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

Fight on bifrost bridge.

Who wins?

Hella on Asgard takes it.

What if Hela's head gets cut off? Would she remain alive?

Originally posted by Robtard
Hella on Asgard takes it.

Although Carol is the most powerful Avenger, Hela is still a beast. Hela.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Although Carol is the most powerful Avenger, Hela is still a beast. Hela.

What if WW manages to cut Hela's head off?

Originally posted by h1a8
What if WW manages to cut Hela's head off?

But can she? She'd probably be impaled way prior to that! And, Hela's skin is clearly superstrong. Not happening.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
But can she? She'd probably be impaled way prior to that! And, Hela's skin is clearly superstrong. Not happening.

Hela has been cut easily and WW is at least a magnitude faster than Hela.

Originally posted by h1a8
Hela has been cut easily and WW is at least a magnitude faster than Hela.

Nope, Hela was never "cut", she was impaled, which is actually different.

Based on? Again, slow-mo scenes aren't the only parameter for superspeed/reflexes.

WW can't dodge the amount of Necro-swords Hela can spam.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Nope, Hela was never "cut", she was impaled, which is actually different.

Based on? Again, slow-mo scenes aren't the only parameter for superspeed/reflexes.

WW can't dodge the amount of Necro-swords Hela can spam.

Being stabbed by a sharp weapon = being cut
Hela would be frozen to Diana.
I wish I was a mod. I would ban the shit outta you for trolling.

Originally posted by h1a8
Being stabbed by a sharp weapon = being cut
Hela would be frozen to Diana.
I wish I was a mod. I would ban the shit outta you for trolling.

LOL! NO! Slashing and impaling are different, it all comes to P=F/A (it's basic physics h1, come on!).
Fallacy.

Thanks God you are not, else you would be a troll mod.

Originally posted by h1a8
What if WW manages to cut Hela's head off?

WW couldnt even cut Steppenwolf when she slashed him and connected with her sword. Hela has been shown so survive being cut and stabbed with no effect.
The Doomsday thing was either pis or a low showing for DD rather than a high showing for ww.

Originally posted by Inhuman
WW couldnt even cut Steppenwolf when she slashed him and connected with her sword. Hela has been shown so survive being cut and stabbed with no effect.
The Doomsday thing was either pis or a low showing for DD rather than a high showing for ww.

I didn't ask if WW stabbed Hela but if she cut her head off.

LOL at saying it was a low showing for DD.
Hela was cut several times in the movie. She can be easily cut by WW.

Originally posted by h1a8
Being stabbed by a sharp weapon = being cut
Hela would be frozen to Diana.
I wish I was a mod. I would ban the shit outta you for trolling. Diana does not have the level of superspeed required to statue Hela.

If you want to go by the bullet timing feats while ignoring every single fight that she had.

Iron man dodged a tank round after it was fired in Iron Man 1 and that's faster than bullets.

Besides, WW's sword only cut DD and even then it took time and effort. it did nothing to SW. I don't think Hela is just going to stand there and give WW the time to make a deep cut.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Besides, WW's sword only cut DD and even then it took time and effort. it did nothing to SW. I don't think Hela is just going to stand there and give WW the time to make a deep cut.
WW just lopped a limb off instantly.

Originally posted by Nevan
Diana does not have the level of superspeed required to statue Hela.

If you want to go by the bullet timing feats while ignoring every single fight that she had.

Iron man dodged a tank round after it was fired in Iron Man 1 and that's faster than bullets.
1. Hela moves at human speed.

2. Diana sees bullets in slow-mo 100% of the time and many times. She has also used speed outside of bullets multiple times.
Its not a one off. Your analogy does not work. Create a poll asking if WW seeing bullets in slow-mo standard ability and not an outlier.

3. The round was slower than a bullet. We clearly see it flying past him. Any great movie skilled MA could have dodged that from that distance. Even if it wasn't, then by your argument, it would be a one off and doesn't count.

Originally posted by h1a8
WW just lopped a limb off instantly.


1. Hela moves at human speed.

2. Diana sees bullets in slow-mo 100% of the time and many times. She has also used speed outside of bullets multiple times.
Its not a one off. Your analogy does not work. Create a poll asking if WW seeing bullets in slow-mo standard ability and not an outlier.

3. The round was slower than a bullet. We clearly see it flying past him. Any great movie skilled MA could have dodged that from that distance. Even if it wasn't, then by your argument, it would be a one off and doesn't count.

Ares, Luddendorf and Steppenwolf didn't seem to move any faster than Hela yet all of them had no trouble keeping up with WW's speed.

Originally posted by h1a8
WW just lopped a limb off instantly.

Not against either DD or SW she didn't.

Hela has no feats against speedsters. WW would decap her and Captain Marvel pretty quickly.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not against either DD or SW she didn't.

Who is SW? Diana cut DD hand off instantly, in one swipe.

Originally posted by h1a8
Who is SW? Diana cut DD hand off instantly, in one swipe.


