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

Base Thanos (Avengers Endgame) VS Post Nuke Doomsday

Considering Thanos was getting raped by Wanda and Captain Marvel was no-selling his unamped attacks I think it's safe to say Doomsday slaughters.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Considering Thanos was getting raped by Wanda and Captain Marvel was no-selling his unamped attacks I think it's safe to say Doomsday slaughters.

You are wrong. DD stands no chance.

Thanos is stronger, faster, smarter, and more durable than DD.

What are you, Quan but even more retarded?

End game thor is significantly weaker than infinity war thor. I say doomsday

Ignore me, I'm a dummy who read that as thor vs doomsday. Thanos wins

Insane Titan, Endgame Thor was fat and drunk. He was so out of his prime it's not even funny. And what's Cap's shield's best durability feat? Taking a hit from Mjolnir. Nice but nothing special. Certainly nothing on the level of taking a nuke.

Hulk has jobbed to Hulkbuster, so while it's a nice feat, it's nothing to someone who eats nukes for breakfast.

Thanos' power was all over the place He goes from taking on Captain America and Thor at the same time w/o stones but gets nearly beaten by Wanda and Captain Marvel was able to overpower him while having the stones equipped...even no selling his unamped punch

Originally posted by danielgamer
Base Thanos (Avengers Endgame) VS Post Nuke Doomsday

Does Base Thanos get his dual razor stick or whatever we should call that blade?

Yeah, that was a retarded thing to ask.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Lol!!!

Have you watched Endgame buddy?

DD has no chance against a stronger opponent.

Also, Thanos' sword would shred DD. Remember what Diana did to DD's arm?

@Psychotron

Endgame sword*

I think its some kind of glaive maybe?

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
I think its some kind of glaive maybe?

Corvus used a glaive.

Thanos basically had a metal equivalent of Darth Maul's lightstaff (Quan is gonna love it), not sure what is a proper name for such weapon. We'd need to ask anime fans.

Double-bladed sword.

Titan, I can't quote you for some reason, but anyway, Thor wasn't suddenly in shape because he put on his armor and braided his beard. He was a still a fat f*ck. You could see his beer gut in the fight. There's a reason the others didn't let him use the gauntlet. Banner straight up said only he could survive it and Thor did not object.

Also, Thor did NOT tank a star. He nearly died after being exposed to the heat of a near-dead neutron star. He would have been dead if it wasn't for Stormbreaker. Huge difference. And I don't know why you're bringing that up. His resistence to heat doesn't really matter in a melee fight.

Now, I agree that if Thanos has his sword he'd win but in a pure fist fight he would lose. OP needs to clarify that.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
@Psychotron

Does he have his Darth Maul sword here though?

Originally posted by Psychotron
Titan, I can't quote you for some reason, but anyway, Thor wasn't suddenly in shape because he put on his armor and braided his beard. He was a still a fat f*ck. You could see his beer gut in the fight. There's a reason the others didn't let him use the gauntlet. Banner straight up said only he could survive it and Thor did not object.

Also, Thor did NOT tank a star. He nearly died after being exposed to the heat of a near-dead neutron star. He would have been dead if it wasn't for Stormbreaker. Huge difference. And I don't know why you're bringing that up. His resistence to heat doesn't really matter in a melee fight.

Now, I agree that if Thanos has his sword he'd win but in a pure fist fight he would lose. OP needs to clarify that.



Does he have his Darth Maul sword here though?

OP said base Thanos. And his sword seems to be standard gear for Thanos.

And again, Thanos is stronger, more skilled and smarter.

DD has never faced a foe like this.

Originally posted by ares834
Double-bladed sword.

Yeah, guess that'll do

Kinda disappointed it was strong enough to chop the shit out of Cap's shield like that...

Originally posted by Psychotron
Does he have his Darth Maul sword here though?

It should be considered standard equipment for the Endgame version, but I also feel OP should clarify that.

Thor was weaker. Cap or IM mention this when Thor says he wants to use the IG. He was still fat and out of shape at the end of the film, not to mention he would have been out of practice.

Me? A Thorbag? Ha, that's a good one.



Who is going to be a better warrior, a lazy fat ass or someone in shape? Of course he isn't at his best in his film.

