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

Final form Ultron

Who wins

No BFR

Ultron wins easily. Spite thread.

Gotta go with Ares. Because I can remember what Ares Did. Ultron was a complete Bore.

Ultron was awesome. Very creepy!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Gotta go with Ares. Because I can remember what Ares Did. Ultron was a complete Bore.

Yea. he got killed by a little lightning.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yea. he got killed by a little lightning.
he got killed by a god
ares: "only gods can kill gods"
he knew he was sure to die at the hands of a god

Oh god.

*holds

Because we dont debate statements, as per the rules that are mostly ignored?

The rule favors different situations on different sides often, it ends up being a fair rule because of that.

Originally posted by riv6672
Because we dont debate statements, as per the rules that are mostly ignored?
well that then means the thor "taking the full force of what again..... his mothers pus$y" should be totally,completey,absolutery and in all its entirety, ignored. SIMPLE.

The difference is that Eitri's statement was followed by Thor standing right next to a neutron star. we never saw Ares take an attack from a non-god, let alone one as powerful as the one that killed him

Movies are full of people claiming to be unbeatable, only to beaten minutes later.

Point is moot anyway. Ultron does not need to kill Ares to win. A 10-count KO is good enough.

Originally posted by The Spectre+
well that then means the thor "taking the full force of what again..... his mothers pus$y" should be totally,completey,absolutery and in all its entirety, ignored. SIMPLE.

Why? It was said at the same time he took the beam from a giant advanced space machine that controlled and concentrated the full force of a star. So he literally did it right there on screen.

That's what the machine did, it harnesses the power of a star and concentrates it into a beam. Thor stood in front of that beam and withstood billions of tons of matter pelting him and a lot if heat hitting him.

The only people who really hate the feat are DC fans. Everyone else takes it for what it is. The first space cheese feat in the MCU.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Why? It was said at the same time he took the beam from a giant advanced space machine that controlled and concentrated the full force of a star. So he literally did it right there on screen.

That's what the machine did, it harnesses the power of a star and concentrates it into a beam. Thor stood in front of that beam and withstood billions of tons of matter pelting him and a lot if heat hitting him.

The only people who really hate the feat are DC fans. Everyone else takes it for what it is. The first space cheese feat in the MCU.

....Etri's words aren't to be taken literal.

For instance, Thor was being hit by a part of the beam, the rest was going arround him into the forge. That fact alone proves that he wasn't being hit by all the power of the star.

Secondly, Etri never said that the Star's matter was being drained.

Otherwise, as you claim Thousands upon thousands of tons would be pouring into the ring/forge; it would flood the station. Furthermore, it makes no sense to use matter. They use the star to melt Uru; heat is required for that not matter.

Lastly, if Thor would have been hit by matter, he would have been covered up by sticky material after landing on the station. Yet no residue was left on him.

The beam was energy from the star not matter.

H1 is that you?

Really, your whole argument is that the entire beam didn't hit Thor?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Really, your whole argument is that the entire beam didn't hit Thor?

The entire beam is represents what Etri calls the 'full force of a Neutron star'.
If the entire beam doesn't hit Thor, then it's just a matter of logic.

The beam represents the full force of the star and Thor was hit with the beam, you're going into semantics and pedantry in order to dismiss what he said.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The beam represents the full force of the star and Thor was hit with the beam, you're going into semantics and pedantry in order to dismiss what he said.

Logic >>> Etri's words.

Etri wasn't being literal.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Logic >>> Etri's words.

Etri wasn't being literal.

Like I said semantics and pedantry.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said semantics and pedantry.

I am just following logic.

If the beam represents the full power of the star, then the 100% of the beam would have to cross Thor's body. Otherwise, he is just receiving a fraction of the beam ergo a fraction of the power of the star.

Like I said semantics and pedantry.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The beam represents the full force of the star and Thor was hit with the beam, you're going into semantics and pedantry in order to dismiss what he said.
Question for Josh.
If someone is caught in the middle of this beam:
https://66.media.tumblr.com/7c1ec7ebbffa98f7d2937ae3c067c1e3/tumblr_oymt8tzEeh1ujn35ko1_400.gif
Would you srsly argue that the person being hit is not taking its full force?

You see how wide the beam is compared to a fully grown adult by its point of origin. Anyone hit by that beam is going to have energy going all around them (unless you expect that big ass beam to suddenly narrow to the thickness of a pencil).
So, full force or not?
Because thats whats happening in the Thor scene.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I am just following logic.

If the beam represents the full power of the star, then the 100% of the beam would have to cross Thor's body. Otherwise, he is just receiving a fraction of the beam ergo a fraction of the power of the star.
I guess you answered my question before i asked it.
No offense man but between this and the Batman/Coulson thread you are displaying some really faulty shitty logic today.