You're either lying or don't know what the word instantly means, I would say you need to re-watch the scene but it's blatantly obvious that you've never even seen it.

Originally posted by h1a8
Who is SW? Diana cut DD hand off instantly, in one swipe.

No she didn't.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Hela has no feats against speedsters. WW would decap her and Captain Marvel pretty quickly. Neither does steppenwolf but she did not decapitate him. Your debating is pure fantasy land. Did she behead Ludendorff? Nahhhh. Hela rapes WW.

WW needed assistance against WW 1 soldiers Hela raped Asgard. Now slap the Down syndrome out of your body.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're either lying or don't know what the word instantly means, I would say you need to re-watch the scene but it's blatantly obvious that you've never even seen it.

Instantly means in an instant. Lets not troll the thread and argue semantics. She sliced his hand off with one clean swipe. The speed of the sword right before contact was similar to the speed going through the wrist and about the same as the speed right after the hand was fully separated. The whole motion was smooth and quick.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Neither does steppenwolf but she did not decapitate him. Your debating is pure fantasy land. Did she behead Ludendorff? Nahhhh. Hela rapes WW.

WW needed assistance against WW 1 soldiers Hela raped Asgard. Now slap the Down syndrome out of your body. We debate using peak feats here, not averages. That means we debate from only top strength, durability, speed, etc feats. Therefore in a forum, she sees bullets in slow motion and anything far slower than a bullet as a near statue.

Originally posted by h1a8
We debate using peak feats here, not averages. That means we debate from only top strength, durability, speed, etc feats. Therefore in a forum, she sees bullets in slow motion and anything far slower than a bullet as a near statue. We debate using all evidence not just cherry picked nonsense you moron. We see how she interacts and she was losing to Step. Sad.

Originally posted by h1a8
Instantly means in an instant. Lets not troll the thread and argue semantics. She sliced his hand off with one clean swipe. The speed of the sword right before contact was similar to the speed going through the wrist and about the same as the speed right after the hand was fully separated. The whole motion was smooth and quick.

No, she didn't. she caught a strike on one side of the arm for a second and then made another cut from the other side to finish removing the arm. it was a 2 step process.

Which is further backed up with the fact that when she sliced at his leg earlier, it didn't cut through.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ares, Luddendorf and Steppenwolf didn't seem to move any faster than Hela yet all of them had no trouble keeping up with WW's speed.


This

In fact Helas attacks seemed the fastest out of all of them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, she didn't. she caught a strike on one side of the arm for a second and then made another cut from the other side to finish removing the arm. it was a 2 step process.

Which is further backed up with the fact that when she sliced at his leg earlier, it didn't cut through.
The Intial cut had nothing to do with the slice. The Intial cut didn't penetrate much and wasn't necessarily lined up with the slice. The slice penetrated more than 90% parts that were not already cut (possibly 100%).

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ares, Luddendorf and Steppenwolf didn't seem to move any faster than Hela yet all of them had no trouble keeping up with WW's speed. We use highest feats, not low showings. Diana is a bullet timer. Facts.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, she didn't. she caught a strike on one side of the arm for a second and then made another cut from the other side to finish removing the arm. it was a 2 step process.

Which is further backed up with the fact that when she sliced at his leg earlier, it didn't cut through.
The Intial cut had nothing to do with the slice. The Intial cut didn't penetrate much and wasn't necessarily lined up with the slice. The slice penetrated more than 90% parts that were not already cut (possibly 100%).


Originally posted by quanchi112
We debate using all evidence not just cherry picked nonsense you moron. We see how she interacts and she was losing to Step. Sad.


We cherry pick the highest showings. That's why you have members arguing black holes, neutron stars, etc.

No, we do not. We use all the evidence. You can pretend you debate but we both know it is just mouth breathing at best.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, we do not. We use all the evidence. You can pretend you debate but we both know it is just mouth breathing at best. You are in the wrong forum. In this forum we use highest showings, not low ones.

Originally posted by h1a8
We use highest feats, not low showings. Diana is a bullet timer. Facts.


The Intial cut had nothing to do with the slice. The Intial cut didn't penetrate much and wasn't necessarily lined up with the slice. The slice penetrated more than 90% parts that were not already cut (possibly 100%).





We cherry pick the highest showings. That's why you have members arguing black holes, neutron stars, etc.

Lol. We don't cherry pick the highest showings and disregard all other showings. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying Michael Jordan can score 69 points in every single basketball game just because he was able to do it that one time.

No, we use consistent showings. We use applicable showings.

Fact is, WW has never shown the ability to consistently apply her superspeed in a melee fight, especially not against decent melee fighters.

Yes, WW has blocked bullets before... unfortunately Hela doesn't use guns. So we go with what we've seen WW do in melee and h2h... and we know that Luddendorf, Ares and Steppenwolf all had no issues tagging her.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are in the wrong forum. In this forum we use highest showings, not low ones.

