Pre-Crisis Superman vs Odin

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
This what you said right.

[B]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.[/B]

Originally posted by h1a8
Again, 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?

Sure, I know enough about the english language to understand that "in character" is a joined expression that denotes a character acting within the limits of his personal traits. You are obviously confusing "character" with a physical entity, as per "a character in a play" while the rules are referring to "character" as "an individual's combination of qualities and traits".

Originally posted by h1a8
You are now arguing for the sake of winning. Stop avoiding my valid arguments.

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)."

I do not need to argue simply for the sake of winning. It should be obvious enough who is.

My answer is below, and quoted from my previous post. Just because you cannot answer to any of the counterpoints does not mean you did not get an answer -- simply one that you did not like.

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.

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

CIS rules and the "in character" stipulation say that this is rarely possible. Superman still does not start off fights going all out, unless bloodlusted. Stop imposing one rule on the other when they are meant to work in tandem. IE fighting to one's full potential/powerset whilst restricted by CIS and character limitations.

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

It obviously is, because you are still confusing character with powerset. If a character performs a move, it does not mean that it is within said character's personality, and vice versa. If Surfer started a match by transmutation immediately, it shows that the latter is within his powerset, but it is not typically within his personality to do so. The second point is once again proved using the Joker analogy -- characters do not all have the powerset that fits their character -- Joker showed what his PERSONALITY/CHARACTER would lead him to do with Mxy's powerset, Thanos showed what his PERSONALITY/CHARACTER would lead him to do with God's power. Neither have those powersets normally. Doesn't mean it isn't within their characters.

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

I know it was from Star Trek, which is why I asked for a non star trek source in my first reply to this point. When comparing fictional media to fictional media, without an ounce of scientific proof between them, interpretations are variable. Are elves from lineage identical to those from Tolkien? Is Odin from comics identical to the Norse god? Obviously not. Unlike light speed, for which there is a proven scientific parallel, none exists for warp speed. The fact that it is defined as an informal term by dictionaries and a pop culture phrase lends credence. I want a comic source. I would have thought that a person steeped in physics would know better than this.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yet we have no clue on how SS searched the planet. Was it part CA and part physical, all CA, or all physical?

What we know from the art is that it is heavily implied that physicality was involved-- SS was shown to be turning to leave, and shown returning. What we have no clue on is the CA portion. That's your point to prove.

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

Because you never did. The only thing you have shown is your love of pop culture phrases and your mystical ability to tell how large an explosion is on panel. Since you have not proven anything and since the only real example of SS going from rest with on-panel distance is the IG incident, guess what?

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

You just proved something via your vivid imagination, and wishful thinking? I should call the Nobel Prize committee now. When "could have" is proof, let me know.

Originally posted by h1a8
Do you see what you just did?
You went against your very logic. You defeated your own self. SS will rarely do such strategies in battle against a single character. 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?
🙄

Sure I do. Using your logic, that is exactly what SS will do. He already did so during the scan I posted, and the IG incident shows his starting speed. Using your logic, he would win easily as those are all feats he can replicate easily.

How SS is argued by logical people here isn't relevant. These people say that SS can be hit, and that SS does not always fight smart because they take his entire history into account. Only people like you argue like I did above.

Originally posted by h1a8
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."

Except that no one was challenging SS, and no one is challenging anyone in my analogies. Fact still stands: when first person narration is used without hyperbole and when backed up by the illustration, it is more logical to make the connection, because the reverse is silly most of the time.

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

Laughable riposte. The logical people around here whose opinions I tend to respect more, never use one-shot powers 10/10 for a win. Not for THor, not for anyone. The fact that you are implying otherwise shows that you either have not been around for enough debates, or that you must have a selective memory comprising only of fanboys' opinions.

Still waiting. Where are Superman's feats?

Originally posted by Ouallada
Sure, I know enough about the english language to understand that "in character" is a joined expression that denotes a character acting within the limits of his personal traits. You are obviously confusing "character" with a physical entity, as per "a character in a play" while the rules are referring to "character" as "an individual's combination of qualities and traits".

I do not need to argue simply for the sake of winning. It should be obvious enough who is.

My answer is below, and quoted from my previous post. Just because you cannot answer to any of the counterpoints does not mean you did not get an answer -- simply one that you did not like.

CIS rules and the "in character" stipulation say that this is rarely possible. Superman still does not start off fights going all out, unless bloodlusted. Stop imposing one rule on the other when they are meant to work in tandem. IE fighting to one's full potential/powerset whilst restricted by CIS and character limitations.

