The Hero Trained by the Worst Demon King Is Unrivaled in the School of Returnees From Another World

[Dzrian]

Yeah, lots of "could"s and "if"s, you basically just guess a whole lot of nonsense and none of it changes what the author actually wrote, which is what we're actually scrutinizing. Also, some of your "explanations" don't even make any sense.

What's scientifically true about long living beings taking longer to change? The only long living beings that exist are some animals and trees. In the first place, we're talking about mental maturity and emotion, which you can't measure in any of the aforementioned beings, hence why the topic is about humans, which are not long living beings. The fact that the mc is a human and not a naturally long living being already makes your statement irrelevant.

Also, popping in at the very last second when things are at their utmost breaking point isn't protecting your friends. Letting your friends get severely hurt, brutally bullied and defeated by people with bad intentions isn't protecting them. Allowing them to be taken away to some unknown location and confined by people with evil schemes isn't protecting them.
Or is it all good as long as they're technically alive? What about in the recent chapter where one of them was held hostage so that the other was forced to swallow some drug made from the lives of other innocent people? I guess it's all okay since he'll "save" them eventually right?
But that's totally convenient since the author would never actually have one of the main characters die. But in a real scenario it doesn't work like that. In a real scenario the villain doesn't stall and wait for the mc to show up at the very last moment. In a real scenario all of the mc's friends would already be dead as he takes his sweet time over multiple chapters to find and rescue them.
Yes he is a complete and total spineless coward because after 30 thousand years of training with the strongest being that destroyed countless world, he most definitely has the power to prevent all of the bad things happening to his companions. But he refuses to because of reasons that don't even make sense and are completely contradictory to his goals.
He's so obsessed with living a "peaceful and quiet life" or whatever yet him acting like a pussy all the time is exactly what's attracting so much negative attention his way. He just randomly assumes, with zero basis, that him proving that he's strong will somehow cause everybody to realize that Felize is the demon lord and the whole world will riot as a result. Even though countless other students are allowed to be strong for seemingly no reason, even though they couldn't decipher her identity or even detect her nature as a demon lord as she's just waltzing around in the middle of their facility in cat form, even though they clearly have no way to actually confirm what goes on in the worlds that they all return from. There's literally not a single logical reason for him to be so weary yet he still acts like a useless brick at all times even though he has enough power to protect Felize even if she gets found out for some unexplainable reason.

Lastly, bragging about your standards is pretty cringe, especially if your "standards" mostly just amount to reading whatever is rated the highest. The fact that you even rate this trash story so well despite it's innumerable glaring flaws and plot holes is telling enough. There are plenty decent stories out there that aren't rated as high as some that are worse, you miss out on a lot when you only tend to try what the masses seem to enjoy, you sound like one of those people who think that Solo Leveling is the peak of the "Dungeons on Earth" genre when there are many better ones that came before and after it that just simply get a mainstream anime adaptation.

Anyway, all that to say that the mc is indeed a spineless, cowardly pussy of an individual, just like so many other Japanese main characters, and the story is dogshit for many reasons other than just that. I've seen many cases where an overpowered main character was allowed to be overpowered yet the story itself was still interesting and engaging enough so that things didn't become stale because of it. This whole "hide my powers no matter what" trope has long harshly fallen out of style for good reason and if the author can't make a compelling story with an overpowered mc without making use of this terrible and frustrating trope then that just speaks to their lack of ability, that and the aforementioned glaring plot holes and cliches.

To start off, my comment is about how such a trope could be better with logical reasoning, while the other addresses your exaggeration or misuse of an term and personal feelings.

Firstly, yes, he’s human, but his body and therefore his brain has been frozen or slowed at that age for all those years, so it’s entirely plausible that his emotional growth has been stalled alongside his physical state. In real-world biology, neural development tracks bodily development. Lock someone’s body at a fixed age, and you effectively lock their mind’s maturation too. That’s the core of the hypothesis, when everything else in this world changes at its own pace, why wouldn’t the mind? You jumped straight to typical human psychology, but this MC is clearly not typical; if his biology never ages, his psyche shouldn’t either, unless the author shows otherwise. It’s nuanced thinking.

Either way, you’re trying to refute on something that I think could help explain such cliche plots better, with less effort. I’m not saying it’s for this specific title. You thought I’m going, “could,” and, “if,” for this? Maybe read again. I’m not even defending this title over this. I’m using it as an example.
-Main point.

