Originally posted by cdtmA no limits fallacy is an argument that no limit exists because there’s no evidence of one. It’s just a form of challenging someone to prove a negative.
Sure it is.If your stance is to argue in comic books training can make up any difference in raw speed, I'd call that the definition of a no limits fallacy.
Stilt does the same thing when he argues Matt Murdoch can credibly beat up Namor, because of his skills. Yeah, it does happen in comics, doesn't mean it's because of training, as opposed to garden variety PIS.
Nobody’s taking the position that Daredevil can outrace Flash.
On the other hand, there is actual evidence of how skill can provide a much bigger boost in comics than it would IRL: Val Armorr (as you said), and more relevant, Wonder Woman being the 7th fastest runner in DC due to her skill edge.
There’s evidence, so there’s no fallacy.