Originally posted by Nibedicus
Dude. Kinda exceeded the agreed upon word post limit here.Can we get a judge to rule on this? Does he get to keep the post or should a mod delete and have him repost?
Ohh shit, I forgot about the word limit thing. I think it should be okay. But I could edit should it be an issue.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
We can't really tell tho since it's in two posts (the post limitation on the site would have kept track of this automatically). 😛How does this work? Anyway, sent DS a pm to see what the rules of this would be since I'm not sure exactly how these things work in BZs and how strictly it is followed.
Sorry, my head has been everywhere. I forgot about the rule. Should there be an issue, I will edit :/
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Are you reposting your edit here and asking mods to delete previous ones? I need to know so I can start with my response. 😛
Has DS answered? If they are okay then I would rather not. I would have to rework it, because I don't want to alter the meaning of my words.
I would really appreciate if they can pass though (I don't really see the issue with the word limit/ BZ require a lot of intel).
Refutations:
1.) The elephant in Nibe’s room
Nibe’s post focuses primary on denying the existence of external factors affecting the feat, but fails and barely manages to address the elephant in the room, which is the source that proves this external factors exist in the form of the inconsistency of the feat.
Nibe’s entire defense against this elephant focuses on “the feat is simple” and “it’s a movie; movie/plot errors are OKAY”.
This is fallacious under the subject at hand. For dear judges, a feat being “simple” and “a movie making mistakes is OKAY” doesn’t translate into a feat being valid to debating! Specially if said feats falls outside continuity/character’s arc. Sure, it can be valid movie material, but plot holes aren’t debatable!
Originally posted by Nibedicus Consistency in movies (and many entertainment mediums) is not an absolute. And sometimes even irrelevant. We are all familiar of power creeps and high and low showings. Of Jobbing, of the "Worf Effect". This is not new to us. We KNOW that sometimes writers toss away consistency in favor of drama. So in the end, "feats" need to stand stand on their own based on the evidence available FIRST and not be biased by character history.
Writers intentionally creating plot-holes in favor of drama doesn’t translate into them being valid for debating. Sure, the feat is okay in order to create entertainment and make the kids happy at their seats, but certainly it doesn’t eliminate the fact that it is a plot hole.
But Nibe doesn’t stop there, he further tries to validate plot holes by saying that feats are independent of continuity. Make no mistake judges, this is a FALLACY.
Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Plot hole
A gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot sometimes even contradicting
By the definition itself, we can already realize that plot holes aren’t valid for debating. This is common knowledge; you don’t need to be some pro debater to know that inconsistent evidence is ignored.
Arguments can’t be drawn from plot holes! The most you can draw from plot holes are opinions and assumptions. Nibe himself knows this! And he knows that assumptions are INVALID for debating.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Do you know that the whole point of me even mentioning it is that it is simply a -personal- interpretation of what happened to justify a silly plot hole to myself....I've already acknowledged multiple times as a personal thing (and not a platform I am trying to defend)... I've already stated many times that it's not position I'm actually arguing but a personal interpretation on possible PIS? I have even explained COUNTLESS times that in this regard, we can all be right or wrong?
In the above post Nibe recognizes that you can’t really defend a side with a plot hole, but are limited to draw your OWN conclusions/opinions (asumptions).
Note: I am not accusing Nibe of double standards. I know he is an honorable man; the very reason I accepted his BZ. But, probably he just ignored or forgot that plot holes are invalid
2.) Ambiguity and valid assumptions
Besides ignoring/belittling the plot-hole he spends most of his post attacking the existence of external/unknown factors in the feat. Again, despite all his efforts, he fails to realize that the existence of the plot hole creates this “external unknown factors” like magic.
Now I never said she was like Odin, but I definitely PROVED that her magic is extreme and UNKNOWN.
However, I NEVER said that it was an absolute. Me saying that the presence of magic is a factor in Mjolnir’s destruction is my opinion and way of explaining the PLOT HOLE.
So , dear judges, I bring this argument to prove that the plot hole creates an ambiguity. Why? Because if the feat isn’t a plot hole, something has to explain the inconsistency! In this case, the presence of unknown external factor, like Hela’s powerful and unknown magic, can eliminate the plot hole. Despite this however, the feat remains invalid, because since we don’t really know how this factors influence in the feat (they are unknown), and therefore the feat is ambiguous.
And we all know, that ambiguous feats are invalid for debating, since we can only draw personal interpretations and opinions from these. Nibe also knows this:
Originally posted by Nibedicus It's our personal interpretation of ambiguous storytelling to make sense of things.
Conclusion: Plot holes aren't debatable
Arguments:
1.) INSANITY: A massive strength inconsistency
Appreciated judges and audience, with this post I will prove to you all, that should the Hela-Mjolnir feat be one of SOLE strength (no external factors involved/ no ambiguity) then we would be dealing with a PLOT HOLE
As I’ve stated before, and everyone agrees with, Mjolnir is created from Uru, a metal whose physical properties would outmatch ANYTHING we have in our periodic table.
-An Earthly Mjolnir:
Let’s follow Nibe’s game. Let’s all assume that there are no external factors on the feat, and that strength is the only thing playing a role.
Uru is a material definitely stronger than anything we use on Earth. But let’s assume Mjolnir is made from a material we have on Earth. A material whose strength could come at least somewhat close to Uru.
Lets use diamond.
Mjolnir was crushed. We know that crushing involves compressive forces. In this case, such compressive forces are applied by Hela’s fingers.
Diamond has a compressive force of 470Gpa!!! on its strongest section! Again, I will use the strongest section in order to come the closest to an INSANELY strong material like Uru.
Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp102037j
using simple tools:
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/pressure/19-5/newton%2Fcentimeter%C2%B2-gigapascal/
http://www.kylesconverter.com/mass/newtons-to-tonnes
We get that it would require 47,000,000N to crush 1cm2 of diamond material or 4792 tons over a surface area of 1cm2.
If we take the pinky fingertip area (not the entire finger), we get an area of approx. 2.7cm2! this means that Hela would require to apply a pressure of nearly 13,000 tons on a diamond Mjolnir!!!
Let’s see how insane this is!
In other threads, we’ve settled that a Leviathan would weight from 1000-2000 tons! Should that be the case, Hela would be able to lift several leviathan’s on her PINKY FINGERTIP!
THIS IS NUTTSSS! INSANE!
Let’s now consider that Hela applied strength on 5 fingers (not fingertips) and that she wasn’t even STRUGGLING. Also, that she isn’t even struggling nor is angry.
-Hela vs Thor:
Now, here is where the inconsistency lies! Thor and Hulk’s strength lie on similar scales.
Odin All-father:
She draws her strength from Asgard and once she gets there her powers will be… limitless
So, if she has this INSANE strength on Earth, then on Asgard we should expect a strength buff on Asgard. And yet, when fighting her brother, she was actually pissed and yet Thor manage to hold her for a while.