Thus, the hypotheticals do not apply to this work. I’m criticising it for the lack of building for the 30000 years setup. It felt shallow.

Regarding my personal criterias, you’re ironically telling me about lower rated titles with good plot. As if my comment had stated that I only read high rated works. I only said it’s my rule of thumb. Neither did I say that all high rated works are good. The market is over saturated with such typical plot. I’m an avid reader which is why I use the high rating as a personal filter. You win some, you lose some.
I used this experience for a relative comparison. I’m well aware of hidden gems. I have read quite a few to the point it’s hard to tell when hardly anyone talks about the specific title.
-That’s not even a brag, it’s an observation and comparison.

Secondly, you’re ranting, though I get that it might make sense from your preference.
But really? Solo Leveling? You really thought you could shoot your shot with that as an argument? It’s an irrelevant accusation.
Funny enough, Solo Leveling is actually very typical to me. You really missed your shot there.

Also, calling my input “cringe” while making your own baseless assumption is hypocritical when it comes to the “cringe factors.”

I find assumption to be cringe in arguments because they reveal whether someone is genuinely engaging with the point or just arguing to feel right.

Additionally, to address your point.
“forced to swallow some drug made from the lives of other innocent people?”
Yeah, but then even if the MC had shown up earlier, it would still feel convenient as fictional timelines aren’t strictly linear, so we can assume off-screen events. More importantly, yes, friends get hurt, but if the MC swooped in every time, side characters may not grow. That “last-second save” isn’t just posturing; it may potentially be the only way they develop agency. Of course, whether this works depends entirely on execution, but dismissing it outright ignores its role in character development.

It’s fine in theory, but it all comes down to execution. Whether it works or not is up to preference and bias plays a part.If the mc does arrive for these moments early on, you’re not giving these characters time to possibly develop.
They’ll then be another one of those useless characters you can also continue to critique.

Lastly, I stand by my point regarding the term, “spineless coward.”
It generally means someone who is unwilling to stand up for themselves or their beliefs. Which we see, is not entirely something he is doing. He even did something in the early chapters before anything escalated further.

Again, whether you think his actions makes sense or not, his reasons, nor his beliefs, what he did is not simply cowardice. It’s more of exaggerated caution. Like an overthinker. Let me work up an analogy. It’s like you’d call a worker a “spineless coward” for trying to adhere to a barrage of seemingly minor safety rules in a hazardous work environment that others are neglecting because they’re already experienced.

Conclusion.
I attempted to offer a logical opinion grounded in biological sense.
The trope itself isn’t dead, it just works best when the author earns it on the page.

It seems I’ve been dragged into a reply that barely relates to, or even considers, the point or opinion I raised (refer to my opening sentence).
So I didn’t bother addressing every thing you brought up about the story. (Wasn’t actively going for that).

 

[Chebron]

To start off, my comment is about how such a trope could be better with logical reasoning, while the other addresses your exaggeration or misuse of an term and personal feelings.

Firstly, yes, he’s human, but his body and therefore his brain has been frozen or slowed at that age for all those years, so it’s entirely plausible that his emotional growth has been stalled alongside his physical state. In real-world biology, neural development tracks bodily development. Lock someone’s body at a fixed age, and you effectively lock their mind’s maturation too. That’s the core of the hypothesis, when everything else in this world changes at its own pace, why wouldn’t the mind? You jumped straight to typical human psychology, but this MC is clearly not typical; if his biology never ages, his psyche shouldn’t either, unless the author shows otherwise. It’s nuanced thinking.

Either way, you’re trying to refute on something that I think could help explain such cliche plots better, with less effort. I’m not saying it’s for this specific title. You thought I’m going, “could,” and, “if,” for this? Maybe read again. I’m not even defending this title over this. I’m using it as an example.
-Main point.

Thus, the hypotheticals do not apply to this work. I’m criticising it for the lack of building for the 30000 years setup. It felt shallow.

Regarding my personal criterias, you’re ironically telling me about lower rated titles with good plot. As if my comment had stated that I only read high rated works. I only said it’s my rule of thumb. Neither did I say that all high rated works are good. The market is over saturated with such typical plot. I’m an avid reader which is why I use the high rating as a personal filter. You win some, you lose some.
I used this experience for a relative comparison. I’m well aware of hidden gems. I have read quite a few to the point it’s hard to tell when hardly anyone talks about the specific title.
-That’s not even a brag, it’s an observation and comparison.

