Originally posted by h1a8
The concepts are the same. Fighting to full ability requires one to use all available strategies that is within his character. The character only needs to perform something once to prove it is in their character. But it's maybe you that's mixing the concepts. You say that "in character" implies doing something consistently. ButThere is a difference between never doing something and rarely doing something. I say that if a character never did something (like SM hitting to kill) then it is not in character for them to do it at anytime. You say that if a character rarely does something then it is not in character if they choose to do it again. See the faultiness of your logic? If it is not in a character to do something then they would've never have done it before ever.
The concepts are NOT the same. Firstly, full ability refers to abilities, and abilities alone. Strategies are determined by character. Do you expect Rhino to suddenly become a genius? A character only needs to perform something once to prove it is in their POWERSET, not character. If Batman were to use a gun for some drastic reason, would we automatically assume that he would use guns in every forum fight? Obviously not.
There is obviously a difference between never doing something and rarely doing something. You say that "if a character never did something (like SM hitting to kill) then it is not in character for them to do it at anytime". There is no obvious link between the two. If Doom has not used a planet-shattering blast, it certainly isn't due to it not being within his character, but it not being within his powerset. If a move has been used before, it is within a character's powerset. Does not mean that it is likely to be used in any fight due to character imposed limitations.
Originally posted by h1a8
Again, the probability of doing something doesn't determine the outcome of forum fights. And Batman will never use a gun for it is not in his character. If it was then he would have used it before. So your example is meaningless.
Probability of performing an action has a drastic effect on the outcome of any fight. Batman's situation was a hypothetical situation. Let me use MMA as an example. If a fighter has had one submission win in his career and 95% of his victories came from KOs, would be logically expect this fighter to go for submissions in every fight? Obviously not, because the culmination of his career dictates otherwise. Using comics, if SS has been shown to stop an opponent from accessing his/her power before once in comics, is he likely to do so again under CIS? I doubt it.
Originally posted by h1a8
Obviously SS is accelerating. Thus he doesn't stay at light speed but for only and instant. That means he spent several seconds under light speed and then an instant at light speed and then several moments beyond light speed. His speed is never constant.
The only point of reference is warp speed. Warp speed could be hundreds of times of light speed. Without being able to tell what warp speed is, how do you know what speeds he was accelerating to? Shenanigans.
Originally posted by h1a8
Well at least I told you where I got my calculations from. We just disagree here too.
And I am telling you in no uncertain terms that they are unacceptable. It's not a mutual disagreement. It is me calling shenanigans on your calculations, or lack thereof.
Originally posted by h1a8
Neither is there proof that he circled the planet X times without using CA. Thus the scan can't be used as evidence. Because it proves nothing.
There isn't. But it is obvious that the search was at least physical, and that it was thorough. If you want to dilute it by using CA as an argument, the burden of proof is on you.
Originally posted by h1a8
I'm not discussing Superman but SS. There's no proof that he didn't merely fly to a location and used CA (or a combination of both).
SS is faster than Superman. You disagree but refuse to discuss superman? It's alright. I understand not wanting to fight a losing battle.
Originally posted by h1a8
How can one lie if they say they can do something that they indeed can? SS can most certainly travel faster than light itself. But he is not saying that he now doing so. So how is he lying? And he's not necessarily artistically shown to achieve light speed there. Also I said that he was already traveling (got a head start) before the comment. Thus the scan doesn't show his speed from rest. You already rejected my reasoning that SS was 500-1000m away. Thus why shouldn't I reject your reasoning that SS was drawn to achieve light speed? You pick your poison.
That is the thing, isn't it? If I followed your faulty logic, that scan would be perfectly feasible. He can be logically inferred to be at light speed and above there. The reason being the preceding narration being superfluous otherwise. When the Thing says he can lift 80tons and lifts a huge statue, I would immediately correlate the two.
