Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

bloodlust on

Originally posted by masterbruce
bloodlust on

Sabretooth at his current level will defeat the Captain quite quickly.

Originally posted by The_Barbarian
Sabretooth at his current level will defeat the Captain quite quickly.

Good thing it says 'classic' then...

But, on that note, HOW classic? For example, ORIGINALLY, Sabretooth didn't even have a healing factor.

Are we talking THAT classic?

Originally posted by Soljer
Good thing it says 'classic' then...

But, on that note, HOW classic? For example, ORIGINALLY, Sabretooth didn't even have a healing factor.

Are we talking THAT classic?

Wasn't original Sabes just a guy with spikes on his gloves...?

Originally posted by SpunkySmurph
Wasn't original Sabes just a guy with spikes on his gloves...?

Not that classic, surely he means marauder Sabretooth. If so Cap wins 10/10

Originally posted by Alfheim
Not that classic, surely he means marauder Sabretooth. If so Cap wins 10/10

Well morlock mutant massacre sabretooth....marauder sabretooth is vague.

If cap can beat wolverine, he can beat sabertooth.

Originally posted by Soljer
Good thing it says 'classic' then...

But, on that note, HOW classic? For example, ORIGINALLY, Sabretooth didn't even have a healing factor.

Are we talking THAT classic?


A valid argument consists of a state of true premises, i.e. 'classic' Captain America. Stating that it is a 'good thing' to use a presupposed premise, i.e. 'classic', does not make one's conclusion about anothers argument valid. Nice try.

Classic my butt, cap would woop sabertooths butt hands down.

Originally posted by The_Barbarian
A valid argument consists of a state of true premises, i.e. 'classic' Captain America. Stating that it is a 'good thing' to use a presupposed premise, i.e. 'classic', does not make one's conclusion about anothers argument valid. Nice try.

I made no conclusions about any one else's argument. You inferred them, so get off your high horse.

Secondly, since you apparently just got out of your Jr. High Psych class, tell me; which logical fallacy is it when one debater argues something that is COMPLETELY unrelated to the argument at hand?

Cause, current Sabretooth is nowhere to be seen in this thread.