Nibe's Final Post:
Esteemed judges, good day, I apologize if the debate has dragged on longer than anticipated, I guess holy week and the summer holidays (for some of us) have made things very busy for my opponent and me causing unexpected long periods between replies. I hope we didn't take too much of your time away and wish to thank you all for your patience. It has certainly been an interesting debate and I hope you enjoyed judging as much as I enjoyed participating in it.
Esteemed judges, if it is anything, this BZ has been quite the enlightening demonstration of how confirmation bias can affect one's thinking and logic.
On its surface, the argument my opponent propositions is not really all that unreasonable. He believes the Hela Mjolnir crush is well above what Hela should be capable of. He perhaps got this opinion from viewing Thor's fight with Hela. He sees this as a huge inconsistency and he reconciles this to himself via creating headcanon and then cements this belief into his mind. I have no problem with this, for as long as it is his opinion then he is free to have it.
His logic, however, begins to sour when he starts imposing this belief as absolute truth. That is because in these forum, interpretations vary and we use best evidence with best logic if we wish to convince others that our belief is the best interpretation. As such, these beliefs need to hold up to solid scrutiny else it cannot generally be accepted as any kind of truth.
Now, my opponent would have us believe that, for some reason, inconsistencies (well, those he doesn't like anyway) and plot holes can't be used in a debate, yet his primary logical foundation for this so-called rule appears to be a simple misunderstanding/misinterpretation of my words without realizing that my words are not the rules here and that when interpreted correctly, my words actually hurt his argument.
He then points to a logical fallacy ("inconsistency fallacy"
but did not elabortate on its connection to his logic. Just dropped the term and hoped that it validated his entire argument somehow. From how I've seen him use it, I wonder if he even understands what the fallacy is about. Is he implying that, universally, any contradiction and in any form is immediately deemed a fallacy (w/c is not what the fallacy is about)? Then why did he then decide w/c contradictions he will or will not allow (story only, not logical/scientific)?
He would also have us believe that Thor being able to "endure hits from Hela" is somehow definitive proof of this contradiction but didn't really specify w/c exact moments he meant, didn't provide the contradiction with regards to Thor's durability and seems to ignore the fact that Hela did not finish off Thor even though she had the opportunity more than once and ample time to do so (thus she allowed him to "endure).
Failing that, he attempted to use fling distance as his corroborative "evidence" of contradiction. An inconsistent, poorly quantified, undependable and sometimes downright ignored phenomenon in film. That we must accept that different filmmakers who made different movies nearly a decade apart have somehow equally applied physics laws in their storytelling and that these physics laws are absolute. But then ignore the physics inconsistencies in other movies because my opponent tells us to.
The irony here is that when set against his own "plot hole" definition, it is clear that the "evidence of contradictions" he provided do not have near the story value to the Mjolnir crush. So, by virtue of his very own words and the rule he is trying to shove down our throats (w/c I do not agree with but it demonstrates the poor logical foundation my opponent is basing his argument from), his evidence is pretty much rendered invalid.
He goes one step further, however: He wants us to give Hela a never seen nor aluded to power in order to reconcile this scene within his biases. That somehow, Hela's "magical" nature allowed her to weaken/affect Mjolnir (he doesn't want it to affect her however, as if her magical nature enhanced her strength, this would still be a strength "feat" so it has to affect Mjolnir for his theory to be right). To accept this theory as simply his "opinion" but somehow also accept it as fact and invalidate the "feat" because of it. To allow inference to have the same factual value as evidence and, essentially, allow a made up ability to invalidate a real "feat" due to a made up rule, ignoring the most important not-made-up rule in the MvS forum, the Golden Rule: Movie Feats Only.
Hell, he won't even accept the fact that "suspension of disbelief" can easily reconcile the scene even if his inference was true. So he denies the use of this basic audience reaction that writers depend on to help tell their story and wants his made up rule to take precedence.
He basically wants us to accept his accept his headcanon and ignore what the filmmakers are clearly telling us. And believe what he wants us to believe.
Looking at the synopsis of my opponent's arguments. The overall sheer complex absurdity of it all can be... exhausting? Overwhelming?
Within the standard of best evidence and best argument, it is clear that his interpretations do not hold up to the slightest scrutiny. That he is literally twisting the facts and evidence just so he can reconcile an opinion. The reason for this failure in his logic is due to the fact that he has cemented this opinion of what Hela is capable of in his mind and that conclusion can no longer be moved/changed/swayed by evidence/facts. So instead he tries to make the evidence fit the conclusion and not the other way around.
Confirmation Bias at its most extreme.
To accept my opponent's argument is to accept that movies can no longer have inconsistencies and that all evidence affected by these inconsistencies must be rejected and invalidated. That headcanon will have equal factual value to evidence when such inconsistencies occur and debates are now about trying to find these inconsistencies in scenes so we can replace facts with headcanon. A dizzyingly awful prospect indeed.
I do notice that he used "possible" in his second rebuttal post to try and establish the sufficiency of "reasonable doubt" (as I predicted). Perhaps he is starting to realize the absurdity of his argument and is now backpedalling to repackage it and make it more palatable? But my opponent needs to realize that due to the sheer absurdity of what he asking us to believe and what he wants to happen, "possible" is not enough. Anything is possible, especially in fiction and especially when one is not tethered by the need for evidence.
Esteemed judges. All I ask you from you is to look at the evidence. It is simple. It is unambiguous. And it is crystal clear in its intent.
Hela caught Mjolnir with her hand. Hela crushed Mjolnir with her hand. There is no other observable visual or audio indicators in the scene in question beyond this. My opponent even conceded to this fact. If we just look at the facts, the best interpretation should be clear as day:
Hela used her strength to crush Mjolnir. Nothing else can be seen thus nothing else was used.
Thus, this is a valid strength "feat".
What more needs to be said?
I realize that there would be some that would see this "feat" as extreme. I get it. It is quite up there. But extreme "feats" happen sometimes in fiction. But in the forums, we have accepted these as simply high "feats" or outliers. Outliers are not averages and should not be argued as such. But they are still valid when highest "feats" are being compared (w/c actually happens quite often in the forums). Although there would be those that would argue that there has been little that really contradict the Mjolnir crush as an average showing. But that is the beauty of the forums. We can debate these things and see who has the better argument.
And that is my core of MY argument. That we use debate to determine best-evidence and best-logic and try to clearly determine writer's intent. To let the evidence guide our conclusions and not the other way around. To accept the fallability in the consistencies of fictional storytelling. Not to shove unsupported absolute rules just to insist on what we want.
Perhaps my opponent will attempt a new out-from-left-field approach to try and steer his argument back to a sensible direction (maybe clarify what he meant by simply tossing in "Inconsistency fallacy" and its definition)? I do not know. I can only asses his logic based on the arguments he has provided prior to the closing. I, however, call on judges to ignore any new evidence/arguments if he tries to sneak it into his closing as that would basically contaminate the debate with unscrutinized information. I do not fear any new points of his, just that I feel that it would likely be laden with more misrepresentations, misinterpretations and bias w/c I will not have the chance to fact check. I hope my opponent does not go this direction, but if he does, then it would only conclusively show how weak his arguments are if he opts to only present it once it cannot be scrutinized.
Perhaps my opponent hopes to convince us via his flashy and passionate presentation? It is certainly a very interesting approach, no doubt about it. But I feel it would probably work better in a different debating medium. Perhaps in a more audience-based medium where he can use flash to appeal to the emotions in his audience and where details are far less important? However, in a written and judged debating medium, I fear it translates poorly.
Because in this medium we use facts, not theories, logic, not opinions and evidence, not biases to determine the best argument in a debate.
And that is all I am really asking you, esteemed judges, to reaffirm in your decision.
Thank you again for your time and good day.
) so that no one has the advantage of reading and countering the final post--which is usually a summary post where nothing surprising or new is allowed to be entered. iow--be fair in the final post. the process has been pretty successful in the last few tournaments and bz's i'v taken part in, but it's your bz, so i'll judge by whatever you think will be best.
