Wolverine vs. Spider-Man

Originally posted by Creshosk
Sure if you understand the terms properly. . did you read up on the not proving a negative part?

Sorry, but you guys are making the claim that they are. Pklease prove that they are. 🙂

Nope, if you understand the term . . .

Ok. But first, prove that the web shooters are better than the organic webs. You can put either side into the positive or negative. However, it's you who is making the claim that web shooters are superior, and that organic webs should be disregarded. Your claim, your burden of proof. The old "they have not proven to be as good" is the big ad ignorantium part, by the way.

Ah, my mistake. I thought ad hominem was just discrediting your opponent as a distraction from the original argument. Since calling someone on ad hominem doesn't really pertain to whether Wolverine or Spiderman would win in a fight, I thought the act in itself would be. Though if it has to be false accustaions, 3/4 of the things Cresh is screaming ad hominem at aren't really ad hominem...

And Melnorme... When people say "Class (blank)" on here, it means the exact number of tons that one could lift. So if Logan were class 10, he could lift ten tons. A half ton (possibly a tad more) sounds about right...

Originally posted by Melnorme

Oh, you got my number!
Seriously, though. I was told that this "Class (blah blah blah)" system was a referrence to the old TSR Marvel game. Wolverine, I'm pretty sure, was "Class 10 (Good)" in Strength, which let him lift around 500 pounds. Class 20 was 1000, Class 30 was 1 Ton, Class 40 (Incredible - like Spider Man) was 10 Tons, and Class 50, 75, and 100 reflected their tonnage. If I've got this system wrong with relation to this board, my mistake!
And don't ask me how I can remember all that junk, and I can barely remember my own cell phone number!

Spiderman is a class 15 (he can lift 15 tons)
Wolverine . . . somewhere between 800 and 1000 lbs. he's not even a class 1.

*edit*

Originally posted by Dizzle

Ah, my mistake. I thought ad hominem was just discrediting your opponent as a distraction from the original argument. Since calling someone on ad hominem doesn't really pertain to whether Wolverine or Spiderman would win in a fight, I thought the act in itself would be. Though if it has to be false accustaions, 3/4 of the things Cresh is screaming ad hominem at aren't really ad hominem...

They don't have to be true, in general, they just have to be relevant. If I were to say, "Don't trust the babysitter, he's got a bad haircut!", it might be absolutely true. He might have the worst haircut you can imagine. But it doesn't relate to his babysitting ability, which is completely independant of his barber's skill.

Or in other words, your description "discrediting your opponent as a distraction from the original argument," is accurate.

Originally posted by Dizzle
And Melnorme... When people say "Class (blank)" on here, it means the exact number of tons that one could lift. So if Logan were class 10, he could lift ten tons. A half ton (possibly a tad more) sounds about right...

Thank you (and...Creshosk) for the correction.

Originally posted by Dizzle
Ok. But first, prove that the web shooters are better than the organic webs.

How ever you are claiming that the organic webs are as good as or better than the webshooters. . . or at least the mister was since he keeps posting the webshooter feats in relationship with the current Spiderman. And Spiderman currenlty has organic webs thant came with a package of upgrades including strength increase to 15 tons and the ability to talk to insects. . .

Originally posted by Dizzle
You can put either side into the positive or negative. However, it's you who is making the claim that web shooters are superior,

Originally posted by Dizzle
and that organic webs should be disregarded.

Originally posted by Dizzle
Your claim, your burden of proof

Originally posted by Dizzle
The old "they have not proven to be as good" is the big ad ignorantium part, by the way.

"I don't have to prove that he can still do what he did when he had something he didn't"

Then wouldn't Wolverine's upgrades from apocalypse also fall under that?

Nice then, Since wolverine's upgrades allowed him to walk through cyclops's optic blasts without being phased, and they can perice through steel, and was able to beat down the titanium door that Nate failed to hold shut, shouldn't he be ablee to walk through the webs?

Thank you for supporting Wolverine in this endevor. . . But I hope you can see how ridiculous that is.

