Pre enraged BoG SSJ2 Vegeta vs Fat Buu

[Natasha Romanoff]

Stop waffling and prove that Vegeta's statement isn't a generality.

Why would Vegeta's statement not be a generality? He's not saying "They solve things with our punches except me" or doesn't consider himself anything different from saiyans for this nonsensical paragraph to even take place?

At this point, unafortunately for you, the only thing you may shield is insistence from a wrong position. If you don't get it or think too much seriously on the reference and you are too slow to understand it, I can't help you (I would apologize if that's not the case, but that's the impression you gave me).

Bulma was wrong, so this argument is illogical. Honestly one of the worst takes you've had.

Bulma was wrong when it comes to Vegeta beating up on Beerus, can you prove her wrong when it comes to say that Vegeta can take care of someone who is too much strong for Buu?

A verbal warning, as to not make himself appear as bad as the aggressor [Buu] and better adhere to the environment he was in.

Juvenile in the sense that he was throwing a tantrum over the silliest of things. Whatever you want to call it, Buu was being a nuisance.

The only way this way can work is assuming that Buu would be all ears for Vegeta and that he would be willing to do it without putting a hand of him, can you prove this scenario can take place?

When someone throws a tantrum you can't expect anything but violent and histerical reactions so dialogue is not a good path and Vegeta is not a psycologyst.

Wrong. My scepticism comes from your lack of evidence in all areas of the discussion, not just feats. The statements you've selected for your argument have been semantic, irrelevant, and misunderstood due to you seeing things through a biased lens.

When you look at the overarching reason for Bulma's statement, it should be understood that she wasn't speaking from a position of knowledge. She had no idea how strong Beerus was, so her confidence was blind. When someone is speaking from a place of emotion rather than rationale, there's no reason to take what they're saying seriously on any level. It'd be disingenuous for you to think that your stance on this isn't disagreeable.

But, you don't stop yourself of repeating "Vegeta pre Enraged DiDN'T ProoF Anything". Can you prove I'm biased?

Bulma knows how strong Vegeta is. She at least knows that Beerus can trash on Buu, nobody other than Vegeta knew about Goku's defeat from them (everyone in the group) know that they don't stand a chance and were trying to stop him by not thinking regularly.

 

[Spiral-Force]

Why would Vegeta's statement not be a generality? He's not saying "They solve things with our punches except me" or doesn't consider himself anything different from saiyans for this nonsensical paragraph to even take place?

At this point, unafortunately for you, the only thing you may shield is insistence from a wrong position. If you don't get it or think too much seriously on the reference and you are too slow to understand it, I can't help you (I would apologize if that's not the case, but that's the impression you gave me).

So you admit it's a generality?

That's what can be inferred from your initial question. If so, then it'd be contradictory for you to call my position wrong.

It's unnecessarily stubborn to argue with an objective observation. Saiyans may usually solve problems with their fists, but not always. A straightforward, concise, and factual conclusion.

Bulma was wrong when it comes to Vegeta beating up on Beerus, can you prove her wrong when it comes to say that Vegeta can take care of someone who is too much strong for Buu?

Isn't that 'someone' Beerus? Look how that turned out...

The only way this way can work is assuming that Buu would be all ears for Vegeta and that he would be willing to do it without putting a hand of him, can you prove this scenario can take place?

When someone throws a tantrum you can't expect anything but violent and histerical reactions so dialogue is not a good path and Vegeta is not a psycologyst.

My position isn't that this form of punishment would be successful, but that it fits better than them having a brawl considering the circumstance they were in and Vegeta's avoidance of fighting. This isn't to say that Vegeta won't try to defend himself if attacked, but I see no rational argument for him being able to win.

But, you don't stop yourself of repeating "Vegeta pre Enraged DiDN'T ProoF Anything". Can you prove I'm biased?

When you're trying to paint something as logical, then it's natural to want to see evidence. I'm not here to be your buddy or sugarcoat things.

The better question is, how have you not been biased? You believe someone is capable of something, but have only brought forth a subjective and very counter-able argument. Yet you act like what you're saying is so obvious and reasonable, which is the underlying issue. If you were to say that it's just your opinion and that you understand why there'd be disagreement, that alone, would be vastly more mature than everything you've said up to now. But it appears that boat has sailed, and you intend to continue overestimating your argument.

