Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20190716014521/@comment-32182236-20190720195701

Everything until the end is sound.

The only thing I could possibly do is attack the very last argument, and claim that you used the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and defend the idea that there could be another entity in Frisk's body, and that this second entity is the narrator we see.

This, of course, has all the same problems that it had when used as a defense against my argument, though.

I could also attempt to attack the final premise 1, saying that perhaps Chara is not an entity that's in Frisk's body, and that the evidence that Chara is in Frisk's body is meant for us, not Frisk. But as I point out earlier, such a proposition doesn't make much logical sense.

I could also claim that Chara is a cosmic entity, and make that my explanation for why Frisk can get their memories, and thus is not the narrator. I can cite Chara's appearance at the end of the Genocide Route physically as "evidence" for this proposition. But we know for a fact that Chara is at least a narrator, because of the argument that I made. (Unless the narrator that called us Frisk is not the same as the narrator that calls themselves Chara. But Frisk is not Chara, and know their name to be Frisk, so the narrator that calls themselves Chara still can't be Frisk. ...Maybe I could stretch things and say the second narrator, who calls themselves Chara, is the player? And the one calling Frisk "Frisk" is them talking to themselves?)