MvS BZ: Josh_Alexander vs Nibedicus. The Hela Mjolnir crush.
This is a BZ to determine the validity of the Hela Mjolnir crush as a strength "feat". Between:
Josh_Alexander and Nibedicus.
Here is the original thread debate:
The question we will seek to answer is:
"Based on evidence, the Hela Mjolnir crush is a valid strength "feat"." (y/n)
I, Nibedicus, have taken the side of "yes".
Josh_Alexander has taken the side of "no".
I feel it is unusual for a MvS thread to be BZ'd around here and furthermore, it is even more unusual for a single "feat" to be BZ'd to determine its validity (this is because a mod ruling would make things easier) but this is done for fun and as an interesting test of our debating skills within a judged and controlled medium.
Guidelines to be agreed upon on this thread and judging volunteers are respectfully requested from this forum.
1 post word capacity limit per reply. Sources must be linked, videos must be timestamped, etc.
Question to judges (hope Imp allows the judges to post here):
Is there anything else we are missing here regarding guidelines? This is our first BZ in this forum so we would need your guidance to make things as organized as possible. Thanks!
Gender: Male Location: Planning to take over the WORLD!
hmm, 5 posts is quite a lot of posts. Lately 3 has been the magic number. Could be an opening, single post then a closing, or an opening followed by 3 posts. 5 posts may be enough time to get into circular arguments. the fewer posts allowed, the more concise the arguments needed from each of you--a better test imo. the final post is generally pm'd to someone (like darksaint for example ) so that no one has the advantage of reading and countering the final post--which is usually a summary post where nothing surprising or new is allowed to be entered. iow--be fair in the final post. the process has been pretty successful in the last few tournaments and bz's i'v taken part in, but it's your bz, so i'll judge by whatever you think will be best.
Also, since there is no “host” for this debate. Can we just send final verdicts to our head judge (I would say DS ) in order to make sure verdicts don’t influence each other and DS can just post final verdicts once all have been collected (ty to Galan for this suggestion btw).
Hello dear judges, fellow audience and house of opposition. In this thread, I, Josh_Alexander, shall prove to you all that the Hela-Mjolnir feat is an invalid strength feat to debate in the Movie Versus Forum.
Considerations:
- In no moment am I claiming that there is no strength being applied to Mjolnir by Hela, nor that the feat requires no strength.
Context:
This is the feat being debated:
As we can all bear witness to, Hela didn’t only crush Mjolnir, but did it with not even the slightest effort! She had no trouble destroying Pre-IW Thor’s most powerful weapon
Characters:
Hela Odinsdottir:
Hela, Goddess of Death, is Odin’s first-born, and as such wields great power. Initially, Hela helped Odin conquer the nine realms and ensured Asgard’s position as one of the greatest empires the MCU has seen. But she did this wielding no other than Mjolnir itself.
We can already grasp at Hela’s great power. However:
Odin Borson: So, we already have an idea how much powerful Hela is on her natal world
Most importantly, however, is the fact that Hela is a magical being just like her father and family members. She can turn her soft and apparently harmless hair into deadly spikes with a single stroke of his hands. She can pull daggers out of thin air by a simple movement of her hands.
Her magic is so powerful, that even, whilst outside Asgard, she effortlessly managed to spam hundreds of daggers and slaughter the mighty Valkyries!
She slaughtered hundreds if not thousands of Asgard’s best warriors with daggers that she pulled out of thin air, with not the slightest effort! If Hela’s hands, aren’t outcome of Lucifer phucking Houdini, then I don’t know what they are!!!.
Summary: Hela is a powerful magical being, not only that, but she knows the victim of this case, Mjolnir.
Mjolnir: Thor’s mighty hammer, and previously owned by her sister, Hela. Mjolnir is made out of an extremely strong and powerful metal, Uru. Uru is forged by the “full power” of a neutron star. Clearly, this metal is like no other found on earth. Not only that, but it is like no other material used by us humans. We’ve seen this metal easily breaking other materials without visible damage, reflect energy attacks without turning red, and channeling vast amounts of electricity with 0 effects.
Not only is Uru an extremely strong metal, but it is susceptible to magic:
Minute 3:23:
We clearly see Odin being able to nullify Thor’s influence/magic over Mjolnir. Ofcourse, we all know that Odin’s magic>Thor (But so is Hela’s )
Odin Borson:
We can see that Odin could effortlessly use magic on Uru/Mjolnir.
