@Long:
Who would really miss diamanté , if he is actually dead.
I've missed him every chapter since that cheating one legged bastard claimed victory over him.
The gravestone did all the work.
Also Diamante just slipped, it could happen to anyone.
…sigh, I miss sadistic Steven Tyler.
A flag with the flag flag fruit. Giving it the ability to flap in the wind.
Yeah but like, the best fucking flag flappin you ever seen.
You know when Oda, in one of the SBS, said that if a human ate the Human-Human fruit he would become somekind of perfect human or enlighted? Same thing.
Greatest flag ever, shining like a light house for the whole world to see.
@Monkey:
No it wasn't.
People have been theorizing the WG was the final villain for ….yeah a literal decade now more or less.
There's nothing clear about that actually.
1. They're not like brothers whatsoever.
2. Blackbeard is an evil D. Luffy is a good D.
3. Blackbeard is an evil pirate. Luffy is a good pirate.
4. "Pirate" isn't a sports team, there's nothing about pirates that suggests they have natural "on the same side" thing going on.Why has Oda been building him up as a mega villain for the better part of 15 years?
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Pretty much one of the least debatable things in the series.
Like regardless of when you think they'll fight, or if they're the last villain group or not, there is really zero arguing that they are intended on duels. Zero.This panel does not exist. Also amazing! So 11 people and 11 people is foreshadowing! Hmm, no why don't you believe the same thing for the Strawhats then? Who are going to be 11?
And you imagine the outcome of this to be...what?
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
This clashes heavily with even the little we know about them.
1. Nothing suggests they're just stuffy bueracrats, the same five men have been ruling since at least as long ago as Robin's flashback and haven't been shown to age. Nor were mentioned by other old characters in any of their "our generation" spiels.
2. They have scars and weapons.These are characters with pasts and motives beyond just "suits in power".
That doesn't mean they'll be arc villains with one on one duels.
The Ghandi esque person does hold a weapon so he's destined to fight in the future (unless Oda completely subverts this possibility…, there are some fanboys who hypothesis that Zoro will defeat him.... which is absurd at the moment given we have no facts of his abilities at the moment, simply asinine.... ).
I wouldn't mind the idea that these 5 individuals have been using some sort of substance or fruit that helps keep their age at a certain point. It's just that this series is rife with fighting and seeing some interesting individuals who are at the highest end of the totem pole not fighting... would be unique and interesting. Having them just as bureaucrats would be nice.
If they were to be in a combat situation sometime in the future I do hope that it will not be the usual One Piece 1 vs 1:getlost: one of the things that have become increasingly stale over the last couple of years with One Piece. (p.s if you haven't seen LOGH, I highly recommend to you and everyone else who hasn't).
Well yeah. He's acts like a goofball. He can't possibly be the final villain! And he's fat!
@Monkey:
Who the hell is Ned Gutters?
I'm not even doing that as a diss or whatever, who are you?? You're talking about people noticing you not posting, and I have literally never heard this username before.
Ned is a professor of logic. He is above seeking 'attention'(what?!). You can ask him to arbitrate between our arguments if you have doubts concerning what I say. He won’t wrong you if you are right. If I happen to be wrong, he won’t hesitate to point that out in my argument, and when he does so, I thank him for that because he only helped me get closer to the ‘truth’. Everyone – yes, everyone without any exception – is fallible, and there's no shame in that. As a matter of fact, this is considered a principle of intellectual conduct for effective discussion.
One more thing, when he points out that I am wrong, he doesn’t cite his authority as justification for that. He adheres fully to the principles of logic and proceeds to provide good reasons structured logically in his argument.
If his argument appeared to you somehow bizarre, he is most likely ‘joking’. He does that from time to time as evidenced by his joke of Bartolomew’s ‘barometer’(haha).
The problem in your arguments is that you attack your interlocutor directly and conclude from that that his argument is nonsense, bullshit or some other variant. This method of argumentation is taboo in the domain of logic, so you can understand now why he doesn't approve of it. Don't you notice that in my arguments with you (whether they are wrong or right) I do not attack you directly? The moment I attack you would be the moment I provided a bullshit argument.
Listen, man, bashing people won’t solve the problem, it will only further escalate it. If your intention is to make your interlocutor look stupid, my intention is to get closer to the ‘truth’. I don’t care about victories. If you want a victory, I will give you one. But your loss if far greater than your gain. ‘Truth’ and ‘victory’ are not necessarily one and the same. You can win the argument by just creating the ‘impression’ that your argument is sound, while it isn’t objectively.
If your intentions are to persuade me, then your arguments have hardly any 'probative weight'. I do not know if you are aware of this, but you spend like ¾ of your post dedicating it into negatively expressing your subjective opinions about your interlocutor. That’s irrelevant to the discussion (off-topic). For instance, we are talking about the final villain, but your interlocutor is not relevant to this in any way, unless he or she has good reasons to be the final villain of One Piece. Furthermore, it is absolutely disrespectful to the highest degree. You are basically just bashing people. It’s really problematic. I mean, seriously, am I supposed to be convinced that my belief is wrong because of what you think of me? That's then a bad approach of argumentation. Also, using the ridicule rhetoric in order to make me feel the social pressure of being laughed at doesn’t work either. The only thing that works is an argument that adheres to the principles of logic, and the principles of logic stand firmly and strictly against arguing the ‘arguer’ instead of the ‘argument’.
