Master Cheif runs the Doom Gauntlet

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
You think you are important enough for DarkC and I, who have never had something remotely resembling a private convo or even a PM, to carry on some sort of secrect discussion about how to best defeat you in this debate?

I loled.

For one thing, DarkC knows at least five times what I do about Halo, I would not need to remind him of a thing.

And regardless, you are avoiding the fact that no matter where he received the information, it is still legitimate evidence of bullet dodging, as that is fast enough to dodge some bullets fired from some guns.

yes pretty much, the coincidence seems too close, DarkC brings it up the very next post after our discussion, and hes not even openly denied it, simply said "i cannot prove it" which seems to me the typical thing someone guilty of this exact act would say.

Well for all his knowledge, he has failed to come up with it until now, prefering to monkey about trolling wtih a pathetic inadequate quote and assumptions to try and make his laughable argument more credible.

If you read any of the post at all you would realise he attacked his own piece of proof by saying MC even with this augmention has been shot by bullets and was too slow to evade....so no...its not proof for bullet dodging or so DarkC seems to belive.

what the hell does bullet dodge have to do with how The Chief is getting pass the gauntlet?

presisly Phanteros, the debate was a strawman argument DarkC used for some unkown purpose. Now before its tossed off the tracks again.

MC under the rules of the thread would prob lose the first round, mainly becaue imo Halo weapons are still not as powerful or devastating as Doom weapons and on the highest difficulty the bosses would likely defeat MC.

now this second one ime not sure about, by canon do you mean actual realism and not gameplay? if so then MC may have a higher chance of winning, ime not actually sure, Doom marine has access still to artifacts halo doe not give MC.

he will prob die in the final sceniario. UNSC weapons alone I doubt would help him through any battle and since its canon, he wont be able to hold many weapons and would end up having to leave mny behind.

Originally posted by Burning thought
presisly Phanteros, the debate was a strawman argument DarkC used for some unkown purpose. Now before its tossed off the tracks again.

MC under the rules of the thread would prob lose the first round, mainly becaue imo Halo weapons are still not as powerful or devastating as Doom weapons and on the highest difficulty the bosses would likely defeat MC.

now this second one ime not sure about, by canon do you mean actual realism and not gameplay? if so then MC may have a higher chance of winning, ime not actually sure, Doom marine has access still to artifacts halo doe not give MC.

he will prob die in the final sceniario. UNSC weapons alone I doubt would help him through any battle and since its canon, he wont be able to hold many weapons and would end up having to leave mny behind.

hmm maybe Darkstorm zero 😛

Originally posted by Burning thought
hmm maybe Darkstorm zero 😛

💃 💃 💃 💃

Well, with the consession I put in regarding the Artifacts, I think MC can do pretty well. Maybe not win the majority, but certainly pretty far..

Now, the reasons why I think this way is simply this, MC maybe pretty enhanced compared to your average Marine. But no amount of training or enhancement can prepare one for fighting Hellspawn. Even experience in combat can't do this.

Fighting aliens & advanced technology is nothing like fighting undead, spirits, demons, advanced technology AND hell sorcery/magics...

Fact of the matter is this, Flint only got through all of this due to sheer luck / raging PIS... there's a reason why he's the sole survivor of both of the incursions.

Well, exactley, the Chief will be fighting against beings he wouldnt have any idea about, its all well and good fighting the coveneant but the UNSC know about them, their strengths/weaknesses.

Wheras when Chief sees his first Imp, a combination of fear but also confusion because the things movements and lack of consideration for its own life would not be waht hes used to fighting.

Also, does chief get any healing? its not like hes going to take his suit off to administer the litle med packs lieing around in Doom, that would be a death wish.

With his small arms, hes going to have trouble with Hellknights, Mancubuses (twin massive plasma cannons that fire at great speed) and ofc, the bosses.

Well, we see him use medipaks in the first Halo, so yeah he can.

but I doubt he can utilise armour replacements or the magical pick-ups like the spheres or berzerker helms, he wouldn't know how to use them (spheres anyway).

As I stated earlier, I believe he can deal with just about any opponent short of the Hellknights, once there though, he's going to have problems. Knights are incredibly strong, aggressive, and very difficult to take down, even with missiles.

Originally posted by Burning thought
presisly Phanteros, the debate was a strawman argument

Uh wouldn't Chief lose his sanity if he was in the world of Doom? Sure you can keep your sanity while fighting aliens but fighting demonic forces from Hell can really put a number on you.

considering MC probably had most of his fear/anger/other emotions removed as well as his sex drive, i doubt it 😬

Well, even though his emotions are supposedly similar to the Terminator, remember that these demons actually magnify emotions in their prey using magic/hell energy

You'd have to have emotions first. 313

He does, he's just very cool under pressure

Nah.

Yah.

Nah. Rly.

Yah. Srsly.

C'mon Blax, your sayin Cheif's got no emotions, yet he gets suprised by ducking bullets... Suprise is an emotional response.

Served!

I suggest that you read this next post in its entirety before instantly mashing the reply button, Burning.

You'll see why.

