Re: (DrProof) Raikiri's Extirpating Aptitude
The moment I read this whole paragraph, I said to myself, "Here we go again. Another piece written by a thesaurus junky." So many words within this piece are written out of context.
Originally Posted by DrProof
I understand that there is a division between many people due to the debate between Raikiri's capability to counter or negate Kirin, but the author using the word "subsection" does not describe the division between the debate. We have no division within a division regarding the stance of the people that participate in this debate.
The author used the word "binomial" to describe both Raikiri and Kirin, and I do not see any relationship between the two jutsus that can regard them to be binomial. Within the mathematical context, the written language will only make sense if "binomial" was used for the addition or subtraction of the two jutsus. In example, "The argument that sets apart the Kakashi aficionados from the Sasuke fanatics is the binomial effect of adding (or possibly subtracting) Raikiri and Kirin when these two jutsu clash in their full potential."
Then, the author mentions, "Raikiri canonically stated to have extirpated a lightning bolt." Upon reading further, the author only states that "Maito Gai astonishingly stated Kakashi severed a lightning bolt with said technique." Please... PLEASE... there is a difference between a canon and an account. The word "Canonically" does not apply as it was only an account of Maito Gai and not a widely accepted dogma by all shinobis (nor even for all the fanbase yet). Furthermore, as the author continues "canonically" with the word "stated," then there should be a general rule not an account that proves his statement. The aforementioned sentence started my judgment that this is clearly an annoying writing.
This is not where the slaughter of many of the words' context ends. I mean seriously, did he just say "bystanders"? Bystanders are spectators, watchers or witnesses of an event. We have seen the use of Raikiri and Kirin on separate episodes of battle, but Kishimoto never illustrated a battle between Kakashi and Sasuke in which Raikiri and Kirin are used against each other. None of us can possibly a spectator nor a witness of such event. As a writer, the word "observers" will suffice.
Moving along, the author writes "for said threads construction." I can bet that other readers were thrown off from this phrase. Before this phrase is introduced, there was no aforementioned thread to to begin with, but rather it comes after this phrase. That tense threw me off which then leads me to question his use of the word "construction." But then fortunately for us, that word was used correctly.
At least, the author did come up with a thesis! Woohoo for us, the author learned something from his writing classes: to write the focal argument of his piece. Then, what was that? A colon? Oh my gosh, he actually learned how to use it too! HOWEVER, his thesis becomes confusing. As the author uses the phrase, "invalidly cannot," this double negative makes it harder for everyone to understand the argument. Additionally, as the author writes "insistently deluding canonical evidence," the two words smack-dab in the middle bother me. The word "deludes/deluding" is used meaning to deceive, but the author fails at recognizing the fact that the direct object of this verb must be a person that is deceived not a thing that is misconstrued. Also, refer to the third paragraph above to read about the author's fallacy for the use of the word "canonical."
But wait, there's more! This guy unduly uses a quote from Albert Einstein, in which Mr. Einstein's quote does not provide evidence nor support his argument. What I see now is a moron who demands respect by portraying himself as an authority of knowledge much like Albert Einstein, thus a doctor of proof from his username DrProof.
In conclusion, your evidence and argument is enough. Just make sure to throw out your style of writing in the garbage.