Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I know, that's where it gets all clustered for me.
Just calling it how i see it.
Anyone who claims for a 'fact' that they know what would happen when these two fictional items clashed is pulling it out of their ass, that is what i believe.
From what I've seen, i say Lightsabers, i have provided what i think to be logical reasoning so for me that's case + point 😊
Good thread idea though, it is among a select few that is actually debatable.
Originally posted by -Pr-
i said it WASN'T stated in the movies. there is no mention of any solid object stopping a lightsaber in the movies.no cortosis, or whatever else you mentioned.
Yeah sorry, I got suckered into talking about EU bullsh*t.
There isn't any mention of a lightsabre being able to cut through "Virtually Anything", in the movies. That is my point, it has yet to be addressed.
Originally posted by Blinky
Yeah sorry, I got suckered into talking about EU bullsh*t.There isn't any mention of a lightsabre being able to cut through "Virtually Anything", in the movies. That is my point, it has yet to be addressed.
is it required, though? we've seen them cut through flesh, metal, starships, blast doors, etc.
My point is:
Originally posted by Blinky
Well at least Adamantium has something concrete STATED about its durability.The capabilities of a lightsabre is vague. Point out where it was explicitly stated that lightsabres can cut through "Virtually anything", then I'll call it a draw.
Until then ; a lightsabre's blade is only as strong as the fanboyism that exagerates its capabilities.
Originally posted by Blinky
My point is:
you can look at it that way, but it's also a fact that there is nothing like a lightsaber in existence that adamantium has been tested against. to assume it would stop it based on a vague description of being "virtually indestructible" is a bit of a reach, imo.
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Contradictory.Unless it is before acquired, in a constant liquid state (unlikely) we know this cannot be the complete truth.
Seems to me he melted it down then shaped it in the same process as placing it.
Emphasis on the melted.
Watch X2, Styker says something along the lines of "you have to keep it in a super-heated state to mold; once it cools, it becomes virtually indestructible", ie once the shit sets, it's indestructible 'for all intents and purposes'.
Adamantium is an alloy, so he melted down the individual metals and mixed them to form adamatium.
Originally posted by -Pr-
you can look at it that way, but it's also a fact that there is nothing like a lightsaber in existence that adamantium has been tested against. to assume it would stop it based on a vague description of being "virtually indestructible" is a bit of a reach, imo.
"Virtually indestructible" isn't vague. Get a ****ing dictionary. Here, I'll do it for you.
Main Entry: vir·tu·al·ly
Pronunciation: \ˈvər-chə-wə-lē, -chə-lē; ˈvərch-wə-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 15th century
1 : almost entirely : nearly
2 : for all practical purposes <virtually unknown>
Now I know the SW fanboys will automatically assume that a lightsabre is in this microscopic realm of things that can destroy adamantium, just cuz.
Originally posted by Robtard
Watch X2, Styker says something along the lines of "you have to keep it in a super-heated state to mold; once it cools, it becomes virtually indestructible", ie once the shit sets, it's indestructible 'for all intents and purposes'.Adamantium is an alloy, so he melted down the individual metals and mixed them to form adamatium.
Well if that's your opinion i don't see the point in arguing against you about it. But what the hey I'll humour you.
It's still contradictory.
Even if you mix the metals to form the "virtually indestructible" alloy then the moment they are mixed it should start to harden/solidify in order for that statement to be true.
The fact it can be kept superheated is proof it can be melted.
Does this make sense or shall i reword it?
I'm really not very good when it comes to trying to explain.... technicalities
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Well if that's your opinion i don't see the point in arguing against you about it. But what the hey I'll humour you.It's still contradictory.
Even if you mix the metals to form the "virtually indestructible" alloy then the moment they are mixed it should start to harden/solidify in order for that statement to be true.
The fact it can be kept superheated is proof it can be melted.
Does this make sense or shall i reword it?
I'm really not very good when it comes to trying to explain.... technicalities
No, once it cools its properties [chemically] change and it takes on the indestructible quality, after the cooling; not before. AFTER.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, once it cools its properties [chemically] change and it takes on the indestructible quality, after the cooling; not before. AFTER.
Interesting.
However your argument is limited by "virtually indestructible" as far as i can see. The problem with this is has Striker ever seen or had experience with a lightsaber type weapon?
If he hasn't i would be inclined to think that statement is fallible when it comes to this argument.
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Interesting.However your argument is limited by "virtually indestructible" as far as i can see. The problem with this is has Striker ever seen or had experience with a lightsaber type weapon?
If he hasn't i would be inclined to think that statement is fallible when it comes to this argument.
Virtually indestructible means just that, here, there, anywhere. The end. The lightsabre argument is limited to "well, they're really hot." I also love how adamantium is the one to always have to prove it can resist, when it actually has something stated going for it.
Here, let me dumb it down. In the films:
-Adamantium has a "virtually indestructible" clause.
-Lightsabres are shown cutting through many types of materials in the films, none of them being indestructible or virtually indestructible, though.