Don't really mean anyone in this thread, just talking in general. So no hard feelings.

But did it affect his weather control/lightning powers?

Don't think so.

One could also argue the extra (asgardian) fat made him durable, many believe ancient gladiators were fat, so they could tank more blows. But I digress.

We need to discern what we understand by "power". His reflexes, speed, stamina were probably affected. But his mastery over lightning? Why would it be?

@Psychotron

IT can't be quoted the normal way, because he keeps using wrong apostrophes.

You can still quickquote his posts, though.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Don't really mean anyone in this thread, just talking in general. So no hard feelings.

But did it affect his weather control/lightning powers?

Don't think so.

One could also argue the extra (asgardian) fat made him durable, many believe ancient gladiators were fat, so they could tank more blows. But I digress.

We need to discern what we understand by "power". His reflexes, speed, stamina were probably affected. But his mastery over lightning? Why would it be?

By "power" I'm referring to his overall combat capabilities. His magic likely won't be any weaker.

Edit: Although, I suppose his mental issues may have made him even weaker there.

His lightning was on point, but his strength and speed were considerably worse than even thor at the beginning of end game

Thor being weaker doesn't mean being a weakling. He is still strong as shit. Besides, Thor used Mjolnir to try subdue Thanos, and yet Thanos managed to hold back for a while.

And as others have pointed out, his power shouldn't be affected.

DD is outpowered here.

Suiting up doesn't mean anything. He had a beer gut. I played the scene several times and he was still fat. Mjolnir and Stormbreaker don't make him more powerful, they're just focuses for his lightning at this point. Odin made it clear.

"The full force of a star" and "nearly dead star" aren't mutually exclusive as that was the full force the neutron star could produce at that point. And it still would have killed him if not for Stormbreaker. Don't ignore that.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Suiting up doesn't mean anything. He had a beer gut. I played the scene several times and he was still fat. Mjolnir and Stormbreaker don't make him more powerful, they're just focuses for his lightning at this point. Odin made it clear.

"The full force of a star" and "nearly dead star" aren't mutually exclusive as that was the full force the neutron star could produce at that point. And it still would have killed him if not for Stormbreaker. Don't ignore that.

star》nuke

Originally posted by Psychotron
Also, Thor did NOT tank a star. He nearly died after being exposed to the heat of a near-dead neutron star. He would have been dead if it wasn't for Stormbreaker. Huge difference. And I don't know why you're bringing that up. His resistence to heat doesn't really matter in a melee fight.

Now, I agree that if Thanos has his sword he'd win but in a pure fist fight he would lose. OP needs to clarify that.

Does he have his Darth Maul sword here though?

A Neutron star is one of the most extreme celestial objects in the universe (below a black hole). I mean you can maybe call it an outlier but trying to lowball the "feat" is just a little shameful don't you think?

just got back from seeing Endgame.. Thanos stomps so hard it isn't even funny

Base Thanos not that impressive.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A Neutron star is one of the most extreme celestial objects in the universe (below a black hole). I mean you can maybe call it an outlier but trying to lowball the "feat" is just a little shameful don't you think?

And if Thor tanked it's massive gravity it would be pretty impressive but he didn't. He took its heat (which is less than a nuke's as I've proved in multiple threads) and was getting killed. That's it. Don't overblow it.

Titan, no. He showed in Ragnarok that he can charge himself with lightning without Mjolnir or Stormbreaker. That was part of his character development.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A Neutron star is one of the most extreme celestial objects in the universe (below a black hole). I mean you can maybe call it an outlier but trying to lowball the "feat" is just a little shameful don't you think? Everything he said was true. Name one thing he said that was false.


With that said DD is obviously stronger than Thanos (not by a whole lot though) and more durable. If Thanos has his blade then he has a good chance (he must cut the head off though) but DD can heal and grow new limbs. If Thanos doesnt have his blade then he loses badly.

Originally posted by Psychotron
And if Thor tanked it's massive gravity it would be pretty impressive but he didn't. He took its heat (which is less than a nuke's as I've proved in multiple threads) and was getting killed. That's it. Don't overblow it.

Titan, no. He showed in Ragnarok that he can charge himself with lightning without Mjolnir or Stormbreaker. That was part of his character development.

A few things, but before I begin, I'm not sure we've debated before so I feel its best that we try to get things off on the right foot .