Originally posted by riv6672
Question for Josh.
If someone is caught in the middle of this beam:
https://66.media.tumblr.com/7c1ec7ebbffa98f7d2937ae3c067c1e3/tumblr_oymt8tzEeh1ujn35ko1_400.gif
Would you srsly argue that the person being hit is not taking its full force?

You see how wide the beam is compared to a fully grown adult by its point of origin. Anyone hit by that beam is going to have energy going all around them (unless you expect that big ass beam to suddenly narrow to the thickness of a pencil).
So, full force or not?
Because thats whats happening in the Thor scene.

Do you understand the meaning of 'full'?

Full, means entire. If the entire beam doesn't impact the body, then logically you are not being hit by the full power of the beam.

My turn to ask a question.

So everytime I go swim in the river, I am taking the full power of said river?

Man if that's the case, all this time i've been ignorant of my superhuman powers

Gonna give you a hint:

The bigger the turbine in a hydroelectric power plant (assuming certain conditions), the more energy can be produced.

Originally posted by riv6672
I guess you answered my question before i asked it.
No offense man but between this and the Batman/Coulson thread you are displaying some really faulty logic today.

Really looking forward for you to answer my question above.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said semantics and pedantry.
Yeah he doesnt have a pot to piss in but just digs in and pretends to have/honestly thinks he has the upper hand/superior knowledge here.
Ah well, you can keep at it w. him if you want, i had my say, and my fun.

Originally posted by riv6672
Yeah he doesnt have a pot to piss in but just digs in and pretends to have/honestly thinks he has the upper hand/superior knowledge here.
Ah well, you can keep at it w. him if you want, i had my say, and my fun.

Clearly my friend you have never been into a hydroelectric power plant.

Either way, the Tribunal respects your opinion.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
....Etri's words aren't to be taken literal.


So if a character in a movie says, "Im about to eat this candy bar"
And the next scene we see the character put the candy bar in their mouths and we see them chew it".
We are not suppose to take the characters words literal right? The character didnt really eat the candy bar according to some right?

This is exactly what happened in the Thor , Eitri, Star scene.

Would people on here be saying "Well I dont know if the character ate the candy bar, we didnt see them swallow the candy bar and then we dont know if their stomachs digested the candy bar." "They could have spit it out when the camera wasnt on them"

This is the kind of nonsense some people on here say.

Originally posted by Inhuman
So if a character in a movie says, "Im about to eat this candy bar"
And the next scene we see the character put the candy bar in their mouths and we see them chew it".
We are not suppose to take the characters words literal right?

This is exactly what happened in the Thor , Eitri, Star scene.

Would people on here be saying{i} "Well I dont know if the character ate the candy bar, we didnt see them swallow the candy bar and then we dont know if their stomachs digested the candy bar." "They could have spit it out when the camera wasnt on them"

This is the kind of nonsense some people on here say.

He's purposely misunderstanding what the term full force means.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The difference is that Eitri's statement was followed by Thor standing right next to a neutron star.
Just as ares statement was followed by him dying at the hands of a god.

Originally posted by The Spectre+
Just as ares statement was followed by him dying at the hands of a god.

Exactly, Ares comment was not followed by any supporting evidence.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
The only people who really hate the feat are DC fans. Everyone else takes it for what it is. The first space cheese feat in the MCU.
Haha.. No.
The only people who Question that feat, both dc&mcu fans alike(at least reasonable ones) are those who dontfollow statements blindy, while the actions that follow the statement by said character are full of loopholes and to some extent contradict the statement.

Branding them mcu haters or fanboys, shows that you are either one or both of them.

Character statements require proof, no proof was provided for Ares' statement.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The beam represents the full force of the star
Oh finally.
silent has said it himself.
Than goodness you said it represents

Personally, I don't think Ultron can kill Ares... but I do think he can knock him out. So Ultron wins this match.

Originally posted by Silent Master
no proof was provided for Ares' statement.
Now you're just ignoring what i said.
You Want Proof???
Ares: Only gods can kill gods.
later ares gets killed by diana, a god based on his statement and her origin.

Originally posted by The Spectre+
Now you're just ignoring what i said.
You Want Proof???
Ares: Only gods can kill gods.
later ares gets killed by diana, a god based on his statement and her origin.

That's poof he can be killed by a God, not proof that he can't be killed by a mortal. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that someone being killed by a bullet to the head is proof that they can only be killed by a bullet to the Head.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's poof he can be killed by a God, not proof that he can't be killed by a mortal. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that someone being killed by a bullet to the head is proof that they can only be killed by a bullet to the Head.
so have seen someone who's not a god take him on and kill him??
NO!
So for now based on his statement backed up by events that happened later on, he can only be killed by a god. Its now left for other on screen showings to prove that others can get him killed.

