Master Cheif runs the Doom Gauntlet

Originally posted by DarkC
Yeah, he did. I told you that was a quick durability test on his behalf.

Problems?

Once again, you misunderstand me. You also are horribly twisting the context and sequential order of the quote I have provided.

I think it was quite obvious that the 'dodging' would not have been the word used if this was the case.. I have listed the various field tests in chronological order that the Chief put the armor through - did you pay that any attention? Apparently not.

[b]"...he stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor."

He let it happen, he wasn't even trying to dodge it at that instant, he did after his little 'durability test' was over. Yet again, keep up.

It's absurb to even consider that you would go to this length to pursue a dead point.

Yes, he dodged it, from what I can piece together from what happened before or after.

He's never actually 'dodged' a bullet before he was outfitted with the armor, which would be why he was surprised that the suit lets him react that quickly. You're still making it sound like he dived out of the way, and acted like a fresh green recruit in his first firefight by being surprised.

Which, by the way, I asked you to explain. In reply, you set up a strawman fallacy.

Absurd.

Running something, in other slang, means going through something. Like a trial, or a gauntlet, or in this case, an obstacle course. I am sure you're familiar with all three concepts.

I simply don't understand why I have to explain such a ridiculously simple concept to this extent. I hopefully won't address this again.

One that makes sense, if you consider the evidence I have piled under your nose. See below

Yes, it does actually.

The thing with your 'versions' is, they all lack logical and sequential order. They only make sense or might be true if you remove one or more circumstances from the situation, something which would be logical fallacy.

No, I addressed that earlier. Pay attention.

He first expressed his comfort and ease with how the suit fit him and how he could move, some time before the actual obstacle course. The Master Chief was the first Spartan to be outfitted with the armor and to move in it - Dr. Halsey was demonstrating to the other Spartans and coaching Chief through basic movements like walking and jogging.

Besides, it would be common sense to actually let the Spartans get used to basic movement in the armor before throwing them in the midst of a combat obstacle course, which they did.[/b]

Then why did you bring it up, a durability test when my point before was that he had to move to dodge the bullets, then you say "he was standing!"....

No youve provided one quote, so theres no order in a single quote, he stands there as the bullets deflect off the armour then he jumps, dives or dodges in some other fashion, thats as simple as that really, theres no assumption that holds any real weight whatsoever that he did a Neo on those bullets.

Thus why your argument is weak and will remain so.

Diving out of the way is not a fresh green recruit, anyone who dives out of the way of bullets from chain guns is certainly going to be surprised to say the least and my point si the same as before and as youve just confirmed, hes not dodged/dived in the suit before, therefore he was prob surprised at its agility. And dont bring up tis crap about "hes worn the suit before and noted on its fitting him!" because that squashes your argument of him being surprised in general with his super bullet time mode youve given him.

In other slang? lol, stfu dude, thats a load of crap, you said he was running through it, either make yourself more clear in the future or dont try and cover up your nonsense. If thats the case then you were unclear completly. Either way you fail.

I simply dont understand why you are stupid enough to try and pretend your using some sort of slang, rather than what the term actually means, which fits perfectly with "running" through an obstacle course.

One that makes just as much sense as all of mine, i use all the evidence youve given so far for all of my assumptions, your sitll just pretending yours are better, youve still got no real shred of evidence which in the end, no matter how "super logical" you think your assumptions are, do not add up to real proof.

yes so if he understands how the suit works and moves he should technically still have the senses of bullet time youve given him then as well as when actual bullets appear, why didnt he note it earlier? why wasnt he surprised people around him seemed to go in slow motion or that their movements seemed sluggish compared to his senses or some other crap? obviously because ime correct and he does indeed have no super bullet speed mode.

Originally posted by DarkC
And here the hammer falls hardest.

While it doesn't describe how he actually dodges it, you can still peer at the circumstances surrounding the actual event and put the pieces together.

Why your theory doesn't make sense, I'll explain right here.

You attempt to pass off the vision that the Master Chief - right after standing still briefly to absorb some bullets to see the stopping power of the armor, for some reason dove unnecessarily to the side on a obstacle training course for the sake of avoiding a few bullets.

Let's go over the facts:

[b]1.) He didn't need to avoid the bullets.

The MJOLNIR combat armor is quite capable of taking human-based weaponry. As attested to in the intro of First Strike, taking a full clip of assault rifle fire point blank feels like absorbing "a series of rapid lower body impacts".

This is an obstacle training course, not a life or death combat zone. It would be completely unnecessary to have to do a tuck and roll or a straight dive out of the way as you have suggested, considering that he just tested the durability of the armor by standing and taking a few hits successfully. It would make sense for him to test his reflexes at some point, especially since none of the other parts of the obstacle course put it to a trial or was mentioned to do such.

2.) He was surprised that he dodged said bullets. Not by something else.

Considering all the operations and things he's been through, the new capabilities of the armor, and the context of the quote I provided, it stands to reason that he did indeed dodge the rounds, as the author clearly wrote.

If he meant diving, or rolling out of the way, he would have said such.

You're resorting to putting words in an author's mouth, twisting it, and claiming that it has a different meaning than face value.

Not buying, sorry.

3.) He wouldn't have been surprised by the fact that the bullets missed him if he had committed to a plain roll or dive.

At that point in time, Master Chief was likely in his mid thirties when he donned his first suit of MJOLNIR. He first became classified as a professional soldier at the age of 6, and started running major operations at around 14, right after they got their surgical augmentations.

He's been in and out of major combat situations for close to two decades and is mentally toughened more than any other soldier in the UNSC. Point being - he's an extremely hard person to surprise.

If you're suggesting that the simple act of tucking and rolling to avoid a burst of machine gun fire will, in the words of the quote, arouse his "amazement", then that's being stupid on multiple levels.

There you go. There are the solid facts, plain and simple; undeniable.

And you have none - just conjecture and wild theories.

Game over.

Oh, quit acting up.

You're insulting the quote itself now and calling it worthless when curiously, you were analyzing it earlier and using your misinterpretation in an attempt to topple mine, when you quite literally have no valid theory, not even so much as a whim of supporting evidence. Since you can't use it, you dismiss it right after and claim it as 'worthless'.

Hypocrite.

I challenged you to make sense of why a battle hardened soldier would behave like a wet-behind-the-ears recruit. You still have not given a straight and concise answer, despite me pressing you to. Instead, you've set up the fabled 'strawman fallacy' in an attempt to divert attention away from it, in a rather poor attempt to pass my theory off as apparently 'one of hundreds of possible ones'. Possible =/= likely.

I shouldn't need to remind you of all this, but you go ahead and do it anyway. So....where does that leave us now, Burning? What have you left to do or say that you haven't done already? You've gone so far past the line you probably don't even remember when you've crossed it. Right now you have dodged and avoided, finger-pointed and acting generally ignorant, whether on purpose or not. You've even recklessly ploughed on by insulting the actual quote - the one you requested yourself - simply because you either cannot make sense of it, or that it doesn't suit your needs. Why is my view ridiculous? How doesn't it support it? Give me facts. Give me solid evidence or a refutation, not some silly generalization or more random stabs in the dark. You say all these things and do positively nothing to back it up properly, and then come out of expecting to look squeaky clean? Silly.

Lol, you make all these silly desperate claims that I'm making a fool of myself. How?

I have provided clear evidence and facts, you have not. You only have conjecture to back you up, and half-baked theories that don't make sense when you look at the general picture - judging from this, how in the hell can you make these claims when you are so clearly wrong?

With all that being said, I fully expect your next reply to be filled to the brim with petulant excuses, insults, nonsense, and logical fallacy.

Touche. [/B]

So far ive seen no quote of the actual event, i asked for it but as you fail with most things in this debate, youve failed there as well, not even trying to give more evidence, likely because it will prove me right to a degree even you cannot squirm your way out of by saying "my assumptions are better and more logical!"

1) all of this is completly trashed by the fact he actually did dodge and it says so, so stop making up BS to cover up your nonsense your trying to give Chief these super powers of bullet time, when all he did was dodge. Whether Chief "needs" to dodge or not is irrelvent, he did, and it says he did. Why, we will never know, my guess would be hes just testing it out, just like the obstacle course was build for.

2) Diving and rolling is dodging, go and read a dictionary, ive already given you definitions but you still seem to like your own definitions because it doesnt topple your argument.

3) You would know all about being stupid on multiple levels but more importantly, as ive said in 1), the guy did indeed dodge. That doesnt immediatley mean bullet time Neo esque swerves.

lol yes its over for you, youve got little to no evidence for any of your claims and nothing but your own statements of "mine are logical, your assumptions are not!" and to increase your failure and foolery to higher levels you are ignoring what the quote actually says "dodging" and what the definition ive been kind enough to give you means.

Your the one saying diving/moving to the side is being wet behind the ears, first explain why James bond, a trained and skilled MI agent is wet behind the ears for diving out of the way from bullet fire? anyone would be surprised they survived ridiculous odds.

