[Discussion] Zoro = Badass

[LBeezy]

No I don't I read exactly what you wrote and what you linked, and I told you why you were wrong. Not only in my eyes but also in the eyes of Oda.

Because if Oda says it is inedible, that means that it is inedible. That doesn't mean that the guy he was addressing that fact to can eat it just because some people have an disorder of swallowing tiny inedible materials.

In your post however I see nothing that indicates WHY I'm wrong. Just calling names and taking the Toshi way out of an argument when you've have lost on points. Saying that the other person didn't understand it or didn't read.

Well done you've qualified yourself as a bad debater.

-_-

Bruh

Do I really have to school you on what went down right now?

I said you look like you have zero reading comprehension, since I have to seriously break this down for you.. when it should have been very simple to understand.

Riker said that the biscuits wouldn't be edible if it wasn't for Nami's rain..

I disagreed because a biscuit is still a biscuit, whether wet or dry, soggy or burnt to a crisp.
If you burn a biscuit in the oven does it automatically turn into a diamond hard substance from outer space that no human can possibly eat?

Riker provided a scan to "help" his argument.. although he failed miserably.

I said to him "If you're referring to the panel of Cracker in the top left corner, then it still doesn't say that they're impossible to eat without water.. it's just that the water turns them into "delicious edible biscuits"... meaning Luffy could still eat them without the water, but they would no longer be delicious, nor as easy to eat."

He then said "My man just said "wouldn't be edible" doesn't mean "wouldn't be able to eat it." And it's at that point I stop reading."

Now let me ask you Love Cook, is that sentence above supposed to "qualify" Riker as a "good debater"? lol

Anyway, I then provided a link with a nice long list of things that ARE NOT EDIBLE, by any means, that people still eat..

I never said Luffy had that disorder.. I never said anyone did.. I used that link as an example of things that are deemed non edible by society, yet are eaten anyway.

Now idk how a biscuit is any more non edible than the majority of things on that list..

Riker was proven wrong.. and all he could say left was that he "stopped reading".. okay great.



You've now been caught up on what went down..

 

[Love Cook]

-_-

Bruh

Do I really have to school you on what went down right now?

I said you look like you have zero reading comprehension, since I have to seriously break this down for you.. when it should have been very simple to understand.

Riker said that the biscuits wouldn't be edible if it wasn't for Nami's rain..

I disagreed because a biscuit is still a biscuit, whether wet or dry, soggy or burnt to a crisp.
If you burn a biscuit in the oven does it automatically turn into a diamond hard substance from outer space that no human can possibly eat?

Riker provided a scan to "help" his argument.. although he failed miserably.

I said to him "If you're referring to the panel of Cracker in the top left corner, then it still doesn't say that they're impossible to eat without water.. it's just that the water turns them into "delicious edible biscuits"... meaning Luffy could still eat them without the water, but they would no longer be delicious, nor as easy to eat."

He then said "My man just said "wouldn't be edible" doesn't mean "wouldn't be able to eat it." And it's at that point I stop reading."

Now let me ask you Love Cook, is that sentence above supposed to "qualify" Riker as a "good debater"? lol

Anyway, I then provided a link with a nice long list of things that ARE NOT EDIBLE, by any means, that people still eat..

I never said Luffy had that disorder.. I never said anyone did.. I used that link as an example of things that are deemed non edible by society, yet are eaten anyway.

Now idk how a biscuit is any more non edible than the majority of things on that list..

Riker was proven wrong.. and all he could say left was that he "stopped reading".. okay great.



You've now been caught up on what went down..

All that talk, and the dry biscuit is still inedible. As said by Oda. And maybe because it's a biscuit, maybe because it's dry, maybe because it's haki and maybe because it's a DF and maybe because it's not real and manga.

But definitely inedible, because Oda said so.

 

[LBeezy]

All that talk, and the dry biscuit is still inedible. As said by Oda. And maybe because it's a biscuit, maybe because it's dry, maybe because it's haki and maybe because it's a DF and maybe because it's not real and manga.

But definitely inedible, because Oda said so.

Oda didn't say that tho..... so...

 

[Punk Hazard]

Riker said that the biscuits wouldn't be edible if it wasn't for Nami's rain..

