LM Classic: Yraelz vs. feverish

Ding! Ding! Ding! Round 4. Monkey. Pro: "My opponent still does nothing to address monkey's substantial powers" That's simply not true, having conceded his original semantic argument about the classification of a god, my opponent's assessment of Monkey's powers displays complete obliviousness to my points about Monkey's powers being significantly less than his team in some areas. As I have stated, Monkey's powers all have clear limitations and in no way could he be described as omnipotent. Observe the tournament master's clarification of the god-level restriction in the first tournament thread: LM: "By god, I mean people who are seemingly omnipotent. Essentially, people like Dr. Manhattan or the Living Tribunal or anyone who cannot really be defeated. In essence, Ganondorf and the Egyptian god cards would be acceptable. Being familiar with both "gods", I most certainly wouldn't rank them anywhere near the level of the gods whom I referring to. Heck, I wouldn't even put them on par with Dr. Strange." http://www.debate.org... Pro: "I don't think this ... proves monkey to be sub-god as he is bound by gods." What better proof that he is non-omnipotent than his eventual defeat at the hands of higher powers? _______ Street level. Pro: "My argument is that my opponent had every ability to compete with my character set and purposefully chose not to." My argument is that my opponent had every ability to abide by the rules and purposefully chose not to, whilst opening the debate with a rule-based attack on my team. Who granted me this "ability" to break the rules? My gracious opponent himself, in the same breath as he questions the legitimacy of my team. Pro: "this is the antithesis of having any kind of meaningful debate. Additionally I would say that this is a strategy that should be condemned on debate.org. I think this is particularly appalling in the light of the fact that my opponent even had a clear advantage over me" My opponent seems to be attempting to vilify my adherence to the rules and call me out for this vile transgression in front of our small online community. According to Pro, following rules (or at least certain rules, judged at his own discretion) is unfair and taking "advantage", whilst disregarding some rules to focus on others is the pinnacle of fair play. Pro: "But insofar as the rules in and of themselves are ambiguous and easily debatable I would argue that this is not a great criterion on which to judge this round. Instead the judges should focus on how much choices in the round inhibit a fair competition." By their definition, rules are designed to ensure "fair competition", they are supposed to be debatable but not disregarded on a whim. I think I have shown a clearer understanding (backed up by references) of the rules in this tournament than my opponent as well as a higher level of adherence to them, hopefully judges will consider this in their analysis. If my opponent honestly believes that for one moment I have regarded this confrontation as "an easy win" then I can only deduce that he is suffering from low self-esteem. Yraelz is a formidable debater with an awesome track record on this site and his team easily includes some of the best picks in this tournament. His false modesty doesn't fool me for a second. Pro ignores the fact that he acknowledged Alice's superiority over Ichi. ___ Negative one second. Pro: "Sentry's very being is such that he travels a second ahead of the normal time line" Thus time travel. I'm getting slightly bored of this bizarre word game from my opponent. Either Sentry "moves ahead of the time line" or "he reaches that point in time earlier", however creatively you describe it, it is not permitted by the rules. ____ Sentry. Pro: "Dracula is rather weakened by a single sun..... Sentry possess the powers of one million suns" Drac is weakened by "the sun". Our specific sun: http://en.wikipedia.org... However solar-powered Sentry may be, Sentry =/= the sun and Sentry's artificial light constructs =/= the sun. Pro:"Sentry, who we've established moves faster than light, would never be noticed by Dracula" Why not? Dracula is able to sense the presence of others, an energy source as strong as The Sentry would be hard to miss. Faster than light doesn't mean invisible, it means by the time you see it, it has moved on. Dracula doesn't need to see Sentry anyway, merely to sense his presence which would surely be inevitable as he is so powerful. I don't think my opponent has been entirely consistent in his description of the hard light construct(s) he has Sentry create or maybe my misinterpretation is partly down to grammatical errors such as "the lights acts as an impenetrable barrier". If Pro is really suggesting that Sentry can create such a field of hard light then I would like to see some evidence of this ability in the comics, as well as an explanation of how Sentry can pass through this "hard light" but others can not. Pro: "Sentry then channels light directly from Monkey...Sentry never even has to locate team Con" This seems somewhat contradictory. Overall, my opponent seems to be clutching at straws with his Sentry attack (his main strategy), having apparently dropped the mind wipe suggestion altogether and already made several wildly inaccurate assumptions about his most powerful character. ____ Black magic. Pro: "Sephiroth on the other hand simply casts reflect on everyone except himself. Reflect reverses negative magical effects after the original casting." Reflect can not be cast on others to protect them, it is merely a special move on the computer game that allows the character to bounce back missile type magic attacks from his foes. It is not listed as a power of his in the sources he presented in previous debates. Also Sentry is apparently long gone from Seph's vicinity by this point, especially if we were to accept the fallacious negative one second argument. ___________ Pro: "My opponent argues that Monkey can see through things other's [sic] cannot." That's not just my argument that's the specific quote from the sources and it comes across as an absolute statement, things he can not see through are specified; smoke, fog etc. _________ Pro: "Team con's heat sensory equipment is not calibrated to see through light or heat generated by multiple suns right on top of them." My opponent makes this unsupported blanket statement without responding to any of my specific explanations as to how these characters can still see his team. __________ Forgotten Pro: "My opponent does nothing to combat the fact that there are many different hard light constructs that looks exactly like my characters. I think this posses a problem." I think this presents a contradiction with my opponent's recent assertion that it is one field of hard light that Sentry creates. Obviously heat sensing, psychic awareness and the ability to see through illusions would make such decoys ineffective anyway. ______ The battle Pro asserts that he has stuck with his original strategy but I feel I have refuted it effectively, no matter how much he has modified it. He has not satisfactorily explained how Sentry could protect himself from a mind rape by Dracula, his exaggeration of the reflect spell notwithstanding. My opponent has offered no suggestion as to how Ichi and Seph could defend themselves from a Drac controlled Sentry, eleven Monkeys and my metal headed crew and with all due modesty, I believe the outcome of this battle to now be a forgone conclusion. Thanks. Con.