No you see, youve got almost this entire paragraph wrong, your the one who didnt give me the quote I asked for in the first place, your the one who is assuming, then saying yours is simply more logical, your the one ignoring dictionary definitions and simply labelling MC acts that you dont like as "wet behind the ears" then saying its unlikely just because it crushes your argument (not that you have one, the fact you have only assumptions makes anything you say worthless in this debate, since at the end of the day,its an assumption). And I find your "give evidence" request hilarious to say the least....youve given nothing more than a weak quote and some assumptions on what it means, then say yours are better....

No youve provided no clear evidence apart from that MC deflected bullets off his armour then dodged bullets....then you come to the conclusion he saw them in slow motion and expertly moved his body position with ease to escape them all....that laddie, is stupidity on a high level, and its assumption.

With all that being said, your going to go through all your nonsense again, make some more assumptions which you say are "far more logical" that my own, which ime sure they are! with your incredible undeniable evidence, but ime not quite convinced yet 🙄

OR more likely your just pretty much going to repeat assumptions ive trodden on and then invent some more definitions. Maybe "dodge" in your dictionary will relate to MC moving at lightspeed in your next post!

Ahh, and it turns out I was right....you're getting quite predictable.

Originally posted by Burning thought
So far ive seen no quote of the actual event, i asked for it but as you fail with most things in this debate, youve failed there as well, not even trying to give more evidence, likely because it will prove me right to a degree even you cannot squirm your way out of by saying "my assumptions are better and more logical!"

That quote was the event itself. It addressed it directly, remember? Try not to be so shortsighted. It focused and described the passage solely, if briefly.

Not trying to give more evidence? Yeah, I'm not. I'll tell you that right because I don't need to - you still haven't proven me wrong. From even a passing glance at your so-called counter argument below, it mostly consists of just insulting and false generalization. I'm happy where I stand with my arguments, because I have irrefutable facts backing them up.

What about you? You can't prove me wrong, I've taken care of that much at least. Why bother?

Originally posted by Burning thought
1) all of this is completly trashed by the fact he actually did dodge and it says so, so stop making up BS to cover up your nonsense your trying to give Chief these super powers of bullet time, when all he did was dodge.

Lol I'm not 'giving' him super powers of bullet time, he's not Neo or Agent Smith and we're not in the Matrix. What a terrible comparison. It simply means that Chief has just barely enough reflexes to percieve a speeding bullet and get out of its way, not by throwing himself out of the way like some juggernaut.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Whether Chief "needs" to dodge or not is irrelvent, he did, and it says he did. Why, we will never know, my guess would be hes just testing it out, just like the obstacle course was build for.

Originally posted by Burning thought
2) Diving and rolling is dodging, go and read a dictionary, ive already given you definitions but you still seem to like your own definitions because it doesnt topple your argument.

You take the word 'dodge' and pretty much make the most inane, ridiculous deal over it by dragging it into the depths.

Originally posted by Burning thought
3) You would know all about being stupid on multiple levels

Originally posted by Burning thought
but more importantly, as ive said in 1), the guy did indeed dodge. That doesnt immediatley mean bullet time Neo esque swerves.

and to increase your failure and foolery to higher levels you are ignoring what the quote actually says "dodging" and what the definition ive been kind enough to give you means

It doesn't mean that it isn't Neo-esque swirly motions, either. They dressed it up too much anyways in that movie.

Lol, if you've resorted back to calling me out Webster definition, go ahead. That's pretty much all you have left at the moment. No, I'm not ignorant of the other definitions. I take them all in, unlike you. However, judging from the 3 major facts and concluding backup in my previous post I can form an accurate conclusion.

I don't immediately rule out all the possibilities. As I said you have to actually look at the situation and its circumstances - in this case, the training, Chief's expertise and experience, the objectives and aims of that training course, etc. You have to look at all that and then form a conclusion; you don't - you simply leap straight to one without regard for whether it's factually correct or not.

Originally posted by Burning thought
lol yes its over for you, youve got little to no evidence for any of your claims and nothing but your own statements of "mine are logical, your assumptions are not!"

I have given you just given you undeniable facts and logic, that again you have ignored their meaning and relevancy to the point I was making. Why is that so difficult? You tell me that I'm the one making claims without proof, when strangely enough, you've been doing it more frequently than I. Once again, more hypocrisy.

Keep blustering if that keeps your morale up, but I actually have proof and explanation -that you still have avoided answering directly, instead just choosing to insist that I am somehow a failure (??), - whereas you do not have a solid fact to back you up, other than the Webster definition of the word 'dodge'. Which, I may add, is quite generalized.

If you don't answer to these two points of yours that I have addressed directly below, then this debate is pretty much over. Don't give me silly guesses or half-thought-out theories. Give me facts to support your theories that I have listed here, solid facts, as I have done. That's your homework, get to it. I've already presented my evidence, now it's your turn.

A.) Explain to me why the Chief would randomly dive/roll to the side during a training exercise when the bullets couldn't hurt him, and he had already tested movement and agility before the obstacle course started.

B.) Explain to me why the Chief would act surprised by the sole fact that he was able to avoid a few bullets by diving/rolling to the side, when he is not easily spooked at all, having been in combat situations for about two decades.

As it stands, you're already resorting to tertiary evidence, fallacy, and just plain insulting in substitution for an actual reply. Don't.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Your the one saying diving/moving to the side is being wet behind the ears, first explain why James bond, a trained and skilled MI agent is wet behind the ears for diving out of the way from bullet fire? anyone would be surprised they survived ridiculous odds.

I said it's not the actual diving out of the way that makes them look rookie - it's acting, as the book said, 'amazed' that the bullets actually missed them. Do you see Bond go nuts every time a bullet comes close to hitting him? He's too experienced for that, like Chief, he keeps a level head when the gunfire starts.

Answer my challenges above. Go on, do it.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No you see, youve got almost this entire paragraph wrong, your the one who didnt give me the quote I asked for in the first place

I have given it to you, plus briefly described the rest of the paragraph. Stop whining about it.

Originally posted by Burning thought
your the one who is assuming

The difference is....I have evidence and fact to back my theories up. You do not.

I have challenged you to provide irrefutable support for your theories. You have not.

Originally posted by Burning thought
then saying yours is simply more logical

I have openly invited you to prove otherwise. Use facts. Not guessing or generalization. Facts.

Originally posted by Burning thought
your the one ignoring dictionary definitions

Originally posted by Burning thought
and simply labelling MC acts that you dont like as "wet behind the ears" then saying its unlikely just because it crushes your argument

Yes, it would crush my argument....if it made logical sense, that is. A pity that it doesn't.

Originally posted by Burning thought
[b] (not that you have one, the fact you have only assumptions makes anything you say worthless in this debate, since at the end of the day,its an assumption).

You factually have nothing valid to back your own theories up. I do.

Passing it off as 'just another assumption' isn't going to work, because we've well established by now that it isn't. Did you even read my last post?

Originally posted by Burning thought
And I find your "give evidence" request hilarious to say the least....youve given nothing more than a weak quote and some assumptions on what it means, then say yours are better....

Really, the hypocrisy here is astronomical.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No youve provided no clear evidence [b]apart from that MC deflected bullets off his armour then dodged bullets....then you come to the conclusion he saw them in slow motion and expertly moved his body position with ease to escape them all....that laddie, is stupidity on a high level, and its assumption.[/b]

I will go through them again. If you continue to blindly deny them and insult them without actually proving that they're incorrect or at least giving me a viable explanation other than 'it's an assumption', based on fact, I will report you for trolling.

1.) He didn't need to avoid the bullets.

The MJOLNIR combat armor is quite capable of taking human-based weaponry. As attested to in the intro of First Strike, taking a full clip of assault rifle fire point blank feels like absorbing "a series of rapid lower body impacts".

This is an obstacle training course, not a life or death combat zone. It would be completely unnecessary to have to do a tuck and roll or a straight dive out of the way as you have suggested, considering that he just tested the durability of the armor by standing and taking a few hits successfully. It would make sense for him to test his reflexes at some point, especially since none of the other parts of the obstacle course put it to a trial or was mentioned to do such.

2.) He was surprised that he dodged said bullets. Not by something else.

Considering all the operations and things he's been through, the new capabilities of the armor, and the context of the quote I provided, it stands to reason that he did indeed dodge the rounds, as the author clearly wrote.

If he meant diving, or rolling out of the way, he would have said such.

You're resorting to putting words in an author's mouth, twisting it, and claiming that it has a different meaning than face value.

Not buying, sorry.

3.) He wouldn't have been surprised by the fact that the bullets missed him if he had committed to a plain roll or dive.

At that point in time, Master Chief was likely in his mid thirties when he donned his first suit of MJOLNIR. He first became classified as a professional soldier at the age of 6, and started running major operations at around 14, right after they got their surgical augmentations.

He's been in and out of major combat situations for close to two decades and is mentally toughened more than any other soldier in the UNSC. Point being - he's an extremely hard person to surprise.

If you're suggesting that the simple act of tucking and rolling to avoid a burst of machine gun fire will, in the words of the quote, arouse his "amazement", then that's being stupid on multiple levels.

Reply properly or don't at all.

