(Each paragraph is a counter for each response of each quote)
1.Going to the part about human heroes' limits. I guess we can take Aturia out, but what about the other heroes? Lancelot may have the protection of the faeries but he is still human. Three Kingdoms is about humans killing humans, BUT, there are many of them who would be considered a hero because of blown up legends, stories and what not. In fact, there was a lot magic mixed into the three kingdoms as well. When I am talking about matching Lancelot "physically", I mean that there are other warriors in his time period. If Lancelot (non-berserker) was running around with all around B class stats, then he might as well destroy the other army because everyone is a normal knight (at best E stats), so there must have been warriors there that can balance that power. Some in the enemies side, some on the protagonist's side. So that means there were a bunch of warriors with C or B or A class stats scattered around in Europe during the time of King Arthur. The same can be said for any other legend or story.
2. So are you saying that all heroes are not human? All heroes have done something that was "impossible" or going against destiny. Then that means both Emiya and Assassin aren't human anymore.
3. This part was my bad. When I say other servants, I meant human servants. But the fact that Assassin and Emiya exist show that there can be human servants.
4. But this shows that HF Shirou was able to do something that Archer could not do, defeat Berserker. HF Shirou has done something that has "surpassed" the original. So that means that Archer still has more room to grow. I am talking about the POTENTIAL of Archer, not really about how strong HF Shirou is. If a YOUNGER self can achieve something greater than Archer can in the prime of his life, that means Archer has not reached that potential, therefore, there can be a parallel universe where that Archer did reach that potential.
5. I don't really care about HF Shirou in this one. I only used HF Shirou to get across the point that Archer still has room to grow. If that Archer can influence more Shirous in more wars, then it can be possible that there are more "books" where Archer does meet his full potential.
6. Saber and Berserker are the strongest of servants, so they are going to have the best of stats. I said "respectable" not godly. The reason I bring Assassin into this is because Assassin is a human just like Emiya. However, Assassin is able to achieve stats that allow him to have above human skills. He even does something that is physically impossible without the help of a noble phantasm or magic. If Assassin, a human, is able to reach stats as high as A, then Emiya, who is untalented, should reach stats as high as at least C.
7. That was just a question I want answered.
. I am talking about when "they were alive". If they were alive and had stats up the wazoo, then it would be a very chaotic world where one person has the ability to destroy an army. I am not talking about servant v. servant, I am talking about the strength they had when they were ALIVE.
9. That was just a statement I made.
10. I'm not talking about heroic spirits, I am comparing to PEOPLE, HUMANS, HOMO SAPIENS. The whole reason I am bringing Assassin, the stats of when human heroes were alive and things like that is because YOU stated the fact that Emiya is at the pinnicle of hard work and is the strongest of what "he can achieve as a human being". But I am bringing in the fact that Assassin, a human, can reach godly speed and reasonable strength. Something that Archer can accomplish, considering he did not reach his full potential. Plus, the pinnicle of hard work does not make you the strongest you can possibly be. It just means you work as hard as you possibly can. Which Shirou did, and became Archer; but alas, did not reach his full potential. So there can be another timeline where Shirou does reach this potential through more time or whatever.
11. Sabata2 summed up my point pretty well for this one.
12. Ok, my sentence was worded badly. I meant that any human can break the limit, including untalented people. What matters is if people actually put the effort to break it or not. And this is not easy. That is why you don't see 20,000 heroes everyday on your way to work. Yes, they can potentially become heroes if they break that limit; however, Emiya can break it. Why? Because humans CAN break the limit. And Emiya, who tries harder than anyone else, can break the limit, he even did something that went against destiny, something that is above normal human limits.
13. And yes. A theory is called a theory and not a fact for a reason. It cannot be completely proven or disproven depending on the theory. For all we know, Newton's laws might be disproven tomorrow. But it depends on how we take up that EVIDENCE that is based upon BASIC LOGIC. If I actually prove that 2F=ma, would you believe it? It depends, and it depends because of the EVIDENCE that I provide. If I prove for this one solid experiment that 2F=ma, that means that basic physics has to be rethought because F=ma is no longer liable. But the fact that so far, noone has disproven it means that it is more likely for it to be true. The longer a theory is out there in the water, the stronger the theory would become because of the defense against the attacking criticisms. For your Saddam Hussein statement, It is more "there is no concrete evidence" to believe that there are WMDs. Since there is not one shred of evidence, it makes it very hard to believe. But if one day, we found out that Saddam actually had WMDs, then we would look silly for not believing such a thing. But the fact is, so far, no WMDs have been found, and based on the current events, it seems unlikely for Saddam to have WMDs. A theory must have EVIDENCE to be a concrete theory. You have a theory that there can be no Sarcher. So what I am doing is questioning your theory. If your theory is truly solid, than my possibility should be impossible. Your counter arguments did not answer much since I am able to counter back. And you say you want me to provide you something with an even footing? That is what I am doing. Putting about possibilities that seem
to have no contradictions with the nasuverse rules. And if you can't provide a contradiction, then that makes one possibility possible and takes down your theory. So yes, this constant exchange of arguments is the only way to do things, unless Nasu comes over here and says "Let there be Sarcher" or "Sarcher will never exist". But even then, he must give a reasonable explanation as to why this and this is true. It would just be easier for him because he can pull shit from his ass for the ambiguous parts the nasuverse and it would still be correct.