Originally posted by Burning thought
lie, mockery is part of the argument, it cannot be a troll

If you're not arguing in relevance to a topic in the thread, as you have claimed, all you're doing is arguing for the sake of arguing.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No your making assumptions then using inconclusive evidence, either way my [b]argument that that quote is inconclusive has been deemed correct, thus why I win the debate.[/b]

It's been backed up by logical reasoning and explanation, plus relevant background info.

Originally posted by Burning thought
as i said, mockery is a good way to point out why your assumptions are foolish, how can that possibly be trolling? indeed its not...

If you want to make, as you said, a 'mockery' of why my assumption is foolish, do it properly and in a manner relevant to the thread - which is to say, provide a good and logical explanation of why. Or give counter-points that will refute mine.

Don't sit and desperately pretend that your so-called 'mockery' was meant purely as a mockery, when it was clearly pertaining to the thread and topic in question and you were treating it as a deliberate issue.

Originally posted by Burning thought
But you did not answer my question, are the descriptions for the other feats as inconclusive as this "dodge" one, does it actually say he smashes concrete dummies or is it like this apprent bullet speed feat? without actual detail....infact show me the quote for smashing concrete dummies.

HALO: THE FALL OF REACH
Pg. 114
"He punched at concrete dummies, shattering them"

Really pointless anyways, the man can flip a 66-ton tank over while in his suit - saying that he can't pulverize a concrete target dummy in a single blow is like saying you can't crush an ant using a warhammer.

If you really want to debate strength feats with me now, go ahead. At least it will be relevant to the debate

Originally posted by Burning thought
So you admit you were trolling? your simply assuming randomly just for the sake of argument? your not even trying to make any factual base for a feat in this thread towards MC? ......

You claim that your attempt at an argument or any side of the debate did not actually exist at all - that apparently your whole aim this entire debate was to prove a silly, obvious point. Therefore, you've been arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

I mean, honestly....you claim to have been trying to prove a point that's cliche by now - that "assumption does not equal to fact". I've already acceeded to this by now, because that's pretty much obvious, yet you continue with it anyway.

We all know that it's quite obvious by now that this was not your entire point all along, because according to you, you've been trying to prove a Webster definition right. The very idea of it is laughable at best.

Originally posted by Burning thought
The evidence does not support MC going at such speed within the word "dodge" at all. Its an assumption, no amount of evidence can possibly back up "dodge" meaning whta you think it does as fact.

Only several points in and already I see that several basic points I have directed at you has flew over your head entirely already.

For the last time, I don't believe that my assumption is fact - I believe it as the most likely according to the supporting evidence and background information I've provided.

Are you trying to be unconstructive here or what? You're simply repeating your mail order points from before, despite the fact that I've already acknowledged and dealt with them to the point where you cannot use them again unless it's simply to spam.

Next time you say anything remotely resembling an accusation of me believing my assumptions to be fact, I'll simply quote myself here again. There's no need for it anymore, I've addressed it several times already.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think that a roll/dive is more likely, yes, but thats not my argument,

Don't bother lying, really.

Originally posted by Burning thought
they were still simply side assumptions to point out your assumptions are not fact

Originally posted by Burning thought
, and neither were mine , [b]my argument which I made clear in the beginning is that the quote you provied is inconclusive evidence for a speed feat for MC and your assumptions do not make it fact.[/b]

If indeed your entire argument had been based off a simple request for evidence and the validity of bullet-time as a valid speed feat for Chief, you would not have even bothered to make a quick judgement and/or assumption on what the word 'dodged' actually pertained to. You did.

You would have also appropriately addressed the logical explanations I gave surrounding the initial assumption. You did not.

Your own actions betray you on your motives in this debate, really. Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself nearly every time you come up with a new vibe.

It's quite odd on how you attempt to pass off the request for evidence that you mentioned as completely arbitrary, where it was obvious that you based that off of the doubt that Chief actually ripped Neo off, judging by your quotes. Don't even try to pretend that it was a 'mockery' anymore, it was obvious from those posts and the ones just now that you were considering it as a valid argument, despite what you claim.

Originally posted by Burning thought
But youve not backed anything up, you simply take into account Chiefs background and claim that "dodge" has to mean what you think it does according to these things when thats not true at all, its still an assumption.

If you are still trying to pass off that poor excuse that your original debate was based on usage of evidence, you utterly destroyed it just now. Congratulations.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Assuming he did the Neo thing? so you are even agreeing you are assuming yet you continue to troll this thread with argueing of how you think he dodged the bullets even though their irrelvent...great.....very good.... 🙄

Why can't you keep up?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really, drawring it up, your argument is an assumption, you argue that your assumption is logical and backed up by fact

Originally posted by Burning thought
therefore its apprently fact..thats not true at all...and furthermore, nothing as of yet shows he has said speed.

Learn to read my posts, I've said an obscene amount of times by now that it's not fact nor was I implying such at all, just that it was the most likely possibility. I've even remarked on it several times in my last post to you, which was apparently ignored.

I don't know whether you're using the argument-from-ignorance fallacy just for the sake of something to reply to, but I've addressed this numerous times by now. I shouldn't have to.