Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. You mean when she got stabbed in the chest and back? Well good thing she isn’t using her chest and back to block the Destroyer beam then.When using her arms/hand she seems to have different durability levels as when she blocked Gungir with her arms, something that easily bypassed her armor/durability.
(1:06)
And when she blocked Valkyrie’s sword, grabs it by the blade and tosses her.
(0:44)
2. See above.
3. Her doing X does not prove that X is the only thing she does. Especially when she also palmed a lightning blast from Thor in the bridge fight.
(6:37)
Her using her hand to palm attacks is a valid defensive tactic. It has been shown on more than one occasion so it is 100% not an outlier showing or an outlier “feat”.
So nope I got direct proof. You got nothing.
2. Same as above.
3. Her palming Mjolnir is not direct proof she would palm energy beams, especially when she shown using her cape and evasive movement to avoid energy beams. The 6:37 scene does provide direct evidence though. So you corrected your error in logic. Another error in logic you used (its irrelevant now due to 6:37) is the "her doing X" argument. My argument was a rebuttal to why she will not necessarily palm energy beams. I don't have to prove that she won't palm energy beams beyond a reasonable doubt (you do). I wanted to evidence supporting that she possibly will not.
Anyway, it boils down to all 3 being true
1. her hands are durable enough to block beams without damage.
2.Destroyer shoots a sufficiently prolonged blast and allows her to walk close to it.
3.She thinks of shoving the beam back inside the Destroyer (not easy to figure out). Plus her arms may or may not be of sufficient size like Mjolnir was.
Originally posted by h1a8
1. She used her bracelets to stop slicing attacks, and not her hands to stop stabbing attacks.2. Same as above.
3. Her palming Mjolnir is not direct proof she would palm energy beams, especially when she shown using her cape and evasive movement to avoid energy beams. The 6:37 scene does provide direct evidence though. So you corrected your error in logic. Another error in logic you used (its irrelevant now due to 6:37) is the "her doing X" argument. My argument was a rebuttal to why she will not necessarily palm energy beams. I don't have to prove that she won't palm energy beams beyond a reasonable doubt (you do). I wanted to evidence supporting that she possibly will not.
4. Anyway, it boils down to all 3 being true
1. her hands are durable enough to block beams without damage.
2.Destroyer shoots a sufficiently prolonged blast and allows her to walk close to it.
3.She thinks of shoving the beam back inside the Destroyer (not easy to figure out). Plus her arms may or may not be of sufficient size like Mjolnir was.
1. Too bad all that I needed to prove was that she had variable durability and that getting pierced in the stomach does not mean that she would get sliced in the hand.
Which I did.
Now YOU have to prove that her durability is consistent allthroughout.
Check and mate.
And you’re forgetting she grabbed the Valkyrie’s sword by the blade, but whatevs.
2. As above.
3. Don’t lie. I didn’t “correct” anything I said. As my logic has always been correct and consistent. She already got shown palming an attack, all I needed was that one time to prove she could use it in a fight. I just added a SECOND instance to prove further. So nope, don’t insert lies into this disucssion pls.
Secondly, you were the one who made this assertion:
Originally posted by h1a8
3. I disagree. She would try to use her cape (assuming it is effective).
A positive claim. Which I rebutted that your logic fails because “just because she uses X, doesn’t mean she only uses X”.
Read my first post (edited “This” with “Thus” as I made a typo):
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Thus Hela can shove the Destroyer beam back into its face.Hela palms the Destroyer beam and shoves it back into its head.
I never said that she would. I only said that she CAN/COULD. Unlike you.
The difference is one is an assertion to a likelihood of doing something, the other asserts that it is an option available to her. Especially since you posed this question from the very beginning:
Originally posted by h1a8
How would Hela beat the destroyer?
Answer:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Hela palms the Destroyer beam and shoves it back into its head.
So no, you got it backwards. YOU had to show that she would use her cape (and not the palming block) without a reasonable doubt. But it is moot as my evidence blows your entire idea out of the water. It is just disgusting that you tried to rewrite the narrative by lying.
And it really shows your double standards/dishonesty when you claim that I needed to prove things beyond reasonable doubt while you do not have to. But typical of you.
