Originally posted by Silent Master
You posted opinion, not proof. Learn the difference.
I don't need to post proof of a negative. A negative is always true when there is no evidence anywhere to support it not being true.
It's not an opinion that Spider-Man CAN'T fly into the Sun under his power and back to Earth. It's a fact because there is no evidence to support that he can.
Seems that you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Another tactic of your's, since you can't back up your opinion, you're trying to change the subject.
Originally posted by h1a8
I don't need to post proof of a negative. A negative is always true when there is no evidence anywhere to support it not being true.It's not an opinion that Spider-Man CAN'T fly into the Sun under his power and back to Earth. It's a fact because there is no evidence to support that he can.
Seems that you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.
Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you can't back up your claims.
Originally posted by h1a8
I don't need to post proof of a negative. A negative is always true when there is no evidence anywhere to support it not being true.It's not an opinion that Spider-Man CAN'T fly into the Sun under his power and back to Earth. It's a fact because there is no evidence to support that he can.
Seems that you don't know the difference between opinion and facts.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said, you can't back up your claims.
Funny how he changes his tune now, after his earlier claims about accepting bullet curving in RL as possible, based on the fact that it hadn't adequately been proven false in his opinion. Yet here something is untrue unless proven true.
Originally posted by TheVaultDwellerBut curving a bullet is theoretically possible. There is evidence to support it. You can't can't curve it in a complete circle though. I agreed with you on that. If there is no evidence to support something then we don't have to prove it false.
Funny how he changes his tune now, after his earlier claims about accepting bullet curving in RL as possible, based on the fact that it hadn't adequately been proven false in his opinion. Yet here something is untrue unless proven true.
But why derail the thread? Just debate on who wins and why
I gave my position with reasons.
Originally posted by h1a8
But curving a bullet is theoretically possible. There is evidence to support it. You can't can't curve it in a complete circle though. I agreed with you on that. If there is no evidence to support something then we don't have to prove it false.But why derail the thread? Just debate on who wins and why
I gave my position with reasons.
Provide the evidence to support the possibility that you can curve a bullet while shooting it. Not just your own personal opinion on how you think it might be done. Your opinions on things have already been overruled by a mod, in another thread. Without evidence to support them, they mean very little. Because there is plenty of evidence available online to debunk the Wanted bullet curve shots. A bullet can curve ever so slightly after it is fired, but that is due to external forces working on it while it is in the air. It has zero to do with the shooter flicking their arm. And evidence has been provided in the other instance as well. You just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it.
I am not derailing anything. I am proving a point. You are changing how evidence should be analysed depending on how it suits your argument. You can sugarcoat it however you want, but it remains obvious. And I already have done so as well. Multiple times. So have other people. Not our fault you won't accept it.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Funny how he changes his tune now, after his earlier claims about accepting bullet curving in RL as possible, based on the fact that it hadn't adequately been proven false in his opinion. Yet here something is untrue unless proven true.
The best part is, backing up his claim doesn't require him to prove a negative, this is just his latest excuse. he'll say anything to avoid having to provide proof for one of his claims.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The best part is, backing up his claim doesn't require him to prove a negative, this is just his latest excuse. he'll say anything to avoid having to provide proof for one of his claims.
With regards to the bullet curving thing, he is most likely going to come back with his "baseballs can curve when thrown, so bullets can do so when shot like in the movie" argument, even though throwing =/= shooting. Followed by his own personal theory on how it would work. And then he will claim that he provided "proof", even though nothing he has provided counters any of the articles/discussions/clips debunking the Wanted bullet curving.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Provide the evidence to support the possibility that you can curve a bullet while shooting it. Not just your own personal opinion on how you think it might be done. Your opinions on things have already been overruled by a mod, in another thread. Without evidence to support them, they mean very little. Because there is plenty of evidence available online to debunk the Wanted bullet curve shots. A bullet can curve ever so slightly after it is fired, but that is due to external forces working on it while it is in the air. It has zero to do with the shooter flicking their arm. And evidence has been provided in the other instance as well. You just dismissed it because you didn't agree with it.I am not derailing anything. I am proving a point. You are changing how evidence should be analysed depending on how it suits your argument. You can sugarcoat it however you want, but it remains obvious. And I already have done so as well. Multiple times. So have other people. Not our fault you won't accept it.
Evidence and proof are two different things. A bullet can be spinned as it leaves the gun. But it's not humanly possible since they are not fast or precise enough to do it. It's only theoretically possible.
You are derailing the thread because none of this has anything to do with who wins.
Debate against the points I made why DS wins.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
With regards to the bullet curving thing, he is most likely going to come back with his "baseballs can curve when thrown, so bullets can do so when shot like in the movie" argument, even though throwing =/= shooting. Followed by his own personal theory on how it would work. And then he will claim that he provided "proof", even though nothing he has provided counters any of the articles/discussions/clips debunking the Wanted bullet curving.
The one thing he won't come back with is facts.
Originally posted by h1a8
Evidence and proof are two different things. A bullet can be spinned as it leaves the gun. But it's not humanly possible since they are not fast or precise enough to do it. It's only theoretically possible.You are derailing the thread because none of this has anything to do with who wins.
Debate against the points I made why DS wins.
I totally called it. More of your opinion. Nothing else.
And it has everything to do with the thread, because it has to do with how the evidence is being approached.
And, as mentioned before, I have already. As have many others.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I totally called it. More of your opinion. Nothing else.And it has everything to do with the thread, because it has to do with how the evidence is being approached.
And, as mentioned before, I have already. As have many others.
No it doesn't. You never provided any evidence to how fast Wesley can amp. I did. In the car scene, we don't know when Wesley first amped. To give a time is just merely guessing. This is not evidence.
There is a scene where it took Wesley seconds to amp. This is evidence.
Originally posted by h1a8
No it doesn't. You never provided any evidence to how fast Wesley can amp. I did. In the car scene, we don't know when Wesley first amped. To give a time is just merely guessing. This is not evidence.
There is a scene where it took Wesley seconds to amp. This is evidence.
I provided reasoning behind my stance, which you never adequately countered. You just decided that he was always amped unless stated otherwise, without providing anything more than what you thought the writer meant as your backing. So if I did not provide adequate evidence to back my stance, you did not either.
Anyway, like I said, you are the only one who thinks Deadshot wins. As far as I am concerned, this is settled. And the fact that you think that how evidence is handled doesn't have anything to do with a debate speaks volumes.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I provided reasoning behind my stance, which you never adequately countered. You just decided that he was always amped unless stated otherwise, without providing anything more than what you thought the writer meant as your backing. So if I did not provide adequate evidence to back my stance, you did not either.Anyway, like I said, you are the only one who thinks Deadshot wins. As far as I am concerned, this is settled. And the fact that you think that how evidence is handled doesn't have anything to do with a debate speaks volumes.
But I backtracked and adjusted my position to WE DON'T KNOW when Wesley amped in that scene. He could have amped before he shot for all we know.
I think DS wins because he can shoot Wesley right before he amps. If this fight starts with Wesley being amp then I promise you that no one here will argue harder for Wesley to win than me.
So the only thing we disagree on is how long it takes Wesley to amp.
You believe it takes less than 0.5 of a second and I believe it takes longer than 2 seconds.