Minute 4:59 to 7:21
YouTube video
Again, Hela was clearly pissed by Thor, and yet Thor was able to endure her for some time. If Hela can lift 13,000 tons in her fingertips, then a punch from her WOULD DEFINITELY knock out if not KILL Thor! He would have 0 chance of facing her in a H2H! Specially when considering she gets stronger on Asgard!
Plot Hole proved!
2.)Ambiguity = no plot hole
But there is another possibility. The presence of external unknown factors, which would remove the plot hole, but create an ambiguous feat.
The filmmakers clearly introduce us with a high tier magical being, in that aspect, it’s completely valid and possible that magic is an external unknown factor influencing the feat. Contrary to what Nibedicus has said, we do have explicit intel that there could be external factors influencing the feat (strength inconsistency and Hela’s magic).
The issue here however is that we don’t know the exact influence these factors have on the feat, and therefore, we have an ambiguous feat. We can't debate ambiguous feats, for it allows for too many opinions.
Conclusion:
Considering that I’ve proven the MASSIVE inconsistency in strength and that external factors are possible, the feat is INVALID to debate.
Judges, I implore you not to validate this feat. Should such a feat be validated, a ripple effect would affect this entire forum, several, if not most threads would be affected. Plot holes would be valid, ambiguity permitted. This cannot stand!
To my opponent, there’s still time for you to correct your stand
Before we proceed, allow me to reiterate the facts and break down the individual arguments that my opponent and I have made in this BZ:
My argument was that the Hela Mjolnir crush was valid as a strength "feat" because of 3 simple facts:
1) Hela used her hand to crush Mjolnir. Crushing with your hand requires strength.
2) There is no any indication or evidence of other factors involved in said "feat".
3) Thor: Ragnarok is a simple superhero movie targeting a mass market audience. Thus the filmmakers aim to make a simple movie with simple premises and simple storyline so that the audience can simply enjoy the ride.
Thus, she used her strength to crush Mjolnir. Having no evidence of other factors and being that the filmmakers aren't expecting the audience to "feat"-mine all showings in order to scrutinize every scene, it is obvious that the writer intended for us to see Hela crushing Mjolnir with her strength. Writer's intent trumps all. Thus we need to take this scene at face value.
My opponent has already conceded 1) and 2) in his opening statement:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Now I am fully awared of MVF rules and that there is no visual indication of magic being used to destroy Mjolnir
Seeing that movies are an audio-visual medium, specifying "visual" should be unnecessary (unless there were "audio" indicators?).
Also, he has offered no rebuttal for 3). Til then, it stands w/c means all 3 of my points remain unchallenged.
It also appears that he is familiar with the "Movie Feats Only" GOLDEN rule in these forums. And yet he still continues to insist that his theory of "unknown invisible factors" is some sort of absolute truth sufficient to invalidate "feats".
From these facts alone, this debate should already done and over with.
But let's go ahead and break down my opponent's points in this debate:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Nibe’s post focuses primary on denying the existence of external factors affecting the feat, but fails and barely manages to address the elephant in the room, which is the source that proves this external factors exist in the form of the inconsistency of the feat.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again, Hela was clearly pissed by Thor, and yet Thor was able to endure her for some time. If Hela can lift 13,000 tons in her fingertips, then a punch from her WOULD DEFINITELY knock out if not KILL Thor! He would have 0 chance of facing her in a H2H! Specially when considering she gets stronger on Asgard![/u]
Essentially, he believes that:
1) the Hela Mjolnir crush is inconsistent with Hela's other showings.
2) Thor not getting one shot by Hela (or him "enduring"😉 proves this.
3) Because of 1) and 2), he believes that an unseen "unknown" factor was involved.
4) this "unknown" factor inference is provably strong enough to invalidate the Mjolnir crush as a strength "feat".
One can already spot some rather blatant logical errors in his argument. Due to the limited space, let me just point out the most blatant ones:
Hulk level Leaps of Logic
One of the problems with Josh's core argument is that he has not even conclusively established this so-called "inconsistency". His sole basis, w/c his entire argument rests on, is "Thor not getting one shot". Which is a logical leap at best and a complete non-sequitur at worst as he hasn't even specified what Thor "endured". You don't make a general claim and not provide specific evidence supporting it. For him to argue this, he needs to be more specific.
Second, he has not made a specific case for "contradiction". For contradiction to be proven, an apples-to-apples comparison with showings need to be made. At best, he made a general claim of her crushing "strength". But does crushing strength now directly translate to striking power? And where is the alleged contradiction with regards to Thor's durability (as he claims Thor should be one shot, then where is the contradictory showing of Thor's that means he cannot "endure" hits from Hela?)?
Thor's durability "soak" is one of the highest out there. Even surviving forces that would melt the material Mjolnir is made of (2:56 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFtHcCJQvC4). If anything, him surviving hits from Hela is corroborated by most recent evidence.
Third, Hela wasn't trying her best. She had Thor dead to rights 3 times (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7V_7cNjBtM).(6:51) where he was helpless vs her choke and a dagger would have ended it, (7:22) where he was on the ground stunned and she could have just behead him instead of taking out his eye and (8:01) where he was helpless yet again and she could have finished him there. It looks like Thor "endured" only because Hela let him.
Lastly, by the same definition he posted, a plot hole is "a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot". Hela's crushing of Mjolnir is a KEY event in the story. It establishes the entire tone for the rest of the movie. And thus should take a higher priority in story/plot relevance than how Thor does vs Hela in a fight (w/c can be attributed to choreography choices). I can just as easily claim that Hela not one-shotting Thor is the plot hole due to the Mjolnir crush. And I'd be more correct than my opponent.
It looks to me that a pattern is emerging. A lot of the above errors my opponent is making is due to him making logical leaps without first scrutinizing his evidence. This may be due to a pre-existing opinion of where Hela/Thor's abilities should be. And there is a word for that.
Making Up Rules
Why does my opponent insist on this invalidation? Well, he believes:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
By the definition itself, we can already realize that plot holes aren’t valid for debating.
Let me just stress. THERE IS NO SUCH RULE like this in the MvS forums. For good reason. The problem with creating a universal rule over something as broad and subjective as "inconsistency=plot hole=nonviable" is that it will derail threads when ppl simply use subjective nitpicking to invalidate just about any "feat" they want.
Case in point, my Superman example (0:37 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxeVTampZY). A building would crumble under its own weight once lifted like that. This is a massive physics inconsistency. Is this now a nonviable "feat"? Or is my opponent going to suggest that he now gets to pick w/c inconsistencies he will or will not allow? Let me ask him:
Hey Josh, is the Superman building lifting "feat" viable or not (y/n)?
