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

Nam-Ek replaces Hulk at the beginning of Infinity War

Who wins

Assuming Thanos doesn't use the Power gem, Nam-Ek grabs Thanos and throws him through the ship, out to empty space.

Thanos beats the fight from any K-Nian effortlessly.

Namek

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
Namek Based on?

Characters of spiderman level of speed are difficult for thanos to tag. Give one superior speed and the physical stats to actually hurt him, and I'd say names has a solid shot

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Characters of spiderman level of speed are difficult for thanos to tag. Give one superior speed and the physical stats to actually hurt him, and I'd say names has a solid shot No, they are not. Spider-Man was fighting with others in a prepped manner and even then Thanos was treating him like a non factor thrashing him.

That being said what has Nam done to warrant me taking this even remotely seriously?

Captain America was also quick enough to temporarily stall thanks for little bit. Now I'm the biggest captain America fanboy there is, but even I wouldn't say he has the same stats as namek

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Captain America was also quick enough to temporarily stall thanks for little bit. Now I'm the biggest captain America fanboy there is, but even I wouldn't say he has the same stats as namek No, the commentary makes it clear. They used slow motion to make it more dramatic and Thanos was amused with the avengers not taking them seriously at all. Thanos toyed with him ffs. We see Thanos overpower the Hulk in strength.

But if you want to bring up cap strength lets look at Superman strength.


https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/5/21/23/anigif_enhanced-buzz-11165-1369194516-0.gif

And what strength feats put thanos on that level? Only out maneuvering the hulk. And even if thanos was going easy on cap, he still couldn't overpower him with one hand.

Thanos. Pretty sure the director stated he didn't use the power gem on Hulk, also.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
And what strength feats put thanos on that level? Only out maneuvering the hulk. And even if thanos was going easy on cap, he still couldn't overpower him with one hand. Dude, he toyed with him. Thanos did not outmaneuver the Hulk he beat him into the dirt. Dude, we see Spider-Man his addon spider legs, Drax, Strange and his bands, iron man, and strange can barely hold him long enough.

The amount of dishonesty on your end is troubling.

Considering drax and spidey are the only ones with super strength, that seem disingenuous.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Considering drax and spidey are the only ones with super strength, that seem disingenuous. Starlords gravity bomb, iron man can fight the super strong types with his armor let alone this is the best imo, Strange used the crimson bands so it was not like he just put Thanos into a full Nelson ffs. Thanos showed his immense strength as superior to the Hulk anywho. Quit with your silly little trolls.

Everyone does realize that as this fight isn't taking place anywhere near Earth, this thread is likely Thanos versus an unpowered Kryptonian.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
And what strength feats put thanos on that level? Only out maneuvering the hulk. And even if thanos was going easy on cap, he still couldn't overpower him with one hand.

Pretty sure it was clearly shown that Thanos overpowered Hulk when he bent back Hulk's arms away from him.

And yet cap was able to hold back his arm

Which means either Thanos was playing with him or Cap is Hulk+ in strength.

Still its a fair argument to throw at Quan given you know when it happens the other way around like Batman fighting Superman, he will bring it up all day all night.

But yeah just dont bring it up to normal people.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Still its a fair argument to throw at Quan given you know when it happens the other way around like Batman fighting Superman, he will bring it up all day all night.

But yeah just dont bring it up to normal people. No, since I have the filmmakers stating he toyed with them and that did not occur in real time. It was slowed down to make it more dramatic. Thanos won, easily. Ffs you would endorse this trolling.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
And yet cap was able to hold back his arm Cap screamed going all out against a few fingers and Thanos easily knocks him out. We have the filmmakers state Thanos was amused by their resistance. We also have the filmmakers state Thanos is stronger than the Hulk. The film also shows it in the first 8 minutes of the film.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Everyone does realize that as this fight isn't taking place anywhere near Earth, this thread is likely Thanos versus an unpowered Kryptonian.
actually......no. But What Are U Doing Here Then??? Oh, Wait.... So You Can Say Thanos Wins Effortlessly. If It Really Was An Unpowered Krypt. Then That'll Be Termed, Spite. But Please Dont Be That Dum And Ignore The Op.

