Kurse vs Hela

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
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.

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

Again, without proof of anything else, then we cannot assume anything else was involved.

Of course not, there is no "one way or another" here. I have evidence she used strength. You have NO evidence she used anything else. Thus, only strength have been supported by evidence thus if we debate based within an evidence-based medium, then we can only use the factors supported by evidence.

At the end of the day, my evidence > yours (well essentially cuz you have none). If you want, we can BZ this?

"That can be perceived as magical" (meaning it is a reasonable conclusion that other can make but not one I have necessarily made) is NOT agreeing that they are magical.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Again, without proof of anything else, then we cannot assume anything else was involved.

Of course not, there is no "one way or another" here. I have evidence she used strength. You have NO evidence she used anything else. Thus, only strength have been supported by evidence thus if we debate based within an evidence-based medium, then we can only use the factors supported by evidence.

At the end of the day, my evidence > yours (well essentially cuz you have none). If you want, we can BZ this?

"That can be perceived as magical" (meaning it is a reasonable conclusion that other can make but not one I have necessarily made) is NOT agreeing that they are magical.

My original claim:

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Calculating the force needed to destroy her own hammer is impossible, we don't know if the feat involves pure force or if magic is involved.

I can agree to the feat involving strength. I never said otherwise.

Yet, the feat is futile, we don't know how much strength she applied, or how much magic. However, if we could prove that Hela used only strength to destroy Mjolnir, then the feat can be quantify.

If you want to bring numbers, then go ahead and bring evidence to support them.

Otherwise, we have no way to know if Hela is stronger than Kurse.

Again, magic is just the term. Call it advance science or whatever. Terminology plays no important role.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
My original claim:

I can agree to the feat involving strength. I never said otherwise.

Yet, the feat is futile, we don't know how much strength she applied, or how much magic. However, if we could prove that Hela used only strength to destroy Mjolnir, then the feat can be quantify.

If you want to bring numbers, then go ahead and bring evidence to support them.

Otherwise, we have no way to know if Hela is stronger than Kurse.

Again, magic is just the term. Call it advance science or whatever. Terminology plays no important role.

There is no evidence that magic was applied to crush Mjolnir so you cannot make an assertion that magic was a factor.... again in an evidence-based medium we use evidence and not theories.

Let's BZ this and stop wasting time.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There is no evidence that magic was applied to crush Mjolnir so you cannot make an assertion that magic was a factor.... again in an evidence-based medium we use evidence and not theories.

Let's BZ this and stop wasting time.

Again Nibe, the feat is useless as the strength involved can't be calculated, nor can it be proven that the feat solely requires strength.

Do you disagree?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again Nibe, the feat is useless as the strength involved can't be calculated, nor can it be proven that the feat solely requires strength.

Do you disagree?

We're not at the point of "calculating" the "feat", we are at the point of determining w/c logic is more valid. One that is supported by evidence or one that is not. It should be simple but you (edit) don't seem to see how poor your logical position is.

There is no proof that anything other than strength was a factor, thus we cannot assume anything else was a factor. And we certainly can't argue it on a debate.

You might as well disqualify every other strength "feat" out there and claim that they had "something else as a factor" because you are claiming an unsupported, unalluded to, zero evidence theory as a basis to disqualify a very simple, very basic "feat".

Sorry, but this really can't stand. I'll need to challenge you to a BZ.

Do you accept (y/n)?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
We're not at the point of "calculating" the "feat", we are at the point of determining w/c logic is more valid. One that is supported by evidence or one that is not. It should be simple but you (edit) don't seem to see how poor your logical position is.

There is no proof that anything other than strength was a factor, thus we cannot assume anything else was a factor. And we certainly can't argue it on a debate.

You might as well disqualify every other strength "feat" out there and claim that they had "something else as a factor" because you are claiming an unsupported, unalluded to, zero evidence theory as a basis to disqualify a very simple, very basic "feat".

Sorry, but this really can't stand. I'll need to challenge you to a BZ.

Do you accept (y/n)?

Yes we are, the whole debate oscilates on whether Hela is stronger than Kurse. To do that we need a parameter for Hela's strength, one that Mjolnir's destruction can't give.

