Sasuke Vs. Kimimaro

[Mut]

Originally posted by: MemnochTheCaT

Originally posted by: Mut@t@
The rock, paper, scissors theory doesn't apply to all cases, it's considered a weak theory to use it as a support for an argument or any type of discussion.

No more and no less than any other form of logic. And we've seen many examples of it already in Naruto, where say Naruto can beat Gaara, who beat Lee, who is getting beat by CS Kimi, who beat Naruto (or couldn't be harmed by Naruto).. nothing is really firm, so all theories are virtually as weak as one another.

We have 6 pages of people spamming each other with opinions on who would win on Sasuke vs. Kimi, but since (a)- they've never fought, (b)- they never will, (c)- the circumstances could vary (illness, curse level, amount of knowledge/training aquired, etc) .. It's BS to just hate on the Rock>Paper>Scissors example, because it's pretty open-ended and doesn't specify anything other than ambiquity.

I can say that I believe that Kimi would defeat Sasuke under most circumstances, but it's a waste of time to try to convince anyone of it, because none of us are Kishimoto, hence nobody knows what he would have HIS characters do in the event that his plot brought them against one another.

Sasuke > Kakashi > Itachi.

Theory owned.

Like I said, it's stupid to use r, p, s theory in a discussion. It's so random and nothing but a weak support. It doesn't prove anything.

[MemnochTheCaT]

Originally posted by: Mut@t@

Originally posted by: MemnochTheCaT

Originally posted by: Mut@t@
The rock, paper, scissors theory doesn't apply to all cases, it's considered a weak theory to use it as a support for an argument or any type of discussion.

No more and no less than any other form of logic. And we've seen many examples of it already in Naruto, where say Naruto can beat Gaara, who beat Lee, who is getting beat by CS Kimi, who beat Naruto (or couldn't be harmed by Naruto).. nothing is really firm, so all theories are virtually as weak as one another.

We have 6 pages of people spamming each other with opinions on who would win on Sasuke vs. Kimi, but since (a)- they've never fought, (b)- they never will, (c)- the circumstances could vary (illness, curse level, amount of knowledge/training aquired, etc) .. It's BS to just hate on the Rock>Paper>Scissors example, because it's pretty open-ended and doesn't specify anything other than ambiquity.

I can say that I believe that Kimi would defeat Sasuke under most circumstances, but it's a waste of time to try to convince anyone of it, because none of us are Kishimoto, hence nobody knows what he would have HIS characters do in the event that his plot brought them against one another.

Sasuke > Kakashi > Itachi.

Theory owned.

Like I said, it's stupid to use r, p, s theory in a discussion. It's so random and nothing but a weak support. It doesn't prove anything.

I never said it proved anything, but serves as a general guide to the rules of the naruto world, which BEGIN and END with the will of Kishimoto. And when did Sasuke ever defeat Kakashi? Anyways, it's not a rule, but you cannot say with absolute certainty, that because fighter A can defeat B, and fighter B can defeat C, that C cannot defeat fighter A. There are endless variables to deal with in terms of what is possible .. it's very ambiguous.

[Mut]

Originally posted by: MemnochTheCaT
And when did Sasuke ever defeat Kakashi?

Fuck. I meant Itachi > Kakashi > Sasuke.

Still r, p, s theory is stupid.