeps them locked up in his biscout basement. There is nothing in-manga supporting it, but nothing disputing it either. Is it now a tangible claim that I can attempt to argue with in an objective manner like some pseudointellectual sciolist? I would hope not. Otherwise, One Piece is whatever I want it to be.
Luffy's starting bounty for defeating Arlong was about 30,000,000. Sanji's starting bounty for defeating Jabra was ~70,000,000. Zoro got a bounty of about 60,000,000 for defeating Daz Bones. For aiding in the first defeat of CP-9 and Enies Lobby, Franky got a bounty of 44,000,000.
Robin, as an 8 year old girl with no combat powers, got a bounty higher than all of these. Robin has the highest starting bounty of ALL the Strawhats, including Luffy, Zoro, and Sanji, as an EIGHT YEAR OLD GIRL. And she isn't an outlier from the concept of "Bounty relies on strength?" THAT'S the stupidest thing you'll read all day, convenient that it's coming from your own head.
"You're joking, right?"
Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll go find you a seat.
You're comparing Haki...to how energy works in real life?
"You're saying that Katakuri's Haki is a level ahead of Fujitora's, but we don't know enough about the "levels" of Haki to say that for a fact, so it's not really something we can bring up as a feat."
Another repugnant and frankly pathetic strawman. I've never once claimed that Katakuri's CoO was a level above Fuji's or anything of the like. I noted that his feat is a level above any of Fuji's and specifically said that I was sure that Fuji could replicate the same feat, all true.
Dude, that's what I said...You said that Katakuri seeing the future is a higher level than Fuji keeping his CoO active at all times and across the scope of entire countries. I'm asking you how you know that those feats aren't equivalent in scale, but separate in concept? How do you know that one is definitely above the other?
Not to mention, we don't need a full understanding of anything to make accurate assumptions based available information. Nonsensical.
Full understanding? No. But do we have ANY understanding on how "levels" of Observation Haki, or even Haki in general, to make statements like "Seeing the future is more advanced than constant activation and scale of countries?"
"Yeah, how do you know that Fujitora being able to maintain his Observation Haki virtually 24/7 across an entire country isn't a next level Haki feat?"
Yoooo, what the ****? PROVE that Fujitora keeps his haki range set to all of Dressrosa 24/7, that's absolute fan fiction. Prove that he did so for even 15 minutes straight. Prove he did so at all. Now I'm starting think you're just a troll. Lmao. Yeah, literally peering into the 4th dimension >>> Seeing a few dozen - hundred kilometers, even if he did perpetually scan the entire country, which you could never prove.
Dude, how the **** do you think he sees and navigates all the time so well? He knew what was happening the entire time he was on Dressrosa.
And if you don't want to use Fujitora, then we could just Enel since we know for a fact he had has Haki constantly active to always have omniscience on Skypeia.
"You have no evidence proving Katakuri being able to see the future is a better standard of Haki than being able to extend its range or duration, considering that we've seen cases of people faltering with maintaining their Observation Haki and limited in their range"
This is also incorrect, of course. Why? The number one fallacy you've been suffering from since the very beginning- that rancid appeal to possibility. Firstly, Katakuri's haki is a rarity. He's the only person we've seen with it thus far as opposed to the numerous people we've met with the basic aura-sensing version, which is one reason to assume that it is harder to attain.
While this is true, we've also only seen three people with the power to extend their Haki across entire countries, those being Rayleigh, Fujitora, and Enel, indicating that is also a higher level than just any basic Haki.
With your range point, there is virtually nothing that would support the assumption that range is superior to straight-up potency while the fact that Enel can also cast his haki over a country radius (operating under your assertion that Fuji can) would make two people who can perform said feat as opposed to the lone Katakuri making his by default the rarest.
I never said that we know range is superior to potency. Don't put arguments in my mouth. I said we don't know which one is stronger.
The fact that less people are doing it is direct indication that it is harder to do. That's just common ****ing sense, mate. It doesn't take fancy debate techniques to figure that one out, there's no excuse. This is just willful ignorance. I'll reiterate, there is nothing indicating that range with basic aura sensing that even Usopp and Sanji can do > Katakuri's feat, while there is blatant evidence supporting the contrary. Inb4 "But it isn't conf4med!", it doesn't have to be, that's retarded. Occam's razor.
Yup, it's retarded to say that something that isn't confirmed by the manga isn't 100% a fact. That...makes sense, I suppose.
"Dude, hold onto your keyboard but...you're gonna lose your mind over this: It's happened in the manga before."
Dude, in the very quote that you responded to I directly stated that it was possible to blitz Katakuri and his foresight. Why did you feel the need to find an example of a phenomenon that I just acknowledged? What is the matter with you? Lmao.
Because the portion of your post that I responded to that too was you dismissing the notion that Observation Haki can be rendered null in battle. You even do just that in this post.
"Nope. The fact that Usopp's bounty can be compared with five other people just emphasizes how much bounties can skew from "Higher bounty, higher power." It might be Usopp in each case, but it's still five different cases."
"Usopp is one example, but there are multiple cases that use that example. Usopp and Sanji, Usopp and Brook, Usopp and Franky, Usopp and Nami, and Usopp and Robin are five individual examples of a person having a higher bounty than someone they're weaker than. The fact that Usopp is a common part of each example doesn't change that each are individual examples. "
Nope. If I rob five people on five different days, though those five instances not count as five separate robberies? Or do they count as one simply because one of the parties is universal to all five cases?
"Except that this isn't a case where you can say "Ignore all outliers." The fact that so many cases involve outliers is why bounties aren't a system that can be trusted to always be showing us who's stronger and who's weaker"
No, WHENEVER you're discussing averages you discard outliers.
When were we discussing averages? I never said anything about what happens on average. I said that there are enough cases where bounty doesn't correlate to strength positioning to cast reasonable doubt. Even though they are more cases where the opposite happens, there's still ENOUGH where it DOES happen that it isn't a guarantee.
"Dude, his bounty was ZERO. Do you really think that Teach was THAT weak without the Yami Yami no Mi, that Ace would maintain a half-billion gap over him under the condition that bounties are meant to reflect strength?"
What point are you even trying to get across? That bounties can be an inaccurate? I said that in my first comment on this thread. Furthermore, what do you mean by "THAT much weaker than Ace"? He was an unknown pirate and and didn't even have a bounty. You're acting as if not having a bounty would insinuate a strength of zero, which is an idea you've yanked from god knows where.
This is EXACTLY one of my points. That bounty can't be a guaranteed accurate representation of strength scaling because it depends too much on what the WG knows, ignorance plays too big a factor in bounties.
Adding onto that point, it doesn't have to be 100% linear to reflect battle prowess. That's yet another predictably fraudulent prerequisite that you've conjured from absolutely nowhere. Blackbeard wouldn't have to be 500,000x weaker than Ace in your scenario, that's just a brain-dead misrepresnation of my argument you made to give yourself something to attack.
You ****ing idiot, that's the point. That bounty and strength don't uniformly correlate, as others, including yourself, have tried to say.
If higher bounty was just some universal indicator of strength, which it would need to be to fit your arguments, then Teach would have to be 500,000,000x weaker than Ace.
Are you kidding me? So, because there are other people in my general vicinity making seperate points they all get equated to me and my argument?
I've already pointed out your posts where you use his Haki as a testament to his level of combat power. Whether or not you phrased it the same way they did, you've made the same argument. Like it or not.
Actually displaying that he has at least a microcosm of understanding of the manga and ability to talk about it, rather than piggybacking off of others while making snide insults he isn't qualified to make.