Furthermore:
Minute 1:04
Odin All Father:
Summary:
- Mjolnir is made of an extremely strong material, like no other found in our periodic tables
- It is susceptible to magic
With all this background, which is going to be vital for my debate, I can now move to introduce the arguments: 1. Character’s arc and feat consistency:
Unless specified by the thread starter, a character’s feats/powers are determined by the latest iteration of the character. For instance, if in the MVF there is this thread where we debate Iron Man, unless specified by the OP, we would and should assume that this is Tony’s latest suit (displayed in the latest movie) being debated. That’s what we called as a character’s arc. A character evolves from movie to movie, and is his abilities change as time progresses (in his/her universe).
Considering that, in a thread in where the character isn’t limited to an specific timeline (in this case movie or scene), the latest feats will always overrule the previous ones. This is where consistency comes into play.
In order for a feat to be valid, it must be consistent with the other feats performed by the character. Specially those that are in direct succession to it. Otherwise, the feat is overruled (again, so long as the OP doesn’t limit this). A pretty good example of this would be Thor.
[COLOR=crimson] Example 1 (characters arc):
Take Thor prior to being worthy of his hammer:
That’s clearly a feat of him not being able to lift up Mjolnir. However, in the end we see that Thor is able/worthy to lift up his hammer:
This is a pretty good example of how the character arc/timeline is important and how a feat nullifies the other in this terms.
Should there be a thread called “Thor (as of Thor 1) vs Loki” for instance, any debater saying, “Thor can’t lift up his hammer for this fight” would be wrong (unless the OP states, “Thor prior to having Mjolnir”), as of the end of the movie, we see him getting his hammer back (The feat of him not being able to lift up Mjolnir gets nullified by the feat that succeeds it).
Example 2 (consistency):
An example of this kind is hard to find, since it is often the outcome of movie plot-holes and lack of continuity.
But take this hypothetical scenario not taking into consideration timeline:
- Feat 1: Character X lifts up a car.
- Feat 2: Character X lifts up an elephant
- Feat 3: Character X can’t lift up a motorcycle
- Feat 4: Character X lifts up a house
- Feat 5: Character X lifts up a tree
There is clearly an inconsistency in strength in the feats presented before. Can we therefore say, that character X can’t lift up anything heavier than a motorcycle? The answer is no. As the inconsistent feat in this case is Feat 3. In this case, there is more evidence/feats supporting that he can lift up objects heavier than a motorcycle.
If we plot timeline into the previous feats, this becomes even more evident. Assume that the feats are listed in chronological order (as the movie progresses). Not only is the feat inconsistent but it has outright been nullified by its successors (just like the Thor example).
Summary:
- A feat will be valid only and only if it is consistent and falls within the debated timeline (if the timeline isn’t specified by the OP, the latest iteration/feats are the heaviest).
- Given this I will prove that the Hela-Mjolnir feat isn’t only inconsistent with the rest of the movie, but is outright nullified by successive feats
1. Unknown factors --> Magic:
As proven before, Hela’s magic is astonishingly powerful in terms of magic.
Not only that, her magical powers/abilities are unknown.
Thor Odinson:
Hela Odinsdottir:
If Thor, who is 1500 years old and has vast knowledge over Asgardian magic/powers can’t fully grasp what’s going on, why should we?
Following that using only strength on the Mjolnir feat would be inconsistent, we've got to assume that there are unknown factors playing into the equation. In that aspect, an unknown factor could be magic.
Now I am fully awared of MVF rules and that there is no visual indication of magic being used to destroy Mjolnir
However, the MVF rules don’t BAN the use of logic. We know that Mjolnir/Uru can be affected by magic, and as I will prove, that Hela destroying Mjolnir with solely strength is INCONSISTENT. So, using logic, and the fact that Hela’s magic and powers are unknown and as proven previously has a connection with Mjolnir (was it's original user), we can safely assume that magic is playing a role in the feat. This is perfectly okay, because then the inconsistency would be explained and the feat would be, under that criteria, valid.
However, since we can’t know what percentage of strength and what of magic would require performing the feat (we can assume that there is such factor influencing on the experiment, however we can’t assume how much does it affect it), we can’t quantify how strong such feat is.
In that aspect, the feat becomes invalid to debate in the MVF.
A feat must provide a character with stats, otherwise, the feat is useless. If we can’t estimate how much strength Hela applied to Mjolnir, there is no safe way to compare her with other strong character.
Summary:
- To remove the inconsistency in the feat, we can assume the presence of unknown factors. However, not being able to know how this factors influence the feat makes this invalid due to it being vague for debating.
In conclusion, the Hela-Mjolnir feat is INVALID to debate in the MVF because it lacks consistency and is nullified by successive feats. Furthermore, the magic could be playing a role in the feat, making it impossible to quantify this.
