Thanos vs. WW, Aquaman and Cyborg

Originally posted by h1a8
2. Is loaded as Cap was implied grappling as stated in the post. I never used the term "pure". So Nib basically created a strawman with the question and hence a loaded question. Cap is primarily a striker as with some MMA fighters. Now I originally stated that Cap would solely punch or kick in reply to Nib's original ground and pound argument. But after it was mentioned that Cap has grappled then I never argued that Cap would solely punch or kick anymore. My argument became Cap tackling (which is in line with the original Comedian argument).

Originally posted by Silent Master
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proved that he was not a pure Striker, therefore if you were being honest you would have acknowledged that fact and rescinded your demand for proof, however that is not what you did.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.

Yes you showed that Cap wasn't a pure striker but still no propensity for tackling someone to the ground as Nib stated Cap WILL DO IN A FORUM FIGHT.

So basically you were arguing that if Cap had grappled then HE WILL TRY TO TACKLE SOMEONE to the ground. This is faulty logic. I have given several examples of movie fighters grappling but will never attempt to tackle someone to the ground. Hell I've seen a MMA champion (former champ in kickboxing) with grappling and ground fighting skills NEVER attempt to tackle someone to the ground. And that's real life, not movies.

Originally posted by Nibedicus

2. Is loaded as Cap was implied grappling as stated in the post. I never used the term "pure". So Nib basically created a strawman with the question and hence a loaded question. Cap is primarily a striker as with some MMA fighters. Now I originally stated that Cap would solely punch or kick in reply to Nib's original ground and pound argument. But after it was mentioned that Cap has grappled then I never argued that Cap would solely punch or kick anymore. My argument became Cap tackling (which is in line with the original Comedian argument).

👆
This post shows the story. Nothing wrong with anything I said. I originally thought Cap would solely kick and punch (definition of pure striker).
Silent comes in and shows Cap grappling which does not translate into Cap WILL ATTEMPT to tackle to the ground for the reasons I gave. So yes I didn't argue that Cap would solely kick and punch anymore. But that doesn't mean he will tackle either. It simply means that he is willing to grapple given the opportunity.

Claims thart he never used the term “pure”. Says that I created a strawman by including the word “pure”. Now claims that he thought Cap was a pure striker thus is why he made such an argument.

Admits that he knew Cap could grapple but STILL required that we show Cap tackling.

But then:

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

H1 ladies and gentlemen!

/slowclap

You’re starting to lose track on all the lies you are telling you’re running out of room to spin your story here. Sloppy.

But I enjoy watching the squirming you’re doing. 😂

Originally posted by h1a8
At least you admit that you were wrong about the Nib thing. It was always about you.

Yes you showed that Cap wasn't a pure striker but still no propensity for tackling someone to the ground as Nib stated Cap WILL DO IN A FORUM FIGHT.

So basically you were arguing that if Cap had grappled then HE WILL TRY TO TACKLE SOMEONE to the ground. This is faulty logic. I have given several examples of movie fighters grappling but will never attempt to tackle someone to the ground. Hell I've seen a MMA champion (former champ in kickboxing) with grappling and ground fighting skills NEVER attempt to tackle someone to the ground. And that's real life, not movies.

Your trying to change the rules again, your original claim was that you only asked Nib for proof because you thought Cap was a pure striker. well, that is obviously not true as I had already proven that Cap wasn't a pure striker before you asked Nib for proof.

So, Why did you demand Nib provide proof?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Claims thart he never used the term “pure”. Says that I created a strawman by including the word “pure”. Now claims that he thought Cap was a pure striker thus is why he made such an argument.

Admits that he knew Cap could grapple but STILL required that we show Cap tackling.

But then:

H1 ladies and gentlemen!

/slowclap

You’re starting to lose track on all the lies you are telling you’re running out of room to spin your story here. Sloppy.

But I enjoy watching the squirming you’re doing. 😂

As far as articulation, Notice the "impossible" part. I have said multiple times that it is damn near impossible. You can TRY to articulate it but in this case I'm afraid it won't fly.

^ Whenever someone asks h1 a question where his hypocrisy is highlighted, he declares it a "loaded question" then refuses to answer.

Before this gets derailed further. Let's bring it back to the most important point.

]Originally posted by h1a8
2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character.

If this is true, why did you demand Nib provide proof of Cap performing a specific tactic?

^ man! Such a liar this kid is.

😂

Claims I strawmanned him by stating “pure striker” then claims he’s always believed that Cap was a pure striker. Realizes that he’s now busted, tries to red herring by diverting discussion to different meanings of “loaded”.

So w/c is it h1, did I strawman you by claiming “pure striker” or did you always believe that Cap was a “pure striker”?

Either way, you’re a liar so it’s all good to me. 😂

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your trying to change the rules again, your original claim was that you only asked Nib for proof because you thought Cap was a pure striker. well, that is obviously not true as I had already proven that Cap wasn't a pure striker before you asked Nib for proof.