Originally posted by Dizzle
Ah, my mistake. I thought ad hominem was just discrediting your opponent as a distraction from the original argument. Since calling someone on ad hominem doesn't really pertain to whether Wolverine or Spiderman would win in a fight, I thought the act in itself would be. Though if it has to be false accustaions, 3/4 of the things Cresh is screaming ad hominem at aren't really ad hominem...

Originally posted by Melnorme
They don't have to be true, in general, they just have to be relevant. If I were to say, "Don't trust the babysitter, he's got a bad haircut!", it might be absolutely true. He might have the worst haircut you can imagine. But it doesn't relate to his babysitting ability, which is completely independant of his barber's skill.

Or in other words, your description "discrediting your opponent as a distraction from the original argument," is accurate.

Sound familiar?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Like pointing out that a person has bad spelling so shouldn't be listened to? Or that "this person believes X where X is irrelevant to the topic at hand."

Sound familiar?

No. As we don't actually know one another, we can only judge each other by how we present ourselves through writing. Everyone makes typos. You make a statistically significant number more than average. In many people's opinion, how you spell is a direct reflection upon you. You may disagree with this philosophy, but many do not.

I also argued that you deliberately try to be inflammatory and contrary, in order to provoke people. Many people are of this opinion, from what I have gathered on the board. In one thread, you seemed to take pride in this observation by one of your fellow posters. That is reason alone to ignore what you say.

But how's this? As it seems to offend you, and I don't really want to hurt your feelings, I won't mention the spelling again. I don't want to make people feel badly about themselves, and if I have, I apologize. In all fairness, you have reaped what you've sown, but I can set the past behind me. Further, I have no interest in further antagonizing you. So, let's both make an earnest attempt to let bygones be bygones, and let this debate be what a debate was meant to be: a vigorous exploration of the matter at hand, rather than a name-calling battle of egos?

And I'm not sure what you mean by "this person believes X where X is irrelevant to the topic at hand." To my knowledge, the only claims I have made as to your beliefs are a bias for Wolverine, and against Spiderman. Surely, that is germane to the topic. All the same, again, in the interest of fair debate, let's both leave our prejudices aside and try to hear the opposition out.

For my part, if you have any recommended reading so that I may better understand your perspective on Wolverine's feats, there's a comic book shop around the corner from my home, and I'll be going there tomorrow. Would you be able to suggest a few back issues that I should pick up?

Originally posted by Melnorme
No. As we don't actually know one another, we can only judge each other by how we present ourselves through writing. Everyone makes typos. You make a statistically significant number more than average. In many people's opinion, how you spell is a direct reflection upon you. You may disagree with this philosophy, but many do not.

So because it's the popular opinion it must be the right one eh?

Originally posted by Melnorme
I also argued that you deliberately try to be inflammatory and contrary, in order to provoke people.

Originally posted by Melnorme
Many people are of this opinion, from what I have gathered on the board. In one thread, you seemed to take pride in this observation by one of your fellow posters. That is reason alone to ignore what you say.

I love how you're defending your fallacy with, more fallacies.

Originally posted by Melnorme
But how's this? As it seems to offend you, and I don't really want to hurt your feelings, I won't mention the spelling again. I don't want to make people feel badly about themselves, and if I have, I apologize. In all fairness, you have reaped what you've sown,

The reason why you openly attack me is because as I pointed out before you don't know the material. This is true, not an attempt to discredit you, because I simply didn't feel like arguing a point in your argumetns that you clearly didn't know your material. But hey, lets use this being told to go do some more research on the material as grounds to become offended and attack another porson's spelling, and try to discredit them.

You shouldn't listen to him, because I don't know him, but I've become inflamed by him, so obviously that is his intention. And since it's the popular opinion that he should be ignored for this. he should be ignored for this. And his spelling is bad, so he should be ignored for that as well.

You logic is appaling. Further you say that I'm a hypocrite for commiting ad hominem, when I'm not trying to discredit a person when I insult them.