The Op stats that it takes place in the same place where the Hulk fight did, the Hulk fight didn't happen anywhere near Earth so we don't know if Nam-Ek would have any powers or what level they would be at.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The Op stats that it takes place in the same place where the Hulk fight did, the Hulk fight didn't happen anywhere near Earth so we don't know if Nam-Ek would have any powers or what level they would be at.

Then the op must create a new thread stating that Nam has his powers in this fight.

Oh wait, that's stupi, as that what the op wants.
So it is assumed Nam is not powerless.

That's not how threads work, we go by what the OP states, not what we think the thread starter meant.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's not how threads work, we go by what the OP states, not what we think the thread starter meant.

Thats how this thread is going to go, whether you like it or not.
You can be stupid all you want and believe the op wants Thanos to fight a powerless Kryptonian. That's on you.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thats how this thread is going to go, whether you like it or not.
You can be stupid all you want and believe the op wants Thanos to fight a powerless Kryptonian. That's on you.



This thread is already dead, the only thing keeping it going is your little meltdown because I pointed out the thread starter's mistake.

Nam-ek wins.
Is the thread dead now?

Originally posted by h1a8
Nam-ek wins.
Is the thread dead now? Based on?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Based on?

Strength and speed.

Originally posted by h1a8
Strength and speed.

How does being weaker help him?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
And yet cap was able to hold back his arm

You mean that time when Cap used both his hands against Thanos' one and where Cap was putting an extreme amount of effort while Thanos looked mildly amused?

Originally posted by h1a8
Strength and speed. What did he do to show he is on Thanos level? WW strength rocked Superman. He also passed out holding up an oil rig due to the muscle strain. Kinda pathetic, sport.

Originally posted by quanchi112
What did he do to show he is on Thanos level? WW strength rocked Superman. He also passed out holding up an oil rig due to the muscle strain. Kinda pathetic, sport. Superman? This is Nam

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman? This is Nam

You still haven't answered how being weaker helps Nam.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You still haven't answered how being weaker helps Nam.

I'm lost.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I pointed out the thread starter's mistake.
Exactly It Was A Mistake. Bcos The Starter MEANT a powered kryptonian, as the tread starter himself didnt say otherwise.
your points so far have shown that your accepting a powered kryptonian...... i'm tempted to belive you only brought that up as an unnecessary distraction, seeing as no one else but you brought that up.
Anyway Nam-ek Wins For Obvious Reasons.
At Worst Of Worst Its A Stalemate.......Where Thanos Gets The Thor Neutron Star Treatment.

Per the mod of this forum what a thread starter might have meant doesn't matter, what matters is what the OP states. that's why we have a rule for clarifying the OP if needed.

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman? This is Nam Yes, a weaker knian. He gets brutalized. Thanos is unbeatable in one on one combat as per the filmmakers.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm lost. Finally a bit of honesty.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Finally a bit of honesty.

🤣😂

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it, using only quantifiable feats. seeing as "quantifiable" is apparently your new standard for what feats count.

Feats against characters count too but they must count only against the character's average.

Nam threw a locomotive at least a city block.

Originally posted by h1a8
Feats against characters count too but they must count only against the character's average.

Nam threw a locomotive at least a city block.

Quantify it or it doesn't count per your standards.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Quantify it or it doesn't count per your standards.

We know the weight of a locomotive. Start with the strength needed just to lift it. That's enough.

Originally posted by h1a8
We know the weight of a locomotive. Start with the strength needed just to lift it. That's enough.

Give me exact numbers and show all of your work otherwise it's just you guessing.

KMC: #quantify

Nam-Ek's train throw is a greater strength feat than Thanos picking up the Hulk and body slamming him.

However, the OP said Nam-Ek takes the place of Hulk at the start of IW, when Thanos had the power stone. Did he use it against the Hulk? No. CAN he use it if he wanted to? Nothing in the OP states he can't.

Should make an interesting fight.

EDIT: Clarification.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Give me exact numbers and show all of your work otherwise it's just you guessing. Again to quantify feats, all we need is a lower bound. For example, if the listed weight of a locomotive is X tons then we can give a slightly smaller number as a lower bound.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
Nam-Ek's train throw is a greater strength feat than Thanos picking up the Hulk and body slamming him.



