Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Fight takes place on neutral ground

Who wins

Hela rapes any K-Nian.

Considering Zod lost to people with zero fighting experience, he gets completely raped here. Same stats except she has an insane healing factor. His flight will help though. The problem with Hela is her insane healing factor and damage soak.

Zod kneels before Hela

Zod loses,,,,,,,,,,,again

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Same stats What could possibly lead you to believe Zod isn't much faster than Hela?

He's also weaker and far less skilled.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's also weaker and far less skilled.

Zod is faster (which trumps skill) and stronger. His HV could possibly phuck her up badly.

Prove that he is stronger and that his heat vision could injure her.

Hela wins.

Hela stomps Zod.

Who the **** is Zoe?

Ignore this clown.

Couple of points. We know hela is much more powerful on asgard than she is anywhere else. So its kinda hard to judge her on "neutral ground".

We know that she is physically stronger than thor thanks to their scuffle on earth and the bifrost, but not ridiculously stronger as thor was able to hold his own reasonably well in the throne room against her even before he activated thunder god mode.

We also know she isn't necessarily more durable than thor as both both are capable of being run though by asgardian weapons. The difference is hela has a Wolverine esque healing factor that allows her to outpace her siblings. We don't know if that is only available on asgard, however. So it very well might pump her down a few weightclasses. We do at max power she can shrug off "the mother of all lightning bolts" but that it does take her a hot minute to catch her breath.

We also know she can make knives. Big ones.

Off of asgard where her healing is questionable, I'd say zod has a fair chance of beating her

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You might want to read up on how hot a bolt of lightning can be Mr. Physics teacher.

Heh

Not even close to being as good as crushing Mjolnir with one hand.

See DT's comment.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not even close to being as good as crushing Mjolnir with one hand.

See DT's comment.

That feat isn't quantifiable, especially with Mjolnir having energy pressure inside of it and can cause Mjolnir to explode if it becomes under a certain pressure. And it's unquantifiable (minimum force it takes) since we don't know how much pressure Mjolnir can take before exploding.

And if it was a pure strength feat then that feat is an outlier since all her other feats contradict it by several magnitudes.

Lastly, she did not apply that level of strength to her strikes. Remember when you argued that strength feats are not striking feats.

You not being smart enough to quantify something doesn't mean it's unquantifiable.

As it stands by feats, Zod is weaker.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You not being smart enough to quantify something doesn't mean it's unquantifiable.

As it stands by feats, Zod is weaker.
so since youre the one "smart enough" quantify it!!

Originally posted by The Spectre+
so since youre the one "smart enough" quantify it!!


Not my job to disprove his claims, he has to prove them. that's how debates work.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You might want to read up on how hot a bolt of lightning can be Mr. Physics teacher.

I think around 4-5 times hotter than the surface of the sun potentially.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Considering Zod lost to people with zero fighting experience,

Lol wasn't he bred for combat too? Hilarious.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think around 4-5 times hotter than the surface of the sun potentially.


Yup.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not my job to disprove his claims, he has to prove them. that's how debates work.
yes, yes, ofcourse....he proves his claims and then you prove yours. oh and last i checked you can go ahead to disprove his claim.

And Come To Think Of It Guys Here Have Claimed That Hela Is Just Slightly Stronger Than Thor(debatable Once Again) And She Shattered Mjolnir Completly. If She Was Able To Do That And Thor Is Around Her Strength Range (arguable Once Again--i.E For And Against--) Then Thor Himself Should Be Strong Enough To Crack His Own Hammer. And If He Can Do That (he Should Be Able To Do That Going By What Guys Have Claimed About Hela) Then Zod Must Be Able To Atleast Crack The Hammer And If He Can He's Certainly Able To Take On Hela (and We've Not Started To Factor In Speed). Hela Is Also Outside Asgard Which Should Mean Her H/f Is Not That Deadpool-esque.

His claim, his burden.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You not being smart enough to quantify something doesn't mean it's unquantifiable.