Bottom line: Movies are a work of fiction. A such, story takes precedence over consistency and logic. We use suspension of disbelief to reconcile minor inconsistencies. Of course, there will sometimes be extreme cases that we can all agree on takes things too far but that is why there isn't a single universal rule about something as general as this. We look at things case-to-case. And this is what I have been arguing all along (I feel that my opponent is attempting to imply that I am insisting on completely ignoring inconsistencies altogether, let me add that, if this is the case, it is completely untrue).
Using My Owns Words Against Himself
Before I close out this rebuttal, I seem to have noticed that my opponent linked to an old debate I had with the Ozy bullet catch:
Essentially, it was me spitballing possible reasons on why Ozy decided to catch the bullet (when catching it made little tactical sense). I made a personal theory and my opponents tried to make it seem like I was pointing it out as fact (to troll me), I then (multiple times even) exhaustively clarified my position:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I, however, at no time, did insist that this is what ACTUALLY happened as there are little/no facts supporting said theory
Which is basically me saying that I had a personal theory to explain an inconsistency I saw and it had no bearing on the validity of the "feat" (just a way to justify the silliness of it in my head). And that the theory had no weight or value in the debate as it is only a personal opinion.
I ask that you, esteemed judges, read the exchange to confirm what I am saying here if you are so inclined.
The fact that he brought up an old post of mine and not understand the true meaning behind it is very telling. The irony here is that this post actually helps MY argument and not his. To clarify, I never argued that you "cannot debate a plot hole" (If I did, I challenge my opponent to point out where I said that). My post was my acknowledgement that there was a lack of evidence in a theory that I had thus I reiterated that I was NOT arguing that position since I could NOT support it (it was headcanon). Because I lacked the evidence, I asked everyone to simply take it as personal opinion that I am allowed to have BUT cannot use as a basis of argument.
This is essentially what I've been trying to tell Josh to do all along. This is the core conflict of our entire BZ. He is allowed to have an opinion but he cannot insist on it as an argument without solid proof (he takes it one step further, he is essentially asking you to accept it as a rule). [i]How is he able to read what I said, even post it in the forums and not understand what my point was the entire time?
I'll tell you why: Confirmation bias. He sees what he wants to see and not the truth that the facts provide.
And that, esteemed judges, is the real problem here.
Before we proceed, allow me to reiterate the facts and break down the individual arguments that my opponent and I have made in this BZ:
My argument was that the Hela Mjolnir crush was valid as a strength "feat" because of 3 simple facts:
1) Hela used her hand to crush Mjolnir. Crushing with your hand requires strength.
2) There is no any indication or evidence of other factors involved in said "feat".
3) Thor: Ragnarok is a simple superhero movie targeting a mass market audience. Thus the filmmakers aim to make a simple movie with simple premises and simple storyline so that the audience can simply enjoy the ride.
Thus, she used her strength to crush Mjolnir. Having no evidence of other factors and being that the filmmakers aren't expecting the audience to "feat"-mine all showings in order to scrutinize every scene, it is obvious that the writer intended for us to see Hela crushing Mjolnir with her strength. Writer's intent trumps all. Thus we need to take this scene at face value.
My opponent has already conceded 1) and 2) in his opening statement:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Now I am fully awared of MVF rules and that there is no visual indication of magic being used to destroy Mjolnir
Seeing that movies are an audio-visual medium, specifying "visual" should be unnecessary (unless there were "audio" indicators?).
Also, he has offered no rebuttal for 3). Til then, it stands w/c means all 3 of my points remain unchallenged.
It also appears that he is familiar with the "Movie Feats Only" GOLDEN rule in these forums. And yet he still continues to insist that his theory of "unknown invisible factors" is some sort of absolute truth sufficient to invalidate "feats".
From these facts alone, this debate should already done and over with.
But let's go ahead and break down my opponent's points in this debate:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Nibe’s post focuses primary on denying the existence of external factors affecting the feat, but fails and barely manages to address the elephant in the room, which is the source that proves this external factors exist in the form of the inconsistency of the feat.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Again, Hela was clearly pissed by Thor, and yet Thor was able to endure her for some time. If Hela can lift 13,000 tons in her fingertips, then a punch from her WOULD DEFINITELY knock out if not KILL Thor! He would have 0 chance of facing her in a H2H! Specially when considering she gets stronger on Asgard![/u]
Essentially, he believes that:
1) the Hela Mjolnir crush is inconsistent with Hela's other showings.
2) Thor not getting one shot by Hela (or him "enduring"😉 proves this.
3) Because of 1) and 2), he believes that an unseen "unknown" factor was involved.
4) this "unknown" factor inference is provably strong enough to invalidate the Mjolnir crush as a strength "feat".
One can already spot some rather blatant logical errors in his argument. Due to the limited space for my reply, let me just point out the most blatant ones:
Hulk level Leaps of Logic
One of the problems with Josh's core argument is that he has not even conclusively established this so-called "inconsistency". His sole basis, w/c his entire argument rests on, is "Thor not getting one shot". Which is a logical leap at best and a complete non-sequitur at worst as he hasn't even specified what Thor "endured". You don't make a general claim and not provide specific evidence supporting it. For him to argue this, he needs to be more specific.
Second, he has not made a specific case for "contradiction". For contradiction to be proven, an apples-to-apples comparison with showings need to be made. At best, he made a general claim of her crushing "strength". But does crushing strength now directly translate to striking power? And where is the alleged contradiction with regards to Thor's durability (as he claims Thor should be one shot, then where is the contradictory showing of Thor's that means he cannot "endure" hits from Hela?)?
Thor's durability "soak" is one of the highest out there. Even surviving forces that would melt the material Mjolnir is made of (2:56 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFtHcCJQvC4). If anything, him surviving hits from Hela is corroborated by most recent evidence.
Third, Hela wasn't trying her best. She had Thor dead to rights 3 times (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7V_7cNjBtM).(6:51) where he was helpless vs her choke and a dagger would have ended it, (7:22) where he was on the ground stunned and she could have just behead him instead of taking out his eye and (8:01) where he was helpless yet again and she could have finished him there. It looks like Thor "endured" only because Hela let him.
Lastly, by the same definition he posted, a plot hole is "a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot". Hela's crushing of Mjolnir is a KEY event in the story. It establishes the entire tone for the rest of the movie. And thus should take a higher priority in story/plot relevance than how Thor does vs Hela in a fight (w/c can be attributed to choreography choices). I can just as easily claim that Hela not one-shotting Thor is the plot hole due to the Mjolnir crush. And I'd be more correct than my opponent.
It looks to me that a pattern is emerging. A lot of the above errors my opponent is making is due to him making logical leaps without first scrutinizing his evidence. This may be due to a pre-existing opinion of where Hela/Thor's abilities should be. And there is a word for that.
Making Up Rules
Why does my opponent insist on this invalidation? Well, he believes:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
By the definition itself, we can already realize that plot holes aren’t valid for debating.
