Board Thread:Versus Debates/@comment-36394790-20180824122210/@comment-34194151-20180830223709

@AsianReaper @Ninja of War

Science is an ongoing process, meaning we accept things as "Fact" until proven otherwise. Newton's theory's of mechanics and gravitiation were also observed and "proven" and yielded "reliable results", until later corrected by Einstein after a few centuries. It took scientists leading up to and culiminating with Einstein to get a better working theory that lines up with all the evidence. Even if newton himself wasn't sure of his theory, I'm sure you can find other examples throughout the history of science. The difference is, we will never get more info on shisui and izuna, they are empty data entries. If you have missing data, you label it as that, missing data. Until Kishimoto says otherwise, we go on what we can analyze. and what we can analyze suggests that double mangeyko= susano'o. Yeah, I was grasping at straws, but only to show that you can't possibly keep that logic consistent, because technically, we don't really know anything, the human experience relies on patterns to predict the future. It would be grasping at straws for me to claim that because scientists have been proven wrong before, nothing they say can be "true". My physics teacher once swang a bowling ball attached to a rope which was attached to the ceiling in the classroom, and assured us that when it swings like a pendulum, it would never come back to hit him in the head because of conservation of energy. When we questioned this, his counter-argument was that the theory of conservation has been proven "countless times", and there hasn't been yet an experiment that has refuted it, so therefore he was "confident and sure" that the bowling ball wouldn't suddenly gain more energy to hit him when it swings back. Sure enough, he was right, but he admitted we only know that because countless experiments have shown that to be the case. By the logic being used, here, you would be saying that the conversation of energy is a blanket statement.

In the translations I have read, itachi never stated that tsuykyomi and amaterasu were prereqs for all susanoo users, he only said that "on that fateful day, susano'o, the third power, emerged alongside tsyukoymi and amaterasu. In other words, he is speaking for himself. So yes, itachi's example isn't conclusive, but when combined with the other 3 examples, it doesn't refute anything. So that is still direct evidence that awakening both your MS eye powers grants you susano'o.

How does the ninjutsu argument not stand? Who do we have as evidence that the sharingan can copy ninjutsu? kakashi and young sasuke. No one else has commented about it and attempted to copy ninjutsu, so there is missing data. By your logic kid sasuke doesn't have authority (he only knows about sharingan because he was taught by his family) and kakashi is the only one who can copy ninjutsu with the sharingan because we have only seen him doing it. I must be missing something here, I genuinely don't understand the distinction here.

Additionally, kakashi can't use izanagi and izanami, you are right, there is no proof he can, but the difference is it's unlikely that he has knowledge on it in the first place. Just because someone gives you a computer doesn't mean you know how to use all the parts. I'm sure if obito taught him, kakashi would be able to use it.