Black Adam vs Superman

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You really shouldn't be critizing other people's reading comprehension when you failed at understanding basic english inside a comic book.

The fact that you think "it isn't clear one way or another" means that your reading comprehension must be below that of a 9 year old.

Let me spell it out for you:

"We've got to pull the planet back into place"

We. Pull. Planet.

It's not:

"Hold the planet together. I'll pull it back into place"

i don't want to jump in because this is not my argument but i do want to point one small thing out.......

when your building a house if someone else supplies you with the tools and hands them to you......sure you built it but normally you say we built it to be polite because if they didn't give you the tools you could not have done it......im not saying this is the case but it is a possibility.

while i hate superman very very much so i do feel he has the strength to move a planet.

😂

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
while i hate superman very very much so i do feel he has the strength to move a planet.

W/c wasn't what our debate was about. IF you scan back, it was to determine IF the Starbreaker feat was Superman PULLING a planet unassisted.

The fact is, MORE evidence exists that state that Superman had help. Feats of Hal show that he CAN move large objects with his construct. The DAMNED situation as well as Hal's personality would indicate that he WILL be helping pull Superman (not just give him a construct + moral support).

There is ZERO on-panel proof that points the he didn't help Superman while BLACK AND WHITE dialogue shows that he did. Read ALL the scans, even CONTEXT points out that it was a joint feat. :-/

Sheesh.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that:

"We've got to pull the planet back into place" was figurative?

I mean JEEEEE-ZUS. Why the heck would the writer put it in there in the first place if it wasn't to indicate that it was a JOINT feat.

ALSO: FYI, it was HAL that stated: WE. There was no need for Supes to be "polite" at all as he didn't state the WE in: "We've got to pull the planet back into place". Are you saying that Hal provided the tools then said WE to be polite to himself?? O_o

Does that even make sense??

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You really shouldn't be critizing other people's reading comprehension when you failed at understanding basic english inside a comic book.

The fact that you think "it isn't clear one way or another" means that your reading comprehension must be below that of a 9 year old.

Let me spell it out for you:

"We've got to pull the planet back into place"

We. Pull. Planet.

It's not:

"Hold the planet together. I'll pull it back into place"

Superman had pulling help. Clear as day. All your desperate and baseless: "OOOHH! It COULD have been used figuratively" BS notwithstanding.

And FYI, "I'll man up and admit I was wrong (Although I seriously don't believe I am)" is NOT admitting anything. It's more like a desperate copout borne out of humiliation. Saying the words and not meaning it removes whatever meaning an admission might have.

And it's more believable that you're a moron, not that you try to be (or do you?).

No. What you were TRYING to do was to redirect the debate into another direction since you know how beaten your position was. THEN you TRY (and fail) to bog down the debate by turning it into a mathematical debate instead of a logical one.

It's your defense mechanism. I wouldn't be surprised if you're also curled up in a corner of your room with your teddy bear, crying and sucking your thumb.

Grow up. Noobie.

So are you saying that "We've got to pull the planet back into place." ABSOLUTELY means that Hal pulled and it is impossible for it to mean anything else?

Are you saying that Superman's statement about feeling the force of Starbreaker can not in any way show that he alone did the pulling.

The best judge, when the dialogue is ambiguous, on whether Hal pulled is the artwork. It obviously appears Hal wasn't pulling but using his power to keep the harness together while Superman pulled. He's at the top holding the harness together while Superman is in the front pulling. Otherwise the artist would have had Hal in the front with Superman and not at the top. This makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210

"We've got to pull the planet back into place" was figurative?

I mean JEEEEE-ZUS. Why the heck would the writer put it in there in the first place if it wasn't to indicate that it was a JOINT feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are a stubborn little thing aren't you. LOL

Again. Irony. Hypocrisy.

Originally posted by h1a8
So are you saying that "We've got to pull the planet back into place." ABSOLUTELY means that Hal pulled and it is impossible for it to mean anything else?