Originally posted by Melnorme
but I can set the past behind me. Further, I have no interest in further antagonizing you. So, let's both make an earnest attempt to let bygones be bygones, and let this debate be what a debate was meant to be: a vigorous exploration of the matter at hand, rather than a name-calling battle of egos?

Originally posted by Melnorme
And I'm not sure what you mean by "this person believes X where X is irrelevant to the topic at hand." To my knowledge, the only claims I have made

When C-master brought up Scotsmn's belief that Wolverine stood a chance against thing, and exagerated it to saying that Scotsmn believed that Wolverine coud beat thing, I pointed out that that argument was ad hominem. As it was, as there was no reason to bring that up. Then fueled by your evident dislike if not outright hatred of me you sided with him, when he said that I was a hypocrite.

You'll find that C-master though can be a pretty good debator, will frequently raise points of the past, with an intent to discredit his opponents. And he will also exagerate points further from what the person he's attempting to discredit actually believes.

Originally posted by Melnorme
as to your beliefs are a bias for Wolverine, and against Spiderman. Surely, that is germane to the topic. All the same, again, in the interest of fair debate, let's both leave our prejudices aside and try to hear the opposition out.

For my part, if you have any recommended reading so that I may better understand your perspective on Wolverine's feats, there's a comic book shop around the corner from my home, and I'll be going there tomorrow. Would you be able to suggest a few back issues that I should pick up?

I think this post has rambled on long enough.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Since I'm not claiming that I don't need to prove that.

How ever you are claiming that the organic webs are as good as or better than the webshooters. . . or at least the mister was since he keeps posting the webshooter feats in relationship with the current Spiderman. And Spiderman currenlty has organic webs thant came with a package of upgrades including strength increase to 15 tons and the ability to talk to insects. . .

No, it's the mister that is making the claim that the Organics are like the webshooters. I wasn't the one that made the first claim.

Why would I claim that when I'm the one that's pointing out that he currently has the organics?

Cute, wrong but cute since it awas the mister that was claiming the organics to be doing the same thing the webshooters did. by posting pictures of feats with the web shooters.

Hardly.

"I don't have to prove that he can still do what he did when he had something he didn't"

Then wouldn't Wolverine's upgrades from apocalypse also fall under that?

Nice then, Since wolverine's upgrades allowed him to walk through cyclops's optic blasts without being phased, and they can perice through steel, and was able to beat down the titanium door that Nate failed to hold shut, shouldn't he be ablee to walk through the webs?

Thank you for supporting Wolverine in this endevor. . . But I hope you can see how ridiculous that is.

Mister's scans showed Spiderman's aim and skill, more than anything. If he had really wanted to show the strength of the webs, he would've posted pictures of them holding someone... Since Spiderman is still Spiderman, his aim would not be affected by changing between organic webs and web shooters, he aims with his arms and his eyes, not the webs themselves. You were the one who said that webs should be ruled out as a viable tactic, because they have "not proven to be as good as web shooters".

Clarification of myself: You tried to rule out the possibility of webs in general, because you claim that web shooters are far superior to organic webs, to the point that organic webs would not be battle-effective against Wolverine.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Hardly, I didn't ad hominem against you. Nice dodge though.

Only if you're a moron.

One thing's for sure...you certainly know how to make someone regret making a peace offering.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh, an ad populem defense of your ad hominem attack. Beautiful.

So because it's the popular opinion it must be the right one eh?

I thought you said we don't know each other. . so how can you say what my motives are?

More ad populem defense of your Obvious now ad hominem attack.

First off, those aren't examples of ad hominem fallacies, nor are they examples of appeals to popularity. My point was that if you spell like this:
"Teh Wulfarene cna beet Spydurman!!!!1!!"
People will tend to think less of you. I made no assertion that this was the majority opinion, and I even indicated that it might not be the right way of thinking. However, it is my way of thinking, and as I pointed out, I'm not alone on this. This way of thinking goes way beyond the internet; how you present yourself in your writing is how people will judge your thinking. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to, but then I ask why people bother with spelling and grammar checkers? As for my part, as I said before, I will not pass judgement on you for any typos, and please forgive my doing so in the past.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The reason why you openly attack me is because as I pointed out before you don't know the material. This is true, not an attempt to discredit you, because I simply didn't feel like arguing a point in your argumetns that you clearly didn't know your material. But hey, lets use this being told to go do some more research on the material as grounds to become offended and attack another porson's spelling, and try to discredit them.