I disagreed because a biscuit is still a biscuit, whether wet or dry, soggy or burnt to a crisp.
If you burn a biscuit in the oven does it automatically turn into a diamond hard substance from outer space that no human can possibly eat?

Riker provided a scan to "help" his argument.. although he failed miserably.

I said to him "If you're referring to the panel of Cracker in the top left corner, then it still doesn't say that they're impossible to eat without water.. it's just that the water turns them into "delicious edible biscuits"... meaning Luffy could still eat them without the water, but they would no longer be delicious, nor as easy to eat."

He then said "My man just said "wouldn't be edible" doesn't mean "wouldn't be able to eat it." And it's at that point I stop reading."

Now let me ask you Love Cook, is that sentence above supposed to "qualify" Riker as a "good debater"? lol

Anyway, I then provided a link with a nice long list of things that ARE NOT EDIBLE, by any means, that people still eat..

I never said Luffy had that disorder.. I never said anyone did.. I used that link as an example of things that are deemed non edible by society, yet are eaten anyway.

Now idk how a biscuit is any more non edible than the majority of things on that list..

Riker was proven wrong.. and all he could say left was that he "stopped reading".. okay great.



You've now been caught up on what went down..

Dude..."inedible" either means something that isn't food, or something that can't be eaten. The biscuits, as you said, are still biscuits whether they're hard or soft, so it's not the first definition. So it has to be the second one: Something that can't be eaten.

 

[LBeezy]

Dude..."inedible" either means something that isn't food, or something that can't be eaten. The biscuits, as you said, are still biscuits whether they're hard or soft, so it's not the first definition. So it has to be the second one: Something that can't be eaten.

I just gave you a list of things deemed to be inedible that people still eat.. that's what yall aren't understanding.

Even in the scan you provided, it doesn't say that they're impossible to eat without water.. it just says that the water turns them into "delicious edible biscuits".

How are you not comprehending this?

 

[Punk Hazard]

I just gave you a list of things deemed to be inedible that people still eat.. that's what yall aren't understanding.

Those things are inedible because they are not fit to be food. They are not considered food. The biscuits don't fall into this category because they are still biscuits, a type of food, in the state that Cracker calls "inedible."

Even in the scan you provided, it doesn't say that they're impossible to eat without water.. it just says that the water turns them into "delicious edible biscuits".

How are you not comprehending this?

How are YOU not comprehending that something inedible can either mean unfit to be food, or just plain uneatable.

The stuff you listed falls into the first usage, Cracker's biscuits fall into the second usage.

Your list changes nothing because Cracker's biscuits aren't regarded the same as them.

 

[LBeezy]

Those things are inedible because they are not fit to be food. They are not considered food. The biscuits don't fall into this category because they are still biscuits, a type of food, in the state that Cracker calls "inedible."



How are YOU not comprehending that something inedible can either mean unfit to be food, or just plain uneatable.

The stuff you listed falls into the first usage, Cracker's biscuits fall into the second usage.

Your list changes nothing because Cracker's biscuits aren't regarded the same as them.

The scan you provided doesn't even say what you're saying.

Cracker never says that they're impossible to eat without water.. he just says that the water turns them into delicious edible biscuits.

A biscuit is a biscuit.

Wet or dry.
Soggy or burnt to a crisp.


Oda never said they can't be eaten without water..

I truly do not know where you guys are getting that from..

Cracker didn't even say it..

 

[Punk Hazard]

The scan you provided doesn't even say what you're saying.

Cracker never says that they're impossible to eat without water.. he just says that the water turns them into delicious edible biscuits.

A biscuit is a biscuit.

Wet or dry.
Soggy or burnt to a crisp.


Oda never said they can't be eaten without water..

I truly do not know where you guys are getting that from..

Cracker didn't even say it..

Dude...he said they can't be eaten....when he called them inedible. Come on son, you're not stupid.

Cracker called his biscuits inedible when they're normal.

Inedible can mean something isn't fit to be food, or it can't be eaten.

The biscuits are still food if they're wet or dry, because they're still biscuits. As you have said. Therefore, the first application of "inedible" can't apply, because they're still fit to be food.

That means the only usage that can be applied is "unable to eaten."

Again, just one more time for ya, buddy: It's either

1. Not food

2. Uneatable

The biscuits are still food when they're not wet, so it's not number one, because number one is NOT food, and the biscuits still ARE food. Following?

The only other option is "uneatable." The biscuits, as we have established, ARE still food, and were called inedible. One option of "inedible," the word used to describe crackers, is not applicable, because that option is "NOT food" and the hardened biscuits ARE still food. That means the second option, uneatable, is the only one left.

 

[LBeezy]

Dude...he said they can't be eaten....when he called them inedible. Come on son, you're not stupid.

Cracker called his biscuits inedible when they're normal.

Inedible can mean something isn't fit to be food, or it can't be eaten.

The biscuits are still food if they're wet or dry, because they're still biscuits. As you have said. Therefore, the first application of "inedible" can't apply, because they're still fit to be food.

That means the only usage that can be applied is "unable to eaten."

Again, just one more time for ya, buddy: It's either

1. Not food

2. Uneatable

The biscuits are still food when they're not wet, so it's not number one, because number one is NOT food, and the biscuits still ARE food. Following?

The only other option is "uneatable." The biscuits, as we have established, ARE still food, and were called inedible. One option of "inedible," the word used to describe crackers, is not applicable, because that option is "NOT food" and the hardened biscuits ARE still food. That means the second option, uneatable, is the only one left.

Where is your proof of Cracker's words being true?

Oda did not say they were inedible.
Oda wrote Cracker saying it.

Know the difference.

Unless you're saying that it is 100% manga proof that Chopper is in fact the SH's pet..?
Oda wrote characters saying that too.. so it must be true.


Understand now?

 

[Punk Hazard]

Where is your proof of Cracker's words being true?

Oda did not say they were inedible.
Oda wrote Cracker saying it.

Know the difference.

Unless you're saying that it is 100% manga proof that Chopper is in fact the SH's pet..?
Oda wrote characters saying that too.. so it must be true.


Understand now?

Why would Cracker be incorrect about whether or not HIS biscuits can or can't be eaten? Doubting the validity of his statement is not as reasonable as believing it, especially since we never see Luffy being able to eat any biscuits unless Nami soaked them.

Luffy needed two Kong Guns to smash a biscuit, you think he's breaking an army of them with his jaw enough to fend them off? Be real, man.

 

[LBeezy]

Why would Cracker be incorrect about whether or not HIS biscuits can or can't be eaten? Doubting the validity of his statement is not as reasonable as believing it, especially since we never see Luffy being able to eat any biscuits unless Nami soaked them.

Luffy needed two Kong Guns to smash a biscuit, you think he's breaking an army of them with his jaw enough to fend them off? Be real, man.

We weren't even given a panel as to when or how the first biscuit was eaten.. we have no information on this whatsoever.

If you want to believe Cracker, then that's your gut feeling, but you have no manga proof to back up your "bowel" feeling, and it's the same as believing that Chopper is just the SH's pet.. since Oda wrote characters saying these things they must be true according to you and Love Cook.

I, however, am just looking at things logically.. even looking at the scan you provided, it supports my claim that Luffy didn't "need" Nami to beat Cracker.. the biscuits can be eaten regardless of being wet or dry, soggy or crisp, (this is common sense and logic here) since the biscuits are still biscuits with or without water..

The water from Nami was definitely a huge help, but it wasn't needed..

Again, Oreos and milk bro.

 

[Punk Hazard]

We weren't even given a panel as to when or how the first biscuit was eaten.. we have no information on this whatsoever.

Yes we do, from Cracker. No other information was given on the subject, so his word on his DF power is the best we've got.

If you want to believe Cracker, then that's your gut feeling, but you have no manga proof to back up your "bowel" feeling, and it's the same as believing that Chopper is just the SH's pet.. since Oda wrote characters saying these things they must be true according to you and Love Cook.

This is nowhere near the same thing. For one thing, we have evidence of the World Government being wrong about Chopper's status as a pet. We have no evidence that Cracker is wrong about his biscuits being uneatable unless the weakness is exploited.

Not only that, but the WG labeling Chopper a pet is an outside party's opinion/insight on Chopper, so they're limited by their ignorance. Cracker, on the other hand, made a statement about his own abilities. His word regarding his own powers are more credible than the WG's opinion on Chopper.

I am also not going on a gut feeling, because the manga explicitly says this with no indication that it's false. You're doing a god-awful job of trying to turn what I said about Katakuri back around, and you should definitely stop. If a character said "Katakuri's bounty means he's the strongest!!" then you'd be right to try this nonsense, but that's not the case. What I'm saying was explicitly said in the manga.

There's no logical reason to doubt Cracker's statement.

I, however, am just looking at things logically.. even looking at the scan you provided, it supports my claim that Luffy didn't "need" Nami to beat Cracker.. the biscuits can be eaten regardless of being wet or dry, soggy or crisp, (this is common sense and logic here) since the biscuits are still biscuits with or without water..

Where does that manga scan say this? What piece of dialogue in that scan is them saying that Luffy can eat the biscuits without them being wet?

Again, Oreos and milk bro.

This isn't the same, considering Oreos are edible while Cracker's biscuits were called inedible.

 

[LBeezy]

Yes we do, from Cracker. No other information was given on the subject, so his word on his DF power is the best we've got.

This is nowhere near the same thing. For one thing, we have evidence of the World Government being wrong about Chopper's status as a pet. We have no evidence that Cracker is wrong about his biscuits being uneatable unless the weakness is exploited.

Not only that, but the WG labeling Chopper a pet is an outside party's opinion/insight on Chopper, so they're limited by their ignorance. Cracker, on the other hand, made a statement about his own abilities. His word regarding his own powers are more credible than the WG's opinion on Chopper.

I am also not going on a gut feeling, because the manga explicitly says this with no indication that it's false. You're doing a god-awful job of trying to turn what I said about Katakuri back around, and you should definitely stop. If a character said "Katakuri's bounty means he's the strongest!!" then you'd be right to try this nonsense, but that's not the case. What I'm saying was explicitly said in the manga.

There's no logical reason to doubt Cracker's statement.



Where does that manga scan say this? What piece of dialogue in that scan is them saying that Luffy can eat the biscuits without them being wet?


This isn't the same, considering Oreos are edible while Cracker's biscuits were called inedible.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Punk Hazard]

You must be registered for see images

You were one of the few I was looking forward to having the whole Sweet Commander-Strawhat debates with. Shame to see you go full-blown retard.

 

[LBeezy]

You were one of the few I was looking forward to having the whole Sweet Commander-Strawhat debates with. Shame to see you go full-blown retard.

Your own manga scan proves you wrong and you know it..

Yes we do, from Cracker. No other information was given on the subject, so his word on his DF power is the best we've got.

All he says is that the water keeps turning them into delicious edible biscuits.. that's all.. no water = not delicious.. they're still going to be biscuits at the end of the day though right?

They're edible regardless..

He never ONCE says that they cannot be eaten unless there's water.. that it's impossible..

If so, please provide scan and crop out that panel for me..

This is nowhere near the same thing. For one thing, we have evidence of the World Government being wrong about Chopper's status as a pet. We have no evidence that Cracker is wrong about his biscuits being uneatable unless the weakness is exploited.

Not only that, but the WG labeling Chopper a pet is an outside party's opinion/insight on Chopper, so they're limited by their ignorance. Cracker, on the other hand, made a statement about his own abilities. His word regarding his own powers are more credible than the WG's opinion on Chopper.

I am also not going on a gut feeling,

Yes you are

because the manga explicitly says this with no indication that it's false. You're doing a god-awful job of trying to turn what I said about Katakuri back around, and you should definitely stop. If a character said "Katakuri's bounty means he's the strongest!!" then you'd be right to try this nonsense, but that's not the case. What I'm saying was explicitly said in the manga.

Lmaoooo

Bro

It's not once been stated in the manga..

Please show me where it says that.. because it's not in the scan we've been posting above..

There's no logical reason to doubt Cracker's statement.

Yes. Because no character ever hypes themselves up.. ever..

Where does that manga scan say this? What piece of dialogue in that scan is them saying that Luffy can eat the biscuits without them being wet?


This isn't the same, considering Oreos are edible while Cracker's biscuits were called inedible.

I'm honestly asking you where does it say this?


The water helped Luffy eat them.. of course.. during an eating contest, those who are allowed to have water by their side are usually able to eat more..

But tell me at what point does a hotdog or a pie or a biscuit become any less edible when you take away the water?

 

[Vandenre1ch]

Your own manga scan proves you wrong and you know it..





All he says is that the water keeps turning them into delicious edible biscuits.. that's all.. no water = not delicious.. they're still going to be biscuits at the end of the day though right?

They're edible regardless..

He never ONCE says that they cannot be eaten unless there's water.. that it's impossible..

If so, please provide scan and crop out that panel for me..

Yes you are

Lmaoooo

Bro

It's not once been stated in the manga..

Please show me where it says that.. because it's not in the scan we've been posting above..



Yes. Because no character ever hypes themselves up.. ever..




I'm honestly asking you where does it say this?


The water helped Luffy eat them.. of course.. during an eating contest, those who are allowed to have water by their side are usually able to eat more..

But tell me at what point does a hotdog or a pie or a biscuit become any less edible when you take away the water?

Dude...how are you not understanding this?

Cracker's biscuits are still FOOD. Its still a biscuit. However, they're so hard that they are practically inedible, as Riker/Slade/Howlett said earlier, "it took 2 Kong Guns to destroy Cracker's biscuit armor." When Nami used rain, they became EDIBLE and Luffy proceeded to eat them.

Even without COA, the normal soldiers were withstanding G4 Organ(gatling) and could march forward. Luffy would've lost to Cracker if Nami wasn't there. You just assume that Luffy could eat Cracker's hard biscuits...even though Luffy never tried to eat them until Nami made them soft. EVERYTHING points to Luffy needed Nami's help & can't eat the soldiers without her.

So again, as Howlett asked earlier, is Luffy's jaw strength>Kong Gun?

 

[LBeezy]

Dude...how are you not understanding this?

Cracker's biscuits are still FOOD. Its still a biscuit.

Exactly. Which means they can be eaten..

However, they're so hard that they are practically inedible, as Riker/Slade/Howlett said earlier, "it took 2 Kong Guns to destroy Cracker's biscuit armor." When Nami used rain, they became EDIBLE and Luffy proceeded to eat them.

So you're saying Nami's rain > Cracker's haki?

Even without COA, the normal soldiers were withstanding G4 Organ(gatling) and could march forward. Luffy would've lost to Cracker if Nami wasn't there. You just assume that Luffy could eat Cracker's hard biscuits...even though Luffy never tried to eat them until Nami made them soft. EVERYTHING points to Luffy needed Nami's help & can't eat the soldiers without her.

So again, as Howlett asked earlier, is Luffy's jaw strength>Kong Gun?

@bold I disagree.

 

[Vandenre1ch]

Exactly. Which means they can be eaten..



So you're saying Nami's rain > Cracker's haki?




@bold I disagree.

1. They cant be eaten by Luffy unless they are softened. Is Luffy's jaw>Kong Gun?

2. ?....who says the soldiers, SEPARATE from Cracker, were haki embedded? Only Cracker's armor had haki. This is another big assumption from you with nothing supporting and all the obvious evidence goes against you.

3. Well direct manga evidence says you're wrong & Cracker>Luffy.

 

[LBeezy]

1. They cant be eaten by Luffy unless they are softened. Is Luffy's jaw>Kong Gun?

2. ?....who says the soldiers, SEPARATE from Cracker, were haki embedded? Only Cracker's armor had haki. This is another big assumption from you with nothing supporting and all the obvious evidence goes against you.

3. Well direct manga evidence says you're wrong & Cracker>Luffy.

1. Manga scan? Manga proof?

I didn't think so.

Luffy's jaw > King Kong Gun?

What type of question is that?
How does one try and compare the two??

2. No one said anything like that.. I was asking you a question.. which you didn't answer..

3. Show me this "direct manga evidence"... Oh wait there isn't any..

Luffy > Cracker

And to get back on topic

Zoro > Cracker




Nice try Vandenre1ch.. although I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish.. lol

 

[ArabianLuffy]

Do you think Zoro is stronger than Luffy?

Luffy's big problem is sharp tools such as swords. If I have to measure strength in numbers, Luffy 100% while Zoro is 99% that is how I see them before Dressrosa. After Dressrosa, Looks like Zoro is 90% in comparison to Luffy. Keep in mind this is in the field of StrawHats. We're talking about non-other than StrawHats. The Athlete Kick Doffy did, didn't cut through Luffy's body. I think Gear4th gave Luffy upper hand against Zoro. But Zoro to me is a puzzle. Even giving Zoro 90% of strength in comparison to Luffy could change when we see what's gonna happen in Wano. His fight against Pica to me was nothing.