Originally posted by Burning thought
With all that being said, your going to go through all your nonsense again, make some more assumptions which you say are "far more logical" that my own, which ime sure they are! with your incredible undeniable evidence, but ime not quite convinced yet 🙄

OR more likely your just pretty much going to repeat assumptions ive trodden on and then invent some more definitions. Maybe "dodge" in your dictionary will relate to MC moving at lightspeed in your next post!

It's because you force me to. You somehow think you have the grounds to say that you've apparently "trodden" on them? You haven't even addressed them properly, so that's a no-go. That's why I was just forced to repeat myself needlessly.

Don't bother replying if you're going to ignore my point and plough on and insult. Don't reply with petty insults or blustering, just don't reply at all. For some reason you're still insistent despite the evidence that I have presented before you. You're being purposefully unproductive.

And next time, try to refrain from making some lame attempt to mimic what I said.

Originally posted by DarkC
Ahh, and it turns out I was right....you're getting quite predictable.

Yep, I know I've touched a nerve with people when they start casting the word 'fail' out without any real backup other than more insults...like globs of mashed potato in a food fight, lol.

That quote was the event itself. It addressed it directly, remember? Try not to be so shortsighted. It focused and described the passage solely, if briefly.

Not trying to give more evidence? Yeah, I'm not. I'll tell you that right because I don't need to - you still haven't proven me wrong. From even a passing glance at your so-called counter argument below, it mostly consists of just insulting and false generalization. I'm happy where I stand with my arguments, because I have irrefutable facts backing them up.

What about you? You can't prove me wrong, I've taken care of that much at least. Why bother?

Yeaaaaaah, he did....why did you bring that up?

Lol I'm not 'giving' him super powers of bullet time, he's not Neo or Agent Smith and we're not in the Matrix. What a terrible comparison. It simply means that Chief has just barely enough reflexes to percieve a speeding bullet and get out of its way, not by throwing himself out of the way like some juggernaut.

Yes, he was testing his reflexes by attempting to dodge a bullet - not by diving or rolling away, which would be unnecessary...as I have already addressed.

Yeah, this is what I am talking about by you separating one word massively out of context, taking it to a dictionary and attempting to somehow miraculously theorize that despite the mounds of situational evidence stacking against you, that it was a particular action when the facts suggest otherwise.

You take the word 'dodge' and pretty much make the most inane, ridiculous deal over it by dragging it into the depths.

Oh, settle down.

I don't understand how you think you have the grounds to tell me that I immediately ruled out something when you just did it too. Once again, don't be such a hypocrite.

It doesn't mean that it isn't Neo-esque swirly motions, either. They dressed it up too much anyways in that movie.

Lol, if you've resorted back to calling me out Webster definition, go ahead. That's pretty much all you have left at the moment. No, I'm not ignorant of the other definitions. I take them all in, unlike you. However, judging from the 3 major facts and concluding backup in my previous post I can form an accurate conclusion.

I don't immediately rule out all the possibilities. As I said you have to actually look at the situation and its circumstances - in this case, the training, Chief's expertise and experience, the objectives and aims of that training course, etc. You have to look at all that and then form a conclusion; you don't - you simply leap straight to one without regard for whether it's factually correct or not.

Lol, what do you call this post of yours above then, do you really consider that "evidence" for you? What have you done to contribute? What constructive points have you made, other than repeated generalization?

I have given you just given you undeniable facts and logic, that again you have ignored their meaning and relevancy to the point I was making. Why is that so difficult? You tell me that I'm the one making claims without proof, when strangely enough, you've been doing it more frequently than I. Once again, more hypocrisy.

Keep blustering if that keeps your morale up, but I actually have proof and explanation -that you still have avoided answering directly, instead just choosing to insist that I am somehow a failure (??), - whereas you do not have a solid fact to back you up, other than the Webster definition of the word 'dodge'. Which, I may add, is quite generalized.

If you don't answer to these two points of yours that I have addressed directly below, then this debate is pretty much over. Don't give me silly guesses or half-thought-out theories. Give me facts to support your theories that I have listed here, solid facts, as I have done. That's your homework, get to it. I've already presented my evidence, now it's your turn.

[b]A.) Explain to me why the Chief would randomly dive/roll to the side during a training exercise when the bullets couldn't hurt him, and he had already tested movement and agility before the obstacle course started.

B.) Explain to me why the Chief would act surprised by the sole fact that he was able to avoid a few bullets by diving/rolling to the side, when he is not easily spooked at all, having been in combat situations for about two decades.

As it stands, you're already resorting to tertiary evidence, fallacy, and just plain insulting in substitution for an actual reply. Don't.

[/b]

I gave the backup so your just spitting out the same old crap as usual. Re-read my post, maybe you wont miss details like you did with your own evidence.

No that passage was a single line, giving info on a few actions he did, there was no detail, there was no setting which I asked for. all ive got is your word that it was a training exercises, I asked for a paragraph, you gave a useless quote.

I dont have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, your trying to debate negatives, Its not my role to prove you wrong.....considering all you have is assumptions your argument is dead from the start. You have the fact that he dodged, my facts are just as irrefutable because ime using the same evidence, ime using evidence from the very quote you are using.

As i said, I dont have to prove you wrong, negtivo oh short sighted one...I dont have to prove your negatives.

Yes you are, your using a simple world such as "dodge" to create your sad little assumption not fact, based around that word that he saw bullets coming and moved accordingly, dodged, as ive already said 100 times and as the English language agrees with me, Dodge which is what it says, can mean many many different things, least of all perceiving and moving out of the way of bullets.

Thats simply your explanation of what he was doing, using the same quote my idea of him diving or rolling to test his speed against bullet fire is just as legit, in fact more so due to the real definition ime following, not your invented assumption.

No I take the word dodge and use it for what its supposed to be used for, which includes diving, rolling and other types of evading, it doesn't mean perceiving bullets coming at you and moving accordingly.

Accurate to whom? out of two people actually debating (there is only 2), only 1 of them (you) thinks your right, which is funny because its you who thinks so, and ime saying exactly the same, ime using actual definition to point out it doesn't say in that quote anything to do with what your saying and that all you are doing is blabbering out worthless assumptions such as "he perceived each bullet and moved accordingly"

There is no factually correct statement until you actuall accept all Chief did was dodge without going blundering your way into assumptions and trying to make it more than what it says. Which is why your argument fails no matter what you assume.

All my points are based around facts, I dont need evidence do I since ime not actually making any claims, ime simply saying what the quote youve given shows, and your assuming that hes got this super reflexes from that quote lol....

No youve given me assumptions, then calling them undeniable facts....

Ive not got a solid fact apparently yet ime using the single piece of evidence youve given against you, ive got the fact your simply assuming, ive got the fact your simply over hyping to the max something that could be a simple dive or roll, ive got the fact the official quote itself AND definitions do not back up your crude view of him doing something irregular and simply not stated in your single shred of a quote.

Silly guesses? all youve done is guessed throughout the entire debate lmao....theres no fact behind your words of saying hes doing something where the quote is concerned which is the only actual evidence you have.

A) this is worthless, since why would he dodge in the first place if this was even an important point? its not is it, straw man...

B) The same as above, he was surprised, if his decades of training and experience were so effective in this situation he wouldn't have been surprised at all, but he was.

Two straw mans......all you seem to do is assume, then claim your assumptions are better logic when I assume, then you ask irrelevant questions lol

As it stands, your simply assuming, youve given one real piece of evidence, a quote which does not back up what your assuming out of it, then your over hyping and committing various fallacies.

Originally posted by DarkC
And what have you contributed? What evidence have you given? What facts have you laid out?

Really, the hypocrisy here is astronomical.

Yep, you didn't read a single piece of evidence that I listed earlier.

I will go through them again. If you continue to blindly deny them and insult them without actually proving that they're incorrect or at least giving me a viable explanation other than 'it's an assumption', based on fact, I will report you for trolling.

It would be nice for you to actually reply properly and with logical reasoning and factual backup. But if you're going to continue with this unpurposeful ranting of yours, then that's just trolling. I've honestly had enough of this nonsense from you.

Reply properly or don't at all.

Why do you think I go through my 'nonsense'?

It's because you force me to. You somehow think you have the grounds to say that you've apparently "trodden" on them? You haven't even addressed them properly, so that's a no-go. That's why I was just forced to repeat myself needlessly.

Don't bother replying if you're going to ignore my point and plough on and insult. Don't reply with petty insults or blustering, just don't reply at all. For some reason you're still insistent despite the evidence that I have presented before you. You're being purposefully unproductive.

And next time, try to refrain from making some lame attempt to mimic what I said.

ive cleared up your own quote for you by making you realise theres more than one definition and thats an official definition is worth more than your invented ones of "dodge means MC did super neo!"

Report me for trolling, ill report you for using novels, that you cannot deny because its throughout, also your trolling me if ime trolling you by spamming your worthless stories.

None of that is evidence, ime sorry but youve simply written up a story, thats not evidence at all. It seems you need someone to teach you what evidence is, lesson numero 1: evidence is not you simply typing out events, real evidence is a quote or video, something worth using, please try again 🙂 .

Funnily enough, I was going to say the same to you about replying with logical reasoning and facts, but as always youll cop a deafen (or in this case a blinden) to any advice I try and help you with.

