MCU Hulk vs. Nam-Ek

Ok then, my argument is that you're a massively biased troll who is lying about your calculations and does nothing but low ball characters you want to lose.

Either rebut my argument or it stands.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ok then, my argument is that you're a massively biased troll who is lying about your calculations and does nothing but low ball characters you want to lose.

Either rebut my argument or it stands.

I'm not massively bias at all. I'm highly objective. I used to argue that Hulk was indestructible and would beat anyone (or Stalemate) until people kept telling me Hulk was shown injured from the chituari weapons.
I argue for Spider-Man in almost every thread.
I argued for fox quicksilver in every fight thread.

Lowballing is using a character's lowest showings and ignoring there peak showings. When did I do this?

Never lied about my calculations.
If I was biased then I wouldn't post calculations that go against who I was supporting. I have done this multiple times and switched over to the other character (Hulk is an example).

None of that rebuts my argument, therefore according to your logic my argument stands.

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of that rebuts my argument, therefore according to your logic my argument stands.

Anyone can say, "That doesn't rebut my argument.", without actually explaining why. Doesn't refute the argument at all.

The explanation is that nothing you posted actually proves that you're not a troll that low-balls characters you don't want to win.

Proof would be examples of you being unbiased to the side you're arguing against.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The explanation is that nothing you posted actually proves that you're not a troll that low-balls characters you don't want to win.

Proof would be examples of you being unbiased to the side you're arguing against.

I don't really care about the bias bit.
But you have the definition of low balling wrong.

Prove it, post the official definition. be sure to include a link so it can be verified.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it, post the official definition. be sure to include a link so it can be verified.

I guess you are the only one that doesn't know the definition of low balling.

Originally posted by h1a8
I guess you are the only one that doesn't know the definition of low balling.

IOW, you lied.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you lied.

Well. Maybe others don't know either.

Anyway Nam wins this fight.

If we don't know what the true definition for that term is. Feel free to post a link to the official definition.if you can't post a link to the official definition, that means you're making it up. In other words, you're lying..

Originally posted by Silent Master
If we don't know what the true definition for that term is. Feel free to post a link to the official definition.if you can't post a link to the official definition, that means you're making it up. In other words, you're lying..

Nam wins.

IOW, you're admitting that you can't backup your claim.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you're admitting that you can't backup your claim.

My claim is that Nam wins. Nothing more.

Originally posted by h1a8
My claim is that Nam wins. Nothing more.

Originally posted by h1a8
My claim is that Nam wins. Nothing more.

It's about time you retracted all of those retarded claims.

Now prove that Nam wins.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's about time you retracted all of those retarded claims.

Now prove that Nam wins.

I proved it already. Where have you been?

Drugs are bad, you should really stop taking them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Drugs are bad, you should really stop taking them.

Nam is stronger, faster, and more skilled. Therefore he wins. I stated this in the beginning.

Ok, let's BZ who is more skilled.