The difference between this scan and the grandmaster one is that light speed is mentioned here. There is NO mention of distance on your scan. Only time. As said, if you reject my scan, I would require superman scans from you implicitly stating he has gone from rest to light speed in two seconds or less.
Originally posted by h1a8
And lastly this is a forum fight. No one cares how often a character performed a given strategy to prove that he will do it in the fight at question. Just about everyone here including the best debaters like Soljer, Goober, Metalmanx, and even Quanchi use feats that a character rarely performs to show that a character will win because of that strategy. You are the only one here that's different.
Do you hear arguments about Thor turning back time, turning himself invisible, drawing a planet's magnetic energy as an attack, paralysing opponents, reversing energy polarities, absorbing energy from opponents, soul seperation etc? That's ignoring other feats like stealing power etc. Even when you DO hear about godblasts, anti-gravity, anti-matter etc, you rarely hear Thor getting 10/10 against any mid-high herald. I'm not saying it's correct, but it shows that few people argue characters using only handpicked feats.
Again, the hierarchy threads prove you wrong on that aspect.
Originally posted by OualladaNonsense! You act like you don't know basic words of the English language. What does the word "in" means in the English language? Also, If Rhino fought like a genius before then it is certainly "in" him to do it again. Now you can argue that a character mostly likely won't do something because of their history but this has nothing to do with what's "in" them. Think about it genius.
The concepts are NOT the same. Firstly, full ability refers to abilities, and abilities alone. Strategies are determined by character. Do you expect Rhino to suddenly become a genius? A character only needs to perform something once to prove it is in their POWERSET, not character. If Batman were to use a gun for some drastic reason, would we automatically assume that he would use guns in every forum fight? Obviously not.
A waste of time argument. We don't speak of something being in someone's character if it isn't in their power set.
There is obviously a difference between never doing something and rarely doing something. You say that "if a character never did something (like SM hitting to kill) then it is not in character for them to do it at anytime". There is no obvious link between the two. If Doom has not used a planet-shattering blast, it certainly isn't due to it not being within his character, but it not being within his powerset. If a move has been used before, it is within a character's powerset. Does not mean that it is likely to be used in any fight due to character imposed limitations.
These characters aren't real. Let me ask you something. How often do many characters in comics fight at their best? The answer is hardly ever. But guess what. The forum rules says that a character must fight at their best at all times (even when that character never or hardly ever has done so).
Probability of performing an action has a drastic effect on the outcome of any fight. Batman's situation was a hypothetical situation. Let me use MMA as an example. If a fighter has had one submission win in his career and 95% of his victories came from KOs, would be logically expect this fighter to go for submissions in every fight? Obviously not, because the culmination of his career dictates otherwise. Using comics, if SS has been shown to stop an opponent from accessing his/her power before once in comics, is he likely to do so again under CIS? I doubt it.
Warp speed is any speed greater than light speed.
The only point of reference is warp speed. Warp speed could be hundreds of times of light speed. Without being able to tell what warp speed is, how do you know what speeds he was accelerating to? Shenanigans.
If it's shenanigans then everyone's (including yours) interpretation of non strict scans is shenanigans too.
And I am telling you in no uncertain terms that they are unacceptable. It's not a mutual disagreement. It is me calling shenanigans on your calculations, or lack thereof.
The burden of proof can never be on the one that is rebutting a claim that someone else is presenting. And it is a lie (or false) that it is obvious that the search was all physical. If anything, my reasoning for the Grandmaster scan is more obvious than your reasoning for the search scan.
There isn't. But it is obvious that the search was at least physical, and that it was thorough. If you want to dilute it by using CA as an argument, the burden of proof is on you.
SS is not faster than Superman in anything within the first couple of seconds. And they're many types of speed my friend. So why do you use the ambiguous word "faster". Let me ask you something. According to your reasoning, is it in SS's character to
SS is faster than Superman. You disagree but refuse to discuss superman? It's alright. I understand not wanting to fight a losing battle.
