Kurse vs Hela

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) You made a "neutral claim" (We do not know if magic was involved...) THEN inserted a positive claim right after it (thus the "feat" is invalid). I think my explanation was clear enough about this, how are you missing this?

I feel you are wasting my time by going in circles now.

2) Wrong. The "feat" proving either of our "sides" (that magic is involved or not) AND it being valid/invalid are separate claims. You refused to prove one claim and used that as proof for another claim.

3) Which is a misrepresentation of the debate we are having. Again, you made a neutral claim then inserted a positive claim right after. I merely represented it with a more proper analogy.

4) Wrong. The "feat" is validated by the presence (or absence) of evidence making it valid. Quantificaiton comes after the acceptance of the "feat" being valid. Else I'd be wasting my time trying to quantify a "feat" you're not even willing to accept as valid, won't I?

Enough stalling. Last call.

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

I will take yes.

Do you accept the BZ or not?

1. Yeah, the feat is invalid. It's what happens when a feat isn't conclusive (doesn't prove anything).

That's what happens at court, and that's what happens in science when evidence doesn't prove your alternative hipothesis.

So, I am making a valid maneuver here.

2. A feat must prove one side, and one alone.

Otherwise, you end up with what I am claiming here, that the feat is vague and inconclusive.

3. *covered

4. Explain to me how can a feat be valid if you can't quantify it? How can evidence be valid if it doesn't prove anything?

I am not running from anything, I just don't want to fall into a strawman.

When is this BZ happening?

Originally posted by Silent Master
We go by feats, if she never showed magic that would help her crush Mjolnir, then she doesn't have any.

Magic is a feat, and logic is completely valid for debating.

So, she having magic and Mjolnir's destruction without any other strength feat to collaborate on Hela's apparent immense strength, makes it valid to assume that there's something more going in the scene.

Do you have evidence that Hela could destroy Mjolnir with strength alone?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
1. Yeah, the feat is invalid. It's what happens when a feat isn't conclusive (doesn't prove anything).

That's what happens at court, and that's what happens in science when evidence doesn't prove your alternative hipothesis.

So, I am making a valid maneuver here.

2. A feat must prove one side, and one alone.

Otherwise, you end up with what I am claiming here, that the feat is vague and inconclusive.

3. *covered

4. Explain to me how can a feat be valid if you can't quantify it?

I am not running from anything, I just don't want to fall into a strawman.

1. Um, don't know where you think you're in. This is a forum, about hypothetical fights with fictional characters. There is no such thing as "conclusive" (as an absolute). We go by best evidence and best logic here. My logic, my evidence > yours. And it seems you already know this because you refuse to accept the BZ.

Um. Actually, in court an alternative hypothesis without any basis whatsoever in evidence is thrown out, even moreso in science. I do not know where you studied law or science, but I hope you got your money back. Tell you what, try arguing the ghost angle. If it passes in court, I will gladly concede.

2. This is gibberish. How does this address the fact that you made 2 separate claims where one is "neutral" (more like a non-position), and the other is an active one (thus you need to prove it)?

3. Still wrong.

4. Because our argument has nothing to do with how much/values?

It looks like you are refusing the BZ even when given the last chance to accept. I will consider this your concession as you have proven yourself not willing to back up what you say in a judged format.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Magic is a feat, and logic is completely valid for debating.

So, she having magic and Mjolnir's destruction without any other strength feat to collaborate on Hela's apparent immense strength, makes it valid to assume that there's something more going in the scene.

Do you have evidence that Hela could destroy Mjolnir with strength alone?

Magic isn't a catchall, you have to prove she has that type of magic. Otherwise all debates involving magic users would devolve into silly troll threads where people claim X would turn their opponent into a rabbit, summon/create a god-killer weapon, give themselves whatever superpower they want etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Um, don't know where you think you're in. This is a forum, about hypothetical fights with fictional characters. There is no such thing as "conclusive" (as an absolute). We go by best evidence and best logic here. My logic, my evidence > yours. And it seems you already know this because you refuse to accept the BZ.

Um. Actually, in court an alternative hypothesis without any basis whatsoever in evidence is thrown out, even moreso in science. I do not know where you studied law or science, but I hope you got your money back. Tell you what, try arguing the ghost angle. If it passes in court, I will gladly concede.

2. This is gibberish. How does this address the fact that you made 2 separate claims where one is "neutral" (more like a non-position), and the other is an active one (thus you need to prove it)?

3. Still wrong.

4. Because our argument has nothing to do with how much/values?

It looks like you are refusing the BZ even when given the last chance to accept. I will consider this your concession as you have proven yourself not willing to back up what you say in a judged format.

1. No, but it has to be conclusive enough. Ergo, we are going by assumptions and not real feats.

2. WTH Nibe!? A feat can't prove two things! Evidence can't prove that you are both innocent and guilty.

One side must be supported, else ambiguity is present.

Okay, am getting tired of repeating myself here Nibe.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
We know that Hela was Mjolnir's original owner. And again, she's the goddess of death. 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.

That's my original claim and what I will BZ. I am not going fall into a stramwan.

You want to BZ me, then BZ my claim not something i've not said.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Magic isn't a catchall, you have to prove she has that type of magic. Otherwise all debates involving magic users would devolve into silly troll threads where people claim X would turn their opponent into a rabbit, summon/create a god-killer weapon, give themselves whatever superpower they want etc etc etc.

I know, but the problem here is that the feat is inconsistent with Hela's other feats.

If Hela used pure strength, then Hela would outstrength Thor by far... Yet, she never displayed that kind of strength.