If I am wrong, then I would be happy to be wrong; however, I must be proven wrong through ‘good reasoning’. Once I detect a fallacious reasoning, an invalid argument, a poorly grounded argument, an unsound argument, or some argument that violates the principles of logic in some way, then there is a good chance that I will not be convinced, and I point out to my interlocutor, who happens to be you in this case, that there is a certain problem in the argument. Why do I do that? In order to look down on you? No. And I told you that before. I do it to justify my disagreement with your argument. I don’t accuse your argument of logical fallacies when there are none. I can explain to you why and how there were fallacies in your arguments all the way to the basic structure of the argument if you so wish.
@Galaxy:
And you're getting this from what, the one time Luffy reacted to Sakazuki's name on Fishman Island?
Luffy very clearly has a dislike for Teach as well, and has shown that disdain much more than he has for Sakazuki.
! http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Os60zeG1E0Q/VjKcIQrCulI/AAAAAAAFwS0/WWc7ud8UsHI/s16000/0543-014.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Q6Kdh0K3y2A/VjLJRi1cX8I/AAAAAAAGAIw/G-tc5Mo1Vno/s16000/0720-011.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f6GCnvfShX0/VjLL4JYW0NI/AAAAAAAGBHY/8M86tsl1Hzs/s16000/0720-012.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SIuasWTxERU/Vxkidepbg3I/AAAAAAAJaFQ/hi5bftp9VE0qguX1WYgHqfssIzNC526wQCHM/s16000/0824-007.png
Actually, Galaxy, Angel compared Luffy’s reaction to Blackbeard and Akainu on the same chapter. You, on the other hand, compared Luffy’s reaction to Blackbeard at the beginning of the Dressrosa’s arc with his reaction to Akainu at the denouement of Fishman Island’s arc. That's not the same thing.
The author meant for that comparison to be made that way. Even the chapter was named 'two changes you need to know about'. Once Jimbei mentioned Akainu to Luffy, he glared and held his thoracic wound. On the other hand, when Teech was mentioned, Luffy was eating nonchalantly.
I personally believe Akainu will be an antagonist after Blackbeard's defeat. Among many other reasons, I will tell you this:
A fight with Blackbeard will only deal fixable damage to Luffy. However, a fight with Akainu, is likely to leave Luffy missing some bodily part. One hit from Akainu left Luffy bearing a wound of his chest for eternity. So it stands to reason to expect similar results from a fight against Akainu. A fight that could leave Luffy missing a limb or something is best left for the finale, in my view, because after such a tumultuous war, I don't expect Luffy to engage in any more battles, given that his freedom will have been gained through the downfall of the WG. I can already see counter-arguments using Kyros and Shanks, and that's why what was suggested was 'my view'.
@Galaxy:
This final villain discussion also has very little to do with hatred anyways. Blackbeard is the direct antithesis of Luffy with a direct connection to the overarching plot. That is what makes him the final villain, not some nonsensical Shonen hatred trope. That is why Sakazuki has no chance.
Being the antithesis of the protagonist is not a reason of guarantee that Teech will be the final antagonist. In this regard, we have seen, in a different story, a similar character who didn’t turn out to be the ultimate antagonist, haven’t we?
In Naruto, Obito was the antithesis of Naruto. He has been built up meticulously for many volumes and, at some point, most of us have been caught in the hype train back then, and thought that Obito would be the final antagonist. Even when he absorbed the ten tailed monster and became its host, we thought that we were dealing with the final antagonist. It turned out the final antagonist was Sasuke, after Kaguya, who was after Madara.
With this precedent, it's understandable why a person can doubt the notion that being the antithesis is evidence for being the final antagonist.
In any case, Galaxy, is there any other reason for believing Blackbeard is the final antagonist? I am curious to read some good reasoning on this matter.
@Monkey:
That's still at least identifiable faces even if it's a problem. It's less terrible than the completely terrible "World Government" suggestion.
@Monkey:
The World Government is not a character.
@Monkey:
Because final villain discussion really is about that. About specific characters. The WG and it's various internal bits will unquestionably be involved in the final WAR.
But that war in classic shonen fashion will boil down to one on one fights, at the least with Luffy fighting somebody.
And that's really what we're talking about here.
World Government as you're saying is broad, that's exactly the problem with suggesting it.
By both the mere suggestion of the WG in my argument and the suggestion of the Gorosei (a team) in the poll, I thought it was obvious that the word ‘villain’ is not used in the sense of a ‘character’. It is used to describe an ‘evil antagonist’(at least, in my argument, if not in the poll). The usage of the word villain outside the scope of a ‘character’ is not incorrect. In fact, it is perfectly okay to use it like that.
Here is the evidence:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/villain
1.2The person or thing responsible for specified problems, harm, or damage: the industrialized nations are the real environmental villains’
As you can see here, the word ‘villain’ is used as the subject complement of the ‘nations’.
Here’s another proof:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/villain
Simple Definition of villain
Such usage manifests itself here as well.
Heck such usage has even found its way into the idiomatic usage of the English language:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/the-villain-of-the-piece
The person or thing responsible for all of the trouble or harm in a particular situation: TV tends to be cast as the villain of the piece.
See how ‘villain’ is used to describe ‘TV’ as the thing responsible for trouble/harm etc.
Sure, I am using ‘villain’ to refer to the antagonist, but does that mean the antagonist must be a ‘character’? No – absolutely NO.