Then you are a fool for correlating the two. This because the statue might not weight 80tons. But Thing saying that he can lift 80 tons just means that the statue is no problem for him. The same is with SS. Lastly, SS was already traveling before the comment (gaining speed?). That means he had a head start. So the scan itself is invalid for proof.
That is the thing, isn't it? If I followed your faulty logic, that scan would be perfectly feasible. He can be logically inferred to be at light speed and above there. The reason being the preceding narration being superfluous otherwise. When the Thing says he can lift 80tons and lifts a huge statue, I would immediately correlate the two.
Thor can't turn back time anymore. That power was taken away. But yes, just about nearly everything you said Thor has done, many respected debaters here have use those very rare instances to try to prove that Thor can win. And the reasoning Thor doesn't get 10/10 by using those things (like the godblast) is because many characters he fight has the necessary speed to stop him from using such exotic powers. That means he won't get 10/10 even if everyone agrees that he will try to attempt the tactic.
Do you hear arguments about Thor turning back time, turning himself invisible, drawing a planet's magnetic energy as an attack, paralysing opponents, reversing energy polarities, absorbing energy from opponents, soul seperation etc? That's ignoring other feats like stealing power etc. Even when you DO hear about godblasts, anti-gravity, anti-matter etc, you rarely hear Thor getting 10/10 against any mid-high herald. I'm not saying it's correct, but it shows that few people argue characters using only handpicked feats.
Again, the hierarchy threads prove you wrong on that aspect. [/B][/QUOTE]
odin wins with ease because odin is a god and imortal but what the hell is supes?
they say supes is imortal but ive read more than one comic where he dies so thats obiusly not true.
and who was it that said odin would beat PC superman and put PC superman above thanos?
you got to read your comics because thanos puts odin full powered with the power gem in check.
Originally posted by h1a8[/B][/QUOTE]
SS is not faster than Superman in anything within the first couple of seconds.
Your basis for this statement is really twisted and you have not proved it in the slightest. For one there have been two undeniable scans of SS hitting extremely high speeds instantly clearly showing that he is capable of this. You howver have failed to provide scans showing SS INABILITY to do this. One of the scans you provided is terriblly ambiguous and you have chosen to interpret in ur own way( grandmaster scan) and the other scan while it does show SS hitting warp speed after a few seconds does NOT prove that he CANNOT hit warp speed in less time. In that scan SS is shown to be conversing with genis before he hits warp speed and there is no proof that he does not have the ability to hit warp speed in less time than he did there. Just because a character does not do something in a particular instance does not mean he cannot. The is especially true when the said charcter has other feats with him displaying the trait in question. Therefore to prove that SS cannot hit such high speeds( whether warp or light i really dont know which ur talking about) in the given time you would have to provide scans showing without a shadow of a doubt, his " INABILITY" to hit such speeds that outnumber the examples of him hitting such speeds. And further you have not evn provided any example of superman hitting such speeds in the said time so you are lacking proof in a major area of ur argument.
Originally posted by h1a8
Nonsense! You act like you don't know basic words of the English language. What does the word "in" means in the English language? Also, If Rhino fought like a genius before then it is certainly "in" him to do it again. Now you can argue that a character mostly likely won't do something because of their history but this has nothing to do with what's "in" them. Think about it genius.
A waste of time argument. We don't speak of something being in someone's character if it isn't in their power set.
My money is on my ability to use the english language being markedly higher than yours. Not a boast, just where my money would be. Sure, if Rhino fought cleverly once, he might do it again. You can argue how it would be "in him" to do it again, but CIS rules and the "in character" stipulation say otherwise. Now, you can argue all you want about how performing any feat once in a thousand appearances constitutes being in character, but that very sentence is an oxymoron. Not going to happen.
A waste of time because you cannot answer it. We saw what Joker did with Mxy's power. That is one of many examples of something being in a character, but not being within a powerset, a subtle, but glaring difference that you either seem to ignore or cannot grasp.