Don't know what the 2 posters below you are saying, but I already have them in ignore. h1 for obvious reasons but I don't know who SSJ is and it's surprising he's even in my ignore list since I don't even know who he is. Probably trolled or something back then so it's all irrelevant really.

Anyway, my comment was in relation to the phrasing in your statement when you added "near-dead neutron star" w/c strongly implies that being near-dead neutron star somehow diminishes the "feat" in relation to a normal star where it does not (thus the "lowballing" comment). As the forces of a neutron star is some of the most extreme out there. If you meant different, then I feel that you should maybe fix your phrasing next time? As the implicative language is a bit too strong to ignore if you ask me.

Also, to add, neutron stars don't just have gravity and heat. But this isn't important at this time.

Before I continue, I'd like to say that in situations like this, we can either debate as reasonable debaters or we can allow the discussion to devolve to time waster trolling as one side tries to out-science each other.

Let us agree on one thing: None of us participating in the debate so far are physicists (there are a few posters around here like Astner who has not posted in this thread yet, and I wish he would, would make debates soo much easier for all of us if someone credible can be asked to do the science-ing). The science here is beyond us. We have to be honest about this. Til someone with actual credentials comes in and posts the actual best-explanation science involved in the "feat", this is the best we have so far:

https://youtu.be/bOLOBJSJL0I

Now, I'll be honest, there is NO WAY (other than the filmmakers themselves quantifying said "feat" that anyone can provide the absolutely correct science on the "feat". But we go by "most correct" when we debate, and as the science is beyond us, at this point all we can do is refer to experts that do take the time to do the science behind a "feat".

One thing I do wish to point out, tho, is that, from my interpretation on what the expert above is saying, this "feat" is not about surviving temperature, it is about resisting heat energy (there is a very important difference between the two). What do you think (you seem like you want to be reasonable, I'd like to get our opinion on this)?

Anyway, we can probably go at it and try to out-science each other (when neither side can really provide the correct science) but this has already been done and in the end, it's an absolute waste of time reserved only for trolls.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A few things, but before I begin, I'm not sure we've debated before so I feel its best that we try to get things off on the right foot .

Don't know what the 2 posters below you are saying, but I already have them in ignore. h1 for obvious reasons but I don't know who SSJ is and it's surprising he's even in my ignore list since I don't even know who he is. Probably trolled or something back then so it's all irrelevant really.

Anyway, my comment was in relation to the phrasing in your statement when you added "near-dead neutron star" w/c strongly implies that being near-dead neutron star somehow diminishes the "feat" in relation to a normal star where it does not (thus the "lowballing" comment). As the forces of a neutron star is some of the most extreme out there. If you meant different, then I feel that you should maybe fix your phrasing next time? As the implicative language is a bit too strong to ignore if you ask me.

Also, to add, neutron stars don't just have gravity and heat. But this isn't important at this time.

Before I continue, I'd like to say that in situations like this, we can either debate as reasonable debaters or we can allow the discussion to devolve to time waster trolling as one side tries to out-science each other.

Let us agree on one thing: None of us participating in the debate so far are physicists (there are a few posters around here like Astner who has not posted in this thread yet, and I wish he would, would make debates soo much easier for all of us if someone credible can be asked to do the science-ing). The science here is beyond us. We have to be honest about this. Til someone with actual credentials comes in and posts the actual best-explanation science involved in the "feat", this is the best we have so far:

https://youtu.be/bOLOBJSJL0I

Now, I'll be honest, there is NO WAY (other than the filmmakers themselves quantifying said "feat" that anyone can provide the absolutely correct science on the "feat". But we go by "most correct" when we debate, and as the science is beyond us, at this point all we can do is refer to experts that do take the time to do the science behind a "feat".

One thing I do wish to point out, tho, is that, from my interpretation on what the expert above is saying, this "feat" is not about surviving temperature, it is about resisting heat energy (there is a very important difference between the two). What do you think (you seem like you want to be reasonable, I'd like to get our opinion on this)?

Anyway, we can probably go at it and try to out-science each other (when neither side can really provide the correct science) but this has already been done and in the end, it's an absolute waste of time reserved only for trolls.