Let me just stress. THERE IS NO SUCH RULE like this in the MvS forums. For good reason. The problem with creating a universal rule over something as broad and subjective as "inconsistency=plot hole=nonviable" is that it will derail threads when ppl simply use subjective nitpicking to invalidate just about any "feat" they want.
Case in point, my Superman example (0:37 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnxeVTampZY). A building would crumble under its own weight once lifted like that. This is a massive physics inconsistency. Is this now a nonviable "feat"? Or is my opponent going to suggest that he now gets to pick w/c inconsistencies he will or will not allow? Let me ask him:
Hey Josh, is the Superman building lifting "feat" viable or not (y/n)?
Bottom line: Movies are a work of fiction. A such, story takes precedence over consistency and logic. We use suspension of disbelief to reconcile minor inconsistencies. Of course, there will sometimes be extreme cases that we can all agree on takes things too far but that is why there isn't a single universal rule about something as general as this. We look at things case-to-case. And this is what I have been arguing all along (I feel that my opponent is attempting to imply that I am insisting on completely ignoring inconsistencies altogether, let me add that, if this is the case, it is completely untrue).
Using My Owns Words Against Himself
Before I close out this rebuttal, I seem to have noticed that my opponent linked to an old debate I had with the Ozy bullet catch:
Essentially, it was me spitballing possible reasons on why Ozy decided to catch the bullet (when catching it made little tactical sense). I made a personal theory and my opponents tried to make it seem like I was pointing it out as fact (to troll me), I then (multiple times even) exhaustively clarified my position:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I, however, at no time, did insist that this is what ACTUALLY happened as there are little/no facts supporting said theory
Which is basically me saying that I had a personal theory to explain an inconsistency I saw and it had no bearing on the validity of the "feat" (just a way to justify the silliness of it in my head). And that the theory had no weight or value in the debate as it is only a personal opinion.
I ask that you, esteemed judges, read the exchange to confirm what I am saying here if you are so inclined.
The fact that he brought up an old post of mine and not understand the true meaning behind it is very telling. The irony here is that this post actually helps MY argument and not his. To clarify, I never argued that you "cannot debate a plot hole" (If I did, I challenge my opponent to point out where I said that). My post was my acknowledgement that there was a lack of evidence in a theory that I had thus I reiterated that I was NOT arguing that position since I could NOT support it (it was headcanon). Because I lacked the evidence, I asked everyone to simply take it as personal opinion that I am allowed to have BUT cannot use as a basis of argument.
This is essentially what I've been trying to tell Josh to do all along. This is the core conflict of our entire BZ. He is allowed to have an opinion but he cannot insist on it as an argument without solid proof (he takes it one step further, he is essentially asking you to accept it as a rule). How is he able to read what I said, even post it in the forums and not understand what my point was the entire time?
I'll tell you why: Confirmation bias. He sees what he wants to see and not the truth that the facts provide.
And that, esteemed judges, is the real problem here.
Refutations
This was something I was not expecting dear Judges. The amounts of fallacies brought forth are several and will try to unveil as much as possible considering the length limit.
- Distorting the MVF Golden Rule:
The MVF rule states that we debate based on feats! In no way is the MVF rule stating that only visual indicators are valid! In this case, Nibe ignores the fact that logic is also an indicator when determining the validity of feats. In regards to the feat, it is illogical as it clearly contradicts the rest of Hela’s feats. Nibe’s second “argument” falls due to this.
Furthermore, the MVF states that we debate “feats” (note the plurality), and therefore, many feats>>>>1 feat. Hela’s character arc>>>> 1 feat (destroying Mjolnir).
- Nibe’s 3rd argument:
Judges, I’ve already nullified this argument. Nibedicus is presenting a fallacy, since he is eluding context. Under the context of entertainment plot holes are acceptable, but here the context is one of debating! Inconsistencies aren’t valid for debating.
- Tampering the scenes:
Originally posted by Nibedicus Hela's crushing of Mjolnir is a KEY event in the story... should take a higher priority in story/plot relevance than how Thor does vs Hela in a fight (w/c can be attributed to choreography choices). I can just as easily claim that Hela not one-shotting Thor is the plot hole due to the Mjolnir crush. And I'd be more correct than my opponent.
My opponent seems oblivious of the term climax. He claims that the Mjolnir scene is more relevant than the highly expected rematch between Thor and Hela, which happens at the end of the movie (climax).
Collins dictionary:
The climax of something is the most exciting or important moment in it, usually near the end.
Furthermore, judges please keep in mind the words I underlined from Nibe’s statement, I will completely obliterate them in my argument’s section. I’ve found other scenes/feats which contradict Hela’s feat. Again many feats>1.
- Strawmanning:
I wasn’t expecting this. Please pay keen attention to this judges.
First of all, I never made up ANY RULE. Nibedicus is strawmanning here. The fact that inconsistent evidence and arguments are invalid doesn’t mean I am making up anything. As I will FURTHER prove in my argument section, inconsistencies are invalid for debating and are even considered a FALLACY.
Then Nibe brings up the Superman strawman. He uses superman’s feat as a way to shift the context of the inconsistency.
Judges, we are debating a plot-hole, an inconsistency in the continuity of feats (character’s arc). We aren’t debating an inconsistency in science!
Originally posted by Nibedicus
This is a massive physics inconsistency.
His approach is invalid
- His word against his word.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Do you know that the whole point of me even mentioning it is that it is simply a -personal- interpretation of what happened to justify a silly plot hole to myself.
Again, Nibedicus acknowledges that plot holes NEED justification, for they can’t stand on their own, since they contradict a character’s arc and other scenes. He is basically conceding here.
Conclusion:
Judges, Nibedicus entire post focuses on attacking my arguments through the use of fallacies, which I’ve already exposed. I urge you to please carefully read both our posts; I might have skipped some.
Furthermore, pay keen attention judges that Nibe focused entirely on rebuking my arguments, but brings none of his own.
Arguments
My opponent has accused me of leaps of logic, which isn’t the case here. Due to length limit I am forced to keep my arguments brief, besides, I think its logical enough by know that the feat is a plot hole.
Either way, here I will completely prove that the plot hole exists.
1. Hulk vs Thor:
Nibedicus was asking for an apple-to-apple comparison. We do have one!
Minute 1:23
YouTube video
Hulk was able to stop a 2K ton beast with a punch. In the second video, we clearly see that Hulk is able to send Thor flying away with a less enraged punch!
Now, I have proven that crushing Mjolnir would require a force of 13K tons in the pinky fingertip! I think it’s logical enough that arm muscles >>>> finger muscles and that a person’s punch>>>> finger.
Furthermore, Nibedicus forgets that Hela gets boosted on Asgard! So, again, Hela punching Thor would be unimaginably worse than Hulk punching Thor! (And we all remember what effects Hulk’s punches had on Saakar). Thor would have 0 chance of facing Hela. Again, the plot hole becomes CLEAR.
