Captain Marvel & Wonder Woman vs. Hela

Originally posted by h1a8
I said the majority of members here argue that (not every member).
You had members say such things and you didn't address them at all. That means you support them.

Almost every member here would argue a character's highest showing. This is common sense. From WS, to CA, to Spider-Man, to Thor, to Hulk, I can go on and on. Only highest showings are brought up, even if they are outliers. And this is from nearly everyone. I even had an argument with Robtard about it. I was discussing with him that we should use more of an average. He was the first to clearly state that we use a characters peak showings only since using averages are inconsistent and complicated.

The difference between most posters here and you is that although they argue using highest showings, they don't completely disregard other showings as well. Like I said, that's why you don't have people claiming Hela can kill Hulk with a single punch.

I also don't have time to call out every single person here who uses a no limits fallacy everytime they use it. I'm not the forum police. I debate against people I disagree with and call them out when they use a no limits fallacy (like what I'm doing with you right now) but just because I didn't call out someone else doesn't make it alright for you to keep doing it.

Anyway, you want to disregard character feats, go get a ruling. Otherwise, stop acting like you can make rules up.

Originally posted by h1a8
I said the majority of members here argue that (not every member).
You had members say such things and you didn't address them at all. That means you support them.

Almost every member here would argue a character's highest showing. This is common sense. From WS, to CA, to Spider-Man, to Thor, to Hulk, I can go on and on. Only highest showings are brought up, even if they are outliers. And this is from nearly everyone. I even had an argument with Robtard about it. I was discussing with him that we should use more of an average. He was the first to clearly state that we use a characters peak showings only since using averages are inconsistent and complicated.

Name the members and show examples where they only use high end showings.

Originally posted by FrothByte
The difference between most posters here and you is that although they argue using highest showings, they don't completely disregard other showings as well. Like I said, that's why you don't have people claiming Hela can kill Hulk with a single punch.

I also don't have time to call out every single person here who uses a no limits fallacy everytime they use it. I'm not the forum police. I debate against people I disagree with and call them out when they use a no limits fallacy (like what I'm doing with you right now) but just because I didn't call out someone else doesn't make it alright for you to keep doing it.

Anyway, you want to disregard character feats, go get a ruling. Otherwise, stop acting like you can make rules up.

Of course they do (disregard low showings). For the fourth time, why didn't you address posters who claimed that Superman can't hurt Thor? Happened many times.

It is because you are bias towards Marvel characters. If it was a DC character then you would address it. Therefore you are not objective and everything you say should be taken with a grain of salt.

The rules are already made by the majority. Don't like it then don't debate.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Name the members and show examples where they only use high end showings.

Originally posted by h1a8
Every member. No one doesnt. Look at ANY THREAD.

As you posted no examples to back up your claim, that means you were lying.

Originally posted by Silent Master
As you posted no examples to back up your claim, that means you were lying.

Still no posted examples. Yep, you're a liar.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Still no posted examples. Yep, you're a liar.

Originally posted by h1a8
Only an idiot would agree with you. You are dumb as a box of rox.

No they don't contradict her cutting off DD's hand. But that's another argument.

Youare mistakenly thinking I'm saying that Hela's Mjolnir feat don't count as her forum power level. It does. Remember I'm a proponent of high end showings, so Hela's feat can contradict all her other showings and it still be the level she operates in a forum fight.

I don't have to prove common sense things or things that people already know are true.

You mostly argued highest feats. Why didn't you address those who stated Superman cant hurt Thor because of his star feat?

You can’t even spell rocks* properly. What a joke.

So you are discounting the entire forum? Someone is obviously egotistical little cretin. Perhaps you should cite “evidence”, as you are so prone to do.

Clown.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

I agree that you're lying.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

Get a load of this guys: this clown actually stated that he could replicate the feats from Bullseye from DD season 3.

Are you able to replicate the feats of Bullseye from DD Season 3, yet?
Proof of your endeavors (failures).

Originally posted by Silent Master
You say that cutting of DD's hand isn't contradicted by all her other sword attacks. Ok, post examples of her sword attacks doing even 1% as much damage as cutting off DD's hand.

Your argument is flawed.
I can squeeze an egg with an inferior grip and do 0 damage. But with a superior grip, I can apply more force and cause the egg to shatter. The damage is infinitely more in the second grip than the first grip. There is no contradiction.

In other words, you would have to apply nearly the same force or a superior force with a drastically lesser result to show a contradiction.

If it takes 1lb of force to completely cut through something and someone applied 0.9lb. of force then this can result in less than 1% damage than using 1lb.

IOW, you admit that you can't provide any evidence that WW's other sword attacks did even 1% of the damage. which means it was a low end feat for DD and per your stated standards. the feat is unusable.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your argument is flawed.
I can squeeze an egg with an inferior grip and do 0 damage. But with a superior grip, I can apply more force and cause the egg to shatter. The damage is infinitely more in the second grip than the first grip. There is no contradiction.

In other words, you would have to apply nearly the same force or a superior force with a drastically lesser result to show a contradiction.

If it takes 1lb of force to completely cut through something and someone applied 0.9lb. of force then this can result in less than 1% damage than using 1lb.

More excuses and hypotheticals from the man who loves fictional scenarios.

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course they do (disregard low showings). For the fourth time, why didn't you address posters who claimed that Superman can't hurt Thor? Happened many times.

It is because you are bias towards Marvel characters. If it was a DC character then you would address it. Therefore you are not objective and everything you say should be taken with a grain of salt.

The rules are already made by the majority. Don't like it then don't debate.

Show me posters who claimed Superman can't hurt Thor at all. I feel like you're making this shit up.

And again, show me where majority claim that we should disregard all feats except the highest end feats. Otherwise you're just making it up as well.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

You see, H1, the majority of this board disagrees with every statement you make. You are on the losing side of every argument this side of Jupiter.

Originally posted by h1a8
We agree to disagree. Actually you don't disagree. You are just trolling.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Show me posters who claimed Superman can't hurt Thor at all. I feel like you're making this shit up.

And again, show me where majority claim that we should disregard all feats except the highest end feats. Otherwise you're just making it up as well.

So you are implying that you never saw such posts? I don't believe you sir.

A few members literally claimed it, but everyone debates that way (including you). They used the highest showings in determining who wins. No mention of low showings was ever present anywhere.

When Hela is pit against someone, members mention her Mjolnir crushing feat and not her feat of failing to kill an Asgardian with physical blows or only managing to hit or throw someone several feet away.

When Hulk is pitted against someone, the leviathan feat is only discussed, or the Surtur feat.

When Thor is pitted against someone then the star feat is mentioned, Jotuheim blast, etc.

When IM is mentioned, him dodging missiles is mentioned, tanking shells (all from IM 1).

Cap tanking blows against WS while WS highest showings being mentioned to show the force CA was tanking, not remembering that CA isn't bullet proof or knife proof.

All of that is irrelevant. WW has consistently blocked many bullets. So many that it's the most consistent feat. She will not come into a forum less than a bullet timer. Otherwise John Wick would easily beat her.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Although Thor is the most powerful Avenger, Hela is still a beast. Hela.

Fixed it for ya.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you admit that you can't provide any evidence that WW's other sword attacks did even 1% of the damage. which means it was a low end feat for DD and per your stated standards. the feat is unusable.

I just did. The egg principle. The static friction force principle. You can ignore it without addressing it. Doesn't mean anything to me.