Well he had to overpower Hulk first before doing that.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well he had to overpower Hulk first before doing that.

What's Hulk's average strength? Characters do not operate at their highest showings so using an average is valid.

Originally posted by h1a8
Again to quantify feats, all we need is a lower bound. For example, if the listed weight of a locomotive is X tons then we can give a slightly smaller number as a lower bound.

I'm still waiting.

Originally posted by h1a8
What's Hulk's average strength? Characters do not operate at their highest showings so using an average is valid. Higher than Nam.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Higher than Nam. How do you know? How many tons would you say his average strength is?

Originally posted by h1a8
How do you know? How many tons would you say his average strength is?
Still waiting for the exact numbers for Nam's feats.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
And what strength feats put thanos on that level? Only out maneuvering the hulk. And even if thanos was going easy on cap, he still couldn't overpower him with one hand. This is disengenuous. When Many is sent him to sleep they still couldn't get the glove off. Thanks is strong, but Namek is strong and fast close.

Originally posted by h1a8
How do you know? How many tons would you say his average strength is? Showings, common sense. Nam was weak imo.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Showings, common sense. Nam was weak imo.
You didn't answer my question. How strong is average Hulk? How many tons of force can he exert on average?

So throwing a locomotive over a city block distance is weak?
Do you know how much a locomotive weigh?

Originally posted by h1a8
You didn't answer my question. How strong is average Hulk? How many tons of force can he exert on average?

So throwing a locomotive over a city block distance is weak?
Do you know how much a locomotive weigh? Leviathan paling strong. You never calculate anything accurately so quit asking that which you yourself never do.

We saw faora hit humans with her strength by the way. Not weak just not impressive by the Hulks strength.

Originally posted by h1a8
You didn't answer my question. How strong is average Hulk? How many tons of force can he exert on average?

So throwing a locomotive over a city block distance is weak?
Do you know how much a locomotive weigh?

Still waiting for the exact numbers for Nam's feats.

But according to you we do averages. Namek only threw one locomotive, so that's an outlier. This is what you said about HeLa, she only crushed one magic hammer so it's an outlier. Well guess what, Namek only threw one train and didn't do shit else so his average strength is half of picking up a single car on a train.

By the way, the only reason he could pick it up was because he was a Kryptonian train conductor and thus had some form of control over trains.

Thanks for teaching me how to do math and debate. I feel like I'm going to be way more successful in life after having met you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Still waiting for the exact numbers for Nam's feats.

Nam exerted more than 200tons. Start with that.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
But according to you we do averages. Namek only threw one locomotive, so that's an outlier. This is what you said about HeLa, she only crushed one magic hammer so it's an outlier. Well guess what, Namek only threw one train and didn't do shit else so his average strength is half of picking up a single car on a train.

By the way, the only reason he could pick it up was because he was a Kryptonian train conductor and thus had some form of control over trains.

Thanks for teaching me how to do math and debate. I feel like I'm going to be way more successful in life after having met you.

No we use the combatant's (who is in the thread) peak as their forum representative.
But when a combatant's (who is in the thread) feat against another character (who is not a combatant in the thread) is used as evidence then we use that other character's average (who is not in the thread).

Originally posted by h1a8
Nam exerted more than 200tons. Start with that.


Great, that means he's much weaker than Hela, even if we assume the hammer is only as durable as tungsten.

Thanks for admitting Hela is much stronger.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Great, that means he's much weaker than Hela, even if we assume the hammer is only as durable as tungsten.

Thanks for admitting Hela is much stronger.
The compressive strength of tungsten is less than 200tons per square inch.

With about a 1 meter distance to accelerate the arms, It takes MORE than k+1 times more force than something's weight in order to throw it vertically to a height of k meters.
For example, throwing something 50 meters vertically takes MORE THAN 50+1 or 51 times the objects weight in force (or more than 10,000 tons if the object weighs 200tons).

You're forgetting an awful lot of context to the Hela feat. I'm going to give you a chance to prove your honesty by correcting the record.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're forgetting an awful lot of context to the Hela feat. I'm going to give you a chance to prove your honesty by correcting the record.

What am I missing?

Originally posted by h1a8
What am I missing?

