Now we're playing semantics? Sorry, Naruto was only responsible for one death. That's your own wording, so I don't see any disagreeing there.Originally Posted by Abdula
My post was more or less explaining myself. Not so much you. I understand exacly what you're saying. Pretty much the simplified version would be:
There is a slim chance of Naruto even coming into contact with Pain. If and when he does there is no garuntee he will even be able or strong enough to kill him. Because of this there is a high possibility that someone else will kill him. Therefore; we cannot conducively say Naruto will kill Pain.
I both understand and agree with that. (Lets not get caught up in stipulations if there was a thing or two I missed.) I was simply explaining my reasoning behind why I think Naruto will be the one to do it. As I said above; it's all speculation anyway so obviously there's even more than a chance that Naruto won't be the one to do it. The only reason I quoted you in the first place was because you made it seem as if my deduction was outrageous.
Now I don't know if that was your intent, and it doesn't really matter. In all honesty I don't think it was, but I do think that perhaps you, and any one else deserved an explanation of what I meant in my first statement. Thus the reason I elaborated.Originally Posted by Abdula