Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He has gear/gadgets that help with his grip strength. He has not shown any gadgets showing his punching strength to be increased.Next?
Lifting strength =/= grip strength
Are you saying Batman's punches rely entirely on his own strength? If so, I've won the point. If not, then his punches are amplified by an external force (evidence?), which still proves my point.
Originally posted by h1a8
Lifting strength =/= grip strengthAre you saying Batman's punches rely entirely on his own strength? If so, I've won the point. If not, then his punches are amplified by an external force (evidence?), which still proves my point.
It would help with lifting the merc, especially when he has other gadgets helping his legs etc.
He also has tricks and gadgets (note the flipping round now!) to quickly sedate mercs, which he has used. So if you assert that he is using pure strength to KO mercs, prove it.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It would help with lifting the merc, especially when he has other gadgets helping his legs etc.He also has tricks and gadgets (note the flipping round now!) to quickly sedate mercs, which he has used. So if you assert that he is using pure strength to KO mercs, prove it.
Lay off the drugs. The argument hasn't been about him knocking out the mercs for a week now. I've provided other strength feats that make that argument moot - try to keep up.
He only has what he's shown to have. Darts? Yes. Speculative gadgets we haven't seen? No. Did he use throwing darts on them? No. He relied purely on physicality. Even the dialogue reinforces this:
Catwoman: "They're not your average brawlers."
Batman: "Neither am I."
Also, what's a flipping round?
Originally posted by h1a8
Lay off the drugs. The argument hasn't been about him knocking out the mercs for a week now. I've provided other strength feats that make that argument moot - try to keep up.He only has what he's shown to have. Darts? Yes. Speculative gadgets we haven't seen? No. Did he use throwing darts on them? No. He relied purely on physicality. Even the dialogue reinforces this:
Catwoman: "They're not your average brawlers."
Batman: "Neither am I."Also, what's a flipping round?
Yep. That's what I was getting at - he isn't an average brawler. He uses gadgets and tricks.
So again, prove that he used pure strength in the feats you are using as a basis for his strength.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85You do realize we're debating a moot point, right? I've already provided other feats beyond him physically knocking out the mercs.
Yep. That's what I was getting at - he isn't an average brawler. He uses gadgets and tricks.So again, prove that he used pure strength in the feats you are using as a basis for his strength.
But for the sake of debate, let's do it.
Rule 1: Batman has no gadgets or tricks beyond what's been shown or alluded to onscreen.
He didn't use his throwing darts - he was at close range and was shown grabbing.
They didn't try to remove his helmet to reveal his identity while he was actively incapacitating them - lol.
Therefore, he relied on physical strength.
Originally posted by h1a8
You do realize we're debating a moot point, right? I've already provided other feats beyond him physically knocking out the mercs.But for the sake of debate, let's do it.
Rule 1: Batman has no gadgets or tricks beyond what's been shown or alluded to onscreen.
He didn't use his throwing darts - he was at close range and was shown grabbing.
They didn't try to remove his helmet to reveal his identity while he was actively incapacitating them - lol.
Therefore, he relied on physical strength.
So was he shown PUNCHING them out? Simple q, really.
If yes, post the proof. That's all I ask.
Originally posted by h1a8
He physically struck them. He doesn't need to be shown doing it for it to have happened - that was the writer's intent.
So it was shown that he punched them out? Post the screenshots/clips, I know you are technically aware enough to do so, so feel free to showcase them.
If you are unable to, because it was not shown, then.....
The MVF Golden Rule:
What is seen on screen is canon in these forums.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So it was shown that he punched them out? Post the screenshots/clips, I know you are technically aware enough to do so, so feel free to showcase them.If you are unable to, because it was not shown, then.....
It wasn't explicitly shown that he struck them with physical force. However, what isn't seen can still be canon if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Batman knocked them out with physical force, just as he attempted to do with Bane.
Originally posted by h1a8
It wasn't explicitly shown that he struck them with physical force. However, what isn't seen can still be canon if it can be [b]proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Batman knocked them out with physical force, just as he attempted to do with Bane. [/B]
So since Cap has never held back against a normal human, even fodder, then it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't hold back against Batroc and he was tough enough to take a number of full force hits from Cap before going down. Meaning Bane isn't strong enough to do much damage. And since Batroc is strong enough to affect Cap with his hits, he's more than strong enough to hurt Bane.
Originally posted by KingD19👆 what I was slowly getting to
So since Cap has never held back against a normal human, even fodder, then it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't hold back against Batroc and he was tough enough to take a number of full force hits from Cap before going down. Meaning Bane isn't strong enough to do much damage. And since Batroc is strong enough to affect Cap with his hits, he's more than strong enough to hurt Bane.
Originally posted by KingD19
So since Cap has never held back against a normal human, even fodder, then it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't hold back against Batroc and he was tough enough to take a number of full force hits from Cap before going down. Meaning Bane isn't strong enough to do much damage. And since Batroc is strong enough to affect Cap with his hits, he's more than strong enough to hurt Bane.