Bulma knows how strong Vegeta is. She at least knows that Beerus can trash on Buu, nobody other than Vegeta knew about Goku's defeat from them (everyone in the group) know that they don't stand a chance and were trying to stop him by not thinking regularly.

It's just strange to see someone trying to infer anything from a false statement other than that it's false. You should've thought over this more before deciding to use this angle, because that's the least desirable position to be in.

Bulma was incorrect as to where Vegeta's power stands, that's it. There's no need to give artificial depth to a statement that was just flat out wrong.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

So you admit it's a generality?

That's what can be inferred from your initial question. If so, then it'd be contradictory for you to call my position wrong.

It's unnecessarily stubborn to argue with an objective observation. Saiyans may usually solve problems with their fists, but not always. A straightforward, concise, and factual conclusion.

How Vegeta expresses about the saiyans is how he feels himself to do the things, at the end, he is the one that is more prideful of his race as he is the prince. This is also shown in instances of how he explained to Trunks why Goku didn't ate the Senzu or him being pride when Goku rejected the Potaras to fight Kid Buu. Now you may be thinking "this is irrelevant" and maybe even response in an insistence from this, but is that he knows pretty well how saiyans behave quite well.

So if he knows how saiyans are, why would he do any different?

Isn't that 'someone' Beerus? Look how that turned out...

Yes, he (Beerus) is. Can you prove Bulma wrong with the idea of Vegeta beating on someone like Buu or would avoid this in an false attempt of actual succesfull?

My position isn't that this form of punishment would be successful, but that it fits better than them having a brawl considering the circumstance they were in and Vegeta's avoidance of fighting. This isn't to say that Vegeta won't try to defend himself if attacked, but I see no rational argument for him being able to win.

Vegeta was avoiding to fight Beerus until he could put the last resistance, he had no problem killing an octopus, so the Vegeta pacifist route is not the best one to take.

When you're trying to paint something as logical, then it's natural to want to see evidence. I'm not here to be your buddy or sugarcoat things.

The better question is, how have you not been biased? You believe someone is capable of something, but have only brought forth a subjective and very counter-able argument. Yet you act like what you're saying is so obvious and reasonable, which is the underlying issue. If you were to say that it's just your opinion and that you understand why there'd be disagreement, that alone, would be vastly more mature than everything you've said up to now. But it appears that boat has sailed, and you intend to continue overestimating your argument.

Gohan, Gotenks and Vegetto abused from Buu, even though of his regeneration, Beerus and Kid Buu does too with this same Buu. So he wouldn't do any better even with his speciality. Doesn't see how this counters anything.

I treat my opinion as a fact until someone proves it wrong or give pieces of evidence or references sources that makes me know I'm wrong, you've just offered things that either leads to my conclussion or doesn't have any significant meaning to make me thing I'm wrong.

I can understand someone if it may be disagree with me, but if the reasons behind are even logical to take into account and varying their behaviour because if they're being aggresive (for example, not saying you've been) it's clear that the anger is dominating them and are at their weakest when it comes to thinking. If I have to define your case, I would just call it as someone who insists a whole lot and it's too prideful to approve the case that it isn't wrong.

Having say that and to prove that I'm honest, the only user I can acknowledge on that regard and have made me know that I was biased is @FeatsofPower and he is gone. Even if I don't entirely agree with him.

It's just strange to see someone trying to infer anything from a false statement other than that it's false. You should've thought over this more before deciding to use this angle, because that's the least desirable position to be in.

Bulma was incorrect as to where Vegeta's power stands, that's it. There's no need to give artificial depth to a statement that was just flat out wrong.

Yes, she was wrong with Beerus, nothing proves it differently with Buu. That's like saying that just because Goku thought Gohan could beat Cell and Cell considers it an overstatement (without Cell knowing of his hidden potential as a SSJ2) he was plainly wrong, when not even Cell think it was exaggerated.

And before you ask me "what does this have to do with anything?" Well, I'm offering different pieces of reference as to how a case could be make to not make this whole conversation as something monotone and repetitive because it's clear that you wouldn't be on that position of doing things properly.