I'd like to see a ruling where this is declared.

Originally posted by h1a8
The Intial cut had nothing to do with the slice. The Intial cut didn't penetrate much and wasn't necessarily lined up with the slice. The slice penetrated more than 90% parts that were not already cut (possibly 100%).


So basically you are saying that of all the times WW used her sword on DD, that only one time resulted in damage. then per your own standards that makes it a low showing for DD and according to you. we don't use low showings.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So basically you are saying that of all the times WW used her sword on DD, that only one time resulted in damage. then per your own standards that makes it a low showing for DD and according to you. we don't use low showings.

She sliced DD hand off in a downward motion (position of power). There was no other times she applied an equal or larger cutting force where it failed.

We don't use low showings for the characters in the thread, as their power level.

Originally posted by h1a8
She sliced DD hand off in a downward motion (position of power). There was no other times she applied an equal or larger cutting force where it failed.

We don't use low showings for the characters in the thread, as their power level.

Per your own standards it's a low showing for DD as none of her other sword attacks did even the smallest of damage.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are in the wrong forum. In this forum we use highest showings, not low ones. All evidence otherwise you are too subjective there emotional which leads to bias. I win.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Per your own standards it's a low showing for DD as none of her other sword attacks did even the smallest of damage.

Her other attacks did do damage. He just healed from it.

Originally posted by h1a8

We don't use low showings for the characters in the thread, as their power level.

Originally posted by h1a8
Her other attacks did do damage. He just healed from it.

Even if true, they didn't do even .1% as much damage. thus per your own standards. this is either an outlier or a low showing. either way. per your own standards, it's unusable.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Even if true, they didn't do even .1% as much damage. thus per your own standards. this is either an outlier or a low showing. either way. per your own standards, it's unusable.

It's not an outlier. WW sliced through DD several times, just not completely through due to inferior attempts.

Even if it was for WW, it still counts, as all outliers. Remember we argue high showings as the level a character will be at in a forum fight.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I'd like to see a ruling where this is declared.

The ruling is based off the how the majority of members here debate AND Robtard (mod in disguise). Otherwise we have to throw out Hela's Mjolnir crush, Thor's star feat, and every other outlier feat.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Lol. We don't cherry pick the highest showings and disregard all other showings. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying Michael Jordan can score 69 points in every single basketball game just because he was able to do it that one time.

No, we use consistent showings. We use applicable showings.

Fact is, WW has never shown the ability to consistently apply her superspeed in a melee fight, especially not against decent melee fighters.

Yes, WW has blocked bullets before... unfortunately Hela doesn't use guns. So we go with what we've seen WW do in melee and h2h... and we know that Luddendorf, Ares and Steppenwolf all had no issues tagging her.

Who is "we"? It's certainly not the majority of the members of the forum.
You had plenty of opportunity to tell others (who support Marvel characters) this, such as Cartage, Rage, and several others, but failed to do so (meaning you accepted their take).

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not an outlier. WW sliced through DD several times, just not completely through due to inferior attempts.

Even if it was for WW, it still counts, as all outliers. Remember we argue high showings as the level a character will be at in a forum fight.

Now you're just lying.

Nope, per your stated standards neither outliers or low showings count.

Originally posted by h1a8
The ruling is based off the how the majority of members here debate AND Robtard (mod in disguise). Otherwise we have to throw out Hela's Mjolnir crush, Thor's star feat, and every other outlier feat.

Again, where is this ruling set? Prove to me that majority of users here are completely fine disregarding all a character's feats in lieu of only their highest outliers.

I personally don't use Hela's Mjolnir crush but at least she has no other feat that directly contradicts it. Same is true with Thor's star feat. On the other hand, we have numerous instances where WW directly contradicts her supposed super speed, so you can't simply ignore that.

We use high end feats but we don't depend on only them. Otherwise Hela would be strong enough to kill Hulk with.a single blow and Thor would be so tough that punches from Thanos shouldn't have hurt him. Is that how you want to debate?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Again, where is this ruling set? Prove to me that majority of users here are completely fine disregarding all a character's feats in lieu of only their highest outliers.

I personally don't use Hela's Mjolnir crush but at least she has no other feat that directly contradicts it. Same is true with Thor's star feat. On the other hand, we have numerous instances where WW directly contradicts her supposed super speed, so you can't simply ignore that.

We use high end feats but we don't depend on only them. Otherwise Hela would be strong enough to kill Hulk with.a single blow and Thor would be so tough that punches from Thanos shouldn't have hurt him. Is that how you want to debate?

It's not worth my time to prove to you that the majority debate off highest showings. You have members clearly state that Superman can't harm Thor and other nonsense. Yet you see these posts and don't correct them (which proves that you argue the same). You personally have argued high end showings MANY TIMES. Thor's star feat was a heat resistant feat, it has no bearing on him resisting punches to the face or being cut.