Evidence 2:
Again, Hela is on Asgard, and yet, we don’t see an outrageous strength difference between some simple Asgardians and Mjolnir’s crusher. When we consider that Hela’s pinky finger>>>>>>>Hulk’s punches, we would expect a punch or kick from Hela to send the Asgardians flying a couple hundreds of meters.
Conclusion: The plot hole has been proven. 2 arguments/scenes from the movie CLEARLY contradict her Mjolnir feat! And that’s just some of the scenes I decided to bring for this case (Valkyrie also managed to endure her attacks).
(I hope you remembered the words I highlighted from Nibe)
So, no, you’d be wrong to call the climax of the movie a plot hole, since other scenes support Hela not one-shotting Thor. Good luck trying to rebuke that 😉
Fallacy of Inconsistency:
Now, Nibedicus has accused me of “creating rules”. I don’t know if he is just trying to deceive the jury or just ignores basic debating norms.
In the MVF we use feats to create our arguments for debating.
Plot Hole:
A gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot sometimes even contradicting
Basically, Nibedicus is asking you judges to validate the use inconsistent feats, which in turn would create inconsistent and contradicting arguments.
Texas State Dpto. of Philosophy – Fallacy of Inconsistency:
A person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes contradictory claims.
In this case judges, I have several claims that clearly contradict the Hela-Mjolnir claim. Hela on Asgard failed to demonstrate the same amounts of strength against Asgardians, Thor and Valkyrie, specially when the movie made it clear that Hela should be stronger on Asgard.
Several scenes>>> 1
Judges, Nibedicus is asking you to validate a FALLACY.
My interpretation to validate the plot hole.
Should Nibe decide to shift his outrageous approach, the most logical thing to do is to explain the plot hole. Fill in for the inconsistency. And here is where my second argument comes into play. The fact that there is a strength inconsistency allows for external factors to be possible.
Judges, my second argument revolves on: If the feat isn’t one of inconsistency, then, there must be external unknown factors influencing the feat.
I use magic, as one of the POSSIBLE external factors that could influence the feat. As I’ve already proven, Hela’s magic is very powerful, and the feat can’t be on of pure strength (since it would be inconsistent with the other scenes).
However, again, we don’t know how this external factors influence on the feat. Therefore, the feat becomes vague and ambiguous. In such aspect, the feat becomes INVALID. We can’t debate based on speculations, since we can only but speculate on these external factors.
In other words, Nibedicus would have to prove how this factors influence the feat and be able to quantify the amount of strength Hela used to make the feat valid. In the end, we use the feats to quantify strength levels, so we can compare them with other characters in the Movie Versus Forum.
Conclusions
Judges, it’s pretty evident Nibedicus has built his entire case based on fallacies.
He has attempted to validate a fallacy of inconsistency, as I’ve already proven that Hela destroying Mjolnir in terms of raw strength, is inconsistent with several other strength feats. Also, he has failed to realize that the strength inconsistency is an indicator that, should the feat not be a simple PLOT HOLE, then external unknown factors must be influencing the feat (like possibly magic).
Since the factors’ influence on the feat remain unknown, the feat is ambiguous, and therefore invalid for debating, as too many interpretations can be drawn without proper evidence.
So, dear judges, no matter from which side you want to approach this feat, it remains INVALID.
To my opponent, there’s still time for you to fix the unrighteous path you’ve decided to follow.
Far reaching implications
Judges, go and type the words plot hole or inconsistency in the KMC search engine. Several if not countless threads would be affected should we follow Nibedicus' path. Due to length limit, i will bring examples in my concluding post.
We can't take inconsistencies lightly. We can't ignore plot holes in a debate, just because the movies' aren't perfect.
You can't make an inconsistent argument not a fallacy.
I urge you judges to take the feat as it is, an INCONSISTENT one.
My opponent has decided to throw out a pretty wild accusation:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Distorting the MVF Golden Rule:The MVF rule states that we debate based on feats! In no way is the MVF rule stating that only visual indicators are valid! In this case, Nibe ignores the fact that logic is also an indicator when determining the validity of feats.
To start, the Golden Rule is about using "Movie Feats Only" as evidence. Audio Visual movies only have audio visual evidence. The fact that he used audio visual youtube videos to try and establish this so-called "inconsistency" seems to prove that he agrees with this. So his accusation ("Distorting the MVF Golden Rule"😉 is kind of at odds with his own actions.
And by "logic" I believe he means "inference"?
The problem with my opponent's argument is that it comes in 2 parts: The inferential attempt to prove "inconsistency=plot hole=invalid" and the theory of "plot hole thus justify with unknowns". The former has basis within the MvF Golden Rule (he can use Movie "feats" from youtube vids to try and provide corroborative evidence). The latter, however, is a complete fabrication in direct violation of said rule. It seems he has to insist on the latter theory due to the fact that he needs to move the discussion away from the best-explanation of "suspension of disbelief" (due to his whole argument falling completely apart if suspension of disbelief is acknowledged). Thus the need to "create" evidence where no such evidence exists (due to his confirmation bias).
He also claims to have proven a "clear" contradiction of Hela's "feats". This is untrue.
Allow me to demonstrate how poorly his arguments stand up to scrutiny:
A Poor Judge for Value in Story
I noticed that of the 4 counterpoints I have on his "Thor endured" argument, he only really challenged the last one (plot value of the crush). I assume this is him conceding to the first 3 points (w/c means his argument is defeated)? As he didn't specify his claim, he didn't provide evidence of inconsistency vs Thor's durability and he didn't have an answer to "Hela let him endure".
As for the plot value of the Mjolnir crush in relation to the "climax" fight. I hope my opponent is aware of the difference between a primary story/plot point (events used by the writer to tell the story) vs a fight scene and its choreography (w/c is determined by choreographer/fx team and limitations of technology/actors/budget and is more for drama and excitement than for storytelling). In terms of clarity of writer's intent and value to story, "Thor and Thor endures Hela's hits" does not have anywhere the equal value to "Hela crushes Mjolnir".
As proof, let's simply take out the scenes in question. W/c would have a bigger impact to the story if removed? Would any of the story past the Mjolnir crush even make sense? His capture in Sakaar? The Arena battle? His awakening? The whole damned movie? Now take out the entire throne room fight Josh referenced and go straight to the balcony awakening scene. Story still makes sense I take it?
He could not dispute the importance of the Mjolnir crush, so instead he attempted to lump the entire climax together just to have something to contrast against it.
To clarify, this is my opponent's logic being used against him. I don't agree with it, but it demonstrates how subjective my opponent's standards are.
The STPD Argument
Here's a new angle to my opponent's argument:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
we would expect a punch or kick from Hela to send the Asgardians flying a couple hundreds of meters.
So we're using Strength-to-Punch-Distance (STPD) scaling now? Seriously?