You're supposed to be smart, so either tell me what you're leaving out or admit that you're not smart enough to figure it out.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're supposed to be smart, so either tell me what you're leaving out or admit that you're not smart enough to figure it out. And then you would reveal what it is?

Originally posted by h1a8
And then you would reveal what it is?

If you admit that you're not smart enough to figure it out I'll post one of the things you left out. I'll post more depending on how honestly you respond to the first example.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you admit that you're not smart enough to figure it out I'll post one of the things you left out. I'll post more depending on how honestly you respond to the first example.

If it's indeed valid then I do admit not being smart enough to figure out what I'm leaving out of the Hela feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
If it's indeed valid then I do admit not being smart enough to figure out what I'm leaving out of the Hela feat.

I'll agree to that if you agree that a mod gets to decide if the point is valid and if they do. you have to change your signature to "I'm an idiot" for 3 months.

Well that took a turn

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'll agree to that if you agree that a mod gets to decide if the point is valid and if they do. you have to change your signature to "I'm an idiot" for 3 months. You agreed to post one of the things. So post it.

Originally posted by h1a8
You agreed to post one of the things. So post it.

No, I offered to post them if you admitted you weren't smart enough to figure it out. Your counter-offer was for me to post one and then if it's valid you would admit to not being smart enough.

I agreed to your counter-offer on the condition that it's a mod that gets to decide whether or not the example was valid and if it was determined to be valid, you'd have to change your sig.


Ball is in your court.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, I offered to post them if you admitted you weren't smart enough to figure it out. Your counter-offer was for me to post one and then if it's valid you would admit to not being smart enough.

I agreed to your counter-offer on the condition that it's a mod that gets to decide whether or not the example was valid and if it was determined to be valid, you'd have to change your sig.


Ball is in your court.

That's the wrong order.
I admitted it before you posted (if it's valid) and not after.
Anyway
I'll bite.
I'm not smart enough to figure it out.
So post it.

Originally posted by h1a8
That's the wrong order.
I admitted it before you posted (if it's valid) and not after.
Anyway
I'll bite.
I'm not smart enough to figure it out.
So post it.

First example, her feat was done with only one hand vs Nam's who used both.

The Marvel character wins.

Originally posted by Silent Master
First example, her feat was done with only one hand vs Nam's who used both. Ok this is valid. I agree.

Well Ill up the stakes a little.

With about a 1 meter distance to accelerate the arms, It takes MORE than k+1 times more force than something's weight in order to throw it vertically to a height of k meters. I can prove all this as well.

For example, throwing something 50 meters vertically takes MORE THAN 50+1 or 51 times the objects weight in force (or more than 10,000 tons if the object weighs 200tons).

We know that the locomotive reached higher than 10 meters (closer to 50 than 10 as I can prove). So the force was more 11 times its weight, or more than 2200 tons.

Originally posted by juggernaut74
The Marvel character wins. Not if you knew how much force Nam's locomotive feat was.

Now, that you've admitted that you left out at least 1 important piece of information in regards to judging Hela's feat.

2nd example. Crushing Mjolnir was done with grip strength and grip strength << lifting strength. thus "x" ton grip feat >> "x" ton lifting feat.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Now, that you've admitted that you left out at least 1 important piece of information in regards to judging Hela's feat.

2nd example. Crushing Mjolnir was done with grip strength and grip strength << lifting strength. thus "x" ton grip feat >> "x" ton lifting feat.

For average humans yes (not in all cases though), but she isn't an average human. Her grip strength can be indeed lower than her lifting strength (or greater or about equal). Note: lifting strength is defined the amount one can press overhead.

If we assume the ratio of her grip strength to lifting strength is the same as an average athlete then her lifting strength could be anywhere between 2-4x her grip strength.
So a lower bound could be 200 tons x 2= 400 tons

Originally posted by juggernaut74
The Marvel character wins.


The DC character if h1a8 is posting.

Originally posted by h1a8
For average humans yes (not in all cases though), but she isn't an average human. Her grip strength can be indeed lower than her lifting strength (or greater or about equal). Note: lifting strength is defined the amount one can press overhead.