As it stands by feats, Zod is weaker.

If you believe it is quantifiable then quantify it.

Originally posted by h1a8
If you believe it is quantifiable then quantify it.

Your claim, your burden.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your claim, your burden.

You claimed that it was quantifiable. You must prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
You claimed that it was quantifiable. You must prove it.

I said that in response to your claim. So again. your claim, your burden.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I said that in response to your claim. So again. your claim, your burden.

So you don't want to prove that her feat is quantifiable. Good to know.
Maybe because you cannot.
As it stands the feat is still unquantifiable unless someone can prove the minimum required force necessary to achieve the feat.


P.S. a person doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to another to show that the negative is false.

IOW, you're trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you can't back up your claim.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you don't want to prove that her feat is quantifiable. Good to know.
Maybe because you cannot.
As it stands the feat is still unquantifiable unless someone can prove the minimum required force necessary to achieve the feat.


P.S. a person doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to another to show that the negative is false.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you're trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you can't back up your claim.

So you can't prove the minimum force needed to achieve the feat therefore you have no leg to stand on in stating that Hela is stronger

I see that you're still trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you can't back up your claim.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I see that you're still trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you can't back up your claim. You can't quantify the feat and therefore have no leg to stand on in proving that she is stronger.

Originally posted by h1a8
You can't quantify the feat and therefore have no leg to stand on in proving that she is stronger.


Just like you can't quantify any of Zod's feats and therefore have no leg to stand on in proving that he is stronger.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just like you can't quantify any of Zod's feats and therefore have no leg to stand on in proving that he is stronger.



Nuh uh burden on you no tagbacks

Best way to debate imho

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just like you can't quantify any of Zod's feats and therefore have no leg to stand on in proving that he is stronger.

Zod's feat can be quantified for a lower bound.

Originally posted by h1a8
Zod's feat can be quantified for a lower bound.

Not without guessing and if guessing is allowed then so can the Mjolnir feat.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not without guessing and if guessing is allowed then so can the Mjolnir feat. Without guessing

Originally posted by h1a8
Without guessing

Go ahead then, quantify any of his strength feats without guessing even once and I'll admit you were right about everything.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Go ahead then, quantify any of his strength feats without guessing even once and I'll admit you were right about everything. I stated to give a lower bound to his feat.

In other words, use measurements that are clearly LESS than the actual amount.

For example, if the skyscraper is more than 300 m tall then using 250m gives a valid under estimate.

Originally posted by h1a8
I stated to give a lower bound to his feat.

In other words, use measurements that are clearly LESS than the actual amount.

For example, if the skyscraper is more than 300 m tall then using 250m gives a valid under estimate.


Again, quantify any of his strength feats without guessing even once and I'll admit you were right about everything.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, quantify any of his strength feats without guessing even once and I'll admit you were right about everything.

Does that mean you agree or that you disagree and this ignored what I said?

Again, quantify any of his strength feats without guessing even once and I'll admit you were right about everything.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, quantify any of his strength feats without guessing even once and I'll admit you were right about everything.

I take that to mean you disagree with the lower bound way to quantify something. No need of wasting my time.

If you can quantify any of his strength feats without guessing even once, I'll admit you were right about everything.

As it stands Zod is stronger as Zods uppercut feat is superior to all quantifiable feats by Hela.

Originally posted by h1a8
I stated to give a lower bound to his feat.

In other words, use measurements that are clearly LESS than the actual amount.

For example, if the skyscraper is more than 300 m tall then using 250m gives a valid under estimate.

So what? IIRC, Superman was flying/levitating when Zod punched him up that skyscraper, which means he was already cancelling the effect of gravity on his own mass which means punching him across said distance is not as impressive as you make it sound.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So what? IIRC, Superman was flying/levitating when Zod punched him up that skyscraper, which means he was already cancelling the effect of gravity on his own mass which means punching him across said distance is not as impressive as you make it sound. Hypocritical. You guys have a problem when you say I'm lowballing Thor. Look what you are doing here. If Thor did that you wouldn't have mentioned this.