I will take the BZ, taking the side that the feat is useless under the logic that we can't calculate it due to it having unknown variables. You will have to prove that the feat can be quantified... Are you sure you want to do that?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes we are, the whole debate oscilates on whether Hela is stronger than Kurse. To do that we need a parameter for Hela's strength, one that Mjolnir's destruction can't give.

I will take the BZ, taking the side that the feat is useless under the logic that we can't calculate it due to it having unknown variables. You will have to prove that the feat can be quantified... Are you sure you want to do that?

Lol. I never said the Mjolnir "feat" quantified anything in our exchange or this thread. And I never used the Mjolnir crush vs Kurse (in fact I used a completely different argument). You're trying to strawman me all the way to the BZ.

My entire argument was whether or not magic was a factor in the crushing of Mjolnir. And so that is the debate that I am challenging you to.

Was magic a factor in Hela's crushing of Mjolnir? It is yes or no. I will take the position of "no".

This is the challenge. Do you accept?

I hope he accepts. I really want to see this.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol. I never said the Mjolnir "feat" quantified anything in our exchange or this thread. And I never used the Mjolnir crush vs Kurse (in fact I used a completely different argument). You're trying to strawman me all the way to the BZ.

My entire argument was whether or not magic was a factor in the crushing of Mjolnir. And so that is the debate that I am challenging you to.

Was magic a factor in Hela's crushing of Mjolnir? It is yes or no. I will take the position of "no".

This is the challenge. Do you accept?

Look Nibe, I respect you, I am strawmanning no body. My argument has been clear from the get go (it was posted prior to your first response to this thread)

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Calculating the force needed to destroy her own hammer is impossible, we don't know if the feat involves pure force or if magic is involved.

I won't BZ something I've not said.

My entire point is that the feat is useless, as we can't quantify it because we don't know how much strength is being applied and if magic takes part.

Again, if you think you can quantify the feat, then we can BZ this.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Look Nibe, I respect you, I am strawmanning no body. My argument has been clear from the get go (it was posted prior to your first response to this thread)

I won't BZ something I've not said.

My entire point is that the feat is useless, as we can't quantify it because we don't know how much strength is being applied and if magic takes part.

Again, if you think you can quantify the feat, then we can BZ this.

The entire premise of your argument is a non-position ("we don't know" is a non-position) where you attempt to shift burden of proof so that you can try to make the other side prove a negative by simply changing the wordings slightly to make it not too obvious even though it is (it's insulting tbh).

Then you go ahead andattempt to use a non-position supported by no evidence to invalidate a "feat". I mean, this is just absurd. You cannot use a non-position then make an active claim to invalidate something. If you do not see this, I don't know what else to tell you. That is why we need to BZ just so you can see just how bad your logic is.

I mean, you are welcome to hold a non-position. It is YOUR opinion after all. But to INSIST that a "feat" should be invalid because of your non-position is insanity. You choose to not take a stance but insist that other should take your stance which is a non-stance. Either take a stance or stand aside and let those of us with both a stance and evidence take the reigns in this discussion

Here, this is what you should say:

Josh_Alexander: I'm not saying that there was something that affected the "feat" other than strength, since I cannot prove it. But I feel that there is something there we're not seeing. So I reserve the right to my opinion.

^There, that kind or reply I don't have a problem with (and neither will most ppl here I'd wager). But to outright state that a "feat" is invalid and not take a position on why is pure audacity.

I always find it funny how Nib goes through all this effort to post facts and valid statements. Then people just ignore it because they want to be right.

That’s pretty much how it goes with H1, Josh, Quran, etc

Everyone that makes threads go to 50 pages just addressing a single point without ever expanding on it and personal attacks

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The only ability I think it granted Thor was flying. But casting lightning is Thor's power, and Thor's alone.

Isn't like Vision should have been able to summon lightning.

You're ignoring the fact it doesn't begin to crackle with lightning until it begins to sustain damage. Here is the clip in case you forgot, skip to 1:35:

Originally posted by Surtur
YouTube video

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The entire premise of your argument is a non-position ("we don't know" is a non-position) where you attempt to shift burden of proof so that you can try to make the other side prove a negative by simply changing the wordings slightly to make it not too obvious even though it is (it's insulting tbh).