The evidence points to it. You have not presented evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by h1a8
Are you saying that Superman's statement about feeling the force of Starbreaker can not in any way show that he alone did the pulling.

The evidence points to it. You have not presented evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by h1a8
The best judge, when the dialogue is ambiguous, on whether Hal pulled is the artwork. It obviously appears Hal wasn't pulling but using his power to keep the harness together while Superman pulled. He's at the top holding the harness together while Superman is in the front pulling. Otherwise the artist would have had Hal in the front with Superman and not at the top. This makes perfect sense.

The dialogue is only ambiguous in your opinion. Anyone who has actually READ the scans and has at least 2 IQ points to rub together can see how obvious the dialogue is. Sadly, you are not so blessed.

FYI, Hal doesn't need to be looking like he's pulling the construct to let his construct pull. Don't you know how GL powers work at all?? Are you an idiot?? Oh, wait. You are.

Originally posted by h1a8
Because that is the way normal people, including the writer, talk. This is obvious.

It's funny how desperate you are sometimes. Pathetic, actually.

You have no proof that it was used figuratively. The literal meaning has to be taken in the absence of proof leading to figurative use.

Of course, when has having no proof ever stopped you from spitting out your inane drivel?

But you know what? Keep talking. I'll be sure to record this debate and use all your own inane argumentations against you at the next opportunity. Lol.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
It's funny how desperate you are sometimes. Pathetic, actually.

You have no proof that it was used figuratively. The literal meaning has to be taken in the absence of proof leading to figurative use.

Of course, when has having no proof ever stopped you from spitting out your inane drivel?

But you know what? Keep talking. I'll be sure to record this debate and use all your own inane argumentations against you at the next opportunity. Lol.

For example, Hal's statement can be interpreted as figurative language by not only by the artwork but Superman's statement.

Originally posted by Hi! 1'm An idi8
Of course I have no proof of whether it was used figuratively. I have no 100% clear proof that Hal didn't pull. That wasn't my point. My point was that dialogue interprets other dialogue and that it is more believable that Hal didn't pull.

Exactly. You no proof. In the absence of proof leading to figurative use, we must default to the literal use.

The only way you'd be right is that IF the dialogue that was stated has a different, figurative meaning that interconnects directly with each statement relative to the feat in question to mean differently from what was directly said specifically to prove your assumption.

See how convoluted that was?

Occam's razor. Look it up.

Tell me to slow down if you're having trouble keeping up.

Originally posted by Hi! 1'm An idi8
For example, Hal's statement can be interpreted as figurative language by not only by the artwork but Superman's statement.

Except that the artwork proved nothing and Superman's statements prove nothing. So all you've got left is zilch.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Exactly. You no proof. In the absence of proof leading to figurative use, we must default to the literal use.

The only way you'd be right is that IF the dialogue that was stated has a different, figurative meaning that interconnects directly with each statement relative to the feat in question to mean differently from what was directly said specifically to prove your assumption.

Occam's razor. Look it up.

Originally posted by h1a8
What we must default to doesn't prove the falseness of a claim.

Except that idiot that you are, you're the one who made this claim:

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman moving planets

Originally posted by h1a8
SUPERMAN HAD HELP. IT WASN'T OF THE PULLING KIND THOUGH.

Thus the burden of proof is on you. So what EXACTLY have you presented that unequivocally proves this statement?

By your own admission you cannot prove the figurative use of the dialogue.

Thus, the VERY dialogue present in the panels shown invalidates the feat. Do you get it yet?

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course I have no proof of whether it was used figuratively. I have no 100% clear proof that Hal didn't pull.

So, basically. You have no proof to validate this theory and yet you stand by it to validate the feat?

Originally posted by h1a8
It does. It interconnects with Superman's statement and the artwork.

Why do you keep insisting on this when it really doesn't? All you have is a wild assumption that it MIGHT have been.