Every showing by Hela contradicts her Mjolnir crush feat. She hit much weaker Asgardians without killing them, Hit Thor without killing or koing him, Hit characters a certain distance away (far under 50 tons of force), etc. I argued the feat was an outlier and shouldn't be used to establish her strength in a forum. Everyone disagreed.

What do you suggest? WW not be able to see bullets in slow motion in a forum and can lose to a simple skilled gunman?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Now you're just lying.

Nope, per your stated standards neither outliers or low showings count.

My standards are what they currently are. Not what they were.
As of now, high end showings determines a character's power level in a forum. Outliers can be used as a high end showing.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not worth my time to prove to you that the majority debate off highest showings. You have members clearly state that Superman can't harm Thor and other nonsense. Yet you see these posts and don't correct them (which proves that you argue the same). You personally have argued high end showings MANY TIMES. Thor's star feat was a heat resistant feat, it has no bearing on him resisting punches to the face or being cut.

Every showing by Hela contradicts her Mjolnir crush feat. She hit much weaker Asgardians without killing them, Hit Thor without killing or koing him, Hit characters a certain distance away (far under 50 tons of force), etc. I argued the feat was an outlier and shouldn't be used to establish her strength in a forum. Everyone disagreed.

What do you suggest? WW not be able to see bullets in slow motion in a forum and can lose to a simple skilled gunman?

Actually, you do need to prove something that you claim. That's how debates like this work. If you claim there's a rule here that states we get to disregard all of a character's feats except the highest showings then you need to provide proof of that. Otherwise your entire argument becomes just a huge pile of bullcrap.

I never argued using highest feats only. I've always argued using highest feats AND all their other feats.

Originally posted by h1a8
My standards are what they currently are. Not what they were.
As of now, high end showings determines a character's power level in a forum. Outliers can be used as a high end showing.

IOW, you've just admitted that you change your standards based on who you want to win.

Guess what that makes you.

Originally posted by h1a8
Every showing by Hela contradicts her Mjolnir crush feat.

Just like all of WW's sword attack feats contradict her cutting off DD's hand feat, yet you want to count one but not the other.

Guess what that makes you.

Originally posted by h1a8
If you don't know that what I said is true then you are one of the dumbest people alive and not worthy of discussion.

That would be you. The entire board agrees with me, moron.

Originally posted by h1a8
WW just lopped a limb off instantly.


1. Hela moves at human speed.

2. Diana sees bullets in slow-mo 100% of the time and many times. She has also used speed outside of bullets multiple times.
Its not a one off. Your analogy does not work. Create a poll asking if WW seeing bullets in slow-mo standard ability and not an outlier.

3. The round was slower than a bullet. We clearly see it flying past him. Any great movie skilled MA could have dodged that from that distance. Even if it wasn't, then by your argument, it would be a one off and doesn't count.
Note how h1a8 tried to pass off Iron Man dodging a tank round an unusable speed feat in this very thread.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
That would be you. The entire board agrees with me, moron.

Josh and H1 biggest weakness is they care so much about virtually nothing.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
That would be you. The entire board agrees with me, moron. Only an idiot would agree with you. You are dumb as a box of rox.


Originally posted by Silent Master
Just like all of WW's sword attack feats contradict her cutting off DD's hand feat, yet you want to count one but not the other.

Guess what that makes you.

No they don't contradict her cutting off DD's hand. But that's another argument.

Youare mistakenly thinking I'm saying that Hela's Mjolnir feat don't count as her forum power level. It does. Remember I'm a proponent of high end showings, so Hela's feat can contradict all her other showings and it still be the level she operates in a forum fight.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Actually, you do need to prove something that you claim. That's how debates like this work. If you claim there's a rule here that states we get to disregard all of a character's feats except the highest showings then you need to provide proof of that. Otherwise your entire argument becomes just a huge pile of bullcrap.

I never argued using highest feats only. I've always argued using highest feats AND all their other feats.

I don't have to prove common sense things or things that people already know are true.

You mostly argued highest feats. Why didn't you address those who stated Superman cant hurt Thor because of his star feat?

Originally posted by h1a8



I don't have to prove common sense things or things that people already know are true.

You mostly argued highest feats. Why didn't you address those who stated Superman cant hurt Thor because of his star feat?

Except what you're discussing isn't common sense. It's pretty darn idiotic to claim that we disregard every single feat of a character other than their highest feats. If you want to claim that then go get a ruling.


As for arguing highest feats, I never argued purely using highest feats. I also never said Superman can't hurt Thor and have repeatedly said that he can do so. I might argue that some versions of Thor can win over some versions of Superman, but claiming that Thor can simply sit back and allow Superman to lay into him indefinitely is the kind of dumb argument only a person like you will claim.

You say that cutting of DD's hand isn't contradicted by all her other sword attacks. Ok, post examples of her sword attacks doing even 1% as much damage as cutting off DD's hand.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Except what you're discussing isn't common sense. It's pretty darn idiotic to claim that we disregard every single feat of a character other than their highest feats. If you want to claim that then go get a ruling.


