Ozymandias vs Captain America

Cap wins with a single arm

Oxy gets his candy ass beaten to death

Ozy wins.
It will take awhile but it will be easy.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ozy wins.
It will take awhile but it will be easy.

Can you move like Bullseye yet, joke man?

Originally posted by h1a8
Ozy wins.
It will take awhile but it will be easy.

You need to stop taking drugs.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Can you move like Bullseye yet, joke man?

Hmm Im sure its been a year, so he should be able to by now.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You need to stop taking drugs.

Then let's debate.
I argue that Ozy wins without getting hit.

Originally posted by h1a8
Then let's debate.
I argue that Ozy wins without getting hit.

Can you move like Bullseye?

I think Captain America would win. Ozzy would have to plan ahead. But in a brawl Cap would knock him out but not kill him.

Originally posted by h1a8
Then let's debate.
I argue that Ozy wins without getting hit.

Sure, let's BZ it. standard rules. loser can't post in this forum for 6 months.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sure, let's BZ it. standard rules. loser can't post in this forum for 6 months.

I'm a logical person. Once rules are laid out and agreed upon then the debate will automatically result in an objective conclusion (not subjective).

Originally posted by Emmy Evangeline
I think Captain America would win. Ozzy would have to plan ahead. But in a brawl Cap would knock him out but not kill him.

Ozy will not get tagged by Cap

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't gamble or BZ.
I dont accept others decisions to the validity of an argument.

I'm a logical person. Once rules are laid out and agreed upon then the debate will automatically result in an objective conclusion (not subjective).

Then let's lay out the rules for out regular debate. I'll start.

Rule 1. No speculation.

Do you agree with that rule?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Then let's lay out the rules for out regular debate. I'll start.

Rule 1. No speculation.

Do you agree with that rule?

Speculation doesn't need to be agreed upon, it is automatically a rule.
If there is firm evidence supporting something then it isn't speculation.

Characters fight at full capacity at all times. That includes speed, reflexes, skill, smarts, etc.

Also we must define proof (since there are multiple definitions differing by multiple degrees).

Is proof (evidentiary standards or burden of proof)
1. Evidence Beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond a 95% chance something is true based off given evidence)
Or
2. Preponderance of the evidence (beyond 50% chance something is true based off given evidence)?

So you agree to the no speculation rule?

H1 concession accepted that he can’t move like Bullseye and is nothing but a mere troll. Concepcion accepted that his “debating” is faulty logic meshed together.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So you agree to the no speculation rule?

We have to agree to no trolling. That includes IGNORING QUESTIONS and statements. You just ignored my post

Originally posted by Eon Blue
H1 concession accepted that he can’t move like Bullseye and is nothing but a mere troll. Concepcion accepted that his “debating” is faulty logic meshed together.

What does bullseye have to do with this debate.

Originally posted by h1a8
We have to agree to no trolling. That includes IGNORING QUESTIONS and statements. You just ignored my post

You didn't give a valid answer to my question, which to be fair I asked first. yet you expect me to answer your question. that is called a double standard. though to move this forward I'll answer your question, even though you still haven't answered mine.

The answer to your question: I'd say proof would be based on Preponderance of the evidence

Now, are you going to answer my original question. IE, do you agree to the no speculation rule? it's a simple yes or no question.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't give a valid answer to my question, which to be fair I asked first. yet you expect me to answer your question. that is called a double standard. though to move this forward I'll answer your question, even though you still haven't answered mine.

The answer to your question: I'd say proof would be based on Preponderance of the evidence

Now, are you going to answer my original question. IE, do you agree to the no speculation rule? it's a simple yes or no question.

Either you or an idiot or you are trolling. I clearly stated that speculation is never allowed (its trolling just to ask someone to agree to that).

But I clearly defined that firm evidence IS NOT SPECULATION.

So it's up to you to agree with that statement or give me your take on speculation (if you disagree