Order these fictional metals by durability

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Well, then don't come and start throwing the word "trolling" around when I am not even talking to you.

And the vast majority of people here would not claim that an infinity stone would destroy adamantium, unless they felt that it had screen feats showing it destroying something they think has better screen durability feats than adamantium. Because that's how people debate here. It was just meant to serve as one example of a thing adamantium has not been tested against by Stryker, therefore Stryker cannot know whether adamantium would be invulnerable when confronted by it.

Seriously, if you don't get it after this explanation, you just won't.

Well then stop avoiding the facts. Impediment has dictated that movie statements are valid. So stop playing the idiot here.

We are comparing both metals description here. Vibranium is said to be stronger than common steel (Doesn't mean it won't get destroyed). Adamantium is considered virtually undestructible, which gives it the edge in durability.

Tha'ts the whole point here No movie feat could trumpcard such a thing.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well then stop avoiding the facts. Impediment has dictated that movie statements are valid. So stop playing the idiot here.

We are comparing both metals description here. Vibranium is said to be stronger than common steel (Doesn't mean it won't get destroyed). Adamantium is considered virtually undestructible, which gives it the edge in durability.

Tha'ts the whole point here No movie feat could trumpcard such a thing.

I'm not avoiding anything. I never said it wasn't valid. I said it would hold limited weight (I can quote where I said it if you want), considering Stryker's limited knowledge within the context of this thread. And I then gave you an example why. And I then told you that most of us thus use screen feats to determine these things, as it gives us more actual quantifiable information.

Also, you are ignoring the context within which these statements are being made, such as era the statement came from, what other materials and things there were to compare with at the time, the personalities, knowledge level and vocabularies of the speakers etc. For example, during a conversation in Age of Ultron, Captain America (who had used his shield extensively in the field at that point) describes it as "the strongest metal on earth". So, certain people express things in different ways, depending on their personality and level of knowledge. Stark might have intentionally chosen those words because that's all he had been able to readily compare it to at the time. After all, he only had a very limited supply, and the shield was only ever originally meant as a prototype.

But I suspect you are going to just ignore all this and insist on continuing to steamroll the discussion with the "virtually indestructible" statement and nothing else. So, not quite sure why I am even bothering.

I mean the sheer fact that you say that no movie feat could trump a character statement says it all really. So, if, hypothetically speaking, vibranium had to survive a planet-busting attack, would you still claim adamantium is stronger?

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I'm not avoiding anything. I never said it wasn't valid. I said it would hold limited weight (I can quote where I said it if you want), considering Stryker's limited knowledge within the context of this thread. And I then gave you an example why. And I then told you that most of us thus use screen feats to determine these things, as it gives us more actual quantifiable information.

Also, you are ignoring the context within which these statements are being made, such as era the statement came from, what other materials and things there were to compare with at the time, the personalities, knowledge level and vocabularies of the speakers etc. For example, during a conversation in Age of Ultron, Captain America (who had used his shield extensively in the field at that point) describes it as "the strongest metal on earth". So, certain people express things in different ways, depending on their personality and level of knowledge. Stark might have intentionally chosen those words because that's all he had been able to readily compare it to at the time. After all, he only had a very limited supply, and the shield was only ever originally meant as a prototype.

But I suspect you are going to just ignore all this and insist on continuing to steamroll the discussion with the "virtually indestructible" statement and nothing else. So, not quite sure why I am even bothering.

Look, first of all there is NO WAY we can compare Adamantium and Vibranium using movie feats. Simply because they've each been tested under different conditions. So it's impossible to say which is stronger because they've not faced what the other metal has faced. So that leaves us with Statements only.

I think i understand what you mean. However that's the only thing we got to really compare them (Assuming that we are going to ignore Marvel's actual stand on the topic, cause Marvel has clearly stated that Adamantium is stronger), so based on those 2 descriptions, Adamantium comes on top. That's my point. That's the strongest point here, cause everything else is just assumption.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Look, first of all there is NO WAY we can compare Adamantium and Vibranium using movie feats. Simply because they've each been tested under different conditions. So it's impossible to say which is stronger because they've not faced what the other metal has faced. So that leaves us with Statements only.

