Originally posted by h1a8
The evidence isn't proof if a valid rebuttal exists.
I've rebutted your evidence - you must either provide a counter-rebuttal or present new evidence.
So you haven't actually read it?
I've been asking for speed feats from Absolute WW. You accused me of bias, saying she was capable of statuing her opponent, of using superspeed. So back up this claim.
Originally posted by carver9
You don't even accept the real WW speed fts, so why are you asking for Absolute WW speed showings?
I do. I just don't think what you posted was anything particularly worthy. But let's keep it to the characters in this thread, that's what you always want, right?
How fast is Absolute WW? I posted some (obviously shitty, according to h1) feats for Magik, but at least I posted....well, something. Who do you think is faster, Magik or Absolute WW, and based on what feats do you base this on? Surely that's basic debating?
I've shown Magik using spells (I can show more). I've shown her using portals to destroy enemies, send them across the universe. I've shown her using her Soulsword. I've shown her throwing her Soulsword through portals to stab her enemies in the back. I can show her summoning demons to be used as cannon fodder and distractions, if needed. I can show her sending people to Limbo. I can show her time travelling, if needed. I can show her going full DarkChild, and physically ripping the Gem of Cyttorak out of Juggernaut.
Meanwhile, your side has shown......her flying alongside a jet, becoming Medusa (which would negate all of her other showings as she literally stops being WW and is Medusa), crossing her arms to make a shield in front of her, and blasting things in front of her.
That's it. And somehow, I'M the biased one?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So you haven't actually read it?I've been asking for speed feats from Absolute WW. You accused me of bias, saying she was capable of statuing her opponent, of using superspeed. So back up this claim.
Wait, so Absolute WW doesn't get standard WW's speed feats?
Well nvm them.
I'm not arguing for either combatant here anyway.
Mostly just critiquing your evidence for Magik's speed and your take on how the fight will go down.
But since this is a different character than standard WW then...
Originally posted by h1a8
Wait, so Absolute WW doesn't get standard WW's speed feats?
Well nvm them.I'm not arguing for either combatant here anyway.
Mostly just critiquing your evidence for Magik's speed and your take on how the fight will go down.But since this is a different character than standard WW then...
Maybe you shouldn't participate with characters you know nothing about.
Originally posted by h1a8
You shouldn't participate in debates if you don't know basic information about the characters.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Maybe you shouldn't participate with characters you know nothing about.
You are a master of ignoring statements.
Originally posted by h1a8I'm not arguing for either combatant here anyway.
Mostly just critiquing your evidence for Magik's speed and your take on how the fight will go down.
I'm saying you shouldn't participate?
Edit: anyway, you came into this thread with this post:
Originally posted by h1a8
It's clear you are bias as you see WW fighting with no superspeed or having the ability to statue much slower beings.
So care to apologise? Absolute WW is a completely different being, which you would know had you even.....you don't even need to read the actual comics, lol. Yet, your own personal bias towards me made you think 'ah, here is my chance to get at DS', lol.
You're just a waste of time, really.
Originally posted by Smurph
I asked you three times if you had even read an Absolute Wonder Woman comic because you seemed to be confused about the character.You ignored every question and just carried on saying stupid shit.
He didn't even need to read Absolute WW, lol - the info contained in this very thread (ODG's posts, Mind's scans) clearly show she's a completely different character.
It's....not even worth debating against, really. Hell, it's not even like they bring any new insights or information or even logic to the thread, just wasting time with tangents and irrelevance. Next thing we know, we'll be stuck arguing whether Gal Gadot's IRL feats as part of her army training in Israel = Absolute WW's feats or some idiocy.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I'm saying you shouldn't participate?
I disagree with the notion that someone shouldn't critique an argument simply because they don't know at least one of the characters well enough.
Also your statement implies "belief" of not knowing a character.
I initially believed Absolute Wonder Woman was just a standard Wonder Woman with an upgrade (e.g., the ability to become Medusa).
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So you ignored Smurph's questions and your own advice to others.And critiquing = participation. Anyway, as I said before, you're just a waste of time. I gave you the chance to at least apologise for accusing me of bias, but you didn't even take it.
Smurph didn't ask me any questions in this thread, at least not any that I'm aware of.
The statement "critiquing = participation" is only relevant if I was arguing otherwise.
So why make the statement?
But here's my statement you ignored.
Originally posted by h1a8
I disagree with the notion that someone shouldn't critique an argument simply because they don't know at least one of the characters well enough.Also your statement implies "belief" of not knowing a character.
I initially believed Absolute Wonder Woman was just a standard Wonder Woman with an upgrade (e.g., the ability to become Medusa).
Originally posted by Smurph
I asked you three times if you had even read an Absolute Wonder Woman comic because you seemed to be confused about the character.You ignored every question and just carried on saying stupid shit.
He even states it again.
Originally posted by h1a8
Smurph didn't ask me any questions in this thread, at least not any that I'm aware of.The statement "critiquing = participation" is only relevant if I was arguing otherwise.
So why make the statement?But here's my statement you ignored.
Participating= Participating. Whether it be to crack a joke, post about your holidays, critique arguments, argue for a character, anything. Your original post said participation, so that's what I'm going with.
And I ignored your statement because it's.... fairly obvious, so nothing to add. You didn't know anything about the character, thus had your usual ignorance, had your usual arrogance, and tried to do your usual trolling routine. What do you want me to add further? That you're a waste of time? I've already said that.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He even states it again.Participating= Participating. Whether it be to crack a joke, post about your holidays, critique arguments, argue for a character, anything. Your original post said participation, so that's what I'm going with.
And I ignored your statement because it's.... fairly obvious, so nothing to add. You didn't know anything about the character, thus had your usual ignorance, had your usual arrogance, and tried to do your usual trolling routine. What do you want me to add further? That you're a waste of time? I've already said that.
Originally posted by h1a8
I disagree with the notion that someone shouldn't critique an argument simply because they don't know at least one of the characters well enough.Also your statement implies "belief" of not knowing a character.
I initially believed Absolute Wonder Woman was just a standard Wonder Woman with an upgrade (e.g., the ability to become Medusa).
First, I stated that I was unaware of any questions Smurph asked me, so any lack of response wasn't intentional. In reality, I did answer his question later by stating that I believed Absolute Wonder Woman was just mainstream Wonder Woman with an amp, rather than a completely different character.
I never argued or implied that critiquing isn't a form of participation - I already told you this, but I guess it went over your head.
Once again, I disagree with the idea that someone shouldn't participate in order to critique or point out errors in an argument simply because they don't know at least one of the characters well enough. Is that clearer for you?
For example, if someone claims 1+1 = 3, another person - without knowing a character well - could and may still point out the error. Your opinion is your own.