Originally posted by Creshosk
When C-master brought up Scotsmn's belief that Wolverine stood a chance against thing, and exagerated it to saying that Scotsmn believed that Wolverine coud beat thing, I pointed out that that argument was ad hominem. As it was, as there was no reason to bring that up. Then fueled by your evident dislike if not outright hatred of me you sided with him, when he said that I was a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Wolverine beating thing... lol

Originally posted by Creshosk
Wow can you cognitively follw any trains of thought at all? or do you just spout random gibberish in hopes that someone will think you actually made a point?

Originally posted by Creshosk
You'll find that C-master though can be a pretty good debator, will frequently raise points of the past, with an intent to discredit his opponents. And he will also exagerate points further from what the person he's attempting to discredit actually believes.

As to the rest of it, thank you for your recommendations. If you can think of more, please post them, or PM me if you would. Again, I hope we have come to an understanding, and can move forward from this point in a more positive fashion.

Originally posted by Dizzle
Mister's scans showed Spiderman's aim and skill, more than anything. If he had really wanted to show the strength of the webs, he would've posted pictures of them holding someone... Since Spiderman is still Spiderman, his aim would not be affected by changing between organic webs and web shooters, he aims with his arms and his eyes, not the webs themselves. You were the one who said that webs should be ruled out as a viable tactic, because they have "not proven to be as good as web shooters".

And, if I may expand upon this idea by applying what I think to be some of Mister's logic: if Spiderman's current organic webbing was significantly inferior in some way with the functionality or capability of his synthetic web shooters, why would he use them? Obviously, Peter didn't forget how to make web fluid, and how to make the mechanical webbing projectors, so if the organic webs were not to his complete satisfaction, why wouldn't he use his old system?

Originally posted by Melnorme
One thing's for sure...you certainly know how to make someone regret making a peace offering.

First off, those aren't examples of ad hominem fallacies, nor are they examples of appeals to popularity. My point was that if you spell like this:
"Teh Wulfarene cna beet Spydurman!!!!1!!"
People will tend to think less of you. I made no assertion that this was the majority opinion, and I even indicated that it might not be the right way of thinking. However, it is my way of thinking, and as I pointed out, I'm not alone on this. This way of thinking goes way beyond the internet; how you present yourself in your writing is how people will judge your thinking. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to, but then I ask why people bother with spelling and grammar checkers? As for my part, as I said before, I will not pass judgement on you for any typos, and please forgive my doing so in the past.

I daresay you aren't privy to my thought process on this matter. And, for the record, if you feel the argument is flawed, address the argument, not the arguer. What you describe here, what you continue to do in insisting that I don't know the material, is commit an ad hominem yourself. Surely you see that.

Again, you aren't privy to my thought process. You assert that my insights as to your motivations are invalid because I do not personally know you, and yet you go about exploring my motivations in precisely the same manner. It is a tempting thing to do, and it's natural to infer someone's motivations from what they say or write. However, I assure you that what you suspect of me is untrue. I don't dislike, or even hate you. In fact, I recognize that there is more alike between us than is dissimilar.
And for the record, C-Master didn't commit an ad hominem in that exchange. He merely stated:
Which isn't a personal attack, as far as I can tell. However, you did attack him, twice, in your response. I sided with him because I agreed with his observation that you were attacking him, because you were:
Saying that someone cannot follow a train of thought, and that they spout random gibberish is hardly flattering, and merely your opinion. I felt his contribution (that Spiderman beat all the X-men at one time) was relevant, and in contrast your response was not.

We're all apparently guilty of these things.

As to the rest of it, thank you for your recommendations. If you can think of more, please post them, or PM me if you would. Again, I hope we have come to an understanding, and can move forward from this point in a more positive fashion.

