Kurse vs Hela

Nibedicus

Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately, it seems I'm going to end up backing Josh and h1 here (and believe me, it's not something I enjoy).

I'm iffy to attribute Hela's Mjolnir crushing to pure physical strength, for the simple reason that had she been that strong, she should have been able to easily stomp Thor in a physical confrontation. In fact, I'd say if she was strong enough to casually crush Mjolnir in her grip, she should have been able to knock out Thor (if not outright kill him) with a single punch.

We know that's not the case. I mean, it was clear that Hela was stronger than Thor (seeing as she overpowers him multiple times) but it wasn't such a mismatch that Thor was unable to keep up with her for a bit.

I'm sure her physical strength played a part in the feat, but I also think there was something more there.

While it is certainly theory you can have. And ppl are free to think what thy want, the whole "she used something else other than strength to crush Mjolnir" theory is, however, an unsupported one. There is nothing in the scene (at least nothing that I see) that even hints to her using anything else other than physical strength. We need evidence to make conclusions, not headcanon.

Characters get high "feats" that don't make sense all the time. Thor has surviving the same energies that can forge Uru (making it seem like his durability is even higher than that of Mjolnir via simple transitive property) is one of them, Hela has crushing Mjolnir.

BrolyBlack

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
She never summoned her own portals. That portal opened up as soon as Odin died. Hence why she needed the bifrost

Amd why did her portal come straight to where Thor and Loki were?
And her swords and spikes?

FrothByte

Originally posted by Nibedicus
While it is certainly theory you can have. And ppl are free to think what thy want, the whole "she used something else other than strength to crush Mjolnir" theory is, however, an unsupported one. There is nothing in the scene (at least nothing that I see) that even hints to her using anything else other than physical strength. We need evidence to make conclusions, not headcanon.

Characters get high "feats" that don't make sense all the time. Thor has surviving the same energies that can forge Uru (making it seem like his durability is even higher than that of Mjolnir via simple transitive property) is one of them, Hela has crushing Mjolnir.

Yes, I agree that there's no proof that she used anything else other than physical strength to crush Mjolnir. But that doesn't mean we should simply disregard her performance against Thor either and the fact that Kurse overpowered Thor more easily than Hela did.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Amd why did her portal come straight to where Thor and Loki were?
And her swords and spikes?

I think it is more like it went to where Odin died.

You can say that her swords and spikes are a form of "magic" , of course. Or at least "superscience that is so advanced that it may as well be magic" ergo the way Asgardians are portrayed in the MCU. Kinda like Thor's lightning (aka their "superpower" wink

.

I think what Shadowfure is trying to say is that Hela did not perform any spell-casting-y magic spells that makes her do a diverse set of things outside of her demonstrated powerset. And her ninja-casting some sort of Mjolnir-weakening spell seems like it is outside what she was shown to be able to do in the movie. At least that's what I think he's trying to say.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, I agree that there's no proof that she used anything else other than physical strength to crush Mjolnir. But that doesn't mean we should simply disregard her performance against Thor either and the fact that Kurse overpowered Thor more easily than Hela did.

We don't disregard them, of course. The same way we don't disregard that Thor has a lot of showings that makes the Star "feat" a little high in terms of what he is able to do (same with Hela crushing Mjolnir).

I will disagree with Kurse overpowering Thor easier than Hela did, in fact in the closest apples-to-apples comparison we have of "overpowering", both Hela and Kurse had Thor in a neckhold. Thor was able to power out of Kurse's choke, he was unable to do so with Hela's (he was so overpowered that he was practically helpless).

Kurse chokes Thor

https://youtu.be/ZJneSSYTZFo (0:34)

Hela chokes Thor

https://youtu.be/Mv3-G1k8VFY (1:48)

I think had Hela been relentless like Kurse (instead of monologuing and gloating all the time) the fight would have ended in seconds. She had him dead to rights several times and she would stop and taunt him.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
IDK, I remember the hammer was vibrating in her hand.

I think that was to demonstrate that Mjolnir couldn't "push thru" or "pull out" or her grip (it was either trying to escape it or trying to push against it). That in itself is a massive strength "feat" for Hela as she did so effortlessly.

Anyway, just dropping by to give my MvS buiddies (all of you except h1, cuz he sucks, I'm kidding. You too, h1.) a big hello, don't have much time to do MvS replies these days but I will try to drop in occasionally).

FrothByte

Originally posted by Nibedicus
We don't disregard them, of course. The same way we don't disregard that Thor has a lot of showings that makes the Star "feat" a little high in terms of what he is able to do (same with Hela crushing Mjolnir).

I will disagree with Kurse overpowering Thor easier than Hela did, in fact in the closest apples-to-apples comparison we have of "overpowering", both Hela and Kurse had Thor in a neckhold. Thor was able to power out of Kurse's choke, he was unable to do so with Hela's (he was so overpowered that he was practically helpless).

Kurse chokes Thor

https://youtu.be/ZJneSSYTZFo (0:34)

Hela chokes Thor

https://youtu.be/Mv3-G1k8VFY (1:48)

I think had Hela been relentless like Kurse (instead of monologuing and gloating all the time) the fight would have ended in seconds. She had him dead to rights several times and she would stop and taunt him.

The difference between Thor's "star feat" and Hela's "Mjolnir feat" is that we haven't really seen anything in the movies to contradict Thor's star feat. We know he can survive falling from extremely high heights without any injuries. We know he survived the Bifrost explosion and Sokovia explosion without injuries. We know he took a repulsor blast point blank to the face and didn't even suffer a rash. We know Hulk punched him multiple times in the face and he didn't even suffer a broken lip.

So though the star feat is one of his highest feats, it's still consistent with what we've seen from him previously.

Hela's Mjolnir feat in comparison is not consistent with the way she fought Thor. Hulk was not strong enough to stop Mjolnir's flight trajectory. Hela was strong enough to completely stop Mjolnir in mid flight which should mean that Hela is way stronger than Hulk. Yet Thor was still able to block Hela's punches in a way that he was never able to do with Hulk.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by FrothByte
The difference between Thor's "star feat" and Hela's "Mjolnir feat" is that we haven't really seen anything in the movies to contradict Thor's star feat. We know he can survive falling from extremely high heights without any injuries. We know he survived the Bifrost explosion and Sokovia explosion without injuries. We know he took a repulsor blast point blank to the face and didn't even suffer a rash. We know Hulk punched him multiple times in the face and he didn't even suffer a broken lip.

So though the star feat is one of his highest feats, it's still consistent with what we've seen from him previously.

Hela's Mjolnir feat in comparison is not consistent with the way she fought Thor. Hulk was not strong enough to stop Mjolnir's flight trajectory. Hela was strong enough to completely stop Mjolnir in mid flight which should mean that Hela is way stronger than Hulk. Yet Thor was still able to block Hela's punches in a way that he was never able to do with Hulk.

I don't recall Thor blocking one of Hela's punches can you timestamp it? All I recall was him blocking a slash. And he blocked it at the wrist, meaning it wasn't where the energy of the swing was focused (at least that is how I see the physics behind it)

https://youtu.be/Mv3-G1k8VFY (2:01)

If you are comparing the how Hulk's punches seem "heavier", I guess it can be explained by Hulk's size giving his punches "more mass" while Hela is much smaller and is throwing around a lot less mass (but in "feats" where she applies direct strength like grabbing and crushing, she seems to show practically limitless strength). Imagine Hela being smaller and lighter (but much stronger) and Hulk being more massive and heavier.

OR we can go back to my original argument. Characters have "feats" that contradict each other all the time. Some low some high. We know Hela's upper limits are way up there but that doesn't mean she can have a few low showings here and there.

Edit. IF you would humor me and allow me to justify things via my own "headcanon" (not supported by facts and not an argument I am making), I always saw Hela as having "dynamic strength" due to her amping herself via whatever internal energies she has (kinda like how Surfer does it). But that's just me, of course, purely speculative theory.

ShadowFyre

Well, I guess we just have to go with strength untill somebody can ask waititi

FrothByte

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't recall Thor blocking one of Hela's punches can you timestamp it? All I recall was him blocking a slash. And he blocked it at the wrist, meaning it wasn't where the energy of the swing was focused (at least that is how I see the physics behind it)

https://youtu.be/Mv3-G1k8VFY (2:01)

If you are comparing the how Hulk's punches seem "heavier", I guess it can be explained by Hulk's size giving his punches "more mass" while Hela is much smaller and is throwing around a lot less mass (but in "feats" where she applies direct strength like grabbing and crushing, she seems to show practically limitless strength). Imagine Hela being smaller and lighter (but much stronger) and Hulk being more massive and heavier.

OR we can go back to my original argument. Characters have "feats" that contradict each other all the time. Some low some high. We know Hela's upper limits are way up there but that doesn't mean she can have a few low showings here and there.

Edit. IF you would humor me and allow me to justify things via my own "headcanon" (not supported by facts and not an argument I am making), I always saw Hela as having "dynamic strength" due to her amping herself via whatever internal energies she has (kinda like how Surfer does it). But that's just me, of course, purely speculative theory.

Here at the 2 minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv3-G1k8VFY

I agree that mass and weight add a lot to punching power (in fact I argued for that in a different thread here), and so Hulk's size will definitely help him there. Still, the strength difference between Hela and Hulk should be so big (assuming she's truly capable of easily crushing Mjolnir in her grip) that her punches should be able to blow right through Thor's defenses.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by FrothByte
Here at the 2 minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv3-G1k8VFY

I agree that mass and weight add a lot to punching power (in fact I argued for that in a different thread here), and so Hulk's size will definitely help him there. Still, the strength difference between Hela and Hulk should be so big (assuming she's truly capable of easily crushing Mjolnir in her grip) that her punches should be able to blow right through Thor's defenses.

That's the one I timestamped above. (same timestamp, too 2:01) stick out tongue

That's a slash (a clumsy one). Pause it at exactly 2:01 and you'll see the blade. He caught it at the wrist so I'm thinking most of the energy of the swing was focused on the blade and not the wrist (again, that's how I understand the physics behind it, anyway).

Not necessarily. And I feel that the screenwriter's disagree the same way I do. Force of punches have as much to do with technique, mass and speed as much as strength (that is why powerlifters don't necessarily have powerful punches). And we don't know if Hela put her all on that swing and we've seen Thor block Hulk's weapon strikes easily enough (with his own weapon) as well. And just because a character isn't "thrown" as hard, doesn't mean he isn't overpowered. The Hulk vs Thor fight had them flying around from hits but Hulk was barely overpowering Thor that time. Hela was decimating Thor. Just because she didn't toss him hundreds of feet after choking him doesn't mean she didn't demonstrate the huge difference in their strength.