Anyway Clark was grounded when Zod hit him.

Originally posted by h1a8
Hypocritical. You guys have a problem when you say I'm lowballing Thor. Look what you are doing here. If Thor did that you wouldn't have mentioned this.

Anyway Clark was grounded when Zod hit him.

No, I'm only doing this to show you how idiotic your "unquantifiable" arguments are. Because using your logic, that uppercut is also unquantifiable since Clark is capable of negating gravity.

Originally posted by h1a8
As it stands Zod is stronger as Zods uppercut feat is superior to all quantifiable feats by Hela.

Zod's uppercut feat is just as unquantifiable as Hela feats. stop being a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Zod's uppercut feat is just as unquantifiable as Hela feats. stop being a hypocrite. A lower bound for the feat can be found.

Originally posted by h1a8
A lower bound for the feat can be found.

If you can't quantify it, it doesn't count per your standards.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you can't quantify it, it doesn't count per your standards.

Lower bounds are quantities

Originally posted by h1a8
Lower bounds are quantities
Talking about lower bounds is not quantifying something. I want you to post exact numbers and show your work. Otherwise it's just you guessing.

Zod wins. No one in Marvel remotely compares to DC Kryptonians.

KMC: #quantify

Originally posted by cdtm
Zod wins. No one in Marvel remotely compares to DC Kryptonians. Far greater than these nearly extinct clowns. Superman had to be brought back as they die very easily.

Hela wins a good fight: palmed Mjolnir and crushed it, best healing factor in a superhero movie yet that I can recall, faster and far more skilled in a fight than Zod, weapon generation. Zod's only chance is spamming heat vision, but we saw his effectiveness with that in MoS.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Talking about lower bounds is not quantifying something. I want you to post exact numbers and show your work. Otherwise it's just you guessing.

Then you are trolling.
If it takes more than 1000 tons to achieve a feat then claiming that Nam exerted more than 500 tons is valid.

You must then prove that Hela can evert over 500 tons.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Hela wins a good fight: palmed Mjolnir and crushed it, best healing factor in a superhero movie yet that I can recall, faster and far more skilled in a fight than Zod, weapon generation. Zod's only chance is spamming heat vision, but we saw his effectiveness with that in MoS.

We don't know the extent of her healing outside of Asgard. She could possibly heal slower or a fixed amount of times or a combination of both.
Her crushing the outer layer of Mjolnir causing it to explode (weakening the outer layer) is indeed impressive. But it's very hard to quantify. Did that take more than 100 tons of force, more than 500 tons of force, etc? If we can get a good close lower bound then we can compare it with what Nam did.

Originally posted by h1a8
Then you are trolling.
If it takes more than 1000 tons to achieve a feat then claiming that Nam exerted more than 500 tons is valid.

You must then prove that Hela can evert over 500 tons.

Throwing out random numbers is not quantifying a feat.

Show your work.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Throwing out random numbers is not quantifying a feat.

Show your work.
I was giving an example of how to quantify by giving a lower bound.
At this point you are trolling.

Originally posted by h1a8
I was giving an example of how to quantify by giving a lower bound.
At this point you are trolling.

You're the one that demands that things can't be used unless they're quantified and has thus far refused to quantify their feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're the one that demands that things can't be used unless they're quantified and has thus far refused to quantify their feats. I stated multiple times that feats can be quantified if you can prove a lower bound for the feat. You don't have prove the exact force. For example, we don't know the exact mass of the Earth but we do know that it is more than 1 billion tons. So using 1 billion as a lower bound is valid.

If you can't give a reasonable lower bound for a feat then how can you convince someone its more impressive than another feat? It would be your opinion.

Still waiting for you to quantify the feats you've used.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Still waiting for you to quantify the feats you've used.

Why? What would that do? Make you troll me more?

Originally posted by h1a8
Why? What would that do? Make you troll me more?


