Thanos vs. WW, Aquaman and Cyborg

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thank you for admitting that there is actually no proof that WW can do the things you claim she will do.

Thank you for admitting that you were faulty and incorrect by insisting for exact clips of Cap doing a very basic h2h maneuver.

See, that wasn't so hard was it? Now we can move on to other discussions.

1. I never admitted that. It's your faulty reasoning that suggests there is only one form of proof. I already proven how WW will fight.

2. Again arguing propensity is not the same as arguing ability. I argued that Cap WILL NOT CHOOSE to do the action.

Again, WW wins in spite.

Loser

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, you demanding proof that Nib's stated tactics were in-character for Cap was just you trolling?

That was your standard, why the change of heart?

How could it be trolling after the fact it was proven? You are stupid.

That wasn't anyone's standard. If you could have strongly articulated how Cap could have attempted to tackle Ozy to the ground without showing him doing it is also acceptable. But this is most likely impossible in that case (as with any pure striker), so you pretty much had to give a scene.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Loser Loser little Fooser

👆

Originally posted by h1a8
1. I never admitted that. It's your faulty reasoning that suggests there is only one form of proof. I already proven how WW will fight.

2. Again arguing propensity is not the same as arguing ability. I argued that Cap WILL NOT CHOOSE to do the action.

Again, WW wins in spite.

Meh, too late. You already admitted you didn't have onscreen feats of WW speeblitz chopping someone and you admitted that your previous tactic was incorrect and false. Your words, not mine.

Anyway, my job here is done. I'm glad I finally got you to be honest about something. Have a good day.

Originally posted by h1a8
It wasn't done with a regular sword. It sliced a huge ass multi-ton boulder in half with ease after being thrown with the strength of Superman without being damaged in the least. It glowed from magic right afterward. Now explain what regular sword can do that?

Originally posted by h1a8
Thanos needs cut resistant feats to show that he is more cut resistant than DD because they believe that blunt force durability is not correlated to cut force durability.

The only thing that cut Thanos was a magical ax forged in a star, swung by Thor who is much stronger than WW. Wonder Woman doesnt have the magical axe or the strength of Thor to replicate that.

And here is WW trying to slice/cut at Steppenwol's leg 2:02 mark, and failing to do anything.

5LoBx812Ujs?t=122

I posted 2 examples of Thanos not being able to be cut by WW and 1 example (with video) of WW failing to cut someone weaker than Thanos.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Meh, too late. You already admitted you didn't have onscreen feats of WW speeblitz chopping someone and you admitted that your previous tactic was incorrect and false. Your words, not mine.

Anyway, my job here is done. I'm glad I finally got you to be honest about something. Have a good day.

Uhm no. I did not admit to anything. Read the post again. Quote it if you want. Your reading comprehension sucks or you are just trolling. So you admit it was a, loaded question?

Doesn't matter what you say. All that matters is that WW wins. If you feel like you made any progress in whatever you tried to achieve then I don't mind. As long as WW wins you can have anything you want.

Originally posted by Inhuman
With the friction of cutting the boulder the sword glowed because it heated up. Besides dont take my word for it. They tell you her sword isnt anything special in her movie. Its a strong well crafted sword, but there is no mention of it being magical. What is stated in the movie about her sword >>>> your assumption of it being magical.
If you have a scene that states that it is magical , post it.

Go re read my post . I gave you 2 separate examples of Thanos being cut resistant.
1. Drax not being able to cut him with his blades.
2. Nebula not being able to cut him with her sword.

The only thing that cut Thanos was a magical ax forged in a star, swung by Thor who is much stronger than WW. Wonder Woman doesnt have the magical axe or the strength of Thor to replicate that.

And here is WW trying to slice/cut at Steppenwol's leg [b]2:02 mark, and failing to do anything.

5LoBx812Ujs?t=122

I posted 2 examples of Thanos not being able to be cut by WW and 1 example (with video) of WW failing to cut someone weaker than Thanos. [/B]

Swords don't heat up to the point that the whole sword glows a bright color AFTER slicing something in half with one swipe. Nowhere did the movie state it was a regular sword. And swords cant cut through multiton boulders without being severely damaged or simply failing to do it at all. Nice try.

You didn't post any examples of Thanos not able to be cut.

If Step wasn't able to be cut by WW then that's a good feat for him, not a bad feat for WW since we know what the sword can do. Plus step wears armor on his legs.

Originally posted by h1a8
Nowhere did the movie state it was a regular sword.

Here is the scene 0:58, where Ares tells WW that her sword isnt the "God Killer" ( a special magical sword), that she is. All while he destroys the sword with no effort.
Even if she gets a new sword afterwards, its by all accounts just an Amazonian sword. Strong and well made but not magical. If you have a scene where it is stated that it is magical , post it. I dont want to hear retarded assumptions.

YouTube video

Originally posted by h1a8
You didn't post any examples of Thanos not able to be cut.

0:36 - Drax fails to cut Thanos leg with his blade.
2:00 - Gamora fails to cut Thanos with 2 strikes to his face and 2 strikes to his arm. No damage. and this further shows you cannot just cut Thanos's head off.
YouTube video

Originally posted by h1a8
If Step wasn't able to be cut by WW then that's a good feat for him, not a bad feat for WW since we know what the sword can do. Plus step wears armor on his legs.