Now, let’s talk about the antagonist:
While it is true that the antagonist can often be the character who opposes the main character around whom the story revolves(protagonist), it is not always the case. The antagonist in a story can be a character, a group of characters, an organization, a monster (Godzilla) – heck, it can be a mountain, a natural disaster, a setting, a society, and so on and so forth. Nowhere is it mentioned that an antagonist has to be a ‘character’ in a story.
For solid evidence on this matter, consult this link:
http://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/what-if-your-antagonist-isnt-person/
Here’s another:
http://fantasy-faction.com/2011/non-human-antagonists
In Detective Conan, the main antagonist is an organization called ‘the Black Organization’.
http://www.detectiveconanworld.com/wiki/Black_Organization
The Black Organization (黒の組織 Kuro no Soshiki?) serves as the main antagonist in the series. It is a secret criminal syndicate with a hidden objective. To achieve that goal, the Black Organization commits various crimes to maintain its secrecy, remove obstacles, and gather funding and resources for its mysterious research projects. I made this copiously clear by shifting back and forth between these two words (villain & antagonist).
! @Australopithecus:
! > @Monkey:You say this like the World Government as a whole system would be the enemies of the Strawhats as the final villain. Which is obviously untrue given the whole Marine civil war plot line Oda's been building since forever.The Marines in the final period are pretty obviously going to burst down the middle in some fashion with people like Smoker, Coby, and formers like Aokiji on one side. And people like Akainu, Onigumo and government agents like Spandam on the other
So the idea that the WG will be the final villain is untrue because Oda has been building a marine civil war plot line, huh. And this impending civil war is indicated by what exactly? Smoker, Fujitora, Coby, & Aokiji's disapproval of some of the methods implemented by the world government? How does this (if it is this) guarantee the happening of this civil war?
Let's suppose this marine civil war will truly happen, are Coby, Smoker, Aokiji, and even Fujitora an adequate military power to win that war? They are at best two admirals, one vice admiral, & god-knows-what military rank Coby has now (but I am sure as heck it isn't an admiral rank YET) against two admirals (Green Bull and Kizaru), a fleet admiral (Akainu), possibly a former fleet admiral (Sengoku), dozens of vice admirals, rear admirals, commodores etc. That looks like a lost battle.
Let's just say they somehow won that civil war despite their very low chances of victory against the other powerful individuals (some of whom are of the same level and others of an even higher one), how would their victory not make the government the final antagonist?
So it is perfectly correct to suggest the government as the final antagonist.
Did you spend all this time away writting that post?
Mm okay, but that really doesn't put a face to be punched to end the final war. I think the main idea of this thread is to say Akainu, Blackbeard, any individual member of the Gorosei, Mustache Roger, anyone, ONE CHARACTER, not world government, baroque works, or any other organization or "entity that restricts his freedom".
Hidden:
Try out my first game! All feedback is welcome, enjoy and thanks. Heroine: Kiku
Hidden:
@Tamiel:
Mm okay, but that really doesn't put a face to be punched to end the final war. I think the main idea of this thread is to say Akainu, Blackbeard, any individual member of the Gorosei, Mustache Roger, anyone, ONE CHARACTER, not world government, baroque works, or any other organization or "entity that restricts his freedom".
Well, then the name of the topic should be "Who will be the last person Luffy fights (or punches in the face)?" ;)
So it is perfectly correct to suggest the government as the final antagonist.
Indeed…..except for the slight problem it's going to be Blackbeard.
Did you spend all this time away writting that post?
I just came back to AP two days ago after many strenuous activities that kept me from even reading the manga for all this time. Finding myself quoted, I came to read the posts, but I was not in the mood to respond at the time (two days ago) because I was dedicating that time to creating something, which you will see after it's finished. I spent some 20 minutes or so writing and gathering evidence for this today. Personally, I am amazed you even suggested this
@Tamiel:
Mm okay, but that really doesn't put a face to be punched to end the final war. I think the main idea of this thread is to say Akainu, Blackbeard, any individual member of the Gorosei, Mustache Roger, anyone, ONE CHARACTER, not world government, baroque works, or any other organization or "entity that restricts his freedom".
Well, in that case, it's different. Seeing how the Gorosei literally means the five elder stars (?) is suggested as one villain, I thought that the creator of the thread is using the word villain in a different sense, which is correct as well. In the poll, it doesn't say 'any individual member' of the Gorosei. It suggests the gorosei as one entity, so I assumed that the thread is talking about the word villain in the sense I have just explained :)
@S.C.:
Indeed…..except for the slight problem it's going to be Blackbeard.
Sure, no problem. But thus far, the only reasons I have been given are 'hype reasons'. BB has been hyped; thus, he'll be the final villain. Not convincing, is it?
No, saying it's just "hype reasons" is severely downplaying the work that Oda has put into his status. He is the only candidate actually related to the D. storyline; the biggest mystery and the overlying plot of the series. He is the only antagonist that has the same dreams and aspirations as Luffy, with the same mirrored personality traits, making him a chaotic Luffy. He is the only antagonist to consistently be built up since Volume 15 as a major threat to the world by numerous big name characters. He is the only character that will have a crew that matches the Straw Hats in both numbers and roles. Luffy and the rest of the crew, by far, will have more investment in taking down the Blackbeard Pirates than the entity of the World Government. That entity has been reserved for the Revolutionaries from the start.
Also, comparing Kishimoto's narrative mess where the final villain was a random character that nobody had heard of before is moot. Just like any "Oda is unpredictable, so anything can happen" arguments.