But regardless of trying to "physics the feat", it is fact that Mjolnir was crushed by Hela and no indication of any other factors other than strength was demonstrated. The "feat" stands on its own and we cant try to to use other showings to explain it away as we don't have to. Was it a bit on the high end? Sure. But it's there.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Well, I guess we just have to go with strength untill somebody can ask waititi

If that were to be the case, then Hela's strength would outmach anything we've seen before BY FAR.

And yet, considering she's magical and was Mjolnir's original owner....I find that unlikely.

I think magic's got to do in the equation.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
If that were to be the case, then Hela's strength would outmach anything we've seen before BY FAR.

And yet, considering she's magical and was Mjolnir's original owner....I find that unlikely.

I think magic's got to do in the equation.

Being "the original owner" has not been shown to give one power over Mjolnir's durability. Nor does it allow you to overpower the enchantment (which was placed wayyy after Hela is no longer the owner of Mjolnir) once you are deemed "unworthy" of the hammer (and I'm thinking Hela is unworthy times 10000).

If you wanna go the "magic" route: Check out my totally-speculative-and-should-not-be-taken-seriously-unless-you-want-to explanation (dynamic strength from self-amping, like Silver Surfer does), which would allow everything to make sense.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Being "the original owner" has not been shown to give one power over Mjolnir's durability. Nor does it allow you to overpower the enchantment (which was placed wayyy after Hela is no longer the owner of Mjolnir) once you are deemed "unworthy" of the hammer (and I'm thinking Hela is unworthy times 10000).

If you wanna go the "magic" route: Check out my totally-speculative-and-should-not-be-taken-seriously-unless-you-want-to explanation (dynamic strength from self-amping, like Silver Surfer does), which would allow everything to make sense.

Would you agree on Asgardians being magical beings, more specially, the Asgardian royals (Odin, Freya, Thor, etc)?

And, would you agree Uru (Mjolnir) being susceptible to enchantments/magic?

FrothByte

Originally posted by Nibedicus
That's the one I timestamped above. (same timestamp, too 2:01) stick out tongue

ShadowFyre

I think Hela would whip his ass

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Would you agree on Asgardians being magical beings, more specially, the Asgardian royals (Odin, Freya, Thor, etc)?

And, would you agree Uru (Mjolnir) being susceptible to enchantments/magic?

The MCU Asgardians were explained to have "superscience akin to magic" and not actual magic-magic (unlike Dr. Strange for example). There was even a time Jane Foster explained Asgardian science-magic via earth science. It's stupid but that's how the MCU did it.

As for their abilities. Other than Odin (and to a much lesser extent Heimdall who was able to limited-summon a rainbow bridge), the other Asgardians seem to have a specific powerset, Thor had "lightning" powers, Hela had stabby powers, the Enchantress had enchant-y powers, Loki had illusions (although he's not Asgardian), etc. We can't really say they can cast any kind of unique magical spell or anything based on what we've seen.

Just about as susceptible as all other items, I would wager. Albiet a lot more durable.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by FrothByte
Out of curiosity, how do you think a fight between Hela and Thanos (pure h2h) would go? Would you think that she can easily overpower him then? Because Thanos has no strength feat that I know of that can equal the Mjolnir feat.

It was actually theorized some internetz pplz that much of the reason why Thanos went on the gem hunt so late is that many of the "greater older powers" that could stand against him (Hela, Odin, The Ancient One, even Asgard who would stand against his forces) were gone. This actually makes a lot of sense.

As for a fight between the two, with "feats" as they are, one-on-one no gauntlet, Thanos does not have the non-gauntlet "feats" that would put him above Hela, no. I will, however, reserve my opinion on who wins til AFTER endgame or til we actually see Thanos fighting without the gauntlet to get a better picture.

Silent Master

It was stated that Frigga taught Loki his magic. Also the science = magic was just used because the writers didn't think the general audience would buy magic in that setting. ever since Thor 1, they stopped calling it science and started using words like magic and spells.

BrolyBlack

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
I think Hela would whip his ass

So you conceded to that she does have magic.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
It was stated that Frigga taught Loki his magic. Also the science = magic was just used because the writers didn't think the general audience would buy magic in that setting. ever since Thor 1, they stopped calling it science and started using words like magic and spells.

I get that, I do. The line seems very strange and hard to delineate from since even at Thor 2 we have Jane explaining away Asgardian "science" via Earth terms. Perhaps Asgardians have both? But why is everything except a few things seemingly super-science based? For example: the castle force field, the rainbow bridge, the forging of Mjolnir, etc seem to be more rooted in super-science (or space magic?) than they are magic.

Silent Master

Just becasue people have magic doesn't mean they can't also use tech. BTW, even in magic setting like D&D and Harry Potter, people make magic items or forge magic weapons.

Or in simple terms. Technomagic is a thing.

BrolyBlack

Originally posted by FrothByte
I don't recall black hole grenades being part of Kurse's standard equipment.

As for this fight, Hela wins round 1 decisively. She also wins round 2 but mostly due to attrition. Kurse will ragdoll her a bit and give her a beating but I just don't see how he can seriously hurt her. Hela can heal from her injuries where I don't think Kurse can, so eventually she'll simply outlast him.

Why are they not? They were on him in his showings.

FrothByte

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just becasue people have magic doesn't mean they can't also use tech. BTW, even in magic setting like D&D and Harry Potter, people make magic items or forge magic weapons.

Or in simple terms. Technomagic is a thing.

The problem I have is that we simply cannot disregard the original exposition in Thor 1. It is canon and not has not been directly retconned AFAIK. Indirectly, there is perhaps a "creep" towards a more magic-y direction. But the Thor 1 explanation stands and we need to justify it from that angle regardless of how stupid it looks.

But I do agree, just because they have magic-y science tech doesn't mean they can't practice magic the same way Earth humans do. But I feel the reverse of your above scenario is more the case (that the vast array of their abilities are superscience based and a few can practice magic like in Earth humans) until we get a more latter explanation as in Thor 1.

Silent Master

It doesn't need to be retconned. because looking at the definition of science. magic qualifies.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
It doesn't need to be retconned. because looking at the definition of science. magic qualifies.

Elaborate. Not getting what you mean here.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The MCU Asgardians were explained to have "superscience akin to magic" and not actual magic-magic (unlike Dr. Strange for example). There was even a time Jane Foster explained Asgardian science-magic via earth science. It's stupid but that's how the MCU did it.

As for their abilities. Other than Odin (and to a much lesser extent Heimdall who was able to limited-summon a rainbow bridge), the other Asgardians seem to have a specific powerset, Thor had "lightning" powers, Hela had stabby powers, the Enchantress had enchant-y powers, Loki had illusions (although he's not Asgardian), etc. We can't really say they can cast any kind of unique magical spell or anything based on what we've seen.

Just about as susceptible as all other items, I would wager. Albiet a lot more durable.

Okay, it's all a matter of terms. As it's been pointed before (and not only by the MCU), magic is but science that we don't comprenhend.

And yet, the term magic is still valid.

So call it as you will, magic or advance-unknown science.

The question remains the same. Does Thor/Odin/Hela/Loki/Asgardian royals have magical abilities?

And, is Mjolnir prone to such? At least, do you believe that?

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Okay, it's all a matter of terms. As it's been pointed before (and not only by the MCU), magic is but science that we don't comprenhend.

And yet, the term magic is still valid.

So call it as you will, magic or advance-unknown science.

The question remains the same. Does Thor/Odin/Hela/Loki/Asgardian royals have magical abilities?

And, is Mjolnir prone to such? At least, do you believe that?

Well, yeah, science-magic, magic-science it's just a matter of definition. I think as it is, the Asgardian "tech/magic" is so beyond our own comprehension it may as well be magic.

So for the sake of this argument only, let's say it IS magic.

As to your first question: They certainly have qualities/abilities that can be perceived as magical, sure. But to avoid a no-limits fallacy, we need to only limit what they can on what they've been EXPLICITLY shown to be capable of doing. Odin is implied to be vastly more powerful than Thor/Hela/etc in his prime but I'm not about to pull esoteric abilities for Odin out of thin air.

As for Mjolnir being prone to such. Well that would depend on what you mean by "prone". Do you mean that certain levels of magic (provided that Magic is powerful enough) would affect it? I can agree to that. Do you mean that Mjolnir has a special vulnerability to magic? That, I can't agree to. Since why would they make a weapon that is vulnerable to magic when the vast majority of the enemies that Thor would face would be considered "magical"?

We've seen Mjolnir affected by Odin's magic. But his magic and power is just well above Mjolnir (or Hela or Thor for that matter) that it should have no relevance in this argment.

Silent Master

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Elaborate. Not getting what you mean here.

One of the definitions of science is "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."

Sounds like magic qualifies.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
One of the definitions of science is "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."

Sounds like magic qualifies.

You mean that the Asgardians could have such an understanding of the universe that they have managed to study even magic to such an extent that it is now simply considered a type of scientific field within their knowledge? Certainly possible. In fact, that is how I actually originally saw how their magic-science worked in Thor 1.

Then at Thor 2 Jane kinda threw off that logic a bit when she was able to figure out how a Soul Forge works by calling it a Quantum Field Generator. It actually put me back to the "superscience that looks like magic" explanation as I feel it is more consistent with movie showings.

Although, one can certainly still see it that way. Since that would still make it functionally the same thing for the purposes of this debate. I certainly won't argue against it, since the idea that certain Asgardians can practice magic like certain humans can isn't really far fetched and makes a lot of sense.

Silent Master

As an example

If magic doesn't exist, how is Thor able to open the bifrost using Stormbreaker since we saw it being made and no technology was added to it.

Another example

When Mjolnir was destroyed we didn't see any visible technology. So how was it able to judge people's worthiness or return Thor's powers.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, yeah, science-magic, magic-science it's just a matter of definition. I think as it is, the Asgardian "tech/magic" is so beyond our own comprehension it may as well be magic.

So for the sake of this argument only, let's say it IS magic.

As to your first question: They certainly have qualities/abilities that can be perceived as magical, sure. But to avoid a no-limits fallacy, we need to only limit what they can on what they've been EXPLICITLY shown to be capable of doing. Odin is implied to be vastly more powerful than Thor/Hela/etc in his prime but I'm not about to pull esoteric abilities for Odin out of thin air.