Secondly, you’re ranting, though I get that it might make sense from your preference.
But really? Solo Leveling? You really thought you could shoot your shot with that as an argument? It’s an irrelevant accusation.
Funny enough, Solo Leveling is actually very typical to me. You really missed your shot there.

Also, calling my input “cringe” while making your own baseless assumption is hypocritical when it comes to the “cringe factors.”

I find assumption to be cringe in arguments because they reveal whether someone is genuinely engaging with the point or just arguing to feel right.

Additionally, to address your point.
“forced to swallow some drug made from the lives of other innocent people?”
Yeah, but then even if the MC had shown up earlier, it would still feel convenient as fictional timelines aren’t strictly linear, so we can assume off-screen events. More importantly, yes, friends get hurt, but if the MC swooped in every time, side characters may not grow. That “last-second save” isn’t just posturing; it may potentially be the only way they develop agency. Of course, whether this works depends entirely on execution, but dismissing it outright ignores its role in character development.

It’s fine in theory, but it all comes down to execution. Whether it works or not is up to preference and bias plays a part.If the mc does arrive for these moments early on, you’re not giving these characters time to possibly develop.
They’ll then be another one of those useless characters you can also continue to critique.

Lastly, I stand by my point regarding the term, “spineless coward.”
It generally means someone who is unwilling to stand up for themselves or their beliefs. Which we see, is not entirely something he is doing. He even did something in the early chapters before anything escalated further.

Again, whether you think his actions makes sense or not, his reasons, nor his beliefs, what he did is not simply cowardice. It’s more of exaggerated caution. Like an overthinker. Let me work up an analogy. It’s like you’d call a worker a “spineless coward” for trying to adhere to a barrage of seemingly minor safety rules in a hazardous work environment that others are neglecting because they’re already experienced.

Conclusion.
I attempted to offer a logical opinion grounded in biological sense.
The trope itself isn’t dead, it just works best when the author earns it on the page.

It seems I’ve been dragged into a reply that barely relates to, or even considers, the point or opinion I raised (refer to my opening sentence).
So I didn’t bother addressing every thing you brought up about the story. (Wasn’t actively going for that).

Again, your hypothetical explanation falls completely flat.

Saying that the mind ages with the body in no way suggests that stalling physical growth will stall mental growth as well. That's simply illogical, mental maturity doesn't work that way. And even if that were somehow the case, it's clear that the physical maturity of his brain isn't stalled, otherwise it would be impossible for him to learn anything by storing new information, such as all the magic and techniques he learned in those 30 thousand years, he wouldn't even be able to form memories out of all that time if that were the case.
Similarly, his physical growth outside of his brain is also not stalled, otherwise all of his training would have zero effect. There's no way that he'd be able to improve his strength or reflexes if his cells weren't constantly decaying and regenerating. In this case the only explanation is that his physical appearance is the only thing that's not maturing. It therefore makes zero logical sense why he hasn't adopted an ounce of mental maturity in ten years of time, far less 30 thousand years. The only plausible explanation would be that he simply went insane, which is the only logical thing that could possibly happen if any human were to live in a secluded place for even a fraction of that ridiculously stupid amount of time. The author pretty much shot themself in the foot from the start with that asinine number, especially considering that the result is this useless COWARD of a main character.

I've said it multiple times and I'll keep saying it, he is a COWARD. Your analogy about a construction worker following safety rules would only apply if the construction worker had an indestructible body and they could tie rebar into a knot just by using their tongue. The whole issue is that with this stupid set-up of the main character training for 30 thousand years with the strongest demon kind, he has zero reason to be cautious of anyone or anything. Try to refute the obvious and glaring contradictions in his reasoning that I've already stated if you think that what he's doing somehow makes sense. I'm only going off what the author claims his reasoning is, which is supposedly to live a peaceful life with the demon lord, and I've already explained how he's accomplishing the complete opposite with his idiotic actions. Let's not even talk about the fact that he's fully aware of all the fuckery going on inside the facility and how many people besides his own companions are being negatively affected by the acts of certain scumbags, yet he tucks his head away and pretends like he doesn't see it, refusing to do the barest minimum to help those who can't help themselves while refusing to use his power even for those closest to him. At that point, what is he if not a complete worthless coward? What's the point of him having all that power if he doesn't actively stand up for anyone or even himself?