And you just made 95% of the forum and internet look like an *******. Good job man.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A few things, but before I begin, I'm not sure we've debated before so I feel its best that we try to get things off on the right foot .

Don't know what the 2 posters below you are saying, but I already have them in ignore. h1 for obvious reasons but I don't know who SSJ is and it's surprising he's even in my ignore list since I don't even know who he is. Probably trolled or something back then so it's all irrelevant really.

Anyway, my comment was in relation to the phrasing in your statement when you added "near-dead neutron star" w/c strongly implies that being near-dead neutron star somehow diminishes the "feat" in relation to a normal star where it does not (thus the "lowballing" comment). As the forces of a neutron star is some of the most extreme out there. If you meant different, then I feel that you should maybe fix your phrasing next time? As the implicative language is a bit too strong to ignore if you ask me.

Also, to add, neutron stars don't just have gravity and heat. But this isn't important at this time.

Before I continue, I'd like to say that in situations like this, we can either debate as reasonable debaters or we can allow the discussion to devolve to time waster trolling as one side tries to out-science each other.

Let us agree on one thing: None of us participating in the debate so far are physicists (there are a few posters around here like Astner who has not posted in this thread yet, and I wish he would, would make debates soo much easier for all of us if someone credible can be asked to do the science-ing). The science here is beyond us. We have to be honest about this. Til someone with actual credentials comes in and posts the actual best-explanation science involved in the "feat", this is the best we have so far:

https://youtu.be/bOLOBJSJL0I

Now, I'll be honest, there is NO WAY (other than the filmmakers themselves quantifying said "feat" that anyone can provide the absolutely correct science on the "feat". But we go by "most correct" when we debate, and as the science is beyond us, at this point all we can do is refer to experts that do take the time to do the science behind a "feat".

One thing I do wish to point out, tho, is that, from my interpretation on what the expert above is saying, this "feat" is not about surviving temperature, it is about resisting heat energy (there is a very important difference between the two). What do you think (you seem like you want to be reasonable, I'd like to get our opinion on this)?

Anyway, we can probably go at it and try to out-science each other (when neither side can really provide the correct science) but this has already been done and in the end, it's an absolute waste of time reserved only for trolls.

Sure, let's keep things civil.

Now, let me clarify what I meant by "near-dead". The dwarf Eitri said that the Forge, which is essentially a Dyson sphere, had gone cold. Thor and Rocket had to re-ignite it to forge Stormbreaker. There's no way to know how much energy that neutron star was producing after it was re-ignited but it's a safe bet that it would be less than a younger neutron star. Every piece of information I have found says that the average neutron star is cooler than a nuclear explosion. Not only that but the nuke has both heat energy and kinetic energy (enough to level a city), so by my estimates that makes tanking a nuke far more impressive.

Last but not least, everyone acts like Thor just walked it off when in reality he was nearly killed and needed Stormbreaker to survive.

Had to delete and edit this post. Daughter kept bugging me so my train of thought was extremely fragmented. Lol. Let me try again below.

You need a good drink.

No need to take this site so seriously, Nib.

You don't *always* need to bring your a-game...

Originally posted by Psychotron
Sure, let's keep things civil.

Now, let me clarify what I meant by "near-dead". The dwarf Eitri said that the Forge, which is essentially a Dyson sphere, had gone cold. Thor and Rocket had to re-ignite it to forge Stormbreaker. There's no way to know how much energy that neutron star was producing after it was re-ignited but it's a safe bet that it would be less than a younger neutron star. Every piece of information I have found says that the average neutron star is cooler than a nuclear explosion. Not only that but the nuke has both heat energy and kinetic energy (enough to level a city), so by my estimates that makes tanking a nuke far more impressive.

Last but not least, everyone acts like Thor just walked it off when in reality he was nearly killed and needed Stormbreaker to survive.

You're still trying to outscience here man. This is beyond you and me. Only real physicists would be able to really figure out the forces involved here. Best we can FIRST is scrutinize the story to get hints on what the writer is telling us here.

First, I feel you need to watch the video I posted as the guy in the vid actually is credentialed and uses (if I remember the credits of the show correctly) has an actual physicist working as a consultant as well.