It obviously is, because you are still confusing character with powerset. If a character performs a move, it does not mean that it is within said character's personality, and vice versa. If Surfer started a match by transmutation immediately, it shows that the latter is within his powerset, but it is not typically within his personality to do so. The second point is once again proved using the Joker analogy -- characters do not all have the powerset that fits their character -- Joker showed what his PERSONALITY/CHARACTER would lead him to do with Mxy's powerset, Thanos showed what his PERSONALITY/CHARACTER would lead him to do with God's power. Neither have those powersets normally. Doesn't mean it isn't within their characters.

I know it was from Star Trek, which is why I asked for a non star trek source in my first reply to this point. When comparing fictional media to fictional media, without an ounce of scientific proof between them, interpretations are variable. Are elves from lineage identical to those from Tolkien? Is Odin from comics identical to the Norse god? Obviously not. Unlike light speed, for which there is a proven scientific parallel, none exists for warp speed. The fact that it is defined as an informal term by dictionaries and a pop culture phrase lends credence. I want a comic source. I would have thought that a person steeped in physics would know better than this.

What we know from the art is that it is heavily implied that physicality was involved-- SS was shown to be turning to leave, and shown returning. What we have no clue on is the CA portion. That's your point to prove.

Because you never did. The only thing you have shown is your love of pop culture phrases and your mystical ability to tell how large an explosion is on panel. Since you have not proven anything and since the only real example of SS going from rest with on-panel distance is the IG incident, guess what?

You just proved something via your vivid imagination, and wishful thinking? I should call the Nobel Prize committee now. When "could have" is proof, let me know.

Except that no one was challenging SS, and no one is challenging anyone in my analogies. Fact still stands: when first person narration is used without hyperbole and when backed up by the illustration, it is more logical to make the connection, because the reverse is silly most of the time.

The guy was challenging SS. Why would SS say the comment if he wasn't being challenged?

Let's use some clear logic.
1. The rules say that characters will use any powers at their disposal.
2. Something that isn't in a character's personality means that the character wouldn't ever perform the action under normal circumstances (like being mind controlled).

And note: I've already agreed a while ago that SS gets 5/10 or better from Superman. I accept that he will fight in the most optimal way even though his majority history shows against it. My point was that SS is a slow starter by your logic not by mine.

Originally posted by h1a8
I did answer your counterpoints. I said your analogy was flawed. These fictional characters are subject to our imaginations, MMA aren't. We apply the rules of the forum and not rules of real life. True, in real life a MMA will not fight every fight at his best. But here, all characters will by the rules. That does not mean that they will be just as fast or strong as they been in their top scans but rather they will use any power or strategy at their disposal that they have used before in the past (proving it is in their character). Spiderman lifting tanks is something that he won't do in forum fights but him using his spidersense is. So I'm not arguing how well a character will perform but that they will choose to use any power at their disposal if they proven to have done so in the past.

You obviously did not answer any counterpoints, seeing as I am still waiting for rebuttals, while the only ones of any sort I am seeing is that the full ability stipulation being imposed over the CIS and in character stipulations and the power of imagination, both of which are ridiculously illogical. I agree that fictional characters are not identical to real-life combat sports, but the point is that in any kind of combat situation, it is completely illogical to expect optimal performances from all parties. There are several reasons for this (I will not include them here for sake of brevity and not going OT), obviously, and this is correlated by using real combat sports. Between your imagination and a logic grounded in reality while working within the forum rules, I know which I would pick.

I have already agreed on full powersets being used, but not that using a move once makes it "in character" by default. Unless you are referring to the physical interpretation of the word "character", or referring to a character's history, that is incorrect, as I may mentioned multiple times. Using a simple analogy, if a person is a habitual liar, but tells the truth on rare occasions, logic dictates that if said person acts "in character", he would likely be lying. Ceteris paribus, your interpretation has it that this person tells the truth every single time because he has done so on rare occasions.

Originally posted by h1a8
Rarely possible has nothing to do with the definition of "within a character's personality". Impossible has everything to do with it though.
It is impossible for Batman to shoot someone with a gun under normal circumstances. But it is rarely possible that Thor uses his godblast attack. Big difference.

What is within a character's personality has everything to do with whether an occurence is rarely or highly possible. Batman was a hypothetical situation, and is nigh impossible due to his character constraints. For the sake of logic, would you use a gun-wielding Batman if some joke of a writer wrote him as using a gun in a comic? I would not, for obvious reasons. Thor's case isn't as extreme, but is still highly unlikely, which is a far cry from what you are claiming.