As for arguing highest feats, I never argued purely using highest feats. I also never said Superman can't hurt Thor and have repeatedly said that he can do so. I might argue that some versions of Thor can win over some versions of Superman, but claiming that Thor can simply sit back and allow Superman to lay into him indefinitely is the kind of dumb argument only a person like you will claim.

I said the majority of members here argue that (not every member).
You had members say such things and you didn't address them at all. That means you support them.

Almost every member here would argue a character's highest showing. This is common sense. From WS, to CA, to Spider-Man, to Thor, to Hulk, I can go on and on. Only highest showings are brought up, even if they are outliers. And this is from nearly everyone. I even had an argument with Robtard about it. I was discussing with him that we should use more of an average. He was the first to clearly state that we use a characters peak showings only since using averages are inconsistent and complicated.

H1 and his silliness continues.

Originally posted by h1a8
I said the majority of members here argue that (not every member).
You had members say such things and you didn't address them at all. That means you support them.

Almost every member here would argue a character's highest showing. This is common sense. From WS, to CA, to Spider-Man, to Thor, to Hulk, I can go on and on. Only highest showings are brought up, even if they are outliers. And this is from nearly everyone. I even had an argument with Robtard about it. I was discussing with him that we should use more of an average. He was the first to clearly state that we use a characters peak showings only since using averages are inconsistent and complicated.

The difference between most posters here and you is that although they argue using highest showings, they don't completely disregard other showings as well. Like I said, that's why you don't have people claiming Hela can kill Hulk with a single punch.

I also don't have time to call out every single person here who uses a no limits fallacy everytime they use it. I'm not the forum police. I debate against people I disagree with and call them out when they use a no limits fallacy (like what I'm doing with you right now) but just because I didn't call out someone else doesn't make it alright for you to keep doing it.

Anyway, you want to disregard character feats, go get a ruling. Otherwise, stop acting like you can make rules up.

Originally posted by h1a8
I said the majority of members here argue that (not every member).
You had members say such things and you didn't address them at all. That means you support them.

Almost every member here would argue a character's highest showing. This is common sense. From WS, to CA, to Spider-Man, to Thor, to Hulk, I can go on and on. Only highest showings are brought up, even if they are outliers. And this is from nearly everyone. I even had an argument with Robtard about it. I was discussing with him that we should use more of an average. He was the first to clearly state that we use a characters peak showings only since using averages are inconsistent and complicated.

Name the members and show examples where they only use high end showings.

Originally posted by FrothByte
The difference between most posters here and you is that although they argue using highest showings, they don't completely disregard other showings as well. Like I said, that's why you don't have people claiming Hela can kill Hulk with a single punch.

I also don't have time to call out every single person here who uses a no limits fallacy everytime they use it. I'm not the forum police. I debate against people I disagree with and call them out when they use a no limits fallacy (like what I'm doing with you right now) but just because I didn't call out someone else doesn't make it alright for you to keep doing it.

Anyway, you want to disregard character feats, go get a ruling. Otherwise, stop acting like you can make rules up.

Of course they do (disregard low showings). For the fourth time, why didn't you address posters who claimed that Superman can't hurt Thor? Happened many times.

It is because you are bias towards Marvel characters. If it was a DC character then you would address it. Therefore you are not objective and everything you say should be taken with a grain of salt.

The rules are already made by the majority. Don't like it then don't debate.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Name the members and show examples where they only use high end showings. Every member. No one doesnt. Look at ANY THREAD.

Originally posted by h1a8
Every member. No one doesnt. Look at ANY THREAD.

As you posted no examples to back up your claim, that means you were lying.

Originally posted by Silent Master
As you posted no examples to back up your claim, that means you were lying.
I said look at any thread. Every member does it. I'm not going to prove this as you already know this is true.

Still no posted examples. Yep, you're a liar.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Still no posted examples. Yep, you're a liar. We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

I agree that you're lying.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

Get a load of this guys: this clown actually stated that he could replicate the feats from Bullseye from DD season 3.

Are you able to replicate the feats of Bullseye from DD Season 3, yet?
Proof of your endeavors (failures).

Originally posted by Silent Master
You say that cutting of DD's hand isn't contradicted by all her other sword attacks. Ok, post examples of her sword attacks doing even 1% as much damage as cutting off DD's hand.

Your argument is flawed.
I can squeeze an egg with an inferior grip and do 0 damage. But with a superior grip, I can apply more force and cause the egg to shatter. The damage is infinitely more in the second grip than the first grip. There is no contradiction.

In other words, you would have to apply nearly the same force or a superior force with a drastically lesser result to show a contradiction.

If it takes 1lb of force to completely cut through something and someone applied 0.9lb. of force then this can result in less than 1% damage than using 1lb.