Then you go ahead andattempt to use a non-position supported by no evidence to invalidate a "feat". I mean, this is just absurd. You cannot use a non-position then make an active claim to invalidate something. If you do not see this, I don't know what else to tell you. That is why we need to BZ just so you can see just how bad your logic is.

I mean, you are welcome to hold a non-position. It is YOUR opinion after all. But to INSIST that a "feat" should be invalid because of your non-position is insanity. You choose to not take a stance but insist that other should take your stance which is a non-stance. Either take a stance or stand aside and let those of us with both a stance and evidence take the reigns in this discussion

Here, this is what you should say:

Josh_Alexander: I'm not saying that there was something that affected the "feat" other than strength, since I cannot prove it. But I feel that there is something there we're not seeing. So I reserve the right to my opinion.

^There, that kind or reply I don't have a problem with (and neither will most ppl here I'd wager). But to outright state that a "feat" is invalid and not take a position on why is pure audacity.

I've been consistent with my point Nibedicus, if you feel like I am "shifting burden" then you are wrong!

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Calculating the force needed to destroy her own hammer is impossible, we don't know if the feat involves pure force or if magic is involved.

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.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander

The feat just has too many unknown variables.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander

[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 mean, even Froth understood what I was trying to convey here

Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately, it seems I'm going to end up backing Josh and h1 here (and believe me, it's not something I enjoy).

I'm iffy to attribute Hela's Mjolnir crushing to pure physical strength

I'm sure her physical strength played a part in the feat, but I also think there was something more there.

So, I don't know buddy, but am pretty sure you are the one misinterpreting things here! The one beginning to feel insulted here is me!

So, Again, am not BZ something I have not said! I'll BZ my position

My position

The feat is vague! Ambiguos and non-conclusive

Hela's magic is powerful and it's limits unknown. She can spam knifes out of her hand and turn her hair Jack-The-Reaper mode by simply touching it!

Knowing that, and that Hela has no other feat to support immense amounts of strength(implied by the destruction of Mjolnir, should strength be the only factor considered), we can't really tell if the feat involves SOLELY STRENGTH or if magic is involved in some way!

Since we don't know how much strength was being applied by Hela, it's impossible for us to quantify the feat, and therefore the feat is IRRELEVANT for a MVF thread.

So, it's your choice buddy!

P.S: Taking a no-stand to invalidate evidence/feats is perfectly okay, and is oftenly used, again when the evidence brought forth is not conclusive or vague.

For instance:

A camera recorded Mary's husbad entering his house the night before, then, the next day his husband left the house early in the morning. Mary and her husband live alone, and no one else entered the house during that period of time.

Mary was found stabbed.

Can that evidence be used to prove that Mary's husband murdered her? (The answer is no, the evidence doesn't really prove that she was killed by her husband, although it does make him a suspect).

Samething happens with Hela's feat, we don't really have the whole picture (If magic was used, or how much strength was used).

So, my stand is clear. The BZ would circle arround you trying to make this feat valid...which I doubt you will be able to do, all due respect.

Originally posted by KingD19
I always find it funny how Nib goes through all this effort to post facts and valid statements. Then people just ignore it because they want to be right.

He has proven no fact to make the feat valid.

Originally posted by Surtur
You're ignoring the fact it doesn't begin to crackle with lightning until it begins to sustain damage. Here is the clip in case you forgot, skip to 1:35:

Am aware of that, yet, doesn't really prove anything.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Am aware of that, yet, doesn't really prove anything.

It proves the energy happened as a result of the destruction.

Originally posted by Surtur
It proves the energy happened as a result of the destruction.

Yes, but doesn't prove what caused the destruction. :/

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes, but doesn't prove what caused the destruction. :/

Occam's razor.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I've been consistent with my point Nibedicus, if you feel like I am "shifting burden" then you are wrong!

I mean, even Froth understood what I was trying to convey here

So, I don't know buddy, but am pretty sure you are the one misinterpreting things here! The one beginning to feel insulted here is me!