I feel like a lot of posts here end with someone breaking out the dictionary. /observation
The problem is though, we've gotten plenty of investment in the World Government as villains, even if it's been less so than Blackbeard. Would it really be right to leave all of them to the Revolutionaries, who have come and gone, while the Straw Hats aren't involved at all?
Well, then the name of the topic should be "Who will be the last person Luffy fights (or punches in the face)?" ;)
What is the difference? This just seems like a technicality.
Well, in that case, it's different. Seeing how the Gorosei literally means the five elder stars (?) is suggested as one villain, I thought that the creator of the thread is using the word villain in a different sense, which is correct as well. In the poll, it doesn't say 'any individual member' of the Gorosei. It suggests the gorosei as one entity, so I assumed that the thread is talking about the word villain in the sense I have just explained :)
My main intrigue as the whole World Government thing is, how do you not associate the government with the five elder stars. Unless you think there will be a coup prior to the end of the final war? Also the poll might not say any individual member, but we don't even know their names yet, I think it would be rather silly to have "Old dude with the scar, bald, cane, no sword", "Young one". With the five elder stars, it is at least implied that one of them will be more of a lead than other, or he will have a different mentality, or be different than the others in some way, and if they do end up being the final villains then the fall of the last one(usually the odd one out) will dictate the end of the battle.
Sure, no problem. But thus far, the only reasons I have been given are 'hype reasons'. BB has been hyped; thus, he'll be the final villain. Not convincing, is it?
My ideas on why Blackbeard is not the final villain are silly. One of them: Blackbeard is a fake D. What Whitebeard said could be interpreted that way, and I personally don't like to think that there was this whole clan (The D.) that were good and that Blackbeard is just the will of the evil side of the clan(it's been done a lot). If anything at least I would rather the struggle be more balanced like 3 or 4 factions, not just this obvious baddy. Back to the fake D., I mean Blackbeard is odd and the thought that an ordinary joe, took the name and whatever he knew about it and is pretending to be part of the will is scary, less scary than the dark side of the D. (lolzy)
Cool, more horrible sophism masquerading as logic and sense.
From the guy who brought us such classics as:
**-Doflamingo randomly casually dropped a crazy mega spoiler in dialogue about how all of the WG founders are still alive and rule the WG, and I'm the only one who noticed through my sound socratic method of not actually being able to read the English language.
-The WG has a massive military power that secretly exists and far outnumbers the Marines who are just a tiny part of the WG. And once again I'm the only one who noticed this through my sound socratic method of choosing to interpret vague phrasing in one sentence completely beyond Occam's Razor. Recall I claim to be some sort of student of critical thinking!**
(and my favorite of all, possibly the dumbest thing ever argued on this forum…) -The Marines have been built up as an internally divided organization for the entire duration of the series? I don't know what you're talking about!
@KageKageKing:
Did you spend all this time away writting that post?
And its all stupid as fuck. All of it. This guy is like someone rebirthed Phenomenyl as a graduate student, but with all the same brain damage.
Massive style and mimicry of actual logic and thought, with nothing of substance. He's an OroJackson elemental.
The first example is easily the best embodiment of all this. Going into a linguistic/grammar debate and dropping all sorts of grammatical terms and what have you, painstakingly dissecting the words and dialogue like he's Noam Chomsky or some shit. And when you turn and look at whats being done, its literally a person not being able to parse a fourth grade level sentence.
We shouldn't purge him, we should isolate him to a fake sub-forum where bots make posts and just watch him produce towering incredibly wrong paragraphs about what bots are getting wrong about things.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Sure, no problem. But thus far, the only reasons I have been given are 'hype reasons'. BB has been hyped; thus, he'll be the final villain. Not convincing, is it?
Man who can't read on a fourth grade level but writes on a graduate one continues proving inability to read.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Kaido:
The problem is though, we've gotten plenty of investment in the World Government as villains, even if it's been less so than Blackbeard. Would it really be right to leave all of them to the Revolutionaries, who have come and gone, while the Straw Hats aren't involved at all?
No one has ever suggested this.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Tamiel:
My main intrigue as the whole World Government thing is, how do you not associate the government with the five elder stars. Unless you think there will be a coup prior to the end of the final war?
Because he thinks they aren't in charge (in spite of the narration informing us that they are the leaders). That they're completely subordinate to the Celestial Dragons, who are lead by the 12 kings that founded the World Government, who are still alive.
His evidence for this is the following: Volume 73/Chapter 722/Page 17
Doflamingo:
-Let me tell you a tale…over eight centuries old, Law...
-When twenty kings from twenty kingdoms came to the center of the world... and established one massive power.
-That creation was today's World Government...and the creators, those kings... brought their families with them to Marijoa, the Holy Land...
-Those nineteen families, excepting only the Nefertari line of Alabasta, who refused the honor...have lived their ever since...ruling over the world.
Now you're a smart fellow of Spanish first language, you've familiarized yourself with the English language plenty.
Let me ask you like I would ask a student in a fourth grade classroom.
Q: Who has lived in Marijoa since the establishment of the World Government?
A: ________
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
My ideas on why Blackbeard is not the final villain are silly. One of them: Blackbeard is a fake D. What Whitebeard said could be interpreted that way, and I personally don't like to think that there was this whole clan (The D.) that were good and that Blackbeard is just the will of the evil side of the clan(it's been done a lot).
As opposed to the much more cliche and far cornier notion that the D's are all cool awesome adventurer hero free spirit dudes. And that the only one to be something other than that is a fake…?
