Who would be a bigger threat: Thor vs. Superman

Originally posted by h1a8
Please learn reading comprehension. Again little one, a regular lightning bolt only lasts 0.00003 of a second. If the regular bolt last about the same time as Thor's lightning then it could potentially do far more damage than Thor's lightning.

3 seconds of lightning > 100,000 lightning bolts in total energy.
Thor's power output is equal or less than regular lightning, it's just has way more energy (because it lasts longer).

Please learn to watch movies first. The Jotunheim blast wasn't a prolonged blast. I'd like to see regular lightning cause damage that extensive.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Please learn to watch movies first. The Jotunheim blast wasn't a prolonged blast. I'd like to see regular lightning cause damage that extensive.

Of course it was. Do you know how long is 0.00003 seconds? Let me give you a hint. 1 second is more than 33,000 times longer. The lightning blast Thor created lasted at least 3 seconds. So that's more than 100,000 times more energy than a regular bolt of lightning.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your claim.

You trolling again I see.
Good luck with that.

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course it was. Do you know how long is 0.00003 seconds? Let me give you a hint. 1 second is more than 33,000 times longer. The lightning blast Thor created lasted at least 3 seconds. So that's more than 100,000 times more energy than a regular bolt of lightning.

Oh jeez.

So I guess this:

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-france-longest-lasting-lightning.amp

was more powerful than the Jotunheim blast right? Since it lasted more than twice as long?

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course it was. Do you know how long is 0.00003 seconds? Let me give you a hint. 1 second is more than 33,000 times longer. The lightning blast Thor created lasted at least 3 seconds. So that's more than 100,000 times more energy than a regular bolt of lightning.

Sometimes you're so stupid it makes my head hurtt. The lightning only discharged once it hit the ground and that only took a fraction of a second. For your theory to make sense (that the lightning destroyed the ground due to prolonged exposure to it) the lightning would have needed to be in contact with the ground for those 3 seconds before it got destroyed.

Originally posted by h1a8
You trolling again I see.
Good luck with that.

Asking you to backup a claim is not trolling, however accusing someone of being a troll because they asked for proof is a classic troll tactic.

You're not fooling anyone.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Asking you to backup a claim is not trolling, however accusing someone of being a troll because they asked for proof is a classic troll tactic.

You're not fooling anyone.

It is trolling when they specifically ask YOU WHAT OR WHICH claim you are referring to. In which you respond, "your claim". That means that you are not interested in debating but rather trolling.

You're either stupid or a troll, which is it? I'm obviously referring to the claims you made in the post I was responding to.

Now, if you don't back up your claim. Your arguments will be ignored.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're either stupid or a troll, which is it? I'm obviously referring to the claims you made in the post I was responding to.

Now, if you don't back up your claim. Your arguments will be ignored.

Which claim do you want me to back up? Simple question.

As you refuse to back up your claim, your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by Silent Master
As you refuse to back up your claim, your argument is invalid.

I disagree. I don’t need your approval for my statements.
You never argreed with them anyway, so what’s the difference?

But you just shown everyone here that you are a troll.
Prove it.
Prove what.
Prove your claim.
Prove which claim.
It’s clear as day.

This is a debate forum, claims have to be supported for them to be valid in a debate.

No proof = you lose the debate.

Originally posted by Silent Master
This is a debate forum, claims have to be supported for them to be valid in a debate.

No proof = you lose the debate.

Wrong! Trolling is not permitted. If you want someone to prove something then you must state what it is upon request.
Failure to do so is trolling.

No proof = you lose the debate.

Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong! Trolling is not permitted. If you want someone to prove something then you must state what it is upon request.
Failure to do so is trolling.

Prove regular Lightning is powerful enough to vaporise an entire landscape.

Prove Ares getting killed by Lightning in his only on screen appearance was some kind of outlier.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Prove regular Lightning is powerful enough to vaporise an entire landscape.

Prove Ares getting killed by Lightning in his only on screen appearance was some kind of outlier.

Being an outlier has nothing to do with having showings that contradict it. Should we choose a character's lowest showings in favor of their peak showings?

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor's lightning didn't vaporize an entire landscape.
Just imagine what 100,000 bolts of lightning can do to something frozen.

Ah so resorting to lowbaling gotcha 👆

Originally posted by h1a8

Being an outlier has nothing to do with having showings that contradict it. Should we choose a character's lowest showings in favor of their peak showings?

Its the attack that killed him you moron. You cant just pretend that didnt happen Lmao

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor's lightning didn't vaporize an entire landscape.
Just imagine what 100,000 bolts of lightning can do to something frozen.

Being an outlier has nothing to do with having showings that contradict it. Should we choose a character's lowest showings in favor of their peak showings?

I'm still waiting for you to prove that regular lightning can decimate a landscape like Thor's jotunheim buster. And no, Thor's lightning wasn't striking the land surface for 3 seconds.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm still waiting for you to prove that regular lightning can decimate a landscape like Thor's jotunheim buster. And no, Thor's lightning wasn't striking the land surface for 3 seconds.

So 100,000 strikes of lightning could definitely achieve the same goal. Remember the land was frozen.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Ah so resorting to lowbaling gotcha 👆

Its the attack that killed him you moron. You cant just pretend that didnt happen Lmao

Yet it contradicts the attack that he absorbed.
He either can absorb lightning without damage or it will kill him.
There is no inbetween.