Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-32182236-20171227132712

"“You wanted a reply? Here, have a text bomb.”

As long as it’s actual logic, and a response to my arguments, and isn’t, say, a bunch of random letters, that’ll be fine. Let me see… Yeah, that’s good. Here, have a response back-It qualifies. It’s better than a text bomb. :3

“I believe the red one was made as a challenge. It's strange that the condition itself (earn every other flag) is not present, but it's still very difficult to obtain it, as you must play accurately (I assume this means no bouncing against walls) and do it under 10 seconds. That's something one achieves only after many tries, so it could be thought of as a culmination of your journey. Not really as a sum of the preceeding events. After all, as I said, it's not a condition.”

You could say, that it takes a lot of determination to achieve. *wink* “But to understand this, we must understand what he meant by this message.”

No, we need to analyze the message itself, and THEN try to figure out what he meant. Otherwise you get a bunch of wild guesses like the case of Issac Asimov. Toby didn’t confirm what he meant, so we shouldn’t just be wildly speculating possible metaphorical meanings, we should analyze it scientifically.

“My guess would be that he was trying to purport the message that the character we're playing as isn't actually us.”

That breaks the canon that the player’s not an (separate) entity. You know what my guess is? “Still just you, Frisk.”

“That goes hand in hand with the biggest spoiler in the game, and that is the reveal of Frisk's name. It's supposed to make you realize that you're not Frisk. At least, not spiritually.”

No, it’s supposed to make you realize that you didn’t NAME Frisk, and the child that fell wasn’t you, AND that you’re not actually playing in 201X. If you want to get somewhat meta, you could say Toby created this to fix a plot hole that may have existed before-The discrepancy between the child in the intro and Frisk-Toby may have intended them to be the same before, noticed the disrepency Temmie made (or maybe noticed that WE noticed it in the demo), and added Chara as a separate character after that to explain this. All the evidence that Chara is the narrator really only works once you use stuff past the ruins, so to say that at one point they weren’t isn’t that far-fetched. But we’re not concerned on how it could have been in beta, but how the finished product is, so this is just a random note. “So... neither of those messages really have anything to do with the other traits. The red flag is rather a reflection of your overall journey, and this definitely cannot be a personality trait.”

It takes determination to get that flag. Determination can take many forms, you’re patient so you don’t rush and kill yourself, you persevere and take notes to spot danger, you take justice against the evil that tries to kill you… And so on. “What WOULD such personality be anyways? Determination? Being yourself? One is too similar to perseverance, and the other one is too whimsical.”

Perseverance is persevering to the very end, and, according to the purple flag, involves taking notes, so it’s also being analytical. Determination doesn’t do analysis, and it’s closer to self-preservation, aka “de-termination”.

“Maybe red isn't a trait. Which would mean, that the other colors are just "addons". Ergo, Frisk is free of their influence when red, they are "themselves". They are free to move about, their battle style isn't constrained in any way. Something like this would be very difficult to describe as a personal trait, but in the context of a battle, it works flawlessly.”

Yeah, but when you look up the definitions, of say, kindness, you’ll see how it makes no sense for them to be anything but a personality trait. “In short, the word "ball" is thrown about seemingly randomly.”

There is one thing in common for all of them. They represent an obstacle. This even fits orange into the picture. Sure, in red and purple, it’s the game, but it’s still an obstacle you must overcome. In green, you must be kind to the ball, not kick it too hard. That’s how you GET the green flag-It’s clear the ball here is the actual ball. Besides, “you” and “Ball” being separated with two different names implies they’re two different things.

“In fact, this entire game is filled with metaphors, but you always just interpret them literally and completely twist their meaning in the process. A great example would be Asgore smashing the MERCY button.

There’s a difference between a character making a metaphor and the UNIVERSE making a metaphor. Characters making metaphors are A-OK, it’s not like I take Sans’ hundred year thing literally. Let’s use something common-The Earth revolves around the sun according to some math. Let’s turn this scientific proof into a metaphor, shall we?

