Kurse vs Hela

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again, the scene never showed Thor charging Mjolnir.

And that's unproven. Am not saying that Mjolnir couldn't store it, just that there is no evidence to make it a fact.

And again, even if that's the case, Hela could have tampered with those energies/magic, and caused it to explode inside out, which would assist her strength.

[B]Again, my whole point is, magic can't be rebuked for the scene [/B]

He has instances where Mjolnir shoots lightning without charging w/c seems to indicate that it can store lightning energy longterm.

That was never alluded to in the movie. I mean, come on, man. Where's the proof here how do we go from A to D here where this theory is concerned?

If you want "magic" consistent with the scene, the movie and showings, you're better off saying that Hela amps her strength via internal energies (at least that would demonstrate how she becomes more "powerful" while in Asgard, seeing as her powers are mostly stabby-magic and base physicals). I would have zero problem with that. But her weakening Mjolnir somehow via unseen never alluded to magic is just so far fetched and unsupported with evidence that I just can't swallow it brah.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
He has instances where Mjolnir shoots lightning without charging w/c seems to indicate that it can store lightning energy longterm.

That was never alluded to in the movie. I mean, come on, man. Where's the proof here how do we go from A to D here where this theory is concerned?

If you want "magic" consistent with the scene, the movie and showings, you're better off saying that Hela amps her strength via internal energies (at least that would demonstrate how she becomes more "powerful" while in Asgard, seeing as her powers are mostly stabby-magic and base physicals). I would have zero problem with that. But her weakening Mjolnir somehow via unseen never alluded to magic is just so far fetched and unsupported with evidence that I just can't swallow it brah.

It's possible, or that Thor was charging it with his body without his knowledge.

My whole point is that we don't know Hela's extent over magic, and therefore, we can't really make a founded claim over how she destroyed Mjolnir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGnIiA7oJvg&t=68s

Check min 1:06, her hand is on fire. If we remove magic from that scene, we would have to assume that her hand is fueling the flame. Which is clearly, not the case.

So, again, Hela's magic abilities are unknown. That, and the fact that Hela never showed other signs of immense strength, we can't simply assume she crushed Mjolnir with strength alone.

The feat just has too many unknown variables.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Fight on neutral group

He has his standard equipment.

Rd1: Normal fight

Rd:2 No weapons or gear or powers for either, straight up slugfest

By the way, by "no powers" I meant they still have their strength and durability, she doesnt have her spikes and swords or magic, etc.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
It's possible, or that Thor was charging it with his body without his knowledge.

My whole point is that we don't know Hela's extent over magic, and therefore, we can't really make a founded claim over how she destroyed Mjolnir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGnIiA7oJvg&t=68s

Check min 1:06, her hand is on fire. If we remove magic from that scene, we would have to assume that her hand is fueling the flame. Which is clearly, not the case.

So, again, Hela's magic abilities are unknown. That, and the fact that Hela never showed other signs of immense strength, we can't simply assume she crushed Mjolnir with strength alone.

Dude, come on. I seriously doubt the writers of Thor 2 would know what Waitit's (fun fact, in my dialect, Wai Titi means no dick O_O) direction for Thor was years before Ragnarok was written. I mean (seriously) come on....!

Based on available best-evidence, she used her hand to crush it. Thus strength.

The Eternal Flame is an artifact that Hela is familiar with and apparently knows how to use to an extent. Using an artifact is the literal opposite of your point, though. She needs items to perform "feats" outside her stabby-magic and physicals. This helps my argument more than yours.

We don't know it, so we can't assume it. Absence of evidence means that we can only interpret the scene via the evidence that is available as debates are evidence-based. We can't 100% discount it (I mean you really can't 100% discount anything in fiction), but in debates we use best-logic using the best-evidence available.

Of course Hela has displayed many instances of immense strength. No one, not Hulk, not Kurse has been able to physically dominate Thor like Hela did (maybe Thanos but Thor was already beat up by the time we saw him). She treated him like a non-threat the whole time. She even crushed an Asgardian head (we know how durable they are) like it was tissue paper, helmet and all.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Dude, come on. I seriously doubt the writers of Thor 2 would know what Waititit's (fun fact, in my dialect, Wai Titi means no dick) direction for Thor was years before Ragnarok was written. I mean come on....!

