I think the question is straight forward and not a double edge. When people are talking about 'Yata' and 'can it be destroy'/'its limit' it pretty much the talking between Yata and the technique that possibly can overpower it. For it intent and purpose, it pretty a straight forward question.
Most of the time I'm here when people were discussing about Yata, if it involves Itachi as a subject beside Yata as another subject, the question will talk about both, example: " can kamui bypass Yata and hit Itachi?" or "what attack can damage Itachi that hide behind Yata?" but here its only Yata as the subject but not Itachi as question like this is nothing new here and OP just being an unintelligent person for asking a same question for a thousand times.
That's what I ****ing said in the other post. **** this, I'm not gonna argue anymore with you "smart asses".
The question isn't really that forward. The OP hasn't come to say anything yet to confirm your claim. I agreed that by defeating Yata he meant destroying it. But what the f does defeating it even mean? By my account, defeating something means the subject concerned has intentions of fighting, and can in fact retaliate if needed.
You can look the word up. It refers to a fight or war that has been won, in which case the subjects were involved in a fight. Which raises doubt in what he was referring to by that. I don't know what you were taught in your school but mine taught me that defeating someone means the other person had "intentions" of winning or triumphing as a subsequent event of the happenstance of the fight, which can't apply to a mere weapon, which is void of feeling any emotions or vehemence.
I don't know what's so hard about admitting that the OP could have gone wrong in the question. He didn't specify or make clear of what he was really referring to. To the Yata being destroyed in the process, or just bypassing its defense. As that's defeating it in a theoretical sense if Itachi gets hurt. Which means it was nullified from protecting its wielder. That meaning that the weapon got bested in some sense.
I'm only even arguing against your claims now because you were too decadent to absorb what I said later on. Which was that the OP meant only the weapon and Itachi was just a secondary subject with no relevance to the raised matter.
I'd like therefore, to submit that I will not peruse your imminent post because I'm kind of irritating hearing the same thing get incessantly get repeated without any sensible thing being raise.
