MCU Namor vs. MCU Abomination

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except youre making up that he cant lift 100tons.

Director also wrote the film.

Director is correct. You are wrong. Now quit trolling me.

Then Abom dies.

1. He never exerted more than 50 tons of force. Here in kmc he can't because he has no feats of doing so.

2. He used extreme effort in some of his feats and produced less than 100 tons of force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons of force while using all one's might.

Therefore, either Hulk and Thor are weak (less than 100 toners) or director is wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. He never exerted more than 50 tons of force. Here in kmc he can't because he has no feats of doing so.

That's not the same as he can't.

What you mean is he doesn't have the showings/feats to prove he can.

Originally posted by h1a8
2. He used extreme effort in some of his feats and produced less than 100 tons of force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons of force while using all one's might.

You're not referring me to a single instance. This is terrible debating.

Originally posted by h1a8
Therefore, either Hulk and Thor are weak (less than 100 toners) or director is wrong.

Completely illogical. And clearly trolling.

Edit: And as usual highlighting your double standards with "writer's intentions", when what you actually mean is "whatever h1a8 decides to believe".

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's not the same as he can't.

What you mean is he doesn't have the showings/feats to prove he can.

You're not referring me to a single instance. This is terrible debating.

Completely illogical. And clearly trolling.

Edit: And as usual highlighting your double standards with "writer's intentions", when what you actually mean is "whatever h1a8 decides to believe".

What double standards? There is no law of the excluded middle. Either something is true or it isn't. It can't be true and not true at the same time. There would be no point of debating if that rule can be broken. What happens onscreen >>>> writer's intent when they both contradict each other.
I accepted that Thor can withstand aircraft bullets provided his other feats despite writer's intent that he can't.
So there is no double standard. I favored feats over intent.

Namor exerted full might and yield less than 50 tons force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons.

Originally posted by h1a8
Not having the feats is equivalent to someone can't here on kmc.
If Namor doesn't have feats above 50 tons then he can't exert more than 50 tons in a forum fight. It's always been that way. Nothing new. We argue by feats.

Nope, it just means lacking evidence. There is such a thing as power scaling however.

It's brand new for you. As all your fantasy arguments depend on made up writer's intent. But as soon as you get ACTUAL Writer's intent clarified, which doesn't suit your bias, you IGNORE it.

Ridiculous double standards.

Originally posted by h1a8
His facial expressions when he punched M'Baku, slung some Wakanda ships, etc showed that he was using extreme effort (more than 90% of his might).

Lol completely unquantifiable argument.

Originally posted by h1a8
What double standards?

See above hypocrite.

Originally posted by h1a8
There is no law of the excluded middle. Either something is true or it isn't. It can't be true and not true at the same time. There would be no point of debating if that rule can be broken. What happens onscreen >>>> writer's intent when they both contradict each other.
I accepted that Thor can withstand aircraft bullets provided his other feats despite writer's intent that he can't.
So there is no double standard. I favored feats over intent.

Namor exerted full might and yield less than 50 tons force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons.

Logical fallacy.

Nothing new to address here.

Namor wins.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Nope, it just means lacking evidence. There is such a thing as power scaling however.

It's brand new for you. As all your fantasy arguments depend on made up writer's intent. But as soon as you get ACTUAL Writer's intent clarified, which doesn't suit your bias, you IGNORE it.

Ridiculous double standards.

Lol completely unquantifiable argument.

See above hypocrite.

Logical fallacy.

Nothing new to address here.

Namor wins.

1. Namor didn't fight anyone to power scale from. We go by onscreen feats. Now you can troll and break the rules if you want.

2. I stated that if writer's intent contradicts onscreen evidence then we go by onscreen evidence. I did this for Thor, I ruled in favor of onscreen evidence over writer's intent. Therefore, there is no double standard. If you disagree then clearly show where I currently favor writer's intent over onscreen evidence, if the two contradict each other.

3. Stating that Something is a logical fallacy Doesn't mean it is. You have to either give what type of fallacy or show directly why the statement is a fallacy. Otherwise your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal.

Namor gets stomped here if Abom is as strong as Hulk.
If Abom is significantly weaker than Hulk then Namor wins.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Namor didn't fight anyone to power scale from. We go by onscreen feats. Now you can troll and break the rules if you want.

2. I stated that if writer's intent contradicts onscreen evidence then we go by onscreen evidence. I did this for Thor, I ruled in favor of onscreen evidence over writer's intent. Therefore, there is no double standard. If you disagree then clearly show where I currently favor writer's intent over onscreen evidence, if the two contradict each other.