I think i understand what you mean. However that's the only thing we got to really compare them (Assuming that we are going to ignore Marvel's actual stand on the topic, cause Marvel has clearly stated that Adamantium is stronger), so based on those 2 descriptions, Adamantium comes on top. That's my point. That's the strongest point here, cause everything else is just assumption.

Well, I and others obviously disagree. We have feats, for example, of a vibranium shield being hit by Thor's hammer. And we have enough striking feats for Thor that we can gauge his general power level, and thus get an idea of how tough vibranium is. Or we see adamantium hold up against Weapon XI's optic beams without damage, which only seconds later show the ability to easily punch through thick, solid concrete. And those are just two examples out of many. So, we can in fact use feats to quantify things enough to have a discussion.

But if you don't agree with that, then there is literally no point in continuing this discussion, because it's going to end up in an endless loop. And I doubt you want to keep retyping the same things over and over any more than I do.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Well, I and others obviously disagree. We have feats, for example, of a vibranium shield being hit by Thor's hammer. And we have enough striking feats for Thor that we can gauge his general power level, and thus get an idea of how tough vibranium is. Or we see adamantium hold up against Weapon XI's optic beams without damage, which only seconds later show the ability to easily punch through thick, solid concrete. And those are just two examples out of many. So, we can in fact use feats to quantify things enough to have a discussion.

But if you don't agree with that, then there is literally no point in continuing this discussion, because it's going to end up in an endless loop. And I doubt you want to keep retyping the same things over and over any more than I do.

Again no way to prove via feats that one metal surpasses the other. Else i would have done so by now.

How can you say for instance that Adamantium wouldn't withstand a charged hammer from Thor? Or that Cap's shield wouldn't withstand Weapon 11's beams? Simply no way to prove which metal is stronger than which.

I've watched all of X Men's films and all of MCU films. If there was a way to use screen feats to prove which one is stronger, then i would have used them by now and afford myself the stress of using statements which clearly causes polemic in this forum.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again no way to prove via feats that one metal surpasses the other. Else i would have done so by now.

How can you say for instance that Adamantium wouldn't withstand a charged hammer from Thor? Or that Cap's shield wouldn't withstand Weapon 11's beams? Simply no way to prove which metal is stronger than which.

I've watched all of X Men's films and all of MCU films. If there was a way to use screen feats to prove which one is stronger, then i would have used them by now and afford myself the stress of using statements which clearly causes polemic in this forum.

When we use feats like I am talking about, we don't just say anything without basing it on something. We look at what happens onscreen, try to quantify the showings as best we can, and then see which are currently better. Because things like how tough concrete is, for example, can easily be researched online. So, then you start to get a number attached for the minimum power the optic beam would have needed to produce to do what it did. So, then you now have that number as usable for Logan's adamantium claws as well, as you see it take those same beams onscreen without being damaged. And then you move to the next feat etc. And you can do the same for things like MCU vibranium. It would take a bit of research, but it is doable.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
When we use feats like I am talking about, we don't just say anything without basing it on something. We look at what happens onscreen, try to quantify the showings as best we can, and then see which are currently better. Because things like how tough concrete is, for example, can easily be researched online. So, then you start to get a number attached for the minimum power the optic beam would have needed to produce to do what it did. So, then you now have that number as usable for Logan's adamantium claws as well, as you see it take those same beams onscreen without being damaged. And then you move to the next feat etc. And you can do the same for things like MCU vibranium. It would take a bit of research, but it is doable.

Yes it can be done. We could go an research, but we first need to get the info, and then decide whether it is factible info. Also we would have to consider that in some cases the numbers will vary depending on the webpage. And since such numbers were never given on screen, then we are not really basing our points on screen feats.

So it isn't really a nice road to follow.

Id rather wait for MCU to get the rights to Adamantium, so we can finally get a vs screen feat.

I like how Josh says that he never claimed statements trump feats and yet continues to use statements to claim that Adamantium wins, despite the fact that I've posted feats for Vibranium that he has yet to match.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller

And the vast majority of people here would not claim that an infinity stone would destroy adamantium, unless they felt that it had screen feats showing it destroying something they think has better screen durability feats than adamantium. Because that's how people debate here. It was just meant to serve as one example of a thing adamantium has not been tested against by Stryker, therefore Stryker cannot know whether adamantium would be invulnerable when confronted by it.