IOW, you admit that you can't provide any evidence that WW's other sword attacks did even 1% of the damage. which means it was a low end feat for DD and per your stated standards. the feat is unusable.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your argument is flawed.
I can squeeze an egg with an inferior grip and do 0 damage. But with a superior grip, I can apply more force and cause the egg to shatter. The damage is infinitely more in the second grip than the first grip. There is no contradiction.

In other words, you would have to apply nearly the same force or a superior force with a drastically lesser result to show a contradiction.

If it takes 1lb of force to completely cut through something and someone applied 0.9lb. of force then this can result in less than 1% damage than using 1lb.

More excuses and hypotheticals from the man who loves fictional scenarios.

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course they do (disregard low showings). For the fourth time, why didn't you address posters who claimed that Superman can't hurt Thor? Happened many times.

It is because you are bias towards Marvel characters. If it was a DC character then you would address it. Therefore you are not objective and everything you say should be taken with a grain of salt.

The rules are already made by the majority. Don't like it then don't debate.

Show me posters who claimed Superman can't hurt Thor at all. I feel like you're making this shit up.

And again, show me where majority claim that we should disregard all feats except the highest end feats. Otherwise you're just making it up as well.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

You see, H1, the majority of this board disagrees with every statement you make. You are on the losing side of every argument this side of Jupiter.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling. I do not. I just disproved your everyone claim. This is how debating works.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Show me posters who claimed Superman can't hurt Thor at all. I feel like you're making this shit up.

And again, show me where majority claim that we should disregard all feats except the highest end feats. Otherwise you're just making it up as well.

So you are implying that you never saw such posts? I don't believe you sir.

A few members literally claimed it, but everyone debates that way (including you). They used the highest showings in determining who wins. No mention of low showings was ever present anywhere.

When Hela is pit against someone, members mention her Mjolnir crushing feat and not her feat of failing to kill an Asgardian with physical blows or only managing to hit or throw someone several feet away.

When Hulk is pitted against someone, the leviathan feat is only discussed, or the Surtur feat.

When Thor is pitted against someone then the star feat is mentioned, Jotuheim blast, etc.

When IM is mentioned, him dodging missiles is mentioned, tanking shells (all from IM 1).

Cap tanking blows against WS while WS highest showings being mentioned to show the force CA was tanking, not remembering that CA isn't bullet proof or knife proof.

All of that is irrelevant. WW has consistently blocked many bullets. So many that it's the most consistent feat. She will not come into a forum less than a bullet timer. Otherwise John Wick would easily beat her.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Although Thor is the most powerful Avenger, Hela is still a beast. Hela.

Fixed it for ya.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you admit that you can't provide any evidence that WW's other sword attacks did even 1% of the damage. which means it was a low end feat for DD and per your stated standards. the feat is unusable.

I just did. The egg principle. The static friction force principle. You can ignore it without addressing it. Doesn't mean anything to me.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you are implying that you never saw such posts? I don't believe you sir.

A few members literally claimed it, but everyone debates that way (including you). They used the highest showings in determining who wins. No mention of low showings was ever present anywhere.

When Hela is pit against someone, members mention her Mjolnir crushing feat and not her feat of failing to kill an Asgardian with physical blows or only managing to hit or throw someone several feet away.

When Hulk is pitted against someone, the leviathan feat is only discussed, or the Surtur feat.

When Thor is pitted against someone then the star feat is mentioned, Jotuheim blast, etc.

When IM is mentioned, him dodging missiles is mentioned, tanking shells (all from IM 1).

Cap tanking blows against WS while WS highest showings being mentioned to show the force CA was tanking, not remembering that CA isn't bullet proof or knife proof.

All of that is irrelevant. WW has consistently blocked many bullets. So many that it's the most consistent feat. She will not come into a forum less than a bullet timer. Otherwise John Wick would easily beat her.

You know what else is mentioned, all their other feats. IOW, the exact opposite of your claim that they only use a characters highest feats to debate.

Originally posted by h1a8
I just did. The egg principle. The static friction force principle. You can ignore it without addressing it. Doesn't mean anything to me.

That in no ways proves that WW's other sword attacks did even 1% as much damage. so as it stands DD getting his hand cut of is a low end feat and thus according to you can't be used.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you are implying that you never saw such posts? I don't believe you sir.

A few members literally claimed it, but everyone debates that way (including you). They used the highest showings in determining who wins. No mention of low showings was ever present anywhere.

When Hela is pit against someone, members mention her Mjolnir crushing feat and not her feat of failing to kill an Asgardian with physical blows or only managing to hit or throw someone several feet away.

When Hulk is pitted against someone, the leviathan feat is only discussed, or the Surtur feat.

When Thor is pitted against someone then the star feat is mentioned, Jotuheim blast, etc.

When IM is mentioned, him dodging missiles is mentioned, tanking shells (all from IM 1).

Cap tanking blows against WS while WS highest showings being mentioned to show the force CA was tanking, not remembering that CA isn't bullet proof or knife proof.

