Thor [current] vs Thanos

Originally posted by Psychotron
Hulk won, he didn't cheat in some way, but it was because Thanos arrogantly turned his back on him after he snapped Hulk's neck and Hulk had help from Colleen with the mind stone at the end. In other words, Thanos didn't fight at his best, didn't fight smart and Hulk had some help, so this fight is not a conclusive victory for Hulk.

Thanos was out of it by the time Colleen got to him. He couldn't even defend himself after the Hulk punch. Hulk was still at 100% while Thanos was helpless. All Hulk had to do was press his attack after that since Thanos was barely able to stand. If he couldn't defend himself against her, he stand zero chances at fighting Hulk any longer.

Thats still a pretty decent feat for Hulk, any way you try to slice it, imo.

But, I do feel the need to mention how god awful the writing in that issue is.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Hulk won, he didn't cheat in some way, but it was because Thanos arrogantly turned his back on him after he snapped Hulk's neck and Hulk had help from Colleen with the mind stone at the end. In other words, Thanos didn't fight at his best, didn't fight smart and Hulk had some help, so this fight is not a conclusive victory for Hulk.

Originally posted by Smurph
Ya, and I (informally? I guess?) disagreed.

Tu quoque is fallacious because an attack on the person is not an attack on the argument. It's just a specific kind of ad hominem. But Carver was just arguing double standards in how people size up feats. Not the same thing.

I'm not splitting hairs about strict examples. Fallacy categories are dumb internet jargon; logic either flows or it doesn't. It's just that the logic problem that "tu quoque" is short for, doesn't apply. If it did, it would be a fallacy every time somebody points out Carver's double standards.

You are splitting hairs. "Double standards" is synonymous with hypocrisy, yes?

Conceptualized a different way:

- "Hulk beat Thanos by punching him in the back."

- "Yes, but you use similar feats for Superman's fights."

- "Eh? No I don't."

- *spergs*

Originally posted by carver9
Thanos was out of it by the time Colleen got to him. He couldn't even defend himself after the Hulk punch. Hulk was still at 100% while Thanos was helpless. All Hulk had to do was press his attack after that since Thanos was barely able to stand. If he couldn't defend himself against her, he stand zero chances at fighting Hulk any longer.

Considering that Thanos was forming coherent sentences, no he wasn't out of it. The fact of the matter is that Colleen's blade is what knocked out Thanos. Hulk punched an already KO'd Thanos to keep him down longer. The other fact is that Hulk only got a chance to hit Thanos from behind because Thanos walked away after overpowering the Hulk and snapping his neck. You talk about Thanos being unable to defend himself after Hulk hit him from behind but what would have happened if Thanos decided to continue pummeling Hulk after he had snapped his neck?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Note how carv's post ignores your point about Thanos arrogantly turning his back on Hulk....

Not exactly a surprise.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Considering that Thanos was forming coherent sentences, no he wasn't out of it. The fact of the matter is that Colleen's blade is what knocked out Thanos. Hulk punched an already KO'd Thanos to keep him down longer. The other fact is that Hulk only got a chance to hit Thanos from behind because Thanos walked away after overpowering the Hulk and snapping his neck. You talk about Thanos being unable to defend himself after Hulk hit him from behind but what would have happened if Thanos decided to continue pummeling Hulk after he had snapped his neck?

Not exactly a surprise.

Why didn't he defend himself against someone that's walking up to him with a glowing blade?

Hulk would've healed if Thanos pressed his attack just like he healed from his neck being broken. Again, Hulk was fresh after all of this. Thanos blasted, punched, and even tried to mind control Hulk and all of that did absolutely nothing to him. What did you think Thanos could've done after that?

Originally posted by carver9
Thanos was out of it by the time Colleen got to him. He couldn't even defend himself after the Hulk punch. Hulk was still at 100% while Thanos was helpless. All Hulk had to do was press his attack after that since Thanos was barely able to stand. If he couldn't defend himself against her, he stand zero chances at fighting Hulk any longer.

Hulk's ability to stun Thanos is an impressive feat, especially considering the strength required to do so, even from behind. This moment definitely stands as a notable achievement for Hulk, useful for future debates about his power.

That being said, under Full Capacity rules, Thanos has many advantages: his shields, Bfr options, magic, telepathy, and the fact that he wouldn't necessarily expose his back. In a full fight, Hulk is unlikely to defeat Thanos with these factors in play.

Additionally, it's common in battles for characters to recover from being stunned and return to the fight. Thanos, who was still able to speak clearly after the hit, had the chance to bounce back. It's possible, though, that if Hulk had pressed harder, he might have won on his own, but that remains inconclusive.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Thanos attempt to use mind control on Hulk, which led to Hulk biting his forearm? If so, the Mind Stone could have played a role in that moment.

H1, stop responding to me.

Originally posted by batdude123
You are splitting hairs. "Double standards" is synonymous with hypocrisy, yes?