Originally posted by h1a8
These characters aren't real. Let me ask you something. How often do many characters in comics fight at their best? The answer is hardly ever. But guess what. The forum rules says that a character must fight at their best at all times (even when that character never or hardly ever has done so).
Characters aren't real, but logic still prevails regardless, especially when those were analogies. Let me ask you a question in return. How often do you believe combat fighters in real life fight at their best? The answer is hardly ever. But guess what? It doesn't mean they aren't fighting to the best of their abilities. That forum rule works in tandem with CIS rules without bloodlust. How convenient that you revert to imposing this rule over the CIS rule. I've already dismissed your persistence with this rule, and until you have a grasp on what being in character is, stop beating a dead horse.
Character:
1. The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another
4. Moral or ethical strength
5. A description of a person's attributes, traits, or abilities
None of the above definitions back up what you say. "A combination of qualities" and "a description of traits" require culminations, not handpicked outliers.
Originally posted by h1a8
Warp speed is any speed greater than light speed.
Source? Until then, you haven't done anything but make yourself look slightly incompetent.
Originally posted by h1a8If it's shenanigans then everyone's (including yours) interpretation of non strict scans is shenanigans too.
I interpret scans logically because unlike you, I clearly do not have the ability to discern how far that explosion reached by looking at the scan [/sarcasm]. Unless you enlighten me with calculations, I'm afraid it's about as trustworthy as Pamela Anderson trying to persuade me of her virginity.
Originally posted by h1a8The burden of proof can never be on the one that is rebutting a claim that someone else is presenting. And it is a lie (or false) that it is obvious that the search was all physical. If anything, my reasoning for the Grandmaster scan is more obvious than your reasoning for the search scan.
Sure. By your complete lack of superior feats from superman, as well as a complete inability to prove that SS cannot hit light speed quickly, it does seem that the burden of proof is indeed upon you, especially as it was you who claimed that SS is a slow starter. My interpretation of the search scan is that it is obviously implied that there was a physical portion to the search, backed up by on-panel illustrations. If you want to theorise that CA was involved without a physical search, the burden of proof is indeed upon you. Your reasoning for the grandmaster scan? Let's not use words incorrectly here. Please substitute "reasoning" for "wishful thinking". I await your calculations, or lack thereof.
Originally posted by h1a8SS is not faster than Superman in anything within the first couple of seconds. And they're many types of speed my friend. So why do you use the ambiguous word "faster". Let me ask you something. According to your reasoning, is it in SS's character to
to stop someone with Super speed from blitzing (or hitting) him in battle?
Originally posted by h1a8Then you are a fool for correlating the two. This because the statue might not weight 80tons. But Thing saying that he can lift 80 tons just means that the statue is no problem for him. The same is with SS. Lastly, SS was already traveling before the comment (gaining speed?). That means he had a head start. So the scan itself is invalid for proof.
If I were a fool for making that correlation, the writer would be just as great a fool for making it necessary to make that logical leap. As silly as it may seem, writers/editors are more competent than that. That is why you will not see a panel of Spiderman saying that he can lift 10 tons, and then follow up by having Spiderman lift a 1ton car. It makes no sense.
Originally posted by h1a8Thor can't turn back time anymore. That power was taken away. But yes, just about nearly everything you said Thor has done, many respected debaters here have use those very rare instances to try to prove that Thor can win. And the reasoning Thor doesn't get 10/10 by using those things (like the godblast) is because many characters he fight has the necessary speed to stop him from using such exotic powers. That means he won't get 10/10 even if everyone agrees that he will try to attempt the tactic.
The portion about others using such examples to show that Thor can win using these methods is correct. He CAN win using these methods, but he simply will not strip powers 100/10 times for a victory. Why? It is governed by CIS and in character stipulations. These stipulations are what prevents him from getting 10/10 simply by using one-shot powers, and these same stipulations are what prevents surfer from curbstomping superman into the ground by using one-shot powers or going back in time 10/10.
