quote: (post)

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Exactly. And Impediment himself has said as much before, as seen with the tectonic plate thing I already mentioned. Unsupported statements or offscreen showings hold virtually no weight in these debates, as we lack the proper context within which to quantify them.

But just look at the Cap slugfest thread. I post feats or examples for every claim I actually make, and ask him to back his claims in return and provide evidence to counter what I posted. But instead of debating properly, he tries to strawman me and make things up that I never said, while spouting his opinion as fact. He's a lot like H1 in that regard.

Edit: Also, actually, what's more, using a character statement like Stryker's in a debate where things from separate universes are being compared is nonsensical. Because, in order for his statement to actually be factual, he would need to have intimate knowledge of both universes, everything in them, and what effect all of the different materials etc. would have against adamantium. Which he doesn't. Because the MCU is a completely difference universe to the one he exists in.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
So I suppose the same goes for Cap's bulldozer from AOS I suppose?
Now that reminds me, there was this episode where Quake was losing control of her powers so was kept in a vibranium vault. And there was this fist imprint on the wall apparently courtesy of Hulk. Some guys at Vine went crazy then

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
As you never posted the exact wording of your question, IMP's answer doesn't prove anything.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
So I suppose the same goes for Cap's bulldozer from AOS I suppose?
Now that reminds me, there was this episode where Quake was losing control of her powers so was kept in a vibranium vault. And there was this fist imprint on the wall apparently courtesy of Hulk. Some guys at Vine went crazy then

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, I was right and you worded the questions in order to get the answer you want and thus IMP's statement is worthless.

Because what you are actually arguing is that those statements overrule actual feats, which isn't true.

We have provided actual feats for vibranium's durability, so until you do the same for adamantium. you lose.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, the main question was whether or not statements trumped feats. you were massively dishonest in how you worded the question. just like I predicted you'd be. but even with you being dishonest. You know what Imp's statement doesn't say, it doesn't say that statements trump feats. therefore feats >>>>>>>>> statements.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
@Josh_Alexander While Silent Master is an obvious time-waster-troll and is best ignored, we go with movie feats only and vibranium due to its ability to absorb and/or deflect energy should be stronger than [film] adamantium.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
we go with movie feats only and vibranium due to its ability to absorb and/or deflect energy should be stronger than [film] adamantium.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
So I suppose the same goes for Cap's bulldozer from AOS I suppose?
Now that reminds me, there was this episode where Quake was losing control of her powers so was kept in a vibranium vault. And there was this fist imprint on the wall apparently courtesy of Hulk. Some guys at Vine went crazy then

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
He is, but i wanted to make it clear that i was never trolling nor that i was being unreasonable.

I asked Impediment myself as you can see above. He said that Statements are valid for debating.

The fact that it absorbs/deflects energy doesn't make it stronger. It just makes it more energy resistant. (Which i agree to).

But when we talk Generaly, Adamantium is stronger.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
This. Even if we allow character statements, they have never trumped visible screen feats. Otherwise, people would be using MCU Thanos in a bunch of threads, and throwing the "most powerful being in the universe" line around as an argument.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Silent Master
Imp didn't say that statements trump feats, therefore you have to post a feat that is better than withstanding a charged Mjlonir strike.




Edit:Especially when the statements and feats come from different universes.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
This. Even if we allow character statements, they have never trumped visible screen feats. Otherwise, people would be using MCU Thanos in a bunch of threads, and throwing the "most powerful being in the universe" line around as an argument.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
We never got a clear ruling on that. And I personally have an issue with that specific showing because it's a clear outlier that throws multiple other feats out of wack. Because if Cap could pull off the bulldozer feat even quicker than Deathlok, he should have casually breezed through all his other strength feats, including the ones where we visibly see him strain to achieve them. What's more, it throws out the supposed strength of Bucky's metal arm, considering it can overpower Steve, yet when we see it damage the environment, it doesn't do anywhere near the damage an arm that can outmuscle a guy who casually pushes around 40+ ton bulldozers for fun should.

ComcVine can go full-retard on feats. I remember some posters trying to use CW Flash's wedding letter delivery feat to claim that he is faster than Fox Quicksilver.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Impediment has clearly stated that Movie Statements are valid for debating.

No one has said that they trumpcard movie feats. Should i expect you to come trolling like SilentMaster is?

In this case we have 2 scientists describing the two metals (Don't see why that isn't a viable statement). Furthermore, no screen feat trumpcards the statements by Stryker and Stark, so in that aspect, as long as the feats don't contradict the statements, they are valid.

Even further, why should a movie contradict it's own statements? It is stupid.

And by the way, why shoudn't Thanos be the most powerful being in the universe? What evidence is there to contradict the statements.

Furthermore, in a VS forum, that statement is invalid. Since Thanos is considered the "most powerful being in the universe" in the MCU. Whenever a VS match is created such a statement would become invalid, since it wouldn't apply for other universes.

However it doesn't mean that statements shouldn't be considered in other threads. Threads such as this.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
A. Neither of those posts were even directed at you. One was to Rob, the other to HulkIsHulk, with regards to a question that has nothing to do with you, but which has actually been discussed in multiple other threads previously. Well, that, and pointing out a bit of Comic Vine silliness.

B. You were doing exactly that. Using the "virtually indestructible" claim as an argument instead of just posting actual screen feats. And here is the issue with the statement. Stryker can only make judgments and statements based on his own limited, singular perspective of his own universe. He cannot possibly know what would happen if Fox adamantium interacted, for example, with an infinity stone, because they do not exist within his own universe. That is why a statement like his can only ever hold a limited level of weight within a debate, and why it is better to compare direct screen feats instead.

And, again, the post was not directed at you.

C. Maybe Thanos is the most powerful being in the universe in the MCU. But that statement means nothing in a versus match if it does not actually show us how exactly he is most powerful. Is he a master manipulator? Is he some high level psionic? Is he immensely strong and durable physically? All of the above? Etc. That statement alone does not tell you how he operates, so how is it going to tell you whether he could or could not do something, counter something etc. in a versus match? If he had feats, the statement would actually hold more weight, as you could then at least powerscale him compared to other high end MCU characters.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
A. A post doesnt have to be directed to me in order for me to respond.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
B. In the same logic, you cant claim that an infinity stone will be able to break Adamantium, since it is virtually undestructible. Vibranium isnt labeled as undestructible, so Vibranium loses according to statements.

C. In this case the statements are valid. Since both companies describe their metals. In such description Adamantium takes the lead. Should MCU had never described Vibranium, then Adamantium description wouldnt be valid since there cant be a comparisson.

We have a comparisson here, statements are valid.