As for Mjolnir being prone to such. Well that would depend on what you mean by "prone". Do you mean that certain levels of magic (provided that Magic is powerful enough) would affect it? I can agree to that. Do you mean that Mjolnir has a special vulnerability to magic? That, I can't agree to. Since why would they make a weapon that is vulnerable to magic when the vast majority of the enemies that Thor would face would be considered "magical"?

We've seen Mjolnir affected by Odin's magic. But his magic and power is just well above Mjolnir (or Hela or Thor for that matter) that it should have no relevance in this argment.

By prone I mean that the Weapon's material can be influenced by spells (magic).

Nice! Because we clearly saw Odin effortlessly enchanting Mjolnir, and we know that Hela's power is one to rival his.

So, knowing that Hela is not only magical, but furthermore is labeled as the "Goddess of Death", and, that Mjolnir can be influenced by magic, rebuking magic in Hela's feat is unwise.

Furthermore, last time a checked, crushing an object doesn't produce an explosion. So, there is got to be something more going on in that feat, than solely Hela's hand crushing the hammer.

In conclusion, no, I don't believe that Hela's feat is one of pure strength. Specially not when we consider that if the feat is indeed one of strength, Thor would have 0 chance of facing her H2H (She would just crush him).

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Silent Master
One of the definitions of science is "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."

Sounds like magic qualifies.

I think you are debating okay, but c'mon Silent! We all know definitions aren't your thing laughing out loud

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
As an example

If magic doesn't exist, how is Thor able to open the bifrost using Stormbreaker since we saw it being made and no technology was added to it.

Another example

When Mjolnir was destroyed we didn't see any visible technology. So how was it able to judge people's worthiness or return Thor's powers.

Superscience is a fictional catch all I'm afraid. For as long as that explanation is used, fiction allows it.

I mean we might as well ask how Superman flies when he has no means of propulsion.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
By prone I mean that the Weapon's material can be influenced by spells (magic).

Nice! Because we clearly saw Odin effortlessly enchanting Mjolnir, and we know that Hela's power is one to rival his.

So, knowing that Hela is not only magical, but furthermore is labeled as the "Goddess of Death", and, that Mjolnir can be influenced by magic, rebuking magic in Hela's feat is unwise.

Furthermore, last time a checked, crushing an object doesn't produce an explosion. So, there is got to be something more going on in that feat, than solely Hela's hand crushing the hammer.

In conclusion, no, I don't believe that Hela's feat is one of pure strength. Specially not when we consider that if the feat is indeed one of strength, Thor would have 0 chance of facing her H2H (She would just crush him).

Well, by that definition any and all materials can be influenced by spells for as long as fiction allows.

I am not rebuking her ability to spellcast, I am saying there is no evidence that she can and nothing in the movie showed that she cast a spell to affect Mjolnir. As what Shadowfyre said, we do not use headcanon to explain showings, we use evidence.

Non Sequitur. Being "magical" does not assign her specific powers outsie what she has demonstrated. Being able to rival Odin in power does not give her the same powers.

Mjolnir is a better source for the explosion as with the lightning and everything. Hela has never demonstrated lightning abilities.

Thor did have zero chance of facing her H2H. Like I said, characters have highs and they have lows. Thor has an ultra high durabality "feat", Hela has an ultrahigh strength "feat". We accept the highs but we do not use it as an average.

Silent Master

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Superscience is a fictional catch all I'm afraid. For as long as that explanation is used, fiction allows it.

I mean we might as well ask how Superman flies when he has no means of propulsion.

We saw it made, they melted metal and poured it into a cast. there was no superscience parts added to Stormbreaker.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
We saw it made, they melted metal and poured it into a cast. there was no superscience parts added to Stormbreaker.

It was never stated (or at least I don't remember) what made Stormbreaker whether "magic" or "superscience akin to magic" (though at a certain point, the line between the two blurs). so we can't really say w/c of the two methods (whether superscience or magic) was used.

Fiction is fiction, it doesn't have to follow any rules save those the writer sets in his verse. IF he wants sueprscience to be the means in w/c something is made it doesn't matter the what's or the how's. It's better if it's rooted in something relatable or understandable by the reader but that is not a hard rule. Lex Luthor could build a time machine made of orange juice, a rubber band and paper clips and that'd still be superscience and not magic.

Edit. Is there a purpose to all this? What possible relevance is if the Asgardians use magic-y science or science-y magic? Either would work and either would have the same relevance to the debate.

Silent Master

We were shown the process of it being made, feel free to post a clip and timestamp where superscience parts were added.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
We were shown the process of it being made, feel free to post a clip and timestamp where superscience parts were added.

Is there a rule that superscience-y parts need to be added in order for it to be superscience?

And did I state it WAS superscience? My position is that we don't know.

Silent Master

Your response to how Thor was able to summon Stormbreaker or use it to open the Bi-frost was superscience. if SB doesn't contain any superscience parts. how can superscience be the answer to my question?

Nibedicus

double post.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your response to how Thor was able to summon Stormbreaker or use it to open the Bi-frost was superscience. if SB doesn't contain any superscience parts. how can superscience be the answer to my question?

Because fiction would allow it? A writer does not need to abide by your rules (or anyone's) of logic and reality in order for something to function in his work. If he wants it to be superscience then it is superscience. And if you're asking what was written that seems to point out that it is superscience, then we go back to the Thor 1 exposition and the Thor 2 where Jane broke down the function of Asgardian "tech/magic" into plausible Earth-science (but of course, interpretations would vary).

And if you're asking me why I think Stormbreaker was superscience, my answer is: This is a strawman. I never said Stormbreaker WAS superscience, I said we don't know. But superscience or science akin to magic qualifies just as well as magic does due to expositions present in previous movies.

BrolyBlack

How did heimdall summon the bi Frost on his deathbed without the actual machine?

The answer is magic.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
How did heimdall summon the bi Frost on his deathbed without the actual machine?

The answer is magic.

I already stated that it is reasonable to believe that specific Asgardian characters can use magic (or magic-like abilities) the same way that some humans can use magic (or magic-like abilities) this is not an unreasonable position to take after all. But my position has always been that this is not the ONLY possibility.

Superscience or superpowers can explain just about anything in fiction. Can super-XYZ NOT explain Heimdall being able to summon a bridge the same way magic does? Do we even know if magic is even different from science within the perception of an Asgardian (expositions say it is not).

(not addressed to you but in general---&gt wink

This is all irrelevant in this debate, though. Hela cannot be given abilities magical or otherwise that allow her to do things like weaken Mjolnir unless it was EXPLICITLY shown that she has the ability to do so on screen. At least not in a debate. We use evidence here, not headcanon/speculation.

BrolyBlack

*stips

ShadowFyre

Because people dont like Helas feat of crushing Mjolnir so they are trying to add reasons for her being able to do so even though there is nothing to back it up.

Mjolnir was actively trying to return to Thors hand but could nit because if her grip on it. And then, you see her clench her hands and cracks appear. Thats enough for me to say strength was involved.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, by that definition any and all materials can be influenced by spells for as long as fiction allows.

I am not rebuking her ability to spellcast, I am saying there is no evidence that she can and nothing in the movie showed that she cast a spell to affect Mjolnir. As what Shadowfyre said, we do not use headcanon to explain showings, we use evidence.

Non Sequitur. Being "magical" does not assign her specific powers outsie what she has demonstrated. Being able to rival Odin in power does not give her the same powers.

Mjolnir is a better source for the explosion as with the lightning and everything. Hela has never demonstrated lightning abilities.

Thor did have zero chance of facing her H2H. Like I said, characters have highs and they have lows. Thor has an ultra high durabality "feat", Hela has an ultrahigh strength "feat". We accept the highs but we do not use it as an average.

Mjolnir on it's own has no lightning abilities. It was Thor the one who channeled his lightning powers through the hammer.

So, if the feat was one of mere strength, the hammer had no reason to explode.

Again, there's something more going in that scene than mere strength.

Logic is always valid to debate, we know that Hela's powers/magic is top tier and that Mjolnir is vulnerable/prone to magic. That, and the fact that Hela has no other feat to colaborate the inmense strength feat that is being alluded, we can't remove the magic factor from this equation.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Because people dont like Helas feat of crushing Mjolnir so they are trying to add reasons for her being able to do so even though there is nothing to back it up.

Mjolnir was actively trying to return to Thors hand but could nit because if her grip on it. And then, you see her clench her hands and cracks appear. Thats enough for me to say strength was involved.

It's called being unbiased. I actually find Hela to be one of my favorite MCU characters, furthermore, I find Kurse to be an overestimated character, but am not going to ignore facts to benefit her status vs kurse.

Mjolnir returning to Thor's hand is product of magic, Hela could have just overrun Thor's magic effects over Mjolnir.

Again, we can't remove magic from the equation, specially considering that Mjolnir is magic susceptible.

ShadowFyre

Thats fine and all. Now prove it

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Thats fine and all. Now prove it

I can't prove how much magic affects the feat, just like you can't prove that the feat is one of sole strength.

This is a case in where the feat turns invalid, because you can't really conclude on the nature of it.

Surtur

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Surtur
It comes off like it's her raw strength going up against the power of the hammer and she wins. The energy clearly comes from the hammer, it's why we do not see it until the hammer begins to crack apart.

Doesn't he use the hammer to create a tornado? That's not a natural ability of Thor. It seems like he makes it stop raining too at one point. The hammer has weather abilities and it seems likely Thor augments his own lightning with it.

All Father Odin Borson:

Again, Mjolnir is prone to magic but it's not magical on it's own.

So, no, there is no evidence to claim that Mjolnir would explode when crushed.

So clearly there is something going in that scene more than mere strength.

Surtur

Saying it was never the source of his strength doesn't mean it has zero inherent power.

You're also ignoring the fact that the crackles of lightning do not begin to appear until the hammer begins to take damage.

FrothByte

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
All Father Odin Borson:

Again, Mjolnir is prone to magic but it's not magical on it's own.

So, no, there is no evidence to claim that Mjolnir would explode when crushed.

So clearly there is something going in that scene more than mere strength.

Pretty sure the fact that Mjolnir can fly, return to its owner and decipher worthiness makes it a magical artifact.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Surtur
Saying it was never the source of his strength doesn't mean it has zero inherent power.

You're also ignoring the fact that the crackles of lightning do not begin to appear until the hammer begins to take damage.

The only ability I think it granted Thor was flying. But casting lightning is Thor's power, and Thor's alone.

Isn't like Vision should have been able to summon lightning.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by FrothByte
Pretty sure the fact that Mjolnir can fly, return to its owner and decipher worthiness makes it a magical artifact.

Yes, but someone's got to channel his magic through it.

FrothByte

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes, but someone's got to channel his magic through it.

Nope. It was sitting in the middle of a desert with no one unable to pick it up in Thor 1. Nobody was channeling magic through it at that time yet it was still showcasing magical abilities. Therefore it's a magical artifact.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nope. It was sitting in the middle of a desert with no one unable to pick it up in Thor 1. Nobody was channeling magic through it at that time yet it was still showcasing magical abilities. Therefore it's a magical artifact.

....The enchantment was Odin's. Again, someone has to enchant it.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Mjolnir on it's own has no lightning abilities. It was Thor the one who channeled his lightning powers through the hammer.

So, if the feat was one of mere strength, the hammer had no reason to explode.

Again, there's something more going in that scene than mere strength.

Logic is always valid to debate, we know that Hela's powers/magic is top tier and that Mjolnir is vulnerable/prone to magic. That, and the fact that Hela has no other feat to colaborate the inmense strength feat that is being alluded, we can't remove the magic factor from this equation.

For the longest time Thor didn't know that the lightning powers came from him. This is alluded to in Ragnarok and proven when he isn't able to summon or cast lightning after Mjolnir was broken until he was "awakened" during the Hulk fight (save perhaps in Avengers 2 during the Norn cave scene). At best we can surmise that he knew how to summon lightning but not yet to unleash it himself.

Mjolnir is a lightning storage device (plus other abilities of course). In many instances prior to Ragnarok when Thor wanted to unleash powerful bolts of lightning, he'd charge up the hammer (he does it by lifting the hammer up and letting lightning course thru it) via a summoned bolt from the sky. At one point he even needed more than Mjolnir, using the Empire State Building (at least I think it was the ESB) as a second storage device in order to one shot multiple Leviathans during the battle of NY. This is how Thor "focused" his lightning powers before he learned to unleash it from within at Ragnarok.

It is not unreasonable to assume that some leftover lightning energy would be stored in Mjolnir ready to be unleashed when needed. When he fought Malekith, he was able to draw out lightning energy from Mjolnir when he used it to block some of Malekith's attacks and used it to ground slam lightning at Malekith without having to lift it up and summon a bolt from the sky.

When Hela broke the hammer, whatever stored energy that was in the hammer was unleashed. That is certainly a far better explanation than Hela having lightning powers she was never alluded to have nor ever demonstrated again.

This makes the most sense relative to his showings and story and is the most consistent with the evidence provided and needs no headcanon nor assumptions made.

FrothByte

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
....The enchantment was Odin's. Again, someone has to enchant it.

Yes, he placed an enchantment on the weapon... making it an enchanted weapon. In other words, it's a magical artifact. And it maintained that magical property even though Odin was not actively coursing magic through it.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
For the longest time Thor didn't know that the lightning powers came from him. This is alluded to in Ragnarok and proven when he isn't able to summon or cast lightning after Mjolnir was broken until he was "awakened" during the Hulk fight (save perhaps in Avengers 2 during the Norn cave scene). At best we can surmise that he knew how to summon lightning but not yet to unleash it himself.

Mjolnir is a lightning storage device (plus other abilities of course). In many instances prior to Ragnarok when Thor wanted to unleash powerful bolts of lightning, he'd charge up the hammer (he does it by lifting the hammer up and letting lightning course thru it) via a summoned bolt from the sky. At one point he even needed more than Mjolnir, using the Empire State Building (at least I think it was the ESB) as a second storage device in order to one shot multiple Leviathans during the battle of NY. This is how Thor "focused" his lightning powers before he learned to unleash it from within at Ragnarok.

It is not unreasonable to assume that some leftover lightning energy would be stored in Mjolnir ready to be unleashed when needed. When he fought Malekith, he was able to draw out lightning energy from Mjolnir when he used it to block some of Malekith's attacks and used it to ground slam lightning at Malekith without having to lift it up and summon a bolt from the sky.

When Hela broke the hammer, whatever stored energy that was in the hammer was unleashed. That is certainly a far better explanation than Hela having lightning powers she was never alluded to have nor ever demonstrated again.

This makes the most sense relative to his showings and story and is the most consistent with the evidence provided and needs no headcanon nor assumptions made.

Odin himself has spoken on the matter. Mjolnir isn't Thor's source of power

Saying that Mjolnir "stores" lightning is unproven. Odin said that the hammer was meant to "channel" and "help control" Thor's abilities, he never it was to "store" Thor's powers.

Okay, no one here is saying that the hammer wasn't broken. The hammer was shattered/crushed/destroyed, the matter being debated here is how.
Saying that the hammer was destroyed due to strength alone is unproven, again, we can't rebuke magic into the equation without proper evidence (which none of you have brought). The hammer could have been crushed with the assistance of magic is possible, again, knowing that the hammer is prone to magic and that Hela's magic is very powerful.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, he placed an enchantment on the weapon... making it an enchanted weapon. In other words, it's a magical artifact. And it maintained that magical property even though Odin was not actively coursing magic through it.

Agree. What's your point?

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Odin himself has spoken on the matter. Mjolnir isn't Thor's source of power

Saying that Mjolnir "stores" lightning is unproven. Odin said that the hammer was meant to "channel" and "help control" Thor's abilities, he never it was to "store" Thor's powers.

Okay, no one here is saying that the hammer wasn't broken. The hammer was shattered/crushed/destroyed, the matter being debated here is how.
Saying that the hammer was destroyed due to strength alone is unproven, again, we can't rebuke magic into the equation without proper evidence (which none of you have brought). The hammer could being crushed with the assistance of magic is possible, again, knowing that the hammer is prone to magic and that Hela's magic is very powerful.

It's not the source, but Thor didn't know this until Ragnarok. At best his power would be to summon lightning from the sky and charge his hammer with it due to his limited knowledge of how his power worked at the time. If the lightning coursing thru Mjolnir came from him, don't you think he'd notice it at one point during his many many battles? What's your logic here?

I can provide timestamps of everything I said above. You are basing your logic off of your interpretation of one character comment that could have a different interpretations and when interpreted a certain way would also be consistent with on screen "feats" and story while needing no headcanon. While yours would need to be so inconsistent with story, the way he fights thru many movies and basic logic (how did he not notice that the lightning came from him before?). Seems a bit far fetched, don't you think?

I mean Odin never said Hela had lightning powers either but you seem very much willing to attribute lightning powers to her even though there is literally ZERO evidence before and after said moment that even implies this.

Of course it is proven, it's a fact. He literally does it during the battle of NY. He stores lightning into the ESB and unleashes it. He lifts his hammer, stores lighting and unleashes it and he does it almost every time he shoots a lightning attack prior to Ragnarok. You are ignoring so much on screen evidence by denying this.

You can "focus" something by storing it then unleashing it. Think a water gun. You store water inside and focus it into a steam of water rather than just splash it around.

He doesn't have to say it exactly how it works, as "feats" > statements. And his statement was vague and can be interpretted the way I just did.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's not the source, but Thor didn't know this until Ragnarok. At best his power would be to summon lightning from the sky and charge his hammer with it due to his limited knowledge of how his power worked at the time. If the lightning coursing thru Mjolnir came from him, don't you think he'd notice it at one point during his many many battles? What's your logic here?

I can provide timestamps of everything I said above. You are basing your logic off of your interpretation of one character comment that could have a different interpretations and when interpreted a certain way would also be consistent with on screen "feats" and story while needing no headcanon. While yours would need to be so inconsistent with story, the way he fights thru many movies and basic logic (how did he not notice that the lightning came from him before?). Seems a bit far fetched, don't you think?

I mean Odin never said Hela had lightning powers either but you seem very much willing to attribute lightning powers to her even though there is literally ZERO evidence before and after said moment that even implies this.

Of course it is proven, it's a fact. He literally does it during the battle of NY. He stores lightning into the ESB and unleashes it. He lifts his hammer, stores lighting and unleashes it and he does it almost every time he shoots a lightning attack prior to Ragnarok. You are ignoring so much on screen evidence by denying this.

You can "focus" something by storing it then unleashing it. Think a water gun. You store water inside and focus it into a steam of water rather than just splash it around.

He doesn't have to say it exactly how it works, as "feats" > statements. And his statement was vague and can be interpretted the way I just did.

The fact that he didn't notice doesn't prove that Mjolnir is a battery. Again, that's not proven.

Mjolnir producing lightning is product of Thor, and not otherwise. He not realizing this doesn't change that. Besides, we all know that Thor isn't the smartest character in the MCU (remember that time Etri told him that opening the star-gate would be suicide, and Thor couldn't grasp the difference between suicide and death? laughing out loud

)

Yes, Mjonir can be charged. But in that particular scene, Thor never charged Mjolnir.

Odin's statement remains unchallenged. No feat has contradicted it.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The fact that he didn't notice doesn't prove that Mjolnir is a battery. Again, that's not proven.

Mjolnir producing lightning is product of Thor, and not otherwise. He not realizing this doesn't change that. Besides, we all know that Thor isn't the smartest character in the MCU (remember that time Etri told him that opening the star-gate would be suicide, and Thor couldn't grasp the difference between suicide and death? laughing out loud

)

Yes, Mjonir can be charged. But in that particular scene, Thor never charged Mjolnir.

Odin's statement remains unchallenged. No feat has contradicted it.

In almost every fight where Thor uses Mjolnir for lightning, he raises it up, summons lightning from the sky and courses it thru Mjolnir. Almost every fight. The ESB instance carries it thru even further, actually showing him charging another object other than Mjolnir. This is indisputable proof and you have yet to address this. Even if we assume the lightning came from Thor, it does not disprove the fact that he still uses Mjolnir to store and focus lightning energy,

Of course him not realizing how powers work changes that. It doth verily. It means he's never used his powers that way before. He didn't know he could do it and since he didn't know it was within him, he didn't know how to do it. This changed with one simple realization (when Odin told him so). Kinda like Superman not knowing he could fly until he realized that he could.

I already showed instances where Thor used lightning thru Mjolnir without the need to charge it. It shows that Mjolnir can store lightning energy for Thor to unleash. And kinda makes sense as that would kinda limit Mjolnir indoors.

This is all 100% consistent with everything that has happened up to that point. And is certainly a FAR BETTER explanation than the lightning explosion coming from Hela somehow. At the end of the day, we look at best interpretation consistent with as much evidence as possible and you have yet to provide definitive contradiction to my logic and I can literally rain contradictions on yours.

Actually no. His words does not contradict anything since it has more than one interpretation.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
In almost every fight where Thor uses Mjolnir for lightning, he raises it up, summons lightning from the sky and courses it thru Mjolnir. Almost every fight. The ESB instance carries it thru even further, actually showing him charging another object other than Mjolnir. This is indisputable proof and you have yet to address this.

Of course him not realizing how powers work changes that. It doth verily. It means he's never used his powers that way before. He didn't know he could do it and since he didn't know it was within him, he didn't know how to do it. This changed with one simple realization (when Odin told him so). Kinda like Superman not knowing he could fly until he realized that he could.

I already showed instances where Thor used lightning thru Mjolnir without the need to charge it. It shows that Mjolnir can store lightning energy for Thor to unleash.

This is all 100% consistent with everything that has happened up to that point. And is certainly a FAR BETTER explanation than the lightning explosion coming from Hela somehow. At the end of the day, we look at best interpretation consistent with as much evidence as possible and you have yet to provide definitive contradiction to my logic and I can literally rain contradictions on yours.

Actually no. His words does not contradict anything since it has more than one interpretation.

Again, the scene never showed Thor charging Mjolnir.

And that's unproven. Am not saying that Mjolnir couldn't store it, just that there is no evidence to make it a fact.

And again, even if that's the case, Hela could have tampered with those energies/magic, and caused it to explode inside out, which would assist her strength.

Again, my whole point is, magic can't be rebuked for the scene

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again, the scene never showed Thor charging Mjolnir.

And that's unproven. Am not saying that Mjolnir couldn't store it, just that there is no evidence to make it a fact.

And again, even if that's the case, Hela could have tampered with those energies/magic, and caused it to explode inside out, which would assist her strength.

Again, my whole point is, magic can't be rebuked for the scene

He has instances where Mjolnir shoots lightning without charging w/c seems to indicate that it can store lightning energy longterm.

That was never alluded to in the movie. I mean, come on, man. Where's the proof here how do we go from A to D here where this theory is concerned?

If you want "magic" consistent with the scene, the movie and showings, you're better off saying that Hela amps her strength via internal energies (at least that would demonstrate how she becomes more "powerful" while in Asgard, seeing as her powers are mostly stabby-magic and base physicals). I would have zero problem with that. But her weakening Mjolnir somehow via unseen never alluded to magic is just so far fetched and unsupported with evidence that I just can't swallow it brah.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
He has instances where Mjolnir shoots lightning without charging w/c seems to indicate that it can store lightning energy longterm.

That was never alluded to in the movie. I mean, come on, man. Where's the proof here how do we go from A to D here where this theory is concerned?

If you want "magic" consistent with the scene, the movie and showings, you're better off saying that Hela amps her strength via internal energies (at least that would demonstrate how she becomes more "powerful" while in Asgard, seeing as her powers are mostly stabby-magic and base physicals). I would have zero problem with that. But her weakening Mjolnir somehow via unseen never alluded to magic is just so far fetched and unsupported with evidence that I just can't swallow it brah.

It's possible, or that Thor was charging it with his body without his knowledge.

My whole point is that we don't know Hela's extent over magic, and therefore, we can't really make a founded claim over how she destroyed Mjolnir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGnIiA7oJvg&t=68s

Check min 1:06, her hand is on fire. If we remove magic from that scene, we would have to assume that her hand is fueling the flame. Which is clearly, not the case.

So, again, Hela's magic abilities are unknown. That, and the fact that Hela never showed other signs of immense strength, we can't simply assume she crushed Mjolnir with strength alone.

The feat just has too many unknown variables.

BrolyBlack

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Fight on neutral group

He has his standard equipment.

Rd1: Normal fight

Rd:2 No weapons or gear or powers for either, straight up slugfest

By the way, by "no powers" I meant they still have their strength and durability, she doesnt have her spikes and swords or magic, etc.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
It's possible, or that Thor was charging it with his body without his knowledge.

My whole point is that we don't know Hela's extent over magic, and therefore, we can't really make a founded claim over how she destroyed Mjolnir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGnIiA7oJvg&t=68s

Check min 1:06, her hand is on fire. If we remove magic from that scene, we would have to assume that her hand is fueling the flame. Which is clearly, not the case.

So, again, Hela's magic abilities are unknown. That, and the fact that Hela never showed other signs of immense strength, we can't simply assume she crushed Mjolnir with strength alone.

Dude, come on. I seriously doubt the writers of Thor 2 would know what Waitit's (fun fact, in my dialect, Wai Titi means no dick O_O) direction for Thor was years before Ragnarok was written. I mean (seriously) come on....!

Based on available best-evidence, she used her hand to crush it. Thus strength.

The Eternal Flame is an artifact that Hela is familiar with and apparently knows how to use to an extent. Using an artifact is the literal opposite of your point, though. She needs items to perform "feats" outside her stabby-magic and physicals. This helps my argument more than yours.

We don't know it, so we can't assume it. Absence of evidence means that we can only interpret the scene via the evidence that is available as debates are evidence-based. We can't 100% discount it (I mean you really can't 100% discount anything in fiction), but in debates we use best-logic using the best-evidence available.

Of course Hela has displayed many instances of immense strength. No one, not Hulk, not Kurse has been able to physically dominate Thor like Hela did (maybe Thanos but Thor was already beat up by the time we saw him). She treated him like a non-threat the whole time. She even crushed an Asgardian head (we know how durable they are) like it was tissue paper, helmet and all.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Dude, come on. I seriously doubt the writers of Thor 2 would know what Waititit's (fun fact, in my dialect, Wai Titi means no dick) direction for Thor was years before Ragnarok was written. I mean come on....!

The Eternal Flame is an artifact that Hela is familiar with and apparently knows how to use to an extent. Using an artifact is the literal opposite of your point, though. She needs items to perform "feats" outside her stabby-magic and physicals. This helps my argument more than yours.

We don't know it, so we can't assume it. Absence of evidence means that we can only interpret the scene via the evidence that is available as debates are evidence-based. We can't 100% discount it (I mean you really can't 100% discount anything in fiction), but in debates we use best-logic using the best-evidence available.

Thor 1: Odin Borson, King of Asgard:

Again, Odin's words are intact and give veredict to this debate.

In regards of Mjolnir storing electricity, no conclusion is proven.

Well, Hela also knew Mjolnir. And I've already proven that Hela can use magic without it being that apparent.

So, Hela using magic to crush Mjolnir is entirely possible. There is no evidence to claim that the feat was performed by strength alone, and therefore, the feat isn't conclusive.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Thor 1: Odin Borson, King of Asgard:

Again, Odin's words are intact and give veredict to this debate.

In regards of Mjolnir storing electricity, no conclusion is proven.

Well, Hela also knew Mjolnir. And I've already proven that Hela can use magic without it being that apparent.

So, Hela using magic to crush Mjolnir is entirely possible. There is no evidence to claim that the feat was performed by strength alone, and therefore, the feat isn't conclusive.

Wait what? How did that give verdict? You might need to spell it out for me as I don't know what you mean.

Her knowing Mjolnir does not mean she can weaken it. We never see her using any esoteric abilities without the use of an artifact.

We know Asgardians can use artifacts, sure and we know her pointy-stabby stuff is magic. But no-limits fallacy would mean that you can't pull abilities out of nowhere.

Dude. Burden of proof. Strength is used to crush Mjolnir as that what crushing with your hand would require. The burden is on you to prove that something else was involved using evidence.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wait what? How did that give verdict? You might need to spell it out for me as I don't know what you mean.

Her knowing Mjolnir does not mean she can weaken it. We never see her using any esoteric abilities without the use of an artifact.

We know Asgardians can use artifacts, sure and we know her pointy-stabby stuff is magic. But no-limits fallacy would mean that you can't pull abilities out of nowhere.

Dude. Burden of proof. Strength is used to crush Mjolnir as that what crushing with your hand would require. The burden is on you to prove that something else was involved using evidence.

Veredict to Mjolnir not producing power on its own, but rather "channeling" Thor's powers.

....Hela was creating spikes out of thin air without any artifact.... She was also turning her hair into spikes with her bare hands...So again, her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown.

Hey, am not using any non-limit fallacy here

My whole point has been that the feat has too many unknown factors, and that therefore we can't use it to give Hela a strength feat. We don't know for sure if she was using strength alone or magic.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Veredict to Mjolnir not producing power on its own, but rather "channeling" Thor's powers.

....Hela was creating spikes out of thin air without any artifact.... She was also turning her hair into spikes with her bare hands...So again, her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown.

Hey, am not using any non-limit fallacy here

My whole point has been that the feat has too many unknown factors, and that therefore we can't use it to give Hela a strength feat. We don't know for sure if she was using strength alone or magic.

I never denied that explanation. In fact, the "charging/storing" logic is extremely consistent with this and is consistent with Thor's portrayal in all his pre-Ragnarok fights. So I don't know what you're getting at here.

I literally mentioned her pointy-stabby powers many times in our debate. I never denied that she had this power either. You know why she has this power? Because we literally see her using this power throughout the movie. Ergo, "feats".

"Her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown" and attributing an unknown, never alluded and never demonstrated on screen ability to her and using it as a way to downplay her showing is the very definition of a no-limits fallacy.

This is fiction and this is the movies. And this is a mass market superhero popcorn family flick. Writers of these kinds of movies do not create scenes with the express purpose of telling something so completely incoherent to audiences that it would take a detailed forensic investigation of a scene just to figure it out. They would maybe insert Easter eggs for ppl to find but scenes are made with simplicity and with everything as obvious as possible because the mass market audience don't really want to view things in slow mo and to analyze everything from history to past and future scenes just to make sense of a scene. They make it as obvious as possible to progress the story forward and to keep the audience's attention. They're not gonna make a scene complicated unless there is a strong need for it in the story. IF Hela is shown crushing Mjolnir, unless there is something OBVIOUS and EXPLICIT showing us that there is something else involved there, then we go by simplest and most obvious explanation: Strength.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I never denied that explanation. In fact, the "charging/storing" logic is extremely consistent with this and is consistent with Thor's portrayal in all his pre-Ragnarok fights. So I don't know what you're getting at here.

I literally mentioned her pointy-stabby powers many times in our debate. I never denied that she had this power either. You know why she has this power? Because we literally see her using this power throughout the movie. Ergo, "feats".

"Her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown" and attributing an unknown, never alluded and never demonstrated on screen ability to her and using it as a way to downplay her showing is the very definition of a no-limits fallacy.

This is fiction and this is the movies. And this is a mass market superhero popcorn family flick. Writers of these kinds of movies do not create scenes with the express purpose of telling something so completely incoherent to audiences that it would take a detailed forensic investigation of a scene just to figure it out. They would maybe insert Easter eggs for ppl to find but scenes are made with simplicity and with everything as obvious as possible because the mass market audience don't really want to view things in slow mo and to analyze everything from history to past and future scenes just to make sense of a scene. They make it as obvious as possible to progress the story forward and to keep the audience's attention. They're not gonna make a scene complicated unless there is a strong need for it in the story. IF Hela is shown crushing Mjolnir, unless there is something OBVIOUS and EXPLICIT showing us that there is something else involved there, then we go by simplest and most obvious explanation: Strength.

Do you know how feats are used in a trial or in science to prove something?

Either such feat is clear enough and conclusive enough to prove your point, or the feat is ignored and your claim remains unproven.

Again, the feat has too many holes and doesn't really allude to anything.

I am not here to say that Hela used magic on mjolnir to destroy it, am here to point that such claim along with yours can't be proven using that feat.

The feat is basically useless.

If you want to assume things, well that's entirely your right. Doesn't mean that my assumption is wrong

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Do you know how feats are used in a trial or in science to prove something?

Either such feat is clear enough and conclusive enough to prove your point, or the feat is ignored and your claim remains unproven.

Again, the feat has too many holes and doesn't really allude to anything.

I am not here to say that Hela used magic on mjolnir to destroy it, am here to point that such claim along with yours can't be proven using that feat.

The feat is basically useless.

If you want to assume things, well that's entirely your right. Doesn't mean that my assumption is wrong

This is fiction if we nitpicked every "feat" there would always be parts of it that would be inconsistent thus almost everything would remain unproven. Lke almost everything. That is why we use best evidence and best logic in hypothetical fiction debates.

You have not provided any "holes" that I have not addressed. Just because you do not accept my rebuttals, does not mean they are false unless you rebut them with better logic and I am unable to counter. My argument is the most consistent with available evidence, story, portrayal and logic. It's not perfect, but in hypothetical debates about fictional characters, it doesn't have to be.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's razor. And in mass market superhero family popcorn flicks, this is doubly so. You're digging too deep wherein movies like this should only be looked at close to the surface.

Again, no hypothetical debate logic is perfect. But given the fact that this is a movie, how Thor portrayed, how Hela is portrayed and all evidence and story and logic, my interpretation is the best one (so far). Everyone else is welcome to challenge with their own logic and evidence but til then, mine is most consistent.

Except the arguments I made were not assumptions. Everything I argued is backed by evidence. An assumption is when something that has no evidence is just decided to be the case (like esoteric powers that's never alluded to throughout the whole movie).

ShadowFyre

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I can't prove how much magic affects the feat, just like you can't prove that the feat is one of sole strength.

This is a case in where the feat turns invalid, because you can't really conclude on the nature of it.

The hell I cant. When crushing things with their hands, beings use physical strength until proven otherwise.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This is fiction if we nitpicked every "feat" there would always be parts of it that would be inconsistent thus almost everything would remain unproven. Lke almost everything. That is why we use best evidence and best logic in hypothetical fiction debates.

You have not provided any "holes" that I have not addressed. Just because you do not accept my rebuttals, does not mean they are false unless you rebut them with better logic and I am unable to counter. My argument is the most consistent with available evidence, story, portrayal and logic. It's not perfect, but in hypothetical debates about fictional characters, it doesn't have to be.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's razor. And in mass market superhero family popcorn flicks, this is doubly so. You're digging too deep wherein movies like this should only be looked at close to the surface.

Again, no hypothetical debate logic is perfect. But given the fact that this is a movie, how Thor portrayed, how Hela is portrayed and all evidence and story and logic, my interpretation is the best one (so far). Everyone else is welcome to challenge with their own logic and evidence but til then, mine is most consistent.

Except the arguments I made were not assumptions. Everything I argued is backed by evidence. An assumption is when something that has no evidence is just decided to be the case (like esoteric powers that's never alluded to throughout the whole movie).

You have brought no substanciate evidence that proves that no magic was being used by Hela. You brought assumptions.

Does Hela's hands produce knifes out of no where? Yes. Does Hela's hands turn her hair into spikes? Yes. Does Hela's hands grabbed the Eternal flame? Yes.

Conclusion: Hela's hands are magical, ergo, she grabbing Thor and destroying it could involve magic.

If you want to claim that Hela destroyed Mjolnir without magic, you are going to need some serious evidence. Otherwise, you are just making assumption out of a vague feat.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
The hell I cant. When crushing things with their hands, beings use physical strength until proven otherwise.

As long as it's normal hands we are talking about, not magical Houdini hands.

If it were the Hulk, or some non-magical being the one squeezing Mjolnir, then you attribute the feat solely to strength.

This is however, not the case.

ShadowFyre

The burden of proof is on you my friend. Not me. I have all of the substantial evidence I need as you are the one making claims. I am simply taking the movie at face value like it was intended.

Once again, the burden of proof is entirely on you, as you are the one claiming that there is more to the scene than what the director intended.

And sorry if I have seemed rude, but it seems whenever there is a Thor, or Thor related character that has a good feat, everyone goes through these insane mental gymnastics to try and prove it didnt happen.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Okay, clearly you are not getting what am trying to convey here.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove your argument.

Your argument is: Hela destroyed Mjolnir WITHOUT the use of magic, and SOLELY with the use of physical strength

Again, you need to prove that a magical being like Hela wouldn't use magic.

Woah. Don't strawman me now. You know how careful I am with my wording. Here are all my posts quoted and underlined:

"the whole "she used something else other than strength to crush Mjolnir" theory is, however, an unsupported one."

"it is fact that Mjolnir was crushed by Hela and no indication of any other factors"

I am not rebuking her ability to spellcast, I am saying there is no evidence that she can...

All my posts pointed to an absence of evidence (and as such, the best conclusion we can arrive at is also the simplest one) and the fact that no one has posted any evidence seems to be confirmation of my argument. And for you to ask me to further PROVE the absence of evidence is asking me to prove a negative.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Woah. Don't strawman me now. You know how careful I am with my wording. Here are all my posts quoted and underlined:

"the whole "she used something else other than strength to crush Mjolnir" theory is, however, an unsupported one."

"it is fact that Mjolnir was crushed by Hela and no indication of any other factors"

I am not rebuking her ability to spellcast, I am saying there is no evidence that she can...

All my posts pointed to an absence of evidence (and as such, the best conclusion we can arrive at is also the simplest one) and the fact that no one has posted any evidence seems to be confirmation of my argument. And for you to ask me to further PROVE the absence of evidence is asking me to prove a negative.

Well, if that's the case, I apologize, i must have infered otherwise.

And if that's your position, it's not that different from mines.

Because, I am not saying there is evidence to suggest that Hela used magic.

Am saying that there is no evidence to support Hela destroying Mjonir SOLELY with strength

The feat is ambiguous, and to my criteria, not valid to argument.

As I have proven and you have agreed, Hela is a magical character, we can't really say if magic had to do in Thor's destruction or not.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well, if that's the case, I apologize, i must have infered otherwise.

And if that's your position, it's not that different from mines.

Because, I am not saying there is evidence to suggest that Hela used magic.

Am saying that there is no evidence to support Hela destroying Mjonir SOLELY with strength

The feat is ambiguous, and to my criteria, not valid to argument.

As I have proven and you have agreed, Hela is a magical character, we can't really say if magic had to do in Thor's destruction or not.

"Solely with strength" is still asking me to prove a negative claim. Changing the wording does not change the demand of proof you are making. I only need to prove that strength was used in crushing Mjolnir, if you cannot provide proof of anything else, then the only reasonable conclusion is that only strength is the one that has evidence to have been used to crush Mjolnir.

Thus the conclusion is elementary.

And dude, stop with the strawmans. I never agreed that Hela was magical I said "for the purposes of this debate", meaning I am unconvinced of her true nature (she could go either way tbh) but am willing to debate within those parameters to move the discussion forward.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
"Solely with strength" is still asking me to prove a negative claim. Changing the wording does not change the demand of proof you are making. I only need to prove that strength was used in crushing Mjolnir, if you cannot provide proof of anything else, then the only reasonable conclusion is that only strength is the one that has evidence to have been used to crush Mjolnir.

Thus the conclusion is elementary.

And dude, stop with the strawmans. I never agreed that Hela was magical I said "for the purposes of this debate", meaning I am unconvinced of her true nature (she could go either way tbh) but am willing to debate within those parameters to move the discussion forward.

I am not arguing that strength wasn't use. The matter here is that we don't know how much strength was used, and therefore, we can't quantify the feat.

One way or another, evidence must be brought in order for the feat to remain viable for argumentation.

Otherwise, saying that strength was used is useless, as it remains unknown how much strengthl.

However, if we can prove that Hela's feat was one of sole strength, we can quantify the feat based on the properties of Uru metal.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
They certainly have qualities/abilities that can be perceived as magical, sure.

I am not strawmanning. And we already discussed that terminology bares no effect on the feat.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I am not arguing that strength wasn't use. The matter here is that we don't know how much strength was used, and therefore, we can't quantify the feat.

One way or another, evidence must be brought in order for the feat to remain viable for argumentation.

Otherwise, saying that strength was used is useless, as it remains unknown how much strengthl.

However, if we can prove that Hela's feat was one of sole strength, we can quantify the feat based on the properties of Uru metal.

I am not strawmanning. And we already discussed that terminology bares no effect on the feat.

Again, without proof of anything else, then we cannot assume anything else was involved.

Of course not, there is no "one way or another" here. I have evidence she used strength. You have NO evidence she used anything else. Thus, only strength have been supported by evidence thus if we debate based within an evidence-based medium, then we can only use the factors supported by evidence.

At the end of the day, my evidence > yours (well essentially cuz you have none). If you want, we can BZ this?

"That can be perceived as magical" (meaning it is a reasonable conclusion that other can make but not one I have necessarily made) is NOT agreeing that they are magical.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Again, without proof of anything else, then we cannot assume anything else was involved.

Of course not, there is no "one way or another" here. I have evidence she used strength. You have NO evidence she used anything else. Thus, only strength have been supported by evidence thus if we debate based within an evidence-based medium, then we can only use the factors supported by evidence.

At the end of the day, my evidence > yours (well essentially cuz you have none). If you want, we can BZ this?

"That can be perceived as magical" (meaning it is a reasonable conclusion that other can make but not one I have necessarily made) is NOT agreeing that they are magical.

My original claim:

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Calculating the force needed to destroy her own hammer is impossible, we don't know if the feat involves pure force or if magic is involved.

I can agree to the feat involving strength. I never said otherwise.

Yet, the feat is futile, we don't know how much strength she applied, or how much magic. However, if we could prove that Hela used only strength to destroy Mjolnir, then the feat can be quantify.

If you want to bring numbers, then go ahead and bring evidence to support them.

Otherwise, we have no way to know if Hela is stronger than Kurse.

Again, magic is just the term. Call it advance science or whatever. Terminology plays no important role.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
My original claim:

I can agree to the feat involving strength. I never said otherwise.

Yet, the feat is futile, we don't know how much strength she applied, or how much magic. However, if we could prove that Hela used only strength to destroy Mjolnir, then the feat can be quantify.

If you want to bring numbers, then go ahead and bring evidence to support them.

Otherwise, we have no way to know if Hela is stronger than Kurse.

Again, magic is just the term. Call it advance science or whatever. Terminology plays no important role.

There is no evidence that magic was applied to crush Mjolnir so you cannot make an assertion that magic was a factor.... again in an evidence-based medium we use evidence and not theories.

Let's BZ this and stop wasting time.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There is no evidence that magic was applied to crush Mjolnir so you cannot make an assertion that magic was a factor.... again in an evidence-based medium we use evidence and not theories.

Let's BZ this and stop wasting time.

Again Nibe, the feat is useless as the strength involved can't be calculated, nor can it be proven that the feat solely requires strength.

Do you disagree?

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again Nibe, the feat is useless as the strength involved can't be calculated, nor can it be proven that the feat solely requires strength.

Do you disagree?

We're not at the point of "calculating" the "feat", we are at the point of determining w/c logic is more valid. One that is supported by evidence or one that is not. It should be simple but you (edit) don't seem to see how poor your logical position is.

There is no proof that anything other than strength was a factor, thus we cannot assume anything else was a factor. And we certainly can't argue it on a debate.

You might as well disqualify every other strength "feat" out there and claim that they had "something else as a factor" because you are claiming an unsupported, unalluded to, zero evidence theory as a basis to disqualify a very simple, very basic "feat".

Sorry, but this really can't stand. I'll need to challenge you to a BZ.

Do you accept (y/n)?

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
We're not at the point of "calculating" the "feat", we are at the point of determining w/c logic is more valid. One that is supported by evidence or one that is not. It should be simple but you (edit) don't seem to see how poor your logical position is.

There is no proof that anything other than strength was a factor, thus we cannot assume anything else was a factor. And we certainly can't argue it on a debate.

You might as well disqualify every other strength "feat" out there and claim that they had "something else as a factor" because you are claiming an unsupported, unalluded to, zero evidence theory as a basis to disqualify a very simple, very basic "feat".

Sorry, but this really can't stand. I'll need to challenge you to a BZ.

Do you accept (y/n)?

Yes we are, the whole debate oscilates on whether Hela is stronger than Kurse. To do that we need a parameter for Hela's strength, one that Mjolnir's destruction can't give.

I will take the BZ, taking the side that the feat is useless under the logic that we can't calculate it due to it having unknown variables. You will have to prove that the feat can be quantified... Are you sure you want to do that?

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes we are, the whole debate oscilates on whether Hela is stronger than Kurse. To do that we need a parameter for Hela's strength, one that Mjolnir's destruction can't give.

I will take the BZ, taking the side that the feat is useless under the logic that we can't calculate it due to it having unknown variables. You will have to prove that the feat can be quantified... Are you sure you want to do that?

Lol. I never said the Mjolnir "feat" quantified anything in our exchange or this thread. And I never used the Mjolnir crush vs Kurse (in fact I used a completely different argument). You're trying to strawman me all the way to the BZ.

My entire argument was whether or not magic was a factor in the crushing of Mjolnir. And so that is the debate that I am challenging you to.

Was magic a factor in Hela's crushing of Mjolnir? It is yes or no. I will take the position of "no".

This is the challenge. Do you accept?

ShadowFyre

I hope he accepts. I really want to see this.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol. I never said the Mjolnir "feat" quantified anything in our exchange or this thread. And I never used the Mjolnir crush vs Kurse (in fact I used a completely different argument). You're trying to strawman me all the way to the BZ.

My entire argument was whether or not magic was a factor in the crushing of Mjolnir. And so that is the debate that I am challenging you to.

Was magic a factor in Hela's crushing of Mjolnir? It is yes or no. I will take the position of "no".

This is the challenge. Do you accept?

Look Nibe, I respect you, I am strawmanning no body. My argument has been clear from the get go (it was posted prior to your first response to this thread)

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Calculating the force needed to destroy her own hammer is impossible, we don't know if the feat involves pure force or if magic is involved.

I won't BZ something I've not said.

My entire point is that the feat is useless, as we can't quantify it because we don't know how much strength is being applied and if magic takes part.

Again, if you think you can quantify the feat, then we can BZ this.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Look Nibe, I respect you, I am strawmanning no body. My argument has been clear from the get go (it was posted prior to your first response to this thread)

I won't BZ something I've not said.

My entire point is that the feat is useless, as we can't quantify it because we don't know how much strength is being applied and if magic takes part.

Again, if you think you can quantify the feat, then we can BZ this.

The entire premise of your argument is a non-position ("we don't know" is a non-position) where you attempt to shift burden of proof so that you can try to make the other side prove a negative by simply changing the wordings slightly to make it not too obvious even though it is (it's insulting tbh).

Then you go ahead andattempt to use a non-position supported by no evidence to invalidate a "feat". I mean, this is just absurd. You cannot use a non-position then make an active claim to invalidate something. If you do not see this, I don't know what else to tell you. That is why we need to BZ just so you can see just how bad your logic is.

I mean, you are welcome to hold a non-position. It is YOUR opinion after all. But to INSIST that a "feat" should be invalid because of your non-position is insanity. You choose to not take a stance but insist that other should take your stance which is a non-stance. Either take a stance or stand aside and let those of us with both a stance and evidence take the reigns in this discussion

Here, this is what you should say:

Josh_Alexander: I'm not saying that there was something that affected the "feat" other than strength, since I cannot prove it. But I feel that there is something there we're not seeing. So I reserve the right to my opinion.

^There, that kind or reply I don't have a problem with (and neither will most ppl here I'd wager). But to outright state that a "feat" is invalid and not take a position on why is pure audacity.

KingD19

I always find it funny how Nib goes through all this effort to post facts and valid statements. Then people just ignore it because they want to be right.

Surtur

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The only ability I think it granted Thor was flying. But casting lightning is Thor's power, and Thor's alone.

Isn't like Vision should have been able to summon lightning.

You're ignoring the fact it doesn't begin to crackle with lightning until it begins to sustain damage. Here is the clip in case you forgot, skip to 1:35:

Originally posted by Surtur
-k1RUykvzfA

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The entire premise of your argument is a non-position ("we don't know" is a non-position) where you attempt to shift burden of proof so that you can try to make the other side prove a negative by simply changing the wordings slightly to make it not too obvious even though it is (it's insulting tbh).

Then you go ahead andattempt to use a non-position supported by no evidence to invalidate a "feat". I mean, this is just absurd. You cannot use a non-position then make an active claim to invalidate something. If you do not see this, I don't know what else to tell you. That is why we need to BZ just so you can see just how bad your logic is.

I mean, you are welcome to hold a non-position. It is YOUR opinion after all. But to INSIST that a "feat" should be invalid because of your non-position is insanity. You choose to not take a stance but insist that other should take your stance which is a non-stance. Either take a stance or stand aside and let those of us with both a stance and evidence take the reigns in this discussion

Here, this is what you should say:

Josh_Alexander: I'm not saying that there was something that affected the "feat" other than strength, since I cannot prove it. But I feel that there is something there we're not seeing. So I reserve the right to my opinion.

^There, that kind or reply I don't have a problem with (and neither will most ppl here I'd wager). But to outright state that a "feat" is invalid and not take a position on why is pure audacity.

I've been consistent with my point Nibedicus, if you feel like I am "shifting burden" then you are wrong!

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Calculating the force needed to destroy her own hammer is impossible, we don't know if the feat involves pure force or if magic is involved.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I can't prove how much magic affects the feat, just like you can't prove that the feat is one of sole strength.

This is a case in where the feat turns invalid, because you can't really conclude on the nature of it.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander

The feat just has too many unknown variables.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander

My whole point has been that the feat has too many unknown factors, and that therefore we can't use it to give Hela a strength feat. We don't know for sure if she was using strength alone or magic.

I mean, even Froth understood what I was trying to convey here

Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately, it seems I'm going to end up backing Josh and h1 here (and believe me, it's not something I enjoy).

I'm iffy to attribute Hela's Mjolnir crushing to pure physical strength

I'm sure her physical strength played a part in the feat, but I also think there was something more there.

So, I don't know buddy, but am pretty sure you are the one misinterpreting things here! The one beginning to feel insulted here is me!

So, Again, am not BZ something I have not said! I'll BZ my position

My position

The feat is vague! Ambiguos and non-conclusive

Hela's magic is powerful and it's limits unknown. She can spam knifes out of her hand and turn her hair Jack-The-Reaper mode by simply touching it!

Knowing that, and that Hela has no other feat to support immense amounts of strength(implied by the destruction of Mjolnir, should strength be the only factor considered), we can't really tell if the feat involves SOLELY STRENGTH or if magic is involved in some way!

Since we don't know how much strength was being applied by Hela, it's impossible for us to quantify the feat, and therefore the feat is IRRELEVANT for a MVF thread.

So, it's your choice buddy!

P.S: Taking a no-stand to invalidate evidence/feats is perfectly okay, and is oftenly used, again when the evidence brought forth is not conclusive or vague.

For instance:

A camera recorded Mary's husbad entering his house the night before, then, the next day his husband left the house early in the morning. Mary and her husband live alone, and no one else entered the house during that period of time.

Mary was found stabbed.

Can that evidence be used to prove that Mary's husband murdered her? (The answer is no, the evidence doesn't really prove that she was killed by her husband, although it does make him a suspect).

Samething happens with Hela's feat, we don't really have the whole picture (If magic was used, or how much strength was used).

So, my stand is clear. The BZ would circle arround you trying to make this feat valid...which I doubt you will be able to do, all due respect.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by KingD19
I always find it funny how Nib goes through all this effort to post facts and valid statements. Then people just ignore it because they want to be right.

He has proven no fact to make the feat valid.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Surtur
You're ignoring the fact it doesn't begin to crackle with lightning until it begins to sustain damage. Here is the clip in case you forgot, skip to 1:35:

Am aware of that, yet, doesn't really prove anything.

Surtur

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Am aware of that, yet, doesn't really prove anything.

It proves the energy happened as a result of the destruction.

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Surtur
It proves the energy happened as a result of the destruction.

Yes, but doesn't prove what caused the destruction. :/

Surtur

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes, but doesn't prove what caused the destruction. :/

Occam's razor.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I've been consistent with my point Nibedicus, if you feel like I am "shifting burden" then you are wrong!

I mean, even Froth understood what I was trying to convey here

So, I don't know buddy, but am pretty sure you are the one misinterpreting things here! The one beginning to feel insulted here is me!

So, Again, am not BZ something I have not said! I'll BZ my position

My position

The feat is vague! Ambiguos and non-conclusive

Hela's magic is powerful and it's limits unknown. She can spam knifes out of her hand and turn her hair Jack-The-Reaper mode by simply touching it!

Knowing that, and that Hela has no other feat to support immense amounts of strength(implied by the destruction of Mjolnir, should strength be the only factor considered), we can't really tell if the feat involves SOLELY STRENGTH or if magic is involved in some way!

Since we don't know how much strength was being applied by Hela, it's impossible for us to quantify the feat, and therefore the feat is IRRELEVANT for a MVF thread.

So, it's your choice buddy!

P.S: Taking a no-stand to invalidate evidence/feats is perfectly okay, and is oftenly used, again when the evidence brought forth is not conclusive or vague.

For instance:

A camera recorded Mary's husbad entering his house the night before, then, the next day his husband left the house early in the morning. Mary and her husband live alone, and no one else entered the house during that period of time.

Mary was found stabbed.

Can that evidence be used to prove that Mary's husband murdered her? (The answer is no, the evidence doesn't really prove that she was killed by her husband, although it does make him a suspect).

Samething happens with Hela's feat, we don't really have the whole picture (If magic was used, or how much strength was used).

So, my stand is clear. The BZ would circle arround you trying to make this feat valid...which I doubt you will be able to do, all due respect.

You have been consistent at shifting burden of proof. To prove a negative. That alone invalidates your entire argument. It doesn't matter how "consistent" your posts are, they are all consistently absent of any evidence.

When pressed to support your position, you just want to avoid having to provide any kind of proof.

You are claiming a feat is invalid (a positive claim) because "we do not know if there is anything else" (a non-position) is tantamount to saying that we should burn all women because we do not know if they are witches. And as proof you present: because, well we think witches are women, even though we don't even know if witches exist. <=== Utter insanity. This. This is the type of "debating" that you are demonstrating right now.

You claim "ambiguity" but provide ZERO factors (that would cause any kind of ambiguity) supported by logic and evidence that can give ambiguity to the "feat". Saying "well she's magic" over and over proves nothing.

False analogy. Your example does not help you at all as it does not show a lot of what happened. The ambiguity is caused by the lack of evidence due to the missing timeline between him coming in and her getting stabbed. And this is provable simply by looking at the evidence in front of us. Thus, we cannot CLAIM that he stabbed her because there is no evidence. And we cannot make unsupported claims like "well, he's a murderer!" (or "the feat is invalid" wink

until we provide evidence that he did. Your example helps my argument more than yours because this is LITERALLY what I have been saying. We cannot make claims when we have no evidence.

A person who does not have the evidence of the husband actually murdering his wife could adopt a non-position of saying "well, I don't have evidence! So we can't say the husband is a murderer. (w/c is a positive claim)"

The same way a person who does not have the evidence of the a strength "feat" being affected by magic could adopt a non-position of saying "well I don't have evidence! So we can't say the "feat" is invalid (w/c is a positive claim)"

I hope that clears things up for you.

And of course we KNOW the whole picture, the picture is in video and is happening right before our eyes and we can replay it over and over. You just don't want to accept it because your opinion is biased by your opinion of her other showings and how strong she should be based on the other showings (and Froth, too, to a limited extent but he is reasonable enough to accept the lack of evidence from his position). But if you take the showing at face value there is ZERO ambiguity here. Especially, taking into account that this is a mass market superhero family popcorn flick.

A closer analogy to our debate is if we see (and have pictures of) the husband actually stabbing his wife and you are claiming that ghosts made him do it because it's possible that the house could be haunted (even tho you don't even have evidence of even this). And then you are asking me to disprove the existence of ghosts. <=== This. This is the type of "logic" you are exposing me, too. /facepalm

Fine, I will take your challenge to make the "feat" valid. This is the BZ:

"Based on evidence, the Hela Mjolnir crush is a valid strength "feat"." (y/n)

I will take yes.

Do you accept?

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You have been consistent at shifting burden of proof. To prove a negative. That alone invalidates your entire argument. It doesn't matter how "consistent" your posts are, they are all consistently absent of any evidence.

When pressed to support your position, you just want to avoid having to provide any kind of proof.

You are claiming a feat is invalid (a positive claim) because "we do not know if there is anything else" (a non-position) is tantamount to saying that we should burn all women because we do not know if they are witches. And as proof you present: because, well we think witches are women, even though we don't even know if witches exist. <=== Utter insanity. This. This is the type of "debating" that you are demonstrating right now.

You claim "ambiguity" but provide ZERO factors supported by logic and evidence that can give ambiguity to the "feat". Saying "well she's magic" over and over proves nothing.

False analogy. Your example does not help you at all as it does not show a lot of what happened. The ambiguity is caused by the lack of evidence due to the missing timeline between him coming in and her getting stabbed. And this is provable simply by looking at the evidence in front of us. Thus, we cannot CLAIM that he stabbed her because there is no evidence. And we cannot make unsupported claims like "well, he's a murderer!" (or "the feat is invalid" wink

until we provide evidence that he did. Your example helps my argument more than yours because this is LITERALLY what I have been saying. We cannot make claims when we have no evidence.

A person who does not have the evidence of the husband actually murdering his wife could adopt a non-position of saying "well, I don't have evidence! So we can't say the husband is a murderer. (w/c is a positive claim)"

The same way a person who does not have the evidence of the a strength "feat" being affected by magic could adopt a non-position of saying "well I don't have evidence! So we can't say the "feat" is invalid (w/c is a positive claim)"

I hope that clears thnigs up for you.

And of course we KNOW the whole picture, the picture is in video and is happening right before our eyes and we can replay it over and over. You just don't want to accept it because your opinion is biased by your opinion of her other showings and how strong she should be based on the other showings. But if you take the showing at face value there is ZERO ambiguity here.

A closer analogy to our debate is if we see the husband actually stabbing his wife and you are claiming that ghosts made him do it because it's possible that the house could be haunted (even tho you don't even have evidence of even this). And then you are asking me to disprove the existence of ghosts. <=== This. This is the type of "logic" you are exposing me, too. /facepalm

Fine, I will take your challenge to make the "feat" valid. This is the BZ:

"Based on evidence, the Hela Mjolnir crush is a valid strength "feat"." (y/n)

I will take yes.

Do you accept?

Again, you are asking me to bring evidence out of an inconclusive feat. Which is basically my entire argument here.

You are partially correct.

And yet, fail to realize that you can't say the husband is innocent either, in other words you are resulting in a type 2 error. In other words, the evidence doesn't prove anything!

If you feel like you can quantify the feat, then I'm in.

Silent Master

Let's make this simple, he's asking what evidence makes the feat inconclusive?

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's make this simple, he's asking what evidence makes the feat inconclusive?

Not knowing if the feat is one of pure strength or if magic played a role.

In which case, we can't draw numbers from the feat.

Surtur

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Not knowing if the feat is one of pure strength or if magic played a role.

In which case, we can't draw numbers from the feat.

We can't draw numbers from the feat either way. All we can say is that it's more impressive than any strength feat Kurse has.

Oh and yes it's pure strength. She doesn't use any other power, why complicate it?

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Surtur
We can't draw numbers from the feat either way. All we can say is that it's more impressive than any strength feat Kurse has.

Oh and yes it's pure strength. She doesn't use any other power, why complicate it?

If the feat is one of pure strength, then we can estimate Hela's strength based on the metal's properties (Which clearly is way stronger than any metal on earth).

We don't know that, at least visually you can assume it to be mere strength.

But considering Hela's background and knowning that Mjolnir can be influenced by magic, I don't think it to be mere strength.

Silent Master

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Not knowing if the feat is one of pure strength or if magic played a role.

In which case, we can't draw numbers from the feat.

What evidence do you have that magic might have played a role.

Surtur

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
If the feat is one of pure strength, then we can estimate Hela's strength based on the metal's properties (Which clearly is way stronger than any metal on earth).

We don't know that, at least visually you can assume it to be mere strength.

But considering Hela's background and knowning that Mjolnir can be influenced by magic, I don't think it to be mere strength.

Lol what? What numbers would you assign to it as a pure strength feat?

Josh_Alexander

Originally posted by Silent Master
What evidence do you have that magic might have played a role.

Hela's hands pulling knifes from thin air and turning her hair into spikes by merely touching it.

Also:

Hela to Thor while holding Mjolnir:

We definitely don't know the extent of Hela's magic and power.

Nibedicus

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again, you are asking me to bring evidence out of an inconclusive feat. Which is basically my entire argument here.

You are partially correct.

And yet, fail to realize that you can't say the husband is innocent either, in other words you are resulting in a type 2 error. In other words, the evidence doesn't prove anything!

If you feel like you can quantify the feat, then I'm in.

I am not asking you to bring evidence of an inconclusive "feat", I am asking you to bring evidence to prove the "feat" is inconclusive.

You presented a false analogy with clear evidence gaps that does not represent the debate we are having. And you did not properly represent your position in this debate. You cannot take a non-position stance (I do not know if there are any factors involved in the "feat" wink

and then make a positive claim (thus the "feat" is invalid" wink

.

You cannot go "We do not know who murdered the wife" (a non-position), thus "the husband is innocent" (an active claim).

And even worse, we actually HAVE proof in front of us. We see everything happening. So a more accurate depiction of our argument is this:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
we see (and have pictures of) the husband actually stabbing his wife and you are claiming that ghosts made him do it because it's possible that the house could be haunted (even tho you don't even have evidence of even this). And then you are asking me to disprove the existence of ghosts. <=== This. This is the type of "logic" you are exposing me to. /facepalm

Now I have to "quantify the feat"? Why the goalpost move? Quantification of the "feat" isn't even part of our debate and now you want that added in? I am feeling that you are afraid of accepting the BZ because you know I can prove my side of it so you are inserting unreasonable conditions that aren't even part of our discussion.

No. You insist that the "feat" is invalid as a strength "feat". I disagree. That is the BZ. I have already given you so much leeway, it's not even funny. Stop ducking and accept the BZ.