Which is better: Avengers or The Dark Knight?

Originally posted by Newjak

Now if you fired their biggest non nuclear weapons perhaps they would have equaled the power of a Tony Stark blast

Yea, you are hilarious.

But lets pretend its true. Would firing 1000 of those continuously be more powerful than one of Stark's blast?

Yea, options are concede or look even more foolish.

I'm tired of this mindless back and forth.

Its time to put up or shut up:

1v1 Debate Iron Man / Thor vs US Military in Movie Vs.

We can discuss the exact topic, but more or less focus on IM/Thor vs collective destructive power or capabilities of the US Military (excluding nukes). Heck we could even do a plain IM vs US Military if you'd like.

Originally posted by Placidity
The US military is not any single man-made weapon. Being the single most effective weapon does not mean it is more powerful than the collective intelligence agencies and armed forces, are you 12 years old? No seriously, I would like to know.

If the US didn't have any MOABs, are you going to say a MOAB is more powerful than the US military?

If the US didn't have any aircraft, are you going to say a single fighter jet is more powerful than the US military?

Heck, if the US military which consists of millions of people were only armed with knives, are you going to say a handgun is more powerful than the US military?

Quite frankly I'm embarrassed even trying to emulate your lack of logic.

I'm not 12, but even 12 year old's are capable of reading:

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I don't think anyone argued that Stark has more firepower than the whole army, or even close to it.

What we have been saying is that he will have the most advanced tech.

I personally think Stark stopped making WMD's after the events of Iron Man 1, but still his weapons on his armor probably have the most targeted and penetrating power.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I'm not 12, but even 12 year old's are capable of reading:

Just because you said that once, doesn't mean that's not what you've been doing repeatedly.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I don't think anyone argued that Stark has more firepower than the whole army, or even close to it.

No, you were too stupid to realize that until it was pointed out to you. You kept comparing the Armor to a single RPG or other single weapons and then pretended like you've proved something. When your stupidity finally dawned on you, you switched tact, which by the way, leaves you with no arguments - not that you ever had a logical one , but you were "arguing" nonetheless.

Originally posted by Placidity
Yea, you are hilarious.

But lets pretend its true. Would firing 1000 of those continuously be more powerful than one of Stark's blast?

Yea, options are concede or look even more foolish.

I'm tired of this mindless back and forth.

Its time to put up or shut up:

1v1 Debate Iron Man / Thor vs US Military in Movie Vs.

We can discuss the exact topic, but more or less focus on IM/Thor vs collective destructive power or capabilities of the US Military (excluding nukes). Heck we could even do a plain IM vs US Military if you'd like.

As for IM vs the US military all he would do is hack their security and turn all there weapons against them.

As for them vs Thor. Thor took IMs replusor blasts straight to the head after he had amped IM up to almost 5 times the power.

Thor's attacks leveled 2-3 Leviathan's which Tony's best couldn't hurt from the outside.

Do you honestly think the Army has anything that's gonna take him down short of a nuke.

Originally posted by Newjak
IM's attacks may not have as much destructive radius but it's pretty clear they pack more of a punch. The only thing to survive any attacks from IM in the movies were other Armored foes like Vanko.

As for IM vs the US military all he would do is hack their security and turn all there weapons against them.

As for them vs Thor. Thor took IMs replusor blasts straight to the head after he had amped IM up to almost 5 times the power.

Thor's attacks leveled 2-3 Leviathan's which Tony's best couldn't hurt from the outside.

Do you honestly think the Army has anything that's gonna take him down short of a nuke.

So we are a go for that 1v1 debate in Movie Vs?

Originally posted by Placidity
So we are a go for that 1v1 debate in Movie Vs?

What exactly is the debate you want?

Who vs Who.

IM vs the US military is a no brainer IM wins via hacking everything.

Thor vs the US Military what are they gonna do. Launch everything they've got at him. He'll simply fly to another area drop down in the middle unleash a Jottenheim Buster fly away, and repeat. If they do hit him with a missile I think it's safe to assume he'll be able to take it if he can survive the Bi-Frost blowing up.

Originally posted by Newjak
You've gotta be kidding.

Why?

Originally posted by Newjak

What exactly is the debate you want?

The long argument has been centered around the Military being incapable of defeating the Aliens, apocalypse would ensue. It was brought up that Cap/BW/HE was more effective than what the military could've mustered. Then it switched to Iron Man / Thor (separately mentioned) have more firepower than what the military could've mustered. Of course I pointed out how stupid that argument was especially when people started comparing the Armor to all types of single weapons by themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised if people started retracting their claims and making different arguments (someone already has).