The Eternal Flame is an artifact that Hela is familiar with and apparently knows how to use to an extent. Using an artifact is the literal opposite of your point, though. She needs items to perform "feats" outside her stabby-magic and physicals. This helps my argument more than yours.

We don't know it, so we can't assume it. Absence of evidence means that we can only interpret the scene via the evidence that is available as debates are evidence-based. We can't 100% discount it (I mean you really can't 100% discount anything in fiction), but in debates we use best-logic using the best-evidence available.

Thor 1: Odin Borson, King of Asgard:

I now take from you YOUR POWER...

Whoseover holds this hammer, if he be worthy, should possess the power OF Thor.

Again, Odin's words are intact and give veredict to this debate.

In regards of Mjolnir storing electricity, no conclusion is proven.

Well, Hela also knew Mjolnir. And I've already proven that Hela can use magic without it being that apparent.

So, Hela using magic to crush Mjolnir is entirely possible. There is no evidence to claim that the feat was performed by strength alone, and therefore, the feat isn't conclusive.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Thor 1: Odin Borson, King of Asgard:

Again, Odin's words are intact and give veredict to this debate.

In regards of Mjolnir storing electricity, no conclusion is proven.

Well, Hela also knew Mjolnir. And I've already proven that Hela can use magic without it being that apparent.

So, Hela using magic to crush Mjolnir is entirely possible. There is no evidence to claim that the feat was performed by strength alone, and therefore, the feat isn't conclusive.

Wait what? How did that give verdict? You might need to spell it out for me as I don't know what you mean.

Her knowing Mjolnir does not mean she can weaken it. We never see her using any esoteric abilities without the use of an artifact.

We know Asgardians can use artifacts, sure and we know her pointy-stabby stuff is magic. But no-limits fallacy would mean that you can't pull abilities out of nowhere.

Dude. Burden of proof. Strength is used to crush Mjolnir as that what crushing with your hand would require. The burden is on you to prove that something else was involved using evidence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wait what? How did that give verdict? You might need to spell it out for me as I don't know what you mean.

Her knowing Mjolnir does not mean she can weaken it. We never see her using any esoteric abilities without the use of an artifact.

We know Asgardians can use artifacts, sure and we know her pointy-stabby stuff is magic. But no-limits fallacy would mean that you can't pull abilities out of nowhere.

Dude. Burden of proof. Strength is used to crush Mjolnir as that what crushing with your hand would require. The burden is on you to prove that something else was involved using evidence.

Veredict to Mjolnir not producing power on its own, but rather "channeling" Thor's powers.

....Hela was creating spikes out of thin air without any artifact.... She was also turning her hair into spikes with her bare hands...So again, her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown.

Hey, am not using any non-limit fallacy here

My whole point has been that the feat has too many unknown factors, and that therefore we can't use it to give Hela a strength feat. We don't know for sure if she was using strength alone or magic.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Veredict to Mjolnir not producing power on its own, but rather "channeling" Thor's powers.

....Hela was creating spikes out of thin air without any artifact.... She was also turning her hair into spikes with her bare hands...So again, her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown.

Hey, am not using any non-limit fallacy here

[B]My whole point has been that the feat has too many unknown factors, and that therefore we can't use it to give Hela a strength feat. We don't know for sure if she was using strength alone or magic. [/B]

I never denied that explanation. In fact, the "charging/storing" logic is extremely consistent with this and is consistent with Thor's portrayal in all his pre-Ragnarok fights. So I don't know what you're getting at here.

I literally mentioned her pointy-stabby powers many times in our debate. I never denied that she had this power either. You know why she has this power? Because we literally see her using this power throughout the movie. Ergo, "feats".

"Her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown" and attributing an unknown, never alluded and never demonstrated on screen ability to her and using it as a way to downplay her showing is the very definition of a no-limits fallacy.

