He doesnt need it. He controls all tech nowadays anyways, he can get it sent his way, or mach 8 his way over to get it 😬
But barring that, Ironman can heal from most anything (exaggerations aside, if they destroy his brain he dies, since his healing factor needs his brain to be able to read how his body should be)
Spiderman can get the sneaky win, but BUT if Ironman plays it tactically correct (ie NOT going head to head with Hulk, or trying to outspeed Spidey unless he has his own spider sense with him) he should be able to win.
Originally posted by Blair Wind
He doesnt need it. He controls all tech nowadays anyways, he can get it sent his way, or mach 8 his way over to get it 😬But barring that, Ironman can heal from most anything (exaggerations aside, if they destroy his brain he dies, since his healing factor needs his brain to be able to read how his body should be)
Spiderman can get the sneaky win, but BUT if Ironman plays it tactically correct (ie NOT going head to head with Hulk, or trying to outspeed Spidey unless he has his own spider sense with him) he should be able to win.
Him calling stuff in like seems like a cheap win. Especially if we're going to take his word that the stuff will work.
But yeah if can calls for nanintes and depowers Hulk and Pete he'll win every time. But that doesn't make for an interesting fight and it doesn't require any debating skill besides "The nanites will work and that's what he would do" from one side and "No they wouldn't he's Hulk" from the other and then "Are you saying that he would lie because he wouldn't" and then "No because you're stupid" then "No you're stupid"
etc etc etc
Although nanites are a reasonable avenue to victory they seem (to me at least) to go against the spirit of a debate.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Him calling stuff in like seems like a cheap win. Especially if we're going to take his word that the stuff will work.But yeah if can calls for nanintes and depowers Hulk and Pete he'll win every time. But that doesn't make for an interesting fight and it doesn't require any debating skill besides "The nanites will work and that's what he would do" from one side and "No they wouldn't he's Hulk" from the other and then "Are you saying that he would lie because he wouldn't" and then "No because you're stupid" then "No you're stupid"
etc etc etc
Although nanites are a reasonable avenue to victory they seem (to me at least) to go against the spirit of a debate.
Some threads do not need, or in many cases want, debate. It is just asking for a clear cut question to who would win based on evidence that they themselves may not be aware of.
Saying that Ironman can win via his specific tech advantages is just stating a possible avenue to a fictional victory here on KMC. I mean the nanites worked against Jenny when they were actually present in the hardware. It may not be direct proof, but indirect proof still has a "proof" to it.
It can also be shown that the nanites would work since Ironman uses a personal specialized DNA then works against them with the nanites. While the next example I am going to give had nothing to do with the nanites is shows that Ironman knows what he is doing when de-powering people. It was in one of the recent Avengers showings when he had a neural interface not letting those present use their powers (Spiderman, Luke Cage, Wolvie, and everyone else).
Sideline examples like those can show that the aforementioned method would, with all probability, work.
I mean, are not the characters supposed to think of different ways to win the 10/10 scenario that we give them? Thats just one way of many my friend. Saying that a certain method of winning goes against the grain of debating is like saying that Superman cannot speed blitz because it does not give someone time to react, thus having him win to quickly.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Him calling stuff in like seems like a cheap win. Especially if we're going to take his word that the stuff will work.But yeah if can calls for nanintes and depowers Hulk and Pete he'll win every time. But that doesn't make for an interesting fight and it doesn't require any debating skill besides "The nanites will work and that's what he would do" from one side and "No they wouldn't he's Hulk" from the other and then "Are you saying that he would lie because he wouldn't" and then "No because you're stupid" then "No you're stupid"
etc etc etc
Although nanites are a reasonable avenue to victory they seem (to me at least) to go against the spirit of a debate.
Uhhh..."Hulk smashing him would work because that's what it does." "No it wouldn't, Tony's too fast/has a Spider sense/could heal."
"Nuh uh!"
"Yeah huh!"
"You're stupid."
"No, you are!"
You see, ANY argument can be deconstructed into the very same terms you hypothesized.