Again, the hierarchy threads prove you wrong on that aspect. The fact that Thor and Superman are placed on the same tier shows that the general concensus, right or wrong, is that Superman will not "walk Thor in seconds".
Originally posted by AllanklesNo you just seem to be underestimating Thanos' durability.
Odin's blast weren't all that great if Thanos was standing up to them. They certainly didn't resemble anything close to dimension shattering punches. Thanos can be wounded physically, as well so he isn't standing up to those kind of blows for long.Infinite power? It would be wise to recognize hyperbole my friend. If Makers blasts possessed infinte power, Thanos wouldn't have stood up to them. 'Infinte' gets used so often in comics it loses its meaning.
And please learn to recognize what I'm saying, I'll use a few checks to better clarify where I'm coming from.
PC Superman versatile energy projection - check
Overwhelming speed advantage - check
Overwhelming strength advantage - check
Great resistance to psionic (and largely telepathic attacks) - check
Uber resistance to energy attacks - check.So Thanos doesn't have the physical arsenal to keep up with Superman and given that PC Supes durability to energy based attacks is extremely high, even if Thanos hits him, the damage PC Superman will sustain is far less than what Thanos would sustain, because of the vast difference in speed.
If they were written in a comic according to their abilities, Thanos would be teleporting himself to the place furthest from, realizing - after the first salvo - that he is the clearly over matched. As you can see, I give Thanos' intelligence a lot of credit.
Infinite power isnt hyperole. Sorry it was stated in the comic. She can warp reality and is a major threat but Thanos easily stomped her.
This is after his final upgrade showing how muc more powerful he became even after the Odin and Tyrant fights.
Intelligence-Thanos check
Durability-Thanos check
Versatility-Thanos check
Telepathic-he has brainwashed people before like the Fallen One. Supes isnt 100 percent resistant to this.
Thanos can and will dominate him. He has fought beings with infinite power and came out the victor with barely a scratch. He can defeat characters with speed easily as well.
Supes may be able to take some physical damage but that doesnt keep him from being mindraped. Thanos keeps him off balance blasting and brawling wit him and then mindrapes him.
Supes is clearly overmatched.
Originally posted by Ouallada
If I were a fool for making that correlation, the writer would be just as great a fool for making it necessary to make that logical leap. As silly as it may seem, writers/editors are more competent than that. That is why you will not see a panel of Spiderman saying that he can lift 10 tons, and then follow up by having Spiderman lift a 1ton car. It makes no sense.
Your perspective on this is no more unreasonable than the opposite.
I think its quite possible for a character to overestimate himself or even exaggerate/boast. Could go either way, depends on the character too I guess.
Your spiderman example is somewhat flawed because the weight difference of what he claims and what he lifts is vast.
I guess its really up to personal speculation in most cases. One must be careful to understand the situation. Is the writer trying to convey the character's impressive abilities - or - is it solely the opinion of the character himself/herself? Either way, the textual "proof" is going to be coming out of the character's mouth (unless its narration), and thus can be read either way.
Although, in most cases, I would think if it was merely the character's opinion, the writer will make it obvious.
I would say "common sense" is the best way to go about it when reading a comic. However, common sense doesn't really count for much as evidence in a debate.
As for your example (The Thing and the Statue), using common sense we can reasonably assume it does weigh roughly 80 tonnes (by comparison to other things). Is it exactly 80 tonnes? Most likely not. It Could be 75 or even 85 tonnes, but I think the idea is that he can lift around that range. But here, the example is obvious.
When talking about speed, it tends to be not so obvious.
Ultimately, there will always be some ambiguities that I don't think anyone can overcome with certainty.
I think the above is more relevant to the standard rules used in Vs debating than this topic lol. BTW, I don't know what you and the other fella are debating about, I'm just discussing that particular point I quoted. 😄
Originally posted by Placidity
Your perspective on this is no more unreasonable than the opposite.
I think its quite possible for a character to overestimate himself or even exaggerate/boast. Could go either way, depends on the character too I guess.Your spiderman example is somewhat flawed because the weight difference of what he claims and what he lifts is vast.