“Oh! The gods are trying to send us a message! They’re trying to tell us that the universe does not revolve around us (metaphorically speaking), but that it revolves around Ra, the Sun God!! All hail the Sun God Ra!”

Let’s try doing something similar with the QM experiment. “Oh, that means nothing-Stop making up a new theory just because of one tiny error in the theory from one experiment that may very well be a metaphor! The gods were trying to tell you that you can’t solve everything, which is why you got these results that didn’t match classical physics! It’s not this weird ‘QM’, it’s magic from the gods!”

“And besides, you're taking this discrepancy between the ball game portraying the supposed "enemy" as someone you have acted kindly to and the fact that you only act "kind" towards yourself in the game as a proof that SOMEHOW the green trait does not really act how we've seen the green mode act in the game”

Here, look up the definition of kindness.

Kindness-the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.

And if you think “Oh, I can just be considerate to MYSELF and be kind”, well…

Considerate-“ careful not to cause inconvenience or hurt to others .

Yep. OTHERS. The very definition would disagree with you. That’s my evidence. And since the trait is flat-out listed as “kindness”, that right there creates an error. It doesn’t matter if the green flavor text is a metaphor or not anymore, because the green mode isn’t kindness.

“going as far as saying that such split in meanings is present for ALL traits, without providing any proof” You’re the one who said my reasoning can be applied to all the traits, and I did just that. For example, hopping around has nothing to do with strong moral principles.

“All because you WANT the color of a soul to represent that soul's personality and not because of some evidence that would be pointing you towards such conclusion.”

There IS evidence pointing me to such conclusion-The red flag. Just look up the definitions of the six color traits listed on the Red Flag, and then explain how it can make sense for them to not be personality traits. The definitions of the traits in a dictionary show they ARE personality traits. “just a random note here, if that were the case, we would have dozens of hypothetical traits, but the game sort of implied that only 7 exist (recall how it summarized the red by mentioning the 6 others and no more than that). But the fact is that humans have far more than just 7 personality traits. Unless you're prepared to assume that the humans are drastically different from the real-world humans just to refute this argument.”

These “extra traits” can be defined simply by mixing from the seven traits already given, as another form of one of the seven traits, or as the absence of one (or multiple) of these traits. Cruelty is the absence of kindness. Cowardice is the absence of bravery. Noblitity is the combination of bravery and justice (and sometimes perseverance and kindness-Take Undyne, for example.) And, as the purple flag hints at, “persevearance” is also analytical. And that's what I'm talking about here. You're still incorrectly assuming that the traits are personality-related.

A quick look at the dictionary will prove they HAVE to be personality-related for their names to make sense. “Original style is implying you're going against the stream, that you're unique. Not that you choose something. And besides, in the context of the ball game, the original style is describing the way you hop and twirl. It's a compliment. You don't have to be original to have strong moral principles.”

All but the last two sentences are spot-on: I’ve even changed my outlook on “original style”. But you have to remember, that another part of integrity is being honest, and that the requirement of getting this flag is staying close to the ball ad playing quickly, while the ball game mentions how said hopping and twirling is how you won. Now, what if you going by against the stream and following your own path is being honest with YOURSELF, and doing what YOU think is right, instead of just following the herd like a sheep? “I wouldn't be saying that if that was the case. You are kind to your soul. Other times you just let it roam around without a shield. It's not important that it's your own soul. It's still an act of kindness to give it a defensive weapon.”

It is important-The very definition of kindness requires that it be to others, as I pointed out above. “In this case, it's unique. You can't deny the fact that everywhere else, we just let it sit in the battle box defenseless.”

We still move it to stop it from getting hurt.

“If you think you know this game better than Toby Fox, then you're wrong.”

When did I say I knew the game better than Toby Fox? Toby Fox didn’t confirm your theory, so you can’t use that as an argument. No argument from false authority here. You can’t read his mind, so don’t act like you know what he means. This is a very common fallacy people make-Whenever they find evidence against a theory, instead of revising their theory, they just say it’s not what Toby meant, and throw it out, to cherrypick. Let me “remake” the video you linked to prove a point.

“And so, the world is 4.5 billion years old, as shown by the evidence.”

