Board Thread:Versus Debates/@comment-36394790-20180824122210/@comment-34194151-20180830235840

I think your a good debater, and the logic you use on what defines proof is sound, and you use healthy skepticism, but what I'm trying to say is that even that has its limits, because at the end of the day we all rely on pattern recognition in the absence of absolute fact. What I'm not understanding is, How much evidence do you need to confirm that what sasuke says is true? Even if Izuna and shisui were stated to have a susano'o, how would that be proof in your eyes? In order to be sure, you would have to take all the MS users in history, and that is impossible. So we will never have a complete data-set. so if the feats aren't enough, then how do we debate anything? Reasonable doubt is what I'm getting at here. Why does the lack of data on shisui and izuna produce reasonable doubt? I I'm genuinely trying to understand. Is there a statistical likelihood that the 4 susano'os we saw were just randomly awakened by chance? or is there some concept in debating/logic that I'm neglecting. Because most good claims in debates here are used through calculated inferences with a mix of some facts, but obviously there is still a level of opinion. I understand the danger of blanket statements (when i think of blanket statement, I think of someone saying that all susano'o have the same durability, when nothing has really confirmed that), but I don't see a reason why anyone who says sasuke's statement is valid would be in the wrong, they aren't like 100 percent right, but then it wouldn't be a debate at that point.