I didn't question your quote. I questioned the usage/context of it.
Again, it was with the side swipe, and the stopping was also provided by the vibranium - so not equivalent.
It wasn't a tiny, unnoticeable amount though? As Rulk screamed in pain.
What 'overwhelming' evidence have you provided? Because I have shown vibranium darts clearly piercing his flesh and lodging in him. A vibranium spear would be much deadlier.
In any case, you have already conceded that Namor would win, so no need for me to go further as I have won again.
1. The quote was simply because I was glad you joined the debate, nothing more.
2. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with that.
3. I had a glass splinter lodged in my finger a week ago. When I touched it and it penetrated just a tiny bit deeper, I yelled in pain. Have you ever experienced something like that?
4. I never claimed Namor couldn't stab through Rulk and win. I acknowledged that possibility from the start. The tangent debate between me and Robtard was specifically about whether Namor could stab through Rulk's skull. He thinks he can, I think he can't.
Note: Initially, I gave Namor the win because of the spear, but I had forgotten about Rulk's thunderclap feat. That completely changed my view. Rulk would now absolutely stomp Namor.
When Rulk jumped on his wing, he impaled himself. That shows waaay less than the force you are suggesting is needed to cut him: https://giphy.com/gifs/vG4o11lT45TOQLgFbo
All Sam did was hold his wing out, and he fell on it. You can assume a high end mass to him if you like, and try and calculate a speed that a falling Rulk has, if you want.
And as I said before, it only takes ~10x more energy to pierce a skull vs skin, and I am pretty sure Namor would be able to output 10x the force of those feathers/Rulk landing on a wing.
__________________
Last edited by DarkSaint85 on Apr 25th, 2025 at 01:27 PM
1. I was referring to when Red Hulk swung the pole through solid concrete and Sam stopped it with the help of the thrust produced by the motor.
Exhibit A: Look at 1:15 to 1:18
Hence, flight strength is proven.
2. Flight strength is proven. Sam FLIES as he swipes Rulk with his wing.
3 and 4. The motor held the wing in place, not Sam's strength. Rulk also had a horizontal component to his motion from the power of his jump.
5. All these points are moot, even if Sam used his own strength to pierce Rulk.
Any contradictory evidence - especially overwhelming evidence - invalidates a low showing.
Exhibit B: Look at 1:11 to 1:14 then read my quote that follows.
Whilst Sam was in flight, there was no thrust shown from the motor (blue glow). So flight thrust is moot.
Then calculate the horizontal component of this jump.
This isn't a mere single low showing. EVERY time vibranium was involved (and I noticed that once more, you have ignored the vibranium dart feathers easily piercing Rulk), Rulk has been stabbed/slashed.
Namor has a spear of vibranium, backed up by Namor's strength AND his flight 'thrust', which would be concentrated over a single sharp point.
Skull tissue needs 10x more energy to pierce than skin.
I see you didn't address all my points. The last one alone makes all your vibranium cutting arguments irrelevant. I addressed your points, one by one. Isn't that proper debating to prevent troll tactics?
1. Sam can't fly without thrust - he can only coast/glide. We cannot see the part of the backpack where the thrust would come out - the screen cuts it off - so it's speculation either way whether there was thrust or not. Assuming he coasted, the initial thrust already created his forward momentum. Think of a bullet fired from a gun: there's no more thrust once it leaves the barrel, yet it retains enough energy and momentum to penetrate objects.
2. I don't need to address that. We all know Rulk jumps with superhuman-level power.
3. I already addressed the darts in a previous post. They were shot out by a mechanical mechanism, not propelled by human strength.
4. Rulk's thunderclap feat contradicts any claim that he can be cut by vibranium through human-level force. Remember: Any contradictory evidence - especially overwhelming evidence -invalidates a low showing.
5. Here's another argument against you: It's possible for vibranium to be less durable than Rulk's skull while still being more durable than his skin without contradicting any showings of him being cut by vibranium. Therefore, we must rely on feats to determine which is more durable. Rulk's thunderclap feat is greater than any durability feat shown by pure vibranium. Therefore, it is not a given that vibranium can stab through Rulk's skull with ANY amount of force.
Note: If you respond, please do not continue arguing the vibranium cutting evidence. Points 4 and 5 make that irrelevant. Those two points are the crux of the debate; anything else is just nitpicking.
You've not actually proven anything and are making poor rebuttals as usual.
ON SCREEN FEATS (which is what we go by here) clearly show Vibranium cuts through Hulk. Sure bones are harder, but Namor is infinitely stronger than Sam (or his wings thrusters lol).
1. So assuming no more thrust, then it was less than what was shown when it was at full thrust. Additiionally, he was not at full speed, so even IF the thrusters were firing, it wasn't at full thrust. Namor can thus exceed this.
2. OK? But Namor can exceed this, and all he needs do is exceed the times Rulk was cut by vibranium by 10x, to stab through the head,
3. OK? I never said they were fired by human strength - poor attempt at a strawman.
4. It isn't a single instance of a low showing, however. EVERY time vibranium was involved, Rulk was cut.
Namor is also stronger than the mechanical firing mechanisms in the wings.
Just so you're aware, the debate is about whether Namor can stab through Rulk's skull, not who would win in a fight. I agree that Namor has a good chance to win by stabbing Rulk in a vital area. Outside of the that, Namor is phucked.
I'm glad we agree that feats are what matter. Based on feats, you need to prove the following:
1. That vibranium is stronger than Rulk's skull. I've already provided feats demonstrating the magnitude of his skull's durability; you need to provide feats that match or surpass that.
2. That Namor is significantly stronger than the wing motor, the same motor that was able to withstand the force of Rulk's strength.
1. Movement speed alone, especially during contact, doesn't prove the strength of a thrust. For instance, Sam wasn't moving when the thrust countered Rulk's strength. Thrust generates acceleration, meaning initial speeds are always lower than later ones. It's the acceleration, not speed, that determines force. It's fair to say that Rulk is significantly stronger than Namor and that the full thrust matched Rulk's strength. So it would be difficult to prove that Namor can exceed 10 times even a partial 1/10 of that thrust.
2. There's no evidence that Namor can exceed 10x the strength of Rulk's jumping power, or 10x the force of any attack that has ever cut Rulk.
3. It's not a strawman. You're speculating that Namor can exceed 10x the strength of the mechanism with no supporting evidence. Also, sharpness plays a major role. For instance, if the wings or darts have an edge thickness 1/100 that of the spear, it would take 100 times more force with the spear to match their cutting ability.
4.
A. The instances of Rulk being cut are not necessarily low showings.
B. Contradictory high feats invalidate all low showings, regardless of how many there are.
5. This point stands, then. By feats, the durability of Rulk's skull matches or exceeds that of vibranium.
You're entitled to your opinion. Honestly, some of these arguments are so silly they feel like they're making me dumber. Or maybe it's just your bias skewing your perception? DS, at least, seems to be making some solid points here and there.
Good for him. You've made none. And your double standards (like imagining writer's intent, yet ignoring writers' statements to suit your argument) reeks of the the dumbest and most blatant bias.
At some point you have to wonder that if your arguments were so objective and rational why no one seems to agree with you (or even agree you're making a rational argument). Like ever.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 24th, 2025 06:14 AM