Originally posted by Blair Wind
Some threads do not need, or in many cases want, debate. It is just asking for a clear cut question to who would win based on evidence that they themselves may not be aware of.Saying that Ironman can win via his specific tech advantages is just stating a possible avenue to a fictional victory here on KMC. I mean the nanites worked against Jenny when they were actually present in the hardware. It may not be direct proof, but indirect proof still has a "proof" to it.
It can also be shown that the nanites would work since Ironman uses a personal specialized DNA then works against them with the nanites. While the next example I am going to give had nothing to do with the nanites is shows that Ironman knows what he is doing when de-powering people. It was in one of the recent Avengers showings when he had a neural interface not letting those present use their powers (Spiderman, Luke Cage, Wolvie, and everyone else).
Sideline examples like those can show that the aforementioned method would, with all probability, work.
I mean, are not the characters supposed to think of different ways to win the 10/10 scenario that we give them? Thats just one way of many my friend. Saying that a certain method of winning goes against the grain of debating is like saying that Superman cannot speed blitz because it does not give someone time to react, thus having him win to quickly.
I realize that being clever is the point but that essentially means that we can no longer have Tony fight anyone he's ever previously met because the debate can just be reduced to "nanites" and game over with no chance to consider any other type of fight. The same problem does exist for Superman and people who have superspeed alongside other powers, people just say speedblitz and leave it at that.
I don't find that interesting. I don't deny it's validity either, it just seems to take some of the fun from the process IMHO.
Originally posted by Soljer
Uhhh..."Hulk smashing him would work because that's what it does." "No it wouldn't, Tony's too fast/has a Spider sense/could heal.""Nuh uh!"
"Yeah huh!"
"You're stupid."
"No, you are!"
You see, ANY argument can be deconstructed into the very same terms you hypothesized.
Yup
That part was meant to be mostly a joke though.
My point was that one shot wins are uninteresting. Thinking about how Tony could use his other advantages seems far more compelling to me.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I realize that being clever is the point but that essentially means that we can no longer have Tony fight anyone he's ever previously met because the debate can just be reduced to "nanites" and game over with no chance to consider any other type of fight. The same problem does exist for Superman and people who have superspeed alongside other powers, people just say speedblitz and leave it at that.I don't find that interesting. I don't deny it's validity either, it just seems to take some of the fun from the process IMHO.
Yup
That part was meant to be mostly a joke though.
My point was that one shot wins are uninteresting. Thinking about how Tony could use his other advantages seems far more compelling to me.
And how incredibly interesting is it for the Hulk to simply punch any opponent he comes across?
Effective, sure, but interesting?
Let's debate whether the Hulk could beat Iron Man by....wearing and attacking with nothing but ice skates! There we go!
🙄.
Originally posted by Soljer
And how incredibly interesting is it for the Hulk to simply punch any opponent he comes across?Effective, sure, but interesting?
Let's debate whether the Hulk could beat Iron Man by....wearing and attacking with nothing but ice skates! There we go!
🙄.
Some characters don't work well with that. Hulk and most brawlers would be the obvious choices of people who can't be used to come up with an sort of varied tactics or plans.
What I mean is rather than the argument consisting of "Nanties. Tony wins." someone were actually to look at his other abilities (remember how he can fly and shoot lasers and heal and has a spideysense and is pretty fast) and actually come up with an argument that displays more thought than looking at the best way to one shot an opponent.
Clearly such thought processes are far beyond you however 🙄
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Some characters don't work well with that. Hulk and most brawlers would be the obvious choices of people who can't be used to come up with an sort of varied tactics or plans.What I mean is rather than the argument consisting of "Nanties. Tony wins." someone were actually to look at his other abilities (remember how he can fly and shoot lasers and heal and has a spideysense and is pretty fast) and actually come up with an argument that displays more thought than looking at the best way to one shot an opponent.
Clearly such thought processes are far beyond you however 🙄
I don't see why you're attacking me on this. I'm just saying that this is a debate. We say which character we believe is more likely to win.
Now, which is more effective, nanites, brawling, or some sort of hit and run tactic? Which is more likely to net Iron Man the win? Which is more likely to net Iron Man the larger majority?
If the answer is nanites - then that's why it's used. Same reason as speedblitz, transmutation, and intangibility. If there is a clinch winner for a character, you can't expect that it won't be used.