“Hahaha, NO!!! It’s 6000 years old! All that evidence you presented? That’s just a mistake God made when he created the universe! We shouldn’t take all that seriously!”

You see my point?

“He made the deliberate connection between soul modes and traits”

Oh, a connection! Let’s see.. You’re kind by protecting yourself, you uphold strong moral principles by being forced to hop around, you’re just by just shooting at everything, you’re whatever the red trait is just by MOVING and you’re persevering and taking notes just by hopping around a few webs. Wow, what a connection! /s

As I said, stop being so strict, it then leads to disasters like this one, where you keep arguing that one tiny thing not fitting is an undeniable proof that everything is wrong. If we were to do it like this every time, no theory would exist.”

I already have a theory-But maybe there’s some flaws that I missed! Maybe you can start pointing them out so I can fix my theory!

“If you're gonna keep pointing out every single flaw in everything, you will never reach a conclusion.”

I already DID reach a conclusion.

“You keep debating about paradoxes but instead of removing them, you keep them in and remove your previous thoughts.”

Yeah, like actual scientists do? When they spot an anomaly, they don’t just throw out the evidence just to keep their current theory, they remove it and make a new one! That’s where QM came from! I do the same!

“The guy above me did the same thing and came to a conclusion that Frisk isn't a human. Don't be like that.”

No, the guy above you assumed human essence didn’t exist because there was no book about it in a world of MONSTERS, and that the whole deal with Chara was a plot-hole. I’m one to argue no such holes exist, so I’m much different than he is. You’re actually closer to him, by tossing out evidence just to support a theory, claiming it’s just a mistake Toby made. HAHAHA, listen to yourself! You just said that the cyan mode isn't about patience! THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. If it doesn't fully represent it, it can't be it, and if it can't be it, then it's not patience and therefore, it's something else. But since then the same reasoning can then be applied, no trait can de facto fit any of the modes”

Good so far...

“, meaning that the modes have nothing to do with the traits, which is in a DIRECT contradiction with the lore, which is portraying them as reflections of the traits.”

When does the lore portray them as perfect reflections of the traits?

“Why else would they be changing the color of your soul then? The fact is, that the cyan mode is patience, orange is bravery, and so on.”

They change the color of your SOUL to change your battle mechanics. Undyne turns you green so that you can’t run away, and to give you a shield to make things fairer. “Refuting a single style based on the self-preservation argument is nonsensical, as all of them can be refuted this way, but then we get to a conflict as I said.”

What’s the conflict? I see no reason why we can’t just refute them all this way, and have no probem.

“A style is present, so if it's not the soul traits, then what is it? Tell me? If the soul modes are all just different kinds of self-preservation, that all differ only in the style, then what IS that style, if it's not the different types of traits? Maybe the style is just that - the way our soul acts, how it is constrained.”

That’s exactly what it is-Just that.

“However, the correlation with the soul traits is so strongly present here, it cannot be ignored.”

Oh, I have great moral principles because I’m forced to jump around a lot! /s

“Not only are the traits colored the same way, they also fit! I'm not saying it's a perfect fit, but why separate it just because it isn't, right?”

WRONG! Either they’re the same thing or they aren’t. If they’re not a match, they can’t be the same thing. “Tell me, what does it give you to make this separation? The freedom to dream of more than 7 personality traits?”

There’s only 7 traits as we both agreed on earlier.

“The freedom to assign headcanons to the fallen humans? Unless you have a strong compelling reason I WILL call you out on this. Because to me, it seems like you're doing this just to make way for your own headcanons.”

I’m doing this because if you look up the definitions of the six traits defined in the Red Flag, you get personality traits. Just look them up-I already did patience for you, so that leaves six more. “Haven't I asked about red there? Nice avoiding of the subject.”

And now I answered it, but it’s much higher up in the post than this. “Why is the ball always the enemy according to you then?”

I explain my reasoning higher up in the post. “And why would the soul modes be an extension of the traits if they have nothing in common?”