If we assume the ratio of her grip strength to lifting strength is the same as an average athlete then her lifting strength could be anywhere between 2-4x her grip strength.
So a lower bound could be 200 tons x 2= 400 tons


Now that you admit my first two examples are valid, the 3rd thing you "forgot" to take into account is that Hela had to also overpower the Enchantment.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Now that you admit my first two examples are valid, the 3rd thing you "forgot" to take into account is that Hela had to also overpower the Enchantment.

The forces don't add/subtract since they are orthogonal.
You have to use the greatest of the two to prove her strength.

In other words, Squeezing something requires a different action than pulling (or lifting) something. So one doing both simultaneously does not prove he/she can pull more than what he/she did.

Also, although irrelevant, how much force does it take to prevent Mjolnir from returning (assuming she wasnt worthy or had some power over the enchantment)?

Exactly, you're ignoring that the feat has two it's two parts. part 1) holding Mjolnir in place and part 2) crushing Mjolnir.

Now that you've admitted that my 3rd example is valid. do I need to keep going or are you willing to admit your bias?

That should be "the feat has two parts"

Originally posted by Silent Master
Exactly, you're ignoring that the feat has two it's two parts. part 1) holding Mjolnir in place and part 2) crushing Mjolnir.

Now that you've admitted that my 3rd example is valid. do I need to keep going or are you willing to admit your bias?

They don't make the feat more impressive since they don't combine.
The greatest of the two is the feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
They don't make the feat more impressive since they don't combine.
The greatest of the two is the feat.

Hela casually overcoming the enchantment with one hand during the feat, whereas the Hulk couldn't even budge it while using 100% of his strength gives us a better understanding of the feats minimum level of strength needed.

IOW, it is a valid 3rd example. so now that I've provided you with 3 valid examples of things you left out when examining Hela's feat. I have to ask. why are you so biased?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Hela casually overcoming the enchantment with one hand during the feat, whereas the Hulk couldn't even budge it while using 100% of his strength gives us a better understanding of the feats minimum level of strength needed.

IOW, it is a valid 3rd example. so now that I've provided you with 3 valid examples of things you left out when examining Hela's feat. I have to ask. why are you so biased?

Which one is tougher, crushing Mjolnir or preventing it from returning?

Doing both at the same doesnt add to the feat. You can easily squeeze something as you pull it. One action doesn't negate the other. If pulling required more force then we use that, if squeezing required more force then we use that. Otherwise I can claim that I can lift 100lb more than what I can really lift by simply squeezing something with 100lb of force while I lift it.

Again, I provided a list of 3 valid examples of things you ignored when examining Hela's feat.

Now, why are you so biased?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, I provided a list of 3 valid examples of things you ignored when examining Hela's feat.

Now, why are you so biased?

I'm not. I accepted the first two as they are valid. The third one isn't valid. Crushing Mjolnir and keeping it from returning don't combine to make the feat more impressive. The tougher one to do is the feat.

Nobody is trying to combine anything in the third example, this has already been explained to you. Maybe you should take the time to read and understand someone's posts before responding to them.

However, even leaving aside the third example. That is still two valid examples of things you left out when examining Hela's feat. So the question remains, why are you so biased?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nobody is trying to combine anything in the third example, this has already been explained to you. Maybe you should take the time to read and understand someone's posts before responding to them.

However, even leaving aside the third example. That is still two valid examples of things you left out when examining Hela's feat. So the question remains, why are you so biased?

I didn't leave anything out as I never attempted to quantify her feat.
You did.

So, all of the previous posts where you are clearly attempting to qualify her feat are not actually examples of you attempting to qualify her feat?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, all of the previous posts where you are clearly attempting to qualify her feat are not actually examples of you attempting to qualify her feat?

Nope. That was all you.

Originally posted by h1a8
Nope. That was all you.

Now you're claiming that I hacked your account and made those posts, prove it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Now you're claiming that I hacked your account and made those posts, prove it.

You were the one attempting to quantify the feat by suggesting Mjolnir is at least as hard as tungsten. Then you added that she did it with one hand, etc.

Originally posted by h1a8
You were the one attempting to quantify the feat by suggesting Mjolnir is at least as hard as tungsten. Then you added that she did it with one hand, etc.

we both know that it's far more durable than tungsten, stop being a troll.

Originally posted by Silent Master
we both know that it's far more durable than tungsten, stop being a troll.