I can say the same, you saying "ime having to repeat myself!" and crying over it is just as worthless as me saying you are doing the same, youve got no evidence at all that actually backs you unfortunately.

mimic is important, ime mocking your posts because their laughable, its like your a toddler having a tantrum, and whether you know it or not, if an adult tantrums when a toddler does, they stand and stare and often realise how ridiculous they seem. Now its obvious that you seem to be younger than I am since your insecurity runs deep with the constant use of "blundering", "blustering" to put my points down with antagonistic wording, while idolising yourself by saying "please keep up", its like youve run out of argument and are trying to convince even yourself that youve actually posted something worth reading.

Please before you post again, try and act your age (ime simply assuming your at least at/over the age limit of KMC forums) and conduct your posts with a little more professionalism rather than trying to rise yourself up over your insecurities. This debate is nothing personal and ime not destroying you as a person, simply your weak arguments.

The Doom marine using the Artifact could kick Chief's ass with his bare hands.

Thats a good point actually, the Artifact! thats a weapon the marine gets that would make him superior to chief.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I gave the backup so your just spitting out the same old crap as usual. Re-read my post, maybe you wont miss details like you did with your own evidence.

For example, look at your response to point A.

"He didn't need to dodge the bullets. Why then would he do an illogical random tuck and roll out of the way?"
Your response: "He did it anyway, this negates your entire point"

No, that doesn't change anything, Burning. Why? Why would he do something random and unexpected like that? Where is your explanation? Where is your logic? Surely you have to have a reasonable explanation as to why he would commit to such a randomized action. But no, thus far you've attempted to try and divert by offering excuses. This is a debate thread, so debate.

Not buying. You gotta do better than a lame pass-off, you have literally provided nothing that reinforces your point, nor refutes mine.

The point still stands.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No that passage was a single line, giving info on a few actions he did, there was no detail, there was no setting [b]which I asked for. all ive got is your word that it was a training exercises, I asked for a paragraph, you gave a useless quote.[/b]

Complaining about it or calling it worthless isn't going to change it. Go figure.

If you really expected the author to stamp out an entire paragraph dedicated to Chief dodging a bullet or two, you are sadly mistaken.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, your trying to debate negatives, Its not my role to prove you wrong.....

You were the one attempting to create the impression that Chief did no more than do a typical roll or dive out of the way from automated gunfire. To this point, I have more factual evidence than you do. All you really have to throw back at me is the fact that it's not 100% clear - but seeing how as you don't really have facts or reasoning to back your claims up, that holds no ground whatsoever.

A summary: the book states that he actually "dodged one or two of the rounds". To me, I am taking the words to face value. It doesn't say "he dove under the gunfire and avoided a few bullets", or anything similar to that, it simply says "dodge". Which leaves room open for quite a few possibilities.

Your desperate claim that the word 'dodge' used in that sentence was specifying a roll or dive out of the way is what you're trying to prove, remember? Right now all you've been doing is attempts to dismean my theory, when you have no solid factual or circumstantial backup.

You were the one with the outlandish claim that Master Chief dove/rolled out of the way. I have answered for my conclusions, if anybody has the burden of proof it's now you.

Originally posted by Burning thought
considering all you have is assumptions your argument is dead from the start.

There's a difference. Thus far you have done nothing to disprove my theory, or prove yours. All you have is "No he could have done this instead" or "no this world could possibly mean this too". That's it, you just speculate, period - you don't do anything to really give me a solid theory.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You have the fact that he [b]dodged, my facts are just as irrefutable because ime using the same evidence, ime using evidence from the very quote you are using.[/b]

It's really quite ridiculous to just throw a Webster definition at me because it actually has no solidity in terms of factual backup. Dodging just means 'moving to avoid an incoming projectile'. It doesn't specify action, which is where your instant assumption that it specified rolling or diving crumbles.

There is not a shred of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he has been doing such, so why would you make that claim?

For me, I've presented my evidence. You have still not offered a viable counter argument.

Originally posted by Burning thought
As i said, I dont have to prove you wrong, negtivo oh short sighted one...I dont have to prove your negatives.

I make my claim, I back it up.
You make yours, you don't back it up.

That shouldn't be hard to understand.

Even if you're really trying to 'dismean' my theory, what have you done to disprove it, other than use a Webster's definition? It's far too general to count as actual backup. It just means 'getting out of the way' of something, whether you're just twisting your body to the side or doing spectacular backflips or somersaults.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes you are, your using a simple world such as "dodge" to create your sad little [b]assumption

You took one word and separated it from its entire context, attempting to somehow specify the action when there's really no evidence to suggest your side was correct - good job.

Originally posted by Burning thought
not fact, based around that word that he saw bullets coming and moved accordingly, dodged, as ive already said 100 times and as the English language agrees with me, Dodge which is what it says, can mean many many different things, least of all perceiving and moving out of the way of bullets.

To me 'dodge' doesn't instantly translate to 'percieve and move out of the way of bullets', as I have said in the last post (Once again, if you had been paying attention you would have not made this mistake.)

However - the circumstantial evidence and background information supports my theory that the Chief did manage to do it, that's why I just keep using the word instead of typing 'percieve and move out of the way of bullets', each time. Because I am under the theory that he did manage to do it and do a simple twist or duck out of the way, a la the Matrix analogy.

Precisely. The word 'dodge' can mean any action undertaken to avoid incoming objects.

So why then do you assume that it was a dive or roll out of the way? You still have not explained yourself on this one properly yet.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats simply your explanation of what he was doing, using the same quote my idea of him diving or rolling to test his speed against bullet fire is just as legit, in fact more so due to the real definition ime following, not your invented assumption.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No I take the word dodge and use it for what its supposed to be used for, which includes diving, rolling and other types of evading, it doesn't mean perceiving bullets coming at you and moving accordingly.

My point is that the Chief can simply duck or shift his upper body to one side to avoid each bullet, instead of diving or rolling to avoid it; this is because he has the reflexes to do so, and every other factor in the circumstances strongly suggests such. The latter action simply is a test of luck, not skill or reflexes. That means simply hoping not to get hit while in motion.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Accurate to whom? out of two people actually debating (there is only 2), only 1 of them (you) thinks your right, which is funny because its you who thinks so, and ime saying exactly the same, ime using actual definition to point out it doesn't say in that quote anything to do with what your saying and that all you are doing is blabbering out worthless assumptions such as "he perceived each bullet and moved accordingly"

Originally posted by Burning thought
There is no factually correct statement until you actuall accept all Chief did was dodge without going blundering your way into assumptions and trying to make it more than what it says. Which is why your argument fails no matter what you assume.

You have to do better than that - it's really quite sad that you seem to have accepted "It's an assumption therefore you are wrong" as your typical debate warcry, seeing as you are clutching to it like your last lifeline in a raging sea.

I have facts and evidence to back it up, whereas you do not with yours.

Why don't you address my factual support, rather than repeated attempts to pass off the impression that I've failed simply because, as you said, it's an 'assumption' as your substitution of a constructive, worthy reply?

You have - only that was really pointless too, because you didn't have anything progressive to offer.

Originally posted by Burning thought
All my points are based around facts, I dont need evidence do I since ime not actually making any claims, ime simply saying what the quote youve given shows, and your assuming that hes got this super reflexes from that quote lol....

Originally posted by Burning thought
No youve given me assumptions, then calling them undeniable facts....

Have you been even following this debate, or are you just flopping like a fish out of water right now?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive not got a solid fact apparently yet ime using the single piece of evidence youve given against you,
Silly guesses? all youve done is guessed throughout the entire debate lmao....theres no fact behind your words of saying hes doing something where the quote is concerned which is the only actual evidence you have

As I said, I can back my arguments up. You're simply trying to bypass the inevitable fact that you really don't have any proper counter-arguments to my backup by desperately making this silly claim that "Hey, it's not 100% clear, that means your arguments are entirely invalid!"

Quite strange on how you seem to believe in a connotation between "not 100% clear" and "wrong".

Accusing of someone for guessing in general in a videogame character vs debate thread, you may as well have called the grass out for being green anyway.

Originally posted by Burning thought
ive got the [b]fact your simply assuming ive got the fact your simply over hyping to the max something that could be a simple dive or roll, ive got the fact the official quote itself AND definitions do not back up your crude view of him doing something irregular and simply not stated in your single shred of a quote.[/b]

It's funny how you say that, and then include the speculative word 'could' in the very same sentence. Ridiculous. 'Overhyping' is an opinionated matter, it is not a solid factual matter, yet you're trying to pass it off as an objective point.

The official quote itself? How does that not back it up? You provide one Webster definition that includes both my impression of what happened and[/u] yours, which is a rather poorly thought-out generalization.

[i]Originally posted by Burning thought
A) this is worthless, since why would he dodge in the first place if this was even an important point? its not is it, straw man...

Originally posted by Burning thought
B) The same as above, he was surprised, if his decades of training and experience were so effective in this situation he wouldn't have been surprised at all, but he was.

Two straw mans......all you seem to do is assume, then claim your assumptions are better logic when I assume, then you ask irrelevant questions lol

All you really have to answer to both statements is "Yeah, but he DID do it..."

Sure he did, Burning, we know that....but why? That is the question, the original question that I challenged you with, that you cannot seem to answer. Why would he commit to such an insensible act? You're suggesting that somehow 20 years of experience mysteriously disappeared for an instant of surprise.

Nope, they're not strawmans - not when I've already given my statements and backup beforehand, I'm simply challenging your view since you cannot offer a proper counter argument to my backup and evidence, and you cannot defend yourself either apparently. Learn your linguistics.

Originally posted by Burning thought
As it stands, your simply assuming, youve given one real piece of evidence, a quote which does not back up what your assuming out of it, then your over hyping and committing various fallacies.

I've given 'one' real piece of evidence, what happened to the rest of all the overwhelming evidence I gave you? No, you simply refuse to accept that they're evidence.

Overhyping? How?
What fallacies?

You make all these empty claims without backing them up, praying that I don't notice.

Originally posted by Burning thought
ive cleared up your own quote for you by making you realise theres more than one definition and thats an official definition is worth more than your invented ones of "dodge means MC did super neo!"

It doesn't instantly translate to that, which is what you're attempting to force the impression that I thought that. Really, stop trying to force words into my mouth.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Report me for trolling, ill report you for using novels, that you cannot deny because its throughout, also your trolling me if ime trolling you by spamming your worthless stories.

You continue to reply in a debate thread, but you're not actually debating; you don't back up your statements with explanations, you don't answer my challenge queries properly at all. You simply just continue to plough on with whatever you can think of just to keep it going, while you focus largely on either insulting me or my arguments without disproving them.

Me, I'm quite comfortable where I stand. I have formed my conclusion. I have given the facts and backup in order to support that conclusion. I have challenged your conclusion and challenged you directly to provide statements that defend your conclusion. I'm debating.

Originally posted by Burning thought
None of that is evidence, ime sorry but youve simply written up a story thats not evidence at all. It seems you need someone to teach you what evidence is, lesson numero 1: evidence is not you simply typing out events, real evidence is a [b]quote or video, something worth using, please try again 🙂 .[/b]

Really, and what about all the background info that I have hammered you with again and again with? The facts, the circumstances, that is evidence. Like the fact that he's an experienced and superenhanced soldier (which he is), the fact that he's donning the armor for the first time and putting it through its paces (which he is).

You're attempting to deny my evidence by saying it's not evidence. How predictable. Call it what you like, but it still backs my conclusion up - and that is what matters.

'Real' evidence, indeed. I don't think I even need to stomp that argument down at all by giving you a Webster definition of the word 'evidence'.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Funnily enough, I was going to say the same to you about replying with logical reasoning and facts, but as always youll cop a deafen (or in this case a blinden) to any advice I try and help you with. I can say the same, you saying "ime having to repeat myself!" and crying over it is just as worthless as me saying you are doing the same, youve got no evidence at all that actually backs you unfortunately.

I'm confident - why? Like I said above, I've given my arguments, clearly marked down facts and figures to back them up - you haven't, not properly anyway. Instead, you attempt to substitute your lack of evidence with silly comments such as how my arguments are mysteriously invalid all of a sudden - about burden of proof, anything that you can use instead of actually submitting a proper counter-argument, backed up with facts/evidence.

The latter really isn't so hard, if you know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Burning thought
mimic is important, ime mocking your posts because their laughable, its like your a toddler having a tantrum, and whether you know it or not, if an adult tantrums when a toddler does, they stand and stare and often realise how ridiculous they seem. Now its obvious that you seem to be younger than I am since your insecurity runs deep with the constant use of "blundering", "blustering" to put my points down with antagonistic wording, while idolising yourself by saying "please keep up", its like youve run out of argument and are trying to convince even yourself that youve actually posted something worth reading.

Please before you post again, try and act your age (ime simply assuming your at least at/over the age limit of KMC forums) and conduct your posts with a little more professionalism rather than trying to rise yourself up over your insecurities. This debate is nothing personal and ime not destroying you as a person, simply your weak arguments.

Take a very good look at what you just said here, you're ranting without so much as explanation. How am I acting immature? How am I ridiculous? You've gone so far now as to mock my use of the word 'blustering' - well...that's what you've been doing, to be entirely honest. You haven't offered much real argument, or counter argument to my argument, at all - you've just been going on mainly for the sake of it. I think anyone who reads this particular part of your post will see instantly.

You mock me for the use of "Keep up". Yeah, that's what I say and I stand by it - I have long since grown impatient of having to correct you on both minor and major mistakes that, had you been reading my posts properly, you never would have made in the first place. I'm pretty justified on that.

I've asked you time and time again for a counter argument, or at least some backup for your actual claims. Facts, figures, anything....but no, you didn't give me sufficient evidence; you gave me one Webster definition of a word that was generalized to the point where it doesn't actually hold any ground. I'm debating. What are you doing? You've weaselled and dodged any challenges I toss your way, hoping not to have to answer them. If you actually had a proper counter-argument at hand that addressed the issue specifically and answered it directly, you would have given it to me right off instead of trying to slide out of having to present it, which is how I know you don't.

You tell me I lack professionalism in my posts. Take a good look at the way I am conducting my posts, and then look how you are acting in yours.

Your posts are focusing less and less on answering my queries to you, but to simply degrade my posts and myself as a person. Look at the last way you closed off that last post. I told you to not bother posting if it's simply going to be insults or petulant ignorance. I told you to debate properly, or not at all. Either were fair and relevant, since we're supposed to be debating in a debate thread. And what do you do? You blatantly insult that you're not 'destroying' me as a person (what a quaint choice of words) and then, to my amusement, imply that I'm insecure?

I'm confident in my primary and counter arguments, as you will read. Not sure where that came from.

But, seeing how you're at this point not really 'debating' at all, but primarily focused on implied flaming or excuses to not debate formally, I think the time is ripe that I finished this debate off.

So here we have the original quote:
"He stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor. To his amazement, he actually dodged one or two of the rounds."

Now, I've already formed my conclusion a long time ago when I actually read it. Why? You'll see in a second, but first let's have your primary piece.

Now's about the time that you single out the word "dodge" and post a Webster definition. That includes any action undertaken in an attempt to avoid something, whether it's ducking, shifting, roll, flip, dive, whatever. Point: The word 'dodge' is far too generalized to actually form a conclusion about which action he undertook to avoid said bullets. That means we need more.

Ready? Here we go...

Fact 1.) The Chief has a reaction speed of approximately 20ms (significantly faster in combat situations) prior to MJOLNIR, which is mathematically enough to be able to percieve a travelling bullet and react to it.
Dark-Jaxx brought this up earlier and you did not seem to address it, so I'll elaborate..

According to Fall of Reach, each Spartan underwent numerous surgeries to implant several physical augmentations in order to better make them the best soldiers the UNSC ever had. One of these enhancements was a superconducting material injected into the Spartan's central nervous system which would enhance the electrical signals sent through nerve tissue.

The result of that was a 300% increase in Spartan reflexes.

Now, human reflexes range from 150ms to 300ms as reaction time. Since they are professional trained soldiers that undergo repeated PT and close combat training rather than your typical American Average Joe, we'll be generous and assume a 150ms base reaction time before physical augmentation. After the supposed 300% increase, that shrinks it down to about a 50ms reaction time.

The Spartans recieved MJOLNIR some time in the future, which, with its numerous reactive circuits, multiplied their reflexes.

Fact 2.) The Chief had just recieved the armor, and was due to put it through its paces by running through an obstacle course.

Why this is significant is because he doesn't technically know just how fast, or strong, or whatever the combat armor allows him to be, which is why they've allowed him to go see for himself. It's pretty obvious that he's going to be mindful and try out every last thing he can think of.

Prior to the quote, we see mentioning of him doing various feats like leaping up walls several meters high, shattering concrete dummies with single punches and sprinting right through barbed wire, but none of these so far test his reflexes, which were supposedly doubled with the armor, were not tested.

Fact 3.) When the guns were firing at Chief, he didn't 'need' to avoid them.

This is an obstacle training course, which means that the obstacles themselves weren't meant to be lethal. As Chief found out, they were supposedly designed to show him how much the armor can take in terms of firepower. As we can both see, he let them deflect off just fine. Point being, the bullets aren't lethal to him at all, they were simply included in the obstacle course in order to see what the suit can take..

So why did he dodge, when he wasn't required to?

Your primary counter consists of "But he did dodge it". Yeah, he did, Burning...but why? That is the question, we both know he dodged it. Simple, he was testing his reflexes - there is no other logical reason to attempt to avoid said bullets.

Fact 4.) The Chief was surprised after 'dodging' one or two bullets. The emotion of real surprise is very rare to him, and even more irregular during a training exercise.

The Master Chief John-117 and his Spartans are the most experienced and talented special force that the UNSC has to offer, having garnered every military decoration and having more confirmed killeds than any three division of the next leading marine corp. From the time they were six years old, they have been through intensive training on everything the UNSC had to offer, from ground combat to zero-gravity operations to even piloting orbital ships/platforms.

They are the elite of the UNSC military, and have been in and out of combat situations all around for upwards of twenty years. So it would be reasonable that they wouldn't be spooked or surprised by little things, such as a few bullets missing him by chance.

So what did surprise him to that extent?

To summarize, we have him on an obstacle course, and he is testing out the capabilities of the new armor. At the time he does possess the physical capability to dodge a bullet - that is, to be able to consciously react to one already in motion and move out of the way, but he doesn't realise this just yet. That's why he likely chose to briefly put his reflexes to the test, amongst other things - and he succeeded.

Therefore, summating the above facts and background info, the most likely and rational answer would be that he was surprised at how much faster his reflexes were due to the suit, after a successful attempt to actually percieve a bullet and react to it to remove himself from its path.

So far you've implied that the possibility that he dove/rolled out of the way as an attempt to avoid the gunshots by pure chance instead of agility is your most likely possibility, which is where we shift now.

You believe that the word 'dodge' in the first quote that I provided pertains to a typical dive or a roll out of the way in order to avoid bullets. Any denial that that is precisely what you were implying would be again weaseling. You likely cannot accept the possibility that the Master Chief can dodge bullets Agent-style - (something that I have proven wrong in #1 above).

I ask: If we assume that the Chief specifically dove/rolled out of the way, why would he dive out of the way when it wasn't necessary or probable, as explained before?

Your response: "He did it anyway, your argument is negated."
(This is about when you reveal that you were, from the start, instantly assuming that the Chief rolled or dove out of the way without any evidence for it.)

Me: Um yes, we already are for your sake assuming that he did do it - but why?

You: " (Insulting, burden of proof fallacy, generalization) - Because maybe he was surprised at how dextrous he is in the suit"

And the call is again on you:

Counter Arguments:

1.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because they would have harmed him.

He wouldn't have committed to an action as to remove his body entirely from the gunfire by diving out of the way unless it was something big shooting at him, such as a rocket or much heavier gunfire. However, from what we know of the obstacle course, it was only designed to show him how the armor protects him; as we can see, he took a few rounds off his armor just fine. They would not have harmed him whatsoever.

2.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because he was trying to see how well he could move.

Considering they already had him testing his typical movements like walking and running and leaping/climbing up walls, it wouldn't make sense to do that just to test his mobility. Nor would Chief have expected to feel any awkwardness or bulkiness during moving whatsoever. On the contrary...after he was outfitted, he commented on it feeling so comfortable and easy as to be like a second skin, and that "if he closed his eyes, he wouldn't have known that he were encased".

Case in point: Rolling/diving out of the way in that situation would be irrational entirely, let alone unexpected. Therefore it could not have happened in a fictional, ideal setting.

After, I again ask you - "So why did you believe that he dived out of the way?"
And I do not recieve an insightful, thought-out answer, nor do you list any other possibilites as to the specifying action pertaining to the word 'dodge'.

I've at this point put you in a position where you literally no longer can counter my arguments in a logical and mature manner, all you can do now is post with continued petulant ignorance. You have presented your best arguments, and I have denounced the flawed (or lack of) evidence surrounding them.

You've no longer have anything constructive or relevant to contribute pertaining to the current topic, unless it's to simply repeat your points over and over again despite the fact that I have disproved them without the shadow of a doubt. You've already outright refused to debate properly, judging by your response to my last reply, therefore you are trolling. If your next reply is anything like your last, you've basically just openly admitted to trolling anyway.

Game, set, and match. Off you go.

...Get a little obsessive there, DarkC?

Burning Thought, in the future, refrain from personal attacks.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
...Get a little obsessive there, DarkC?

Burning Thought, in the future, refrain from personal attacks.

Eneru and Darkstorm can attest to that.

Originally posted by DarkC
You have factually given me nothing more to work with than before.

For example, look at your response to point A.

"He didn't need to dodge the bullets. Why then would he do an illogical random tuck and roll out of the way?"
Your response: "He did it anyway, this negates your entire point"

No, that doesn't change anything, Burning. Why? Why would he do something random and unexpected like that? Where is your explanation? Where is your logic? Surely you have to have a reasonable explanation as to why he would commit to such a randomized action. But no, thus far you've attempted to try and divert by offering excuses. This is a debate thread, so debate.

Not buying. You gotta do better than a lame pass-off, you have literally provided nothing that reinforces your point, nor refutes mine.

The point still stands.

That single quote was the only relevant line that included the passage with him bullet-dodging. It wasn't meant to be drawn out, he was simply putting tests through the armor, not saving the world. I have provided the necessary quote/reference. Where's yours?

Complaining about it or calling it worthless isn't going to change it. Go figure.

If you really expected the author to stamp out an entire paragraph dedicated to Chief dodging a bullet or two, you are sadly mistaken.

Actually yes it is. The burden of proof has been on you from the get-go.

You were the one attempting to create the impression that Chief did no more than do a typical roll or dive out of the way from automated gunfire. To this point, I have more factual evidence than you do. All you really have to throw back at me is the fact that it's not 100% clear - but seeing how as you don't really have facts or reasoning to back your claims up, that holds no ground whatsoever.

A summary: the book states that he actually "dodged one or two of the rounds". To me, I am taking the words to face value. It doesn't say "he dove under the gunfire and avoided a few bullets", or anything similar to that, it simply says "dodge". Which leaves room open for quite a few possibilities.

Your desperate claim that the word 'dodge' used in that sentence was specifying a roll or dive out of the way is what you're trying to prove, remember? Right now all you've been doing is attempts to dismean my theory, when you have no solid factual or circumstantial backup.

You were the one with the outlandish claim that Master Chief dove/rolled out of the way. I have answered for my conclusions, if anybody has the burden of proof it's now you.

Assumptions with basis in fact and backed up by logical reasoning and explanation.

There's a difference. Thus far you have done nothing to disprove my theory, or prove yours. All you have is "No he could have done this instead" or "no this world could possibly mean this too". That's it, you just speculate, period - you don't do anything to really give me a solid theory.

Yes, and what action does 'dodged' mean? To you, for some reason you instantly take that as a roll or a dive simply because you can't admit that you really have nothing else working.

It's really quite ridiculous to just throw a Webster definition at me because it actually has no solidity in terms of factual backup. Dodging just means 'moving to avoid an incoming projectile'. It doesn't specify action, which is where your instant assumption that it specified rolling or diving crumbles.

There is not a shred of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he has been doing such, so why would you make that claim?

For me, I've presented my evidence. You have still not offered a viable counter argument.

You're trying to excuse your lack of supporting evidence by attempting to shift the burden of proof on me....typing debate weasel.

I make my claim, I back it up.
You make yours, you don't back it up.

That shouldn't be hard to understand.

Even if you're really trying to 'dismean' my theory, what have you done to disprove it, other than use a Webster's definition? It's far too general to count as actual backup. It just means 'getting out of the way' of something, whether you're just twisting your body to the side or doing spectacular backflips or somersaults.

Lol, and haven't you been doing that either, only without real support or backup?

You took one word and separated it from its entire context, attempting to somehow specify the action when there's really no evidence to suggest your side was correct - good job.

Cut out the last two words and yeah, that would be more correct.

To me 'dodge' doesn't instantly translate to 'perceive and move out of the way of bullets', as I have said in the last post (Once again, if you had been paying attention you would have not made this mistake.)

However - the circumstantial evidence and background information supports my theory that the Chief did manage to do it, that's why I just keep using the word instead of typing 'perceive and move out of the way of bullets', each time. Because I am under the theory that he did manage to do it and do a simple twist or duck out of the way, a la the Matrix analogy.

Precisely. The word 'dodge' can mean any action undertaken to avoid incoming objects.

So why then do you assume that it was a dive or roll out of the way? You still have not explained yourself on this one properly yet.

The quote says MC dodges, and yet you are saying "why would he do that!", well the quote says he did.....

Wheres my what exactly? are you confused on what ime debating for something? ime debating that your assumption on the quote is worthless, by mocking your assumption by making many of my own, so why would I require any more evidence than you when ime doing exactly the same to prove my side of the argument? your not making any sense....

Why am I mistaken? if its some sort of impressive perceive bullet time move where he didnt dive or roll, but actually did an Agent smith then why wouldn't the author draw it out like it is something special. The fact its just a single quick quote outlines the fact he prob did simply do a roll or typical soldiers evasive maneuver and nothing special, since all it gets is a quick statement. If it was actually as impressive as you seem to assume, it would have been in more detail.

erm the burden of proof is on me? ime saying your wrong for making a bold assumption, how is the burden of proof on me exactly? your the one making the assumption/claim...

erm it holds factual ground, the fact is that it does not say anything at all about MC doing some crazy super speed bullet time dodge, it simply says "dodges" a few, and youve not got any fact, youve got a few statements youve come out with, thats not fact, even if its logical to you, or a deduction, its still not fact nor is it any more than assumption.

yes it does, none of which are factually stated make it highly useless as a piece of evidence towards Chief having some kind of bullet speed/time effect.

No, ime trying to prove to you that your assumption is not what makes it fact, and that the evidence is inconclusive and pretty useless. Which is also fact. Your the one making desperate analogies and apparent logical deductions to try and make "dodge" become "super Neo speed!".

Stop at assumptions and youve got the reason why its not good evidence at all....

