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

Slugfest

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Slugfest

Thanos.

Im assuming no blades? Still backing Hela. Comparable stats and skill but she has a healing factir he cant bypass.

Hela was only stopped by starting Ragnarok.

Hela

Originally posted by Impediment
Hela was only stopped by starting Ragnarok. Do you realize how bad of a point you are trying to make? I certainly hope so.

Thanos can't punch her yo death so eventually she'll win.

Originally posted by KingD19
Thanos can't punch her yo death so eventually she'll win. Based on? Are you saying she cannot be kod as well? Any proof to these claims?

Thanos would break this *****.

Hela

Hela will keep healing after every hit. Thanos won't. Hela eventually wins.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Hela will keep healing after every hit. Thanos won't. Hela eventually wins. Prove her healing is limitless.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Prove her healing is limitless.

As soon as you prove Thanos can hit her a limitless amount of times.

Dont need to. Shes stronger,faster and has better skill showings

Strength: Crushing Mjolnir > Overpowering Hulk.

Durability: Taking Thors biggest Lightning blast with no blood > Iron Man making you bleed.

See more proof that we use the highest feats.

Note: lightning does not make you bleed and we do not know the injuries she suffered before healing up. It took her a bit of time just to get back into the battle. So it did affect her.

And lightning and getting punched are two different things.

And Thanos didn't bleed when Hulk hit him.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Strength: Crushing Mjolnir > Overpowering Hulk.

Durability: Taking Thors biggest Lightning blast with no blood > Iron Man making you bleed.

This.

Quan has a naked poster of Thanos on the ceiling above his bed.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Strength: Crushing Mjolnir > Overpowering Hulk.

Durability: Taking Thors biggest Lightning blast with no blood > Iron Man making you bleed.

If the feat is a valid strength one then you are right.

Originally posted by h1a8
See more proof that we use the highest feats.

Note: lightning does not make you bleed and we do not know the injuries she suffered before healing up. It took her a bit of time just to get back into the battle. So it did affect her.

And lightning and getting punched are two different things.

And Thanos didn't bleed when Hulk hit him.

Your original claim was that we only use high end feats, but nice try. the fact that you have to change your argument says it all.

Originally posted by FrothByte
As soon as you prove Thanos can hit her a limitless amount of times. Who made that claim?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Strength: Crushing Mjolnir > Overpowering Hulk.

Durability: Taking Thors biggest Lightning blast with no blood > Iron Man making you bleed. That affected her and took her out if the game more than Thanos who smiled. She was also effected by other asgardians as well as Thor. She is not unbeatable in one on one combat. See Surtur.

Originally posted by h1a8
See more proof that we use the highest feats.

Note: lightning does not make you bleed and we do not know the injuries she suffered before healing up. It took her a bit of time just to get back into the battle. So it did affect her.

And lightning and getting punched are two different things.

And Thanos didn't bleed when Hulk hit him.


Its highest for both so whats the issue.

Thors most powerful lightning blast is obviously greater than a punch from Hulk as well.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Who made that claim?

If you're asking me to prove Hela can heal a limitless amount, you're assuming that Thanos can hit her an unlimited amount.

Originally posted by quanchi112
That affected her and took her out if the game more than Thanos who smiled. She was also effected by other asgardians as well as Thor. She is not unbeatable in one on one combat. See Surtur.

Thanos doesn't hit as strong as Thor's lightning blasts. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Hela hits harder than IM. Face it Quan, Thanos loses this fight.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your original claim was that we only use high end feats, but nice try. the fact that you have to change your argument says it all.

Everyone sees the proof that we use high end feats FOR THE CHARACTER WE ARE ARGUING FOR. So what argument did I change?

Slug fest would likely go to Hela with her seemingly better than Wolverine healing factor, Asgardian blade went right through her and she didn't care nor bleed. She's also faster and more agile. Thanos has the H2H skill advantage though.

Could also argue that Hela's possibly stronger than Thanos due to her grabbing, holding onto and shattering Mjolnir and this was before she landed on Asgard and seemingly powered up even more.

Originally posted by Robtard
Slug fest would likely go to Hela with her seemingly better than Wolverine healing factor, Asgardian blade went right through her and she didn't care nor bleed. She's also faster and more agile. Thanos has the H2H skill advantage though.

Could also argue that Hela's possibly stronger than Thanos due to her grabbing, holding onto and shattering Mjolnir and this was before she landed on Asgard and seemingly powered up even more.

I wouldn't necessarily give him the h2h skill advantage. I mean, he beat up Hulk... who isn't exactly the most skilled h2h combatant out there. At least Hela was matching Thor and Valkyrie. Granted that was with weapons, so I'm not exactly saying she's better either. Just that it's inconclusive.

Originally posted by h1a8
Everyone sees the proof that we use high end feats FOR THE CHARACTER WE ARE ARGUING FOR. So what argument did I change?

Your original claim was that we "only" used high end feats. there is a rather large difference between using high end feats in an argument and only using high end feats.

^ Besides I specifically compared highest feats in particular categories for both. So I dont get why hed make an issue out of that.

It's not like Thor's lightning would have done much to Thanos.