Judges, fellow KMCers, thank you for taking the time to indulge Josh and I with this BZ to debate the viability of the Hela Mjolnir crush as a strength "feat".
I'll not go into details regarding the who/what on the debate, as it looks like my opponent has already posted the details of the discussion for all to see.
Just to summarize, however:
This is a debate regarding Hela's Mjolnir crush (video provided by my opponent) as a strength "feat" and its validity within our debating medium.
The Point of Contention.
The central conflict that we will seek to settle in this debate is one of evidence. How we view it and how we interpret it. Its importance and relevance. And how we find it in the mediums we love to discuss and debate on. This is a debate about setting reasonable standards for evidence knowing full well the limitations when debating about hypothetical battles between fictional characters. It is a debate about understanding how the evidence is found and presented in the mediums that we love to discuss. Most importantly it is a debate that will seek to reiterate the rules of reasonable debating standards and tactics that we use so as to avoid chaos and to prevent trolling in the forums that we enjoy arguing in from time to time. This is a debate about the rules of engagement that would encourage reasonable discussion rather than frustrating baiting and circular trolling.
These rules are often unwritten, mostly unspoken because we recognize these as self-evident and common sense. But we also recognize that there are grey areas that we will disagree on. And, like me, many of us enjoy spending our time in debate to settle these disagreements.
However, esteemed judges and fellow KMC forumgoers, I would like to say: That this instance is not within one of those grey areas. I will prove that the evidence on this "feat" is very conclusive. That while anything can become imperfect especially when viewed from certain eyes, this "feat" is about as clear and concise as a "feat" can get if one considers the evidence primarily and once recognizes that this is about hypothetical battles of fictional characters. There are no "grey areas" once we look at this "feat" without confirmation bias.
The Simple Facts.
Now, I am not as flashy as my opponent, I will not attempt to dazzle you with multi-colored fonts or bury you in multiple unimportant and unrelated videos and irrelevant information. I'm not flashy because there is little need to be flashy.
This is a simple "feat". So I will keep my argument simple:
Hela used her hands to crush Mjolnir, because everything within our understanding (and filmmakers want to make "feats" understandable and relatable) use physical strength to physically crush objects. Thus Hela used her strength.
There is no explicit indication of any other forces present that could have contributed to the "feat" with any kind of relevance or significance. Thus, as evidence shows, there is no solid evidence of other factors being involved beyond strength. Thus it is safe to conclude that this is indeed a valid strength "feat".
Hela is not Odin. His abilities, showings and "feats" are not granted to her.
Occam's Razor.
The Simplest explanation with the least amount of assumptions is often the correct one.
Assumptions are fun, but evidence trumps assumptions. And we do not argue unsupported theories as facts in these forums. So an unsupported theory cannot invalidate a "feat" supported by evidence.
This is a movie. A Mass market superhero family action flick at that. Filmmakers make these kinds of movies simple so that the mass market audience can easily understand them and simply enjoy the ride. They will not seek to complicate it needlessly. What you explicitly see is what they are trying to tell you (unless there is a plot reason for them to be vague).
Consistency in movies (and many entertainment mediums) is not an absolute. And sometimes even irrelevant. We are all familiar of power creeps and high and low showings. Of Jobbing, of the "Worf Effect". This is not new to us. We KNOW that sometimes writers toss away consistency in favor of drama. So in the end, "feats" need to stand stand on their own based on the evidence available FIRST and not be biased by character history.
Preponderance of Evidence.
Now, this BZ came to be because my opponent sought to sow doubt in the viability of this "feat" through the use of indirect evidence, base assumptions, baseless theories and shady tactics (such as shifting burden of proof or asking that I prove a negative). Unless he shifts his approach, he will likely insist that simply creating "reasonable doubt" (perhaps even re-using the same disagreeable methods from the original debate) is enough to prove his point. But even if we were to ignore the questionable quality of his logic/evidence/tactics, we cannot ignore one thing: that the very premise of his argument is flawed. This is not about "reasonable doubt" (even tho there is nothing "reasonable" about this doubt, it is more "any" doubt than anything), for it is not a criminal case where there is a human life/future at stake so a higher standard is needed. This debate is about the preponderance of the evidence. This is about w/c is the most likely conclusion based on the best DIRECT evidence and best argument/interpretation. And that, esteemed judges and fellow KMC forumgoers is what I seek to provide in this debate.
Far Reaching Implications.
