Batman vs Black Widow

Originally posted by Inhuman
Black Widow has shown "superhuman" feats as well. I wouldn't call her super human in any way.
Some people are so easy to throw out the superhuman tag into their favorite characters. Its as funny as people thinking Nite Owl and Rorsh were superhuman.

If we go by that then, Batman better hit harder than a Hulk slap or he wont KO Blackwidow in any shape or form.

Black Widows strength feats are nothing compared to Bruce swinging Superman through several thick concrete columns in a row...

Besides, Hulk gave her a love tap...

Dont exaggerate it; Hulk did NOT stand right in front of her, cock his arm back, and b!tch slap the hell out of her flush on her pretty little face...

Hulk gave her a love tap; plain and simple...

Batman will be striking with power, precision, and murderous intent...

She will not be able to stand up to that onslaught...

Batman wins 10/10...

Originally posted by Arachnid1
"It's not really enhancing his strength more than protecting him."

So it does still enhance his strength. It's just more useful for protection.

That is certainly one way to look at it. That is why I generally dislike interviews from directors. They're rarely very specific and far to often leave things open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
How am I wrong? Did I say anything not true?

My quote was taken directly from a Snyder interview. And I merely repeated it and how it disagrees with your comment of Batman being absolutely superhuman.

So pls. If you can point out where I was wrong, quote the exact point/statement that I was in that statement.

If you have issues with what he said, take it up with him or the article that published what he said.

You are wrong in the sense that you attempted to counter the notion that Batman had superhuman strength...

Myself and Utrigita proved your counter wrong by proving that the suit did not enhance Batflects strength and by showing a clear feat of superhuman strength on Batflects part...

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
LoL...

How on Earth can you interpret that to mean that it enhances his strength is beyond me...

Because it is sounds like a comparative statement?

Here, reread without the "really":

It's not really enhancing his strength more than it is protecting him.

This statement would be interpretted that the primary focus of his suit was to protect Batman, not to enhance his strength.

It does not, however, explicitly state that it does not enhance his strength in any way.

I will admit I can be wrong in the interpretation of this statement, however, as I'm not an English major. Someone with a more defined understanding of the intricacies of the English language should come in and offer their 2 cents on this.

But pardon me for not immediately accepting your interpretation of it as I tend to find that your interpretations tend to be rife with confirmation bias.

In the spirit of fairness, feel free and go ahead and find a different interpretation for: "Batman, unlike Superman, Wonder Woman or Flash, is a guy without superpowers."

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
You are wrong in the sense that you attempted to counter the notion that Batman had superhuman strength...

Myself and Utrigita proved your counter wrong by proving that the suit did not enhance Batflects strength and by showing a clear feat of superhuman strength on Batflects part...

Lol.

I offered evidence. That is all. Ppl are allowed to offer evidence without making declaratives. And until I make a declaration/assertion, there is nothing to be wrong about beyond whether the post I made was true/untrue.

As always, you are reaching.

And don't bring Utriga into this. He posted an interview. He made no declarations or assertions. Until he does, he has, so far, made no mention of agreeing with what you said.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Because it is sounds like a comparative statement?

Here, reread without the "really":

It's not really enhancing his strength more than it is protecting him.

This statement would be interpretted that the primary focus of his suit was to protect Batman, not to enhance his strength.

It does not, however, explicitly state that it does not enhance his strength in any way.

I will admit I can be wrong in the interpretation of this statement, however, as I'm not an English major. Someone with a more defined understanding if the intricacies of the English language should come in and offer their 2 cents on this.

But pardon me for not immediately accepting your interpretation of it as I tend to find that your interpretations tend to be rife with confirmation bias.

In the spirit of fairness, feel free and go ahead and find a different interpretation for: "Batman, unlike Superman, Wonder Woman or Flash, is a guy without superpowers."

Your english seems pretty dang on good to me; no english major is needed here as people rarely speak proper english anyway...

As pertains Synders statement, I interpret it as a gentle way of saying no.

You hear people disagree with one another in the exact same way often; I once told my wife that something was red and her answer was "its not really red, its more maroon."

Its just a gentle way of saying "no, its not that, its this."