[B]So, Again, am not BZ something I have not said! I'll BZ my position

My position

The feat is vague! Ambiguos and non-conclusive

Hela's magic is powerful and it's limits unknown. She can spam knifes out of her hand and turn her hair Jack-The-Reaper mode by simply touching it!

Knowing that, and that Hela has no other feat to support immense amounts of strength(implied by the destruction of Mjolnir, should strength be the only factor considered), we can't really tell if the feat involves SOLELY STRENGTH or if magic is involved in some way!

Since we don't know how much strength was being applied by Hela, it's impossible for us to quantify the feat, and therefore the feat is IRRELEVANT for a MVF thread.

So, it's your choice buddy!

P.S: Taking a no-stand to invalidate evidence/feats is perfectly okay, and is oftenly used, again when the evidence brought forth is not conclusive or vague.

For instance:

A camera recorded Mary's husbad entering his house the night before, then, the next day his husband left the house early in the morning. Mary and her husband live alone, and no one else entered the house during that period of time.

Mary was found stabbed.

Can that evidence be used to prove that Mary's husband murdered her? (The answer is no, the evidence doesn't really prove that she was killed by her husband, although it does make him a suspect).

Samething happens with Hela's feat, we don't really have the whole picture (If magic was used, or how much strength was used).

So, my stand is clear. The BZ would circle arround you trying to make this feat valid...which I doubt you will be able to do, all due respect. [/B]

You have been consistent at shifting burden of proof. To prove a negative. That alone invalidates your entire argument. It doesn't matter how "consistent" your posts are, they are all consistently absent of any evidence.

When pressed to support your position, you just want to avoid having to provide any kind of proof.

You are claiming a feat is invalid (a positive claim) because "we do not know if there is anything else" (a non-position) is tantamount to saying that we should burn all women because we do not know if they are witches. And as proof you present: because, well we think witches are women, even though we don't even know if witches exist. <=== Utter insanity. This. This is the type of "debating" that you are demonstrating right now.

You claim "ambiguity" but provide ZERO factors (that would cause any kind of ambiguity) supported by logic and evidence that can give ambiguity to the "feat". Saying "well she's magic" over and over proves nothing.

False analogy. Your example does not help you at all as it does not show a lot of what happened. The ambiguity is caused by the lack of evidence due to the missing timeline between him coming in and her getting stabbed. And this is provable simply by looking at the evidence in front of us. Thus, we cannot CLAIM that he stabbed her because there is no evidence. And we cannot make unsupported claims like "well, he's a murderer!" (or "the feat is invalid"😉 until we provide evidence that he did. Your example helps my argument more than yours because this is LITERALLY what I have been saying. We cannot make claims when we have no evidence.

A person who does not have the evidence of the husband actually murdering his wife could adopt a non-position of saying "well, I don't have evidence! So we can't say the husband is a murderer. (w/c is a positive claim)"

The same way a person who does not have the evidence of the a strength "feat" being affected by magic could adopt a non-position of saying "well I don't have evidence! So we can't say the "feat" is invalid (w/c is a positive claim)"

I hope that clears things up for you.

And of course we KNOW the whole picture, the picture is in video and is happening right before our eyes and we can replay it over and over. You just don't want to accept it because your opinion is biased by your opinion of her other showings and how strong she should be based on the other showings (and Froth, too, to a limited extent but he is reasonable enough to accept the lack of evidence from his position). But if you take the showing at face value there is ZERO ambiguity here. Especially, taking into account that this is a mass market superhero family popcorn flick.

A closer analogy to our debate is if we see (and have pictures of) the husband actually stabbing his wife and you are claiming that ghosts made him do it because it's possible that the house could be haunted (even tho you don't even have evidence of even this). And then you are asking me to disprove the existence of ghosts. <=== This. This is the type of "logic" you are exposing me, too. /facepalm

Fine, I will take your challenge to make the "feat" valid. This is the BZ:

"Based on evidence, the Hela Mjolnir crush is a valid strength "feat"." (y/n)

I will take yes.

Do you accept?