If the author wanted the story to be about just the growth of his companions then they should have given him the role of a guardian or a teacher to help them in their growth, but by him hiding his power even from his companions, he refuses to even teach them or help them grow, leaving them weak and vulnerable while still refusing to help them until the very last second every single time. He's not only a coward but a complete scumbag too. His very existence as a protagonist is bland and borderline pointless if all he is is simply insurance to make sure that certain people don't just straight up die in specific scenarios.
I've read stories where the main character was an overpowered monster but instead of actively fighting themselves, they used their knowledge and overpowerdness to teach and nurture others. A story like that is a thousand times better than this type of garbage.

No matter what, the main character is always who people read a story for, even when there are more interesting characters within the story. Making your main character someone who's completely unlikeable with so many shit qualities, a character that's impossible to root for simply because the readers don't like them, will inevitably make the story as a whole unreadable. Why would I like a story where I cringe every time the main character appears in the frame?

 

[RedlineAlchemist]

standard plot of "mc is the strongest but pretends to be weak" combined with "everyone else is an ass", plus his virgin ass spent 30K years with a hot demon lady and didn't even make it to first base.

 

[Dzrian]

Again, your hypothetical explanation falls completely flat.

Saying that the mind ages with the body in no way suggests that stalling physical growth will stall mental growth as well. That's simply illogical, mental maturity doesn't work that way. And even if that were somehow the case, it's clear that the physical maturity of his brain isn't stalled, otherwise it would be impossible for him to learn anything by storing new information, such as all the magic and techniques he learned in those 30 thousand years, he wouldn't even be able to form memories out of all that time if that were the case.
Similarly, his physical growth outside of his brain is also not stalled, otherwise all of his training would have zero effect. There's no way that he'd be able to improve his strength or reflexes if his cells weren't constantly decaying and regenerating. In this case the only explanation is that his physical appearance is the only thing that's not maturing. It therefore makes zero logical sense why he hasn't adopted an ounce of mental maturity in ten years of time, far less 30 thousand years. The only plausible explanation would be that he simply went insane, which is the only logical thing that could possibly happen if any human were to live in a secluded place for even a fraction of that ridiculously stupid amount of time. The author pretty much shot themself in the foot from the start with that asinine number, especially considering that the result is this useless COWARD of a main character.

I've said it multiple times and I'll keep saying it, he is a COWARD. Your analogy about a construction worker following safety rules would only apply if the construction worker had an indestructible body and they could tie rebar into a knot just by using their tongue. The whole issue is that with this stupid set-up of the main character training for 30 thousand years with the strongest demon kind, he has zero reason to be cautious of anyone or anything. Try to refute the obvious and glaring contradictions in his reasoning that I've already stated if you think that what he's doing somehow makes sense. I'm only going off what the author claims his reasoning is, which is supposedly to live a peaceful life with the demon lord, and I've already explained how he's accomplishing the complete opposite with his idiotic actions. Let's not even talk about the fact that he's fully aware of all the fuckery going on inside the facility and how many people besides his own companions are being negatively affected by the acts of certain scumbags, yet he tucks his head away and pretends like he doesn't see it, refusing to do the barest minimum to help those who can't help themselves while refusing to use his power even for those closest to him. At that point, what is he if not a complete worthless coward? What's the point of him having all that power if he doesn't actively stand up for anyone or even himself?

If the author wanted the story to be about just the growth of his companions then they should have given him the role of a guardian or a teacher to help them in their growth, but by him hiding his power even from his companions, he refuses to even teach them or help them grow, leaving them weak and vulnerable while still refusing to help them until the very last second every single time. He's not only a coward but a complete scumbag too. His very existence as a protagonist is bland and borderline pointless if all he is is simply insurance to make sure that certain people don't just straight up die in specific scenarios.
I've read stories where the main character was an overpowered monster but instead of actively fighting themselves, they used their knowledge and overpowerdness to teach and nurture others. A story like that is a thousand times better than this type of garbage.

No matter what, the main character is always who people read a story for, even when there are more interesting characters within the story. Making your main character someone who's completely unlikeable with so many shit qualities, a character that's impossible to root for simply because the readers don't like them, will inevitably make the story as a whole unreadable. Why would I like a story where I cringe every time the main character appears in the frame?

You say my argument “falls completely flat,” but you have failed to separate the hypothetical as something that is not specifically defending this writing, and your entire rebuttal is built on emotional takes and your own assumptions, not the logic you demand. You seem more invested in attacking the character than understanding the angle I presented. Also, let me emphasise that for my personal take on the story, I never said it was good. Just not that bad compared to others within a similar field.