He'll even put you on ignore, ask me how I know? Or tell the mods.

Now if he asked WHY I made the comparison I would have told him, but he neatly sidesteps it by saying I was calling spiderman a god, and then further by saying something about trains of thought, not good debating at all. ❌

Originally posted by Dizzle
Mister's scans showed Spiderman's aim and skill, more than anything.

Need proof of this claim.

"Webshooters can do the same thing organics can do. HE made the claim, hHE needs to prove it.

Originally posted by Dizzle
If he had really wanted to show the strength of the webs, he would've posted pictures of them holding someone... Since Spiderman is still Spiderman, his aim would not be affected by changing between organic webs and web shooters, he aims with his arms and his eyes, not the webs themselves. You were the one who said that webs should be ruled out as a viable tactic,

Originally posted by Dizzle
because they have "not proven to be as good as web shooters".

Originally posted by Dizzle
Clarification of myself: You tried to rule out the possibility of webs in general,

Originally posted by Dizzle
because you claim that web shooters are far superior to organic webs,

Bit of a difference in that the spiderman side i9s making the initial claim.

And when I challenge for evidence I'm fed with
"Ad ignoratum, you prove ithat' it's not."

Originally posted by Dizzle
to the point that organic webs would not be battle-effective against Wolverine.

But hey if you can prove that that's what I'm claiming more power to you. 🙂

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
He always does this, instead of asking a question or answering it, he'll just dodge it and flame people...

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
like this post, he'll never get to the point, just filibuster, call it a loaded question, call you a hypocrite, etc.

It true you're doing it again, this material is irrealevent to the topic.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
He'll even put you on ignore, ask me how I know? Or tell the mods.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Now if he asked WHY I made the comparison I would have told him,

"Can't listen to you cause you're a fanboy." Sound familiar?

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
but he neatly sidesteps it by saying I was calling spiderman a god,

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
and then further by saying something about trains of thought,

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
not good debating at all. ❌

Again, you accuse me of trains of thought but you didn't get the connection, again, which is your own problem.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So . . can you prove that Spiderman's organic webbing is as good as his webshooters were? Can you prove he can still do some of the things he used to do?

Cause all of theose Webshooter feats are nice and all. . . but since he has organic webbing now, it's kind of a moot point. . .

Yeah, you never said organic webs wouldn't work...

Explain to me how having webshooters and having organic webs, which shoot with the same arm position from the same location, would be affected. Spiderman's aim comes from his skill and his sight, not from the webs. Explain to me how it would be affected again? Because if you weren't questioning the quality of the webs, and if you CAN'T logically say that the switch from shooters to organics would affect his aim, how can anything MISTER claimed be a moot point?

His feats were feats of skill, not evidence of the quality of the equipment. The Apocalypse equipment pushed Wolverine beyond his physical capabilities, meaning that things he did at that time are not things he can do in his normal state, but the shooters to organics transition would not effect Spiderman's skill in the least. Unless every fighting skill feat from Wolverine's bone claw days are to be discarded now...

... I've called in ad ignorantiam on one topic. In which you clearly made a claim that classifies as ad ignorantiam, whether you like to admit it or not. The fact that you know the rules does not exempt you from them. MISTER never claimed that organic webs were technically the same as web fluid, he simply stated that Spiderman has the skill necessary to hit Wolverine, which would not be affected by which webs he uses. The claim was yours, the burden of proof is yours.

Originally posted by Melnorme
One thing's for sure...you certainly know how to make someone regret making a peace offering.

Originally posted by Melnorme
First off, those aren't examples of ad hominem fallacies,

Originally posted by Melnorme
Not sure if that...thing is a woman, but it is hypocritical.

And it did implicitly or directly attack your character, as you stated, twice. Rest assured, you are correct, and at least I noticed.