What I do know that is a common mistake a lot of ppl make in trying to "science" this "feat" is not first reading up on heat energy vs temperature vs heat transfer and how it works. Temperature gets tossed a lot and I feel that's going about it the wrong way. This is about heat transfer after all. But I will admit to not being an expert either way. Maybe we can discuss the science between us first and try to come to a consensus about how it SHOULD work rather than making conclusions before we know how it works?

After all, we want to avoid confirmation bias here.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
You need a good drink.

No need to take this site so seriously, Nib.

You don't *always* need to bring your a-game...

Haha. Thanks, man, I do need one. Daddy duties during summer is rough. Still have to go to work but daughter now wants attention all the time since school is out O_O and now we have to go to the beach and the pool and the mall and all the baby places all the time.

I tend to put together a "logic layout" in my head and post parts of it piece by piece separately and then I fill out the sentences to make them readable. But if my train of thought gets ruined mid-way none of what I say makes sense as the sentences/logic get jumbled. O_O

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Only real physicists would be able to really figure out the forces involved here.

Stop right here.

I know what we need to do!

Let's contact the biggest expert on our forums.

h1a8

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Stop right here.

I know what we need to do!

Let's contact the biggest expert on our forums.

h1a8

Haha. If he is the biggest expert. Then we are all, indeed, doomed. O_O

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You're still trying to outscience here man. This is beyond you and me. Only real physicists would be able to really figure out the forces involved here. Best we can FIRST is scrutinize the story to get hints on what the writer is telling us here.

First, I feel you need to watch the video I posted as the guy in the vid actually is credentialed and uses (if I remember the credits of the show correctly) has an actual physicist working as a consultant as well.

What I do know that is a common mistake a lot of ppl make in trying to "science" this "feat" is not first reading up on heat energy vs temperature vs heat transfer and how it works. Temperature gets tossed a lot and I feel that's going about it the wrong way. This is about heat transfer after all. But I will admit to not being an expert either way. Maybe we can discuss the science between us first and try to come to a consensus about how it SHOULD work rather than making conclusions before we know how it works?

After all, we want to avoid confirmation bias here.

What is there to discuss further? Thor took a stream of energy from the neutron star. There's no way to measure that in real life so we don't know how powerful it would be but we do know how powerful nukes are.

And there's no way I'm watching a video from that queer again. Just looking at him makes me want to physically assault him.

Originally posted by Psychotron
What is there to discuss further? Thor took a stream of energy from the neutron star. There's no way to measure that in real life so we don't know how powerful it would be but we do know how powerful nukes are.

And there's no way I'm watching a video from that queer again. Just looking at him makes me want to physically assault him.

Well, first we need to try and figure out what the writers are telling us explicitly. Because this is a simple medium with that tends to tell us to believe in simple information to move the story forward.

No need for aggression at him, man, it's just a hairstyle. Guy has credentials and has no reason to lie and has every reason to try and be accurate to not look foolish in a world full of armchair experts.

It's a matter of whether or not you believe him and why you feel your knowledge would be better than his.

It also about whether you believe that your opinions on the matter are based on the facts you know or more if you can honestly say your conclusion is based on the facts and not who you want to win. Then we can move forward, I feel. If your conclusion is honestly based on facts, then share this information (the facts, not the conclusion) with me so we can discuss it.

A lot of debates here degenerate because both sides already picked a winner w/o first scrutinizing (together) what the facts are. Ppl get forced to defend their position regardless of right/wrong because no one wants to admit they are wrong.

I feel that a conclusion-less discussion that focuses on reviewing the evidence FIRST and sharing what each sides know and can confirm would be far more productive. Don't you agree?

Originally posted by h1a8
Everything he said was true. Name one thing he said that was false.


With that said DD is obviously stronger than Thanos (not by a whole lot though) and more durable. If Thanos has his blade then he has a good chance (he must cut the head off though) but DD can heal and grow new limbs. If Thanos doesnt have his blade then he loses badly.

SB》》》》》》》》》Diana's sword.

Also, IG》》》》》》》Nuke.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, first we need to try and figure out what the writers are telling us explicitly. Because this is a simple medium with that tends to tell us to believe in simple information to move the story forward.

No need for aggression at him, man, it's just a hairstyle. Guy has credentials and has no reason to lie and has every reason to try and be accurate to not look foolish in a world full of armchair experts.