Seriously, if you don't get it after this explanation, you just won't.

Using Styker's "virtually indestructible" statement is fine, but it also has to be taken into context and the person saying it. He's not aware of universal-level forces like an Infinity Stone and alien god-like beings etc., so his comment along with his ignorance of greater forces that he can imagine has to be taken in as such.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I like how Josh says that he never claimed statements trump feats and yet continues to use statements to claim that Adamantium wins, despite the fact that I've posted feats for Vibranium that he has yet to match.

Like what?

There is no screen feats that could ever prove Vibranium being stronger than Adamantium.

Originally posted by Robtard
Using Styker's "virtually indestructible" statement is fine, but it also has to be taken into context and the person saying it. He's not aware of universal-level forces like an Infinity Stone and alien god-like beings etc., so his comment along with his ignorance of greater forces that he can imagine has to be taken in as such.

In a similar way, it can be assumed that Howard was unaware of Universal forces (e.g. Infinity Stones), and yet categorized Vibranium as "stronger than common steel" meaning it isn't undestructible at an earthling level (much less it would be at a universal level).

Whichever one has the best feats wins, it's the same way we determine who is faster, stronger, more agile etc etc etc.

All of these metals have feats we can use for comparison.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Whichever one has the best feats wins, it's the same way we determine who is faster, stronger, more agile etc etc etc.

All of these metals have feats we can use for comparison.

Not really. Just because something hasn't happen doesn't mean it won't happen

Again, no feat seen on screen can put Vibranium on top of Adamantium or bisversa, that's the reason why I used Screen Statements in the first place.

No limit fallacies are not valid arguments, therefore whichever metal has the best feats win.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No limit fallacies are not valid arguments, therefore whichever metal has the best feats win.

Yes and No. Because in that order it is considered a fallacy to say that Adamantium couldn't withstand what Vibranium did and bisversa.

See? Movie Feats lead nowhere in this thread.

Adamantium wins based on statements. Based on Movie feats, it is a tie.

Statements do not trump feats and these metals have plenty of feats to compare.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander

In a similar way, it can be assumed that Howard was unaware of Universal forces (e.g. Infinity Stones), and yet categorized Vibranium as "stronger than common steel" meaning it isn't undestructible at an earthling level (much less it would be at a universal level).

Agreed, we take Howard's comments in context of what he'd know/be aware of.

So we go with film feats and vibranium is seen resisting greater forces.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Statements do not trump feats and these metals have plenty of feats to compare.

You can't compare feats that different from each other.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, we take Howard's comments in context of what he'd know/be aware of.

So we go with film feats and vibranium is seen resisting greater forces.

Okay, based on statements Adamantium is stronger.

There is where i disagree, what makes you think Vibranium has endured more than Adamantium has? Simply there is no way to do it.

Like both Metals have taken forces that can't be measured. So how can we decide which is stronger?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes it can be done. We could go an research, but we first need to get the info, and then decide whether it is factible info. Also we would have to consider that in some cases the numbers will vary depending on the webpage. And since such numbers were never given on screen, then we are not really basing our points on screen feats.

So it isn't really a nice road to follow.

Id rather wait for MCU to get the rights to Adamantium, so we can finally get a vs screen feat.

No, dude. The numbers relating to things like tensile strength of steel, concrete etc. are not simply going to change based on the website you visit. Those things have been scientifically tested and figured long before things like this specific discussion ever existed. And it's possible to cross-reference facts over multiple sites to check consistency as well. So, those numbers are very usable when we see the fictional materials in question interact with the real materials onscreen. To pretend otherwise is being dishonest.

Originally posted by Robtard
Using Styker's "virtually indestructible" statement is fine, but it also has to be taken into context and the person saying it. He's not aware of universal-level forces like an Infinity Stone and alien god-like beings etc., so his comment along with his ignorance of greater forces that he can imagine has to be taken in as such.

This is basically what I said earlier. The statement can be incorporated into an argument but, due to Stryker's limited knowledge within the context/scope of the thread, it can only hold a limited amount of weight.

The idea that you can't compare different feats is ridiculous.

Example, lifting a bicycle is completely different than pulling an aircraft carrier down the highway. Yet it is very easy to determine which is the better strength feat.