So the debate should be:

Destructive Capability: IM vs US Military

Originally posted by Newjak

IM vs the US military is a no brainer IM wins via hacking everything.

Yea, no. That's Tony Stark, not Iron Man Armor. Also, that is irrelevant to what people were arguing about - i.e Armor more firepower than US Military, therefore US Military would've lost to aliens. Yes it was that retarded, go back and read it.

Originally posted by Newjak

Thor vs the US Military what are they gonna do. Launch everything they've got at him. He'll simply fly to another area drop down in the middle unleash a Jottenheim Buster fly away, and repeat. If they do hit him with a missile I think it's safe to assume he'll be able to take it if he can survive the Bi-Frost blowing up.

We were discussing Thor's destructive capabilities vs US Military's destructive capabilities.

LOL, but if the above are the points you are going to use, I would debate you on that too in a separate topic.

Originally posted by Placidity

No, you were too stupid to realize that until it was pointed out to you. You kept comparing the Armor to a single RPG or other single weapons and then pretended like you've proved something. When your stupidity finally dawned on you, you switched tact, which by the way, leaves you with no arguments - not that you ever had a logical one , but you were "arguing" nonetheless.

Someone sounds like they're more frustrated than a horny teenager.

I challenge you to go through my arguments and find where I claimed Iron man has more mass destruction arsenal on him than an entire army.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Someone sounds like they're more frustrated than a horny teenager.

Sure thing kid.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I challenge you to go through my arguments and find where I claimed Iron man has more mass destruction arsenal on him than an entire army.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
And Lol @ Iron Man's arsenal being weaker than standard military arsenal!

Next time find your own posts. Run along now kid, adults are talking.

Originally posted by Placidity
Why?

The long argument has been centered around the Military being incapable of defeating the Aliens, apocalypse would ensue. It was brought up that Cap/BW/HE was more effective than what the military could've mustered. Then it switched to Iron Man / Thor (separately mentioned) have more firepower than what the military could've mustered. Of course I pointed out how stupid that argument was especially when people started comparing the Armor to all types of single weapons by themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised if people started retracting their claims and making different arguments (someone already has).

So the debate should be:

Destructive Capability: IM vs US Military

Yea, no. That's Tony Stark, not Iron Man Armor. Also, that is irrelevant to what people were arguing about - i.e Armor more firepower than US Military, therefore US Military would've lost to aliens. Yes it was that retarded, go back and read it.

We were discussing Thor's destructive capabilities vs US Military's destructive capabilities.

LOL, but if the above are the points you are going to use, I would debate you on that too in a separate topic.

Why because IMs weapons are better. It doesn't matter how many the Military can throw at them. One of Stark's missiles thanks to his technology probably packs as much if not more of a punch then then a much larger missile. Maybe not to the same radius but in terms of power output.

That's the main point, that the US Military would have been more helpful in the situation right? Well short of a nuke they don't have anything that can take out the Leviathans. We know this because Tony didn't have anything effect on them, and his weapons have way more penetrating power then a US Missile.

90% of the US military would have been massacred by the flying Chariots easily. They wouldn't have been able to handle that firepower nor speed.

IM is like a man with a Machine Gun, some grenades, and a bazooka, the US Military is like a million guys with bows and arrows on fire just to make you feel better. This is the technological and firepower gap between IM and the Military.

They face an army of a thousand People with Handguns and Body Armor, and a few high tech tanks mixed in there to.
The Millions guys with the fired up arrows can definitely cause more to catch on fire and burn, but the man with the Machine Gun is still going to cause way more actual damage to the army while the guys with Bows and Arrows are going to get steamrolled especially with the tanks.

Originally posted by Placidity

Next time find your own posts. Run along now kid, adults are talking.

Oh yeah nice spin.

I said standard military arsenal. I was referring to how his weapons are better and more advanced.

I never said or even implied that he carries more mass destructive fire power than an entire army combined.

Nice attempt at spin though for a military brat who thinks it's perfectly fine to go around nuking populated cities.

Hey I appreciate you explaining what you believe, but I've already addressed all your points which others have brought up so many times that it's becoming pointless and repetitive, that's why a 1v1 debate would be the best option.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Nice attempt at spin though for a military brat who thinks it's perfectly fine to go around nuking populated cities.

See, that's why I know you are: 1) stupid 2) kid

1. You don't even know what a military brat is, a term that you've used many times now. I haven't corrected you so far because I like leaving arrogant people ignorant. But against my better judgement , I will now sacrifice your ignorance for public embarrassment, which is more pleasing short term. Of course you are going to look it up now, but your ignorance of it cannot be erased. You already used the term in previous posts which would serve as evidence no matter how much you try to spin it.

2. Prove where I said it would be "perfectly fine to go around nuking populated cities". You can't because you are stupid.

3. It is lost on you that I said that's what the military would consider doing, and in fact DID do in the film. Guess you didn't catch that. Because you are stupid.

4. You previously said it would be "mass murder", even after I refuted you, you did not have the brains to grasp I was trying to correct you, not argue. Again, you are going to look up what constitutes murder and find that you are wrong and realize how stupid you were. Actually, you will probably come back still arguing that it would be murder. Well what can you expect. From a stupid kid.

Look, I know you are going to reply with some typical 12-year old smarty-pants remark, but I'm really not interested.

Oh and my previous post was to Newjak lol. That's how I talk to people who although I believe their arguments are wrong, but don't talk silly shit like you do.

Originally posted by Placidity
See, that's why I know you are: 1) stupid 2) kid

1. You don't even know what a military brat is, a term that you've used many times now. I haven't corrected you so far because I like leaving arrogant people ignorant. But against my better judgement , I will now sacrifice your ignorance for public embarrassment, which is more pleasing short term. Of course you are going to look it up now, but your ignorance of it cannot be erased. You already used the term in previous posts which would serve as evidence no matter how much you try to spin it.

Oh yeah I really feel public embarrassment. Please everyone Placidity has embarrassed me enough, so don't everyone else jump in and embarrass me as well!

I can't believe you just went on a rant about that.

Originally posted by Placidity
2. Prove where I said it would be "perfectly fine to go around nuking populated cities". You can't because you are stupid.

Clearly the notion of exaggerating and then repeating escapes you. That's okay. I'm sure there was no time for any exaggeration when you were a loyal *ahem- brainwashed - ahem* recruit.

Originally posted by Placidity
3. It is lost on you that I said that's what the military would consider doing, and in fact DID do in the film. Guess you didn't catch that. Because you are stupid.

You see unlike you I really don't care what the Military actually would do. Because they're all a bunch of violent, murdering and brainless cowards anyway, and the world would be a much better place without them.

Originally posted by Placidity
4. You previously said it would be "mass murder",

Because that's exactly what it would be you brainwashed piece of turd.

Originally posted by Placidity
even after I refuted you,

You mean you said:

"no it wouldn't. When our brave and brainwashed military bafoons kill people it's all good. We don't use the term murder.

But on the other hand if any militant terroist ever dares kill one of ours we will of course call them mass murderers because in the military we are all completely brainwashed bafoons!"

Yeah nice military spin doctoring you've been through.

Originally posted by Placidity
Again, you are going to look up what constitutes murder and find that you are wrong and realize how stupid you were. Actually, you will probably come back still arguing that it would be murder. Well what can you expect. From a stupid kid. Look, I know you are going to reply with some typical 12-year old smarty-pants remark, but I'm really not interested.

Actually no, this isn't even worth replying to. Besides my above sentence pretty much covers it.

Originally posted by Placidity
Oh and my previous post was to Newjak lol. That's how I talk to people who although I believe their arguments are wrong, but don't talk silly shit like you do.

No, this is how you talk when you are:

1. Wrong.
2. Annoyed someone has highlighted your lack of moral decency.
3. Wrong.

Hey Darth Stupid Kid.

I don't know how much rubbish you wrote in that last post. I am hoping it was A LOT. I really do hope that.

Because I have a surprise for you.

Whoa, bitches, when did this thread blow up?

The Avengers is a great movie but I think that The Dark Knight Rises 'll be better. I love Nolan's movies

I'm surprised The Dark Knight is behind. I thought the consensus was that it was like the greatest thing since chips in a bag. I'm not a big fan, though, personally. Begins was more interesting.

^ Not surprising just because Avengers just came out. Give it a year or 2 and a more accurate vote is more likely.

Originally posted by Robtard
Whoa, bitches, when did this thread blow up?

I blame on this bickering on Marwash. 😛

Group hug anyone?