Not only do we KNOW that impact fling distance is poor quantification (different directors would apply distances differently as I'm sure there's no defined strength to fling distance scale for all fiction out there), we also KNOW that writers/directors have oftentimes been inconsistent in the use of impact fling distance, at times, not using it at all:
Hulk vs Hulkbuster: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdWJ-Njeaig)
We clearly see Hullk being thrown around by hits/blasts by the Hulkbuster (0:39) and (0:59) and it is clear the filmmakers wanted to use environmental damage and fling distance to showcase how powerful the fight is.
Hulk vs Thanos: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK1YIRTaqa0)
But then it is clearly ignored during the Thanos/Hulk fight. We KNOW Thanos is as strong/stronger than the Hulk. He easily pries Hulk's arms off him. We KNOW each hit is hurting Hulk, we KNOW the type of power implied behind these hits as he managed to take down Hulk w/in a minute. But they barely move, are not even flung at all by the hits.
Directors/writers do not use this phenomenon consistently, so fling distance is not a universal rule. Thus discrepancies in fling distance has little dependability as evidence. This shouldn't even need to be said.
And beyond that:
-Punching power does not directly convert to crushing strength (apples-to-oranges).
-We do not know if Hela used her full strength in her punches.
-Comparing a different character (Hulk) using a different attack (punch) from a movie almost a decade ago by different directors is NOT apples-to-apples.
-And again, using HIS logic of "plot hole can't be debated": Main story plot point > random mid-story fight. Thus the punch-fling battle he posted is the plot hole and can't be debated. Guess he didn't see this coming eh?
Selective Inconsistencies
And it seems my prediction was correct:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
is my opponent going to suggest that he now gets to pick w/c inconsistencies he will or will not allow?
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Judges, we are debating a plot-hole, an inconsistency in the continuity of feats (character’s arc). We aren’t debating an inconsistency in science!
So now it's "story arc inconsistencies" only huh?
I guess my opponent isn't aware that his entire impact fling distance argument is simply a call for consistent application of "physics" (if X hits harder than Y then X-distance > Y-distance)? It has nothing to do with character arc (proof: will changing the fling distance change the content of the story?) and that if we simply ignore the science, then the entire premise of his STPD argument falls apart. It looks like he used his own standards to show how his STPD logic is clearly just that.
Again, his standards, when used against him, destroy his own arguments.
Strawmen and An Even Worse Understanding of Words
My opponent insists that:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Inconsistencies aren’t valid for debating.
And his "proof" to establish this rule?
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Nibedicus acknowledges that plot holes NEED justification, for they can’t stand on their own, since they contradict a character’s arc and other scenes. He is basically conceding here
This is COMPLETELY FALSE. I never claimed plot holes need justification. My sentence was an acknowledgement of a personal choice affecting only personal headcanon and, as such, has ZERO value in debate.
And how exactly am I conceding when the quote he is referencing was taken from a post I had years prior to this BZ? Did I have precog and somehow predicted the BZ for me to concede to?
I've already exhaustively clarified the meaning of my statement (in my rebuttal and on the post he is referencing):
Last Rebuttal:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I had a personal theory to explain an inconsistency I saw and it had no bearing on the validity of the "feat" (just a way to justify the silliness of it in my head). And that the theory had no weight or value in the debate
Original Thread:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I, however, at no time, did insist that this is what ACTUALLY happened as there are little/no facts supporting said theory
I am flabbergasted at how he is still insisting on his false interpretation. How is he even missing the "to myself" part of the sentence? It is literally beside the portions he colored. I am not sure if this is willful ignorance or if he is just desperate because he has nothing.
Oh yeah, I know this doesn't need to be said, but for Josh's benefit: my word isn't law around here. So him misrepresenting it does not establish it as a rule.
Next we have him throwing out the term "Inconsistency Fallacy" and how it somehow proves his point:
"A person commits the fallacy of inconsistency when he or she makes contradictory claims."
Does he know that an "Inconsistency Fallacy" occurs when one person makes directly contradictory claims? It does not state that contradictory evidence can't exist (in fiction or otherwise) nor does it state that contradictions from evidence cannot be debated between 2 ppl (a lot of debates actually happen due to this). So I'm not sure how this applies to the BZ. He did not even really specify how this relates to his argument so it's hard to refute an argument that is so poorly articulated.
Lastly, I need to call this out:
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
i will bring examples in my concluding post.
I hope my opponent knows that next comes closing remarks. Bringing up new evidence in closing is bad form (as it gives the opposing side no chance to scrutinize the evidence/its interpretations) and as such I ask that these "examples" be ignored by judges.
Josh's Final Post:
Golden Rule:
I wonder if my opponent is reading my posts properly. Either way, I used the Golden Rule to state that NOT ONLY visual INDICATORS are valid. Again, in this case, logic is also an INDICATOR.
Thus the need to "create" evidence where no such evidence exists (due to his confirmation bias).
Now my opponent is accusing me of creating evidence, the funny thing however is that nowhere in my “Distorting the MVF Golden Rule” section did I even use the words “evidence”. My entire section was meant to prove that there are several indicators when analyzing feats, like logic (which Nibe never rebuked and therefore has conceded) and that the Golden Rule doesn’t limit these.
Since logic is a valid indicator when analyzing feats, due to the fact that the Hela-Mjolnir feat is illogical with other strength feats, then, we have a logical indicator that other factors (not only pure strength) must be influencing in Hela breaking Mjolnir (It's logical to assume that magic is present in the feat).
- Nibedicus vs The Dictionary:
Cambridge Dictionary:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es...o/ingles/climax
The most important part of a movie is called the climax, everyone knows this! Anyone who is a fan of a movie KNOWS that the climax happens at the end or near the end of the movie. Sure, destroying Mjolnir was a lot of fun, but it’s definitely not the climax of the movie
Furthermore, I brought 3 scenes (Hela vs Thor, Hela vs Valkerye, and Hela vs The Asgardian Armies) that contradict the Hela-Mjolnir strength feat. Now unless Nibedicus wants to erase the entire movie, it’s clear that the Hela-Mjolnir feat is a PLOT HOLE!
- STDP:
I used STDP because in this case we have a massive strength difference between Hulk punching Thor and Hela punching Thor. The problem with Nibe’s examples is that the characters at hand share almost similar strength levels (not really a massive strength level difference).
So, one could expect some sort of STDP inconsistency. However:
As I’ve already proven, crushing Mjolnir would require 13 Ktons of strength in each finger (x5), an overall strength of nearly 65Kton. Again, a person can punch harder than it can crush, in that manner, a punch from Hela would be > 65 Kton.
Considering that Hulk can give punches of 2Ktons, Hela is at least 32x stronger than the Hulk! In that aspect, if Hulk can easily send Thor flying away, then Hela MUST do so too.
Either way, even if we remove the STDP argument from the equation, Nibe fails to address (As i proved) that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest Thor being able to survive a punch from Hela. If punches from the Hulk would hurt Thor, then, again, Hela's ones should do CONSIDERABLY MORE.