Originally posted by h1a8
What you don't understand is that I agree that certain characters won't do certain things even if it is in their powerset. My logic is that if they have done it before (under normal circumstances) then it is not against their personality to do it again. All the examples you are using shows things that the character will or have not ever done.

I have never killed anyone before. Doesn't mean I never will. Once again, impossible only exists in history. I am not disagreeing with the fact that one-shot powers may be used again. I am simply disagreeing with the fact that you seem to believe that a one-time usage of an ability means that said ability can be used at anytime in the future. Special circumstances exist, obviously. SS' CA makes it more possible that he scans opponents for weaknesses, but even that isn't a given in my book.

Originally posted by h1a8
It is clear that warp speed is the same to all. I can't believe you are arguing the term "warp speed". This is common sense to all. Enough said.

Seeing as I haven't seen any comicbook definition, or a confirmation that the warp speed on that panel is warp speed 1, I do not see how enough has been said. The terms spirit and soul are used in comics, even though the definitions are at times in contrast with the biblical definitions. Understand?

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not for me to prove.
I didn't present the scan to make a claim, someone else did. I'm simply rebutting the claim by saying that the scan doesn't show how SS searched. He could have done it physically or using CA. We don't know. Thus one can not say that he definitely used only physical means or CA. If they do then they are speculating at best. Thus the scan is invalid to prove that SS reached light speed before two seconds.

Incorrect, as your theorycrafting, with Strange taking 5 seconds to talk and SS reaching infinite speeds after 2 seconds etc is simply imaginary. With the implication of a physical search, the onus is on you to prove otherwise. I could also simply say that SS exceeded light speed in the first second and held constant speeds throughout his search, but I sure as anything will not have evidence to prove that. Neither do you for your case.

Originally posted by h1a8
The guy was challenging SS. Why would SS say the comment if he wasn't being challenged?

Do you see SS' opponent posing the question of whether SS can move faster than light?

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's use some clear logic.
1. The rules say that characters will use any powers at their disposal.
2. Something that isn't in a character's personality means that the character wouldn't ever perform the action under normal circumstances (like being mind controlled).

It isn't black and white as you stated. Personalities can dictate how often a move is performed. If THor had Black Adam's personality, you would probably see him performing the godblast more often, as he would not be holding back at all, and will not be afraid to taking lives.

Originally posted by h1a8
And note: I've already agreed a while ago that SS gets 5/10 or better from Superman. I accept that he will fight in the most optimal way even though his majority history shows against it. My point was that SS is a slow starter by your logic not by mine.

Unfortunately, you have neither proven that SS cannot accelerate to light speed in 2 seconds using panel proof (with the only real proof being in my favour in the form of the IG incident, even if all other instances are rejected), and neither have you shown Superman to be superior.

K guys like seriously, asgardian magic cascading over the battlefield for the EASY win.

if odin feels like lowering himself to fisticuffs, magic amp to combat levels then it's bye bye superman.

putting pre-crisis superman against a uber powerful sky god is an insult to odin.........watch out for lightning bolts ✅

Originally posted by Ouallada
You obviously did not answer any counterpoints, seeing as I am still waiting for rebuttals, while the only ones of any sort I am seeing is that the full ability stipulation being imposed over the CIS and in character stipulations and the power of imagination, both of which are ridiculously illogical. I agree that fictional characters are not identical to real-life combat sports, but the point is that in any kind of combat situation, it is completely illogical to expect optimal performances from all parties. There are several reasons for this (I will not include them here for sake of brevity and not going OT), obviously, and this is correlated by using real combat sports. Between your imagination and a logic grounded in reality while working within the forum rules, I know which I would pick.

I have already agreed on full powersets being used, but not that using a move once makes it "in character" by default. Unless you are referring to the physical interpretation of the word "character", or referring to a character's history, that is incorrect, as I may mentioned multiple times. Using a simple analogy, if a person is a habitual liar, but tells the truth on rare occasions, logic dictates that if said person acts "in character", he would likely be lying. Ceteris paribus, your interpretation has it that this person tells the truth every single time because he has done so on rare occasions.

What is within a character's personality has everything to do with whether an occurence is rarely or highly possible. Batman was a hypothetical situation, and is nigh impossible due to his character constraints. For the sake of logic, would you use a gun-wielding Batman if some joke of a writer wrote him as using a gun in a comic? I would not, for obvious reasons. Thor's case isn't as extreme, but is still highly unlikely, which is a far cry from what you are claiming.

