[Theory] Just some major plot holes

[NarutoB]

The sage didn't have Uchiha and Senju sons.


Uchiha's are descendents of the Elder Son and Senju's are descendents of the Younger Son.

/thread

You must be registered for see images

Mods, lock this thread Zzz

 

[Floydical]

Ya the original sons weren't pure Senju / Uchiha, they were something more and once they combined their DNA with others, they slowly began the process of becoming Uchiha and Senju over the centuries.

 

[DarkWolf Nashoba]

I dont know what manga you are reading but it's not the same I am, there are actually very few cross-overs in the series, the two main being Tsunade and Naruto, and both clearly don't look exactly like their ancestors.

They are called "Senju" and "Uchiha", the burden of proof is on you. Sasuke and Itachi's parents were clearly Uchiha by what you could tell of their hair color. Prove to me that those other Uchiha were not pure blood, because they do seem to be.

Sir Armathyx, I advise you cease your spouting of fallacious "counter-arguments."
If you weren't aware of what fallacies are, then I will explain it to you.
Simply put, they are examples of faulty logic.


Allow me to point out the fallacies present within this pitifully constructed response:

Regarding the portion in blue
There are only a few "cross overs" that we know exist. There may be several that exist which haven't been exposed. You are making a false assumption that these are the only cases of inter-clan breeding in the NarutoVerse (not intra-clan breeding, there's a distinct difference). It has never been stated that these are the only cases, so it is gaudily erroneous to make such a claim.
Hence, you are committing the fallacy known as the 'argument from silence,' which denotes a conclusion based on the lack of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Regarding the portion in red
It is apparent that you fail to comprehend what the "burden of proof" actually means. The burden of proof most certainly is not on me, because the obligation to exhibit evidence rests on the shoulders of the individual who is making the original assertion.

You must be registered for see links

This is also related to the 'argument from ignorance,' which denotes assuming a claim is true merely because it has not yet been proven false.
You're advocating the following: "You can't prove they're not pure-blooded, so they must be pure-blooded!"
That's like saying the following: "You can't prove that God doesn't exist, so he definitely must exist!"
Do you see how wrong this pattern of thought is?

I repeat again, you are the one making a claim so you are responsible for supporting your claim with evidence. Otherwise, this assertion lacks any vindication whatsoever.

 

[I t a c h i]

Hmm.. Nice..

 

[DarkWolf Nashoba]

If you are going to start applying science to one thing in Naruto, then you'll have to apply it to all of it. Let's discuss how a human body realistically contains "chakra", can withstand giant shuriken and metal swords cutting through vital organs without causing death, how we can spit fire by weaving hand seals and contain monstrous beings inside our little bodies.

I'm talking about the manga's logic here. Coming from someone who has a Naruto with Rinnegan sig, I suppose you don't know much of it. I highly doubt Kishimito was thinking about advanced genetics when he created Naruto, he's blond simply because spiky yellow hair looks cooler than if he had straight red hair.

Yet again, you've utilized another fallacy. You've side-stepped addressing the point of Rinn3gan's statement completely.
You've used a form of Red Herring argumentation in order to disregard his thinking entirely, rather than proposing a proper rebuttal.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

You must be registered for see links

Concerning the original topic of discussion, I feel that there's no plot hole here. You're trying to make something from absolutely nothing.