Part 1, hypotheticals not in respect to the story:
I never said that stalling physical growth guarantees mental immaturity. I proposed it as a plausible explanation that could justify certain tropes, using biological and narrative logic, not as a canon fact. It’s speculative but coherent, especially in genres where characters defy natural laws.

You’re approaching this as if we’re discussing strict reality, not narrative tools that could add logic toexaggerated setups.
You can have your opinions, but ironically, while calling my reasoning illogical, you frame your own opinion as absolute truth, as though the story was written for you specifically.

Your reply veered off into assumptions and attacks. It barely engaged with the point I was making.
Rant all you want, but don’t twist my logical speculation into something it’s not, especially when my point was not about this title specifically other than just an example.

First, you claim that mental maturity doesn’t slow just because physical growth does. But that’s your assumption, not fact. You’re treating the brain like a completely independent system when it’s still a biological organ affected by the same factors that govern physical development. If the body remains biologically stagnant, it’s not far-fetched to explore whether that would include the brain’s emotional or psychological aging.

Even in real-world neuroscience, we know the brain develops in stages, with certain periods being more critical than others. Humans experience phases, childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, etc, where the brain undergoes rapid changes in reasoning, risk assessment, and emotional regulation. If you halt the biological triggers for these transitions, what says the corresponding mental development continues at the same pace?

You’ve brought up that he learns and trains, but memory retention and combat techniques does not equate to emotional maturity, they serve different cognitive functions. You’re confusing functional adaptation with emotional development, which is a key distinction.

Memory and skill acquisition as proof that his brain must be developing normally, is false equivalence. Learning or memory storage doesn’t equate to emotional maturity or moral assertiveness. A person can be brilliant, even powerful, and still emotionally stunted. That happens in real life, let alone in fiction.

Part 2, analogy:
You even misrepresented my analogy. Your counter misses the point. You exaggerated the “indestructible worker” bit to discredit the comparison, but the analogy was about perceived risk, not actual threat. Even someone immensely powerful can feel cautious if they overthink outcomes or if they’ve developed in isolation. Power doesn’t negate anxiety or internal conflict. This isn’t about physical invulnerability, it’s about mindset. You’re conflating capacity with behavior, which undermines your argument.

Part 3, now this is the story and label:
You’re calling someone a coward for being cautious in an unfamiliar, possibly hostile situation, even if they have power. That’s not necessarily fear, it can be strategic overthinking, trauma-informed behavior, or simply a reflection of wanting to avoid unnecessary confrontation. Simply calling it “cowardice” ignores nuance. In fact, if he acted rashly from the start, one could possibly complain he was reckless. You’re so fixated on it that you’re only viewing it from your perspective despite the monologues and subtle actions that can argue otherwise.

Then you rant about how the MC’s power makes his behavior inexcusable as if being overpowered should automatically dictate a bold personality.
You’re measuring him only by action, not intention or function in narrative pacing.
You don’t consider other narrative functions like delayed intervention as a way to let side characters build agency or explore themes of restraint. Instead, you push this binary, that either the MC fights everything immediately or the story’s invalid. By that logic, any story with nuance or delayed reveals is “garbage” unless it centers on constant dominance. That’s not critique, that’s just your taste.

You argue he should be a teacher or guardian if he’s not the lead fighter. Again, forcing your own expectation onto the story structure. Not all character growth comes from direct instruction. The MC staying in the background doesn’t necessarily mean abandonment, it might be a narrative choice to subvert typical power fantasy tropes, whether successfully or not. But your view doesn’t allow for that possibility. Countless stories can prove your point otherwise with its show of character development not going how you expected.

Finally, you say “the main character is always who people read a story for.”
Again, that’s just your perspective. Plenty of stories thrive with ensemble casts or mcs that exist to highlight others. You make it sound like the story owes you a protagonist designed only to your liking. That’s not objective criticism, that’s entitlemen tdressed up as analysis.
No one’s forcing you to read this. Take your own advice and find a story that suits you instead of projecting demands onto one that doesn’t.

Part 4, overall:
You should evaluate whether your counterargument is really grounded in logic or if you’re just venting disappointment because the story didn’t give you the lead you wanted.
You’re using subjective disdain against the character’s belief, even if questionable, to justify calling the mc a coward. That’s not objective reasoning, that’s “I don’t like it, so it’s bad.”