3. Stating that Something is a logical fallacy Doesn't mean it is. You have to either give what type of fallacy or show directly why the statement is a fallacy. Otherwise your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal.

Namor gets stomped here if Abom is as strong as Hulk.
If Abom is significantly weaker than Hulk then Namor wins.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
H1 with his interpretation of writer's intent can be hilariously flawed 😂

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Namor didn't fight anyone to power scale from. We go by onscreen feats. Now you can troll and break the rules if you want.

It's not breaking any rules to quote the director. Jeez quit making idiotic assertions.

Originally posted by h1a8
2. I stated that if writer's intent contradicts onscreen evidence then we go by onscreen evidence. I did this for Thor, I ruled in favor of onscreen evidence over writer's intent. Therefore, there is no double standard. If you disagree then clearly show where I currently favor writer's intent over onscreen evidence, if the two contradict each other.

IOW you decided to ignore writers intent when it didn't suit your bias.

Originally posted by h1a8
3. Stating that Something is a logical fallacy Doesn't mean it is. You have to either give what type of fallacy or show directly why the statement is a fallacy. Otherwise your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal.

I don't need to repeat myself. Your logical fallacy stands.

Originally posted by h1a8
Namor gets stomped here if Abom is as strong as Hulk.
If Abom is significantly weaker than Hulk then Namor wins.

Yes Namor wins. His implied strength levels with a vibranium spear and flight and speed is too much for Abom.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85

Yep.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It's not breaking any rules to quote the director. Jeez quit making idiotic assertions.

IOW you decided to ignore writers intent when it didn't suit your bias.

I don't need to repeat myself. Your logical fallacy stands.

Yes Namor wins. His implied strength levels with a vibranium spear and flight and speed is too much for Abom.

Yep.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
I agree with you on Abom getting wrecked, but I don't think what the director said really stands here. You know how focused this forum is on shown feats only. Namor didn't show himself to be anywhere near a 100 tonner.

Just calling out h1a8 as he's always going on about "writer's intention" on this same forum, and he completely makes up what the writers intentions were.

Then when the director/writer actually makes a statement (one which also has dialogue in the movie suggesting the same) he ignores it because it doesn't suit his bias.

Oh he'll gloss over it, and try to ignore it....

But again, consider this as a feat as it were, of his interpretation abilities.

Like with Thanos lifting a finger being proof of writer's intent that he needs his chair to open portals.

Or when he misunderstood Stoic's post, and tried to argue writer's intent. Both times, glaringly wrong; showing his ability to interpret writer's intent os suspect, and is twisted for his own ends.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It's not breaking any rules to quote the director. Jeez quit making idiotic assertions.

IOW you decided to ignore writers intent when it didn't suit your bias.

I don't need to repeat myself. Your logical fallacy stands.

Yes Namor wins. His implied strength levels with a vibranium spear and flight and speed is too much for Abom.

Yep.

I don't use writer's intent when it suits me. If that was the case then Thor is not aircraft bulletproof due to writer's intent. That suits me well. But the fact was I had to accept that he is resistant against such bullets due to feats.
That's the ONLY situation where I talked about writers intent in my favor. But it didn't go in my favor, did it?

So what are you talking about? Give me one example where I ruled for writers intent over onscreen evidence. Then you would have a point.

You never pointed out the logical fallacy to begin with. So how would you be repeating yourself?

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't use writer's intent when it suits me. If that was the case then Thor is not aircraft bulletproof due to writer's intent. That suits me well. But the fact was I had to accept that he is resistant against such bullets due to feats.
That's the ONLY situation where I talked about writers intent in my favor. But it didn't go in my favor, did it?

So what are you talking about? Give me one example where I ruled for writers intent over onscreen evidence. Then you would have a point.

You never pointed out the logical fallacy to begin with. So how would you be repeating yourself?

How about with Stoic's post? When you asserted your position was inarguable, even after Stoic had clarified?

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't use writer's intent when it suits me. If that was the case then Thor is not aircraft bulletproof due to writer's intent. That suits me well. But the fact was I had to accept that he is resistant against such bullets due to feats.
That's the ONLY situation where I talked about writers intent in my favor. But it didn't go in my favor, did it?

So what are you talking about? Give me one example where I ruled for writers intent over onscreen evidence. Then you would have a point.

You never pointed out the logical fallacy to begin with. So how would you be repeating yourself?