Per your standards unquantifiable feats don't count, thus none of the feats you've mentioned for Zod count.


As such, Hela wins.

The Marvel character wins.

Yet you haven't done it, thus per your own standards, they don't count.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yet you haven't done it, thus per your own standards, they don't count.
I don't need to. Hela other quantifiable feats are not being argued to be greater than Zod's uppercut feat. If they were then the debate would take place.

Hela wins.

Zod wins.
Stronger, faster, hv, etc.

Ok, let's battlezone.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ok, let's battlezone.

Basically it would boil down to the OPINION of whether it takes more force to uppercut someone significantly higher than a skyscraper (against gravity and wind resistance) than it took for Hela to compress Mjolnir.

Opinion?
Yes unless you can prove the minimum compressive strength of Mjolnir.

It would come down to who provided better evidence to the Judges, so let's BZ.

if this bz actually happens, i wanna be a judge

I'll judge too.

Two people who hate the DCEU and are invested in seeing it and that retard h1 fail. mmm

Get someone unbiased to judge, like VaultDweller.

Though no one is truly unbiased where h1 is concerned. Everyone rightfully thinks he is poop.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Two people who hate the DCEU and are invested in seeing it and that retard h1 fail. mmm


http://i.imgur.com/Xsr6T.gif

Do you accept the BZ?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you accept the BZ?

I don't do BZ when things are a matter of opinion with little to no actual scientific facts to build on.

Then you admit that your claim of Zod being stronger is just your opinion?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Then you admit that your claim of Zod being stronger is just your opinion? Nope as his quantifiable feats are greater than any of her quantifiable feats.

Originally posted by h1a8
Nope as his quantifiable feats are greater than any of her quantifiable feats.

If him being stronger isn't an opinion, let's BZ.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If him being stronger isn't an opinion, let's BZ.

But it is an opinion if you indeed to use the Mjolnir feat.
If you don't intend on using the Mjolnir feat then it isn't an opinion.

Do you accept the BZ?

Originally posted by h1a8
But it is an opinion if you indeed to use the Mjolnir feat.
If you don't intend on using the Mjolnir feat then it isn't an opinion. Accept you girl.

I know this is on 5 pages but aside from h1 being an idiot, has anyone explained how Zod would keep Hela down much less kill her? Surtur causing Ragnarok Zod is not.

Exactly, an argument could be made that since the OP states that the fight takes place on neutral ground. both Asgard and Earth are out.



Asgard = powered up Hela
Earth = powered up Zod

But one of Hela's most powerful feats wasnt even on Asgard h1.

Its kinda sad how the mods have just...never stepped in for his hehavior which is clearly breaking multiple rules.

If this fight is on Asgard while Zod retains his Earth powers then Zod can't win. If this fight is on Earth (or a place similar but outside of Asgard) then Zod wins.

Im taking "neutral ground" to be away from Asgard (Hela isn't at her most powerful yet she is not powerless) but somewhere Zod retains his powers (since it wouldn't make sense to put Hela up against a powerless dude).

Neutral ground would be where neither side is powered up, you're arguing for ground where Zod is powered up, but Hela isn't. that is the opposite of neutral.

I stated that if Hela is in Asgard then Zod can't win.

If this is on Asgard then Zod has access to the World Engine, that Phantom Zone generator, his evolved form of Doomsday, all 3 mother-boxes, and Surtur!

I got your back h1

Trolls back trolls.

Originally posted by h1a8
I stated that if Hela is in Asgard then Zod can't win.


That is why I said check and mate. No weasel way out of it.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
That is why I said check and mate. No weasel way out of it.

Weasel out of what? I'm not bias.
Like I said, if this fight is outside of Asgard and somewhere Zod has his full earthly powers then he wins.
You can debate that type of fight if you want. Its up to you.

H1 cannot be real.

It has literally been years, how has h1 not changed one bit?

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not about what I want. I gave the conclusion to both scenarios. If OP would have created the thread with either scenario then my conclusions would be the same.