Sadly, for you, you made the claim that Superman moved planets. You have to prove it with unequivocal evidence. I just have to present reasonable doubt.

You've already lost this debate. Well, you've lost it pages ago. Heck, I'm sure you've been aware of this fact SINCE the page you realized that the dialogue existed. Stubborn, deluded and immature as you are, you'll simply attempt to keep sidetracking the debate until the embarrassment can be buried in a mountain of irrelevant information.

Originally posted by h1a8
This is what separates the boys from the men. Occam's razor is not necessary true. It is an unproven theory (or principle). In actually it is proven false more times than not (Especially In science). Also Occam's razor can only be used if there exists no contradictory evidence to the simplest assumption. Thus this is where you fail.

Moron. I'm not trying to pass it out as a logical absolute. It's not. I'm trying to present it as a means FOR YOU to follow a correct logical path to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Also, why do you keep insisting that there is evidence? Where is this BS evidence that you keep alluding to?? All you have are stupid convoluted assumptions.

GEEEeeeZZZ. You're stupid.... -_-

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Except that idiot that you are, you're the one who made this claim:

Thus the burden of proof is on you. So what EXACTLY have you presented that unequivocally proves this statement?

When one is bias then hardly any evidence would suffice to sway them in the other direction. Bottom line, the artwork depicts Superman as the one pulling and Hal as the one holding the harness together. It was clearly the writer's intention to show this to as the reason it was drawn that way. This shows with great chance that Hal's statement was a figurative one. Also Superman's statement about feeling the force of Starbreaker is also great evidence towards it too.

You would be clearly right if no other contradictory evidence existed towards Hal's statement.

Stupid people don't get the type of scores I got.

It seems various members here (even Marvel fans) believe Superman did the pulling alone, so I'm not the only one.

Originally posted by h1a8
Why would the burden of proof be on me when that debate is over? The new debate is whether or not it is MORE BELIEVABLE that Superman had no pulling help. You are the one dismissing the clear evidence so that you can win the debate.

Why would it be a NEW debate? Has the old debate of Superman having planet pulling feats ended somehow? Cuz I wasn't aware this was about a DIFFERENT topic.

Originally posted by h1a8
When one is bias then hardly any evidence would suffice to sway them in the other direction.

Exactly. That is why you keep insisting that there is somehow a FIGURATIVE use of the dialogue in comics even though no evidence supports your claim. Stop talking about yourself. Geez.

Originally posted by h1a8
Bottom line, the artwork depicts Superman as the one pulling and Hal as the one holding the harness together. It was clearly the writer's intention to show this to as the reason it was drawn that way. This shows with great chance that Hal's statement was a figurative one. Also Superman's statement about feeling the force of Starbreaker is also great evidence towards it too.

Ahh! Pick and choose selection of evidence now, aren't we? You don't LIKE the dialogue evidence so you try to twist the meaning of artwork to try and fit your flawed argument... LOL.

FYI: It was drawn that way because GL's don't NEED to be tugging on his ring construct to make it move. I'm not even sure if I've ever seen a GL do that at all. Either you're an absolute idiot or you don't read GL comics.

Originally posted by h1a8
You would be clearly right if no other contradictory evidence existed towards Hal's statement.

Then I must be clearly right.

Originally posted by h1a8
Stupid people don't get the type of scores I got.

Well, congrats! You're special stupid person!

Originally posted by h1a8
It seems various members here (even Marvel fans) believe Superman did the pulling alone, so I'm not the only one.

While far more posters (including DC fans) think you're an absolute idiot. I guess this style of argumentation works out just right for you, doesn't it?

Also, the "Marvel fan" clearly didn't read the scan as his point made absolutely no sense.

D Dude, any more bashing and it's a warning.

lol black adam wins . a few serious magic amped punched puts superman down for the ten count

you guys remember when captain marvel knocked superman out cold with a single serious punch?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
lol black adam wins . a few serious magic amped punched puts superman down for the ten count

you guys remember when captain marvel knocked superman out cold with a single serious punch?