So nope, the only person with inconsistent logic here is you. As always. Not surprised.
4. All 3 is easily proven true:
1) Already proven.
2) It did with Thor. It shows that if it cannot hurt its opponent with one blast, it will keep blasting til it does. Not a very smart machine really.
3) Lol. Thor figured it out in less than a minute fighting the Destroyer. It is not hard to figure out. Well maybe for you, but I’m chalking that out to your poor tactical acumen.
And lastly:
The Destroyer beam was easily the width of Thor’s body, much bigger than Mjolnir. It dissipated on contact with any effective resistance and didn’t pass thru Mjolnir to harm Thor, so it won’t pass thru to harm Hela.
(3:33)
I have literally buried you in evidence. Yet you haven’t even shown that the sword argument is even relevant here as the Destroyer beam is not as effective as an Asgardian blade. And that seems to be the crux of your argument. A debunked false equivalence red herring.
But I humored your little distractions, because I was bored and swimming in evidence. End of the day, you still got nothing.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Too bad all that I needed to prove was that she had variable durability and that getting pierced in the stomach does not mean that she would get sliced in the hand.Which I did.
Now YOU have to prove that her durability is consistent allthroughout.
Check and mate.
And you’re forgetting she grabbed the Valkyrie’s sword by the blade, but whatevs.
2. As above.
3. Don’t lie. I didn’t “correct” anything I said. As my logic has always been correct and consistent. She already got shown palming an attack, all I needed was that one time to prove she could use it in a fight. I just added a SECOND instance to prove further. So nope, don’t insert lies into this disucssion pls.
Secondly, you were the one who made this assertion:
A positive claim. Which I rebutted that your logic fails because “just because she uses X, doesn’t mean she only uses X”.
Read my first post (edited “This” with “Thus” as I made a typo):
I never said that she would. I only said that she CAN/COULD. Unlike you.
The difference is one is an assertion to a likelihood of doing something, the other asserts that it is an option available to her. Especially since you posed this question from the very beginning:
Answer:
So no, you got it backwards. YOU had to show that she would use her cape (and not the palming block) without a reasonable doubt. But it is moot as my evidence blows your entire idea out of the water. It is just disgusting that you tried to rewrite the narrative by lying.
And it really shows your double standards/dishonesty when you claim that I needed to prove things beyond reasonable doubt while you do not have to. But typical of you.
So nope, the only person with inconsistent logic here is you. As always. Not surprised.
4. All 3 is easily proven true:
1) Already proven.
2) It did with Thor. It shows that if it cannot hurt its opponent with one blast, it will keep blasting til it does. Not a very smart machine really.
3) Lol. Thor figured it out in less than a minute fighting the Destroyer. It is not hard to figure out. Well maybe for you, but I’m chalking that out to your poor tactical acumen.And lastly:
The Destroyer beam was easily the width of Thor’s body, much bigger than Mjolnir. It dissipated on contact with any effective resistance and didn’t pass thru Mjolnir to harm Thor, so it won’t pass thru to harm Hela.
(3:33)
I have literally buried you in evidence. Yet you haven’t even shown that the sword argument is even relevant here as the Destroyer beam is not as effective as an Asgardian blade. And that seems to be the crux of your argument. A debunked false equivalence red herring.
But I humored your little distractions, because I was bored and swimming in evidence. End of the day, you still got nothing.
1. She blocked the blades with her bracelets, not her hand. And stabbing is is different from slicing. You basically ignored this. In summary, an Asgardian blade can still penetrate her hand with ease.
3. Palming a blunt object doesn't prove she will do so to an energy attack since she was shown to evade and block energy attacks with her cape.
You have to show her blocking an energy attack with her hand (which you did later). Without that then you have no leg to stand on. But you showed her blocking lightning so why continue to argue irrelevant stuff? Your post is already long as it is.
I disagree that she could (shove DB back into its face) and I disagree that she would (if you are arguing that). It's only a viable option if she can do it AND she can think of doing it.
