Show me you can make a deep analysis that makes perfect sense OR forfeit the idea that you can make sense at all.
I'll demonstrate three right now.
1. Logia awakenings use the same traditional rules that other awakenings do. They cause the abilities to affect things other than the user's own body.
2. Loki is the embodiment of a War God, he won't follow Harald's pacifist ways.
3. Destroying the Red Line would mean animal nurseries and migratory routes are devastated.
Supporting evidence: Doflamingo explained the rules of awakenings and he included that the abilities begin to affect things other than the user's body, and a War God usually has extreme convictions of violence rather than half-hearted dreams of peace. The Red Line is the largest landmass on the planet, there are countless animals forming nurseries and migratory routes on it.
The stuff I just said is indisputable. There's no disputing it, it's practically facts.
Note: I challenge you, try to make a deep analysis. However, if anything you say can be disputed, then it's not a real analysis at all. It needs to be rock-solid or it shouldn't even be considered a proper idea. You need to be able to defend the idea. If it becomes indefensible or open to question, then it's not good enough.
I'll demonstrate three right now.
1. Logia awakenings use the same traditional rules that other awakenings do. They cause the abilities to affect things other than the user's own body.
2. Loki is the embodiment of a War God, he won't follow Harald's pacifist ways.
3. Destroying the Red Line would mean animal nurseries and migratory routes are devastated.
Supporting evidence: Doflamingo explained the rules of awakenings and he included that the abilities begin to affect things other than the user's body, and a War God usually has extreme convictions of violence rather than half-hearted dreams of peace. The Red Line is the largest landmass on the planet, there are countless animals forming nurseries and migratory routes on it.
The stuff I just said is indisputable. There's no disputing it, it's practically facts.
Note: I challenge you, try to make a deep analysis. However, if anything you say can be disputed, then it's not a real analysis at all. It needs to be rock-solid or it shouldn't even be considered a proper idea. You need to be able to defend the idea. If it becomes indefensible or open to question, then it's not good enough.
Last edited:
