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

Mjolnir
Ultron (Vibranium)
Silver Samurai (Adamantium- From Wolverine)
Iron Man (Most durable Armor)
Zod
Wonder Woman
Aquaman
Thor

This is the correct order:


-Zod
-Mjolnir
-Silver Samurai
-Impediment's Hairy Anus
-Ultron (Vibranium)
-Thor
-Wonder Woman
-Aquaman
-Iron Man (Most durable Armor)

What about BackFire's anus?

Mjolnir
Zod
Silver Samurai
Ultron (Vibranium)
Thor
Iron Man
Wonder Woman
Aquaman

No butts about it.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
What about BackFire's anus? Backfire's anus is a peer to Impediment's, though it's 22% hairier, so that could edge it slightly ahead.

Durability >= strength level

Otherwise one would be damaged by utilizing their strength.
So strength level can be used to gauge the minimum general durability level (pressure durability for lifting feats and blunt durability for striking feats).

Originally posted by Robtard
This is the correct order:


-Zod
-Mjolnir
-Silver Samurai
-Impediment's Hairy Anus
-Ultron (Vibranium)
-Thor
-Wonder Woman
-Aquaman
-Iron Man (Most durable Armor)
except for the impediment's whatever.

Originally posted by 9jaboy
except for the impediment's whatever.

His hairy anus. You can say it, it's okay. Say "Impediment's Hairy Anus", or IHA, if you're in a hurry.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is the correct order:


-Zod
-Mjolnir
-Silver Samurai
-Impediment's Hairy Anus
-Ultron (Vibranium)
-Thor
-Wonder Woman
-Aquaman
-Iron Man (Most durable Armor) Agreed with this though I'd move up adamantium to top and Wonder Woman/Aquaman a bit higher

Otherwise

Taking into account blunt trauma, piercing attacks, energy attacks and concussive attacks:

1. Mjolnir - I'm guessing here, because Mjolnir doesn't really have too many durability feats. But since it was forged in the heart of a dying star and all...
2. Ultron (Vibranium) - being able to survive combined blasts from Thor, Ironman and Vision put him above the others as far as feats go
3. Thor - actually has better feats than Ultron but the fact that he couldn't hurt Ultron puts him below
4. Zod - should probably be above Thor but doesn't have feats to support it
5. Silver Samurai - can possibly be higher but doesn't have enough feats to support it
6. Iron Man - assuming IW armor
7. Aquaman - seems to still get hurt by strong enough human weapons though doesn't get seriously injured
8. Wonder Woman - has no feats of outright tanking any bullets or bladed weapons IIRC

What ft does Zod have over Thor star ft or the explosion he survived after his fight against Thanos? You all are crazy.

Originally posted by carver9
What ft does Zod have over Thor star ft or the explosion he survived after his fight against Thanos? You all are crazy.

The star feat was heat resistance. Thor still died (or almost) so its not really a feat.
Most of these characters can survive explosions. Thats not a feat. You might as well say Thor has better durability because he is bullet proof. Lol

Originally posted by h1a8
The star feat was heat resistance. Thor still died (or almost) so its not really a feat.
Most of these characters can survive explosions. Thats not a feat. You might as well say Thor has better durability because he is bullet proof. Lol

So living after a star is being thrown at you isn't a durability ft? Are you drunk? Withstanding an explosion is a durability ft.

Originally posted by h1a8
The star feat was heat resistance. Thor still died (or almost) so its not really a feat.
Most of these characters can survive explosions. Thats not a feat. You might as well say Thor has better durability because he is bullet proof. Lol

Resisting intense heat IS a durability feat. One would have thought this was common sense...

Originally posted by FrothByte
Resisting intense heat IS a durability feat. One would have thought this was common sense...
One would have to think, though.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Taking into account blunt trauma, piercing attacks, energy attacks and concussive attacks:

1. Mjolnir - I'm guessing here, because Mjolnir doesn't really have too many durability feats. But since it was forged in the heart of a dying star and all...
2. Ultron (Vibranium) - being able to survive combined blasts from Thor, Ironman and Vision put him above the others as far as feats go
3. Thor - actually has better feats than Ultron but the fact that he couldn't hurt Ultron puts him below
4. Zod - should probably be above Thor but doesn't have feats to support it
5. Silver Samurai - can possibly be higher but doesn't have enough feats to support it
6. Iron Man - assuming IW armor
7. Aquaman - seems to still get hurt by strong enough human weapons though doesn't get seriously injured
8. Wonder Woman - has no feats of outright tanking any bullets or bladed weapons IIRC Blunt Trauma is IDA'S thing. It can really take a pounding according to Rob

Originally posted by FrothByte
Resisting intense heat IS a durability feat. One would have thought this was common sense...

H1 is just doing his normal trolling

Originally posted by FrothByte
Resisting intense heat IS a durability feat. One would have thought this was common sense...

Originally posted by carver9
So living after a star is being thrown at you isn't a durability ft? Are you drunk? Withstanding an explosion is a durability ft. It is a heat resistant durability feat. Fireproof items aren't bulletproof or stab proof. Thor can take heat better than any item/character on the list. But can he take a punch better than everyone here or resist being stabbed? No!

Withstanding bullets is a durability feat. But that doesn't make you more durable than Zod. Explosions are weak sauce here (unless it's a nuke or higher).

Originally posted by h1a8
It is a heat resistant durability feat. Fireproof items aren't bulletproof or stab proof. Thor can take heat better than any item/character on the list. But can he take a punch better than everyone here or resist being stabbed? No!

Withstanding bullets is a durability feat. But that doesn't make you more durable than Zod. Explosions are weak sauce here (unless it's a nuke or higher).

There is no single "bestest of them all" kind of durability feat. You have to take into consideration different feats from puncture resistance to heat resistance to blunt trauma resistance, etc.

You also can't claim explosions are "weak sauce" when a number of the characters here haven't taken on huge explosions before. I mean, what explosion durability feats does Zod have? Or puncture resistance for that matter?

In regards to Thor's Nidavellir feat: It wasn't just heat resistance, like sticking your head in an oven and being okay. There was a concentrated blast from the star coming at him, it would have had massive levels of radiation and force behind it.

The writers even went out of their way to explain this for the people too stupid to get what was happening in front of them: "You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you." -Etri

Originally posted by Robtard
In regards to Thor's Nidavellir feat: It wasn't just heat resistance, like sticking your head in an oven and being okay. There was a concentrated blast from the star coming at him, it would have had massive levels of radiation and force behind it.

The writers even went out of their way to explain this for the people too stupid to get what was happening in front of them: "You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you." -Etri

The force was weak. Thor's acceleration was small.
Radiation is not force. It heats things up.

Full force of star = full heat of star
Heat (not force) used to melt the metal per writer's intent.

Figurative language. Common sense.

Like i said. Thor can still be punched in the face and damaged. He can still be stabbed. Blunt force and stabbing force has nothing to do that feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
The force was weak. Thor's acceleration was small.
Radiation is not force. It heats things up.

Full force of star = full heat of star
Heat (not force) used to melt the metal per writer's intent.

Figurative language. Common sense.

Like i said. Thor can still be punched in the face and damaged. He can still be stabbed. Blunt force and stabbing force has nothing to do that feat.

Funny thing is that Thor probably has the best stabbing/slashing resistance feats here other than Mjolnir.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Funny thing is that Thor probably has the best stabbing/slashing resistance feats here other than Mjolnir.

He has the worst by far

Originally posted by h1a8
He has the worst by far

Name me better piercing/slashing resistance feats from Zod and Wonder Woman.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Name me better piercing/slashing resistance feats from Zod and Wonder Woman.
They were not stabbed.

Originally posted by h1a8
They were not stabbed.

Therefore they have no feats.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Therefore they have no feats.
neither has thor. but thor got stabbed and they didnt. ergo he loses.

Originally posted by h1a8
neither has thor. but thor got stabbed and they didnt. ergo he loses.

Thor got stabbed multiple times by Hela and wasn't seriously injured. Thor has taken a sword slash to the chest in the opening fight in TDW without it damaging him at all. He took a sword slash to the face from Hela and only lost an eye instead of getting his face cut in half.

Please provide better stab/slash resistance feats from Zod and Wonder Woman.

H1 is so bias and an explosion is concussive force, you turd.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor got stabbed multiple times by Hela and wasn't seriously injured. Thor has taken a sword slash to the chest in the opening fight in TDW without it damaging him at all. He took a sword slash to the face from Hela and only lost an eye instead of getting his face cut in half.

Please provide better stab/slash resistance feats from Zod and Wonder Woman. Whether you believe Thor was as injured in relation to Mjolnir or Zod (Lmao) has no bearing on weapons completely penetrating him.


John Wick wasn't serious injured either. Does that mean his body can withstand being stabbed or shot?

You mean Thor's armor withstood being penetrated in TDW.

The fact that Thor was cut and stabbed by random knives and blades automatically means his durability against cutting is worst.

Originally posted by h1a8


The fact that Thor was cut and stabbed by random knives and blades automatically means his durability against cutting is worst.

Nice. I guess following that logic we can say that Aunt May is more durable than Wonder Woman since she never got hurt in the movies whereas Diana actually gets beat up here and there.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nice. I guess following that logic we can say that Aunt May is more durable than Wonder Woman since she never got hurt in the movies whereas Diana actually gets beat up here and there.

And i guess by your logic since Mjolnir does not have cutting resistance feats then aunt may is at least equal to it cutting force durability. That is your reasoning for people Thor above Mjolnir and vibranium.
See, it can go both ways.

Originally posted by h1a8
And i guess by your logic since Mjolnir does not have cutting resistance feats then aunt may is at least equal to it cutting force durability. That is your reasoning for people Thor above Mjolnir and vibranium.
See, it can go both ways.

Except that Mjolnir actually has better stab/slash resistance feats than Thor.

Originally posted by FrothByte
There is no single "bestest of them all" kind of durability feat. You have to take into consideration different feats from puncture resistance to heat resistance to blunt trauma resistance, etc.

You also can't claim explosions are "weak sauce" when a number of the characters here haven't taken on huge explosions before. I mean, what explosion durability feats does Zod have? Or puncture resistance for that matter? Correct. That's is the flaw of the thread.

Thor is top of the list for heat resistance.
Zod should be tops for blunt force (or pressure).

So Kurse or Thanos can't withstand an explosion because they have no explosion feats? That's stupid logic. Explosions (Less than nuclear) should be survivable for characters of that magnitude.
Its all about pressure anyway. Withstanding x amount of pressure implies that same pressure can be withstood in ANY FORM.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Except that Mjolnir actually has better stab/slash resistance feats than Thor. According to you, Thor has better cut resistant feats than Ultron.

This thread is about fts, H1 (all threads are). When you realize that, this discussion can move on.

Originally posted by h1a8
Correct. That's is the flaw of the thread.

Thor is top of the list for heat resistance.
Zod should be tops for blunt force (or pressure).

So Kurse or Thanos can't withstand an explosion because they have no explosion feats? That's stupid logic. Explosions (Less than nuclear) should be survivable for characters of that magnitude.
Its all about pressure anyway. Withstanding x amount of pressure implies that same pressure can be withstood in ANY FORM.

According to you, Thor has better cut resistant feats than Ultron.

Thanos has explosion feats

Originally posted by h1a8
Correct. That's is the flaw of the thread.

Thor is top of the list for heat resistance.
Zod should be tops for blunt force (or pressure).

So Kurse or Thanos can't withstand an explosion because they have no explosion feats? That's stupid logic. Explosions (Less than nuclear) should be survivable for characters of that magnitude.
Its all about pressure anyway. Withstanding x amount of pressure implies that same pressure can be withstood in ANY FORM.

According to you, Thor has better cut resistant feats than Ultron.

Look H1, everyone can see what you're doing here. You're trying to distract and worm your way out of actually having to provide feats.

You know the golden rule in the MvF, you back up your arguments with feats, not with made-up mental gymnastics.

If you want to claim that Zod or WW have better cut/puncture resistance than Thor then you actually need to provide feats of them doing so. It's that simple. Until you can actually back yourself up with feats, you're not worth talking to.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Look H1, everyone can see what you're doing here. You're trying to distract and worm your way out of actually having to provide feats.

You know the golden rule in the MvF, you back up your arguments with feats, not with made-up mental gymnastics.

If you want to claim that Zod or WW have better cut/puncture resistance than Thor then you actually need to provide feats of them doing so. It's that simple. Until you can actually back yourself up with feats, you're not worth talking to. Thor has been cut everytime. He can not be above them in cutting resistance.


Zod has better blunt force feats than Thor. He can take more powerful punches without bleeding. Thor can possibly take heat better (assuming Zod =/= Superman).

Zod is bulletproof of the highest level. Thor isn't (no feats to back it up by your logic).

There is no way Thor is more durable than Zod. You are a bias troll Thorbag for saying otherwise.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has been cut everytime. He can not be above them in cutting resistance.


Of course he can. Just because he's been cut (as has Superman and Wonder Woman), doesn't mean they could resist what he did or that he could resist what they did.

Have to compare like for like.


Originally posted by h1a8
Zod has better blunt force feats than Thor. He can take more powerful punches without bleeding.

Why? Because he took punches from Superman? Thor has taken hits from Hulk, Hela, and Thanos without bleeding.


Originally posted by h1a8
Thor can possibly take heat better (assuming Zod =/= Superman).


He certainly has superior heat resistance feats to them. Far far superior. Which of course is a massive durability feat even IF you want to say he just took the Heat and not the full force (for no other reason but that you don't like Thor having that feat).



Originally posted by h1a8
Zod is bulletproof of the highest level. Thor isn't (no feats to back it up by your logic).


Aside from him being in the line of fire of Ultrons quinjet fire (everyone else in the line of fire either jumped out of the way or died), he actually has a far superior feat of surviving ( in tact) the starship explosion, with him at the centre of the explosion.


Originally posted by h1a8
There is no way Thor is more durable than Zod. You are a bias troll Thorbag for saying otherwise.


Just stating that (on top of insults) doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Of course he can. Just because he's been cut (as has Superman and Wonder Woman), doesn't mean they could resist what he did or that he could resist what they did.

Have to compare like for like.


He's been cut by random knives. Ran from bullets, etc.

No because Superman struck Zod with more force than Thanos, Hela, or Hulk struck Thor. Only Thor bleed and Zod was perfectly fine. I disagree. The nuke feat is comparable.
It takes heat to melt metal. Stars are known for heat. The beam was mostly heat with little force on it (Thor was pushed with a small acceleration). Writer's intent. Thor was never shown hit with bullets. He ran from them in avengers. A starship explosion is weak sauce in relation to these level of characters. Being aircraft bullet proof is greater.

Note: That wasn't a traditional explosion where the explosion originated at a single point. The whole ship was charged with energy (all the walls, etc) and exploded mostly outwards. So Thor didn't experience the brunt of the force (force was spread out) and yet was still koed.
Zod or Superman would have barely felt it. The nuke explosion was far more powerful.

No insults. But what i said is true nonetheless.

When has Thor ever been cut by random knives?

Originally posted by h1a8
He's been cut by random knives. Ran from bullets, etc.


You mean "random" Alien/Asgardian knives.

Him avoiding bullets not having much of an idea about the effectiveness of Earthly weapons means little.

Him standing in the line of fire having spent much more time on Earth, and being aware of the Quinjet's capabilities, means a lot more.


What also means a lot more is going toe to toe with Hulk (almost beating him in h2h), and his body being fully intact in the middle of a huge starship exploding. The debris alone would hit with far more piercing damage than any bullet.

Originally posted by h1a8
No because Superman struck Zod with more force than Thanos, Hela, or Hulk struck Thor. Only Thor bleed and Zod was perfectly fine.

You're making that up about Superman's striking power as of MOS. He has nothing (at that point) next to a Leviathan crushing punch, which Thor let himself get hit by flat in the nose while trying to reason with Hulk.

So moot comparison on your end.



Originally posted by h1a8
I disagree. The nuke feat is comparable.

The nuclear bomb melted his skin off. I wouldn't call that taking it.

Thor took the might of the Star for an extended period before it KO'd him. It didn't melt his skin off.


Originally posted by h1a8
Stars are known for heat.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/03/28/ask-ethan-how-can-a-nuclear-bomb-be-hotter-than-the-center-of-our-sun/?sh=4d55676a460b

"In terms of raw energy output, nothing on our world compares to our Sun."


Originally posted by h1a8
The beam was mostly heat with little force on it (Thor was pushed with a small acceleration). Writer's intent.


The writer made his intent very very clear with the dialogue. You simply don't like the feat being a Thor feat.



Originally posted by h1a8
Thor was never shown hit with bullets. He ran from them in avengers. A starship explosion is weak sauce in relation to these level of characters. Being aircraft bullet proof is greater.


By your own logic he stood in the line of fire in AOU because he knows he can take it now. You've just defeated yourself. Well done.

Originally posted by h1a8
Note: That wasn't a traditional explosion where the explosion originated at a single point. The whole ship was charged with energy (all the walls, etc) and exploded mostly outwards. So Thor didn't experience the brunt of the force (force was spread out) and yet was still koed.
Zod or Superman would have barely felt it. The nuke explosion was far more powerful.



Wow you will literally make up any crap you like to downplay Thor's feats.

He was in the ship when it exploded. Obviously the ship exploded with him in the middle of it. Jeez.

Originally posted by h1a8
The force was weak. Thor's acceleration was small.
Radiation is not force. It heats things up.

Full force of star = full heat of star
Heat (not force) used to melt the metal per writer's intent.

Figurative language. Common sense.

Like i said. Thor can still be punched in the face and damaged. He can still be stabbed. Blunt force and stabbing force has nothing to do that feat.


Sorry, your trolling doesn't get to overwrite the writers of the film.

"You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you." -Etri

Thor withstood the full force of a star for several minutes. What happened.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You mean "random" Alien/Asgardian knives.

Him avoiding bullets not having much of an idea about the effectiveness of Earthly weapons means little.

Him standing in the line of fire having spent much more time on Earth, and being aware of the Quinjet's capabilities, means a lot more.
Alien knives with writer's no mention of them being more special = random knives. The onus is always on to prove special attributes.

We go by writer's intent, not making up stuff. Thor ran from the bullets because he wasn't bullet proof of that level. That was writer's intent.
Thor didn't run the other time because there was no where to go and he was in the middle of battle.

Again, Superman hit Zod far harder than any hit that caused Thor to bleed. I went over the explosion and why it was weak. Ignoring what i said isn't a rebuttal. The leviathan punch didn't slow the leviathan more than 10%. The majority of the slowdown was through bracing and pushing against it. The original punch did almost nothing in terms of altering the momentum. Punch was less than 50 tons of force easily. And the leviathan punch is irrelevant due to we know the force Thor was hit merely by his acceleration. There was 0 skin melted off. Actually there was no damage. Just drained of energy. Keep reading. It states that we got the sun beat in temperature. You are confusing the amount of water as the temperature of the water. A nuclear bomb is more than 100x hotter than a neutron star. I can easily be fire hosed with 30 degree Celsius water than be lightly sprinkled with 3000 degree liquid. Plus the bomb would produce great pressures at point blank range.

A stars total output is separated over its entire surface. The amount of radiation Flux from someone of Thor's size in comparison to the entire size of the star is microscopic.
Although we see the star still emitting energy in all directions, temperature can not be added in this way. If someone shine 1000 flashlights on you vs 1 flashlight then you wouldn't feel 1000x hotter.

Yes he did. Figurative language. If you disagree then the full force of the star was weak as shit since it pushed Thor weakly through space. Stars emit little force. The large force is their force of gravity, which is inward. That's not the case. Think more like a soldier in war in the middle of a battle field with no immediate cover. Plus those bullets are wayyyy weaker than the other bullets

No, the walls are charged. He exhibited little to no force since the explosion originated in the walls and went outward. No shrapnel ever traveled through the center as, seen.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sorry, your trolling doesn't get to overwrite the writers of the film.

"You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you." -Etri

Thor withstood the full force of a star for several minutes. What happened.

You are the one trolling here. All the evidence points to Figurative language.

Force = push or pull by definition. Forces causes objects of mass to accelerate.

Force = energy, temperature, etc is more of a Figurative definition.

1. Heat melts metal and stars are known for heat to the general audience. 1 + 1= 2
2. Stars only forces are gravity and magnetic. Neither of whom push outward radially. So full force of a star can literally mean the force the star pushed Thor with (small amount). .

Zod has never taken on a nuke.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are the one trolling here. All the evidence points to Figurative language.

Force = push or pull by definition. Forces causes objects of mass to accelerate.

Force = energy, temperature, etc is more of a Figurative definition.

1. Heat melts metal and stars are known for heat to the general audience. 1 + 1= 2
2. Stars only forces are gravity and magnetic. Neither of whom push outward radially. So full force of a star can literally mean the force the star pushed Thor with (small amount). .

Etri wasn't speaking figuratively, he was literal, he knows exactly what is going on in his own forge and he was correct.

"You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you." -Etri


The writers > your baseless claims.

Originally posted by h1a8
Alien knives with writer's no mention of them being more special = random knives. The onus is always on to prove special attributes.


You want him to prove that knives used by a highly advanced alien race with superpowers are somehow special?

Can't believe how H1 got in your head S and M. You come back because he makes you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You want him to prove that knives used by a highly advanced alien race with superpowers are somehow special?

Yup. That's how fiction works. Alien races (advanced ones) can have random knives and blades. Look at the Klingons and Krytonians.
You can't use circular reasoning as proof.
If a character was established as bulletproof to the highest degree or resisted conventional blades then the knives would be proven to not be random.


Originally posted by Robtard
Etri wasn't speaking figuratively, he was literal, he knows exactly what is going on in his own forge and he was correct.

"You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you." -Etri


The writers > your baseless claims.
Saying he wasn't speaking figuratively doesn't make it true. Learn to debate.


Only a bias idiot can't see clearly that Thor experienced a beam of heated radiation, which purpose was to MELT the metal.. Thor was pushed with a relatively small amount of force because his acceleration was small. Etri wasn't talking about that push as the force. That would be stupid. He was obviously talking about the heat.

I just proved that he wasn't speaking figuratively. Ignoring what I said is not a rebuttal.

Your argument: "There is no such as figurative language even if it literal meaning makes absolutely no sense."

Again, learn to debate.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Zod has never taken on a nuke.

The comment was about Superman. Read the entire exchange to understand the conversation before commenting please.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Can't believe how H1 got in your head S and M. You come back because he makes you.

He doesn't debate. He lurks and waits for someone to argue against Cap or Thor and then comments on their post. He doesn't ever contribute to threads by giving his take and reasoning. Heaven forbids anyone criticizes his argument if he did, lol.

You get mad when your bias is questioned.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You get mad when your bias is questioned.

Im not bias. I'm objective all the way.

Lol!!!!

At least you have a sense of humor.

Thor gets incapacitated by some dumb little zappy gadget on his neck. What a weak, pansy loser.

Originally posted by h1a8




The comment was about Superman. Read the entire exchange to understand the conversation before commenting please.

Superman isn't part of this thread.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Superman isn't part of this thread.
He is part of the discussion me and Darth were having.

Originally posted by h1a8
He is part of the discussion me and Darth were having.

Darth only responded to it because you brought it up. It literally has nothing to do with this thread yet you just couldn't help yourself.

Originally posted by h1a8
Alien knives with writer's no mention of them being more special = random knives. The onus is always on to prove special attributes.


Easy. AOS showed even an Asgardian farmer is completely knife and bullet proof. We've also seen Thor's physical inferior (Loki) brush of bullets.

So quit being ridiculous.

Originally posted by h1a8
We go by writer's intent, not making up stuff. Thor ran from the bullets because he wasn't bullet proof of that level. That was writer's intent.
Thor didn't run the other time because there was no where to go and he was in the middle of battle.