I said fighting styles, not SOUL modes. They’re two different things. By “fighting styles”, I mean stuff like rushing in to obstacles, caring for your enemy, taking notes to overcome obstacles… The stuff mentioned in the Ball Game, "There's the Red Flag, that flat-out lists the green trait as "kindness"." “Huh? Did I stutter? I know that green = kindness, sheesh. No need to educate me on the elementary. But you're STILL assuming that these are personality traits.”

The very definition of kindness proves it MUST be a personality trait! How is the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate NOT a personality trait? “That's a moronic argument. Gimme something better than just a grammatical technicality that doesn't change anything at all”

Does this make sense? “In the end of time, the universe ended.” “In the beginning, there will be the Big Bang.” “We (me and you) just finished our Undertale discussion.”

“"Even when you felt trapped" is a direct reference to Muffet's battle. That's undeniable.”

No, it’s a reference to the fact that in order to get that flag, you have to struggle to get the ball in the hole… You felt trapped in the puzzle. “She gave us the spear, so I'm assuming the movement and flee restrictions came bundled with that.”

If that’s the case, then that would make the green SOUL mode the exact same as the red one. No, it’s clear the shield, and everything that comes with it, is a part of that mode.

‘After all, they have nothing to do with kindness.”

Exactly. That’s my point-They don’t. That’s why the green mode can’t be kindness. But, at the same time, the green trait must be kindness! Now do you see why I separated them? “Which is why I argued that the traits cannot be personality traits.”

Which raises its own problem, as that doesn’t fit with the definition of “kindness”.

“The modes MUST be related to the traits, since they cannot represent anything else.”

Loophole-They can just not represent anything. “God I sound like you already.”

Yeah, you do sound like the very same person you were claiming I was like, yes… “But the point is, you don't NEED to make this distinction to make everything work! You don't need personality traits, it works without them.”

Except the definitions of the six traits revealed in Ball doesn’t make sense without personality traits. “If these are not what the ball game is describing, then they cannot be related, they must be something else entirely. You can't on one hand claim they aren't the same and on the other say they are still similar.” You can (Take FNAF vs Bendy), but remember that my argument is that fighting styles are similar to traits, and fighting styles are not SOUL modes.

“The ball game is directly describing these things, it isn't introducing any new concept. The discrepancy vanishes if we assume that the traits aren't related to one's personality.”

While creating a new one in the process.

“So I don't see what's the problem? Scrapping a single headcanon in order to resolve a paradox. What's so bad about that?”

Nothing, unless doing so creates another paradox, like it does here. “Why do you keep approaching it from the other end, keeping the said headcanon in and instead saying the fault lies on the other side?”

Because of the definitions of the six words mentioned in the Red Flag. It’s not just a headcanon, it’s what the game itself shows. All you have to do is look up the definition of “kindness”, and “justice”, and “patience”…

“And besides, there's only 7 traits. How is this NOT a proof that these cannot represent personality traits?”

Because there’s only 7 personality traits? "All evidence within the game is significant, no matter how tiny." “There are still plot holes in this game. Claiming they aren't plot holes but are actually meaningful is bs.”

You have no way of proving they are plot holes. Stop blaming the author every time your theory’s threatened. He worked on the game for YEARS.

“And no, he didn't intend to keep it that way, despite the chances he's had to update the game. He only ever updated it to fix bugs. I bet he couldn't care less about some lore facts here.” When the game’s story is what makes it stand out, lore facts are very important.

“After all, it's not about the lore from his perspective, it's about the impact this game makes on you. If you're so unsure whether something is a fact or just a plot hole, go ask him instead. But I'm telling you, if there's a paradox, there's a good chance it's a plot hole.”

Or just something theorists assume is a plot hole to defend their theory. Rafip did something similar, to say that Frisk isn’t a human. “Therefore, DT is soul power. There's no contradiction here, it fits, Occam's razor is happy, we can sing hippie songs happily.” There is, the whole Asriel Dreemur paradox. Speaking of which, let’s respond to your take on that, shall we?