Lastly, Nibe forgets that I wasn’t only using Thor as an instance, but also the normal Asgardian soldiers and Valkyrie, who again, would have 0 chance of surviving a punch/kick/physical attack from Hela.
P.S: A quick google search will tell you that a person crushing strength isn’t greater than a person’s punching strength (This should be logical though). Also, Hela was pissed when Thor was mocking her back at Odin’s keep, so, Nibe saying that Hela wasn’t punching hard is just obnoxious!
Ohh and using Hulk’s strength is pretty much apples to apples. A stronger person would have a stronger effect. It’s common logic.
- Nibedicus’ strawmen explained:
Seems like the reason for Nibe’s strawmen is now clear, he has evidently been ignoring my posts (conveniently though?).
Judges, please pay keen attention to my introductory post, I specifically stated I was going to address inconsistencies in a character’s arc/continuity. Also, in my first argumentative sentence I stated:
Appreciated judges and audience, with this post I will prove to you all, that should the Hela-Mjolnir feat be one of SOLE strength (no external factors involved/ no ambiguity) then we would be dealing with a PLOT HOLE
However, Nibedicus brings the Superman strawman to try shift the context of the debate. Sure, a building would crumble under its weight if held horizontally, but that’s a pure and mere scientific inconsistency, and not a plothole. Nibe was looking for me to debate the nature of lifting the building and not the nature of Superman’s strength feats (character's arc) being consistent with lifting a building. In that aspect, judges, Nibedicus is strawmanning here!
And, I never claimed that destroying Mjolnir is on itself scientifically inconsistent, but rather that when analyzing it in terms of strength, is inconsistent with other scenes (character arc inconsistency).
- Nibe’s confirmation bias:
Judges, I clearly stated why inconsistencies are invalid for debating, and that’s because they fall under a fallacy called “Fallacy of Inconsistency”. I used Nibedicus’ words to prove that he also, unconsciously, shared the same belief. Again, in his quotes, he clearly takes a personal opinion, and makes it clear that he is but looking to “justify” said plot hole. Nowhere did I state that inconsistencies are invalid because of Nibe’s words! He is just ignoring what he sees fit.
Going back to Nibe's words, that’s exactly what I’ve been debating all along. Plot holes can’t be debated because ANYONE can JUSTIFY them as they see fit! I clearly stated this as part of my second argument in my first argumentative post.
So, unconsciously, Nibedicus agrees with me.
- Nibedicus’ attempt at creating a “Fallacy of Inconsistency”:
The purpose of this debate, as Nibe himself has stated, is to validate the use of the Hela-Mjolnir feat. And here is where (As I clearly stated in my "Fallacy of Inconsistency argument", but Nibe seems to not understand), Nibe’s purpose is to validate the use of an inconsistent argument.
For instance, if the feat is validated, I could argue the following:
- Hela can punch 32x harder than Hulk (Crushing Mjolnir requires at least 13Ktons of strength in each finger):
- Thor struggles to defeat Ragnarok Hulk (his pre-ragnarok form was badly beaten by Hulk in the Sakaar arena and would have been K.Oed if not for the God-Mode activation)
- Thor endures Hela’s enraged attacks.
The fallacy of inconsistency becomes clear, as me claiming that Thor can endure Hela is inconsistent considering it can barely endure Hulk. Now that’s just one example, same thing would happen with Valkyrie and the Asgardian soldiers (Have they suddenly become stronger than the Hulk and are now able to stop Thanos' leviathans?).
Summarizing
I’ve prove that Hela’s strength is immense! Being able to apply forces of 13Ktons in each finger. An overall crushing strength of at least 65Kton. Again, everyone knows a person can punch stronger than it can crush (google it). I’ve also prove that Hela becomes stronger on Asgard.
However, Nibedicus brought 0 evidence to suggest that Thor/Valkyrie/Asgardian Soldiers can endure punches of above 65Ktons, and yet they were!
In that aspect, I’ve successfully proven that the Hela-Mjolnir scene/feat is inconsistent with other movie feats/scenes.
Several scenes > 1.
Furthermore, as the feat is inconsistent, debaters can just draw their own conclusions from said scene. In my case, I believe magic is playing a role in the feat. This is entirely logical since Hela’s magic is very powerful and once owned Mjolnir. Nibedicus has failed to rebuke this, and attempted to manipulate the Golden Rule to restrict the use of logic.
Nibedicus entire position revolves around fallacies and shifting the context of the debate. He further tries to validate a “Fallacy of Inconsistency”, as he tries to validate a Plot Hole, which in turn creates inconsistent arguments.
Conclusion
Judges, I’ve successfully proven that the Hela-Mjolnir feat is inconsistent in terms of strength with Hela’s character arc. It’s a mere plot hole, and should be treated as such!
We don’t debate plot holes! Despite Nibe’s fallacy, a feat isn’t valid for debating just because it is meant to make people have fun (Debating has nothing to do with cinema entertainment)! A scene being entertaining doesn’t mean it’s valid to take into a debate.
Plot holes create inconsistent arguments, and inconsistent arguments are fallacious (Fallacy of Inconsistency)! We can’t say that Hela can apply 13Ktons on her fingers and yet not be able to outright kill Thor or Valkyrie or the Asgardian Soldiers!
Nibedicus never presented ANY EVIDENCE suggesting that Thor and the other characters can endure such high impacts (and with good reason, since there is none!).
Furthermore, even if we try to justify the plot hole, too many opinions/interpretations can be drawn (like magic), and therefore, we end with an ambiguous feat!
Given that Nibedicus has presented no evidence against this, but has brought several fallacies and attempted to shift the context of this debate.
Judges, The Hela-Mjolnir feat is COMPLETELY invalid to debate in the Movie Versus Forum, as it is inconsistent with other movie scenes (which would in turn, contradict other arguments) and would be ambiguous if not!
I plead for you to not accept the use of fallacies in this board (Trolling is just enough)
Thank you very much.
Nibe's Final Post:
Esteemed judges, good day, I apologize if the debate has dragged on longer than anticipated, I guess holy week and the summer holidays (for some of us) have made things very busy for my opponent and me causing unexpected long periods between replies. I hope we didn't take too much of your time away and wish to thank you all for your patience. It has certainly been an interesting debate and I hope you enjoyed judging as much as I enjoyed participating in it.
Esteemed judges, if it is anything, this BZ has been quite the enlightening demonstration of how confirmation bias can affect one's thinking and logic.
On its surface, the argument my opponent propositions is not really all that unreasonable. He believes the Hela Mjolnir crush is well above what Hela should be capable of. He perhaps got this opinion from viewing Thor's fight with Hela. He sees this as a huge inconsistency and he reconciles this to himself via creating headcanon and then cements this belief into his mind. I have no problem with this, for as long as it is his opinion then he is free to have it.