If anything at least I would rather the struggle be more balanced like 3 or 4 factions, not just this obvious baddy.
It would very likely look a lot like that at first. Multiple clashing factions.
But the big question here is in the end who does that all boil down to. As it must boil down to someone.
Back to the fake D., I mean Blackbeard is odd and the thought that an ordinary joe, took the name and whatever he knew about it and is pretending to be part of the will is scary, less scary than the dark side of the D. (lolzy)
You seem to have taken what I've posted about a thematic framing of the internal culture of the AK representing something dangerous but potentially great….
....and turned it into some sort of saturday morning cartoon version where the D's are all dancing around a maypole and smiling in Sunshine Valley, and up on nearby Mt. ThunderEvil are the bad D's who dress in dark cloaks and hatch plots to ruin the picnic.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Austroshuurnjrrhnjs:
Ned is a professor of logic. He is above seeking 'attention'(what?!). You can ask him to arbitrate between our arguments if you have doubts concerning what I say. He won’t wrong you if you are right. If I happen to be wrong, he won’t hesitate to point that out in my argument, and when he does so, I thank him for that because he only helped me get closer to the ‘truth’. Everyone – yes, everyone without any exception – is fallible, and there's no shame in that. As a matter of fact, this is considered a principle of intellectual conduct for effective discussion.
Wow though, this explains a lot.
You're a born again Christian, except instead of Jesus its with bad internet debating.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THE LORD LOGIC CHRIST? I WAS ONCE A SINNER, I WAS FALLIABLE. BUT A BROTHER IN THE FAITH ONCE HELPED ME GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH. WE ARE ALL FALLIABLE MY FRIEND. LOGIC FORGIVES US THOUGH, AS LONG AS WE STRIVE TO WRITE A THOUSAND WORDS IN HIS NAME EVERY DAY.
Sure, no problem. But thus far, the only reasons I have been given are 'hype reasons'. BB has been hyped; thus, he'll be the final villain. Not convincing, is it?
Actually, yes it is, as this little thing is called "storyline and character development". That's how you build a story to reach a logical climax, instead of having some random jerkoff appearing from nowhere as is the case in several different mediums, such as the rabbit goddess in Naruto or Necron in Final Fantasy IX.
! @Australopithecus:
! > Ned is a professor of logic. He is above seeking 'attention'(what?!). You can ask him to arbitrate between our arguments if you have doubts concerning what I say. He won’t wrong you if you are right. If I happen to be wrong, he won’t hesitate to point that out in my argument, and when he does so, I thank him for that because he only helped me get closer to the ‘truth’. Everyone – yes, everyone without any exception – is fallible, and there's no shame in that. As a matter of fact, this is considered a principle of intellectual conduct for effective discussion.One more thing, when he points out that I am wrong, he doesn’t cite his authority as justification for that. He adheres fully to the principles of logic and proceeds to provide good reasons structured logically in his argument.
If his argument appeared to you somehow bizarre, he is most likely ‘joking’. He does that from time to time as evidenced by his joke of Bartolomew’s ‘barometer’(haha).The problem in your arguments is that you attack your interlocutor directly and conclude from that that his argument is nonsense, bullshit or some other variant. This method of argumentation is taboo in the domain of logic, so you can understand now why he doesn't approve of it. Don't you notice that in my arguments with you (whether they are wrong or right) I do not attack you directly? The moment I attack you would be the moment I provided a bullshit argument.
Listen, man, bashing people won’t solve the problem, it will only further escalate it. If your intention is to make your interlocutor look stupid, my intention is to get closer to the ‘truth’. I don’t care about victories. If you want a victory, I will give you one. But your loss if far greater than your gain. ‘Truth’ and ‘victory’ are not necessarily one and the same. You can win the argument by just creating the ‘impression’ that your argument is sound, while it isn’t objectively.
If your intentions are to persuade me, then your arguments have hardly any 'probative weight'. I do not know if you are aware of this, but you spend like ¾ of your post dedicating it into negatively expressing your subjective opinions about your interlocutor. That’s irrelevant to the discussion (off-topic). For instance, we are talking about the final villain, but your interlocutor is not relevant to this in any way, unless he or she has good reasons to be the final villain of One Piece. Furthermore, it is absolutely disrespectful to the highest degree. You are basically just bashing people. It’s really problematic. I mean, seriously, am I supposed to be convinced that my belief is wrong because of what you think of me? That's then a bad approach of argumentation. Also, using the ridicule rhetoric in order to make me feel the social pressure of being laughed at doesn’t work either. The only thing that works is an argument that adheres to the principles of logic, and the principles of logic stand firmly and strictly against arguing the ‘arguer’ instead of the ‘argument’.
If I am wrong, then I would be happy to be wrong; however, I must be proven wrong through ‘good reasoning’. Once I detect a fallacious reasoning, an invalid argument, a poorly grounded argument, an unsound argument, or some argument that violates the principles of logic in some way, then there is a good chance that I will not be convinced, and I point out to my interlocutor, who happens to be you in this case, that there is a certain problem in the argument. Why do I do that? In order to look down on you? No. And I told you that before. I do it to justify my disagreement with your argument. I don’t accuse your argument of logical fallacies when there are none. I can explain to you why and how there were fallacies in your arguments all the way to the basic structure of the argument if you so wish.
Actually, Galaxy, Angel compared Luffy’s reaction to Blackbeard and Akainu on the same chapter. You, on the other hand, compared Luffy’s reaction to Blackbeard at the beginning of the Dressrosa’s arc with his reaction to Akainu at the denouement of Fishman Island’s arc. That's not the same thing.