This is fiction and this is the movies. And this is a mass market superhero popcorn family flick. Writers of these kinds of movies do not create scenes with the express purpose of telling something so completely incoherent to audiences that it would take a detailed forensic investigation of a scene just to figure it out. They would maybe insert Easter eggs for ppl to find but scenes are made with simplicity and with everything as obvious as possible because the mass market audience don't really want to view things in slow mo and to analyze everything from history to past and future scenes just to make sense of a scene. They make it as obvious as possible to progress the story forward and to keep the audience's attention. They're not gonna make a scene complicated unless there is a strong need for it in the story. IF Hela is shown crushing Mjolnir, unless there is something OBVIOUS and EXPLICIT showing us that there is something else involved there, then we go by simplest and most obvious explanation: Strength.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I never denied that explanation. In fact, the "charging/storing" logic is extremely consistent with this and is consistent with Thor's portrayal in all his pre-Ragnarok fights. So I don't know what you're getting at here.

I literally mentioned her pointy-stabby powers many times in our debate. I never denied that she had this power either. You know why she has this power? Because we literally see her using this power throughout the movie. Ergo, "feats".

"Her magic isn't only powerful but her limits are unknown" and attributing an unknown, never alluded and never demonstrated on screen ability to her and using it as a way to downplay her showing is the very definition of a no-limits fallacy.

This is fiction and this is the movies. And this is a mass market superhero popcorn family flick. Writers of these kinds of movies do not create scenes with the express purpose of telling something so completely incoherent to audiences that it would take a detailed forensic investigation of a scene just to figure it out. They would maybe insert Easter eggs for ppl to find but scenes are made with simplicity and with everything as obvious as possible because the mass market audience don't really want to view things in slow mo and to analyze everything from history to past and future scenes just to make sense of a scene. They make it as obvious as possible to progress the story forward and to keep the audience's attention. They're not gonna make a scene complicated unless there is a strong need for it in the story. IF Hela is shown crushing Mjolnir, unless there is something OBVIOUS and EXPLICIT showing us that there is something else involved there, then we go by simplest and most obvious explanation: Strength.

Do you know how feats are used in a trial or in science to prove something?

Either such feat is clear enough and conclusive enough to prove your point, or the feat is ignored and your claim remains unproven.

Again, the feat has too many holes and doesn't really allude to anything.

I am not here to say that Hela used magic on mjolnir to destroy it, am here to point that such claim along with yours can't be proven using that feat.

The feat is basically useless.

If you want to assume things, well that's entirely your right. Doesn't mean that my assumption is wrong

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Do you know how feats are used in a trial or in science to prove something?

Either such feat is clear enough and conclusive enough to prove your point, or the feat is ignored and your claim remains unproven.

Again, the feat has too many holes and doesn't really allude to anything.

I am not here to say that Hela used magic on mjolnir to destroy it, am here to point that such claim along with yours can't be proven using that feat.

The feat is basically useless.

[B]If you want to assume things, well that's entirely your right. Doesn't mean that my assumption is wrong [/B]

This is fiction if we nitpicked every "feat" there would always be parts of it that would be inconsistent thus almost everything would remain unproven. Lke almost everything. That is why we use best evidence and best logic in hypothetical fiction debates.

You have not provided any "holes" that I have not addressed. Just because you do not accept my rebuttals, does not mean they are false unless you rebut them with better logic and I am unable to counter. My argument is the most consistent with available evidence, story, portrayal and logic. It's not perfect, but in hypothetical debates about fictional characters, it doesn't have to be.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's razor. And in mass market superhero family popcorn flicks, this is doubly so. You're digging too deep wherein movies like this should only be looked at close to the surface.

Again, no hypothetical debate logic is perfect. But given the fact that this is a movie, how Thor portrayed, how Hela is portrayed and all evidence and story and logic, my interpretation is the best one (so far). Everyone else is welcome to challenge with their own logic and evidence but til then, mine is most consistent.

Except the arguments I made were not assumptions. Everything I argued is backed by evidence. An assumption is when something that has no evidence is just decided to be the case (like esoteric powers that's never alluded to throughout the whole movie).

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I can't prove how much magic affects the feat, just like you can't prove that the feat is one of sole strength.

This is a case in where the feat turns invalid, because you can't really conclude on the nature of it.

The hell I cant. When crushing things with their hands, beings use physical strength until proven otherwise.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
This is fiction if we nitpicked every "feat" there would always be parts of it that would be inconsistent thus almost everything would remain unproven. Lke almost everything. That is why we use best evidence and best logic in hypothetical fiction debates.

