Superman vs Thor

Originally posted by quanchi112
Because it killed Doomsday and because Superman was pulled out of there before receiving the brunt of the attack. Do you give Superman a slighr edge or durability or a heavy edge in durability ?

And if that was true, what would it mean that has you so happy?

Originally posted by abhilegend

Originally posted by -Pr-
And if that was true, what would it mean that has you so happy?

Originally posted by abhilegend
You read SOMETHING other than nova! The end is nigh.pray

Ok so... What happened next?

The Source's good half merged with it's dark half (the ALE), becoming the yin yang-ish Source Being.

...Then it battled Soulfire Darkseid.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So a slight edge. Ok.

Because it diminishes Delta's best durability feat.

How?

Originally posted by Galan007
The Source's good half merged with it's dark half (the ALE), becoming the yin yang-ish Source Being.

...Then it battled Soulfire Darkseid.

What happened to Superman after the explosion? Provide me with context Galan!

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you didn't you use other instances other under writers under different circumstances. I used the same situation in which a clear comparison was made. Earth 22 didn't move an inch. New earth went flying backwards. That's as definitive as it gets. You can change your aggression but your durability isn't going to change. I am responding to another one of your cheapshots. Funny how when I respond to a post where you throw my name in there I am the one trying to incite you.

Originally posted by Juntai
I already backed up my statement and gave clear-cut examples regarding Superman's mood change and his ability and durability, under circumstance versus his normal levels.

Your whole stance was terrible and you were proven wrong over and over again in the thread until a mod had to stop your trolling.

Now run along and quit trying to incite me just because you know I'm reading some of your posts.

Your inability to accept the difference between the multiple showings showcasing Superman's durability/ability changing with mood isn't surprising to me. Neither was the idea that you didn't understand it in the first place. I'm sure it'll all come to light in the battlezone you have coming.

Originally posted by -Pr-
How?

Originally posted by Juntai
Your inability to accept the difference between the multiple showings showcasing Superman's durability/ability changing with mood isn't surprising to me. Neither was the idea that you didn't understand it in the first place. I'm sure it'll all come to light in the battlezone you have coming.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It can't be used as a comparable feat to my examples. Your inability to see a direct comparison between two Supermen showing one's clear superiority is cute. It really is. It sure will. You've been on the sideline for years now. You've gotten comfortable not competing and being ok with that. Almost 6 years now. That's your thing. Just enjoy your seat from the couch. You can play monday morning quarterback like all the kids who never played an actual sport in their lives.

Why not?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Why not?

Originally posted by quanchi112
My examples were of beings who attacked Thor. Thor tanked the attacks he didn't have any outside help escaping the full brunt of the attack.

But you think he could take the shot that killed H/P Doomsday?

Originally posted by -Pr-
But you think he could take the shot that killed H/P Doomsday?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have said Superman has slightly better durability. I was comparing higher end showings with delta I ave from the start given Superman a slight edge in durability on average.

Then what's the actual issue?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Then what's the actual issue?

Originally posted by quanchi112
That his example isn't usable because he didn't really tank the attack he was saved from receiving the full brunt of it. He also thinks Superman is leagues above Thor in terms of durability.

Oh. Well, the fact that he wasn't vaporised instantly is nice, but he still probably would have died, imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh. Well, the fact that he wasn't vaporised instantly is nice, but he still probably would have died, imo.

Originally posted by quanchi112
How far above Thor do you believe Superman is in terms of durability.

Not much. I think that there's a gap, but it's small in general depending on the type of attack.

Though how are we classing durability?

Originally posted by quanchi112
It can't be used as a comparable feat to my examples. Your inability to see a direct comparison between two Supermen showing one's clear superiority is cute. It really is. It sure will. You've been on the sideline for years now. You've gotten comfortable not competing and being ok with that. Almost 6 years now. That's your thing. Just enjoy your seat from the couch. You can play monday morning quarterback like all the kids who never played an actual sport in their lives.

I've already made my case and gave clear-cut examples of Superman's durability shooting through the roof with his mood change. Much to your dismay I'm sure. Attempt to prod me all you want, but you aren't changing these -facts-, and certainly haven't done anything to disprove them.

I don't have anything to prove in a Battlezone. You can go ahead and test your mettle against rookie members of the forum [and probably lose], but either way, I'm still considered far higher on the totem pole of respectable debaters than you.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Not much. I think that there's a gap, but it's small in general depending on the type of attack.

Though how are we classing durability?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I'm just taking it in a generalized way.

If I were to classify it, i'd say that Superman is harder to hurt, but Thor is harder to put down once you've hurt him.

Though again, the gaps aren't huge imo.