So logic dictates that the lightsabre need to prove it can cut adamantium, as its never faced something of this high durability. If there's no 'cuts through anything' or 'can virtually cut through anything' clause, then it can't cut adamantium. Go on, show me something from the films. Dazzle me. Anyone.
Edit: As far as your assertion that Stryker is flawed in making that statement, he comes from a universe where mutants have an array of epically powerful and destructive powers. A lightsabre is nothing compared to what the likes of Magneto and Dark Phoenix can do to metal/matter.
Originally posted by Robtard
Virtually indestructible means just that, here, there, anywhere. The end. The lightsabre argument is limites to "well, they're really hot."I also love how adamantium is the one to always have to prove it can resist, when it actually has something stated going for it.Here, let me dumb it down. In the films:
-Adamantium has a "virtually indestructible" clause.
-Lightsabres are shown cutting through many types of materials in the films, none of them being indestructible or virtually indestructible, though.
So logic dictates that the lightsabre need to prove it can cut adamantium, as its never faced something of this high durability. If there's no 'cuts through anything' or 'can virtually cut through anything' clause, then it can't cut adamantium.
Go on, show me something from the films. Dazzle me. Anyone.
I won't try and prove it can, because as i said:
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Anyone who claims for a 'fact' that they know what would happen when these two fictional items clashed is pulling it out of their ass, that is what i believe.
However i will attempt to explain my reasoning to you. I'm not saying it's indisputable proof but then no such thing in these debates.
as simply as i am able:
- "virtually indestructible" is a ridiculous statement. Do you suppose that means it can withstand a black hole? or resist the impact of some galactic sized entity? Ridiculous.
- "virtually indestructible" is a varying term, a relative to other comparison. This metal is merely allot more durable than anything else striker has ever seen, so much so he believes it cannot be destroyed by anything he has seen. Hence "virtually indestructible".
- Striker has never seen a lightsaber, so his words of "virtually indestructible" are meaningless. Yes Adamantium is ridiculously durable. Granted.
- However the materials that resist lightsabers have certain qualities. There's no reasoning to think adamantium can resist because it's durable. Sure, i accept it may be more resilient than other materials, but to claim immunity is a silly thing.
- So far as i have seen i see no reason to think it can resist a lightsaber. Assuming it can because striker thinks it's "virtually indestructible" doesn't hold with me.
But hey that's my opinion, i could be wrong sure, but that's just how i see it.
We do have a fact, Adamantium is "virtually indestructible". About the only fact in this debate.
Virtually means 'nearly' & 'for all intents and purposes'. So there are things that can destroy it; maybe something like the gravity well of a black-hole could. This would be logical and within reason.
No, virtually indestructible means just that, don't try and redefine it to fit were you want and I already showed you how Stryker is well aware of ultra-powerful destructive forces, mutant powers.
I ask again then, show he where a lightsabre has cut something that is nearly indestructible or where it's stated they can 'cut through virtually anything'? If you can't, it's illogical to guess they could cut, when all we have is lightsabres cuting materials that can be cut/destroyed by other means.
Originally posted by Robtard
"Virtually indestructible" isn't vague. Get a ****ing dictionary. Here, I'll do it for you.Main Entry: vir·tu·al·ly
Pronunciation: \ˈvər-chə-wə-lē, -chə-lē; ˈvərch-wə-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 15th century1 : almost entirely : nearly
2 : for all practical purposes <virtually unknown>Now I know the SW fanboys will automatically assume that a lightsabre is in this microscopic realm of things that can destroy adamantium, just cuz.
it is vague. "virtually" doesn't mean shit when you're talking about something like adamantium, because we have no frame of reference.
Originally posted by Robtard
We do have a fact, Adamantium is "virtually indestructible". About the only fact in this debate.Virtually means 'nearly' & 'for all intents and purposes'. So there are things that can destroy it; maybe something like the gravity well of a black-hole could. This would be logical and within reason.
No, virtually indestructible means just that, don't try and redefine it to fit were you want and I already showed you how Stryker is well aware of ultra-powerful destructive forces, mutant powers.
I ask again then, show he where a lightsabre has cut something that is nearly indestructible or where it's stated they can 'cut through virtually anything." All we have is lightsabres destroying materials that can be destroyed by other means.
"virtually indestructible" is not a fact, it's an opinion. Of a human who is very much fallible.
"For all intents and purposes" so you think striker intended it to resist a lightsaber or... what?
Trying to argue the outcome when fictional item X claches with fictional weapon Y...... this is kind of pointless.
Originally posted by -Pr-
it is vague. "virtually" doesn't mean shit when you're talking about something like adamantium, because we have no frame of reference.
WTF? Are you joking now, we're talking about two words. Virtually and Indestructible.
We do have a frame of reference, the meaning of the word 'Indestructible', which means, can not be destroyed. Now Adamantium is "nearly" and "for all intents and purposes" this, INDESTRUCTIBLE.