It's a matter of whether or not you believe him and why you feel your knowledge would be better than his.

It also about whether you believe that your opinions on the matter are based on the facts you know or more if you can honestly say your conclusion is based on the facts and not who you want to win. Then we can move forward, I feel. If your conclusion is honestly based on facts, then share this information (the facts, not the conclusion) with me so we can discuss it.

A lot of debates here degenerate because both sides already picked a winner w/o first scrutinizing (together) what the facts are. Ppl get forced to defend their position regardless of right/wrong because no one wants to admit they are wrong.

I feel that a conclusion-less discussion that focuses on reviewing the evidence FIRST and sharing what each sides know and can confirm would be far more productive. Don't you agree?

The writers... This doesn't work unless both characters are written by the same people. But they're not. IW writers could say a neutron star beam > a nuke and BvS writers could say the opposite. I'm going by real world information.

According to the video, Thor may be letting in 2x10^20 joules. On the other hand, one megaton is equivalent to 4.18 x 10^15 joules, so the question is how big was the nuke Superman and DD took. From what I can find online the American nuclear missiles range from 6 kilotons to 20 megatons. I have no idea how big the bomb was as the movie didn't specify.

However, whatever is more powerful, it should be noted that DD was not hurt by the nuke, while Thor was almost killed by the star.

And no, I don't have a bias. I don't really care for comic book characters. I grew up with other characters.

Originally posted by Psychotron
The writers... This doesn't work unless both characters are written by the same people. But they're not. IW writers could say a neutron star beam > a nuke and BvS writers could say the opposite. I'm going by real world information.

According to the video, Thor may be letting in 2x10^20 joules. On the other hand, one megaton is equivalent to 4.18 x 10^15 joules, so the question is how big was the nuke Superman and DD took. From what I can find online the American nuclear missiles range from 6 kilotons to 20 megatons. I have no idea how big the bomb was as the movie didn't specify.

However, whatever is more powerful, it should be noted that DD was not hurt by the nuke, while Thor was almost killed by the star.

And no, I don't have a bias. I don't really care for comic book characters. I grew up with other characters.

Let's not get too ahead. I'm not talking about the comparison between nuke and neutron star yet at this point. That's wayyy too far ahead. I was thinking about discussing individual interpretations of what we believe happened during the scenes in question and how we came upon our conclusion and w/c evidence we used to come to that.

Bear with me. It's a new approach I feel might alleviate some of the flaming and trolling in the MvS. If threads started with discussion and not debate, I feel like we might come to some pretty interesting agreements even between parties that normally don't agree. I'm not sure it's gonna work but I'm interested to find out.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Let's not get too ahead. I'm not talking about the comparison between nuke and neutron star yet at this point. That's wayyy too far ahead. I was thinking about discussing individual interpretations of what we believe happened during the scenes in question and how we came upon our conclusion and w/c evidence we used to come to that.

Bear with me. It's a new approach I feel might alleviate some of the flaming and trolling in the MvS. If threads started with discussion and not debate, I feel like we might come to some pretty interesting agreements even between parties that normally don't agree. I'm not sure it's gonna work but I'm interested to find out.

What is there to discuss, exactly? Thor was exposed to a portion of the energy that flowed into the Forge, Doomsday (and Superman) were hit by a nuclear missile. The intention of the former is to show that Thor is very tough but still has limits, while the latter is meant to portray DD as nigh-unkillable without kryptonite.

Originally posted by Psychotron
What is there to discuss, exactly? Thor was exposed to a portion of the energy that flowed into the Forge, Doomsday (and Superman) were hit by a nuclear missile. The intention of the former is to show that Thor is very tough but still has limits, while the latter is meant to portray DD as nigh-unkillable without kryptonite.

I didn't mean intent on what the overall goal of the scene was. But intent on "what did is the exact scene being told by the writer" in its most basic for,. Also, is the lowball language really necessary? Debates would be so much smoother if both sides try and approach the other with the intent of sharing/understanding each other's interpretation without trying to diminish the other's position.