I have never killed anyone before. Doesn't mean I never will. Once again, impossible only exists in history. I am not disagreeing with the fact that one-shot powers may be used again. I am simply disagreeing with the fact that you seem to believe that a one-time usage of an ability means that said ability can be used at anytime in the future. Special circumstances exist, obviously. SS' CA makes it more possible that he scans opponents for weaknesses, but even that isn't a given in my book.

Seeing as I haven't seen any comicbook definition, or a confirmation that the warp speed on that panel is warp speed 1, I do not see how enough has been said. The terms spirit and soul are used in comics, even though the definitions are at times in contrast with the biblical definitions. Understand?

Incorrect, as your theorycrafting, with Strange taking 5 seconds to talk and SS reaching infinite speeds after 2 seconds etc is simply imaginary. With the implication of a physical search, the onus is on you to prove otherwise. I could also simply say that SS exceeded light speed in the first second and held constant speeds throughout his search, but I sure as anything will not have evidence to prove that. Neither do you for your case.

Do you see SS' opponent posing the question of whether SS can move faster than light?

It isn't black and white as you stated. Personalities can dictate how often a move is performed. If THor had Black Adam's personality, you would probably see him performing the godblast more often, as he would not be holding back at all, and will not be afraid to taking lives.

Unfortunately, you have neither proven that SS cannot accelerate to light speed in 2 seconds using panel proof (with the only real proof being in my favour in the form of the IG incident, even if all other instances are rejected), and neither have you shown Superman to be superior.

Originally posted by psycho gundam
K guys like seriously, asgardian magic cascading over the battlefield for the EASY win.

if odin feels like lowering himself to fisticuffs, magic amp to combat levels then it's bye bye superman.

putting pre-crisis superman against a uber powerful sky god is an insult to odin.........watch out for lightning bolts ✅

What you don't understand is that PC Superman is much faster than Odin. That means he will definitely win at least a few by attacking Odin before Odin does anything. Now if giving time, Odin wins this by a curbstomp.

Originally posted by h1a8
What you don't understand is that PC Superman is much faster than Odin. That means he will definitely win at least a few by attacking Odin before Odin does anything. Now if giving time, Odin wins this by a curbstomp.

Originally posted by h1a8
I kind of agree with you here. But SM will indeed always use a strength that is greater than his natural before bitten by the spider strength. Thus he's may just use less super strength but still super strength (greater than his natural self).

That might be the case but hes not using his powers at full capacity becuase hes pulling his punches. Isn't that right?

Originally posted by h1a8
I agree that characters won't be necessarily optimal in forum fights (but somewhere in the vicinity though). My whole argument was on the strategy and not the execution. So at least we agree on one thing.

I do not necassarily have a problem with that, even though I account for certain fluctuations at times. I also place a lot more credence on the CIS and character stipulations than you do, and strategy has a lot to do with the latter. I don't expect Killer Croc to fight like Batman and neither do I expect Blaastar to fight like Reed.

Originally posted by h1a8
Does "in character" mean the same as "within a character's personality"? Because the latter is in the rules. Now it may be within a character to lie but not within them to lie very often. That is why I feel we are arguing different things. Read my other comments below before commenting here.

They are the same in ethos, but with regards to different things. "In character" traditionally refers to the acting profession, and a "character" is established using source material, be it a writer's synopsis of how an entity should act, or an entity's performances in comics. An entity's personality, in my opinion, is a subset of an entity's character as it leads to the development of character, but the latter encapsulates more than just personality. Both have very similar connotations when we are referring to how personalities or characters dictate how often an entity does something. If an entity's character and personality has him lying extremely often, which is my hypothetical situation, chances are that neither of us would expect him to tell the truth in any situation, even though that possibility is there. Ceteris paribus, the same applies to comics. If an entity rarely does something in comics, I would not expect to see that move applied often.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your lying to yourself. How can being within a character's personality have anything to do with the rarity of the occurrence. Something may be rare but it is still within you. Thus we should stop this and argue whether a character would use the same probability of performing an action as he has done in his history. I may even surprise you and agree with you there. But for the sake of semantics, rarity has nothing to do with "within a character's personality" but rather the chance that a character will perform an action. So we should argue that and not the meaning of "within a character's personality".

I believe that I understand whether or not I am lying to myself better than you do. How can an entity's character or personality NOT have any bearing on how often an action occurs? Anyone could have chosen to pilfer something in their lifetime, doesn't make them serial thieves. Anyone could have chosen to be extremely hardworking for a certain test, doesn't necessarily mean that the same applies for every other test.