Thor considers facing him without Stormbreaker suicide and when he actually hits him with lightning while he has Stormbreaker it doesn't visibly hurt him.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I wouldn't necessarily give him the h2h skill advantage. I mean, he beat up Hulk... who isn't exactly the most skilled h2h combatant out there. At least Hela was matching Thor and Valkyrie. Granted that was with weapons, so I'm not exactly saying she's better either. Just that it's inconclusive.

I don't recall Hella really going H2H, partially why I defaulted to Thanos, and while Thanos did beat the crap out of Hulk who is little more than a brawler, he clearly showed high H2H skills, targeting weak spots (collar bone, kidneys), using punch combos, blocking and countering seamlessly, using his knees.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-07-2018/4MaKeA.gif

IMO, it's beyond clear that Thanos > Hela in H2H skills from what we've seen, or haven't seen in regards to Hela.

If this was a sword fight, I'd give Hella the advantage there.

Originally posted by Nevan
It's not like Thor's lightning would have done much to Thanos.

Thor considers facing him without Stormbreaker suicide and when he actually hits him with lightning while he has Stormbreaker it doesn't visibly hurt him.

Thor considers facing Thanos with the IG suicide. There's a big difference there. Also, the lightning Thor hit Thanos with was not as big as the one he hit Hela with, and it already knocked him down and dragged him through the mud.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't recall Hella really going H2H, partially why I defaulted to Thanos, and while Thanos did beat the crap out of Hulk who is little more than a brawler, he clearly showed high H2H skills, targeting weak spots (collar bone, kidneys), using punch combos, blocking and countering seamlessly, using his knees.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-07-2018/4MaKeA.gif

IMO, it's beyond clear that Thanos > Hela in H2H skills from what we've seen, or haven't seen in regards to Hela.

If this was a sword fight, I'd give Hella the advantage there.

In the beginning of Thor's fight with Hela in the throne room, Hela is unarmed while Thor has gungir.

https://youtu.be/Mv3-G1k8VFY

I consider that a better h2h feat considering Thor is armed while Hela isn't, and Thor is a much better fighter than Hulk.

What made Thanos' skill impressive is because we never saw someone that massive and strong show such refined skill. But if you shrink him down to a regular sized fella and matched him against an unskilled brawler of similar size and strength, would it really have been as impressive?

Hela FTW.

Originally posted by FrothByte
In the beginning of Thor's fight with Hela in the throne room, Hela is unarmed while Thor has gungir.

https://youtu.be/Mv3-G1k8VFY

I consider that a better h2h feat considering Thor is armed while Hela isn't, and Thor is a much better fighter than Hulk.

What made Thanos' skill impressive is because we never saw someone that massive and strong show such refined skill. But if you shrink him down to a regular sized fella and matched him against an unskilled brawler of similar size and strength, would it really have been as impressive? Fair enough, forgot about that exchange, but honestly, she got hit a few times and parried the side of a spear upclose, that's not a better H2H showing than Thanos' combos imo.

As I initially said, speed and agility (and should add acrobatics) she has that over Thanos.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Besides I specifically compared highest feats in particular categories for both. So I dont get why hed make an issue out of that.

My argument is for those who don't believe we all use only a character's high end feats when arguing for them.

Also you used a low showing for Thanos (he actually wasn't damaged when Hulk struck him). Unless you want to argue it's a high showing for Iron man and not a low one for Thanos.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough, forgot about that exchange, but honestly, she got hit a few times and parried the side of a spear upclose, that's not a better H2H showing than Thanos' combos imo.

As I initially said, speed and agility (and should add acrobatics) she has that over Thanos.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Hela is a better fighter. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't necessarily give Thanos the skill advantage because, although Hela did get hit, she was still fighting unarmed against an armed Thor... which I consider more difficult than outfighting Hulk. At least close enough in skill to not matter much.

Personally I give Thanos the advantage in mass and strength (unless we consider the Mjolnir shattering feat) and Hela the speed and agility. Skill is a washup, but Hela ends up winning due to HF.

Originally posted by h1a8
My argument is for those who don't believe we all use only a character's high end feats when arguing for them.

Also you used a low showing for Thanos (he actually wasn't damaged when Hulk struck him). Unless you want to argue it's a high showing for Iron man and not a low one for Thanos.

See, you once again said "only". there is a rather large difference between using high end feats and only using high end feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
See, you once again said "only". there is a rather large difference between using high end feats and only using high end feats. There is a difference. My argument is the "only" for the character a member is arguing to win.

Originally posted by FrothByte
If you're asking me to prove Hela can heal a limitless amount, you're assuming that Thanos can hit her an unlimited amount. She did not heal from Surtur on Asgard so we see she has limits thus disproving your claim.

Originally posted by h1a8
There is a difference. My argument is the "only" for the character a member is arguing to win.

An argument you've never been able to prove.

Originally posted by h1a8
There is a difference. My argument is the "only" for the character a member is arguing to win.

You're making this way more complicated than it should be. Just use high showings unless there are enough other showings that constantly contradict it. The end.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thanos doesn't hit as strong as Thor's lightning blasts. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Hela hits harder than IM. Face it Quan, Thanos loses this fight. Based off what? Thor cut into her with inferior weaponry. Thor himself admitted without his best weapon he has no shot against Thanos. All the damage prior led into the cut not just Iron man. The directors confirm this in the commentary. Your inability to grasp what is going in is astounding.


Thanos beat the stuffing out of the Hulk Thor has yet to do so despite two fights and multiple weapons to boot.

Originally posted by quanchi112
She did not heal from Surtur on Asgard so we see she has limits thus disproving your claim.

Yeah. The literal only way to kill her killed her.

Thor got hit against Hulk.

Originally posted by KingD19
Yeah. The literal only way to kill her killed her. No, at her greatest power since she was beaten. Easily. Surtur trounced her despite her trying so hard. She utterly failed. Thanos would maul this one nite villain.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor got hit against Hulk.

So?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Based off what? Thor cut into her with inferior weaponry. Thor himself admitted without his best weapon he has no shot against Thanos. All the damage prior led into the cut not just Iron man. The directors confirm this in the commentary. Your inability to grasp what is going in is astounding.


Thanos beat the stuffing out of the Hulk Thor has yet to do so despite two fights and multiple weapons to boot.

Thor cut into her with Gungnir. That is not inferior weaponry.

Thor admitted he didn't have a shot against Thanos with the IG. He doesn't have it in this match

So all the damage done to Thanos all over his body accumulated to result in a cut on the cheek? So I can punch a guy 10 times in the gut and that will result in them getting cut in the cheek?

Thor is not the one Thanos is fighting in this match. It's Hela.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, at her greatest power since she was beaten. Easily. Surtur trounced her despite her trying so hard. She utterly failed. Thanos would maul this one nite villain.

Holdup. You're saying Thanos w/o the IG can take on fully grown Surtur?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor cut into her with Gungnir. That is not inferior weaponry.

Thor admitted he didn't have a shot against Thanos with the IG. He doesn't have it in this match

So all the damage done to Thanos all over his body accumulated to result in a cut on the cheek? So I can punch a guy 10 times in the gut and that will result in them getting cut in the cheek?

Thor is not the one Thanos is fighting in this match. It's Hela. The axe is the greatest weapon of Asgard. Quit.


He fought him without Thanos using it and still lost despite a cheapshot.

Directors verified it. If you get hit me hundred times your body is not fresh as a daisy you nitwit.


The girl unable to beat Thor. Yeah, Thanos did so easily and without even really trying. She is in over her head. These are not weak asgardians this is the guy who has superior strength and skill to her. He beats the stuffing out of her.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Holdup. You're saying Thanos w/o the IG can take on fully grown Surtur? I am saying there are limits to her healing proven by Surtur. Off topic yes Thanos wins without it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
You're making this way more complicated than it should be. Just use high showings unless there are enough other showings that constantly contradict it. The end. unless "There are enough" is an opinion.
Besides that, no one goes by that anyway.

Originally posted by Silent Master
An argument you've never been able to prove.

I been posting evidence when some do it. And will continue.

No, you haven't.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, you haven't.

I just did. You replied to it.

No, your argument was people only use high end feats for people they want to win. Froth's quote doesn't say to only use them for one side.

Try again.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, your argument was people only use high end feats for people they want to win. Froth's quote doesn't say to only use them for one side.

Try again.

People don't consistently use them for both sides, just for one side (the for character). Some highball lowball troll.

Originally posted by h1a8
People don't consistently use them for both sides, just for one side (the for character). Some highball lowball troll.

Other than you, post some examples.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor cut into her with Gungnir. That is not inferior weaponry.

Thor admitted he didn't have a shot against Thanos with the IG. He doesn't have it in this match

So all the damage done to Thanos all over his body accumulated to result in a cut on the cheek? So I can punch a guy 10 times in the gut and that will result in them getting cut in the cheek?

Thor is not the one Thanos is fighting in this match. It's Hela.
Normal Asgardians and Valkyrie were able to cut Hela with normal asgardian weapons.

Originally posted by Nevan
Normal Asgardians and Valkyrie were able to cut Hela with normal asgardian weapons.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am saying there are limits to her healing proven by Surtur. Off topic yes Thanos wins without it.

LOL. Well if it wasn't clear before how biased you are when it comes to Thanos, it's ridiculously obvious now.

Ladies and gentlemen, please note than Quan thinks Thanos w/o IG is capable of defeating full grown Surtur.

Originally posted by Nevan
Normal Asgardians and Valkyrie were able to cut Hela with normal asgardian weapons.

Quan specifically said Thor. Not Valkyrie or other Asgardians.

Originally posted by FrothByte
LOL. Well if it wasn't clear before how biased you are when it comes to Thanos, it's ridiculously obvious now.

Ladies and gentlemen, please note than Quan thinks Thanos w/o IG is capable of defeating full grown Surtur. Yes, he is rips his tiara right off his head. He has the strength to do so. Hulk clearly affected Surtur so someone who is stronger and more skilled gets the job done.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Quan specifically said Thor. Not Valkyrie or other Asgardians. Still good indicators of what strength can cut into her. Thor with the axe would bury her.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, he is rips his tiara right off his head. He has the strength to do so. Hulk clearly affected Surtur so someone who is stronger and more skilled gets the job done.

Wow. Well then, I rest my case. There's no use debating with a madman.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Wow. Well then, I rest my case. There's no use debating with a madman. So you believe the most powerful villain of the MCU has no chance. Go debate with the guys who made the films. You are clearly a little biased. Unbeatable in one on one combat. Not my words.

Originally posted by Nevan
Normal Asgardians and Valkyrie were able to cut Hela with normal asgardian weapons.


And Thanos was cut by a Human weapon. The IM armour.

Difference is Hela instantly heals, and doesnt bleed.

Originally posted by h1a8
unless "There are enough" is an opinion.
Besides that, no one goes by that anyway.


Everyone goes by this. The only people who don't are you, Quan and Josh.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And Thanos was cut by a Human weapon. The IM armour.

Difference is Hela instantly heals, and doesnt bleed. Iron man took on Thor with his human weapon. Lol. Tony stark is leaps and bounds ahead of the human race. She did not heal from Surtur and clearly was cut by normal asgardians. Thanos is stronger and a better fighter than anyone she has faced.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Iron man took on Thor with his human weapon. Lol.


Nah he did squat to an injured Thor on 4* the power.

An Iron Man empowers by Thors own power. Caps shield did nothing to Thor. We are talking durability to human weapons here. You have no argument.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Everyone goes by this. The only people who don't are you, Quan and Josh.


The 3 stooges

Originally posted by Darth Thor
An Iron Man empowers by Thors own power. Caps shield did nothing to Thor. We are talking durability to human weapons here. You have no argument. Caps should withstood Thors asgardian weapon is a and knocked Thor on his ass. Iron mans arnor makes him a threat to Thor. Did you see his hulk buster armor? Thor is not that strong, kid. Tony has better tech and is smarter than Thor. Thor is a better warrior and has greater physical stats. The mere fact Iron man is a threat to thordespite being a human should clue you in. His weaponry is amazing.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The 3 stooges Froth is one of the three cowards. You are another the guy who feared Khan and Disney.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, at her greatest power since she was beaten. Easily. Surtur trounced her despite her trying so hard. She utterly failed. Thanos would maul this one nite villain.

And Surtur brought about Ragnarok, you idiot. The only thing able to kill her.

So if you've got some evidence of Thanos being the wielder of the Twilight Sword and being the bringer of Ragnarok, bring it out. Otherwise Thanos loses.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Other than you, post some examples.

Darth just did when he mentioned Hela crushing Mjolnir and Thanos bleeding to IM. Highball lowball troll tactic

Originally posted by h1a8
Darth just did when he mentioned Hela crushing Mjolnir and Thanos bleeding to IM. Highball lowball troll tactic

In order for that to be an example of him lowballing Thanos, you'd have to provide examples of Thanos withstanding equal or superior attacks without bleeding.

So go ahead and prove that was DT lowballing Thanos.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Everyone goes by this. The only people who don't are you, Quan and Josh.

Carefull with the strawman.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The 3 stooges

A term more fit to you, Froth and Silent. We all know you guys turn hilarious when Thor is concerned.

Originally posted by KingD19
And Surtur brought about Ragnarok, you idiot. The only thing able to kill her.

So if you've got some evidence of Thanos being the wielder of the Twilight Sword and being the bringer of Ragnarok, bring it out. Otherwise Thanos loses. So you do not believe the infinity stones or Dormammu can kill her. That was the only way in that given situation with those characters involved with the tech/weapons they have available. You are incapable of common sense and are relying on a only Surtur can nonsensical theory you cannot prove.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And Thanos was cut by a Human weapon. The IM armour.

Difference is Hela instantly heals, and doesnt bleed.
Not only is IW Iron Man far stronger than any normal asgardian, but the cut on Thanos's cheek was only a scratch compared to the would be fatal wounds Hela recieved when she was skewered.

I don't think Hela would recieve less wounds from that than Thanos.

Originally posted by Nevan
Not only is IW Iron Man far stronger than any normal asgardian, but the cut on Thanos's cheek was only a scratch compared to the would be fatal wounds Hela recieved when she was skewered.

I don't think Hela would recieve less wounds from that than Thanos.

It's also way easier to wound someone with a weapon than with a punch. Heck, a 3 year old with a knife can still easily wound an adult.

Thanos doesn't have weapons in this fight.

Plus, as already mentioned, Hela simply healed from the wound whereas Thanos didn't.

Hela's healing can have something to do with her being on Asgard (where she draws power from). Without her power source, her healing can be affected (speed of healing and number of times of healing).

Originally posted by h1a8
Hela's healing can have something to do with her being on Asgard (where she draws power from). Without her power source, her healing can be affected (speed of healing and number of times of healing).

Unfortunately without any proof to back this up, this theory doesn't really hold much weight in a debate.

Originally posted by h1a8
Hela's healing can have something to do with her being on Asgard (where she draws power from). Without her power source, her healing can be affected (speed of healing and number of times of healing).

You just made this up.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately without any proof to back this up, this theory doesn't really hold much weight in a debate. Her power is greater on Asgard. Quit denying reality just because she loses here. Thanos is stronger and normal asgardians have pierced her skin.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You just made this up.

No I didn't.
She draws power from Asgard.

Originally posted by h1a8
It needs to be proven that their random swords are durable to survive hits from ALL human ammo.
Hela blades were destroyed by human ammo.

An Asgardian farmer was able to bend a (human) tactical blade in his bare hand. It's pretty common sense to assume that Asgardian weapons are therefore a lot tougher than human weapons, otherwise they won't be effective for their race.

Besides, when was the last time you saw human blades glow like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNh_MOXVasE

Hela's blades are not the average Asgardian weapons. You'll notice that her spears and swords have a tendency to disappear after usage.

Looks like h1 is back to making things up and lowballing feats for the side he wants to lose.

It's up to you to prove their swords can survive hits from ALL human ammo. I have evidence of the contrary.

There are no guns in this fight.

Arguing that Asgardian weapons are not incredibly durable considering they can pierce Asgardians who are incredibly durable themselves is the argument of a retard.

In regards to Hela's powers being amped if she's on Asgard, there's reason to believe this when you factor in one spoken and one visual from the film. Odin saying "she draws her power from Asgard" and when she first enters the Bifrost chamber, she has a very visual/body-language power-surge orgasm. To me that implied she powered up, but it's debatable.

Should still be noted that even if this is true, she was powerful enough to stop and crush Mjolnir with ease while on Earth and minutes after leaving her prison.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's up to you to prove their swords can survive hits from ALL human ammo. I have evidence of the contrary.

No, you don't have evidence that ALL human weapons can damage ALL Asgardian weapons.

If you want to claim that guns can damage their equipment (even though we've seen guns leave no damage on Loki's armor) then that's up to you to prove with actual feats.

You can't just make random claims and expect other people to prove them for you.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No you don't have evidence. Unless you're claiming that all Asgardians generate their weapons from thin air?

If you want to claim that guns can damage their equipment (even though we've seen guns leave no damage on Loki's armor) then that's up to you to prove.

You can't just make random claims and expect other people to prove them for you.

Notice how h1, the guy that uses high-end feats for characters he likes is trying to use an obvious low-end feat for Hela? it's almost like he's a troll.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No you don't have evidence. Unless you're claiming that all Asgardians generate their weapons from thin air?

If you want to claim that guns can damage their equipment (even though we've seen guns leave no damage on Loki's armor) then that's up to you to prove.

You can't just make random claims and expect other people to prove them for you. The original claim is that random Asgardian swords is beyond ALL human ammo.
We know that Asgardians can be cut by Hela's blades. This means that anything equal or higher than her blades can cut them. Well her blades were destroyed by human ammo. Therefore a sword that can be destroyed by human ammo can cut them. Since their random swords have no feats other than cutting asgardians then we can't assume that they are beyond ALL human ammo.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Notice how h1, the guy that uses high-end feats for characters he likes is trying to use an obvious low-end feat for Hela? it's almost like he's a troll. I dont see why it's a low end feat? Does her blades have feats of resisting very powerful human ammo?
Our most powerful ammo can penetrate many swords stacked together. Therefore, even if Asgardian swords were 3x more durable than our strongest swords then they will still get damaged by OUR ammo.

Originally posted by h1a8
The original claim is that random Asgardian swords is beyond ALL human ammo.
We know that Asgardians can be cut by Hela's blades. This means that anything equal or higher than her blades can cut them. Well her blades were destroyed by human ammo. Therefore a sword that can be destroyed by human ammo can cut them. Since their random swords have no feats other than cutting asgardians then we can't assume that they are beyond ALL human ammo.

First of all, because I know you like making stuff up, please quote the post where it was claimed random Asgardian swords are beyond all human ammo.

Hela was more fun and Thanos at times was kind of inconsistently written.

Originally posted by FrothByte
First of all, because I know you like making stuff up, please quote the post where it was claimed



Originally posted by h1a8
I misquoted slightly.


Lol

Originally posted by h1a8
I misquoted slightly. He said regular ammo (which still isn't proven).

So what's the problem then? Even your average human tactical knife is more durable than regular ammo. Asgardian swords and knives are obviously stronger than ours.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So what's the problem then? Even your average human tactical knife is more durable than regular ammo. Asgardian swords and knives are obviously stronger than ours.

h1 is a troll who has never seen the movie, check out around 4:25 mark, Skurge is shooting the undead Asgardians, not the spikes holding the ship in place.

fbd2rKPtlJ0

The spikes broke because the spaceship had been at full burn for a decent amount of time.

Originally posted by Silent Master
h1 is a troll who has never seen the movie, check out around 4:25 mark, Skurge is shooting the undead Asgardians, not the spikes holding the ship in place.

fbd2rKPtlJ0

The spikes broke because the spaceship had been at full burn for a decent amount of time. You could be right. But it appears he also could had been shooting at the spike. Other posters have stated what I did. In other words, it's inconclusive. There is no trolling going on.

Originally posted by h1a8
You could be right. But it appears he also could had been shooting at the spike. Other posters have stated what I did. In other words, it's inconclusive. There is no trolling going on.

It's only inconclusive if you haven't actually watched the movie, at no time were the guns pointed anywhere near where the spikes were damaged. Stop making things up.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No, that is not what he meant at all. Nowhere does he claim they are bulletproof. Maybe they are, but that's not what he meant. You are putting your own spin on his words.

In any case, this line of debate is no longer necessary since Silent just proved that Skurge never shot at Hela's spikes anyway.

Everything in the universe is more durable than ammo.
He meant taking hits from ammo.

There are a billion other things he could have said if he was literal and wanted to compare actual durabilities (steel, titanium, diamond, etc). Who the phuck says something is more durable than ammo (ammo is some of the weakest shit in the world)?

But it is still unknown how much more durable Asgardian swords are than the strongest steel swords.
Are they 2x stronger, 3x stronger,...?
Rifle bullets can penetrate multiple steel swords stacked.

Skurge May have replaced the bullets in those guns with Asgardian ones, but no proof of that, so whatever.

Originally posted by h1a8
Everything in the universe is more durable than ammo.
He meant taking hits from ammo.

There are a billion other things he could have said if he was literal and wanted to compare actual durabilities (steel, titanium, diamond, etc). Who the phuck says something is more durable than ammo (ammo is some of the weakest shit in the world)?

But it is still unknown how much more durable Asgardian swords are than the strongest steel swords.
Are they 2x stronger, 3x stronger,...?
Rifle bullets can penetrate multiple steel swords stacked.

I don't even know where you're going with this. You admit that their swords are more durable than ammo. Great. You admit that their swords are more durable than our swords, just unknown by how much. Great.

What's the point of all this? As Silent already posted, Hela's spikes were never cracked by human ammo anyway, so this discussion is pointless.

P.S. - a bullet penetrating a stationary sword is not proof that the bullet is more durable than the sword, since a sword can easily cut a bullet.

Originally posted by h1a8
Everything in the universe is more durable than ammo.
He meant taking hits from ammo.

There are a billion other things he could have said if he was literal and wanted to compare actual durabilities (steel, titanium, diamond, etc). Who the phuck says something is more durable than ammo (ammo is some of the weakest shit in the world)?

But it is still unknown how much more durable Asgardian swords are than the strongest steel swords.
Are they 2x stronger, 3x stronger,...?
Rifle bullets can penetrate multiple steel swords stacked.



Not sure why you keep arguing back and forth over a simple point I made.

But watch AOS and its clear Asgardian durability is vastly greater than humans. Human Knifes cant effect even a simple Asgardian farmer, and we already know bullets do squat to Loki, who is clearly vastly below Thor and Hela in strength and durability.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Skurge May have replaced the bullets in those guns with Asgardian ones, but no proof of that, so whatever.

I have proof. Those bullets were taking out undead Asgardians. Based on everything we have seen of the Asgardians, we can conclude that their armor (and possible even their bodies) are bullet proof.

So the fact that those guns were harming undead Asgardians could only be explained in one of two ways:

1. Skurge replaced the bullets with Asgardian versions... which should be easy to do since Asgardian weaponry and tech are a lot more advanced than ours.

or

2. The undead Asgardians had become extremely brittle in their death.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Not sure why you keep arguing back and forth over a simple point I made.

But watch AOS and its clear Asgardian durability is vastly greater than humans. Human Knifes cant effect even a simple Asgardian farmer, and we already know bullets do squat to Loki, who is clearly vastly below Thor and Hela in strength and durability.

The farmer bent the knife from the side. Plus rifle bullets can EASILY penetrate tactical knifes.

And someone being bulletproof, while an asgardian sword able to penetrate them, doesn't mean the sword is also bulletproof (especially to rifle rounds).

Bulletproof vests are not necessary stab proof and stab vests are not bulletproof.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I don't even know where you're going with this. You admit that their swords are more durable than ammo. Great. You admit that their swords are more durable than our swords, just unknown by how much. Great.

What's the point of all this? As Silent already posted, Hela's spikes were never cracked by human ammo anyway, so this discussion is pointless.

P.S. - a bullet penetrating a stationary sword is not proof that the bullet is more durable than the sword, since a sword can easily cut a bullet.

My point is that he meant bulletproof to regular ammo, not more durable. We are arguing what he meant. Understand?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Skurge May have replaced the bullets in those guns with Asgardian ones, but no proof of that, so whatever.

He didnt because they there is no evidence of him doing it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I have proof. Those bullets were taking out undead Asgardians. Based on everything we have seen of the Asgardians, we can conclude that their armor (and possible even their bodies) are bullet proof.

So the fact that those guns were harming undead Asgardians could only be explained in one of two ways:

1. Skurge replaced the bullets with Asgardian versions... which should be easy to do since Asgardian weaponry and tech are a lot more advanced than ours.

or

2. The undead Asgardians had become extremely brittle in their death. Stuff doesn't exist in fiction if there isn't blatant evidence that it does. Movies don't always follow rules of real life. That's why we have contradictions and inconsistencies everywhere. You can't always equate one feat to any other one. With that said

All Asgardians are not necessarily bulletproof. Sid is certainly not. The writer made us believe that high caliber bullets can damage Thor.
Undead beings in fiction are notorious for their weak durability.

Originally posted by h1a8
Stuff doesn't exist in fiction if there isn't blatant evidence that it does. Movies don't always follow rules of real life. That's why we have contradictions and inconsistencies everywhere. You can't always equate one feat to any other one. With that said

All Asgardians are not necessarily bulletproof. Sid is certainly not. The writer made us believe that high caliber bullets can damage Thor.
Undead beings in fiction are notorious for their weak durability.

Who the hell is Sid? I don't recall any Asgardian ever being damaged by human bullets. Do you?

Originally posted by h1a8
The farmer bent the knife from the side. Plus rifle bullets can EASILY penetrate tactical knifes.

And someone being bulletproof, while an asgardian sword able to penetrate them, doesn't mean the sword is also bulletproof (especially to rifle rounds).

Bulletproof vests are not necessary stab proof and stab vests are not bulletproof.



My point is that he meant bulletproof to regular ammo, not more durable. We are arguing what he meant. Understand?



He didnt because they there is no evidence of him doing it.

Then why don't you simply ask him what he meant, because it certainly seems that you're completely misinterpreting it just to make it easier for you to defend.

P.S. - the asgardian farmer bent the knife along its edge AND along its flat. See below.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CharmingPotableHapuku-size_restricted.gif

Originally posted by FrothByte
I have proof. Those bullets were taking out undead Asgardians. Based on everything we have seen of the Asgardians, we can conclude that their armor (and possible even their bodies) are bullet proof.

So the fact that those guns were harming undead Asgardians could only be explained in one of two ways:

1. Skurge replaced the bullets with Asgardian versions... which should be easy to do since Asgardian weaponry and tech are a lot more advanced than ours.

or

2. The undead Asgardians had become extremely brittle in their death.


1) I mean yeah, literally all Skurge would have to do is cover those same bullets with an Asgardian metal.

2) Yeah otherwise there is a big inconsistency to explain. But could also just be PIS.


Either way, they didnt shoot actual Asgardians down.

Originally posted by h1a8
The writer made us believe that high caliber bullets can damage Thor.



No he didnt. You always love trolling over this thoroughly debunked point.

And who was that writer anyway? Joss Whedon? He doesnt even work for Marvel anymore, so what makes any supposed implications from him Canon? Nothing. Especially when that would be completely inconsistent with his later feats and showings.

My post is below

Originally posted by h1a8
Sif is certainly not bulletproof. All Asgardians are not the same. They are made up of different races as well.

You made this up.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You made this up.
The writer had her blocking bullets.
If she was bulletproof in the writer's mind then he would have showcased it rather than have her block bullets. And Loki is certainly from a different race.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Who the hell is Sid? I don't recall any Asgardian ever being damaged by human bullets. Do you? Sif is certainly not bulletproof. All Asgardians are not the same. They are made up of different races as well.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Then why don't you simply ask him what he meant, because it certainly seems that you're completely misinterpreting it just to make it easier for you to defend.

P.S. - the asgardian farmer bent the knife along its edge AND along its flat. See below.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CharmingPotableHapuku-size_restricted.gif

It was along the flat ONLY. What's wrong with you?
And that has nothing to do with him being bulletproof at all. (even if it was along the edge)

Your speculation about why the writer had her block bullets isn't proof that she's not bullet proof. IOW, I was right. you made it up. just like you made up that Skurge damaged Hela's spikes with bullets.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your speculation about why the writer had her block bullets isn't proof that she's not bullet proof. IOW, I was right. you made it up. just like you made up that Skurge damaged Hela's spikes with bullets. It's called evidence, and very strong evidence too. The writer isn't trying to trick or fool us. When someone blocks bullets in fiction it is to display that the character can be harmed by bullets. If you can show one instance of the contrary (although you can't) then it would still weigh heavily in my favor.

It's called speculation and Imp has already made a ruling that speculation isn't proof.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's called speculation and Imp has already made a ruling that speculation isn't proof. IMP stated that we are to provide on screen EVIDENCE. I provided strong evidence.

She has no on screen feats showing that she is bulletproof.

And here IMP asks for EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by Impediment


Is there evidence to show that ...

If you're a trained warrior and fully capable of blocking an attack I'm not sure why you wouldn't do so...regardless of whether or not it would harm you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your "evidence" is based on speculation and per Imp



Therefore per Imp's ruling, you have no evidence.

She blocked the bullet with her armor to protect herself. That's not speculation, but evidence of what the writer is trying to convey.

If anything, Sif being Bulletproof is speculation

Originally posted by h1a8
The writer had her blocking bullets.
If she was bulletproof in the writer's mind then he would have showcased it rather than have her block bullets. And Loki is certainly from a different race.

Sif is certainly not bulletproof. All Asgardians are not the same. They are made up of different races as well.



It was along the flat ONLY. What's wrong with you?
And that has nothing to do with him being bulletproof at all. (even if it was along the edge)

Human skin is waterproof, yet we still use umbrellas under the rain. Why?

Sif blocking bullets is not proof that she's not bulletproof. Therefore if you want to claim that Asgardians are not bulletproof, please provide proof. Besides, she tanked a shotgun blast to her hip without issues.

As for the knife, are you blind now as well as stupid? I posted the gif right there and you can clearly see the Asgardian push it forward then up.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you're a trained warrior and fully capable of blocking an attack I'm not sure why you wouldn't do so...regardless of whether or not it would harm you. Because she is not a warrior but an actress. It's all about what the writer is trying to convey. A bulletproof character would be portrayed as such when encountering bullets

Originally posted by FrothByte
Human skin is waterproof, yet we still use umbrellas under the rain. Why?

Sif blocking bullets is not proof that she's not bulletproof. Therefore if you want to claim that Asgardians are not bulletproof, please provide proof. Besides, she tanked a shotgun blast to her hip without issues.

As for the knife, are you blind now as well as stupid? I posted the gif right there and you can clearly see the Asgardian push it forward then up.

This is a story. It is fiction and storytelling. In fiction, a bulletproof character would be portrayed as such when encountering bullets. And it is called strong evidence.

There is no proof that she is bulletproof. So why should we accept that she is? She did not take a bullet to the hip. She blocked it.

He bent it along the flat in two opposite directions as shown. You are delusional

Originally posted by FrothByte
Human skin is waterproof, yet we still use umbrellas under the rain.


Yes and we run from water guns. Thats clearly us implying to the world that our skins can be penetrated by water gun shots.



Also:


Originally posted by Darth Thor

And who was that writer anyway? Joss Whedon? He doesnt even work for Marvel anymore, so what makes any supposed implications from him Canon? Nothing. Especially when that would be completely inconsistent with his later feats and showings.

Originally posted by h1a8
This is a story. It is fiction and storytelling. In fiction, a bulletproof character would be portrayed as such when encountering bullets. And it is called strong evidence.

There is no proof that she is bulletproof. So why should we accept that she is? She did not take a bullet to the hip. She blocked it.

He bent it along the flat in two opposite directions as shown. You are delusional

Sorry but you don't get to decide what works in fiction and what doesn't. You'd have to be full of yourself to even think you could simply dictate that.

Fact remains: Humans shield themselves from rain despite being waterproof. Just because Sif blocks bullets doesn't mean she's vulnerable to them.

And she didn't block the shot to her hip. She even looked surprised. But then again I wouldn't expect you to know that when you can't even tell which direction a knife is bent with the gif right in front of your eyes.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry but you don't get to decide what works in fiction and what doesn't. You'd have to be full of yourself to even think you could simply dictate that.

Fact remains: Humans shield themselves from rain despite being waterproof. Just because Sif blocks bullets doesn't mean she's vulnerable to them.

And she didn't block the shot to her hip. She even looked surprised. But then again I wouldn't expect you to know that when you can't even tell which direction a knife is bent with the gif right in front of your eyes.

Take my word for it? It's common sense.
If you don't believe that was what what writer was trying to show then either you are incredibly stupid or lying. Either case the argument is over.

Bottomline: My argument is moot since there is no proof that Sif is bulletproof.

Originally posted by h1a8
Take my word for it? It's common sense.
If you don't believe that was what what writer was trying to show then either you are incredibly stupid or lying. Either case the argument is over.

Bottomline: My argument is moot since there is no proof that Sif is bulletproof.

No it's not common sense. Seeing as you're the only one who thinks like this then it's definitely far from being common.

Loki is proven bulletproof. Thor can easily survive explosions that decimate an entire city. An Asgardian farmer can't get cut with a tactical knife. And Sif took a shotgun blast to her hip with no issues.

So if you want to claim that human ammo can hurt Sif, that's up to you to prove.

Anyway, there aren't even any guns in this thread. Not sure why you keep arguing about bullets.

Originally posted by h1a8
Because she is not a warrior but an actress. It's all about what the writer is trying to convey. A bulletproof character would be portrayed as such when encountering bullets

Lol they're all actors and actresses. Epic fail.

He's not smart enough to realize that without a direct quote from the writer, saying "this is the writer's intent" is him speculating.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol they're all actors and actresses. Epic fail.

Wait, what? But it looks so real

Originally posted by h1a8
Because she is not a warrior but an actress. It's all about what the writer is trying to convey. A bulletproof character would be portrayed as such when encountering bullets

LOL. Lady Sif is not an actress, she is a warrior. Jaimie Alexander is an actress, but then she's not the one we're discussing here are we? Because I'm pretty sure nobody ever claimed that Jaimie Alexander is bullet proof.

Originally posted by FrothByte
LOL. Lady Sif is not an actress, she is a warrior. Jaimie Alexander is an actress, but then she's not the one we're discussing here are we? Because I'm pretty sure nobody ever claimed that Jaimie Alexander is bullet proof.

Well, weve never seen her shot so who knows?

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's not smart enough to realize that without a direct quote from the writer, saying "this is the writer's intent" is him speculating.

Writers knows Sif is bulletproof. Writer makes Sif block bullets to trick audience. Fail!

Originally posted by Silent Master
Of course it's speculation, if not feel free to post a clip where it's actually stated that was her reason. It's speculation that she is bullet proof.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No it's not common sense. Seeing as you're the only one who thinks like this then it's definitely far from being common.

Loki is proven bulletproof. Thor can easily survive explosions that decimate an entire city. An Asgardian farmer can't get cut with a tactical knife. And Sif took a shotgun blast to her hip with no issues.

So if you want to claim that human ammo can hurt Sif, that's up to you to prove.

Anyway, there aren't even any guns in this thread. Not sure why you keep arguing about bullets.

Sif didn't take a shot to her hip. Do you know what that means? You have to prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
Writers knows Sif is bulletproof. Writer makes Sif block bullets to trick audience. Fail!

It's speculation that she is bullet proof.



Sif didn't take a shot to her hip. Do you know what that means? You have to prove it.

First you try to dictate what should and shouldn't be acceptable in fiction. Now you try to dictate what the writers were thinking. You've got quite a high opinion of yourself don't you?

You still haven't replied to my question though: why are you even discussing bullets when there are no guns involved in this fight?

Arguing that Asgardians are not bullet proof is the stuff of retards and should be dismissed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Arguing that Asgardians are not bullet proof is the stuff of retards and should be dismissed.

Did you know they are actually just actors?