I can, for example, try and downplay the nuke "feat" by insinuating that the explosion happened in space and that blast force is greatly diminished in space. https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm in fact, in a vacuum, without air to carry the blast force, the blast wave AND thermal radiation (heat) disappears completely. At the same breath, I would also opt to "forget" to mention that the radiation exposure in space is far greater than sea level just so I can hammer in my position more. Or maybe lowball the importance of radiation in the "feat" by saying Neutron star radiation >>>> nuke blast radiation or whatever. This is how the usual aggressive ***-for-tat "you lowball me, I lowball you" trolling/countertrolling conflict occur around here and I would like to break the cycle.

But that is lowball language I'd rather avoid because I want to be fair to your side and I acknowledge that the audience won't likely know the above information so it's not really something I want to use (unless the debate devolves into one where we try to out-science each other wherein I feel the science is on my side in this area).

But that's not really something I wanna do right now. Like I said, this is a new experimental approach I want to take from now on. Let's discuss this and try to be fair to either side?

I mean, let me start, I think we can all agree that the simplified interpretation of the Doomsday "feat" is "Doomsday got hit by nuke"?

And the simplified Thor "feat" is "Thor got hit by the full force of a neutron star"?

Is that not the most basic message the writers are trying to tell us?

"full force of a star" is just figurative language to mean "unfiltered exposure to a star".

It is unreasonable to assume a literal meaning from the character over a figurative meaning when the literal meaning makes no sense and the figurative meaning actually makes sense.

Your opinion isn't canon.

With his EndGame Sword (which is clearly his STANDARD weapon for going into battle) , Thanos chops him up.

Having now seen Endgame, Doomsday stomps. Hard.

Doomsday was only killed because of Kryptonite.

DD wins.

Doomsday stomps.

Originally posted by Impediment
Doomsday was only killed because of Kryptonite.

DD wins.


plot device lol.... Thanos slices and dices

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
plot device lol.... Thanos slices and dices



He cut through Rogers' shield. Cutting through Shitsday won't require much effort.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW


He cut through Rogers' shield. Cutting through Shitsday won't require much effort.


i agree.. Thanos could end the fight in a few seconds lol

Everyone knows a giant focused beam of sun matter carries no weight or destructive property and is just pure heat. The heat was so hot it was moving Thor and fired him like a bullet. It was like touching a giant superheated stovetop. If you're not careful, they shoot frying pans into space

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW


He cut through Rogers' shield. Cutting through Shitsday won't require much effort.

So why do you say that he could cut through DD?

Can cap's shield tank a nuke? No.

So just because Thanos broke the shield - why does that mean that he could cut through DD, who tanked a literal nuke, and then got even MORE durable immediately afterwards?

As far as I'm concerned, it would be like Thanos trying to cut through Captain Marvel- and we saw how that played out.

Originally posted by SSJGGogeta


As far as I'm concerned, it would be like Thanos trying to cut through Captain Marvel- and we saw how that played out.


Did Thanos use his sword on Cap Marvel?


And yes I have seen the film h1a8.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Did Thanos use his sword on Cap Marvel?


And yes I have seen the film h1a8.

He directly slashed her multiple times, and she outright blocked it with her bare hands. That was right before she no-sold all of his bare hits, and utterly ate a headbutt.

If she can do that, DD would sit there and barely even notice Thanos attacking him.

Black Panther does this to Doomsday:



https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/square_medium/11133/111339751/6292868-1590600060-54861.gif

What is the damage?

Again, Thanos couldn't even scratch DD with his sword.

No one attacked Thanos with a nuclear level attack, he got hurt by much less.

DD wins

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
No one attacked Thanos with a nuclear level attack, he got hurt by much less.

DD wins ABC fail logic.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
ABC fail logic.

1) Post the clip of him moving it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
1) Post the clip of him moving it.

Post the clip of Thanos decimating Xandar

Originally posted by SSJGGogeta
Post the clip of Thanos decimating Xandar

I didn't make a claim about Thanos decimating Xandar, so now that your attempt at deflection has failed.

1) Post the clip of Superman moving it.

Again, I didn't make a claim regarding Thanos and Xandar. thus I have no burden.

You did make a claim, so post the clip.

Statemets only count if they back up feats, so post the feat.

No, they don't. mods have already ruled on this.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Black Panther does this to Doomsday:



https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/square_medium/11133/111339751/6292868-1590600060-54861.gif

What is the damage?

^People avoid this post like the plague.