Cap fighting humans and failing to knock them out or kill them with his blows reflects his strength/striking level in those specific scenes. Strength/striking levels fluctuate in fiction due to fiction inconsistency, as writers don't always apply exact scientific thinking or maintain strict power scaling across all scenes.
It is faulty logic to equate one scene with another when fictional inconsistency is evident.
Regarding Cap vs. Batroc:
Cap never hit Batroc with enough force to bust a stone column.
A) Cap was fighting at the most typical levels he is seen fighting humans.
B) Cap has no striking feats suggesting he can bust a stone column with a punch.
Guidelines to follow
1. A combatant scales only to their highest showings - contradictory lower-end feats can't be used as valid evidence.
Example: If Cap were the combatant here, we cannot use his fights against humans as they contradict his higher-end feats.
2. When scaling a combatant off another character (ABC logic), use the opponent's average most typical portrayals, not their highest or lowest showings.
Example: We should ask, "What is Cap's typical strength/striking level when fighting humans?", and use that to determine his most probable striking level against Batroc.
Originally posted by h1a8
Cap fighting humans and failing to knock them out or kill them with his blows reflects his strength/striking level in those specific scenes. Strength/striking levels fluctuate in fiction due to [B]fiction inconsistency, as writers don't always apply exact scientific thinking or maintain strict power scaling across all scenes.It is faulty logic to equate one scene with another when fictional inconsistency is evident.
Regarding Cap vs. Batroc:
Cap never hit Batroc with enough force to bust a stone column.
A) Cap was fighting at the most typical levels he is seen fighting humans.
B) Cap has no striking feats suggesting he can bust a stone column with a punch.Guidelines to follow
1. A combatant scales only to their highest showings - contradictory lower-end feats can't be used as valid evidence.
Example: If Cap were the combatant here, we cannot use his fights against humans as they contradict his higher-end feats.
2. When scaling a combatant off another character (ABC logic), use the opponent's average most typical portrayals, not their highest or lowest showings.
Example: We should ask, "What is Cap's typical strength/striking level when fighting humans?", and use that to determine his most probable striking level against Batroc. [/B]
Batman's highest stealth showings against groups, showcasing his intelligence, has him using darts and sedatives to knock groups of mercenaries out
Batman's highest strength showings show his using gadgets to augment his gripping and lifting strength (not his punching, though).
So you have nothing to showcase him actually punching anyone out. Thanks.
Otoh, a reasonable person would assume he would use his bag of tricks when he can (as seen in his fight with Bane, and as seen with the mercs).
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Batman's highest stealth showings against groups, showcasing his intelligence, has him using darts and sedatives to knock groups of mercenaries outBatman's highest strength showings show his using gadgets to augment his gripping and lifting strength (not his punching, though).
So you have nothing to showcase him actually punching anyone out. Thanks.
Otoh, a reasonable person would assume he would use his bag of tricks when he can (as seen in his fight with Bane, and as seen with the mercs).
He used darts as long-range weapons in the first movie, coated with sedatives, but hasn't used them since. No darts were used in the mercenary scene.
He was shown lifting them with his own strength. If you argue that he used a gadget to do so, you must provide proof.
I used deduction and reasoning to prove he knocked them out with his strength. He attempted the same against Bane but failed.
Originally posted by h1a8
He used darts as long-range weapons in the first movie, coated with sedatives, but hasn't used them since. No darts were used in the mercenary scene.He was shown lifting them with his own strength. If you argue that he used a gadget to do so, you must provide proof.
I used deduction and reasoning to prove he knocked them out with his strength. He attempted the same against Bane but failed.
No he did not - he used them in Dark Knight Rises. Rewatch the film, and come back when you have. This is the second time now, stop being a troll and arguing about a film you have clearly not actually seen.
I don't - I am introducing reasonable doubt. You initially asserted he used pure strength, I am showing that actually, he has access to and has used strength augmenting equipment as part of his standard loadout (no special prep was shown).
Your deduction and reasoning is pretty shit, however, based as it is on incorrect information (him firstly NEVER using anything beyond pure strength EVER, secondly not knowing Bane actually tells him that he's weak, and thirdly, now asserting wrongly that he hasn't used them since the first film), and on assumptions without proof (when we have alternatives clearly shown).
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
No he did not - he used them in Dark Knight Rises. Rewatch the film, and come back when you have. This is the second time now, stop being a troll and arguing about a film you have clearly not actually seen.I don't - I am introducing reasonable doubt. You initially asserted he used pure strength, I am showing that actually, he has access to and has used strength augmenting equipment as part of his standard loadout (no special prep was shown).
Your deduction and reasoning is pretty shit, however, based as it is on incorrect information (him firstly NEVER using anything beyond pure strength EVER, secondly not knowing Bane actually tells him that he's weak, and thirdly, now asserting wrongly that he hasn't used them since the first film), and on assumptions without proof (when we have alternatives clearly shown).
I misspoke - it was the second movie and third movies.
