Give him a way to win that he doesn't have? What the actual f*ck? All I did was mention the outcome in the event of my hypothetical, which you challenged. I made not one solitary statement about THIS battle. Let's look at my first post on this thread. "Give Lucci even slightly ompetent CoA and he blitzes and one-shots". My statement in and of itself was the assertion that Lucci would win under the circumstance that he had haki. Keyword: If. I didn't "assign" any trait to Lucci, I posed a hypothetical, which, again, is evident by the words "WITH haki and "if you GIVE Lucci haki".
So I'm curious, to which "non existent trait" did I assign Lucci? Haki certainly isn't "non existent" in the OP-verse (lol) and the last thing I did was assign it to anyone in this battle. Either you believe talking about the prospect of him having haki somehow gives him haki, or you've got apologies to issue because your position is as fallacious and fabricated as can be. A blatant lie, actually.
Your first reply to me was, and I quote, "If they had haki it would be a post-skip scenario". What was my response? That my statement was made under the assertion that it was PTS Lucci and Enel, otherwise I wouldnt be able to make a statement about who wins. I then go on to explain how in the event that Lucci had haki he would win. YOU then go on to say I'm twisting the manga to fit my agenda. Lmfao. My agenda was LITERALLY that with haki Lucci destroys. Not that he would have haki in this fight or anything else. So, I'm using my agenda to meet my agenda? Genius.
The full name of the term is Sargon's Law of Projection, which has more than one type and usage. People have been projecting their own inadequacies since the beginning of time, on arguments and people. The most widely-known usage of the term references ideologues and personal character, though the term's etymology doesn't change. Ironically, you've just committed a composition fallacy. Just because projecting unto one's character is a primary form of Sargon's law doesn't indicate or obligate that it's the only form. Also, the word "debater" makes me cringe infinitely. Anyone who has ever participated in a discussion in which there have been opposing positions is a "debater", definitionally. So, just say "people".
My "inclusion" of haki? Dude, you're arguing against a phantom straw-man that you've yanked from god-knows where. When will you address MY claims? I didn't include anything. I said the incarnations in question are PTS, which they are. I then stated that under the circumstance that said incarnation of Lucci had haki he would destroy. Talking about inclusion isn't the same as actual inclusion. That's cancer. Final stage cancer.
Now, if you aren't going to contest my claim of Lucci skull-f*cking fodder-garbage Enel- stay with me now- IF he had haki (you've impressively managed to dodge that one word consistently) then what are you contesting? I've made no other claim. Do you even have any idea what in the hell you're doing?
If you want to contest MY claim of Lucci dog-walking the living f*ck out of Enel with no difficulty whatsoever then the floor is yours. If not, you can keep on 'rastling that straw-man. When you work up the courage to address my argument, I'll be waiting. I'll be waiting.
Last edited: