Now he will say "infinite Goku lose to another infinite being cuz of plot🤡", which will again fall into "Appeal to plot" fallac
1 month ago (edited) | 1
It's only the db editors that have the most fire edits..only to be just biased and childish..not to mention many of these db editors (not all of them) get angry at other editors for doing their own thing and they get mad because they make their own takes that ACTUALLY contains facts
1 month ago (edited)
| 0
This man glazez more then bdclashers and i thought that was impossible
1 month ago
| 0
I get it when current Goku is immersble speed. But ssj Goku is immersble?? ☠️☠️ yeah, bro, it is definitely overglazing 😑
1 month ago
| 0
Bro You just using agruement without ant proof Can you prove that it is an hyperbole or something like that. Can you debunk that guidebook which was even akira toriyama said it is more credible. U just using using agruement without any proof. Plus u forget that toriyama don't wastes his time on battering nonsense
1 month ago
| 3
SINIXT3R
Most fallacious clown who always suck to weakku diq @KakarotScales09
Let's neg this guy.
Saying "immeasurable" means infinite is actually the assumption fallacy because it takes an ambiguous statement and stretches it to an extreme conclusion without supporting evidence. In Dragon Ball, when characters say something is immeasurable, it typically means:
Beyond what current tools or characters can measure (like scouters breaking when power gets too high).
Far stronger than expected (like how Krillin and others react when Goku surpasses their comprehension).
If "immeasurable" truly meant infinity, then:
Super Saiyan 1 Goku would already be infinitely strong, making later transformations meaningless.
No one could ever surpass anyone because infinity is the highest possible value.
Statements like "Beerus is stronger than Goku" wouldn’t make sense, since both would be "infinite."
Since Dragon Ball clearly maintains comparative power scaling, we can logically conclude that "immeasurable" just means too big to conveniently count, not infinite.
So, the real fallacy would be assuming "immeasurable" must mean infinite without considering how the series actually treats power.
1 month ago | [YT] | 8