Thats my take on what Synder said for whatever its worth...

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol.

I offered evidence. That is all. Ppl are allowed to offer evidence without making declaratives. And until I make a declaration/assertion, there is nothing to be wrong about beyond whether the post I made was true/untrue.

As always, you are reaching.

And don't bring Utriga into this. He posted an interview. He made no declarations or assertions. Until he does, he has, so far, made no mention of agreeing with what you said.

You attempted to offer evidence to dispute the fact that Bruce has shown himself to be superhumanly strong...

You silently called my statement about Batman being superhuman false (and you emphasized it by underlining the part where I say that Bats is absolutely superhumanly strong) and found a link to dispute it...

You cant talk your way out of it; I read between the lines very well...

And I am reaching at nothing; I am calling out your error...

And I can bring Utrigita into this; he read my statement and found the actual interview that backed it up...

He also agrees with me about the victor of this fight...

Batman most certainly has peak human/low superhuman strength/speed, even out of his mech suit he grappled and punched a dude wayy farther than any normal human could, he was able to dodge point blank shotgun blasts making him wayy faster than any real world athlete, he grappled a huge crate and one handed threw it so hard into a guy that he left blood on the wall behind him and lets not forget how he hit that one dude so hard that he DDTd himself.

PS he made a huge indent in the concrete prison wall behind Luthor when he confronted him that bat mark was at least an inch deep...

way beyond a regular athlete for sure

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
You attempted to offer evidence to dispute the fact that Bruce has shown himself to be superhumanly strong...

You silently called my statement about Batman being superhuman false (and you emphasized it by underlining the part where I say that Bats is absolutely superhumanly strong) and found a link to dispute it...

You cant talk your way out of it; I read between the lines very well...

And I am reaching at nothing; I am calling out your error...

And I can bring Utrigita into this; he read my statement and found the actual interview that backed it up...

He also agrees with me about the victor of this fight...

By "silently" you're basically saying that I made an assertion that I never said. You're literally putting words in my mouth. Like you're putting words in Utriga's mouth. Maybe, wait til he posts and not speak for him?

I had no opinion on whether or not Batman's suit enhanced him, as I need to see the evidence before making up my mind. And without the evidence, I have no opinion of it. You see, I strictly adhere to a logical flow (w/c I tried to teach you in a different thread) to avoid confirmation bias:

Evidence -> Analysis -> Conclusion

Without the evidence (notice my request for Source?), I cannot have a conclusion, can I?

Don't make up arguments/statements that were never made. Helps not waste ppl's time having to correct you.

I DO have evidence of Snyder's opinion on Batman, however. Which I stumbled into while looking for evidence that corroborates your statement and merely posted it as it runs in complete opposite to your statement.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
Besides, Hulk gave her a love tap...

Dont exaggerate it; Hulk did NOT stand right in front of her, cock his arm back, and b!tch slap the hell out of her flush on her pretty little face...

Hulk gave her a love tap; plain and simple...

Batman will be striking with power, precision, and murderous intent...

So Love tap = Hulk rampaging through the hell carrier influenced by loki?
Batman in BvS in the warehouse was fighting with murderous intent (remember he is a murderer in this universe), He still got tagged and would be dead in that fight if it wasnt for his suit. Again, he would have been killed by common fodder if it wasnt for his suit in that fight.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
She will not be able to stand up to that onslaught...

Batman wins 10/10...

Common fodder was able to stand up to the onslaught, tagged him a few times and would have killed him if it wasnt for his suit.

There is no suit in this fight.

Originally posted by Inhuman

There is no suit in this fight.

theres also no weapons, Widow gets owned buddy

Originally posted by Nibedicus
By "silently" you're basically saying that I made an assertion that I never said. You're literally putting words in my mouth. Like you're putting words in Utriga's mouth. Maybe, wait til he posts and not speak for him?

I had no opinion on whether or not Batman's suit enhanced him, as I need to see the evidence before making up my mind. And without the evidence, I have no opinion of it. You see, I strictly adhere to a logical flow (w/c I tried to teach you in a different thread) to avoid confirmation bias:

Evidence -> Analysis -> Conclusion

Without the evidence (notice my request for Source?), I cannot have a conclusion, can I?

