Originally posted by h1a8
First answer the question
For you to say that she will not do that means
1. She will not choose to do so even if she is capable
Or
2. She doesn't have the capacity to do it.Which one is it?
Per your own stated rules when debating with Nib, if you can't provide a feat where WW performs the exact tactic we are talking about. she can't do it.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Nobody conceded, so you just proved you're a liar.
Me being a liar or not or my my character has nothing to do with the argument for why WW wins.
It's either true or false. If true then she wins. If false then you have to answer the question that explains why.
Failure to do so is automatically a concession by refusing to debate the actual argument.
Originally posted by h1a8
Me being a liar or not or my my character has nothing to do with the argument for why WW wins.It's either true or false. If true then she wins. If false then you have to answer the question that explains why.
Failure to do so is automatically a concession by refusing to debate the actual argument.
By your own rules, you haven't proven she'll win.
Originally posted by Silent Master
By your own rules, you haven't proven she'll win.
My so called rules are irrelevant. Either she wins or not for the reasons given. It's about what you think is the truth, not my alleged rules. If you are going to debate then do so. Trolling is not debating. Arguing my character is a fallacy.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, wrong. rules are very important in a debate and by your own rules you have provided no evidence, thus there is nothing for anyone to refute. Until you provide evidence for your claim, it's worthless.
Here is a video of Wonder Woman speedblitzing and decapitating German soldiers (1:15).
Originally posted by FrothByte
How does she win if you haven't posted a feat of her decapitating someone?
It's not against her character to do so. She also can slice off limbs. That's a win too.
If someone has two ways to win then arguing against one of the ways is dumb. Why? Because it doesn't defeat the argument that they win.
Originally posted by h1a8
It's not against her character to do so. She also can slice off limbs. That's a win too.
If someone has two ways to win then arguing against one of the ways is dumb. Why? Because it doesn't defeat the argument that they win.
You keep saying that, yet you've not posted a single feat to back it up.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You keep saying that, yet you've not posted a single feat to back it up.
Originally posted by h1a8
First answer the question
For you to say that she will not do that means
1. She will not choose to do so even if she is capable
Or
2. She doesn't have the capacity to do it.Which one is it?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Feats of WW slicing someone's head off?
Are you suggesting Wonder Woman is against killing or against slicing off heads?
Either way, she has the ability to do both, and has done the former. Saying she wouldn't is saying she would purposely hold back doing something she clearly has the ability to do (provided there is an opening to do so, though if not, it would be contingent on the opponent's skill, not her lack of ability).
For example, I don't hit woman, but if we were to discuss a hypothetical scenario where I would, then, in most cases, I have what it takes to absolutely hurt her (unless the woman is someone like Ronda Rousey or Cris Cyborg lol).