Now this BZ may seem unnecessary (a mod ruling would have resolved it so much more quickly). But I feel that if we do not argue the merits of the case, there will still be posters who will attempt to circumvent the ruling via clever-but-not-clever rewording. I felt that putting forward both logical positions and have you, BZ veterans and unbiased judges determine the true correct logical path is the best way to finally establish without a doubt the correct path to correct and proper use and interpretation of evidence in the forums we love to argue on.
This may also seem frivolous (I mean why waste the time?). But I feel that this BZ will have far reaching implications. If my opponent will have his way. No longer will direct evidence be needed and no "feat" will be safe (an example would be if someone argues that every Superman lifting strength "feat" is invalid because he has gravity powers based on his flight. Absurd, I know, but this is within the realms of the "any doubt" logic my opponent seeks to bring into these forums).
This must not stand.
Summary: This is a simple "feat" with simple evidence. This is a simple movie for a simple experience written to be simple and easy to understand. Consistency is not an absolute and there are highs and lows and jobbing and PIS/CIS and all sorts of logical stupidity in fiction entertainment mediums. "Feats" need to stand by their own direct evidence. Theories are not facts. Assumptions are not evidence. Once we let the evidence speak for themselves (and not headcanon/assumptions/theories), there is little doubt that this "feat" is not only valid as a strength "feat", it is among the most simple and basic valid strength "feats" out there.
Nice, things are running up smoothly. I have began redacting my next post, however I don't expect to have it today, not even tomorrow. Just so you can be noted
Nibe’s post focuses primary on denying the existence of external factors affecting the feat, but fails and barely manages to address the elephant in the room, which is the source that proves this external factors exist in the form of the inconsistency of the feat.
Nibe’s entire defense against this elephant focuses on “the feat is simple” and “it’s a movie; movie/plot errors are OKAY”.
This way of thinking is correct, and yet fallacious under the subject at hand. For dear judges, a feat being “simple” and “a movie making mistakes is OKAY” doesn’t translate into a feat being valid to debating! Specially if said feats falls outside continuity/character’s arc. Sure, it can be valid movie material, but plot holes aren’t debatable!
Furthermore, my opponent resorts to another fallacy, as seen bellow:
Writers intentionally creating plot-holes in favor of drama doesn’t translate into them being valid for debating. Sure, the feat is okay in order to create entertainment and make the kids happy at their seats, but certainly it doesn’t eliminate the fact that it is a plot hole.
But Nibe doesn’t stop there, he further tries to validate plot holes by saying that feats are independent of continuity. Make no mistake judges, this is a FALLACY.
Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Plot hole
By the definition itself, we can already realize that plot holes aren’t valid for debating. This is common knowledge; you don’t need to be some pro debater to know that inconsistent evidence is ignored.
Arguments can’t be drawn from plot holes! The most you can draw from plot holes are opinions and assumptions. Nibe himself knows this! And he knows that assumptions are INVALID for debating.
In the above post Nibe recognizes that you can’t really defend a side with a plot hole, but are limited to draw your OWN conclusions/opinions (asumptions).
Note: I am not accusing Nibe of double standards. I know he is an honorable man; the very reason I accepted his BZ. But, probably he just ignored or forgot that plot holes are invalid
2.) Ambiguity and valid assumptions
Besides ignoring/belittling the plot-hole (which in my arguments I will completely prove) he spends most of his post attacking the existence of external/unknown factors in the feat. Again, despite all his efforts, he fails to realize that the existence of the plot hole creates this “external unknown factors” like magic.
Now, I’ve already proven Hela’s extremely powerful magical abilities. I never said she was like Odin, but I definitely PROVED that her magic is extreme and UNKNOWN.
However, I NEVER said that it was an absolute. Me saying that the presence of magic is a factor in Mjolnir’s destruction is my opinion and way of explaining the PLOT HOLE.
However, dear judges, I bring this argument to prove that the plot hole creates an ambiguity. Why? Because if the feat isn’t a plot hole, something has to explain the inconsistency! In this case, the presence of unknown external factor, like Hela’s powerful and unknown magic, can eliminate the plot hole. Despite this however, the feat remains invalid, because since we don’t really know how this factors influence in the feat (they are unknown), and therefore the feat is ambiguous.
And we all know, that ambiguous feats are invalid for debating, since we can only draw personal interpretations and opinions from these. Nibe also knows this:
Conclusion: Plot holes are not debatable, my opponent knows this and yet he belittled it. I really wouldn’t hope for him to continue this path, should he want to win this, his best chance is to remove the plot hole from the equation (which I doubt he will, because I will prove the existence of this)
Even if he does this, he still has to deal with the external factors brought with such maneuver.