So, again, we really have no proof of Hela using pure strength in that feat.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I know, but the problem here is that the feat is inconsistent with Hela's other feats.

If Hela used pure strength, then Hela would outstrength Thor by far... Yet, she never displayed that kind of strength.

So, again, we really have no proof of Hela using pure strength in that feat.

Then argue it's inconsistent, don't invent types of magic and then claim Hela might be able to use Josh-magic to help perform a feat.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Then argue it's inconsistent, don't invent types of magic and then claim Hela might be able to use Josh-magic to help perform a feat.

I did.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander

That, and the fact that Hela has no other feat to colaborate the [B]immense strength feat that is being alluded, we can't remove the magic factor from this equation. [/B]

So, again, the inconsistency can be explained by the presense of unknown factors, like magic.

I know it's not evidence, but it's valid argumentation.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
1. No, but it has to be conclusive enough. Ergo, we are going by assumptions and not real feats.

2. WTH Nibe!? A feat can't prove two things! Evidence can't prove that you are both innocent and guilty.

One side must be supported, else ambiguity is present.

Okay, am getting tired of repeating myself here Nibe.

That's my original claim and what I will BZ. I am not going fall into a stramwan.

You want to BZ me, then BZ my claim not something i've not said.

1. "Conclusive enough" is a subjective standard and you don't get to decide that. There is a HUGE gap between "assumption" and "100% conclusive fact". The fact that you seem to think it is a dichotomy is worrying.

And no. We go by who has superior argument. You are in the wrong place if you don't think this is the case.

2. Read my post again. It is very simple. You made 2 separate CLAIMS. What is it about this you are not getting?

3. Constantly moving the goalposts, adding in arguments I never debated against and refusing to accept unless I debate something I never debated for? Seems like you're just gonna keep ducking and this is a poooor excuse to do so. :-/

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
When is this BZ happening?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. "Conclusive enough" is a subjective standard and you don't get to decide that. There is a HUGE gap between "assumption" and "100% conclusive fact". The fact that you seem to think it is a dichotomy is worrying.

And no. We go by who has superior argument. You are in the wrong place if you don't think this is the case.

2. Read my post again. It is very simple. You made 2 separate CLAIMS. What is it about this you are not getting?

3. Constantly moving the goalposts, adding in arguments I never debated against and refusing to accept unless I debate something I never debated for? Seems like you're just gonna keep ducking and this is a poooor excuse to do so. :-/

Honestly we aren't going anywhere with this.

3. The quote doesn't lie, I am not dodging anything. It's been my point since the very beginning of this thread.

Again, I believe you've been misinterprenting stuff arround here Nibe.

:/

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Honestly we aren't going anywhere with this.

3. The quote doesn't lie, I am not dodging anything. It's been my point since the very beginning of this thread.

Again, I believe you've been misinterprenting stuff arround here Nibe.

:/

You act as if you only made one argument the whole debate we've had. Ok, let's be honest now:

Did you or did you not imply that magic was a factor in the Mjolnir crush? (y/n)

Did you or did you not argue that the Mjolnir "feat" was invalid as a strength "feat" (y/n)

Because those are the two arguments I have issues with. Are you saying you are conceding those 2 arguments above?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You act as if you only made one argument the whole debate we've had. Ok, let's be honest now:

Did you or did you not imply that magic was a factor in the Mjolnir crush? (y/n)

Did you or did you not argue that the Mjolnir "feat" was invalid as a strength "feat" (y/n)

Because those are the two arguments I have issues with. Are you saying you are conceding those 2 arguments above?

No, everything leads to that argument. I already proved that.

1. (undetermined) I don't know, If were I wouldn't be calling the feat invalid (not conclusive).
2. Y

Nah. Nib's always on point. He's one of our best MvF posters. There's a reason everyone is pointing out what you're trying to do as wrong Josh.

Originally posted by KingD19
Nah. Nib's always on point. He's one of our best MvF posters. There's a reason everyone is pointing out what you're trying to do as wrong Josh.

Well, I am awared of Nibe's seriousness when debating is concerned.

But this time, it seems he lost track of my posts.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
No, everything leads to that argument. I already proved that.

1. (undetermined) I don't know, If were I wouldn't be calling the feat invalid (not conclusive).
2. Y

I do not have to debate all your points to debate the points I disagree with. That's looney tunes logic.

1. Are you saying you don't know IF you implied that magic was a factor in the Mjolnir crush? Really??

2. And that is exactly what I challenged you to a BZ on.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I do not have to debate all your points to debate the points I disagree with. That's looney tunes logic.

1. Are you saying you don't know IF you implied that magic was a factor in the Mjolnir crush? Really??

2. And that is exactly what I challenged you to a BZ on.

...Again, that's the core argument I brought to the table. What did you thought I was debating? Perhaps if you were to quote what I said you want me to BZ it would be easier.

1. I said it's possible, not that it's the case or that I am certain of it.

2. Okay, I see now.

But I am drawing a straight line here. I said that it's an invalid strength feat, not that I believe that strength isn't involved in the feat.

Considering that, I am willing to prove the feat invalid (BZ).

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I did.

So, again, the inconsistency can be explained by the presense of unknown factors, like magic.

I know it's not evidence, but it's valid argumentation.

If you cannot prove the existence of the unknown magic, you can't claim it's possible that it was used.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you cannot prove the existence of the unknown magic, you can't claim it's possible that it was used.

Well, something has to explain the inconsistency.

And certainly, proving that only strength was used isn't possible besides the visuals.