I guess its really up to personal speculation in most cases. One must be careful to understand the situation. Is the writer trying to convey the character's impressive abilities - or - is it solely the opinion of the character himself/herself? Either way, the textual "proof" is going to be coming out of the character's mouth (unless its narration), and thus can be read either way.
Although, in most cases, I would think if it was merely the character's opinion, the writer will make it obvious.
I would say "common sense" is the best way to go about it when reading a comic. However, common sense doesn't really count for much as evidence in a debate.
As for your example (The Thing and the Statue), using common sense we can reasonably assume it does weigh roughly 80 tonnes (by comparison to other things). Is it exactly 80 tonnes? Most likely not. It Could be 75 or even 85 tonnes, but I think the idea is that he can lift around that range. But here, the example is obvious.
When talking about speed, it tends to be not so obvious.
Ultimately, there will always be some ambiguities that I don't think anyone can overcome with certainty.
I think the above is more relevant to the standard rules used in Vs debating than this topic lol. BTW, I don't know what you and the other fella are debating about, I'm just discussing that particular point I quoted. 😄
The points you raise are fair enough. However, the simple point being made is that there is a distinction between talking oneself up and both instances mentioned. The former falls into the realm of hyperbole, and is associated with making ambiguous claims, ie "my power is infinite" or "X's strength is immeasurable". I associate incidents like the SS one in question and the analogy to be first-person narration, because of their explanatory nature, and because it simply makes no narrative sense to not have a correlation between the two.
All visual media (comics, movies) use such correlations to make logical leaps. The spiderman example is meant to be flawed, because it illustrates how silly a panel which allowed that sort of illustration and writing is. In SS' case if would not be so silly as he states himself to travel faster than light, but then and again there is a big difference between 300001km/s and a thousand times of light speed. The logic, though, is the same.
I agree that speed is more difficult to illustrate on panel, but that doesn't change the point that if you see the logic behind the Thing example, and the flawed nature of the Spiderman one, all one would need to do is to juxtapose strength for speed. In the absense of an omniscient narrator, this, IMO, is the best a comic can do.
Nah don't worry, other points are most welcome, even though I doubt this is much of a debate anymore. It's getting pretty close to a ref stoppage.
Originally posted by quanchi112
No you just seem to be underestimating Thanos' durability.Infinite power isnt hyperole. Sorry it was stated in the comic. She can warp reality and is a major threat but Thanos easily stomped her.
😆
I don't think you understand what the word "infinite" is. When used in comics, to describe a mortal makers powers: it is hyperbole. And PC Supes would have hurt and defeated the mortal maker Thanos beat. Comperatively Post Crisis Superman has beaten uber telepaths with psionic energy attacks before. I can see PC Supes easily confounding the Maker Thanos beat.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Intelligence-Thanos check
Durability-Thanos check
Versatility-Thanos check
Telepathic-he has brainwashed people before like the Fallen One. Supes isnt 100 percent resistant to this.
Durability - Superman aside from pure Magic durability. Besides durability doesn't matter when Superman can do everything Thanos can do (minus the telepathy), and has much greater speed and strength.
Versatility - this is PC Supes, he was versatile as hell, versatility PC Supes has the edge. He's a superior brawler (greater strength) and can speedblitz.
Telpathy - already addressed, Superman had a great defense against telepathy.
Thanos is much slower and weaker, plus he has no edge in energy versatility. Superman ruins Thanos' dorky-looking face with his dimension shattering blows, on his way to a one sided stomp.
Originally posted by OualladaAgain, a character rarely doing something has nothing to do with it being "in" them. A kinder gardener can understand this. Do you know what "in" means?
My money is on my ability to use the english language being markedly higher than yours. Not a boast, just where my money would be. Sure, if Rhino fought cleverly once, he might do it again. You can argue how it would be "in him" to do it again, but CIS rules and the "in character" stipulation say otherwise. Now, you can argue all you want about how performing any feat once in a thousand appearances constitutes being in character, but that very sentence is an oxymoron. Not going to happen.