Of coarse you would say something like this to try to save your argument.
So Stepp's armor >>>>>Doomsday?
Also the Doomsday limb cut was a PIS feat. No where else has she ever been able to cut anyone. Not Stepp, not Ludendorff, not Ares.
So in all her battles she has never done this over and over. Its not her norm. Its not a bad feat for WW. Its how she normally performs against non human foes. The one time she did it was PIS because she never has done anything of like that in her other fights.
She has never speed blitzed anyone besides normal humans. And i posted a feat of her failing to cut someone weaker than Thanos.

All my points and arguments have been backed up by feats with videos.
All your rebuttals are personal opinions and assumptions as usual.
You haven't posted shit as far as feats or evidence to back up your claims.

Originally posted by h1a8
As long as WW wins you can have anything you want.

You sure?

Tell you what. You admit that you're a hypocrite and that you apply a double standard to serve your own bias and I'll declare to everyone here that Wonder Woman wins. How about that?

Originally posted by Inhuman

[b]2:00 - Gamora fails to cut Thanos with 2 strikes to his face and 2 strikes to his arm. No damage. and this further shows you cannot just cut Thanos's head off.
[/B]

I meant Nebula

Originally posted by h1a8
How could it be trolling after the fact it was proven? You are stupid.

That wasn't anyone's standard. If you could have strongly articulated how Cap could have attempted to tackle Ozy to the ground without showing him doing it is also acceptable. But this is most likely impossible in that case (as with any pure striker), so you pretty much had to give a scene.

You keep changing your argument. Here is what I was responding to "2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character."

If that is true why did you demand nib provide proof his tactic was in character for Captain America?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You keep changing your argument. Here is what I was responding to "2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character."

If that is true why did you demand nib provide proof his tactic was in character for Captain America?

Because pure strikers don't tackle ever. They would die first. Therefore, he HAD TO GIVE A SCENE.

Originally posted by h1a8
Because pure strikers don't tackle ever. They would die first. Therefore, he HAD TO GIVE A SCENE.

So now you're changing your stance again, we're back to people having to prove something is in character, as opposed to what you said earlier which was "2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character.". BTW, Captain America is not a pure striker so that weak excuse doesn't even apply.

You really do love using double standards.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So now you're changing your stance again, we're back to people having to prove something is in character, as opposed to what you said earlier which was "2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character.". BTW, Captain America is not a pure striker so that weak excuse doesn't even apply.

You really do love using double standards.

How would he argue that Cap would try to tackle Ozy without given any scenes to support his claim?

There is no double standard. Pure strikers in movies NEVER tackle someone to the ground and submit them (MMA stuff),
It's not rare for someone who slices off limbs to attempt to behead. There is a fine difference.

The same way you argued that Wonder Woman would cut off Thanos' head without providing any scenes where she actually does that to anybody. Or are you the only one that's allowed to make arguments without providing proof?

Only, Captain America isn't a pure striker so that weak excuse doesn't even apply.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The same way you argued that Wonder Woman would cut off Thanos' head without providing any scenes where she actually does that to anybody. Or are you the only one that's allowed to make arguments without providing proof?

Only, Captain America isn't a pure striker so that weak excuse doesn't even apply.

I thought Cap was a pure striker when I first argued it was OOC. In hindsight it's clear that he isn't.
There is no double standard. Pure strikers in movies NEVER tackle someone to the ground and submit them (MMA stuff),
It's not rare at all for someone who slices off limbs to attempt to behead. There is a fine difference.

Not everything needs a scene to prove character. Only idiots can't see the difference. Mr. Myagi isn't going to do any brazillian ju-jitsu tackling. Bulleyes will throw basically anything he wasn't shown to throw that's available to him in a forum fight.

Watch Silent ignore this post and act like it is irrelevant and restate dumb shit.

If that were true, you would have acknowledged that my 10 examples showcased that Captain America was not a pure striker and thus specific feats weren't needed. However you claimed my examples didn't prove anything. Thus your current excuse is obviously a lie.

So let's try again and this time be honest, why the double standard?

Originally posted by Silent Master
If that were true, you would have acknowledged that my 10 examples showcased that Captain America was not a pure striker and thus specific feats weren't needed. However you claimed my examples didn't prove anything. Thus your current excuse is obviously a lie.

So let's try again and this time be honest, why the double standard?

Originally posted by Silent Master

If that is true why did you demand nib provide proof his tactic was in character for Captain America?

And the feats you gave doesn't prove propensity to tackle someone to the ground. That's something that MMA fighters do, not traditional martial artists in movies. Bruce Lee in Return of the Dragon grappled with Chuck Norris. But we all know that the character would never tackle someone to the ground. Grappling with someone doesn't imply the propensity to tackling someone to the ground as in MMA.

According to you the only reason you demanded proof is that you thought Captain America was a pure Striker, my examples conclusively proved that he was not a pure Striker, therefore if you were being honest you would have acknowledged that fact and rescinded your demand for proof, however that is not what you did. You claimed my examples didn't prove anything. When they clearly did.