 

[Spiral-Force]

How Vegeta expresses about the saiyans is how he feels himself to do the things, at the end, he is the one that is more prideful of his race as he is the prince. This is also shown in instances of how he explained to Trunks why Goku didn't ate the Senzu or him being pride when Goku rejected the Potaras to fight Kid Buu. Now you may be thinking "this is irrelevant" and maybe even response in an insistence from this, but is that he knows pretty well how saiyans behave quite well.

So if he knows how saiyans are, why would he do any different?

None of this addresses my argument. You're essentially a walking fallacy at this point.

Yes, he (Beerus) is. Can you prove Bulma wrong with the idea of Vegeta beating on someone like Buu or would avoid this in an false attempt of actual succesfull?

Bulma's comparison was between Beerus and Vegeta. Since she was operating under the idea that Vegeta could take Beerus, the by-product of that line of thought is that Vegeta ought to be able to do better than those who tried and failed.

You're trying to isolate aspects of her faulty thinking for no reason. She was simply just wrong.

Vegeta was avoiding to fight Beerus until he could put the last resistance, he had no problem killing an octopus, so the Vegeta pacifist route is not the best one to take.

Strawman. And a poor attempt at reviving your contradictory talking point. In regard to the octopus, why didn't Vegeta straight up attack Buu as well?

Gohan, Gotenks and Vegetto abused from Buu, even though of his regeneration, Beerus and Kid Buu does too with this same Buu. So he wouldn't do any better even with his speciality. Doesn't see how this counters anything.

Each of those characters are far stronger than Vegeta, so this proves nothing in regard to Vegeta's chances.

I treat my opinion as a fact until someone proves it wrong or give pieces of evidence or references sources that makes me know I'm wrong, you've just offered things that either leads to my conclussion or doesn't have any significant meaning to make me thing I'm wrong.

I can understand someone if it may be disagree with me, but if the reasons behind are even logical to take into account and varying their behaviour because if they're being aggresive (for example, not saying you've been) it's clear that the anger is dominating them and are at their weakest when it comes to thinking. If I have to define your case, I would just call it as someone who insists a whole lot and it's too prideful to approve the case that it isn't wrong.

Having say that and to prove that I'm honest, the only user I can acknowledge on that regard and have made me know that I was biased is @FeatsofPower and he is gone. Even if I don't entirely agree with him.

This is just very bizarre and irrelevant chatter.

Treating an opinion as fact is a red flag. You openly admitting that that's what you do shows that you don't care for objectivity. Which explains your ignorance to actual logic and evidence.

Yes, she was wrong with Beerus, nothing proves it differently with Buu. That's like saying that just because Goku thought Gohan could beat Cell and Cell considers it an overstatement (without Cell knowing of his hidden potential as a SSJ2) he was plainly wrong, when not even Cell think it was exaggerated.

And before you ask me "what does this have to do with anything?" Well, I'm offering different pieces of reference as to how a case could be make to not make this whole conversation as something monotone and repetitive because it's clear that you wouldn't be on that position of doing things properly.

The problem with your reference is that Goku was right, while Bulma was wrong with the comparison that she made.

You're in a position where you're trying to squeeze everything you can out of a weak premise, and being unsuccessful each time. It's just peculiar to see someone so adamant about being a punching bag on the grounds of rhetoric. You don't debate in a way that is cerebral or productive.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

None of this addresses my argument. You're essentially a walking fallacy at this point.

Ah, yes, I have no argument to make. Therefore I wouldn't adress and clean my hands saying those kind of things.

Bulma's comparison was between Beerus and Vegeta. Since she was operating under the idea that Vegeta could take Beerus, the by-product of that line of thought is that Vegeta ought to be able to do better than those who tried and failed.

You're trying to isolate aspects of her faulty thinking for no reason. She was simply just wrong.

Yes, and the only reference of this is that Beerus can tank Buu and defeat him casually, what are you not comprehending about this or refusing to do so?

Strawman. And a poor attempt at reviving your contradictory talking point. In regard to the octopus, why didn't Vegeta straight up attack Buu as well?

