LM Classic: Yraelz vs. feverish

Monkey ===== Logical-master's description and ideas of omnipotence serve as an example of overwhelming powers which would be considered god-like. If Logical had meant just omnipotence then he wouldn't have said, "not omni-potent character" instead of "no gods." Furthermore omni-potents is just defined as having unlimited or extreme powers in some aspects. Which means.... I throughout this debate give specific examples of how Monkey his supremely powerful, his ability to clone himself, " His staff can also multiply itself at will and fight for itself", "he now possesses "Xi Wangmu's "peaches of immortality", Lao Tzu's "pills of longevity"". However, my opponent, has never addressed why these attributes do not make him god-like or why these attributes don't make his supremely powerful. I've of course been poining this out since round 2, "My opponent does nothing to address any of my arguments against Monkey's substantial powers." and my opponent just keeps saying, "That's simply not true" followed by, "Monkey's powers being significantly less than his team in some areas." However he never does any comparison between monkey's powers and my team's powers. All he does is say that Sentry is pretty fast, and Black Alice can steal abilities. He never addresses any of the argumentation on how Monkey being able to replicate himself 84,000 times puts him far above the abilities of any other character. Not to mention he is also fast, and his hairs can literally turn into "anything" which includes replicas of Black Alice. And of course apparently Monkey can see through EVERYTHING. Finally my opponent argues that there is no better proof for Monkey being sub-godlike then having been beaten twice by gods. This would be a solid point excluding the fact that he beat the army of heaven before, which includes gods. So yeah, he was confined twice, but he also beat gods many times. Monkey has overwhelming powers, he's a god, he's basically omni-potent in many aspects. Street Level ======== Haha! There are two devastating arguments which were not adequately combated by my opponent. My opponent says that rules are defined to create fair play. Yes, this is true. However, he completely ignores my point which is that everyone interprets rules in different ways. Thus the debate turns out unfair by simply focusing on rules. Instead debaters should focus on how much fairness is afforded to both players irrespective of rules. This argument is never combated against, and while we're on the topic of fairness I think it would be wantonly unfair for my opponent to address this argument now that I won't have a chance to respond. He already an easy opportunity. The second mistake is my opponent's argumentation regarding how I start the battle by arguing he breaks rules. It's true I do this. However I'm not arguing he breaks rules and therefor should have Monkey excluded from the debate. I'm arguing that Monkey's powers are substantial enough to hinder the fairness of this fight and thus Monkey should be excluded. My argumentation does not center around superficial interpretations of rules, they center around how fair this fight is. Which means we reach my conclusion. My opponent had the ability from round one to choose any plus street level team. From the beginning there was a completely fair debate between us. He CHOSE to handicap himself, he took away his own FAIR portion of this debate and then tried to exclude my characters by saying I had done it. I think this is a pretty independent reason for vote for my team just based on the grounds of presenting fair debate. Negative One Sec =========== 1. Sentry is always 1 second ahead of the time line, thus he never travels through time. Similarly I am always 0 seconds ahead of the normal time line, thus I never travel through time. 2. Because of his inherent characteristic Sentry's actions allow his normal timeline equivalent to have a moment of reaction. 3. He never travels, he never starts early, he just gets to the start of the match first. Of course, if the judges don't believe this it just means he starts a second later. Sentry ==== 1. The sun sheds light. There is no reason why Dracula would not be susceptible to another sun's light. Both forms of light are generated by a mass fusion hydrogen reaction. Dracula is owned. 2. Dracula can't see Sentry. Sentry being faster than light isn't caught by light for it to reflect off him. Furthermore there is no precedent for Dracula's innate ability to just sense people. Otherwise Van Helsing sneaking into his castle multiple times would have been "sensed". But it doesn't matter because he's far too weakened by the sun. 3. Sentry's hard light constructs. I'm just winning this argument. My argument since round 1 has been that Sentry can create hard light constructs. My opponent decides in round four to respond. And his response is to say that I must offer proof. This would be some solid argumentation if I hadn't already done this in round 1..... In my fourth paragraph of round 1: "The void, as Sentry later figured out, was simply a creation of his own mind which he transferred into a real hard light construct." I go on to say that the void was such a powerful hard light construct that it killed millions of people. Furthermore I cited that Sentry's main power is that ability to manipulate light. Finally I've shown how he could fill New York city with such intense energy as to start a massive inferno. Which means this. I've stuck with the same position for four rounds and my opponent has done nothing to combat it. Sentry can create hard light constructs, and he can use them to kill people. Thus Sentry since round 1 has created a giant hard light construct which quickly slices through people. I've attempted to impress the direness of this strategy on my opponent for four rounds as it is simply devastating for his strategy. His characters can't move, can't see, and die. Yet my opponent has offered no argument which I didn't previously refute in round 1. If for some reason my opponent finally detects the direness of this situation in his next round and decides to make a bunch of new arguments, those should be immediately disqualified. I gave him ample chance. 4. Sentry never travels through the hard light. I said he lowers it before he moves in round 1. 5. If Sentry can manipulate light then he can pull light being reflected off Monkey straight into Black Alice's eyes. She gets Monkey's powers before he dies or can move. Other arguments by my opponent on this would also be brand new. Black Magic ======= 1. Sephiroth can be seen using magic during Final Fantasy advent children, and Final Fantasy 7. 2. Reflect can indeed be cast on other party members. http://finalfantasy.wikia.com...(Spell) Anyone who's played a final fantasy is aware of this. It is like any other support magic (such as cure) and be be cast on either enemy or friend. 3. I say in round 1 Sentry leaves after Sephiroth casts reflect. 4. All my arguments are straight from round 1. Sight === 1. The Monkey source clearly states, "Instead of killing him, the fire and smoke added to the monkey a pair of firy golden crystal eyes that can see through what people normally can not." This does not mean it is an absolute statement at all. For instance I could say that Sentry can do things normal people cannot and then note that he can't turn into a plane, but this doesn't mean Sentry can do everything else normal people cannot. In the same way the fact that Monkey can't see through smoke doesn't mean he can see through all other things. 2. None of my opponent's light filtering equipment would ever have dealt with something as powerful as a million suns of light. They don't work and probably fry due to extreme heat. Other arguments are superfluous in me winning this fight. Thanks all!