Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190716003715/@comment-32182236-20190818171722

Good job, Jacky. You did what Mago failed to do.

I applaud you for that. I'm going to have to accept the theory's negation to be true. It breaks down for Jerry. All he does it make everyone else's attacks last longer.

Jerry alone does absolutely nothing. Just like Sans. Yet, the effects are different.

I made the TP rule to attempt to explain why doing nothing meant your turn never arrived. A fact that Sans flat-out shows is true.

But apparently, it's not always true. Jerry shows that this assertion is actually false. Doing nothing does not mean that your opponent's turn will never arrive.

So either Jerry is somehow giving you a turn for some reason (This could be why nobody likes Jerry), or Sans is doing something else to take your turn away.

...In fact, that's actually enough to crumble the foundation of my hypothesis! I'll have to start anew!

Good thing I didn't consider that a theory, and only gave it as an alternative. Still, though. With that gone, I'll need another one. One without any holes.

I applaud you, Jacky. You were the first person to ever debunk that. (I actually presented this theory twice before on other threads, and there were people who disagreed with it.. But they failed to debunk it. They're too Doylist.)

And with only two sentences as well.

Mago failed.. But that doesn't mean his conclusions were wrong. It's possible to defend a true claim with bad logic.

Saying otherwise, that since Mago used bad logic, their claim is wrong (instead of just saying they failed to prove anything), would be to commit the argument from fallacy, also known as the fallacy fallacy.

That's a fallacy I'll be going over as secondary fallacies. Fallacies that apply to meta-arguments:Arguments ABOUT arguments, or arguments CONTAINING other arguments.