I fail to see why you’re so fixated on trying to rebut a logical perspective on the long-life trope, when most of your response is just a rant aimed at tearing down the story, dressed up as analysis. You completely ignored the fact that I was using this title as an example, not defending it. Instead, you’ve dismissed that context entirely, deliberately twisting separate points together just to force your personal view onto this particular story, then using that to brush off a more nuanced take. And for what? You wrote a whole lot of nothing just to circle back to, “he’s a coward.”

The biggest irony of all is that I, myself, find these tropes to be incredibly typical. The flustered virgin MC, the shallow “thousand-year” stagnation for forced development, the quick and easy romantic tension setups, the predictable redemption arcs, the damsel-to-independent progression, the arrogant side characters, all of it. I find it tired and formulaic, yet somehow, you’ve twisted my narrative into me defending it.

In the end, I only responded to clarify your inability to distinguish between my general hypotheticals and the specific story you’re ranting about. Once again, those hypotheticals were separate,
they don’t defend the story, they don’t change its flaws, and they certainly don’t invalidate the point I was making about the trope as a whole.

 

[Chebron]

You say my argument “falls completely flat,” but you have failed to separate the hypothetical as something that is not specifically defending this writing, and your entire rebuttal is built on emotional takes and your own assumptions, not the logic you demand. You seem more invested in attacking the character than understanding the angle I presented. Also, let me emphasise that for my personal take on the story, I never said it was good. Just not that bad compared to others within a similar field.

Part 1, hypotheticals not in respect to the story:
I never said that stalling physical growth guarantees mental immaturity. I proposed it as a plausible explanation that could justify certain tropes, using biological and narrative logic, not as a canon fact. It’s speculative but coherent, especially in genres where characters defy natural laws.

You’re approaching this as if we’re discussing strict reality, not narrative tools that could add logic toexaggerated setups.
You can have your opinions, but ironically, while calling my reasoning illogical, you frame your own opinion as absolute truth, as though the story was written for you specifically.

Your reply veered off into assumptions and attacks. It barely engaged with the point I was making.
Rant all you want, but don’t twist my logical speculation into something it’s not, especially when my point was not about this title specifically other than just an example.

First, you claim that mental maturity doesn’t slow just because physical growth does. But that’s your assumption, not fact. You’re treating the brain like a completely independent system when it’s still a biological organ affected by the same factors that govern physical development. If the body remains biologically stagnant, it’s not far-fetched to explore whether that would include the brain’s emotional or psychological aging.

Even in real-world neuroscience, we know the brain develops in stages, with certain periods being more critical than others. Humans experience phases, childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, etc, where the brain undergoes rapid changes in reasoning, risk assessment, and emotional regulation. If you halt the biological triggers for these transitions, what says the corresponding mental development continues at the same pace?

You’ve brought up that he learns and trains, but memory retention and combat techniques does not equate to emotional maturity, they serve different cognitive functions. You’re confusing functional adaptation with emotional development, which is a key distinction.

Memory and skill acquisition as proof that his brain must be developing normally, is false equivalence. Learning or memory storage doesn’t equate to emotional maturity or moral assertiveness. A person can be brilliant, even powerful, and still emotionally stunted. That happens in real life, let alone in fiction.

Part 2, analogy:
You even misrepresented my analogy. Your counter misses the point. You exaggerated the “indestructible worker” bit to discredit the comparison, but the analogy was about perceived risk, not actual threat. Even someone immensely powerful can feel cautious if they overthink outcomes or if they’ve developed in isolation. Power doesn’t negate anxiety or internal conflict. This isn’t about physical invulnerability, it’s about mindset. You’re conflating capacity with behavior, which undermines your argument.

Part 3, now this is the story and label:
You’re calling someone a coward for being cautious in an unfamiliar, possibly hostile situation, even if they have power. That’s not necessarily fear, it can be strategic overthinking, trauma-informed behavior, or simply a reflection of wanting to avoid unnecessary confrontation. Simply calling it “cowardice” ignores nuance. In fact, if he acted rashly from the start, one could possibly complain he was reckless. You’re so fixated on it that you’re only viewing it from your perspective despite the monologues and subtle actions that can argue otherwise.