His logic, however, begins to sour when he starts imposing this belief as absolute truth. That is because in these forum, interpretations vary and we use best evidence with best logic if we wish to convince others that our belief is the best interpretation. As such, these beliefs need to hold up to solid scrutiny else it cannot generally be accepted as any kind of truth.
Now, my opponent would have us believe that, for some reason, inconsistencies (well, those he doesn't like anyway) and plot holes can't be used in a debate, yet his primary logical foundation for this so-called rule appears to be a simple misunderstanding/misinterpretation of my words without realizing that my words are not the rules here and that when interpreted correctly, my words actually hurt his argument.
He then points to a logical fallacy ("inconsistency fallacy"😉 but did not elabortate on its connection to his logic. Just dropped the term and hoped that it validated his entire argument somehow. From how I've seen him use it, I wonder if he even understands what the fallacy is about. Is he implying that, universally, any contradiction and in any form is immediately deemed a fallacy (w/c is not what the fallacy is about)? Then why did he then decide w/c contradictions he will or will not allow (story only, not logical/scientific)?
He would also have us believe that Thor being able to "endure hits from Hela" is somehow definitive proof of this contradiction but didn't really specify w/c exact moments he meant, didn't provide the contradiction with regards to Thor's durability and seems to ignore the fact that Hela did not finish off Thor even though she had the opportunity more than once and ample time to do so (thus she allowed him to "endure).
Failing that, he attempted to use fling distance as his corroborative "evidence" of contradiction. An inconsistent, poorly quantified, undependable and sometimes downright ignored phenomenon in film. That we must accept that different filmmakers who made different movies nearly a decade apart have somehow equally applied physics laws in their storytelling and that these physics laws are absolute. But then ignore the physics inconsistencies in other movies because my opponent tells us to.
The irony here is that when set against his own "plot hole" definition, it is clear that the "evidence of contradictions" he provided do not have near the story value to the Mjolnir crush. So, by virtue of his very own words and the rule he is trying to shove down our throats (w/c I do not agree with but it demonstrates the poor logical foundation my opponent is basing his argument from), his evidence is pretty much rendered invalid.
He goes one step further, however: He wants us to give Hela a never seen nor aluded to power in order to reconcile this scene within his biases. That somehow, Hela's "magical" nature allowed her to weaken/affect Mjolnir (he doesn't want it to affect her however, as if her magical nature enhanced her strength, this would still be a strength "feat" so it has to affect Mjolnir for his theory to be right). To accept this theory as simply his "opinion" but somehow also accept it as fact and invalidate the "feat" because of it. To allow inference to have the same factual value as evidence and, essentially, allow a made up ability to invalidate a real "feat" due to a made up rule, ignoring the most important not-made-up rule in the MvS forum, the Golden Rule: Movie Feats Only.
Hell, he won't even accept the fact that "suspension of disbelief" can easily reconcile the scene even if his inference was true. So he denies the use of this basic audience reaction that writers depend on to help tell their story and wants his made up rule to take precedence.
He basically wants us to accept his accept his headcanon and ignore what the filmmakers are clearly telling us. And believe what he wants us to believe.
Looking at the synopsis of my opponent's arguments. The overall sheer complex absurdity of it all can be... exhausting? Overwhelming?
Within the standard of best evidence and best argument, it is clear that his interpretations do not hold up to the slightest scrutiny. That he is literally twisting the facts and evidence just so he can reconcile an opinion. The reason for this failure in his logic is due to the fact that he has cemented this opinion of what Hela is capable of in his mind and that conclusion can no longer be moved/changed/swayed by evidence/facts. So instead he tries to make the evidence fit the conclusion and not the other way around.
Confirmation Bias at its most extreme.
To accept my opponent's argument is to accept that movies can no longer have inconsistencies and that all evidence affected by these inconsistencies must be rejected and invalidated. That headcanon will have equal factual value to evidence when such inconsistencies occur and debates are now about trying to find these inconsistencies in scenes so we can replace facts with headcanon. A dizzyingly awful prospect indeed.
I do notice that he used "possible" in his second rebuttal post to try and establish the sufficiency of "reasonable doubt" (as I predicted). Perhaps he is starting to realize the absurdity of his argument and is now backpedalling to repackage it and make it more palatable? But my opponent needs to realize that due to the sheer absurdity of what he asking us to believe and what he wants to happen, "possible" is not enough. Anything is possible, especially in fiction and especially when one is not tethered by the need for evidence.
Esteemed judges. All I ask you from you is to look at the evidence. It is simple. It is unambiguous. And it is crystal clear in its intent.
Hela caught Mjolnir with her hand. Hela crushed Mjolnir with her hand. There is no other observable visual or audio indicators in the scene in question beyond this. My opponent even conceded to this fact. If we just look at the facts, the best interpretation should be clear as day:
Hela used her strength to crush Mjolnir. Nothing else can be seen thus nothing else was used.
Thus, this is a valid strength "feat".
What more needs to be said?
I realize that there would be some that would see this "feat" as extreme. I get it. It is quite up there. But extreme "feats" happen sometimes in fiction. But in the forums, we have accepted these as simply high "feats" or outliers. Outliers are not averages and should not be argued as such. But they are still valid when highest "feats" are being compared (w/c actually happens quite often in the forums). Although there would be those that would argue that there has been little that really contradict the Mjolnir crush as an average showing. But that is the beauty of the forums. We can debate these things and see who has the better argument.
And that is my core of MY argument. That we use debate to determine best-evidence and best-logic and try to clearly determine writer's intent. To let the evidence guide our conclusions and not the other way around. To accept the fallability in the consistencies of fictional storytelling. Not to shove unsupported absolute rules just to insist on what we want.
Perhaps my opponent will attempt a new out-from-left-field approach to try and steer his argument back to a sensible direction (maybe clarify what he meant by simply tossing in "Inconsistency fallacy" and its definition)? I do not know. I can only asses his logic based on the arguments he has provided prior to the closing. I, however, call on judges to ignore any new evidence/arguments if he tries to sneak it into his closing as that would basically contaminate the debate with unscrutinized information. I do not fear any new points of his, just that I feel that it would likely be laden with more misrepresentations, misinterpretations and bias w/c I will not have the chance to fact check. I hope my opponent does not go this direction, but if he does, then it would only conclusively show how weak his arguments are if he opts to only present it once it cannot be scrutinized.
Perhaps my opponent hopes to convince us via his flashy and passionate presentation? It is certainly a very interesting approach, no doubt about it. But I feel it would probably work better in a different debating medium. Perhaps in a more audience-based medium where he can use flash to appeal to the emotions in his audience and where details are far less important? However, in a written and judged debating medium, I fear it translates poorly.
Because in this medium we use facts, not theories, logic, not opinions and evidence, not biases to determine the best argument in a debate.
And that is all I am really asking you, esteemed judges, to reaffirm in your decision.
Thank you again for your time and good day.