Here's my take. D's beams can damage her. Her blades won't do anything to D. Even if she can block D's beam with her hand, then there isn't enough evidence to show that she will think of shoving it back in its face (that's assuming that D blast long enough to allow this). D eventually wins.
Originally posted by h1a8
Please us Android phone or different ' symbol as I can't quote you.
You post a lot of words so this would be convenient.
As of now I'm using two phones in order to address your post.1. She blocked the blades with her bracelets, not her hand. And stabbing is is different from slicing. You basically ignored this. In summary, an Asgardian blade can still penetrate her hand with ease.
3. Palming a blunt object doesn't prove she will do so to an energy attack since she was shown to evade and block energy attacks with her cape.
You have to show her blocking an energy attack with her hand (which you did later). Without that then you have no leg to stand on. But you showed her blocking lightning so why continue to argue irrelevant stuff? Your post is already long as it is.I disagree that she could (shove DB back into its face) and I disagree that she would (if you are arguing that). It's only a viable option if she can do it AND she can think of doing it.
Here's my take.
a) D's beams can damage her.
b) Her blades won't do anything to D.
c) Even if she can block D's beam with her hand, then there isn't enough evidence to show that she will think of shoving it back in its face (that's assuming that D blast long enough to allow this).
d) D eventually wins.
Are you retarded? How is me buying a new phone just so my formatting is easier for you more convenient? Stop trolling. And I like using the “ button, deal with it.
1. Irrelevant red herring false equivalency. If you do not know what that means, it means that this is all a distraction based on a faulty unsupported comparison.
I already have direct primary evidence of her hand being more durable than Mjolnir. It is undeniable and factual that her hand has far better showings of durability than her torso. Because she already has a showing that supports it. Me having corroborative evidence that even partially or indirectly implies this just makes me more golden, but I do not even need this.
You, however, have provided zero evidence that her torso and hand have the same durability.
The Destroyer Beam is not an Asgardian Blade. You have yet to provide evidence of the Destroyer beam being able to damage her hand or that a Destroyer beam has the same durability-piercing effectiveness as an Asgardian blade.
So, by virtue of evidence provided, my evidence-supported arguments shits on yours. Since you got nothing.
3. Palming an attack is palming an attack. Using a shield to block an arrow is 100% viable in arguing that a person uses a shield to block a sword. Stop trying to insert irrelevant arbitrary qualifiers. You know what? Whatevs. This is already moot as I have already proven that she could and would palm energy attacks as well.
Because you tried to rewrite the narrative about what I did, w/c is a disgusting thing to do. You are already a shitty debater, don’t be a shitty liar as well. Call it irrelevant if you want, but don’t insert lies if you don’t want ppl correcting it.
She can and she would (given limited other options and given enough time to figure it out). If all Thor needed was a minute to figure it out, she would as well.
a) Wrong. You have never proven that the Destroyer beam could even damage her. Is there any evidence you are basing this on?
b) Wrong. Sif’s blade managed to damage the Destroyer enough to shut it down a few seconds. Just because it recovered eventually, doesn’t mean it was immune.
c) Wrong. Yes she can and Destroyer’s showing vs Thor have demonstrated that the machine WILL keep firing against targets that it cannot immediately destroy. Shows how weak your argument is if you have to disregard a showing completely just to have anything to say.
d) GIF of someone yelling “Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!” to your face.
You suck at this.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Are you retarded? How is me buying a new phone just so my formatting is easier for you more convenient? Stop trolling. And I like using the “ button, deal with it.1. Irrelevant red herring false equivalency. If you do not know what that means, it means that this is all a distraction based on a faulty unsupported comparison.
I already have direct primary evidence of her hand being more durable than Mjolnir. It is undeniable and factual that her hand has far better showings of durability than her torso. Because she already has a showing that supports it. Me having corroborative evidence that even partially or indirectly implies this just makes me more golden, but I do not even need this.
You, however, have provided zero evidence that her torso and hand have the same durability.
The Destroyer Beam is not an Asgardian Blade. You have yet to provide evidence of the Destroyer beam being able to damage her hand or that a Destroyer beam has the same durability-piercing effectiveness as an Asgardian blade.