Originally posted by The Spectre+
so have seen someone who's not a god take him on and kill him??
NO!
So for now based on his statement backed up by events that happened later on, he can only be killed by a god. Its now left for other on screen showings to prove that others can get him killed.

How does being killed by WW prove he can't be killed by a mortal?

Originally posted by Silent Master
How does being killed by WW prove he can't be killed by a mortal?
One, he never fought a mortal based on the movies.
Two, diana herself is a god/demigod.
Three, he didnt die at the hands of a mortal (i'm assuming you mean homo sapiens)

Thought Diana was an Amazon.

Originally posted by riv6672
Thought Diana was an Amazon. she's really a divinely empowered Gollum, but wasn't Eve?

Originally posted by The Spectre+
One, he never fought a mortal based on the movies.
Two, diana herself is a god/demigod.
Three, he didnt die at the hands of a mortal (i'm assuming you mean homo sapiens)



So like I said, How does being killed by WW prove he can't be killed by a mortal?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So like I said, How does being killed by WW prove he can't be killed by a mortal?
well thank you laying me off this.
Its good you refuse to acknowldge the obvious.

Originally posted by Inhuman
So if a character in a movie says, "Im about to eat this candy bar"
And the next scene we see the character put the candy bar in their mouths and we see them chew it".
We are not suppose to take the characters words literal right? The character didnt really eat the candy bar according to some right?

This is exactly what happened in the Thor , Eitri, Star scene.

Would people on here be saying "Well I dont know if the character ate the candy bar, we didnt see them swallow the candy bar and then we dont know if their stomachs digested the candy bar." "They could have spit it out when the camera wasnt on them"

This is the kind of nonsense some people on here say.

A statement must have background evidence for it to be valid. Also, the context of the statement plays an important role in it.

Etri saying that Thor was going to get hit by the full power of a star could just as well be a hyperbole.

The feat contradicts Etri's words, as Thor was exposed to a sector of the full beam. But again, nothing suggests Etri was being literal.

Feats > Statements.


The candy bar analogy is misplaced, as the feat of the person chewing the candy bar supports the person's statement. That would be a valid statement. There is enough evidence to support the statement's validity.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's purposely misunderstanding what the term full force means.

You are hilariously accepting Etri's words while playing blind man on the feat! But again, that's a common thing of yours when debating Thor.

Hey SM, look what I found!

Originally posted by Silent Master
Statements don't. only feats matter.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Try reading forum rules, it states movie feats only.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Feats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements

Why the sudden change of heart Silent?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
A statement must have background evidence for it to be valid. Also, the context of the statement plays an important role in it.

Etri saying that Thor was going to get hit by the full power of a star could just as well be a hyperbole.

The feat contradicts Etri's words, as Thor was exposed to a sector of the full beam. But again, nothing suggests Etri was being literal.

Feats > Statements.


The feat that was shown is what the directors interpretation on what they think Thor being hit with the full force of the star would look like to them. They may have not showed the feat in a way that pleases your own view on how it should have gone down but it still is the directors vision on how being hit by a full star under the confines of the Dwarf mechanism would look like.

Besides the feat we have Eitris words/description on what is about to be shown to us on screen. So we have the feat and a description. No guessing is needed.

As far as your "just a portion" nonsense. If i kill a fly with a fly-swatter, you can say, the fly got hit with the full force of the fly swatter when i killed it. Regardless if the fly wasn't as big as the fly-swatters whole head surface area.

Originally posted by Inhuman
The feat that was shown is what the directors interpretation on what they think Thor being hit with the full force of the star would look like to them. They may have not showed the feat in a way that pleases your own view on how it should have gone down but it still is the directors vision on how being hit by a full star under the confines of the Dwarf mechanism would look like.

Besides the feat we have Eitris words/description on what is about to be shown to us on screen. So we have the feat and a description. No guessing is needed.

As far as your "just a portion" nonsense. If i kill a fly with a fly-swatter, you can say, the fly got hit with the full force of the fly swatter when i killed it. Regardless if the fly wasn't as big as the fly-swatters whole head surface area.

Feats > Statements. We debate feats arround here don't we?


You thinking that something is nonesensical doesn't make it a fact. In your fly analogy, the force is being distributed evenly on the entire area of the swatter. The fly is killed by the force delivered by the area of the swatter smashing it. That's why you hear your table banging everytime you kill a fly with a swatter (assuming you kill it on a table); the table also receives a force. Isn't like all the force concentrates on just the fly, ergo the fly isn't receive the FULL FORCE of the swatter. It is common logic .

