Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have a problem with the dubbed "Pym's Law."

It contraditcs with real life ways of solving problems, which relate to our debates. I'll use the example of a case in the eyes of the law.

Plaintiff: Jimmy Jong
Defendant: Billy Bob
Witness: Home Dog

Jimmy Jong has accused Billy Bob of a serious crime. One that if found guiltly, he could end up with a 10 year sentence in the slammer. However, there is not enough evidence to prove that he overall committed the crime. Therefore, a witness is brought to the scene.

Witnesses can make all the difference, and I will soon explain how they correlate to my overall point. Home Dog submits his opinion, seeing as he saw what happened, and knows the truth.

The judge, opposing lawyer, nor the jury know first hand that the defendant in fact did commit the crime, but they have to take Home Dog's word, seeing as he is the only one who knows what happened (for this scenario, Home Dog is in fact telling the truth, and not twisting evidence).

Home Dog is able to display his views clear enough that it is overall concluded that Jimmy Jong is correct, and Billy Bob in fact did commit the crime.

----------------------------

Now, I'll get to how witnesses relate to the debates we do all the time.

A witness represents something that supports a pending fact.

Now, let's say that Pym's Law is in effect for a scenario where someone claims that Character A can lift at least 500 tons, when in fact they have only been shown to be able to life 250 tons.

Character B, someone who knows Character A very well, claims that over the past year, Character A has more than doubled his overall strength.

If we apply Pym's Law 100%, Character B's words mean absolutely nothing, and we are stuck with Character A at the previous 250 tons.

This is where I strongly oppose.

We have to include all supporting facts (in this scenario being Character B's claim of more than doubled strength). Not including supporting facts, and merely going by what we see is being blindsided and biased.

I only agree with "Pym's Law" when there is no supporting evidence to prove a point otherwise.

As I just said, that's completely disregarding supporting facts.

Frieza, someone who only has a mere fraction of Goku's power, blows up planets in his sleep.

And Majin Buu, someone who Goku outmatches by a decent amount, went around the galaxy destroying planets just for the hell of it . . . effortlessly.

Goku outpowers both of those people. Saying that Goku couldn't destroy a planet after looking at those points is just plain biased.

Sometimes, when you can't find a whole, you just put two and two together. It's a simple rule of logic that can easily be applied here.

Again some one will bring up the fact that in the Manga and the Anime Goku has in fact NEVER blown up PLANETS. This is a lack of evidence that is rock solid, if Goku did something like that then it would be cut and dry 100% unbreakable. I personally beleive that Goku can in fact Blow a planet up, he has the power to do so. But I can't say it is a 100% given fact because he never has done so. It becomes an opinion not a rock solid fact.

You can make a comparison in power between two characters but it is not as ROCK SOLID as if the character actually did what was being said. My case in fact is when trying to make a comparrison between two always go for the ROCK SOLID accounts. They can not be disputed, Goku's 40 ton limit in SSJ1 form was blown out of the water because we able to prove in the Anime that he showed the ability to move and destroy more than 100,000 tons of material. That is a Undisputable FACT. There is always some amount of DOUBT when the character has not done something people say he can do. Me I believe Goku could blow up the planet Roshi and Picollo both blew up the moon from Earth, Goku is far greater in power to each of them and he has more power than Roshi with the Kamehameha. Even saying that Goku could just blow up a planetoid the size of the moon would render most of EARTH unihabitable. (This is an UNDISPUTED fact. Roshi Kamehameha can blow up the moon, Goku's Kamehameha is far greater in Power so Goku can at least blow up the MOON, in doing so could destry a large enough chunk of the earth to kill every single person on it.)

Jesus Christ, people, this thread had nothing to do with Goku's ability to blow up a planet! Does every thread have to turn into a DBZ argument?!

Could we start talking about the point system? I for one think it's an interesting idea, but it will probably get neglected and left in the dust after a few threads.

I'm very much for this point system, but I'm MORE interested in Pym's benchmarks for characters...I think it's VITAL that we have an established level for the characters we argue, so we can avoid dozens of pages of bickering.