An entity's character or personality can lead to rare occurences as well as non-existent occurences. Do you really believe that if you elevate every person to a position of power, we would see the next Stalin or Hitler? To be honest, your new proposed argument is exactly the same as what I am saying, because my stance has always been that an entity's character and personality is formed by the culmination of his history.

Originally posted by h1a8
A implies B doesn't necessarily mean B implies A. Something can be within your personality but unless you show it then it can't be proven. So it doesn't mean it don't exist just because you didn't show it. But anyway this is moot due to what I've said above.

I don't see any reciprocal implications in my previous post. The rest of the above actually agrees with me, if you read what you wrote carefully.

Originally posted by h1a8
If you seriously want me to make the same logical connections that you made from the scans then you at least have to make the logical connection that I've made about the writer knowing warp speed is any speed greater than light speed.

Logical connections from first person narration and illustration are a completely different story from expecting that certain fictional figments are constant amongst various fictional media. If we don't expect all elves to be equal, if I have already shown that words can and have been interpreted differently, and when warp speed is nothing more than a pop culture phrase, the need for more evidence is obvious.

Originally posted by h1a8
How can the onus be on me? Someone can show me a mathematical proof. I see a flaw in it. But that flaw doesn't mean that the theorem they were trying to prove is false. It's just that I pointed out that their proof is flawed. So what do I have to prove? I didn't make any claims. I didn't say that SS didn't search the planet physically. I was simply rebutting that the scan proves he traveled faster than light within the first two seconds. Remember I said SS could have done it but there's no proof for it, since we have the case of CA.

Look through your earlier posts. Your theory was that SS has never accelerated so quickly in any appearance besides the IG incident, which includes this instance, but when faced with the opposing thought that a physical search is implied and that his "thorough" search can mean many multiple searches, you now change your stance to use CA to prove that SS didn't accelerate to light speed in two seconds. Here's me pointing out what's wrong: 1) Introducing an unaccountable variable in CA, 2) Failing to prove where anything in that scan showed that SS' speed was a concave function. In a nutshell, you bottled the following statement:

And nearly everytime SS was shown to travel from rest (all except one time) the panel showed him taken at least a second or two (one scan showed the time it took for him to reach light speed and beyond).

Originally posted by h1a8
He didn't have to in order to challenge SS. It is obvious that he challenged SS though.

That is a different challenge from a verbal challenge, which is salient as we are talking about first person narration here.

Originally posted by h1a8
Agreed. But that is a different argument as stated above.

It really isn't, as stated above.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't care about Superman vs. SS anymore. As I have already agreed a while ago that SS takes at least 5/10 from him. My point is that if I accept your logic then I have to say that Superman wins at least a slight majority from SS. This is because SS fights like sh!t most of the time in battle.

Excepting PIS incidents, I highly doubt the veracity of your position. Especially when we are talking about current SS.

I cant believe h1a8 really think that superman could beat odin. This is ridiculous.

Originally posted by psycho gundam
yeah, speed blitzing a god with a degree of omniscience that will work.......😉 . one shot by gugnir and superman is out.

Everyone has a degree of omniscience. But speculation won't help Odin respond to Supes. Wasn't he getting blasted by Thanos for crying out loud.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
That might be the case but hes not using his powers at full capacity becuase hes pulling his punches. Isn't that right?

I agree. But that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that a character will use any powers they have at their disposal. Do you agree? The level of how they use them is not my argument.

Originally posted by Ouallada
I do not necassarily have a problem with that, even though I account for certain fluctuations at times. I also place a lot more credence on the CIS and character stipulations than you do, and strategy has a lot to do with the latter. I don't expect Killer Croc to fight like Batman and neither do I expect Blaastar to fight like Reed.

They are the same in ethos, but with regards to different things. "In character" traditionally refers to the acting profession, and a "character" is established using source material, be it a writer's synopsis of how an entity should act, or an entity's performances in comics. An entity's personality, in my opinion, is a subset of an entity's character as it leads to the development of character, but the latter encapsulates more than just personality. Both have very similar connotations when we are referring to how personalities or characters dictate how often an entity does something. If an entity's character and personality has him lying extremely often, which is my hypothetical situation, chances are that neither of us would expect him to tell the truth in any situation, even though that possibility is there. Ceteris paribus, the same applies to comics. If an entity rarely does something in comics, I would not expect to see that move applied often.

I believe that I understand whether or not I am lying to myself better than you do. How can an entity's character or personality NOT have any bearing on how often an action occurs? Anyone could have chosen to pilfer something in their lifetime, doesn't make them serial thieves. Anyone could have chosen to be extremely hardworking for a certain test, doesn't necessarily mean that the same applies for every other test.