If you're talking about Crisis Times Five, it was two punches. The fact it took two full strength punches when Supes had his guard completely down is actually a bigger feat for him then it is for Cap.

And Martian Manhunter pulled the same on Cap with one punch, after the entity taking possession of Caps mind fled and he walked into an uppercut from J'onn, who thought he was still fighting for his life...

A Eclipso possessed supes beat the living tar out of the Justice League,so they brought in Captain Marvel. A confident Marvel thought he could take supes. Guess what, he was wrong.

Originally posted by Badabing
D Dude, any more bashing and it's a warning.

Fine! Fine! I've had my fun. 😛

I'll go look at the other threads then. ^_^

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Why would it be a NEW debate? Has the old debate of Superman having planet pulling feats ended somehow? Cuz I wasn't aware this was about a DIFFERENT topic.

Exactly. That is why you keep insisting that there is somehow a FIGURATIVE use of the dialogue in comics even though no evidence supports your claim. Stop talking about yourself. Geez.

Ahh! Pick and choose selection of evidence now, aren't we? You don't LIKE the dialogue evidence so you try to twist the meaning of artwork to try and fit your flawed argument... LOL.

FYI: It was drawn that way because GL's don't NEED to be tugging on his ring construct to make it move. I'm not even sure if I've ever seen a GL do that at all. Either you're an absolute idiot or you don't read GL comics.

Why would the artist draw the picture in a way where it looks like Superman is doing all the pulling alone? When you first saw the scan (assuming you saw the scan before you read the dialogue) even you first thought Superman was doing the pulling alone.

Ask anyone who haven't seen nor heard of the feat, "Without reading the words, does this scan look like Superman is pulling alone while Hal is just creating and keeping the harness together?"

Originally posted by h1a8
It's a different debate because I conceded the other and adopted this one.

So, you TRULY admit that Superman has NO true planet pulling feats? Cuz this is all I'm debating about.

Originally posted by h1a8
Lies. There is evidence that supports my claim you just don't want to accept it.

Not really. You simply twisted the meanings of the dialogue to suit your needs.

Originally posted by h1a8
I accept the dialogue UNTIL i see contradictions. The contradictions help interpret the misinterpreted dialogue. Big difference.

Except there are no contradictions. When everything is taken literally as it is written, it all makes sense.

Originally posted by h1a8
Well Hal pulled from the front when him Superman, and WW was pulling the moon. Almost everytime a GL pulled something they were in the FRONT of it.

Um.. GL is in FRONT of the constuct he used to pull. Just standing on the top front part of it. The fact that he was on top of the construct (w/c was in front of the object being pulled) is no different from:

http://img152.imageshack.us/f/moonlo2.jpg/

The construct was in front. He was inside the cockpit of the construct and was not in any way tugging it.

Originally posted by h1a8
Why would the artist draw the picture in a way where it looks like Superman is doing all the pulling alone? When you first saw the scan (assuming you saw the scan before you read the dialogue) even you first thought Superman was doing the pulling alone.

It only looks like that to someone who desperately needs it to be. To a lot of people it looks like GL standing on top of a construct aiding in the pulling of the planet.

Stop making stuff up. I never said he or acknowledged that he was pulling alone, I simply stated the existence of a GL construct makes the feat ambiguous (and thus inadmissible). Nothing more, nothing less. Stop stating things that never happened.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ask anyone who haven't seen nor heard of the feat, "Without reading the words, does this scan look like Superman is pulling alone while Hal is just creating and keeping the harness together?"

To anyone who KNOWS GL, at BEST, w/o no dialogue, the art can be interpreted to go either way. Tho, I would still say that GL would aid Superman in pulling the planet. I mean, why wouldn't he? He certainly has the power to do so.

Add in the dialogue, however, and the truth is evident.