Conceptualized a different way:

- "Hulk beat Thanos by punching him in the back."

- "Yes, [B]but you use similar feats for Superman's fights."

- "Eh? No I don't."

- *spergs* [/B]

It's not a fallacy to argue "hypocrisy" when it's about, say, pointing out that someone applies one definition of PIS for Hulk and another for Superman. Gotta be some consistency in how we interpret the comics and apply the rules.

The fallacy is about my friend telling me to not text and drive and I point out that they're on their phone all the time while they drive. The fallacy is that the apparent hypocrisy has no relationship to the actual argument. Their dangerous driving doesn't vindicate my dangerous driving.

Entirely different from arguing that a person is applying a double standard in a comic debate. It's not fallacious to point out that someone cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by carver9
Why didn't he defend himself against someone that's walking up to him with a glowing blade?

Hulk would've healed if Thanos pressed his attack just like he healed from his neck being broken. Again, Hulk was fresh after all of this. Thanos blasted, punched, and even tried to mind control Hulk and all of that did absolutely nothing to him. What did you think Thanos could've done after that?

I didn't say Thanos was unhurt, but he wasn't fully out of it. He probably didn't expect that he'd get stabbed by a mind stone-infused blade either.

He would have just healed after Thanos had just broken his neck and continued to beat him down? Even you don't believe this. The fact is that Thanos was overpowering the Hulk until he turned his back on him, allowing Banner to land a cheap shot from behind and Colleen to finish him. It's simply not a clean victory.

What if Thanos just kept...breaking his neck, instead of dropping him and walking away, showing his vulnerable ass cheeks to Hulk?

Hulk couldn't stop him snapping his neck the first time, it is inconclusive to say he could stop Thanos the second, third, fourth, fifth time etc.

Originally posted by Psychotron
I didn't say Thanos was unhurt, but he wasn't fully out of it. He probably didn't expect that he'd get stabbed by a mind stone-infused blade either.

He would have just healed after Thanos had just broken his neck and continued to beat him down? Even you don't believe this. The fact is that Thanos was overpowering the Hulk until he turned his back on him, allowing Banner to land a cheap shot from behind and Colleen to finish him. It's simply not a clean victory.

He had to have been hurt BADLY, to see a person with their blade out approaching him and not being able to do anything.

Yes, lol, he would've healed. He withstood everything Thanos threw at him, and healed his neck injury nigh instantly. Why wouldn't he have been able to defend himself l?

Maybe we looked at a completely different fight. Thanos didn't overpower Hulk, at all. Every punch Hulk hit Thanos with drew blood.

It's clean imo.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
What if Thanos just kept...breaking his neck, instead of dropping him and walking away, showing his vulnerable ass cheeks to Hulk?

Hulk couldn't stop him snapping his neck the first time, it is inconclusive to say he could stop Thanos the second, third, fourth, fifth time etc.

Continue breaking the guy neck who was able to lift his arm up and easily snap his neck back in place? Thanos would probably get punched in the face again.

Originally posted by carver9
Continue breaking the guy neck who was able to lift his arm up and easily snap his neck back in place? Thanos would probably get punched in the face again.

Inconclusive. You cannot prove it either way.

Thanos didn't overpower Hulk at all? So Hulk ALLOWED him to break his neck? I see.

Also:

Originally posted by carver9
The same time we established via darksaint saying Superman is omnipotent.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I did? where?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Carver, hello!

Originally posted by carver9
H1, stop responding to me because your arguments are too strong. Im scared of you. I can manage everyone else.

Now I see. I get it now lol

Originally posted by Smurph
That's not splitting hairs, it's just categorically incorrect.

It's not a fallacy to argue "hypocrisy" when it's about, say, pointing out that someone applies one definition of PIS for Hulk and another for Superman. Gotta be some consistency in how we interpret the comics and apply the rules.

The fallacy is about my friend telling me to not text and drive and I point out that they're on their phone all the time while they drive. The fallacy is that the apparent hypocrisy has no relationship to the actual argument. Their dangerous driving doesn't vindicate my dangerous driving.

Entirely different from arguing that a person is applying a double standard in a comic debate. It's not fallacious to point out that someone cant have it both ways.

It's absolutely fallacious if it's brought up as justification for why we should accept Hulk's feat. Superman doing whatever the f*ck has no relationship to h1's claim of it not being a fair fight.

Originally posted by h1a8
I know I purposely troll people to get on their nerves. I smile behind my laptop at people anger and stress at my posts. They fall for it every single time. I'm trying to bate Carver, but he's not falling for it. Such a smart guy.

I know.

Originally posted by batdude123
It's absolutely fallacious if it's brought up as justification for why we should accept Hulk's feat. Superman doing whatever the f*ck has no relationship to h1's claim of it not being a fair fight.

H1 said he would just throw Superman under the bus if the analogy held water. That's one answer.

Originally posted by carver9
I know.

"Bate"?

Like......masturbate???

Bate like Patrick Bateman.