An entity's character or personality can lead to rare occurences as well as non-existent occurences. Do you really believe that if you elevate every person to a position of power, we would see the next Stalin or Hitler? To be honest, your new proposed argument is exactly the same as what I am saying, because my stance has always been that an entity's character and personality is formed by the culmination of his history.

I don't see any reciprocal implications in my previous post. The rest of the above actually agrees with me, if you read what you wrote carefully.

In another form: Let A be an action a character has performed before and let B be that same action lying somewhere within their personality. Now A implies B. What you are saying is that something within your personality doesn't mean you have done it (B doesn't imply A). So while your statements are true they don't have any relevance to the statement A implies B (which is my argument). In conclusion, B implies A being true has nothing to do with A implies B.

Logical connections from first person narration and illustration are a completely different story from expecting that certain fictional figments are constant amongst various fictional media. If we don't expect all elves to be equal, if I have already shown that words can and have been interpreted differently, and when warp speed is nothing more than a pop culture phrase, the need for more evidence is obvious.

So I guess we need proof to what the writer meant, lol. But my argument is valid also about either SS not necessarily searching the planet 100% physically or that if he did, that still doesn't prove he reached light speed in under 2 seconds.

Look through your earlier posts. Your theory was that SS has never accelerated so quickly in any appearance besides the IG incident, which includes this instance, but when faced with the opposing thought that a physical search is implied and that his "thorough" search can mean many multiple searches, you now change your stance to use CA to prove that SS didn't accelerate to light speed in two seconds. Here's me pointing out what's wrong: 1) Introducing an unaccountable variable in CA, 2) Failing to prove where anything in that scan showed that SS' speed was a concave function. In a nutshell, you bottled the following statement:

"That's enough. We just agree to disagree.
Your style of debating fights is assuming these characters will fight like they normally do (That means Supes will beat SS worst than what Thor did since he's faster than Thor). My style (and others) is assuming these characters do the best strategy possible (whether they have performed it before or not). For we only care about power set and strategy. IMO, our style is more interesting (and fun) since it makes us pretend that we are the ones with the powers fighting the fight. So for now on I might say in the beginning of every forum fight "According to power set and optimal strategies alone character X should win". This way, no one like you can argue with me."

so you remove CIS for the character you like and keep in on the character you are opposed to.......c'mon. no wonder this thread is like 18 pages, your on a completely different wavelength.

Originally posted by h1a8
That's enough. We just agree to disagree.
Your style of debating fights is assuming these characters will fight like they normally do (That means Supes will beat SS worst than what Thor did since he's faster than Thor). My style (and others) is assuming these characters do the best strategy possible (whether they have performed it before or not). For we only care about power set and strategy. IMO, our style is more interesting (and fun) since it makes us pretend that we are the ones with the powers fighting the fight. So for now on I might say in the beginning of every forum fight "According to power set and optimal strategies alone character X should win". This way, no one like you can argue with me.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I am completely alone in how I interpret the rules and approach forum battles, but I can accept this peace offering for now. Obviously, this will not stop me from disagreeing with you in the future if I feel there is reason to do so. I'm sure you would not have it any other way.

Originally posted by h1a8
You said that just because you never killed doesn't mean it isn't in you to do. In other words, just because someone hasn't performed an action doesn't mean it is not in within their personality.

In another form: Let A be an action a character has performed before and let B be that same action lying somewhere within their personality. Now A implies B. What you are saying is that something within your personality doesn't mean you have done it (B doesn't imply A). So while your statements are true they don't have any relevance to the statement A implies B (which is my argument). In conclusion, B implies A being true has nothing to do with A implies B.

A reciprocal argument is A implying B and B implying A. That is obviously not something that I have been saying.

A implying B or rather B being derived from A is not your complete argument. Your argument reads as A implying B and B implying C, where C refers to the ability and personal choice to repeat A at any given time, while ignoring the fact that A could have occured despite B, not vice versa. Using the hypothetical Batman analogy once again, A is him using a gun, B is that action being part of his personality due to A having previously occured and C is the ability and choice to use a gun anytime during forum battles. The connection between A -> B does not lead to C in any logical form, and this also ignores the fact that Batman likely used the gun despite his personality.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your argument is probably valid. Elves are a very complex thing to define. Thus it can left to different interpretations to what an elf is. ButtThere are things that are simple to define (more strict). For example, "Light speed" can only be defined one way. And possibly this goes for 'warp speed'.