Do we? And by how much?

Originally posted by h1a8
Do we? And by how much?

OK, let's BZ it.

That wouldn't prove how much more durable? How much more durable is Mjolnir than tungsten in compressive strength?

I bet you that I can prove it's at least 100x more durable in a BZ. do you agree to a BZ?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I bet you that I can prove it's at least 100x more durable in a BZ. do you agree to a BZ?

So you can prove that Mjolnir is at least 100x stronger than tungsten in COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH?

Do you agree to the Battle Zone?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you agree to the Battle Zone?

What will I be arguing in the Battlezone?

I have no stance.

BZ is not appropriate here.

Just post the proof.

It's a simple yes or no question, do you accept the battlezone?

Originally posted by h1a8
What will I be arguing in the Battlezone?

I have no stance.

BZ is not appropriate here.

Just post the proof. Coward.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's a simple yes or no question, do you accept the battlezone?
Idiot response. I just asked you what will I be arguing in this BZ?
Stop being stupid and answer the question.

Originally posted by h1a8
Idiot response. I just asked you what will I be arguing in this BZ?
Stop being stupid and answer the question.

The battlezone is about whether or not Mjolnir is at least a hundred times more durable than tungsten.

Now, do you accept the battlezone?

Originally posted by h1a8
Idiot response. I just asked you what will I be arguing in this BZ?
Stop being stupid and answer the question. Quit being a pansy and accept you gutless josh type poster.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The battlezone is about whether or not Mjolnir is at least a hundred times more durable than tungsten.

Now, do you accept the battlezone?
Durable in compressive strength you mean.
I'm not claiming that it isn't. I have no idea if it is or isn't. I wouldn't have anything to say. Obviously you're the one with the proof. So you should post the proof of it if you want this claim to be accepted.

Yes or no, do you accept the BZ? if you answer with anything other than a yes or a no. I'll take that as an attempt to avoid a BZ, thus a "no".

Look everyone. Silent is trolling the thread. He claims that Mjolnir is at least 100x more (random number) durable than tungsten in compressive strength.
Yet he won't post the proof without someone Battlezoning him about it. But here's the kicker, no one is claiming otherwise (as it's a negative).
So basically he wants someone to say " no it isn't" in the Battlezone while he posts proof.

I claimed I could prove it in a BZ, you're the one that's refusing to BZ.

So either you don't disagree with my stance or you do disagree but know that I'd win the BZ. which is it?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I claimed I could prove it in a BZ, you're the one that's refusing to BZ.

So either you don't disagree with my stance or you do disagree but know that I'd win the BZ. which is it?

A BZ is a versus debate. There are two opposing stances supported by evidence.
You claim that you can prove something. That's your stance.
I have no stance on whether you can prove something. If you disagree then
What will be my stance?

If you have no stance, that means you don't disagree with me. thus there is no need for me to post anything.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you have no stance, that means you don't disagree with me. thus there is no need for me to post anything.

I disagree because no evidence is posted.
I have no idea how durable a fictional metal is.
I'm not going to take your word without some proof.

You can continue to troll all you want but all you are doing is making claims without supporting them.

Disagreeing that Mjolnir is at least 100x more durable than tungsten is a stance and you earlier claimed to not have a stance. make up your mind.

Now, since you're back to having a stance. let's BZ.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Disagreeing that Mjolnir is at least 100x more durable than tungsten is a stance and you earlier claimed to not have a stance. make up your mind.

Now, since you're back to having a stance. let's BZ.

A BZ is where two people debate a vs style debate and where both offer evidence to support their side.

A negative (my stance) doesn't require evidence. It's automatically considered true unless proven otherwise. I wouldn't have anything to say other than it isn't.

So either you are going to prove this claim or it isn't true and Nam and Zod are still stronger.

It's a yes or no question, do you accept the battlezone?

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's a yes or no question, do you accept the battlezone?


Person1: "Mjolnir is more than 100x more durable than Tungsten"
Person2: "Oh really? Prove it."

Person1: "Do you want to BZ me over it?"
Person2: "What's to BZ?
Do you see how stupid person 1 is?

Originally posted by h1a8
I disagree because no evidence is posted.
I have no idea how durable a fictional metal is.
I'm not going to take your word without some proof.