But I'd recommend ignoring it. It has proven itself to be beneath my notice. It cannot spell, the ability to think rationally it has exhibited thus far leaves something to be desired, and it pretends to know what's what by tossing out phrases like "slothful induction" and "ad hominem" when it plainly doesn't understand what these terms describe. I'd dare say that it is looking up these terms on some internet site as it goes along.

In time, you'll probably notice that it becomes so desperate for your attention, that it posts the most absurd and inflammatory blather just to try to provoke any sort of response. Also, you may even take some small amount of pleasure in seeing its histrionics reach a fever-pitch.

I sure have. 😈

Gee, telling other people to ignore me, and then saying that "that's reason enough to ignore it"

Certianly sounds like you brought it up to discredit me. . .

Originally posted by Melnorme
nor are they examples of appeals to popularity.

"Most people"?

How is that not appealing to popularity?

Originally posted by Melnorme
My point was that if you spell like this:
"Teh Wulfarene cna beet Spydurman!!!!1!!"

People will tend to think less of you. I made no assertion that this was the majority opinion,

You just did. "People" will think less of you.

Originally posted by Melnorme
and I even indicated that it might not be the right way of thinking. However, it is my way of thinking, and as I pointed out, I'm not alone on this.

"I'm not alone on this"

So since other people think it too that makes it right?

Originally posted by Melnorme
This way of thinking goes way beyond the internet; how you present yourself in your writing is how people will judge your thinking.

"Since you can't spell, I should ignore your points regardless of their validity."

Originally posted by Melnorme
If you disagree, you're more than welcome to, but then I ask why people bother with spelling and grammar checkers?

Originally posted by Melnorme
As for my part, as I said before, I will not pass judgement on you for any typos, and please forgive my doing so in the past.

Originally posted by Melnorme
I daresay you aren't privy to my thought process on this matter. And, for the record, if you feel the argument is flawed, address the argument, not the arguer.

Originally posted by Melnorme
What you describe here, what you continue to do in insisting that I don't know the material, is commit an ad hominem yourself. Surely you see that.

A person who doesn't know french, trys to debate the finer points of the french langauge with someone. Are their arguments going to be valid? Sicne they don't know what they are talking about?

I'm not trying to discredit you.

Originally posted by Melnorme
Again, you aren't privy to my thought process. You assert that my insights as to your motivations are invalid because I do not personally know you, and yet you go about exploring my motivations in precisely the same manner. It is a tempting thing to do, and it's natural to infer someone's motivations from what they say or write. However, I assure you that what you suspect of me is untrue. I don't dislike, or even hate you.

Originally posted by Melnorme
In fact, I recognize that there is more alike between us than is dissimilar.
And for the record, C-Master didn't commit an ad hominem in that exchange. He merely stated:
Which isn't a personal attack, as far as I can tell.

It sure is. I've dealt with this before. He will say "You don't know what you're talking about because you feel that "x beats X"

It is an irealevant point about a person that is irealivent to the material.

Why was it brought up? Why attempt to provoke Scotsmn by mentioning it?

Originally posted by Melnorme
However, you did attack him, twice, in your response. I sided with him because I agreed with his observation that you were attacking him, because you were:
Saying that someone cannot follow a train of thought, and that they spout random gibberish is hardly flattering, and merely your opinion.

Not at all, that was in response to his mentioning Spiderman beating the X-men, which had absolutly nothing to do with the previous exchange.

He has previously shown difficulty to folow a conversation. Adding in nothing to the conversation because he did not follow it.

Then the mentioning of something that has nothing to do with the previous chain of thought.

So no not flattering, but still true none the less.

Originally posted by Melnorme
I felt his contribution (that Spiderman beat all the X-men at one time) was relevant, and in contrast your response was not.

Originally posted by Melnorme
We're all apparently guilty of these things.

Originally posted by Melnorme
As to the rest of it, thank you for your recommendations. If you can think of more, please post them, or PM me if you would. Again, I hope we have come to an understanding, and can move forward from this point in a more positive fashion.

Give me the jest of the argument and I shall judge if it's ad ignorantiam or not!

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Again, you accuse me of trains of thought but you didn't get the connection, again, which is your own problem.