Why didn't Vegeta just attacked Cell once he reached his Perfect form, as opposed to letting him finish Krillin, why Vegeta does talking before fighting the androids or pressumed about defeating Freeza before ever going to the fists, those kind of things are supposed (or at least the expected result of someone operating on their proper senses) to be responded without question, but still... If you believe that Vegeta has to forcefully go and attack to opponent for a fight to take place, I don't know what to tell you... you simply refuse to take things as how they're or simply are trying stretch this for you to say... "I was always right" But that's not how it works.

Each of those characters are far stronger than Vegeta, so this proves nothing in regard to Vegeta's chances.

Well, you again failed to comprehend due to your poor comprehension or lack of it. My point ain't in reference to Vegeta scalling to any of those characters, I don't even remotely what makes you think that. Still, as I respond everything and not let at half measures everything like you and offer actual pieces of evidence that can make the debate progress (as opposed to you) is that Buu's regeneration doesn't help if he's outclassed. If I have to explain you more concisely, just let me know, I have attended people with much more patience, but I've realized that you are an unique case.

This is just very bizarre and irrelevant chatter.

Treating an opinion as fact is a red flag. You openly admitting that that's what you do shows that you don't care for objectivity. Which explains your ignorance to actual logic and evidence.

The problem with your reference is that Goku was right, while Bulma was wrong with the comparison that she made.

You're in a position where you're trying to squeeze everything you can out of a weak premise, and being unsuccessful each time. It's just peculiar to see someone so adamant about being a punching bag on the grounds of rhetoric. You don't debate in a way that is cerebral or productive.

I don't think you're on position of telling me any of this, but for what is relevant to your argument... Well, you can prove me wrong with actual pieces of evidences and/or simply convince me in the proper way, problem is that you either have not tried to do it or have tried and failed miserably. You've decided to think "No, characters have to attack them before fighting therefore they have a brawl, even if this has not always been the case in DB", " Vegeta doesn't have any courage in fighting, therefore even if its Yamcha the one who make Beerus irritate he will not fight him", "Bulma was wrong in the thought of Vegeta taking on Beerus, therefore she was absolutely and completely wrong without being nothing left right and will always be wrong" "If characters never fought, they would have never fought" or things according to that, problem is that your evidence is quite unsufficient to actually make a proper conclussion or simply refuse of how things are

So SSJ Gohan was stronger than Perfect Cell according to your wrecked mind? Does Cell has any type of clairvoyance to even know that Goku was talking about his SSJ2 to make the false conclussion of "Goku was completely right" (which he was, but Cell took as if he was talking about SSJ Gohan) as something functional?

 

[Spiral-Force]

Ah, yes, I have no argument to make. Therefore I wouldn't adress and clean my hands saying those kind of things.

Yes, and the only reference of this is that Beerus can tank Buu and defeat him casually, what are you not comprehending about this or refusing to do so?

Yet again, you're unable to actually counter. No sense of coherency either.

Why didn't Vegeta just attacked Cell once he reached his Perfect form, as opposed to letting him finish Krillin, why Vegeta does talking before fighting the androids or pressumed about defeating Freeza before ever going to the fists, those kind of things are supposed (or at least the expected result of someone operating on their proper senses) to be responded without question, but still... If you believe that Vegeta has to forcefully go and attack to opponent for a fight to take place, I don't know what to tell you... you simply refuse to take things as how they're or simply are trying stretch this for you to say... "I was always right" But that's not how it works.

This doesn't weaken my argument. If anything, it reinforces it.

Vegeta is capable of reading a situation and conversating before physical exertion comes into play. Great, I knew that from the start.

Well, you again failed to comprehend due to your poor comprehension or lack of it. My point ain't in reference to Vegeta scalling to any of those characters, I don't even remotely what makes you think that. Still, as I respond everything and not let at half measures everything like you and offer actual pieces of evidence that can make the debate progress (as opposed to you) is that Buu's regeneration doesn't help if he's outclassed. If I have to explain you more concisely, just let me know, I have attended people with much more patience, but I've realized that you are an unique case.