You are now arguing for the sake of winning. Stop avoiding my valid arguments.
A waste of time because you cannot answer it. We saw what Joker did with Mxy's power. That is one of many examples of something being in a character, but not being within a powerset, a subtle, but glaring difference that you either seem to ignore or cannot grasp.Characters aren't real, but logic still prevails regardless, especially when those were analogies. Let me ask you a question in return. How often do you believe combat fighters in real life fight at their best? The answer is hardly ever. But guess what? It doesn't mean they aren't fighting to the best of their abilities. That forum rule works in tandem with CIS rules without bloodlust. How convenient that you revert to imposing this rule over the CIS rule. I've already dismissed your persistence with this rule, and until you have a grasp on what being in character is, stop beating a dead horse.
Character:
1. The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another
4. Moral or ethical strength
5. A description of a person's attributes, traits, or abilitiesNone of the above definitions back up what you say. "A combination of qualities" and "a description of traits" require culminations, not handpicked outliers.
This is what I've said:
"Let me ask you something. How often do many characters in comics fight at their best? The answer is hardly ever. But guess what. The forum rules says that a character must fight at their best at all times (even when that character never or hardly ever has done so)."
Your analogy is flawed here. What do you think the mods had in mind when they said character's are to fight at their best? Let me help you out. In the rules under Full capacity it clearly says, "That means they will use any powers at their disposal." Those are the rules man.
And your definition of character is not needed here. For we are not talking about character but the something that is in a character's personality. If that something isn't in a character's personality then how would they ever do it? Please answer that.
Star Trek. This is where the term came from. There are engineers who work on the science of star trek. These engineers strictly defined warp speed. There is Warp 1-21. Warp 1 is at the speed of light to under 8 times the speed of light. Warp 2 is at 8 times the speed of light to under 27 times the speed of light. Warp 21 is infinite/transwarp. If you look anywhere in science books or on the internet you will find in many places that warp speed is any speed faster than light. I thought this was common sense to be honest.
Source? Until then, you haven't done anything but make yourself look slightly incompetent.
Yet we have no clue on how SS searched the planet. Was it part CA and part physical, all CA, or all physical?
I interpret scans logically because unlike you, I clearly do not have the ability to discern how far that explosion reached by looking at the scan [/sarcasm]. Unless you enlighten me with calculations, I'm afraid it's about as trustworthy as Pamela Anderson trying to persuade me of her virginity.
Why do I need to prove that SS can't hit light speed in under a second when I've already did? Even if he could do so it would still be not in his character according to your logic for he been shown to be a slow starter more times than him reaching light speed in under a second.
Sure. By your complete lack of superior feats from superman, as well as a complete inability to prove that SS cannot hit light speed quickly, it does seem that the burden of proof is indeed upon you, especially as it was you who claimed that SS is a slow starter. My interpretation of the search scan is that it is obviously implied that there was a physical portion to the search, backed up by on-panel illustrations. If you want to theorise that CA was involved without a physical search, the burden of proof is indeed upon you. Your reasoning for the grandmaster scan? Let's not use words incorrectly here. Please substitute "reasoning" for "wishful thinking". I await your calculations, or lack thereof.
Anyway, the search scan doesn't prove that SS hit light speed under a second. He was gone for at least 5 seconds. That means he could used two seconds to reach faster than light speed and after he achieved this speed he traveled as many times as needed around the planet for the last 3 seconds to physically search the entire planet. Are you satisfied now? Probably not as I just proved that the scan still doesn't prove that he reached light speed or faster in under 2 seconds.
Do you see what you just did?