Then you rant about how the MC’s power makes his behavior inexcusable as if being overpowered should automatically dictate a bold personality.
You’re measuring him only by action, not intention or function in narrative pacing.
You don’t consider other narrative functions like delayed intervention as a way to let side characters build agency or explore themes of restraint. Instead, you push this binary, that either the MC fights everything immediately or the story’s invalid. By that logic, any story with nuance or delayed reveals is “garbage” unless it centers on constant dominance. That’s not critique, that’s just your taste.

You argue he should be a teacher or guardian if he’s not the lead fighter. Again, forcing your own expectation onto the story structure. Not all character growth comes from direct instruction. The MC staying in the background doesn’t necessarily mean abandonment, it might be a narrative choice to subvert typical power fantasy tropes, whether successfully or not. But your view doesn’t allow for that possibility. Countless stories can prove your point otherwise with its show of character development not going how you expected.

Finally, you say “the main character is always who people read a story for.”
Again, that’s just your perspective. Plenty of stories thrive with ensemble casts or mcs that exist to highlight others. You make it sound like the story owes you a protagonist designed only to your liking. That’s not objective criticism, that’s entitlemen tdressed up as analysis.
No one’s forcing you to read this. Take your own advice and find a story that suits you instead of projecting demands onto one that doesn’t.

Part 4, overall:
You should evaluate whether your counterargument is really grounded in logic or if you’re just venting disappointment because the story didn’t give you the lead you wanted.
You’re using subjective disdain against the character’s belief, even if questionable, to justify calling the mc a coward. That’s not objective reasoning, that’s “I don’t like it, so it’s bad.”

I fail to see why you’re so fixated on trying to rebut a logical perspective on the long-life trope, when most of your response is just a rant aimed at tearing down the story, dressed up as analysis. You completely ignored the fact that I was using this title as an example, not defending it. Instead, you’ve dismissed that context entirely, deliberately twisting separate points together just to force your personal view onto this particular story, then using that to brush off a more nuanced take. And for what? You wrote a whole lot of nothing just to circle back to, “he’s a coward.”

The biggest irony of all is that I, myself, find these tropes to be incredibly typical. The flustered virgin MC, the shallow “thousand-year” stagnation for forced development, the quick and easy romantic tension setups, the predictable redemption arcs, the damsel-to-independent progression, the arrogant side characters, all of it. I find it tired and formulaic, yet somehow, you’ve twisted my narrative into me defending it.

In the end, I only responded to clarify your inability to distinguish between my general hypotheticals and the specific story you’re ranting about. Once again, those hypotheticals were separate,
they don’t defend the story, they don’t change its flaws, and they certainly don’t invalidate the point I was making about the trope as a whole.

At this point I'm just bowing out because all you're doing is misrepresenting every single thing I say.
You keep claiming that I'm making attacks just because of one thing I said about one of your statement being cringe.
You keep claiming that all the hypothesis you make have nothing to do with this story specifically yet you keep referencing the situation of this story specifically in all your hypotheses.
I give an example to show why your analogy is not an apples to apples comparison and you go and spin this whole narrative of comparisons I never made.
I present evidence for why the development of his body and brain were not stalled as you theorized, you start putting words in my mouth and claiming connections between this and that which I never made.
I point out the myriad of logical flaws in the story, going specifically by what the character themselves say their goals are, and you conflate it as me just wanting the story to be written the way I specifically want it to.
I give examples of ways that similar set-ups have successfully worked in the past and you misinterpret it as me demanding that this story do the same thing.

You misinterpret and falsely represent so much of what I've written that I've come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth any more input if you're just going to keep taking it and processing it into something else.
Perhaps the only thing you got right about everything I said is the fact that I'm ranting about the character archetype. Yeah I'm ranting about it, because it's something that completely ruins the story for me, and in case you haven't been reading any of the other comments, that's far from an unpopular opinion. I can rant about something while simultaneously and logically breaking down the reasons it put me in a ranting mood. If you can't see the logic in what I'm saying just because I used colorful language then I don't know what to tell you.