The author meant for that comparison to be made that way. Even the chapter was named 'two changes you need to know about'. Once Jimbei mentioned Akainu to Luffy, he glared and held his thoracic wound. On the other hand, when Teech was mentioned, Luffy was eating nonchalantly.
I personally believe Akainu will be an antagonist after Blackbeard's defeat. Among many other reasons, I will tell you this:
A fight with Blackbeard will only deal fixable damage to Luffy. However, a fight with Akainu, is likely to leave Luffy missing some bodily part. One hit from Akainu left Luffy bearing a wound of his chest for eternity. So it stands to reason to expect similar results from a fight against Akainu. A fight that could leave Luffy missing a limb or something is best left for the finale, in my view, because after such a tumultuous war, I don't expect Luffy to engage in any more battles, given that his freedom will have been gained through the downfall of the WG. I can already see counter-arguments using Kyros and Shanks, and that's why what was suggested was 'my view'.Being the antithesis of the protagonist is not a reason of guarantee that Teech will be the final antagonist. In this regard, we have seen, in a different story, a similar character who didn’t turn out to be the ultimate antagonist, haven’t we?
In Naruto, Obito was the antithesis of Naruto. He has been built up meticulously for many volumes and, at some point, most of us have been caught in the hype train back then, and thought that Obito would be the final antagonist. Even when he absorbed the ten tailed monster and became its host, we thought that we were dealing with the final antagonist. It turned out the final antagonist was Sasuke, after Kaguya, who was after Madara.With this precedent, it's understandable why a person can doubt the notion that being the antithesis is evidence for being the final antagonist.
In any case, Galaxy, is there any other reason for believing Blackbeard is the final antagonist? I am curious to read some good reasoning on this matter.
By both the mere suggestion of the WG in my argument and the suggestion of the Gorosei (a team) in the poll, I thought it was obvious that the word ‘villain’ is not used in the sense of a ‘character’. It is used to describe an ‘evil antagonist’(at least, in my argument, if not in the poll). The usage of the word villain outside the scope of a ‘character’ is not incorrect. In fact, it is perfectly okay to use it like that.
Here is the evidence:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/villain
1.2The person or thing responsible for specified problems, harm, or damage: the industrialized nations are the real environmental villains’
As you can see here, the word ‘villain’ is used as the subject complement of the ‘nations’.Here’s another proof:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/villainSimple Definition of villain
- : someone or something that is blamed for a particular problem or difficulty
Such usage manifests itself here as well.
Heck such usage has even found its way into the idiomatic usage of the English language:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/the-villain-of-the-piece
The person or thing responsible for all of the trouble or harm in a particular situation: TV tends to be cast as the villain of the piece.
See how ‘villain’ is used to describe ‘TV’ as the thing responsible for trouble/harm etc.Sure, I am using ‘villain’ to refer to the antagonist, but does that mean the antagonist must be a ‘character’? No – absolutely NO.
Now, let’s talk about the antagonist:
While it is true that the antagonist can often be the character who opposes the main character around whom the story revolves(protagonist), it is not always the case. The antagonist in a story can be a character, a group of characters, an organization, a monster (Godzilla) – heck, it can be a mountain, a natural disaster, a setting, a society, and so on and so forth. Nowhere is it mentioned that an antagonist has to be a ‘character’ in a story.
For solid evidence on this matter, consult this link:
http://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/what-if-your-antagonist-isnt-person/
Here’s another:
http://fantasy-faction.com/2011/non-human-antagonistsIn Detective Conan, the main antagonist is an organization called ‘the Black Organization’.
http://www.detectiveconanworld.com/wiki/Black_Organization
The Black Organization (黒の組織 Kuro no Soshiki?) serves as the main antagonist in the series. It is a secret criminal syndicate with a hidden objective. To achieve that goal, the Black Organization commits various crimes to maintain its secrecy, remove obstacles, and gather funding and resources for its mysterious research projects. I made this copiously clear by shifting back and forth between these two words (villain & antagonist).
So it is perfectly correct to suggest the government as the final antagonist.
Dude. Write less, say more. Unless you're Gene Wolfe; he can write as much as he likes.
Requesting admin support, we got a code 10-54 here, interlocutor down–I repeat, interlocutor down!
insert triggering comment about subjectivity and personal opinion here
Spoiler:
Honestly, all the WG don't seem like bad people. I believe that even Akainu probably has a really horrible backstory that (somewhat) justifies his hate for pirates.
What really irks me about this argument is this; Oda seems like someone who believes that no one is inherently evil. That there is no bad done that didn't ultimately occur because of (1) an oversight of the wrongdoer, or (2) an overreaction to a horrific/tragic event in the wrongdoer's past.
I wonder if Oda will go so far as to say that even someone like Blackbeard is truly evil.
@Monkey:
Now you're a smart fellow of Spanish first language, you've familiarized yourself with the English language plenty.
Let me ask you like I would ask a student in a fourth grade classroom.
Q: Who has lived in Marijoa since the establishment of the World Government?
A: ________
Eee, damn I studied this, I know it, just eee…..BONNEY!?
As opposed to the much more cliche and far cornier notion that the D's are all cool awesome adventurer hero free spirit dudes. And that the only one to be something other than that is a fake…?