So, by virtue of evidence provided, my evidence-supported arguments shits on yours. Since you got nothing.
3. Palming an attack is palming an attack. Using a shield to block an arrow is 100% viable in arguing that a person uses a shield to block a sword. Stop trying to insert irrelevant arbitrary qualifiers. You know what? Whatevs. This is already moot as I have already proven that she could and would palm energy attacks as well.
Because you tried to rewrite the narrative about what I did, w/c is a disgusting thing to do. You are already a shitty debater, don’t be a shitty liar as well. Call it irrelevant if you want, but don’t insert lies if you don’t want ppl correcting it.
She can and she would (given limited other options and given enough time to figure it out). If all Thor needed was a minute to figure it out, she would as well.
a) Wrong. You have never proven that the Destroyer beam could even damage her. Is there any evidence you are basing this on?
b) Wrong. Sif’s blade managed to damage the Destroyer enough to shut it down a few seconds. Just because it recovered eventually, doesn’t mean it was immune.
c) Wrong. Yes she can and Destroyer’s showing vs Thor have demonstrated that the machine WILL keep firing against targets that it cannot immediately destroy. Shows how weak your argument is if you have to disregard a showing completely just to have anything to say.
d) GIF of someone yelling “Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!” to your face.
You suck at this.
Ok now you will see how it feels. “””””””
Try quoting this post now.
1. If an Asgadian sword can stab through her body WITH EASE then it can certainly stab through her hands. This is not debatable. Therefore her crushing Mjolnir (by whatever means) isn’t proof against that. Also crushing something doesn’t give you its ability to block attacks. Otherwise, Jessica Jones (especially her hands) would be bulletproof.
And no, Hela’s hands aren’t vastly more durable than her body just because she crushed Mjolnir. That’s stupid as phuck.
2. Yes she can possibly think of blocking the beams with her hands because of the lightning showing. But the question is whether it will damage her. I believe it will.
Originally posted by h1a8
Ok now you will see how it feels. “””””””
Try quoting this post now.1. If an Asgadian sword can stab through her body WITH EASE then it can certainly stab through her hands. This is not debatable. Therefore her crushing Mjolnir (by whatever means) isn’t proof against that. Also crushing something doesn’t give you its ability to block attacks. Otherwise, Jessica Jones (especially her hands) would be bulletproof.
And no, Hela’s hands aren’t vastly more durable than her body just because she crushed Mjolnir. That’s stupid as phuck.2. Yes she can possibly think of blocking the beams with her hands because of the lightning showing. But the question is whether it will damage her. I believe it will.
Took me 2 seconds. Stop being lazy.
1. Lol. Of course it is debatable. As there her hands and torso have varying showings of durability. You call it “stupid as phuck” and yet provide NO EVIDENCE or argument. Sorry, but that’s not how debating works.
The fact that she crushed Mjolnir with her hands PROVES this. Even when you ignore the compelling (she uses her hands to block attacks and grab weapons) corroborative evidence presented before you, you cannot deny that she easily crushed Mjolnir barehanded. Thus her hands and torso have provably different durability showings.
And this is all still a red herring false equivalence. You are trying to distract by creating a debate where non exists. I do not have to argue Hela and an Asgardian blade, because you have never proven that the Destroyer beam has anything to do with an Asgardian beam.
What is so hard to understand here? This is already a 5 year old level logical breakdown here.
2. And this is where your entire argument fails. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the Destroyer beam would even damage her. Thus all I got to say is that it does not and I win the debate.
Originally posted by h1a8
Also, the Destroyer has sharp protrusions
You mean the same sharp portrusions that failed to instantly kill a powerless Thor with a backhand?
From that slow and lumbering machine?
Against someone who would utterly wreck it in h2h combat?
That has no piercing “feats”?
Getting a bit desperate with the arguments, aren’t we?
😆
Also, typo from earlier post (didn’t notice til much later, I’m on vacation and daughter keeps rushing me so I don’t have time to screen for typos and recheck my posts as thouroughly as I usually do):
I do not have to argue Hela and an Asgardian blade, because you have never proven that the Destroyer beam has anything to do with an Asgardian BLADE (not beam).