“Maybe Frisk's DT can fluctuate (when at new home, the message doesn't read that we're filled with determination), but definitely not as much as you're saying. After all, it wasn't DT that defeated Omega Flowey and Asriel. It was the souls rebelling and us reminding Asriel of his true self respectively.”

Defeating Asriel and Omega Flowey had nothing to do with it. It’s that we can load in Asriel’s battle, but not in Omega Flowey’s. That’s what proves what our DT is.

“And yes, it is a bit strange that we couldn't die during his battle, but that doesn't prove we were more powerful than him. Merely that we were able to withstand magical injuries which brought us below 1 HP. A froggit could do that.”

Actually, a Froggit couldn’t do that. They’d turn to dust right away. Only Undyne could, and that was also due to, you guessed it, determination. "An alternate explanation could be that humans DO have magic, but just can't represent themselves with magic." “Ergo, they don't have magic.”

You can have magic and not be able to represent yourself, personally, from it. Try forming a barrier-That’s not representing yourself, but you’re still using magic! "The barrier was created with a magic spell. Humans CAN use magic. They just can't represent themselves with it" “That's a direct contradiction. "Representing" yourself with magic means being able to cast it. At least that's how I understood it when the book talked about magical patterns. What would prevent a human from turning their magic into a dotted pattern? Ergo bullets? Just keep switching it on and off in short bursts, it's not that difficult.”

Simple-They can only cast certain spells! Also, to make an original pattern this way would require TAS accuracy. (Yep, more gaming terms because I don’t know a better term.) “Also, the thing about humans being able to use magic contradicts what I said above. There's no proof of humans having magic nowdays, so what makes you think that they had it back then?”

The intro? It flat-out SHOWES a human using magic, where it says “They sealed the monsters underground with a magic spell.” https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6gS2LPXdIc5bTF6STJYejlHdHc (images 3 and 4) See the magic emitting from the wand? Look at the figures casting the spell-They’re human.

“Humans don't have magic, that's canon.” “Some people said that the humans' ability to use magic has vanished over the years, but the thing is, their consistency couldn't have changed. If they always had water instead of magic, then they never had magic.”

True-There’s no reason why their magic should vanish. Really, the reason why we don’t have magic in Undertale is because we’re a kid who never learned yet. Or maybe there’s a special “Boss Human” (Asgore naming lol) that can use magic, just as Boss Monsters have extra DT. Or, there’s this, which I mentioned earlier: They don't have magic on their own, but can turn some of a certain "SOUL magic", directly proportional to SOUL power, into magic. That both explains the barrier, and what Omega Flowey did, AND why humans can't represent themselves through magic, or, say, have a white SOUL.

“This theory is so crazy, yet flawless, I've even decided to turn it into a fanfiction. Take a look at it if you're interested <3” How can I take a look at it if I don’t know where to find it? “The crash is an out-canon event.”

There’s no such thing. If it’s in the game, it’s canon, as long as you can get there without hacking.

“Or perhaps, it's Flowey loading his save.”

Our save still exists after we reopen the same. But, Flowey COULD be LOADing OUR SAVE… Alas, you have yet to explain the void that appears afterwards.

“After all, we also need to close the game to load. Of course, from an inner point of view, the world didn't get "closed".”

Explain the void.

“And the save point and everything else in the void is just Flowey toying with you.” So Flowey can control the universe now? Great-Now try controlling the SOULs too so they don’t revolt! “If anything, it was supposed to be a dramatic moment that Toby planned, nothing we should be paying that much attention to.”

Once again, tossing out evidence because it goes against your theory.. “We see only those save and load messages.”

Which is a part of the HUD-The only part that appears in the overworld. “Doesn't matter. The point is, that Froggit shouldn't have known that.” Unless someone else told them. After all, they don’t know what F4 is, so SOMEONE had to mention it to them (Or, if it’s proven that the other kids could SAVE and LOAD, one could argue that Froggit was the one monster who once had the ability to SAVE and LOAD when no humans were there, and thus knows about the HUD. So, there’s a few points towards that theory, so at least you got something good out of it!) “As I said, that may not always be entirely possible.”

Well, it at least can’t contradict anything. “I'm not sure what would they be referring to right there.”