Thanos aint cutting sh*t. Doomsday pounds him into oblivion.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
^People avoid this post like the plague.

Thanos aint cutting sh*t. Doomsday pounds him into oblivion.

Whats your point?

Doomsday FTW

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Whats your point?

That Kal-El/Doomsday are much tougher than MCU vibranium. Since that is Thanos' sword best cutting feat it lacks the feats to cut DD. Since DD outclasses Thanos in everything else besides skill and intelligence, this is a stomp in DD's favor.

Lol!!!!

^ Can not quote you.

And cutting DD is above anything that Thanos' sword has done. Cap's shield has never shrugged off a reentry impact, Kal-El's punches, or a friggin nuke. WWII era humans and Ultron were able to forge it, Black Panther can scratch it. Vibranium is not as tough as a kryptonian's skin.

Black Panther scratches Doomsday the same way he scratched Cap's shield. What is the damage?

No forces in space lol

I cant believe you are all just accepting such a blatantly retarded statement.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
No forces in space lol

I cant believe you are all just accepting such a blatantly retarded statement. Go cry somewhere you little b*tch

Thanos would beat the stuffing out of Doomsday. This film confirms it.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A Neutron star is one of the most extreme celestial objects in the universe (below a black hole). I mean you can maybe call it an outlier but trying to lowball the "feat" is just a little shameful don't you think?


Psycho is not smart and has zero credibility.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Having now seen Endgame, Doomsday stomps. Hard.

Thanos would easily beat Doomsday. WW could cut his limbs off. Doomsday is not skilled Thanos is and his sword is bigger and badder than WW who is also physically weaker than Thanos by country miles.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, they don't. mods have already ruled on this.

Yeah, Imp just ruled in my favor- via PM.

Superman pushed a tectonic plate. Your argument is invalid.

Interesting what happens when you click "to view post click " on a whim sometimes.

Anyway, here is Imp's ruling regarding the newspaper clipping Superman easter egg. Posted on an actual thread (not a PM) with the specific newspaper clipping in question being discussed:

Originally posted by Impediment
An Easter egg newspaper article/reference isn't a valid screen feat. C'mon, guys. You should know by now that only valid onscreen feats are canon here as to avoid cluster f*cks like this one happening in here.

If it's not on the screen it doesn't mean shit.

Here is the link to the discussion:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=634412&pagenumber=14

So if he did contradict himself via his PM to you as you claim, we will need to see what you PM'd him and what he said and then maybe ask him to come here to clarify. Don't you think?

Originally posted by SSJGGogeta
Yeah, Imp just ruled in my favor- via PM.

Superman pushed a tectonic plate. Your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by Impediment
An Easter egg newspaper article/reference isn't a valid screen feat. C'mon, guys. You should know by now that only valid onscreen feats are canon here as to avoid cluster f*cks like this one happening in here.

If it's not on the screen it doesn't mean shit.

Could not quote normally.

I am talking about the heat. WWII era humans could forge vibranium, same with Ultron.

Kal-El's heat vision is hotter than any forge on earth, let alone the hypocenter of a thermonuclear warhead. Cap's shield would have been melted into slag by the fireball. DD was fine.

"Caps shield takes missiles" Missiles? Kal-El headbutts them.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ImpressionableBronzeHen-small.gif


"50 cal bullets" 50 cal? Kal-El no-sells them.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-05-2019/YeXetm.gif

"Tesseract energy weapons and slams from mjolnir" Which both pale in comparison to a nuke. Those tesseract weapons are like firecrackers in comparison.

I can not believe you even brought that crap up.

Scratching it is not the same as cutting through, but it shows that the shield has limits to its durability, and that limit is far below Doomsday's limit. Unless you think BP's claws can tear open Kal-El's skin?

^ Nice gifs and overall a good argument but what are you basing this on:

Originally posted by TheGrat1

Kal-El's heat vision is hotter than any forge on earth, let alone the hypocenter of a thermonuclear warhead.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Nice gifs and overall a good argument but what are you basing this on:

The speed in which he melted an I-beam of steel.
A quick swipe sliced it in half.
That means the temperature of the HV was at least several times hotter than the melting point of the steel.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
Go cry somewhere you little b*tch

you're still such a sad case IT, it's even more pathetic knowing how old you are