LOL @ Sadako's response: "the movies".
Like, after 17 pages of debating, he hasn't ever bothered to produce empirical evidence, videos, calculations or comparisons...once.
Likewise, chumps doesn't understand the concept of "burden of proof".
But yeah, this thread is dumb. Prime wins, and it appears all but two people agree.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kong was a tad bit stronger, but I don't believe that it would be enough to defeat Prime who is noticeably larger, heavier and more durable. Prime has the weapons, and the tactical ability to make this a walk in the park sweep. Prime is also likely faster judging by how well he moved in the movie.
I'm actually rethinking the tad bit stronger part as well, on the grounds that if Prime is heavier and moves faster or as fast as Kong, how in the world could Kong possibly be stronger? Because he probably isn't.
Prime wins this.
Originally posted by Master Han
Likewise, chumps doesn't understand the concept of "burden of proof".
not sure if ironic humor or just stupid
funfact: the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts a claim over who wins, which is basically everyone here.
there is also "inappropriate shifting burden of proof" which is a common tactic of those who are too overwhelmingly butthurt and ill-equipped to argue their own case logically...often reserved for when unsubstantiated opinionated fluff-spam fails.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
not sure if ironic humor or just stupidfunfact: the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts a claim over who wins, which is basically everyone here.
there is also "inappropriate shifting burden of proof" which is a common tactic of those who are too overwhelmingly butthurt and ill-equipped to argue their own case logically...often reserved for when unsubstantiated opinionated fluff-spam fails.
Most of us already showed our proof. From posting videos to citing events in the movie. So far though, I have not seen a single piece of proof on how Kong is supposedly stronger than Prime or that he can win this fight.
focus4chumps thinks Dark of the Moon was "fluff spam".
Gee lots of generic designed to-be-taken-down-BayDecepticons (bland/mediocre monsterbots devoid of any character or serious Kong contending ability) there...humans kill them. No biggie.
That was a nice homage to Oldboy though, rapid fire weaponry of his trailer was a nice change too..but still....
Call me back when he does that to G1 Marvel Megatron, Shockwave or Galavatron.... 🙂
Originally posted by focus4chumps
unsubstantiated opinionated fluff-spam is not proof 🙂in other words "super mega metal death machine" is not admissible as evidence.
That's your opinion. Whether you think they are admissable as evidence or not, it still doesn't change the fact that we at least have posted something to support our stand. You and Sadako have not. Not a single piece of proof or argument other than saying "Kong is stronger". So I ask again, will you provide any proof to back up this statement?
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Gee lots of generic designed to-be-taken-down-BayDecepticons (bland/mediocre monsterbots devoid of any character or serious Kong contending ability) there...humans kill them. No biggie.
That was a nice homage to Oldboy though, rapid fire weaponry of his trailer was a nice change too..but still....Call me back when he does that to G1 Marvel Megatron, Shockwave or Galavatron.... 🙂
Could you show me exactly how "humans were killing" these transformers? Because I'm pretty sure the humans had a harder time killing the Transformers than they did killing Kong.
Sadako thinks that humans, using near-future technology, anti-tank weaponry, specifically designed sabot rounds and heavy firepower, are weaklings, and that transformers are therefore pathetic for having fallen to them. You know, since it's not as if Kong were killed by pre-WWII biplanes...
I mean, blackout casually wiped out an entire military base - but a giant ape is clearly beyond their capabilities. 😆
It seems Sadako has no appreciation for just how deadly modern weapons systems are. He actually thinks a giant ape is The Big Shit. So much, he continues to assert that Kong can dodge bullets. It's kind of scary, actually.
^…did focus4chumps just ask for proof that modern bullets travel faster than ones from 1933? 😆 😆 🤣
It’s a bit of a sad joke that somebody would actually ask for evidence for such, but here it is:
"With modern propulsion techniques, the projectile's initial velocity may be as high as 4000 feet (1200 meters) per second for some rifles and 5000 feet (1500 meters) per second for some large guns."
-Ballistics. The World Book Encyclopedia. New York: World Book, 1998.
Of course, this is a red herring, since nobody has shown evidence of Kong’s dodging bullets from 1933. So, even if modern bullets were exactly as fast, why would it matter?
What this all amounts to is a simple and sad case of a couple of people who have so much hubris and conceit that they will refuse to admit they are wrong, even when all logic and reason points otherwise. They know they're wrong, but they don't want to make a simple admission of error in judgement and be done with it. No. They have some odd desire to be infallible like a bratty child, and it's ironic how they're attempting to save their credibility from sinking to the bottom of the ocean, and in actuality plummeting it to the inner-core of the Earth.
Originally posted by Master Han
^…did focus4chumps just ask for proof that modern bullets travel faster than ones from 1933? 😆 😆 🤣It’s a bit of a sad joke that somebody would actually ask for evidence for such, but here it is:
"[b]With modern propulsion techniques
, the projectile's initial velocity may be as high as 4000 feet (1200 meters) per second for some rifles and 5000 feet (1500 meters) per second for some large guns."
-Ballistics. The World Book Encyclopedia. New York: World Book, 1998.Of course, this is a red herring, since nobody has shown evidence of Kong’s dodging bullets from 1933. So, even if modern bullets were exactly as fast, why would it matter? [/B]
this doesnt make a distinction of "modern"., whether between 21'st century and early 20th century or 19th century musketballs. so i will present the challenge to you again. unless you could find nothing and you just figured a little official looking copy/paste and some smilies would do the trick?
spoiler alert: your desperate googling will turn up nothing. you will then use diversionary tactics to change the topic.
now prove nothing, say something stupid, try not to cry, and then cry a lot.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
this doesnt make a distinction of "modern"., whether between 21'st century and early 20th century or 19th century musketballs. so i will present the challenge to you again. unless you could find nothing and you just figured a little official looking copy/paste and some smilies would do the trick?
Why should I even bother to address one of the most laughable stands in the history of the f*cking internet, when, as you conveniently ignore when I pointed this out, 1933 bullets can hit Kong?
How is your point remotely relevant?
Let's assume, for a moment, that you are actually right, and that modern bullets don't travel any faster than ones from 1933.
What does this prove? 1933 bullets can still kill Kong - so why does it matter if modern ones aren't any faster? 🙄