Exactly what they said-Four frogs. “And the other Froggit talked about skipping dialogue with the button X. They probably didn't mean the mercy button, so... Doesn't this pretty much prove that they've been talking about the keyboard buttons? I mean, we have a connection there, but we know of no in-game X or F4 buttons.”

There’s a possibility that “X” here is just whatever button Frisk presses to confirm an action via the HUD. Remember, at one point, Frisk has to write an essay for Mettaton EX. The X that they’re not allowed to use there is the same X.

“You JUST said you want an explanation for everything.”

I do. I said an ALTERNATIVE, non-meta explanation for all that we can, because Occam’s Razor. But if we can’t, we have to move on to meta, in order to fully explain the rest.

“I personally took the clear contradictions and removed them from the overall lore, since I know that a full explanation for everything isn't possible.”

Except it can be. My theories, when put together, attempt to make such an explanation. Haven’t run into any problems yet. Removing them from the lore like that is cherrypicking. “I agree, but the HUD doesn't exist in the same form. That's because that form implies the world is code”

Why would it imply that? Because it’s strictly mathematical like our own laws of physics?

“My explanation is to avoid the usage of buttons and turns altogether. Does that not make sense?”

Sans explicitly mentions turns and abuses it, so your explanation falters there. Turns must exist because they’re explicitly mentioned. “Oooh, that's very nice. Still, I have the same explanation for that as for any other 4th wall breaking text, that it was meant for the player.”

Which involves tampering with evidence. I have an explanation for any text that implies a player without actually changing it. “I mean, the existence of the HUD as I said is impossible. The characters cannot be that dumb, and they for sure aren't being mind controlled to not notice it either.”

That’s how Sans knows it exists, for the reason you just said. It’s invisible, but its effects can be noticed, because they’re still effects, and as you said, they’re not that dumb. “If we want to refuse the idea that nothing is "real" except for Frisk (kinda like in Oneshot), then we must refuse the idea of HUD existing in the form we see it in.”

Or, we can say it DOES exist this way, but they were also able to figure out it wasn’t a game, because canonically, it’s not. They’re sure it’s not a game, because it isn’t one. They probably used Cogito Ergo Sum, or something like that. Or maybe they looked into the world itself, when they spotted the anomaly, and THAT revealed the true (canon) nature of the world, and “spoiler”-It’s not a game. So they’re smart enough not to believe in a false conspiracy.

“It was a nice clever quote that Toby added, but just like anything else, it contributes to the nonsense that is the HUD.”

The HUD isn’t nonsense, it is consistent, and it fits in with the story.

“It doesn't say anything about how meta it is, so it cannot be self-aware.”

True-That’s why Undertale’s not canonically a game. It can have a HUD and not be a game.

“What is the point of these meta snippets then? Their existence is paradoxical as on one hand, it is acknowledged, but on the other, it's not acknowledged for what it really is.”

Because they have canon explanations that bring light to the situation. Flowey was talking to Chara, about Chara, the narrator. Now, take out the whole idea of a player, since we agreed the player isn’t canon. Take a look at the speech. Who fits Flowey’s description? Chara fits perfectly. Their name is even flat-out stated in the final speech, and not your own name like in OneShot. “Flowey overwrote it with his own when he loaded his save file (which from our perspective caused the game to crash). This action probably confused the save file window, and so it said that Frisk's file has been erased.”

So, where did he GET the file from? You know, the file that shows a black void? “Good point. EXP is a non-resetting value after all. It doesn't loop and start over once a new level is gained. Though, maybe LV1 simply indicates a potential for gaining EXP.”

Anyone has potential to get EXP. “I'm not sure where B came from, but A is a given truth. The proof is in the game. What were we discussing again?”