You have not provided any "holes" that I have not addressed. Just because you do not accept my rebuttals, does not mean they are false unless you rebut them with better logic and I am unable to counter. My argument is the most consistent with available evidence, story, portrayal and logic. It's not perfect, but in hypothetical debates about fictional characters, it doesn't have to be.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's razor. And in mass market superhero family popcorn flicks, this is doubly so. You're digging too deep wherein movies like this should only be looked at close to the surface.

Again, no hypothetical debate logic is perfect. But given the fact that this is a movie, how Thor portrayed, how Hela is portrayed and all evidence and story and logic, my interpretation is the best one (so far). Everyone else is welcome to challenge with their own logic and evidence but til then, mine is most consistent.

Except the arguments I made were not assumptions. Everything I argued is backed by evidence. An assumption is when something that has no evidence is just decided to be the case (like esoteric powers that's never alluded to throughout the whole movie).

You have brought no substanciate evidence that proves that no magic was being used by Hela. You brought assumptions.

Does Hela's hands produce knifes out of no where? Yes. Does Hela's hands turn her hair into spikes? Yes. Does Hela's hands grabbed the Eternal flame? Yes.

Conclusion: Hela's hands are magical, ergo, she grabbing Thor and destroying it could involve magic.

If you want to claim that Hela destroyed Mjolnir without magic, you are going to need some serious evidence. Otherwise, you are just making assumption out of a vague feat.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
The hell I cant. When crushing things with their hands, beings use physical strength until proven otherwise.

As long as it's normal hands we are talking about, not magical Houdini hands.

If it were the Hulk, or some non-magical being the one squeezing Mjolnir, then you attribute the feat solely to strength.

This is however, not the case.

The burden of proof is on you my friend. Not me. I have all of the substantial evidence I need as you are the one making claims. I am simply taking the movie at face value like it was intended.

Once again, the burden of proof is entirely on you, as you are the one claiming that there is more to the scene than what the director intended.

And sorry if I have seemed rude, but it seems whenever there is a Thor, or Thor related character that has a good feat, everyone goes through these insane mental gymnastics to try and prove it didnt happen.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You have brought no substanciate evidence that proves that no magic was being used by Hela. You brought assumptions.

Does Hela's hands produce knifes out of no where? Yes. Does Hela's hands turn her hair into spikes? Yes. Does Hela's hands grabbed the Eternal flame? Yes.

Conclusion: Hela's hands are magical, ergo, she grabbing Thor and destroying it [B]could involve magic.

If you want to claim that Hela destroyed Mjolnir without magic, you are going to need some serious evidence. Otherwise, you are just making assumption out of a vague feat. [/B]

Practically everything I said I can provide evidence with timestamps for. Calling something an "assumption" doesn't make it so. If you see anything I said that in unsupported by evidence quote it but don't insult me by calling my well researched posts "assumptions". I put work in my posts and mutual respect is actually something we should strive for in our discussions. :-/

Furthermore, you’re asking me to prove a negative. I don’t have to provre something doesn’t exist. You have to prove it exists.

Non-sequitur. None of those mean that Hela can cast esoteric spells. The Eternal Flame is an Asgardian artifact, her being able to use it is just as reasonable as Loki being able to use the Casket of Winters first time he wielded it.

Again, I don’t need to prove a negative. And nothing is "vague" about the "feat". Hela caught Mjolnir and she crushed it with her hand. It doesn't get any simpler than that. You are inserting unsupported theories and assumptions to make it seem vague but it's actually one of the simplest "feat" out there.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Practically everything I said I can provide evidence with timestamps for. Calling something an "assumption" doesn't make it so. If you see anything I said that in unsupported by evidence quote it but don't insult me by calling my well researched posts "assumptions". I put work in my posts and mutual respect is actually something we should strive for in our discussions. :-/

Furthermore, you’re asking me to prove a negative. I don’t have to provre something doesn’t exist. You have to prove it exists.

Non-sequitur. None of those mean that Hela can cast esoteric spells. The Eternal Flame is an Asgardian artifact, her being able to use it is just as reasonable as Loki being able to use the Casket of Winters first time he wielded it.

Again, I don’t need to prove a negative. And nothing is "vague" about the "feat". Hela caught Mjolnir and she crushed it with her hand. It doesn't get any simpler than that. You are inserting unsupported theories and assumptions to make it seem vague but it's actually one of the simplest "feat" out there.