And your lack of proof definitely hammers the point that SS is slower home. If you are referring to combat speed and traveling speed, SS doesn't need the former against superman for the most part (even though he has combat speed). All he needs to do is to evade, keep distance, and blast/transmute. His traveling speed is faster, and combat speed will not matter here, as the former prevents the latter from coming into play. This is using your logic, that A cannot beat B unless A is faster/stronger. It doesn't matter what my normal reasoning is, as my entire SS/flash vs superman premise is based on your logic, faulty as it is.
It makes all the sense in the world. If someone is challenging a character to lift 5 tons (them not thinking that he can lift 5 tons). Then the character can simply lift it and tell them, "Fool! I can lift over 100 tons."
If I were a fool for making that correlation, the writer would be just as great a fool for making it necessary to make that logical leap. As silly as it may seem, writers/editors are more competent than that. That is why you will not see a panel of Spiderman saying that he can lift 10 tons, and then follow up by having Spiderman lift a 1ton car. It makes no sense.
You must have been absent on many debates. Because if Thor can apply a tactic then he wins 10/10. This is how many debates ended. The only time he doesn't win 10/10 is when his opponent is fast enough to not let hit do that tactic or his opponent is immune or has a defense to that tactic. And understand that Thor doesn't have time powers anymore. They were taken away from him a long time ago.
The portion about others using such examples to show that Thor can win using these methods is correct. He CAN win using these methods, but he simply will not strip powers 100/10 times for a victory. Why? It is governed by CIS and in character stipulations. These stipulations are what prevents him from getting 10/10 simply by using one-shot powers, and these same stipulations are what prevents surfer from curbstomping superman into the ground by using one-shot powers or going back in time 10/10.Again, the hierarchy threads prove you wrong on that aspect. The fact that Thor and Superman are placed on the same tier shows that the general concensus, right or wrong, is that Superman will not "walk Thor in seconds".
Originally posted by h1a8"Let me ask you something. How often do many characters in comics fight at their best? The answer is hardly ever. But guess what. The forum rules says that a character must fight at their best at all times (even when that character never or hardly ever has done so)."
Your analogy is flawed here. What do you think the mods had in mind when they said character's are to fight at their best? Let me help you out. In the rules under Full capacity it clearly says, "That means they will use [B]any
powers at their disposal." Those are the rules man.[/B]
There is also the CIS rule. Which means if Spiderman fights DD hes not going to use his superhuman strength at full capacity. So not fighting at there best does not always mean that they will use all their powers at their disposal.
Originally posted by h1a8
SS has a long history of not being able to apply those strategies in battle. Ask anyone who knows SS. They will tell you that he has terrible battle speed and reflexes. He also fights dumb a lot too. So I guess it would be out of character for him to do such things in a forum fight. Right?
🙄
Failed. He has a long history of using his speed in battle, you just nitpick at the examples you like and twist things around to suit your logic.
Originally posted by Phantom ZoneWho's talking about full strength?
There is also the CIS rule. Which means if Spiderman fights DD hes not going to use his superhuman strength at full capacity. So not fighting at there best does not always mean that they will use all their powers at their disposal.
Using speed? Such ambiguity. Double fail. Everyone knows he doesn't even have a remote history of showing great battle speed.
Failed. He has a long history of using his speed in battle, you just nitpick at the examples you like and twist things around to suit your logic.
Originally posted by h1a8
Who's talking about full strength?
I'm saying that a character can use all powers that they possess. Whether it be at full strength or not makes no difference. Do you understand that we were discussing whether a character will employ a given tactic and not how well they will employ it?
This what you said right.
Your analogy is flawed here. What do you think the mods had in mind when they said character's are to fight at their best? Let me help you out. In the rules under Full capacity it clearly says, "That means they will use any powers at their disposal." Those are the rules man.
The fact of the matter is that this is not always the case. Superstrength is a power and Spiderman on this forum will now always use it due to CIS.
Originally posted by h1a8
Using speed? Such ambiguity. Double fail. Everyone knows he doesn't even have a remote history of showing great battle speed.
No there are lots of examples. Well give me one example of when you are certain somebody is doing faster than light speed.