You can continue to troll all you want but all you are doing is making claims without supporting them.

I wonder if h1 realizes how big a f*cking hypocrite he is considering he does literally this every single time. Disagree with or without evidence, then post his own bullshit logic which I might add never has any proof or evidence behind it. Then he trolls by continuing to make claims without supporting them. Yep, worst guy on kmc. At least Quan is a shit who does nothing but badmouth the other team and sing his owns praises so we know he's trolling on purpose.

The purpose of the BZ is so that you can't do your normal trolling in the form of either dismissing or lowballing the evidence. refusing the BZ is just proving to the entire board that you know I'll easily be able to prove my stance.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The purpose of the BZ is so that you can't do your normal trolling in the form of either dismissing or lowballing the evidence. refusing the BZ is just proving to the entire board that you know I'll easily be able to prove my stance.

This is not a BZ situation.
You are basically making a claim and I'm saying prove it.
Simple.

Originally posted by KingD19
I wonder if h1 realizes how big a f*cking hypocrite he is considering he does literally this every single time. Disagree with or without evidence, then post his own bullshit logic which I might add never has any proof or evidence behind it. Then he trolls by continuing to make claims without supporting them. Yep, worst guy on kmc. At least Quan is a shit who does nothing but badmouth the other team and sing his owns praises so we know he's trolling on purpose. You are clearly another idiot.

So what do you suggest I do? Accept the claim without an actual attempt to prove it?

I'll happily PM the evidence to a mod and have them rule on whether or not it meets the burden or I'll post it in a BZ where three judges can decide if it's enough to prove my stance.

Pick one.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'll happily PM the evidence to a mod and have them rule on whether or not it meets the burden or I'll post it in a BZ where three judges can decide if it's enough to prove my stance.

Pick one. Im the one you need to convince.

You can do anything you like. Bottomline: The claim will always be dismissed unless valid evidence is brought to light.

You're a troll that ignores anything he doesn't like, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, what I'm doing is proving to the entire board that you know I'm right. if you actually thought I was wrong you would pick one of the two choices and when I failed to provide sufficient proof to the judges you would laugh and say, see I told you so.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're a troll that ignores anything he doesn't like, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, what I'm doing is proving to the entire board that you know I'm right. if you actually thought I was wrong you would pick one of the two choices and when I failed to provide sufficient proof to the judges you would laugh and say, see I told you so.

If you don't want to convince me then no need to debate the issue at all.
I don't ignore valid reasoning. As evidence, I easily agreed with your first two points because they made perfect sense.

I have championed characters who I argued against for years after someone gave strong valid evidence. My track record speaks for itself. If I do not agree then the argument is not valid in some way.

Your track record states that you are both a troll and a liar and that you will low-ball or dismiss anything that hurts your side of the argument while massively exaggerating anything that will help you.

It's why you always refuse to do battle zones, because you know that your debating style would not hold up in a format where outside parties have the final say.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your track record states that you are both a troll and a liar and that you will low-ball or dismiss anything that hurts your side of the argument while massively exaggerating anything that will help you.

It's why you always refuse to do battle zones, because you know that you're debating style would not hold up in a format where outside parties have the final say.

I disagree with all of that. I never troll and I have nevered lied on kmc. Ever!
I don't lowball either. All of you actually do that.

Like many people have said before, you believing something doesn't make it true. It just makes you delusional.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like many people have said before, you believing something doesn't make it true. It just makes you delusional.

That can be said of anyone.
But as evidence shows I have accepted others arguments over my own many times and have admitted to being wrong multiple times.

You've claimed to have never lied, low-balled or trolled on these forums. Let's test that claim. Provide even one name of a poster who has been on the opposite side of a debate with you in multiple threads that will vouch that you have never lied or low-balled.

Then get them in here to vouch for you.

Don't need to. You wouldn't change your tune anyway if they did.
I don't need to prove my character to a random person.

If you catch me in a lie or lowballing then simply file it away to bring up in the future. Don't leave out words and misquote me in an attempt to twist what I'm saying. The fact that you do that proves that you agree with me but don't like the fact that I'm right. Otherwise you would simply let the truth stand on its own without a need to manipulate it.

I knew you would chicken out.