It's not reasonable to believe that Batman used long-range darts to sedate the mercs when he was fighting them up close, physically grabbing them, and never attempting to use a dart on Bane - even while getting his ass beat.
It's also unreasonable to assume Batman used strength-augmenting equipment to lift the merc in the air, as the movie never showed or even hinted at such a device. He's never used equipment for that purpose. If Batman could artificially enhance his strength, that would mean he hit Bane far harder than his natural power allows, which only weakens your argument further.
A man slightly stronger than average would still be considered weak to Bane, who is clearly superhuman.
And you are wrong! On the rooftop with Catwoman, Batman is shown knocking out multiple mercs with his strength (with punches as well).
Originally posted by h1a8
Lifting strength =/= grip strengthAre you saying Batman's punches rely entirely on his own strength? If so, I've won the point. If not, then his punches are amplified by an external force (evidence?), which still proves my point.
^This is bad science again. As lifting strength is often directly affected by grip strength. Grip strength is a good measure of a person's overall health, a predictor of muscle strength and mass, bone density and nutritional status.
Originally posted by Robtard
^This is bad science again. As lifting strength is directly affected by grip strength. Grip strength is a good measure of a person's overall health, a predictor of muscle strength and mass, bone density and nutritional status.
How is it bad science to state a fact?
Grip strength ≠ lifting strength - that's a fact.
If I have a device that grips something for you, does that mean you'd suddenly be able to lift significantly more weight?
When considering only physical strength without devices:
- Do you actually believe grip strength equals lifting strength?
- If I give you someone's grip strength, could you reliably determine their lifting strength?
I'm into arm wrestling, and I can tell you that many elite arm wrestlers outperform powerlifters in grip strength when measured with specialized devices. Yet, those same arm wrestlers can't even lift half of what the powerlifters can.
Originally posted by h1a8
I misspoke - it was the second movie and third movies.It's not reasonable to believe that Batman used long-range darts to sedate the mercs when he was fighting them up close, physically grabbing them, and never attempting to use a dart on Bane - even while getting his ass beat.
It's also unreasonable to assume Batman used strength-augmenting equipment to lift the merc in the air, as the movie never showed or even hinted at such a device. He's never used equipment for that purpose. If Batman could artificially enhance his strength, that would mean he hit Bane far harder than his natural power allows, which only weakens your argument further.
A man slightly stronger than average would still be considered weak to Bane, who is clearly superhuman.
And you are wrong! On the rooftop with Catwoman, Batman is shown knocking out multiple mercs with his strength (with punches as well).
Misspoke, i.e. flat out wrong. Concession accepted.
He can still stab them at close range with the darts. And whilst you say it's unreasonable, a perfectly reasonable explanation exists why he didn't use it on Bane - it was all used up on the mercs.
He used them in the previous movies, to bend gun barrels (i.e. with grip strength) and to carve vans open. Not to actually punch people out, though, so you can see why I am still perfectly consistent. In short, lifting mercs in the air = using equipment, punching them out = no equipment, but with sedatives. Now you see how iron clad I am?
Inconsistencies, as we are also shown Catwoman KOing these same mercs. Now, I know what you might argue - that she too is stronger than average.
But then you'd have to prove it. And it rapidly just becomes circular for you.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Misspoke, i.e. flat out wrong. Concession accepted.He can still stab them at close range with the darts. And whilst you say it's unreasonable, a perfectly reasonable explanation exists why he didn't use it on Bane - it was all used up on the mercs.
He used them in the previous movies, to bend gun barrels (i.e. with grip strength) and to carve vans open. Not to actually punch people out, though, so you can see why I am still perfectly consistent. In short, lifting mercs in the air = using equipment, punching them out = no equipment, but with sedatives. Now you see how iron clad I am?
Inconsistencies, as we are also shown Catwoman KOing these same mercs. Now, I know what you might argue - that she too is stronger than average.
But then you'd have to prove it. And it rapidly just becomes circular for you.
This is fiction. The only reality that exists is what the writer wants us to believe/know. Batman never actually fought the mercenaries offscreen because, in the end, he's an actor, and the director simply said, "Cut!" The writer clearly doesn't intend for us to believe that Batman used his long-range throwing darts to be used as a hand pokey tool to incapacitate the mercs and also fail to do the same to Bane because he simply "ran out." You're essentially inventing details that the writer clearly does not want us to believe.
Your imagined scenario isn't just unreasonable - it's downright asinine.
Catwoman knocking out the mercenaries with strikes are demonstrated feats for her . Those feats proves themselves. She has multiple instances throughout the film of taking down trained men with her strikes.
It's illogical to suggest that Batman was weaker than an average boxer when he effortlessly took out mercs with his strikes, lifted one with ease, and even punched through a motorcycle helmet, knocking out the wearer in the process.
You've lost this debate, and anyone reading can see that. At this point, you might as well change your argument yet again. And that's the issue - every time you shift your argument (because you lost that battle), it proves that you're arguing solely to win, not to uncover the truth. It also reinforces that I'm correct; otherwise, there'd be no need for you to keep altering your argument and moving the goalpost.