Okay, clearly you are not getting what am trying to convey here.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove your argument.

Your argument is: Hela destroyed Mjolnir WITHOUT the use of magic, and SOLELY with the use of physical strength

Again, you need to prove that a magical being like Hela wouldn't use magic.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Okay, clearly you are not getting what am trying to convey here.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove your argument.

Your argument is: [B]Hela destroyed Mjolnir WITHOUT the use of magic, and SOLELY with the use of physical strength

Again, you need to prove that a magical being like Hela wouldn't use magic. [/B]

Woah. Don't strawman me now. You know how careful I am with my wording. Here are all my posts quoted and underlined:

"the whole "she used something else other than strength to crush Mjolnir" theory is, however, an unsupported one."

"it is fact that Mjolnir was crushed by Hela and no indication of any other factors"

I am not rebuking her ability to spellcast, I am saying there is no evidence that she can...

All my posts pointed to an absence of evidence (and as such, the best conclusion we can arrive at is also the simplest one) and the fact that no one has posted any evidence seems to be confirmation of my argument. And for you to ask me to further PROVE the absence of evidence is asking me to prove a negative.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Woah. Don't strawman me now. You know how careful I am with my wording. Here are all my posts quoted and underlined:

"the whole "she used something else other than strength to crush Mjolnir" theory is, however, an unsupported one."

"it is fact that Mjolnir was crushed by Hela and no indication of any other factors"

I am not rebuking her ability to spellcast, I am saying there is no evidence that she can...

All my posts pointed to an absence of evidence (and as such, the best conclusion we can arrive at is also the simplest one) and the fact that no one has posted any evidence seems to be confirmation of my argument. And for you to ask me to further PROVE the absence of evidence is asking me to prove a negative.

Well, if that's the case, I apologize, i must have infered otherwise.

And if that's your position, it's not that different from mines.

Because, I am not saying there is evidence to suggest that Hela used magic.

Am saying that there is no evidence to support Hela destroying Mjonir SOLELY with strength

The feat is ambiguous, and to my criteria, not valid to argument.

As I have proven and you have agreed, Hela is a magical character, we can't really say if magic had to do in Thor's destruction or not.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well, if that's the case, I apologize, i must have infered otherwise.

And if that's your position, it's not that different from mines.

Because, I am not saying there is evidence to suggest that Hela used magic.

Am saying that [B]there is no evidence to support Hela destroying Mjonir SOLELY with strength

The feat is ambiguous, and to my criteria, not valid to argument.

As I have proven and you have agreed, Hela is a magical character, we can't really say if magic had to do in Thor's destruction or not. [/B]

"Solely with strength" is still asking me to prove a negative claim. Changing the wording does not change the demand of proof you are making. I only need to prove that strength was used in crushing Mjolnir, if you cannot provide proof of anything else, then the only reasonable conclusion is that only strength is the one that has evidence to have been used to crush Mjolnir.

Thus the conclusion is elementary.

And dude, stop with the strawmans. I never agreed that Hela was magical I said "for the purposes of this debate", meaning I am unconvinced of her true nature (she could go either way tbh) but am willing to debate within those parameters to move the discussion forward.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
"Solely with strength" is still asking me to prove a negative claim. Changing the wording does not change the demand of proof you are making. I only need to prove that strength was used in crushing Mjolnir, if you cannot provide proof of anything else, then the only reasonable conclusion is that only strength is the one that has evidence to have been used to crush Mjolnir.

Thus the conclusion is elementary.

And dude, stop with the strawmans. I never agreed that Hela was magical I said "for the purposes of this debate", meaning I am unconvinced of her true nature (she could go either way tbh) but am willing to debate within those parameters to move the discussion forward.

I am not arguing that strength wasn't use. The matter here is that we don't know how much strength was used, and therefore, we can't quantify the feat.

One way or another, evidence must be brought in order for the feat to remain viable for argumentation.

Otherwise, saying that strength was used is useless, as it remains unknown how much strengthl.

However, if we can prove that Hela's feat was one of sole strength, we can quantify the feat based on the properties of Uru metal.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
They certainly have qualities/abilities that can be perceived as magical, sure.

I am not strawmanning. And we already discussed that terminology bares no effect on the feat.