All of that is irrelevant. WW has consistently blocked many bullets. So many that it's the most consistent feat. She will not come into a forum less than a bullet timer. Otherwise John Wick would easily beat her.

I'm saying you're exaggerating. I don't recall anyone saying that Superman can't hurt Thor whatsoever. Especially not in a thread I was actively participating in. So either prove that there's such a thing or stop making stuff up.

And don't try to equate me with your tactics. As far as I know you're the only one (and maybe Josh and Quan every now and then) who completely disregards a characters' other showings and pretend like the highest showing is the only relevant feat that they have.

Please don't pretend that everyone here debates like you do. That's very insulting for them.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your argument is flawed.
I can squeeze an egg with an inferior grip and do 0 damage. But with a superior grip, I can apply more force and cause the egg to shatter. The damage is infinitely more in the second grip than the first grip. There is no contradiction.

In other words, you would have to apply nearly the same force or a superior force with a drastically lesser result to show a contradiction.

If it takes 1lb of force to completely cut through something and someone applied 0.9lb. of force then this can result in less than 1% damage than using 1lb.
It's funny how you don't apply this to Hela.

Originally posted by Nevan
It's funny how you don't apply this to Hela.

Apply what?
That principle does not apply to her case.

Also her feat is accepted as a strength feat. So there is nothing to discuss.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm saying you're exaggerating. I don't recall anyone saying that Superman can't hurt Thor whatsoever. Especially not in a thread I was actively participating in. So either prove that there's such a thing or stop making stuff up.

And don't try to equate me with your tactics. As far as I know you're the only one (and maybe Josh and Quan every now and then) who completely disregards a characters' other showings and pretend like the highest showing is the only relevant feat that they have.

Please don't pretend that everyone here debates like you do. That's very insulting for them.

I don't believe that you don't know that EVERYONE does this. There's nothing to discuss honestly.

No one mentions low showings, only high ones in every thread.

We are derailing the thread. Fact is WW comes into every forum fight as a nothing less than a bullet timer. Not debatable really.

More claims with no evidence to back them up, just what we expect from a known liar and troll.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't believe that you don't know that EVERYONE does this. There's nothing to discuss honestly.

No one mentions low showings, only high ones in every thread.

We are derailing the thread. Fact is WW comes into every forum fight as a nothing less than a bullet timer. Not debatable really.

If it's so common then it shouldn't be too hard for you to prove it right? Forgive me for doubting you, but your posting history here shows that you have a penchant for making stuff up and exaggerating.

Bottom line, WW never showed that she can consistently speed blitz a skilled opponent. So stop acting like she does.

Originally posted by FrothByte
If it's so common then it shouldn't be too hard for you to prove it right? Forgive me for doubting you, but your posting history here shows that you have a penchant for making stuff up and exaggerating.

Bottom line, WW never showed that she can consistently speed blitz a skilled opponent. So stop acting like she does.
Play stupid all you want but I don't believe you sir.

Who cares about blitzing? She will see Hela as a statue. Point blank simple.

Originally posted by h1a8
Who cares about blitzing? She will see Hela as a statue. Point blank simple.

WW has never blitzed anyone other than humans. She was a statue when Superman and Flash were fighting.
Steppenwolf wasn't a statue to her. Ares wasn't a statue to her.
The only people you see her use her speed against is regular humans
As far as Wonder Woman's speed is concerned, she has only used it as an advantage against humans not against anyone that is super-powered.

Originally posted by h1a8
Play stupid all you want but I don't believe you sir.

Who cares about blitzing? She will see Hela as a statue. Point blank simple.

The same way she saw Luddendorf and Steppenwolf as status, yes?

Originally posted by h1a8
Play stupid all you want but I don't believe you sir.

Who cares about blitzing? She will see Hela as a statue. Point blank simple.

Name-calling because you can't provide proof of your claims, typical troll tactic.

Originally posted by FrothByte
The same way she saw Luddendorf and Steppenwolf as status, yes? No, she will see them as statues too in a forum fight.

Originally posted by Inhuman
WW has never blitzed anyone other than humans. She was a statue when Superman and Flash were fighting.
Steppenwolf wasn't a statue to her. Ares wasn't a statue to her.
The only people you see her use her speed against is regular humans
As far as Wonder Woman's speed is concerned, she has only used it as an advantage against humans not against anyone that is super-powered. Are you saying Ares and Steppenwolf are fast as bullets or faster? If WW can see bullets in super slow motion then any character that moves with the speed of a human will be frozen in her eyes.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Name-calling because you can't provide proof of your claims, typical troll tactic.

Look everyone. Silent is very smart. He says that calling a male adult 'sir' is name-calling. Or telling someone they are playing stupid is name-calling.