No ime not making the assumption, my assumptions were as a mockery of your own to try and make you realise assumption is not fact, even if you are delusional enough to think everything you think is both logical and fact. I pointed out the definition because it could easily be many things that the quote meant, your just over hyping it.

Here you go with "you lack evidence" nonsense again when ime using the same quote you are alongside actual definition to play down your idea that your opinion and assumption is fact and actual evidence.

The only time I did it is when i made a mockery of your own assumption, and here we go with more delusions.

So you just admitted your entire argument is based on theory and assumptions...great...yet you continue....ime sorry but theory and assumption does not count as any solid evidence for Chief no matter how enthusiastic a fanboy states it.

Originally posted by DarkC
The real definition you're following includes mine, Burning - it's any action that's used to avoid something, remember? In this case, he can just shift out of the way instead of diving and hoping that he doesn't get hit.

It can mean twisting the body or simply ducking lightning fast, to avoid each bullet - which was what Chief did. That is my theory, and the Webster's definition you have given me does nothing to actually disprove it.

My point is that the Chief can simply duck or shift his upper body to one side to avoid each bullet, instead of diving or rolling to avoid it; this is because he has the reflexes to do so, and every other factor in the circumstances strongly suggests such. The latter action simply is a test of luck, not skill or reflexes. That means simply hoping not to get hit while in motion.

Oh, stop ranting.

Is this supposed to negate all the supporting evidence that I have provided? Really?

You have to do better than that - it's really quite sad that you seem to have accepted "It's an assumption therefore you are wrong" as your typical debate warcry, seeing as you are clutching to it like your last lifeline in a raging sea.

I have facts and evidence to back it up, whereas you do not with yours.

Why don't you address my factual support, rather than repeated attempts to pass off the impression that I've failed simply because, as you said, it's an 'assumption' as your substitution of a constructive, worthy reply?

You have - only that was really pointless too, because you didn't have anything progressive to offer.

We've already established that you have my initial impression misinterpreted wrong, which you've yet to admit.

No, I've given you assumptions, then supporting them with undeniable facts.

Have you been even following this debate, or are you just flopping like a fish out of water right now?

Precisely, and oddly enough you think that the fact that I am 'assuming' will save you.

As I said, I can back my arguments up. You're simply trying to bypass the inevitable fact that you really don't have any proper counter-arguments to my backup by desperately making this silly claim that "Hey, it's not 100% clear, that means your arguments are entirely invalid!"

Quite strange on how you seem to believe in a connotation between "not 100% clear" and "wrong".

Accusing of someone for guessing in general in a videogame character vs debate thread, you may as well have called the grass out for being green anyway.

How am I overhyping? How is that fact?

It's funny how you say that, and then include the speculative word 'could' in the very same sentence. Ridiculous. 'Overhyping' is an opinionated matter, it is not a solid factual matter, yet you're trying to pass it off as an objective point.

The official quote itself? How does that not back it up? You provide one Webster definition that includes both my impression of what happened and[/u] yours, which is a rather poorly thought-out generalization.

Simple - see bottom of page.

How are they irrelevant? They're pertaining what you are assuming what happened, and you cannot back it up, instead trying to pass them off as irrelevant so you aren't forced to address it.

All you really have to answer to both statements is "Yeah, but he DID do it..."

Sure he did, Burning, we know that....but [i]why? That is the question, the original question that I challenged you with, that you cannot seem to answer. Why would he commit to such an insensible act? You're suggesting that somehow 20 years of experience mysteriously disappeared for an instant of surprise.

Nope, they're not strawmans - not when I've already given my statements and backup beforehand, I'm simply challenging your view since you cannot offer a proper counter argument to my backup and evidence, and you cannot defend yourself either apparently. Learn your linguistics.

I'm not even using the quote itself, at least not directly - but the circumstances and background info behind it.

I've given 'one' real piece of evidence, what happened to the rest of all the overwhelming evidence I gave you? No, you simply refuse to accept that they're evidence.

Overhyping? How?
What fallacies?

You make all these empty claims without backing them up, praying that I don't notice.

Yes but it also includes many other more likely things that are more likely due to the lack of actual detail put on the event. MC actually doging bullets because hes just that fast and can percieve them is worth more than the word "dodge" and regardless, as my argument stands, its not about what he actually did, its about tossing away your claim of "my assumptions are fact" that you seem to follow when none of your theories are fact.

Thats very poetic DarkC, raging sea? lol, as i said enough with your insecurities and story making, this is a debate not happy hour in the corner of a libary although your arguments may resemble happy hour 🙄 . What I said is fact, your assumptions are wild and innacurate, the actual official evidence which is the one quote you provided does not actual say what your assuming which is why you automatically fail in the debate.

its not undeniable until youve actuall supported it with quotes themselves, you writing out the story does not count as evidence in a debate...

ofc its an irrelvent question, both of them are, your asking me why he did it, how is that important when he did indeed do it. If his military training over 20 years is as extensive as you say it was, he would have been in a state of surprise in the first place, but he was.

well their not evidence are they, their you listing things, making a little list is all good and well but if it was a court case, having the killer handing the judge a list he had handwritten of events that would make it impossible for him to have been the murderer does not count for evidence does it...you need quotes, page numers, scans, videos.....thats real undeniable fact.

Originally posted by DarkC
Dodge means MC avoided bullets - but in this case in consideration of the evidence that I have piled under your nose, yeah he probably did a 'super Neo'. If that's what you want to call it.

It doesn't instantly translate to that, which is what you're attempting to force the impression that I thought that. Really, stop trying to force words into my mouth.

Go ahead if you really think that will save you from having to somehow form a proper counterargument. I've already linked this thread to both Lana and Kaliero beforehand and discussed with both of them about using the books, remember? They've had ample chance by now. You've had ample chance by now. If you really go so far as to report me for using the books as a last resort, that's a clear sign of forfeit anyway.

You continue to reply in a debate thread, but you're not actually debating; you don't back up your statements with explanations, you don't answer my challenge queries properly at all. You simply just continue to plough on with whatever you can think of just to keep it going, while you focus largely on either insulting me or my arguments without disproving them.

Me, I'm quite comfortable where I stand. I have formed my conclusion. I have given the facts and backup in order to support that conclusion. I have challenged your conclusion and challenged you directly to provide statements that defend your conclusion. I'm debating.

Don't be silly, Burning - evidence is evidence.

Really, and what about all the background info that I have hammered you with again and again with? The facts, the circumstances, that is evidence. Like the fact that he's an experienced and superenhanced soldier (which he is), the fact that he's donning the armor for the first time and putting it through its paces (which he is).

You're attempting to deny my evidence by saying it's not evidence. How predictable. Call it what you like, but it still backs my conclusion up - and that is what matters.

'Real' evidence, indeed. I don't think I even need to stomp that argument down at all by giving you a Webster definition of the word 'evidence'.

You haven't given me any useful advice, not that I'd need it.

I'm confident - why? Like I said above, I've given my arguments, clearly marked down facts and figures to back them up - you haven't, not properly anyway. Instead, you attempt to substitute your lack of evidence with silly comments such as how my arguments are mysteriously invalid all of a sudden - about burden of proof, anything that you can use instead of actually submitting a proper counter-argument, backed up with facts/evidence.

The latter really isn't so hard, if you know what you're talking about.

your "piled under your nose" rubbish again, all I see under my nose is a load of rubbish youve typed up that is not actual evidence, a load of assumptions and your insecurities.

lol, forfeit? forfeit of what? its funny how you threaten to report me then tell me ime forfeiting for reporting you for something actually worth reporting for.....and unless the rule has changed, your still breaking the rule.

Well me? ime quite comfortable where I stand! ive formed my conclusion that idolising yourself with the old "my assumptions are evidence for MC super speed!" is all I need to realise your not worth debating with at all, why I waste time on you I dont know. I may as well be debating with Gumachis assumptions and gameplay usage.

ime sorry, your little rant did little more than amuse me, your little stories are not real evidence, their worthless.

Ive answered this in the first and second posts. You have no real evidence backing you up and you have even admitted that all youve got is theory and assumption yet you continue your insecure idolising lol, "sigh".

Originally posted by DarkC
You're accusing me of tantrums now. Yeah, OK...

Take a very good look at what you just said here, you're ranting without so much as explanation. How am I acting immature? How am I ridiculous? You've gone so far now as to mock my use of the word 'blustering' - well...that's what you've been doing, to be entirely honest. You haven't offered much real argument, or counter argument to my argument, at all - you've just been going on mainly for the sake of it. I think anyone who reads this particular part of your post will see instantly.

You mock me for the use of "Keep up". Yeah, that's what I say and I stand by it - I have long since grown impatient of having to correct you on both minor and major mistakes that, had you been reading my posts properly, you never would have made in the first place. I'm pretty justified on that.

I've asked you time and time again for a counter argument, or at least some backup for your actual claims. Facts, figures, anything....but no, you didn't give me sufficient evidence; you gave me one Webster definition of a word that was generalized to the point where it doesn't actually hold any ground. I'm debating. What are you doing? You've weaselled and dodged any challenges I toss your way, hoping not to have to answer them. If you actually had a proper counter-argument at hand that addressed the issue specifically and answered it directly, you would have given it to me right off instead of trying to slide out of having to present it, which is how I know you don't.