Appreciated judges and audience, with this post I will prove to you all, that should the Hela-Mjolnir feat be one of SOLE strength (no external factors involved/ no ambiguity) then we would be dealing with a PLOT HOLE
As I’ve stated before, and everyone agrees with, Mjolnir is created from Uru, a metal whose physical properties would outmatch ANYTHING we have in our periodic table. That simple fact, proves that should Hela be able to crush (compress) Mjolnir using strength alone, then a massive plot-hole would be created.
-An Earthly Mjolnir:
Let’s follow Nibe’s game. Let’s all assume that there are no external factors on the feat, and that strength is the only thing playing a role in the destruction of Mjolnir (no ambiguity).
Uru is a material definitely stronger than anything we use on Earth. But let’s assume Mjolnir is made from a material we have on Earth. A material whose strength could come at least somewhat close to Uru.
Lets use diamond.
Mjolnir was crushed. We know that crushing involves compressive forces. In this case, such compressive forces are applied by Hela’s fingers.
Diamond has a compressive force of 470Gpa!!! on its strongest section! Again, I will use the strongest section in order to come the closest to an INSANELY strong material like Uru.
We get that it would require 47,000,000N to crush 1cm2 of diamond material or 4792 tons over a surface area of 1cm2.
If we take the pinky fingertip area (not the entire finger), we get an area of approx. 2.7cm2! this means that Hela would require to apply a pressure of nearly 13,000 tons on a diamond Mjolnir!!!
Let’s see how insane this is!
In other threads, we’ve settled that a Leviathan would weight from 1000-2000 tons! Should that be the case, Hela would be able to lift several leviathan’s on her PINKY FINGERTIP! THIS IS NUTTSSS! INSANE!
Let’s now consider that Hela applied strength on 5 fingers (not fingertips) and that she wasn’t even STRUGGLING. Also, that she isn’t even angry.
-Hela vs Thor:
Now, here is where the inconsistency lies! Thor and Hulk’s strength lie on similar scales.
Odin All-father:
So, if she has this INSANE strength on Earth, then on Asgard we should expect a strength buff on Asgard. And yet, when fighting her brother, she was actually pissed and yet Thor manage to hold her for a while.
Minute 4:59 to 7:21
Again, Hela was clearly pissed by Thor, and yet Thor was able to endure her for some time. If Hela can lift 13,000 tons in her fingertips, then a punch from her WOULD DEFINITELY knock out if not KILL Thor! He would have 0 chance of facing her in a H2H! Specially when considering she gets stronger on Asgard!
The Plot Hole has been proved!
2.)External factors = no plot hole
I believe that by this point, it’s clear that the feat is invalid. The massive plot hole has been unveiled.
But there is another possibility. One that would remove the plot hole from the equation, and that is external factors, such as magic.
The filmmakers made it pretty clear to the audience that Hela is a magical being, not only that, but that her magic is more powerful than his brothers. Not only is she powerful, but the extent to his magic is unknown. The filmmakers clearly introduce us with a high tier magical being, in that aspect, it’s completely valid and possible that magic is an external unknown factor influencing the feat. Contrary to what Nibedicus has said, we do have explicit intel that there could be external factors influencing the feat. We know that Hela is magical and that she had a relation with Mjolnir..
Now, I am not saying that this is the case, but that it’s MY INTERPRETATION of the feat, given that I have already PROVEN that in terms of sole strength, it is inconsistent. Again, this is entirely okay and valid, since the feat is vague and leaves room to several interpretations.
I am not saying that making assumptions isn’t valid, but undebatable. We cannot debate opinions. In that aspect, I prove that Hela destroying Mjolnir is an invalid strength feat, since if it’s not a plot hole then it’s ambiguous and therefore invalid again!
Considering that I’ve proven the MASSIVE inconsistency in strength between Hela destroying Mjolnir and Hela fighting his brother. Furthermore, that without plot hole, we find ourselves with an ambiguous feat (again due to the inconsistency). We realize that this feat is treacherous and in every aspect should be considered INVALID to debate.
Judges, I implore you not to validate this feat. Should such a feat be validated, a ripple effect would affect this entire forum, several, if not most threads would be affected. Plot holes would be valid, ambiguity permitted. This cannot stand!
To my opponent, there’s still time for you to correct your stand
KMC Community Forums
Apr 2nd, 2019 06:17 AM
) so that no one has the advantage of reading and countering the final post--which is usually a summary post where nothing surprising or new is allowed to be entered. iow--be fair in the final post. the process has been pretty successful in the last few tournaments and bz's i'v taken part in, but it's your bz, so i'll judge by whatever you think will be best.
)
