Order by Durability

Originally posted by FrothByte
Show me the clip where you see particles slightly bigger than a bullet travelling slower than a bullet.

Originally posted by h1a8
i posted the clip with the time stamp. Also You don't get to pick and choose which arguments to rebut and which to ignore.
Real explosions (explosives) send objects far more massive than a bullet to speeds of that of a bullet. That is what you should be focusing on.

You posted a clip and a timestamp that showed nothing like you claimed. In other words, you just proved that you're making stuff up.

Originally posted by FrothByte
You posted a clip and a timestamp that showed nothing like you claimed. In other words, you just proved that you're making stuff up.

Originally posted by h1a8
He was shown shot, not being shot. Are you stupid or something?
Thor was not shown shot or being shot at all. Therefore there is no proof that he was.

Post the clip where Quicksilver is shown being shot.

Originally posted by h1a8
I cant help it if you are blind. But again, my argument still stands.

Ah, in other words your tactic is to make stuff up, post a clip that doesn't back up your claim, then just accuse other people of being blind because they can't see what you clearly just made up.

You know, someone who actually knew they were right would probably take the time to post screenshots to prove they were right. That you so easily resort to insults shows that you yourself know you're making stuff up.

Your argument can't "stand" when it's completely fabricated from thin air.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ah, in other words your tactic is to make stuff up, post a clip that doesn't back up your claim, then just accuse other people of being blind because they can't see what you clearly just made up.

You know, someone who actually knew they were right would probably take the time to post screenshots to prove they were right. That you so easily resort to insults shows that you yourself know you're making stuff up.

Your argument can't "stand" when it's completely fabricated from thin air.

Im not getting into your little game. Either argue the case or don't. Derailing the thread with irrelevant stuff is not winning a debate.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Post the clip where Quicksilver is shown being shot.

I guess you don't understand English.

Originally posted by h1a8
Im not getting into your little game. Either argue the case or don't. Derailing the thread with irrelevant stuff is not winning a debate.

I argued my case. Nowhere did you prove that the debris (near bullet size) from the Sokovia explosion were traveling slower than a bullet.

I'm calling you out as a liar. So, prove me wrong.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I argued my case. Nowhere did you prove that the debris (near bullet size) from the Sokovia explosion were traveling slower than a bullet.

I'm calling you out as a liar. So, prove me wrong.

That's not the only argument on the table. Defeating that doesn't defeat my other arguments.

I'm not going to waste energy on something that if I prove the size still won't end the argument.
That's a complete waste.

I rather focus on how it is obvious th3 xplosions is less powerful than a real one with actual explosives.

Originally posted by h1a8
I guess you don't understand English.

IOW, you can't provide proof. that's what I thought.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you can't provide proof. that's what I thought.

I accept that you hold that biased opinion, despite having zero proof.

Originally posted by h1a8
That's not the only argument on the table. Defeating that doesn't defeat my other arguments.

I'm not going to waste energy on something that if I prove the size still won't end the argument.
That's a complete waste.

I rather focus on how it is obvious th3 xplosions is less powerful than a real one with actual explosives.

It doesn't matter that you have other arguments if you're caught lying and making up arguments.

For example, you say the explosion is obviously less powerful when it was shown powerful enough to destroy an entire city. So you're clearly making stuff up.

Your opinion <<<< on-screen feats.

Originally posted by FrothByte
It doesn't matter that you have other arguments if you're caught lying and making up arguments.

For example, you say the explosion is obviously less powerful when it was shown powerful enough to destroy an entire city. So you're clearly making stuff up.

Your opinion <<<< on-screen feats.

Being caught lying has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a different argument.
The devil himself can tell the truth once in a while. You don't believe the argument based off the character of the person who delivers it, you believe the argument based off the logic and soundness of it. It's the argument, not the person.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I accept that you hold that biased opinion, despite having zero proof.

Your attempt to shift the burden just proves you can't back up your claim.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your attempt to shift the burden just proves you can't back up your claim.

So if he doesn't have feats to support it then he isn't. Simple.

Your claim is that Thor is vulnerable to aircraft bullets despite having feats that are >>>>> Aircraft bullets, thus the burden is on you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your claim is that Thor is vulnerable to aircraft bullets despite having feats that are >>>>> Aircraft bullets, thus the burden is on you.

If Thor has feats >>> aircraft bullets then he is aircraft bullet resistant.
The problem is that he doesn't have such feats.

Of course he does and they've been listed, you just claimed they were weak, another claim that you provided no proof for.