Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20190425222457/@comment-32182236-20190511122437

I'm just way better at breaking theories than making them.

I try to debunk as MANY possibilties as I possibly can, because if I can debunk all but one theory, we've found the truth! So that's the reason why I try to debunk absoutely every point made.

So it's not just your theory that I try to Death Blow. This is how I try to tackle EVERY theory with. And you did a good job doing that to the "Statue is Asriel" theory that I came up with.

I want all of the incorrect possibilities to be completely eliminated.. So that only the truth remains. So you can bet I'm going to try to Death Blow as many theories as I can find. And I have no problem with you attempting to do the same with mine, as long as we're all dealing with canon, as the game shows us.

Taking another look at your ideas for canon, I think I figured out what's dividing us. Because this exact division exists somewhere else as well... Dungeons and Dragons.

Meet the "RAW vs RAI" debate:One of the biggest ones in D&D's entire fandom, and one that splits the fandom, much like we're split right now.

I'm more of a "canon as written" theorist. Since that's the only objective canon.

In Dungeons and Dragons, though, there's a bit more of a reason to try to go for RAI, simply because the game was designed to be a roleplaying experience.. And that's it. You're not analyzing the canon when you're roleplaying a game, after all, you're roleplaying a game! The split's a lot more justified there. (Plus, WC's rules have really been quite.. contradictory..)

But when we're looking for the objective canon, it's best to look at canon as written.