Even elves are themselves loose interpretations of scandinavian legends, a common occurence when going from one fictional medium to another. Light speed, of course, is a constant throughout any media because it is a scientifically proven and accepted norm. Warp speed obviously is not. The same thing applies in sci-fi movies. How many times have you seen different interpretations of a similar concept, such as time travel, in movies?

Originally posted by h1a8
So I guess we need proof to what the writer meant, lol. But my argument is valid also about either SS not necessarily searching the planet 100% physically or that if he did, that still doesn't prove he reached light speed in under 2 seconds.

Your above statement is fine, but is also markedly different from your earlier statement that save the IG example, SS has never been shown to accelerate to light speed in 2 seconds, and that SS has "slow starting speed". There is a large difference between a "not necessarily" statement and a definite statement. I hope you can see that.

Originally posted by h1a8
I see now. You are not understanding me. I didn't say that SS used CA. I said he could have. Also I said that if SS didn't use CA but only physical means then the scan still doesn't prove that he reached light speed before two seconds. So you were trying to rebut one of my points but not the other.

Saying that SS may not necessarily have searched the planet physically only is fair enough. Saying that the scan does not prove that SS cannot accelerate quickly is akin to asking why a movie that cuts between a character opening his front door and cutting to the next scene whereby the character reaches his destination is not telling us how fast said character traveled. The point is that if you are going to impose your statement of SS not being able to accelerate that quickly on all his feats save his IG feat, you better be able to prove it. As far as CA is concerned, Occam's Razor generally means it is more logical to use less assumptions. Using an analogy with the same essence, if a man is found murdered in his home, it is much more logical to assume a robbery leading to murder rather than assuming a conspiracy theory involving some shady black-ops department killing the guy and then making it look like a robbery. Same thing applies to that scan.

Originally posted by Ouallada

A reciprocal argument is A implying B and B implying A. That is obviously not something that I have been saying.

A implying B or rather B being derived from A is not your complete argument. Your argument reads as A implying B and B implying C, where C refers to the ability and personal choice to repeat A at any given time, while ignoring the fact that A could have occured despite B, not vice versa. Using the hypothetical Batman analogy once again, A is him using a gun, B is that action being part of his personality due to A having previously occured and C is the ability and choice to use a gun anytime during forum battles. The connection between A -> B does not lead to C in any logical form, and this also ignores the fact that Batman likely used the gun despite his personality.

Thus the argument is whether the character is allowed to, under the rules, perform a given action in the forum fight. Since both all mods agree that Thor will godblast at anytime (ask them) because he proved it was within his personality (which has nothing to do with rarity) and the rules say that "a character will use any powers at their disposal". Also CIS by definition has nothing to do with a character performing brilliantly or best but rather dumbly. Thus it is perfectly allowed for a character to perform a best given tactic in a forum fight if it is within their personality to do so.

Even elves are themselves loose interpretations of scandinavian legends, a common occurence when going from one fictional medium to another. Light speed, of course, is a constant throughout any media because it is a scientifically proven and accepted norm. Warp speed obviously is not. The same thing applies in sci-fi movies. How many times have you seen different interpretations of a similar concept, such as time travel, in movies?

Your above statement is fine, but is also markedly different from your earlier statement that save the IG example, SS has never been shown to accelerate to light speed in 2 seconds, and that SS has "slow starting speed". There is a large difference between a "not necessarily" statement and a definite statement. I hope you can see that.b
Other than the IG, SS has never been [B]shown to accelerate to light speed in under 2 seconds. The other scan someone showed still didn't show this; I just didn't argue against it. So what I said there was the truth.

[QUOTE]
Saying that SS may not necessarily have searched the planet physically only is fair enough. Saying that the scan does not prove that SS cannot accelerate quickly is akin to asking why a movie that cuts between a character opening his front door and cutting to the next scene whereby the character reaches his destination is not telling us how fast said character traveled. The point is that if you are going to impose your statement of SS not being able to accelerate that quickly on all his feats save his IG feat, you better be able to prove it. As far as CA is concerned, Occam's Razor generally means it is more logical to use less assumptions. Using an analogy with the same essence, if a man is found murdered in his home, it is much more logical to assume a robbery leading to murder rather than assuming a conspiracy theory involving some shady black-ops department killing the guy and then making it look like a robbery. Same thing applies to that scan.

The only thing that matters is that SS has not proved that he will accelerate to light speed in under 2 seconds in a forum fight. Right? Everything else is moot.