Don't make up arguments/statements that were never made. Helps not waste ppl's time having to correct you.

I DO have evidence of Snyder's opinion on Batman, however. Which I stumbled into while looking for evidence that corroborates your statement and merely posted it as it runs in complete opposite to your statement.

You can dispute it because you didnt verbally say it, but you absolutely attempted to shoot down my statement...

Of that I have no doubt...

You are currently couching your words in a manner meant to mislead us on what you really was getting at...

I have no doubt of that as well...

Anyway, now you ALSO have evidence that the suit gives no strength amp to Batman and a link of Batman performing a clearly superhuman feat with his own natural strength...

And your conclusion on Batman's level of strength is....?

Originally posted by relentless1
theres also no weapons, Widow gets owned buddy

Shes has done fine without weapons in the films.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
Your english seems pretty dang on good to me; no english major is needed here as people rarely speak proper english anyway...

As pertains Synders statement, I interpret it as a gentle way of saying no.

You hear people disagree with one another in the exact same way often; I once told my wife that something was red and her answer was "its not really red, its more maroon."

Its just a gentle way of saying "no, its not that, its this."

Thats my take on what Synder said for whatever its worth...

"Gently saying no" makes no sense to me. What do you mean? For what purpose? If anything, he was just being vague so as to not give away too much about the movie.

And your analogy actually contradicts your assertions. Maroon is a shade of red. I hope you see the irony in that.

What your wife did was make your statement more precise, not disprove the validity of your statement in its entirety as she'd be wrong if she meant it as maroon not having any red in it.

Originally posted by Inhuman
So Love tap = Hulk rampaging through the hell carrier influenced by loki?
Batman in BvS in the warehouse was fighting with murderous intent (remember he is a murderer in this universe), He still got tagged and would be dead in that fight if it wasnt for his suit. Again, he would have been killed by common fodder if it wasnt for his suit in that fight.

Common fodder was able to stand up to the onslaught, tagged him a few times and would have killed him if it wasnt for his suit.

There is no suit in this fight.

Batman took on ALOT of armed opponents solo in that scene...

A few of them were bound to hit him...

Whats the most fodder Widow has taken on solo and prevailed against?

And so what Bats has no armor here?

He is still 6'4" 200+ fully muscled, has a big reach advantage, and superhumanly strong...

Widow is 5'4" 140 max and no where near as muscled with shorter smaller everything...

Both are skilled, uses precision strikes, and are willing to kill...

Batman's size and strength advantage are erormous and (IMHO) too much for Widow to overcome in the end though...

Batman 10/10...

Will brb. Need to do some chores.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
"Gently saying no" makes no sense to me. What do you mean? For what purpose? If anything, he was just being vague so as to not give away too much about the movie.

And your analogy actually contradicts your assertions. Maroon is a shade of red. I hope you see the irony in that.

What your wife did was make your statement more precise, not disprove the validity of your statement in its entirety as she'd be wrong if she meant it as maroon not having any red in it.

Maroon is not red...

Period...

Being of shade of red is not the same as being red; if they were the exact same thing then there would be no reason to call something maroon...it would all just be red instead.

Common sense dude...

Originally posted by Inhuman
Shes has done fine without weapons in the films.

not against a guy as skilled, strong and fast as Batman

Originally posted by relentless1
not against a guy as skilled, strong and fast as Batman

Common fodder were able to tag a person as skilled, strong and fast as batman just fine and BW>>>>>>common fodder.
And not just tag but almost kill Batman if not for his suit.

Desert scene also proved that Batman, while very skilled is not a monster in the skill department.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Common fodder were able to tag a person as skilled, strong and fast as batman just fine and BW>>>>>>common fodder.
And not just tag but almost kill Batman if not for his suit.

Desert scene also proved that Batman, while very skilled is not a monster in the skill department.

if they didn't have weapons, they would be no argument on if they could have killed him without his armour...Widow has no weapons so her going h2h against Batman is ludicrous.

Give Widow weapons against Bruce Wayne and then id be more inclined to give her a W... but he doesn't so she loses every time