What I will tell you, again, is that I'm content and no longer interested in this conversation that obviously will be going nowhere. ✌️

 

[Dzrian]

At this point I'm just bowing out because all you're doing is misrepresenting every single thing I say.
You keep claiming that I'm making attacks just because of one thing I said about one of your statement being cringe.
You keep claiming that all the hypothesis you make have nothing to do with this story specifically yet you keep referencing the situation of this story specifically in all your hypotheses.
I give an example to show why your analogy is not an apples to apples comparison and you go and spin this whole narrative of comparisons I never made.
I present evidence for why the development of his body and brain were not stalled as you theorized, you start putting words in my mouth and claiming connections between this and that which I never made.
I point out the myriad of logical flaws in the story, going specifically by what the character themselves say their goals are, and you conflate it as me just wanting the story to be written the way I specifically want it to.
I give examples of ways that similar set-ups have successfully worked in the past and you misinterpret it as me demanding that this story do the same thing.

You misinterpret and falsely represent so much of what I've written that I've come to the conclusion that it's simply not worth any more input if you're just going to keep taking it and processing it into something else.
Perhaps the only thing you got right about everything I said is the fact that I'm ranting about the character archetype. Yeah I'm ranting about it, because it's something that completely ruins the story for me, and in case you haven't been reading any of the other comments, that's far from an unpopular opinion. I can rant about something while simultaneously and logically breaking down the reasons it put me in a ranting mood. If you can't see the logic in what I'm saying just because I used colorful language then I don't know what to tell you.

What I will tell you, again, is that I'm content and no longer interested in this conversation that obviously will be going nowhere. ✌️

Sure, but of course, I would still continue to address the claims in your response.

“You keep claiming that I’m making attacks just because of one thing I said about one of your statement being cringe.”

I never said you couldn’t rant or feel frustrated by a trope. What I addressed was that you used emotionally charged language, calling my take “cringe,” the MC a “coward,” etc, as a foundation for your argument. It’s not about being “attacked” personally, but about how those words shaped the tone and approach of your argument. You dismissed nuance in favor of conclusions based on emotional judgment, which is what I responded to.

“You keep claiming that all the hypothesis you make have nothing to do with this story specifically yet you keep referencing the situation of this story specifically in all your hypotheses.”

I clarified multiple times that I was using this title only as a backdrop, a “jumping-off point,” for how a trope might be handled with more realism or internal consistency. That doesn’t mean the hypothetical was about this story. The moment I started discussing “what could work” instead of “what this story did right,” the conversation shifted. You didn’t acknowledge that shift, and kept tying my logic back to this specific narrative to undermine it.

“I give an example to show why your analogy is not an apples to apples comparison and you go and spin this whole narrative of comparisons I never made.”

When you challenged my analogy, I responded by pointing out how your counterexample assumed powers that distort the original context. If I misunderstood your intent, I addressed what you wrote, not what you meant. That’s not spinning, it’s responding to your own phrasing. If the comparison didn’t reflect what you meant, that’s on your framing.

“I present evidence for why the development of his body and brain were not stalled as you theorized…”

And I acknowledged that. I never said this story explicitly followed the biological slowdown I mentioned, I only pointed out that such a concept coul be used to explain emotional stagnation in similar tropes, if authors chose to explore it. You were arguing against the biology as if I claimed it was canon in this story. That was never my claim.

“I point out the myriad of logical flaws in the story… you conflate it as me just wanting the story to be written the way I specifically want it to.”

But that’s exactly what it sounded like when you said things like “the MC is always who people read the story for,” and made sweeping generalizations about what a protagonist should be. That’s personal expectation turned into absolute critique. I challenged that, not because you can’t have preferences, but because you blurred subjective frustration with objective analysis.

“I give examples of ways that similar set-ups have successfully worked in the past and you misinterpret it as me demanding that this story do the same thing.”

What I responded to was the way you used those comparisons to assert that this story failed by not matching those standards. You didn’t just say “here’s how another story handled it better,” you said this one is “garbage” because it didn’t follow suit. That’s not neutral comparison, that’s a loaded one.

“You misinterpret and falsely represent… I’m ranting about the character archetype.”

Then finally, we agree. You were ranting about the trope, and I was offering a possible explanation for how that trope might be used better. We were never in direct conflict, but you took it there by assuming I was defending this title instead of exploring the logic behind the archetype.

“I’m content and no longer interested in this conversation…”

That’s fine. We don’t have to agree. But don’t pretend you were the only one engaging logically while discrediting my approach just because I don’t argue the way you wanted me to. If your frustration is valid, so is my perspective. Bowing out after dismissing everything I said doesn’t make your stance more correct, it just ends the discussion where you felt comfortable.

 

[TheManBuck]

This is the only one of "these" manga that I think is genuinely good. It actually has pacing, and the motivations for each character are realistic and relatable, even if they are simple.