Originally posted by psycho gundam
"That's enough. We just agree to disagree.
Your style of debating fights is assuming these characters will fight like they normally do (That means Supes will beat SS worst than what Thor did since he's faster than Thor). My style (and others) is assuming these characters do the best strategy possible (whether they have performed it before or not). For we only care about power set and strategy. IMO, our style is more interesting (and fun) since it makes us pretend that we are the ones with the powers fighting the fight. So for now on I might say in the beginning of every forum fight "According to power set and optimal strategies alone character X should win". This way, no one like you can argue with me."

so you remove CIS for the character you like and keep in on the character you are opposed to.......c'mon. no wonder this thread is like 18 pages, your on a completely different wavelength.

CIS applies when a character never did anything differently than fight stupid, because they are naturally that dumb. PC Superman is not naturally dumb and has many times used his super speed. Thus CIS doesn't apply to him.

Originally posted by h1a8
You were using the B doesn't imply A routine to show me that A doesn't imply B. There is no C since these are fictitious characters and we can get them to do anything we want along the rules. Thus whose to say what a character won't do in a forum battle if it is allowed by the rules. Remember these characters fight only once (not 10 times).

Thus the argument is whether the character is allowed to, under the rules, perform a given action in the forum fight. Since both all mods agree that Thor will godblast at anytime (ask them) because he proved it was within his personality (which has nothing to do with rarity) and the rules say that "a character will use any powers at their disposal". Also CIS by definition has nothing to do with a character performing brilliantly or best but rather dumbly. Thus it is perfectly allowed for a character to perform a best given tactic in a forum fight if it is within their personality to do so.

The C has to do with everything. A and B are both inputs. My argument is that just because A indicates B does not mean that C takes place every single time by default. Case in point: Thor can do the Godblast (fulfilling A), thus showing that he can do it again (fulfilling B). However, this does not mean that he WILL do it again anywhere near 10/10 times (which is C, where we both differ). My previous analogy was aimed towards showing you that powersets differ from an entity's character or personality, and that certain actions that are within an entity's powerset (eg me killing someone) are restricted by character, while accounting for the fact that powersets restrict character impulses as well (Joker with Mxy's power).

As far as the rest of the babble, its simply an interpretation of the rules which the majority of the board uses. IE superman will use his speed, simply not consistently at his peak levels. That is undeniably the path of reasoning that most of the logical posters use. And yes, CIS has to do with a character not being at his peak due to character limitations, which is obviously why a character CANNOT consistently perform at a peak if it isn't within character to.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove that the term 'warp speed' isn't a constant throughout any media. Show me one instance where it isn't the same as the original star trek definition. Because I'm willing to bet anything (including my common sense) that the writer had the same meaning for warp speed as star trek.

You are the one insinuating that warp speed IS the same. The burden of proof would be on you. In this case, there are literally millions of cases in which warp speed is used simply as a phrase. Books have been titled "IT moving at warp speed". Journals have done the same. I'm waiting for where the COMIC writer defined it as light speed, though.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yet it is much more logical that the writer believed warp speed to be of the star trek version. Thus you are being somewhat hypocritical.

Using the least number of assumptions possible is more logical. You assumed that the writer used warp speed. I'm not even assuming. I based my judgment on the other examples of fictional terms and characters handled differently across different media and the fact that warp speed is simply a pop culture phrase outside of Star Trek.

Originally posted by h1a8
The only thing that matters is that SS has not proved that he will accelerate to light speed in under 2 seconds in a forum fight. Right? Everything else is moot.

He has. IG incident. The only thing that matters is that you have comprehensively failed to prove otherwise on any of the situations you attacked. So yeah, according to your prevalent logic, SS would certain accelerate that quickly. Everything else is moot.

Originally posted by Ruin
Odin has not only destroyed countless galaxies as side effects of his battles, but he's also defeated a few characters who were supposedly able to destroy the universe.

When has Odin destroyed countless of galaxies?
Or it was only one galaxy (through narration).

Odin wins.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Thanos would indeed beat a precrisis Superman.

Pre Crisis Superman would win easily.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Not at all. I am just saying that a normal man with a superintellect can give Superman headaches.

Because Superman doesn't go out for a kill.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Thor had the power gem and had no limits to the power he could muster. He only bloodied Thanos' nose. Context.

He didn't have literally no limits to the power. You take this way to literally.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Thanos could and would hurt him and supes doesnt have the power to put him down. While Thanos can mindrape him. You havent proven he can resist this.

Thanos wouldn't have a slightest chance of hurting PC Superman physically.