You tell me I lack professionalism in my posts. Take a good look at the way I am conducting my posts, and then look how you are acting in yours.

Your posts are focusing less and less on answering my queries to you, but to simply degrade my posts and myself as a person. Look at the last way you closed off that last post. I told you to not bother posting if it's simply going to be insults or petulant ignorance. I told you to debate properly, or not at all. Either were fair and relevant, since we're supposed to be debating in a debate thread. And what do you do? You blatantly insult that you're not 'destroying' me as a person (what a quaint choice of words) and then, to my amusement, imply that I'm insecure?

I'm confident in my primary and counter arguments, as you will read. Not sure where that came from.

But, seeing how you're at this point not really 'debating' at all, but primarily focused on implied flaming or excuses to not debate formally, I think the time is ripe that I finished this debate off.

So here we have the original quote:
[b]"He stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor. To his amazement, he actually dodged one or two of the rounds."

Now, I've already formed my conclusion a long time ago when I actually read it. Why? You'll see in a second, but first let's have your primary piece.

Now's about the time that you single out the word "dodge" and post a Webster definition. That includes any action undertaken in an attempt to avoid something, whether it's ducking, shifting, roll, flip, dive, whatever. Point: The word 'dodge' is far too generalized to actually form a conclusion about which action he undertook to avoid said bullets. That means we need more.

Ready? Here we go...

Fact 1.) The Chief has a reaction speed of approximately 20ms (significantly faster in combat situations) prior to MJOLNIR, which is mathematically enough to be able to percieve a travelling bullet and react to it.
Dark-Jaxx brought this up earlier and you did not seem to address it, so I'll elaborate..

According to Fall of Reach, each Spartan underwent numerous surgeries to implant several physical augmentations in order to better make them the best soldiers the UNSC ever had. One of these enhancements was a superconducting material injected into the Spartan's central nervous system which would enhance the electrical signals sent through nerve tissue.

The result of that was a 300% increase in Spartan reflexes.

Now, human reflexes range from 150ms to 300ms as reaction time. Since they are professional trained soldiers that undergo repeated PT and close combat training rather than your typical American Average Joe, we'll be generous and assume a 150ms base reaction time before physical augmentation. After the supposed 300% increase, that shrinks it down to about a 50ms reaction time.

The Spartans recieved MJOLNIR some time in the future, which, with its numerous reactive circuits, multiplied their reflexes.

Fact 2.) The Chief had just recieved the armor, and was due to put it through its paces by running through an obstacle course.

Why this is significant is because he doesn't technically know just how fast, or strong, or whatever the combat armor allows him to be, which is why they've allowed him to go see for himself. It's pretty obvious that he's going to be mindful and try out every last thing he can think of.

Prior to the quote, we see mentioning of him doing various feats like leaping up walls several meters high, shattering concrete dummies with single punches and sprinting right through barbed wire, but none of these so far test his reflexes, which were supposedly doubled with the armor, were not tested.

Fact 3.) When the guns were firing at Chief, he didn't 'need' to avoid them.

This is an obstacle training course, which means that the obstacles themselves weren't meant to be lethal. As Chief found out, they were supposedly designed to show him how much the armor can take in terms of firepower. As we can both see, he let them deflect off just fine. Point being, the bullets aren't lethal to him at all, they were simply included in the obstacle course in order to see what the suit can take..

So why did he dodge, when he wasn't required to?

Your primary counter consists of "But he did dodge it". Yeah, he did, Burning...but why? That is the question, we both know he dodged it. Simple, he was testing his reflexes - there is no other logical reason to attempt to avoid said bullets.

Fact 4.) The Chief was surprised after 'dodging' one or two bullets. The emotion of real surprise is very rare to him, and even more irregular during a training exercise.

The Master Chief John-117 and his Spartans are the most experienced and talented special force that the UNSC has to offer, having garnered every military decoration and having more confirmed killeds than any three division of the next leading marine corp. From the time they were six years old, they have been through intensive training on everything the UNSC had to offer, from ground combat to zero-gravity operations to even piloting orbital ships/platforms.

They are the elite of the UNSC military, and have been in and out of combat situations all around for upwards of twenty years. So it would be reasonable that they wouldn't be spooked or surprised by little things, such as a few bullets missing him by chance.

So what did surprise him to that extent?

To summarize, we have him on an obstacle course, and he is testing out the capabilities of the new armor. At the time he does possess the physical capability to dodge a bullet - that is, to be able to consciously react to one already in motion and move out of the way, but he doesn't realise this just yet. That's why he likely chose to briefly put his reflexes to the test, amongst other things - and he succeeded.

Therefore, summating the above facts and background info, the most likely and rational answer would be that he was surprised at how much faster his reflexes were due to the suit, after a successful attempt to actually percieve a bullet and react to it to remove himself from its path. [/B]

This entire post is not part of the debate or argument, as I said before, read that post through carefully and conduct your posts with more professionalism, your requirement for idolising yourself to fight back insecurities is not within my interests.

1) this first point is the only important point youve brought up in this entire debate, if you can give the page number and actual quote from a book or actual evidence that supports his pre-Mjolnir reaction speed is already enough to do the things you say he can.

whats very amusing, is that I talked with Jaxx on MSN last night precisely about how you were foolish not to bring up any evidence that he himself claimed earlier, did he just remind you or something? now youve made a fool of yourself its too late, your assumptions and nonsense were not only not fact, but you continued even though Jaxx who considers himself lesser of Halo intellect than you came up with a worthy point straight off the bat....

but now it seems ive won the previous debate, its pretty much a waste of time is all thats happend if you have the evidence for the 20ms speed.

Originally posted by DarkC
So far you've implied that the possibility that he dove/rolled out of the way as an attempt to avoid the gunshots by pure chance instead of agility is your most likely possibility, which is where we shift now.

You believe that the word 'dodge' in the first quote that I provided pertains to a typical dive or a roll out of the way in order to avoid bullets. Any denial that that is precisely what you were implying would be again weaseling. You likely cannot accept the possibility that the Master Chief can dodge bullets Agent-style - (something that I have proven wrong in #1 above).

I ask: [b]If we assume that the Chief specifically dove/rolled out of the way, why would he dive out of the way when it wasn't necessary or probable, as explained before?

Your response: "He did it anyway, your argument is negated."
(This is about when you reveal that you were, from the start, instantly assuming that the Chief rolled or dove out of the way without any evidence for it.)

Me: Um yes, we already are for your sake assuming that he did do it - but why?

You: " (Insulting, burden of proof fallacy, generalization) - Because maybe he was surprised at how dextrous he is in the suit"

And the call is again on you:

Counter Arguments:

1.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because they would have harmed him.

He wouldn't have committed to an action as to remove his body entirely from the gunfire by diving out of the way unless it was something big shooting at him, such as a rocket or much heavier gunfire. However, from what we know of the obstacle course, it was only designed to show him how the armor protects him; as we can see, he took a few rounds off his armor just fine. They would not have harmed him whatsoever.

2.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because he was trying to see how well he could move.

Considering they already had him testing his typical movements like walking and running and leaping/climbing up walls, it wouldn't make sense to do that just to test his mobility. Nor would Chief have expected to feel any awkwardness or bulkiness during moving whatsoever. On the contrary...after he was outfitted, he commented on it feeling so comfortable and easy as to be like a second skin, and that "if he closed his eyes, he wouldn't have known that he were encased".

Case in point: Rolling/diving out of the way in that situation would be irrational entirely, let alone unexpected. Therefore it could not have happened in a fictional, ideal setting.

After, I again ask you - "So why did you believe that he dived out of the way?"
And I do not recieve an insightful, thought-out answer, nor do you list any other possibilites as to the specifying action pertaining to the word 'dodge'.

I've at this point put you in a position where you literally no longer can counter my arguments in a logical and mature manner, all you can do now is post with continued petulant ignorance. You have presented your best arguments, and I have denounced the flawed (or lack of) evidence surrounding them.

You've no longer have anything constructive or relevant to contribute pertaining to the current topic, unless it's to simply repeat your points over and over again despite the fact that I have disproved them without the shadow of a doubt. You've already outright refused to debate properly, judging by your response to my last reply, therefore you are trolling. If your next reply is anything like your last, you've basically just openly admitted to trolling anyway.

Game, set, and match. Off you go. [/B]

NO, wrong......you see this is prob why this debate has gotten nowhere, my entire argument is against your assumptions and that that quote is not useful evidence for him actually having bullet reaction. I brought up the diving and rolling as examples of other things "dodge" could mean.

These last two paragraphs are pathetic idolising of yourself, your arrogence does not equel fact or logic in your arguments ime afraid, so ill ignore this nonsense.

Game, set and match, indeed.....so as you sit defeated after wasting so much of both our times, "blundered", "blustered" and what was it? holding onto your rafting in a stormy sea? sorry ime not as poetic as you are it seems.....your way through assumption and theory came to the only shred of possible useful evidence for Chief being able to perform bullet reaction feats through Jaxx reminding you because I reminded him. Its just too amusing......