Nochocolate made a post that humans couldn’t save and load on the surface. The other humans being able to save was used as evidence for this. So, what was used as evidence to prove that the other humans could save and load? Humans not being able to save and load on the surface, saying that therefore, the ones underground had the most DT, and thus had the ability, because the ones on the surface are excluded, since they can’t save and load on the surface, since that wouldn’t make sense if the fallen humans could save and load, as proven by humans not being able to save and load on the surface…

Ad infinitum. Yep, sounds like circular reasoning to me. “First, why would she try to guess it? Well, she did say why. She said she had a "feeling". And that's not just her being crazy, the other characters also have that exact same "feeling" when we reset.”

Who said it was the exact same feeling? Why can’t it be similar to Flowey thinking he already met you, that you’re Chara?

“She then says that when the humans fall, she ALREADY feels as if she knows them, proving that they had the same powers as Frisk - being able to reset. Save? Who knows. But Reset is confirmed.”

Or, she projects Chara ONTO them. “Next, I was saying that if the characters wanted to, they would have killed Frisk right away. Set up impassable barriers in Snowdin, actually USE the deadly traps, etc. They wouldn't even have to engage with the humans in order to stop them.” Yeah, they would. They need the SOUL, after all. “They all failed because they engaged with them on a close distance. And that was probably because they didn't have anything else prepared. Such AS, the aforementioned stuff.”

The impassible barriers couldn’t be passed by monsters either-It’d be like that monster who was trapped behind a laser, but all across the underground. Also, without actually killing the human, they couldn’t get the SOUL… You know, the thing they wanted to get?

“Also, the OP isn't Toby.”

So? The statement makes sense, as I add later on. You’re not Toby either, so should we disregard all your theories? We can’t just use the argument from authority fallacy. “Yes, if. And there probably is, considering that there is no mention of a monster behaving like this.”

Exactly. And now that we know a minimum DT exists, why can’t we just say it’s higher than that of a non-red human SOUL? "Why couldn't she have drained, say, one-fourth of each of the six SOULS, adding up to a total of 1.5 non-red SOULs worth? Or even half of each, making it the same as 3 non-red SOULs?" “Because that amount would then be missing from the total needed for the barrier.”

That’s assuming DT is SOUL power. It isn’t. Even if it was, remember that Asriel absorbed all the SOULs, and could have used his own and the amalgamates, so the barrier would break just fine.

“Nonetheless, even if that was the case, she still used some of it for the amalgamates, so Flowey had even less.”

There’s four amalgamtes. Six SOULs. There’s enough for all of them. Also, Alphys focused specifically on the flower for a while, and we know that Flowey had the ability, so we KNOW Alphys gave him more. Maybe like half the determination, since it would take more to bring a non-living thing to life than keep a living one alive, as the Amalgamtes already had a little DT before they died, unlike the flower, which was already dead?

“And still less than one whole soul, considering that Frisk had more. And again, you're here with the baseless red soul argument. All proof for the statement that it's stronger than 7 non-red human souls combined is fundamentally flawed in one way or another, and I successfully refuted it all.”

Except for the Asriel part, which you conveniently fail to account for here, so I used your other reply just so I’d have SOMETHING from you to work with. “So stop bringing it back up. Unless you want to piss me off. I prove something and you say "no". This is reminding me of something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpWaVcTdcRU”

Unlike the kid, I actually offer logical explanation, and keep mentioning a paradox that you fail to explain, just saying that’s not canon. Sure you didn’t get the roles backwards? “I don't think they "could" exist. I know they exist. Hundreds of them.”

That can each be divided into the seven we all know.

“But none of them are represented as magic. Since the magic only represents fighting styles, of which there are only 7.”

If there can be an eighth trait, then there can be an eighth fighting style. How about trying to trick your opponent to then catch them off-guard? “He did reference one anomaly, but who knows if it was the only one.”

He said he found AN anomaly. So he’s implying there’s only one.

“Maybe they weren't so intense as Flowey's shenanigans.”

Now that’s a better point-He did only say there was one MASSIVE anomaly, in contrast to the possible smaller ones.

“In any case, it was recent enough to make him think that it was Frisk, and I don't see why he would feel the need to tell Frisk that this has happened like 6 times already. He only wanted to scold them for doing it (though ofc it was actually Flowey), not to educate them on the history of timekeeping.”

It was Frisk too, after they stole it from Flowey.