So, Why did you demand Nib provide proof?

No I ask NIB for proof when 0 evidence was given.
You provided faulty evidence.
I dont recall asking Nib for anything since. I basically been telling you that your examples are faulty.

Regardless of what was said, the standard was ALWAYS to prove that Cap has the propensity to tackle. He showed it and you didn't.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
^ man! Such a liar this kid is.

😂

Claims I strawmanned him by stating “pure striker” then claims he’s always believed that Cap was a pure striker. Realizes that he’s now busted, tries to red herring by diverting discussion to different meanings of “loaded”.

So w/c is it h1, did I strawman you by claiming “pure striker” or did you always believe that Cap was a “pure striker”?

Either way, you’re a liar so it’s all good to me. 😂

Bad reading comprehension. The quote shows why it was loaded. You are just picking out the "pure" and ignoring the rest.

Originally posted by h1a8
No I ask NIB for proof when 0 evidence was given.
You provided faulty evidence.
I dont recall asking Nib for anything since. I basically been telling you that your examples are faulty.

Regardless of what was said, the standard was ALWAYS to prove that Cap has the propensity to tackle. He showed it and you didn't.

If this is true.

Originally posted by h1a8
2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character.

Then why did you demand specific feats from Nib?

Originally posted by FrothByte
^ Whenever someone asks h1 a question where his hypocrisy is highlighted, he declares it a "loaded question" then refuses to answer.

When questions don't paint the whole story and leaves things out only to force a false conclusion makes them loaded.

Originally posted by h1a8
Bad reading comprehension. The quote shows why it was loaded. You are just picking out the "pure" and ignoring the rest.

The rest is irrelevant. “Loaded” is a red herring. The lie was in your claim that you always believed Cap was a “pure striker”.

Answer the question.

Did you always believe Cap was a “pure striker” or did I strawman you by stating “pure striker”? (Y/N)

Originally posted by h1a8
When questions don't paint the whole story and leaves things out only to force a false conclusion makes them loaded.

Considering the below quote, Why did you demand specific feats from Nib?

Originally posted by h1a8
2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character.

Also, obviously the “^ man! Such a liar...” above statement was aimed at h1 and not SM. SM just posted before I did.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The rest is irrelevant. “Loaded” is a red herring. The lie was in your claim that you always believed Cap was a “pure striker”.

Answer the question.

Did you always believe Cap was a “pure striker” or did I strawman you by stating “pure striker”? (Y/N)

I once thought Cap was a pure striker.
SM showed him doing some grappling.
I understood Cap to have grappled but still no propensity to tackle someone to the ground.
You ask a loaded question about whether a pure striker would perform grappling techniques. It wasnt loaded just because of the word the pure but the other reasons above and below that reason that you ignored. If I didn't state pure then it still would be loaded.

For example, you are a bad person because you deceive, insult, and troll others.

If I didn't say deceive then would you still be a bad person with the other two reasons?

Common sense

Originally posted by h1a8
I once thought Cap was a pure striker.
SM showed him doing some grappling.
I understood Cap to have grappled but still no propensity to tackle someone to the ground.
You ask a loaded question about whether a pure striker would perform grappling techniques. It wasnt loaded just because of the word the pure but the other reasons above and below that reason that you ignored. If I didn't state pure then it still would be loaded.

For example, you are a bad person because you deceive, insult, and troll others.

If I didn't say deceive then would you still be a bad person with the other two reasons?

Common sense

Given this quote.

Originally posted by h1a8
2. We don't need to see a character doing that particular action to prove its in their character.

Why did you demand Nib post specific feats?

Originally posted by h1a8
I once thought Cap was a pure striker.
SM showed him doing some grappling.
I understood Cap to have grappled but still no propensity to tackle someone to the ground.
You ask a loaded question about whether a pure striker would perform grappling techniques. It wasnt loaded just because of the word the pure but the other reasons above and below that reason that you ignored. If I didn't state pure then it still would be loaded.

For example, you are a bad person because you deceive, insult, and troll others.

If I didn't say deceive then would you still be a bad person with the other two reasons?

Common sense

Obvious stupid excuse is obvious. The term “pure” would have been irrelevant (so why mention it?) and thus there would have been no strawman.

Again, loaded is a red herring. The lie was in the “pure”.

Nice try tho. Liar-boy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Considering the below quote, Why did you demand specific feats from Nib?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Obvious stupid excuse is obvious. The term “pure” would have been irrelevant (so why mention it?) and thus there would have been no strawman.

Again, loaded is a red herring. The lie was in the “pure”.

Nice try tho. Liar-boy.

You are an idiot. A person can be bad for multiple reasons. That doesn't make one of the reasons irrelevant, it just adds to the perception.

It's loaded because of A, B, and C together.