Want some scientific background?

In a dam, you have these turbines allowing a portion of a river's current through, creating energy. The bigger the turbines, the more current passes at a time, the bigger the amout of power produced.

Isn't like you have the full power of the river being obtained.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Feats > Statements. We debate feats arround here don't we?



In Infinity War, there are STATEMENTS about the star feat and the FEAT as well. You have both. get it? So its not just the feat , its also a statement describing the feat.

2>1

Again your own interpretation of the scene doesn't discredit what the directors meant to show in that FEAT. Because they aslo gave us something added to the FEAT. A description of what the audience was looking at on screen.

Its like in a science fiction movie someone says "We are about to go light speed". And after that, the directors show the ship jumping into hyper space with their own interpretation on how going into light speed would look. (Because you know, no one really knows how these space feats would actually look like.)
Then some retard says "Hold on a minute, that didn't look like them going light speed. It looked more like they went into a worm hole and came out the other side. The whole scene didn't convince me it was light speed"

There would be ZERO reason to say something stupid like that because previous to the scene they told you that they were going to go light speed"

Feats with little to no description , I can understand, but they are basically hitting you over head on what is about to happen. For the dunces in the crowd to not be confused. Seems some still do get confused though.

Originally posted by Inhuman
In Infinity War, there are STATEMENTS about the star feat and the FEAT as well. You have both. get it? So its not just the feat , its also a statement describing the feat.

2>1

Again your own interpretation of the scene doesn't discredit what the directors meant to show int hat FEAT. Because they aslo gave us something added to the FEAT. A description of what the audience was looking at on screen.

Its like in a science fiction movie someone says "We are about to go light speed". And after that, the directors show the ship jumping into hyper space with their own interpretation on how going into light speed would look. (Because you know, no one really knows how these space feats would actually look like.)
Then some retard says "Hold on a minute, that didn't look like them going light speed. It looked more like they went into a worm hole and came out the other side. The whole scene didn't convince me it was light speed"

There would be ZERO reason to say something stupid like that because previous to the scene they told you that they were going to go light speed"

Feats with little to no description , I can understand, but they are basically hitting you over head on what is about to happen. For the dunces in the crowd to not be confused. Seems some still do get confused though.


Glad to see that you agree on the fly not receiving the full force of the swatter.


Again, am not refusing the fact that the machine extracts the full force of the star.

Am just pointing at the fact that the feat apparently contradicts Thor receiving the full force of it.

Again, Etri's words aren't necessarily literal, but can be a hyperbole result of him overreacting over Thor's action.

the north of the silent empire is broken by josh and spectres forces its time for h1 to move in, for i see nibe and inhuman furiously marching their armies at...... full force.

eeeaaaaaaaaarh!!!!!!!!!

Ares can control metal. Ultron would have a hard time just functioning properly.
Ares has lightning ability, which was affecting Ultron when Thor was blasting him.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You are hilariously accepting Etri's words while playing blind man on the feat! But again, that's a common thing of yours when debating Thor.

Hey SM, look what I found!







Why the sudden change of heart Silent?

There is no change of heart as the movie also shows us Thor standing right next to the neutron star.

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is no change of heart as the movie also shows us Thor standing right next to the neutron star.

You said that Statements don't count, now you say they do. Not only that, you ignore the feat.

Again, why the change of heart?

Yes, statements by themselves don't matter. they need evidence to back them up. that has always been my stance.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Which is no better than a character statement and those need evidence to back them up or they're ignored.

There is no change of heart, As I'm not arguing that the statement by itself matters. I'm arguing statement + feat.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, statements by themselves don't matter. they need evidence to back them up. that has always been my stance.



There is no change of heart, As I'm not arguing that the statement by itself matters. I'm arguing statement + feat.

If you say so SM.

Either way, thanks for backing my claim.

Nobody has backed up your claim.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
No statement should be taken as fact regardless from which movie it is coming, UNLESS there is evidence and logic to back it up.

Thanks SM.

Having said that, Etri's words need feats to back it up.

Nobody has backed up your claim. BTW, They were backed up.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nobody has backed up your claim. BTW, They were backed up.

Statements without feats are worthless, as you said. Clearly backing my claim. Thanks SM.

The feat contradicts Etri's words, ergo nullifying the statement.

The Tribunal has concluded.

What a fool.

Originally posted by riv6672
What a fool.

I know, Statements being worthless without evidence has been my stance since well before he ever posted on this site. so if anything, he agrees with my stance.

The things is, Eitri's statement does have evidence supporting it.