Explain how neutral ground means ground where only one side is powered up.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Explain how neutral ground means ground where only one side is powered up. In the last several posts, I'm not arguing the interpretation of the op. I'm just giving the conclusion of the fight to each possible setting.
If you believe the op has the setting in a certain way then I provided a conclusion for that. Just to be clear
Setting 1:
Has effect of being on Asgard and Earth at the same time.
Conclusion 1: Zod can't win

Setting 2:
Has the effect of being on Earth but outside of Asgard.
Conclusion 2: Zod wins

Setting 3:
Has neither effect of being on Asgard and on a Earth.
Hela wins (Zod would be powerless).

Choose the setting that you believe is the case and then use my conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion of that setting then you are free to debate it. If you agree then the discussion is over.

Originally posted by h1a8
You can troll all you want, it doesn't change the conclusions to those settings.

Explain in detail how what he posted was trolling.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Explain in detail how what he posted was trolling.

It does not attempt to debate who wins in this thread.

Originally posted by h1a8
It does not attempt to debate who wins in this thread.

It directly addresses your statements. So unless you're claiming your statements have nothing to do with the debate, it's not trolling.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove it. What conclusion do you disagree with?

Reading comprehension? Where in my post did I agree/disagree? I merely clarified your tactics so it could be plain for everyone to see.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Reading comprehension? Where in my post did I agree/disagree? I merely clarified your tactics so it could be plain for everyone to see.

How can I be implementing tactics when I give a conclusion to each scenario. Everyone does this. You do not address others.

If the fight is A then character X wins
But if the fight is B then character Y wins.


Where is the tactic?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
What a dumb question to ask. Your conclusions were come upon using the tactics you used duh.

So do you believe that Hela, outside of Asgard, could beat a Zod that has his powers as he would on earth?

Originally posted by h1a8
So do you believe that Hela, outside of Asgard, could beat a Zod that has his powers as he would on earth?

Soooo, reading comprehension or are you just trying to unsuccesfully bait?

Hela wins.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Soooo, reading comprehension or are you just trying to unsuccesfully bait?
You believe that Hela is equally as powerful on Asgard as she is when she is off. That's what this boils down to.

Thor believed that even if they left Asgard, Hela would still hunt them down and beat them, so either:

1) Any power Hela receives from Asgard is permanent.

2) Even without the power up, Hela is still more powerful than the Revengers combined.

Originally posted by Nevan
Thor believed that even if they left Asgard, Hela would still hunt them down and beat them, so either:

1) Any power Hela receives from Asgard is permanent.

2) Even without the power up, Hela is still more powerful than the Revengers combined. Revengers? What?

Hela is not powerless outside of Asgard so 1) doesn't follow.
2) doesn't make any sense due to the word "revengers"

Originally posted by h1a8
You believe that Hela is equally as powerful on Asgard as she is when she is off. That's what this boils down to.

Post where I wrote the above or you owe me an apology, little liarman.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Post where I wrote the above or you owe me an apology, little liarman. You are implying that by suggesting that Hela's feats ON Asgard transfers 100% to if she was outside of Asgard.

Either h1 is a liar or he isn't smart enough to know the difference between imply and infer.

So h1, which is it?

Originally posted by h1a8
Revengers? What?

Hela is not powerless outside of Asgard so 1) doesn't follow.
2) doesn't make any sense due to the word "revengers"
Did you not watch the movie?

Revengers is the group of Thor, Hulk, Valkyrie and Loki.

Originally posted by Nevan
Did you not watch the movie?

Revengers is the group of Thor, Hulk, Valkyrie and Loki.

Oh ok. Because the Revengers is a Marvel comic team with totally different characters.

Well Hela has those blades. I can see her beating that Team eventually.

Originally posted by h1a8
Oh ok. Because the Revengers is a Marvel comic team with totally different characters.

Well Hela has those blades. I can see her beating that Team eventually.

You really need to watch these movies before you try debating them.