Originally posted by h1a8
Play stupid all you want but I don't believe you sir.

carol has no bullet speed perception feats while fighting in CQC throughout her film. And so while diana did not display such feats consistently, you cant excuse the fact that she still displayed them. unlike carol who did not. So on CQC diana takes it or 50/50. When it comes to long rage where carol'll be more adept at using those blasts, diana's gear nullifies them. Her bracelet and shield have been shown to either tank or absorb energy. Not saying diana wont be hit, just saying that with that gear, that facet of carol's attack is greatly subdued.
Overall i'll give it 50/50 or 5.5/10 to carol.

WW has a one shot weapon (the sword).
She's way faster if the fight ever got to fisticuffs.
Diana should view CM as a statue

Originally posted by h1a8
No, she will see them as statues too in a forum fight.

So, again, you want to disregard her actual feats of fighting Steppenwolf and Luddendorf and instead create your own version of events based purely on WW's bullet blocking?

Heck, you should have said so in the first place. Because then we could say that:

Thor has blocked laser blaster bolts. Hela has easily kept up with Thor, therefore Hela is a definite speedster. She should be at least as fast if not faster than WW since we know lasers travel faster than bullets.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So, again, you want to disregard her actual feats of fighting Steppenwolf and Luddendorf and instead create your own version of events based purely on WW's bullet blocking?

Heck, you should have said so in the first place. Because then we could say that:

Thor has blocked laser blaster bolts. Hela has easily kept up with Thor, therefore Hela is a definite speedster. She should be at least as fast if not faster than WW since we know lasers travel faster than bullets.

Using h1's way of debating, We can also say since Steppenwolf manhandled Wonder Woman with ease, and Thor would be able to stomp Stepp, and Hela beat Thor, then WW would be no threat to Hela.

Originally posted by h1a8
Are you saying Ares and Steppenwolf are fast as bullets or faster? If WW can see bullets in super slow motion then any character that moves with the speed of a human will be frozen in her eyes.

Ares and Stepp , even Luddendorf were able to fight WW no problem and they didnt show any impressive speed. Also being able to block bullets doesnt mean she sees the bullets in slow motion.

We been over this a million times. You are trolling as usual at this point.

Originally posted by h1a8
Look everyone. Silent is very smart. He says that calling a male adult 'sir' is name-calling. Or telling someone they are playing stupid is name-calling.

Playing stupid or is it natural?

Originally posted by Inhuman
Using h1's way of debating, We can also say since Steppenwolf manhandled Wonder Woman with ease, and Thor would be able to stomp Stepp, and Hela beat Thor, then WW would be no threat to Hela.



Ares and Stepp , even Luddendorf were able to fight WW no problem and they didnt show any impressive speed. Also being able to block bullets doesnt mean she sees the bullets in slow motion.

We been over this a million times. You are trolling as usual at this point.

Being able to react to bullets after they are fired MEANS THAT YOU ARE SEEING THEM IN SLOW MOTION.

What defines SLOW MOTION? Significantly slower than what a human would perceive. We even see WW perceive bullets in slow motion in her movie.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So, again, you want to disregard her actual feats of fighting Steppenwolf and Luddendorf and instead create your own version of events based purely on WW's bullet blocking?

Heck, you should have said so in the first place. Because then we could say that:

Thor has blocked laser blaster bolts. Hela has easily kept up with Thor, therefore Hela is a definite speedster. She should be at least as fast if not faster than WW since we know lasers travel faster than bullets.
Those concussive blasts (not lasers) were slow as shown and Destroyer telegraphed.

Your rebuttal is flawed. I'm not claiming Steppenwolf is fast because WW blocked bullets. WW didn't move faster than a bullet or have bullet perceptions when she fought him.

You see WW actually view the bullets in slow motion. Everyone else was FROZEN.

Thor never moved faster than a human can respond when he fought Hela.

Originally posted by h1a8
Being able to react to bullets after they are fired MEANS THAT YOU ARE SEEING THEM IN SLOW MOTION.

What defines SLOW MOTION? Significantly slower than what a human would perceive. We even see WW perceive bullets in slow motion in her movie.


Those concussive blasts (not lasers) were slow as shown and Destroyer telegraphed.

Your rebuttal is flawed. I'm not claiming Steppenwolf is fast because WW blocked bullets. WW didn't move faster than a bullet or have bullet perceptions when she fought him.

You see WW actually view the bullets in slow motion. Everyone else was FROZEN.

Thor never moved faster than a human can respond when he fought Hela.



Ok, I have no interest in debating either you, but wonderwoman does not see bullets in slow motion, the entire scene itself is slowed down to allow the audience have a Better view, in every slowed down scene, the bullet itself is seen moving faster than Diana is moving her limbs

Originally posted by Genii96
Ok, I have no interest in debating either you, but wonderwoman does not see bullets in slow motion, the entire scene itself is slowed down to allow the audience have a Better view, in every slowed down scene, the bullet itself is seen moving faster than Diana is moving her limbs

The definition of slow motion is seeing motion far slower than a human does.

We see WW eyes follow the bullet in slow motion.
If she didn't see bullets in slow motion then she wouldn't be able to respond or react to them.


Note: All speedsters perceive events far slower than humans do.