Woah what? You saying here that you don't think the sword slashes connected and Buggy predicts the slashes ahead of time like Katakuri did against Luffy? Interesting thought, but wasn't there a distinct moment where Zoro was satisfied that he'd sliced through Buggy and then when Buggy keeled over sliced in half, he used Zoro's confidence to hit him with a surprise attack? I could be remembering that wrong, but I think Zoro would have noticed if he hadn't made contact with anything at all. I think it's pretty well established that Buggy is immune to swords not because he can slice his body up ahead of time, but it's a property of his body that it can be sliced up and put back together no matter what, almost as intrinsic as Luffy's rubberiness. Buggy's Fruit is actually a bit of an enigma to me, so I'll go on a bit of a tangent covering my thoughts on it here (skip to the next quote response if you don't care lol). The way I see it, every cell in Buggy's body is connected in a way that ignores actual space while it's in his sphere of control. A new property has been added to his body that says that there's a certain level of teleportation or perhaps other-worldliness that means that everything in his body is always exactly connected the way it naturally is, in spite of physical space. Additionally he is able to freely engage this ability by disconnected whatever part of his body he likes and hovering it around, controlling it as though it was never attached at all. Cutting intrinsically involves disconnected two parts of the body from each other that were otherwise necessary to be connected in order for the body to fulfil a certain function. In the case of smaller things like paper cuts, two pieces of skin disconnect from each other due to the physical separation of their bonds and thus blood is allow to flow out from the cut. Buggy's body however doesn't rely on a physical connection between the two flaps of skin, but remains connected through his DF's property, so cutting him won't impact anything and he'd freely be able to put himself back together using his aforementioned ability to manually control parts of his body. The simplest way I could explain it is that it's not his physical form that keeps his body intact, but something else entirely that allows him to move beyond anything physically binding. I realise I'm not doing a good job explaining this and that I'd need a lot more time to do so, so I think I'll just drop it here. Oh ma gaawwwwd why do people keep doing this to ma boi Zoro. The Zoro vs Monet fight goes like this: Zoro is chilling against a wall watching Tashigi fight it out against Monet. It starts getting too rough for Tashigi when we see Monet start tearing into her shoulder. Zoro's like "yeah nah that's enough" so he sends a haki imbued air slash from his position on the wall to lightly cut Monet on the cheek, which makes Monet release Tashigi to address him (probably to intimidate her so she releases Tashigi freely rather than risk Tashigi's shoulder with a proper attack). He then gives his speech about being a fierce animal before performing the famous Haki-less slash that incapacitates Monet. People always like to forget that Zoro cut her twice (I've gone through this exact conversation like 3 times on opf already lol) and don't seem to realise that it's the first one that opens a pretty massive gateway in how we understand air slashes. Well seeing as this is a pretty big pivot point for you and how you'd see Haki, I'll dig up the references for you to check out Spoiler: Game Changer (go to 1:44) The manga has him far beyond melee range when the cut lands with no indication that he ran forward, cut her lightly, and ran backwards (which would be the only explanation for keeping Haki at melee range) and the anime has a very distinct air-slash effect. Pretty clear in both mediums, especially the anime, that this was a Haki imbued air slash. Well I mean magical air is a theory at best. I'm not sure where the eyes vs ears thing came from, but it was clear all throughout Sky Island that Mantra gave the priests and Enel the ability to superhumanly predict the action that an opponent was preparing to do based on the slightest shift in their movements. Well, this isn't so much a rebuttal but a deflection: "it's not an issue since it does the same thing anyway". I'm identifying an inconsistency. You haven't told me anything to make me disbelieve that apart from indicating that it doesn't bother you since it's basically doing the same thing. But it's not the same thing. One reads movements/intent while another reads the actual future. There's a HUGE discrepancy there, and just because they're both applied in similar scenarios doesn't mean that these abilities are interchangeable. Wait a sec, this contradicts this: I was asking if you thought that Crocodile was hit by water because water is the weakness of every Devil Fruit, namely sea water's ability to paralyse them. But now you're referring to it as Crocodile's "anti-element". Unless you mean to say that water is every Devil Fruit's anti-element? I'm a bit confused, but it might just be that I wasn't clear enough originally. If nothing else you saying that you don't like the wiki's description says that it isn't certain from the story exactly how it is that Luffy hits Crocodile. At any rate, the Rayleigh quote I think tips the scales towards the wiki's description that it's all about solidity, but if you're happy to simply accept it as manga magic then I suppose there's not too much to discuss here. Saying "a great majority of fans will not question this" is as good as saying "yes it's a problem but it doesn't bother anyone so it's OK" as far as I'm concerned. It absolutely is a problem that characters don't start pulling this crap on the small scale because there are heaps of tight spots when it would have been incredibly useful, and we've seen plenty of times characters who wouldn't care about the life span risk (same attitude as Luffy) be in tight spots where a small rush of power would be incredibly useful so it's not sufficient to say "no one else does it because it cuts their life short" as far as I'm concerned. At any rate, all I'm arguing for is that this may impact believability to someone in the tiny minority that isn't in your "great majority". It doesn't even bother me, but it's still an issue that exists. It's one teeny tiny detail that could have major repercussions depending on how it works that is simply overlooked by the story. I can gloss over it when I watch it without much difficulty at all, but all I'm trying to get you to say is that it's simply there. That's not the Devil Fruit taking a toll on Luffy, that's Luffy drastically increasing his heart rate in a way that's permitted by his Devil Fruit taking a toll on Luffy. As far as we can tell (at least as far as you and Kia are willing to argue), Gear Second is not an ability of the Gum Gum Fruit, but is activated by Luffy pumping blood through his body to increase his heart rate. We've already agreed that Luffy's DF gives Luffy no other powers other than "I am made of rubber" anyway, so I don't know why you're trying to use it to counter the point that only Law's Devil Fruit power directly drains his stamina, unless you believe that Luffy being made of rubber has a permanent detrimental effect on him by virtue of it being a DF power, which is not supported in anyway by the story since Luffy showed no signs of a reduction in stamina after eating the Gum Gum Fruit in his childhood. But that's exactly my issue. What I'm arguing for in this thread is that every time you're in a position where the only way for the story to make sense is "just a matter of rationalising the most likely explanation", you have a flaw in the story. It means you're doing the work for Oda and this can lead to all sorts of odd problems, especially when you think that your "most likely explanation" is the truth in the story and other people have different ones. Easiest example is both of our understandings of the Crocodile situation. The reason that we both have such heavily differing explanations as to why he's weak to water is not a matter of one of us incorrectly "rationalizing the most likely explanation", but there simply not being information in the story. I take great issue when people try to sell their "explanations" as story-fact and use it as some kind of objective defense of the story. It's like me showing you a house, but there's a giant hole in one of the walls. Luckily you've got a small rock in your pocket, so you hold it in front of you so it perfectly covers the hole from your perspective. You then say "what hole? I can't see a hole. Everything seems perfectly in order to me". Now the problem with this isn't that you're simply saying what you see in front of your face (that there is no hole), which might be fair enough, but that you're pretending like you're not holding up the rock that covers the hole and that everyone should be able to see what you see despite them possibly not having a, or having a different rock in their pockets that they use to cover the hole. From my perspective, this exact thing is what you both are doing when you're addressing the issues I raise. When I say Gear Second's activation isn't sufficiently explained to prevent odd things happening, I see one person using a rock that says "calf pumps" on it and another that says "Tibetan monk-style" on it. When I say it's insufficiently explained how Logia's intangibility works, I get some rocks that say "Manual", another which says "Automatic", and ours which says "On/off". One rock for water vs Crocodile says "magic anti-element" while another says "forced solidity". The only way to repair the hole (or rather, prove it wasn't there in the first place) is to find the explanation in the story that addresses the concerns raised. I don't care how well the rocks explain it, the issue is that there's a hole that the rocks need to cover in the first place.