Shazam vs. Captain Marvel

Originally posted by Silent Master
Among other things, he hasn't provided any proof for any of his multiple claims, he wants us to just take his word for what the movies show in regards to Billy and Carol's speed.

IOW, he wants us to use his interpretation of the movie, rather than the movie itself.

Originally posted by juggernaut74
Shazam is consistently shown moving at super speed. He crossed a city in seconds to stop that bus.

This

Originally posted by h1a8
I only claimed one thing. Shazam can tag her before she can respond. You are the one trolling here.

Which you haven't proven.

If Shazam is clearly shown moving at hyper/sub-sonic speeds, then I see no reason to disagree.

It's like saying Quicksilver couldn't tag her. Or the Flash. Or Superman, who matched Flash's speed.

Originally posted by Impediment
If Shazam is clearly shown moving at hyper/sub-sonic speeds, then I see no reason to disagree.

It's like saying Quicksilver couldn't tag her. Or the Flash. Or Superman, who matched Flash's speed.

Nobody is disagreeing that he's fast, the disagreement is that he's fast enough to tag Carol before she even moves, given her own speed feats.

So far h1 has provided no proof that Billy is orders of magnitude faster than Carol, like he's claiming.

Nobody's saying Carol isn't fast, but everyone has reaction limits. Shazam could tag her, given his speed feats on screen.

Is there evidence to show that Carol could react fast enough to dodge?

Originally posted by Impediment
Nobody's saying Carol isn't fast, but everyone has reaction limits. Shazam could tag her, given his speed feats on screen.

Is there evidence to show that Carol could react fast enough to dodge?

h1 is, he has repeatedly claimed that she only has human level perceptions.

How do we know she doesn't have said perceptions? We have to be concrete.

Originally posted by Impediment
How do we know she doesn't have said perceptions? We have to be concrete.

That is how debates work isn't it, the person who makes a claim has to provide proof. right?

Originally posted by Silent Master
That is how debates work isn't it, the person who makes a claim has to provide proof. right?

100%.

Did you show proof that she does or doesn't have super human reactions?

Originally posted by Impediment
100%.

Did you show proof that she does or doesn't have super human reactions?

I never made a claim about her reactions, h1 made the claim.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I never made a claim about her reactions, h1 made the claim.

Okay, cool.

Can you counter it? That's how debates work, too. 👆

Originally posted by Impediment
Okay, cool.

Can you counter it? That's how debates work, too. 👆

The debate was between him and DT, I've just been trying to point out that h1 hasn't provided any proof for his claims. which resulted in him saying that evidence isn't needed for an argument to be valid.

Both sides are obligated to provide why or why not said claim can or cannot happen instead of parroting the same responses to one another.

If either party flat out refuses to provide why or why not it can't happen, then the argument is moot.

That's my ruling. 👆

Originally posted by Impediment
Both sides are obligated to provide why or why not said claim can or cannot happen instead of parroting the same responses to one another.

If either party flat out refuses to provide why or why not it can't happen, then the argument is moot.

That's my ruling. 👆

Which was my stance.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No proof = argument thrown out.

You're still obligated to show proof otherwise, SM. 😉

Originally posted by Impediment
You're still obligated to show proof otherwise, SM. 😉

👆

Basically SM want me to show proof of Carol NEVER showing herself to have superhuman reactions. This is a negative. Basically I have to show the entire movie as proof 😱

Then SM want me to show Shazam using his speed to instantly get from point A to B. When anyone who watched the movie seen it MULTIPLE TIMES. Me just mentioning the feats is me providing evidence (especially for those who seen the movie).

SM doesn't debate a side. He trolls. He does not take a side but rather attempts to criticize others arguments, even when they are not addressed to him.

I suggest you both apply the ruling.

Instead of your usual “he can, he can’t, prove it, battlezone, Chicken” circle.

Originally posted by Impediment
Both sides are obligated to provide why or why not said claim can or cannot happen instead of parroting the same responses to one another.

If either party flat out refuses to provide why or why not it can't happen, then the argument is moot.

That's my ruling. 👆

I agree.

😂