Yeah both cliched, but given that I cannot chose the option: Don't use neither, I'd rather Blackbeard out, I just don't like him, (which is the point I was trying to make by saying my anti-BB are silly, and pretty much not well backed up).
It would very likely look a lot like that at first. Multiple clashing factions. But the big question here is in the end who does that all boil down to. As it must boil down to someone.
I agree, as I was writing that sentence down, I couldn't escape the thought of someone leading this change or separate faction.
You seem to have taken what I've posted about a thematic framing of the internal culture of the AK representing something dangerous but potentially great….
....and turned it into some sort of saturday morning cartoon version where the D's are all dancing around a maypole and smiling in Sunshine Valley, and up on nearby Mt. ThunderEvil are the bad D's who dress in dark cloaks and hatch plots to ruin the picnic.
Yeah my sense of humor is pretty bad, I even tried to clue in the lolzy, jajaja. I mean the idea of the fake D. came from a low quality translation as I read the war during Whitebeard speech, upong re-reading and the inconsistencies of the entire idea, it pretty much died down. I've tried to come with better evidence, but because it is trying to back up nonsense, I can't even put anything together. I wonder how some people do it.
Honestly, all the WG don't seem like bad people. I believe that even Akainu probably has a really horrible backstory that (somewhat) justifies his hate for pirates.
What really irks me about this argument is this; Oda seems like someone who believes that no one is inherently evil. That there is no bad done that didn't ultimately occur because of (1) an oversight of the wrongdoer, or (2) an overreaction to a horrific/tragic event in the wrongdoer's past.
I wonder if Oda will go so far as to say that even someone like Blackbeard is truly evil.
That picture of a young Blackbeard crying and angry seems to indicate he too had a bad past.
@Kaido:
insert triggering comment about subjectivity and personal opinion here
First add a painstakingly detailed novella length description about what your comments have done over the course of the story.
peeks in
Why is everyone extraordinarily grumpy today. uh… bad hair day?
I believe that the true wild card here is Enel. Of course, I am not that retarded to suggest Enel as final villain yahahahaha or something, but I think he is an aspect that might be worth considering in the grand scheme of all things. Not even Oda will send a powerful major arc villain to the moon, gain an alien robot army and possibly uncover game-changing ancient secrets just for the lulz. Enel crashing down on Marineford using Maxim with lightning crackling in the air and his army pouring out, while he steps out in his full logia form with a demented look in his eyes… wait, that's too sci-fi.
↑Biological Weaopn of Doom and Destruction
@le:
peeks in
Why is everyone extraordinarily grumpy today. uh… bad hair day?
There's a really really large turd in the previous room and no one wants to clean that up directly. And the smell is just impossible to avoid.
@Monkey:
Cool, more horrible sophism masquerading as logic and sense.
It is sense and logic. Your judgment about it as a guise of sense and logic merely displays the profound depth of your ignorance about sense and logic.
@Monkey:
From the guy who brought us such classics as:
Ironic coming from the guy who:
**-Thinks the World Government has been in existence for a 1000 years, whereas the facts refute this by outright stating that it has been in existence for 800 years. You’ve generously added 200 years out of thin air. Very well done.
-Believes that the parallels in One Piece are non-existent and utter rubbish. Bravo!
-Keeps making me explain things more than twice, yet in the end he still doesn’t get it at all (geez). With such intelligence, I won’t be surprised if you turn out to be the kind of guy who sits on the TV and watches the sofa.**
@Monkey:
-Doflamingo randomly casually dropped a crazy mega spoiler in dialogue about how all of the WG founders are still alive and rule the WG, and I'm the only one who noticed through my sound socratic method of not actually being able to read the English language.
That’s what ‘that’ translation was conveying. It was ‘ambiguous’. You don’t understand what the word ambiguous means? It means that it has more than one interpretation, and I was not necessarily suggesting that meaning as the correct meaning that could be extracted from that. I just told you not to limit the interpretation of that dialogue to one interpretation because of ‘pronoun ambiguity reference’. Yet here you are, still unable to understand that.
@Monkey:
-The WG has a massive military power that secretly exists and far outnumbers the Marines who are just a tiny part of the WG. And once again I'm the only one who noticed this through my sound socratic method of choosing to interpret vague phrasing in one sentence completely beyond Occam's Razor. Recall I claim to be some sort of student of critical thinking!
See, this is really problematic. This is one of those instances when I explain things, yet in the end you just don’t get it. Just how many times do I have to tell you that being a fraction of the government’s power doesn’t mean that the WG has a massive military power that secretly exists and far outnumbers the Marines who are just a tiny part of the WG.
_@Monkey:
(and my favorite of all, possibly the dumbest thing ever argued on this forum…)_ @Monkey:
-The Marines have been built up as an internally divided organization for the entire duration of the series? I don't know what you're talking about!
Neither do I as it is your own wrong interpretation of things. You are mocking only your own interpretation of my ideas. In other words, you are mocking your own ideas. That’s another intellectually outstanding achievement from your part.
But, hey, quote the part in which I am literally saying ‘the Marines have been built up as an internally divided organization for the entire duration of the series ‘, k? You won’t find it as it was never said. You literally made that up. What the heck?
@Monkey:
Man who can't read on a fourth grade level but writes on a graduate one continues proving inability to read.
Says the guy who’s unable to draw a difference between subject pronouns and possessive pronouns, and still has a lot to learn about run-on sentences, and who puts a period at the end of subordinate clauses –- things that third grades already know by heart.
I used to like this thread.