Again you're making up it was writer's intent to say that Thor isn't bullet proof. Yet you OUTRIGHT DENY Actual Statements from the writers.

So "writer's intent" as you use it is 100% about your bias and nothing to do with objective debating. You literally just make it up.

As for feats, yes we go by Onscreen Feats here, as that is Objective. However just because someone hasn't done a feat doesn't mean they can't.

For example, Shazam hasn't lifted anything huge yet, even though Black Adam has, that doesn't mean Shazam can't, just that further proof is needed. Although logic would state BA is unlikely to be 100x stronger than Shazam when the source of their powers is the same.

And honestly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up movie dialogue and/or director's commentary to back up an argument. What is total BS is when you yourself make up what writer's intention is.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Just calling out h1a8 as he's always going on about "writer's intention" on this same forum, and he completely makes up what the writers intentions were.

Then when the director/writer actually makes a statement (one which also has dialogue in the movie suggesting the same) he ignores it because it doesn't suit his bias.

Continue 👆

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
How about with Stoic's post? When you asserted your position was inarguable, even after Stoic had clarified?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Again you're making up it was writer's intent to say that Thor isn't bullet proof. Yet you OUTRIGHT DENY Actual Statements from the writers.

So "writer's intent" as you use it is 100% about your bias and nothing to do with objective debating. You literally just make it up.

As for feats, yes we go by Onscreen Feats here, as that is Objective. However just because someone hasn't done a feat doesn't mean they can't.

For example, Shazam hasn't lifted anything huge yet, even though Black Adam has, that doesn't mean Shazam can't, just that further proof is needed. Although logic would state BA is unlikely to be 100x stronger than Shazam when the source of their powers is the same.

And honestly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up movie dialogue and/or director's commentary to back up an argument. What is total BS is when you yourself make up what writer's intention is.

How am I making up writer's intent?
Why would writer mislead the audience in getting us to think Thor will be significantly injured from such bullets when he wouldn't?
Onscreen showings >>>> what a writers states.
Simple logic.

Kmc rules are not about what writers think. They are about feats.
Where were you when DS was arguing that Tyrant has no form of FTL travel?

Shazam is not as strong as BA due to lack of feats. Power source are different from BA. Even if writer states they have the exact same strength then they don't on kmc due to feat determines strength.

Originally posted by h1a8
How am I making up writer's intent?

With your own very very subjective assertions as seen here:

Originally posted by h1a8
Why would writer mislead the audience in getting us to think Thor will be significantly injured from such bullets when he wouldn't?

It's not for you to answer this question with your own very biased assumption, and then expect everyone else to accept it as "writer's intention."

Writers intention isn't whatever you imagine it to be. We debate here with objective facts.

Originally posted by h1a8
Onscreen showings >>>> what a writers states.

Simple logic.

Yes, On screen showings. Not your very very subjective interpretation like going off face expressions.

Originally posted by h1a8
Kmc rules are not about what writers think.

You should have thought of that before you harped on about writer's intentions in almost every debate you've participated in for years. Then only chose to accept KMC rules when the writers made it clear they disagree with you.

Originally posted by h1a8
They are about feats.
Where were you when DS was arguing that Tyrant has no form of FTL travel?

Irrelevant.

Originally posted by h1a8
Shazam is not as strong as BA due to lack of feats. Power source are different from BA. Even if writer states they have the exact same strength then they don't on kmc due to feat determines strength.

Logical fallacy.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
With your own very very subjective assertions as seen here:

It's not for you to answer this question with your own very biased assumption, and then expect everyone else to accept it as "writer's intention."

Writers intention isn't whatever you imagine it to be. We debate here with objective facts.

Yes, On screen showings. Not your very very subjective interpretation like going off face expressions.

You should have thought of that before you harped on about writer's intentions in almost every debate you've participated in for years. Then only chose to accept KMC rules when the writers made it clear they disagree with you.

Irrelevant.

Logical fallacy.

Namor with his vibranium spear will poke Abom full of holes. But without it he's not beating Abom. Namor was strong but not at Abom or Hulk's level.

Remember that M'Baku was able to survive a full punch from Namor. I don't think he would have been able to survive a full punch from Hulk or Abom, even with his armor.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Namor with his vibranium spear will poke Abom full of holes. But without it he's not beating Abom. Namor was strong but not at Abom or Hulk's level.

Remember that M'Baku was able to survive a full punch from Namor. I don't think he would have been able to survive a full punch from Hulk or Abom, even with his armor.