The point flew over your head. Spouting your opinion regarding the quality of Buu's regeneration is fruitless when the person he's fighting isn't on his level. You say you don't like repeating yourself, yet at this stage you're just attempting to rehash your failed talking points by pivoting when you can't directly counter the argument at hand.

I don't think you're on position of telling me any of this, but for what is relevant to your argument... Well, you can prove me wrong with actual pieces of evidences and/or simply convince me in the proper way, problem is that you either have not tried to do it or have tried and failed miserably. You've decided to think "No, characters have to attack them before fighting therefore they have a brawl, even if this has not always been the case in DB", " Vegeta doesn't have any courage in fighting, therefore even if its Yamcha the one who make Beerus irritate he will not fight him", "Bulma was wrong in the thought of Vegeta taking on Beerus, therefore she was absolutely and completely wrong without being nothing left right and will always be wrong" "If characters never fought, they would have never fought" or things according to that, problem is that your evidence is quite unsufficient to actually make a proper conclussion or simply refuse of how things are

This is supposed to be a debate, not a competition of who can endlessly strawman the other person. Learn how to argue and prep.

So SSJ Gohan was stronger than Perfect Cell according to your wrecked mind? Does Cell has any type of clairvoyance to even know that Goku was talking about his SSJ2 to make the false conclussion of "Goku was completely right" (which he was, but Cell took as if he was talking about SSJ Gohan) as something functional?

This is bottom of the barrel stuff. It appears you're not up to the task of responding to the actual argument I made, but rather, your twisted version of it.

You seem to enjoy getting owned. If that's what you're into, then throw some more wacky ideas at me and I'll gladly put you in your place again.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

@Spiral-Force

You talk too much about "counter" but you've done nothing to disprove me in either case. It's too way immaturate from you to think that with constant lies you disproves other person and much less "own" that someone. No, you're nowhere near close when it comes to beating me.

You gotta be drugged if you think that Vegeta was thinking clearly with Freeza or the androids... Specially when Trunks had to constantly gave him advice and in both occasions he has the mindset of SSJ being invincible... in Freeza's case, he also got surprised that his max powered attack was deflected and lost any type of hope of fighting. In Cell's case, he still thought he would be easy to manage and doesn't look like anything special, just to be proven wrong again. If you've lost your senses, then I can at least give you the benefit of the doubt if not, it's for sure that I can't believe in you any longer.

Well, you've done nothing to say that Buu can't be outclassed even having regeneration, Vegeta say that he would beat him up, Bulma reinforces it and that saiyans solve things with their fist as their particular style, just your narrative preferences once and once again; with nothing else backing up.

Now as I can expect from an absolute jackass, Vegeta didn't even went to fight Beerus but he talk before doing it... therefore he is not willing to fight. What kind of logic can I made from that? In DB is weird is unusual if characters talk before fighting, don't get confused, someone talking doesn't mean he wouldn't eventually attack.

Now, how was Goku right regarding Gohan if Cell doesn't believe him as he is (SSJ Gohan), but believes that he doesn't lack that much of credibility?

 

[Spiral-Force]

@Natasha Romanoff

It's abundantly clear that you're not down for a proper debate anymore. Your response demonstrates a blatant attempt at pivoting, relying on strawman, immature comebacks, and inaccurate observations. You got ragdolled and have nothing left in the tank, so your coping mechanism is to fabricate a made-up version of what I said and respond to that as opposed to the actual argument.

The worst combination is when someone lacks fundamental debating skill AND is unwilling to level up. The floor is yours, get your final delusional response in. And settle with mediocrity being your ceiling.

 

[Natasha Romanoff]

@Spiral-Force

I don't think anyone is while debating with you for too long, you go for cheap and childish tactics every now and then. I don't have to level up, you have, if you really think the way you are I recommend you to read more often or something that excercise your mind, if not you're on your limit. Are you going to be honest this time or are just shittalking like you often do?

The question is, what do YOU have to offer at this point? You're the one that tried to build a Vegeta > Buu narrative while I took the sceptical position due to you lacking evidence. If you still have more to say or want to summarise your final thoughts, then go ahead.

 

[ahill1]

Damn, this is going since February. You guys may be best buddies already, keeping in touch for so long.