Tbh after carefully reading the arguments I came to the conclusion that there is some miscommunication halfway through this weird debate.
↑Biological Weaopn of Doom and Destruction
This thread….........
Well, in-universe it's completely legit to assume that everyone and everyone's rabbit goddess mom can become the final villain. In-universe really anything can happen. However, looking at the storytelling aspect that's just not the case. It's a matter of asking the right questions.
So we have as a given that the WG is sitting atop of a giant Pandora's Box which has the potential to be opened. For us, as readers, which of the following two questions is the right one to ask?
In case of 1) the WG will be a perfectly fitting final antagonist with lots of tension towards the question whether the secrets will be finally revealed or not. However, in order for this to work there have to be actual doubts about whether the secrets will get revealed or not.
In case of 2), however, the WG will be a shitty final antagonist - speaking of the very final antagonist where everything boils to in the very end. We actually know that the secrets will get revealed, therefore we don't need a final antagonist who devoted all of its existence to just prevent exactly that. We already know it will fail. Therefore there would be absolutely no tension. Instead we need a final antagonist who actually wants to deal with these revelations as well. I wonder who that might be…
In-universe there is absolutely no way to decide which of these questions is the right one, but out-of-universe...
So I again ask the question: Will the ancient secrets finally be revealed without any doubt?
If your answer is 'Yes', then just screw any thought about the WG being the final boss. It just doesn't work.
I'll be keeping this thread in mind for the AP awards :ninja:
@le:
Tbh after carefully reading the arguments I came to the conclusion that there is some miscommunication halfway through this weird debate.
Sophism is cool because its debating through constant Usopp techniques.
Imagine fighting over definitions of every word, slimy lawyer denials about how "technically I didn't because", and a general smoke bomb method.
@Monkey:
Sophism is cool because its debating through constant Usopp techniques.
Imagine fighting over definitions of every word, slimy lawyer denials about how "technically I didn't because", and a general smoke bomb method.
I didn't know what you meant until I looked up Sophism.
I feel slightly smarter now. Thanks MK!
The face of a Straw Hat.
@The:
I didn't know what you meant until I looked up Sophism.
I feel slightly smarter now. Thanks MK!
Someone being accused of it in another internet debate on another forum a million years ago was also how I learned about it haha.
Says the guy who’s unable to draw a difference between subject pronouns and possessive pronouns, and still has a lot to learn about run-on sentences, and who puts a period at the end of subordinate clauses –- things that third grades already know by heart.
You are taking all of this too seriously.
[hide]
[/hide]
Neither do I as it is your own wrong interpretation of things. You are mocking only your own interpretation of my ideas. In other words, you are mocking your own ideas. That’s another intellectually outstanding achievement from your part.
But, hey, quote the part in which I am literally saying ‘the Marines have been built up as an internally divided organization for the entire duration of the series ‘, k? You won’t find it as it was never said. You literally made that up. What the heck?
Zephos is saying that you've previously denied that statement in bold. I haven't read your posts enough to actually see what he's referring to, but if you did actually deny that statement, well, then you're really wrong. The very first time we met the marines showed that there were good and bad marines - the good ones were being forced into submission but were very happy to get back to business as usual as soon as their corrupt superior was dethroned by the hero of our story.
Since then, we've seen that the marines are full of people with all sorts of different opinions on the world of pirates, and they certainly do not all get along with each other.
But, hey, quote the part in which I am literally saying ‘the Marines have been built up as an internally divided organization for the entire duration of the series ‘, k? You won’t find it as it was never said. You literally made that up. What the heck?
This kind of settles all things.
@The:
I didn't know what you meant until I looked up Sophism.
I feel slightly smarter now. Thanks MK!
I think the only reason that word is being brought up is because a translation of a bleach chapter a while ago used it as a single word rebuttal to Mayuri's justification of his lol-science nonsense.
Byakuya called Mayuri's justification of using captains as zombies because they would have liked to protect SS even after their death, sophism, or at least that's what MS translation was. Mayuri couldn't really care less for their sense of duty, he just played with some new toys.
I learned the word in high school, but I must admit, never in my life have I had the opportunity to use it.
Sophism/sophistry was one of those SAT words I memorized but never really used.
Thank god for rubber pirate comic.
I think the only reason that word is being brought up is because a translation of a bleach chapter a while ago used it as a single word rebuttal to Mayuri's justification of his lol-science nonsense.
Sure bud, it was a Bleach translation. The common trough of knowledge for us all.
Akainu is an asshole but he's definitely an interesting character at the moment.
Akainu is an asshole but he's definitely an interesting character at the moment.
I feel akainu is a better man at heart than some people think. We might even get a tragic backstory ala mingo
Chapter 437 Discussion after franky decides to join the Strawhats:
So who think Usopp is inside that duffelbag?
H x H Chimera Ant Arc / OP Manga Spoiler
Spoiler:
@Long:
I feel akainu is a better man at heart than some people think.
The first thing we see him do is blow up a refugee ship. The most Sakazuki's getting is probably a backstory on what makes an authoritarian zealot.
And Doflamingo having a tragic backstory didn't stop him from being a genuine monster.
Doflamingo's tragic backstory made us care about his brother, and by extension, Law. Not much caring about Dofla himself… and mostly it served to make him nastier.
The entire point of Doflamingo's backstory was, that in spite of having it pretty fucking awful, unlike his pure brother and parents, Doflamingo was a complete monster. Akainu's backstory will likely explain why he's an authoritarian attack dog.
