Debates based on assumptions, brings in out of context scans, fails to provide any proof for his claims, gets destroyed and then backtracks on his claims :lol
Goes on and questions other's debating skills....
You must be registered for see images
And still waiting for the post where I said Himawari's attack wasn't a GF technique....
Is that best you can come up with? A half-arsed denial? Well to be fair I expected damage control, but this was always to be expected since you were proven to be ignorant.
"gets destroyed and then backtracks on his claims"
You know, you have stated several times I backtracked, but I don't think you know what it means to backtrack during a debate.
Backtrack verb
to completely change what you think or say about something.
For example; If you backtrack on a statement or decision you have made, you do or say something that shows that you no longer agree with it or support it.
What this implies in this case is this, if I had backtracked, I would stop thinking or supporting the idea; Himawari knocking down Naruto was comic relief, or her jutsu was the same with Neji's.
Yet, I have
emphasize loads of times that I still stand with the fact Himawari knocking down Naruto was comic relief, and that her jutsu was the same as Neji's.
So I never backtracked. Apparently, you are that
stupid, you don't even know the implications of the words you use.
Anyway, let's get to a more relevant note. You based the factuality of your argument on the notion; Naruto getting unconscious for a whole day. I just proved Hinata used eight trigrams on a victim which resulted to him not being able to move for a whole day. I don't expect you be against this since you were proven wrong after assertively claiming she used a different jutsu because it was called a secret technique. But then again, you have a knack at whoring arguments. Presuming that becomes predominant again, the scan I posted stated Hinata used the technique over and over again, which is an attribute of eight trigrams. Unless you want to say, Hinata used a different technique, different from Neji and Himawari, which would prompt me to conclude you are remedial towards back-peddling.
If not, there goes your only argument you had.
As a result, let's recap;
You claimed Himawari's technique was different from Neji, when she;
Utilised her Byakugan.
Used a gentle-fist technique.
Used her palm to strike her victim.
Which closed his tenketsu.
Victim couldn't move for an entire day.
All of these which are attributes of Eight Trigrams technique.
Now considering that;
Hinata also utilised her Byakugan.
Used a gentle-fist technique.
Used her palm to strike her victim chakra points/pressure points/tenketsu repeatedly.
Which closed them.
Victim couldn't move for an entire day.
Thus proving Eight Trigrams technique could render a victim unresponsive.
Alternatively, during Neji's battle with Kidomaru;
Neji utilised his Byakugan.
Use a gentle-fist technique.
Used his palm/fingers.
Struck the victim.
Kills the victim supposedly because Eight Trigrams jutsu not only closes the chakra points, but destroys the organs.
It's a logically assume deduction Neji used Eight Trigrams or a variation of it considering that was his only offensive moves when he was a kid. In fact, that his is only offensive move.
Thus, this proves Eight Trigrams technique causes a lot more than rendering someone unconscious.
When something goes beyond what we thought, we assume it is capable of meeting the task of our thoughts, which in this case proves Eight Trigrams is capable of making a victim unconscious.
The end part of that covers all the attributes displayed Himawari, and the effects displayed by Naruto, proving Himawari used a technique Naruto tanked before, proving Naruto should have tanked it, thus arriving at the conclusion; it was
comic relief scene, since the use of it generally projects a contradictory view. Have a good day knowing fully well I just utterly destroyed you.
I expect a response, so please note;
Eight Trigrams technique in this post refers to the application of closing the chakra points.