Lol writer's intent is just your excuse to believe whatever you like. We go by on screen feats, and Thor's durability feats are massively above bullets. Unless you think a bullet can crush a Leviathan

LMAO @ no where to run. He was in an open space. Quit trolling me.

You've lost as per YOUR OWN LOGIC.

It was YOUR Logic that if he can take it he wouldn't avoid it, and if he can't then he would.

He didn't avoid it the SECOND time, Ergo, he knows now he can take it AS PER YOUR OWN LOGIC.


Originally posted by h1a8
Again, Superman hit Zod far harder than any hit that caused Thor to bleed. I went over the explosion and why it was weak. Ignoring what i said isn't a rebuttal. The leviathan punch didn't slow the leviathan more than 10%. The majority of the slowdown was through bracing and pushing against it. The original punch did almost nothing in terms of altering the momentum. Punch was less than 50 tons of force easily. And the leviathan punch is irrelevant due to we know the force Thor was hit merely by his acceleration.


He toppled the thing over, What the heck?

Let's not forget the same guy also toppled Surtur. So again quit trolling, trying your best to lowball all Marvel feats.

Thor took a Leviathan crushing punch and Surtur toppling punch straight to the nose (he basically allowed Hulk to hit him talking him down).

Onus is on you to prove Zod has taken a hit like that straight to the nose whilst standing there and being hit (remember he took multiple hits from Hulk in Ragnarok before bleeding).


You made no real rebuttal to the exploding ship. It doesn't matter which direction you think it exploded Thor was in the centre of the damn ship. So quit your trolling and show me where Zod has taken such a hit.



Originally posted by h1a8
There was 0 skin melted off. Actually there was no damage. Just drained of energy.


He looked sick AF. And was in a coma. So he didn't take it well at all. You're not proving anything here, and as already mentioned Zod didn't take the nuke.

Originally posted by h1a8
Keep reading. It states that we got the sun beat in temperature. You are confusing the amount of water as the temperature of the water. A nuclear bomb is more than 100x hotter than a neutron star. I can easily be fire hosed with 30 degree Celsius water than be lightly sprinkled with 3000 degree liquid. Plus the bomb would produce great pressures at point blank range.


Why are you avoiding my point? I posted that to prove that no force on Earth compares to the full force of our Sun. Way to miss the point.


Originally posted by h1a8
A stars total output is separated over its entire surface. The amount of radiation Flux from someone of Thor's size in comparison to the entire size of the star is microscopic.
Although we see the star still emitting energy in all directions, temperature can not be added in this way. If someone shine 1000 flashlights on you vs 1 flashlight then you wouldn't feel 1000x hotter.


Except it was explained that the beam was emitting the full force of the star. So Quit downplaying feats you dont like.


Originally posted by h1a8
Yes he did. Figurative language.


So he was going to figuratively die as well ?

Quit this nonesense. Either show an extract from the writers/directors that it was figurative, or kindly quit your lies.


Originally posted by h1a8
If you disagree then the full force of the star was weak as shit since it pushed Thor weakly through space.


Shows how strong Thor is.


Originally posted by h1a8
Stars emit little force.


I have already proved to you that's not true.

Originally posted by h1a8
The large force is their force of gravity, which is inward.


Except that beam produced the full force of a star, as noted on screen.

Originally posted by h1a8
That's not the case. Think more like a soldier in war in the middle of a battle field with no immediate cover. Plus those bullets are wayyyy weaker than the other bullets


He didn't need cover. Just needed to move out of it's path.

You lose as per your own logic.

You're a self defeating debater.


Originally posted by h1a8
No, the walls are charged. He exhibited little to no force since the explosion originated in the walls and went outward. No shrapnel ever traveled through the center as, seen.


There was no force or shrapnel in the centre of an exploding ship? Wow.

Btw even Valkyrie was caught in an explosion with literally no harm at all. Not to mention Thor survived Sokovia exploding FFS.

Are you getting tried of your ridiculous Marvel lowballing yet? Because we all sure are.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Darth only responded to it because you brought it up. It literally has nothing to do with this thread yet you just couldn't help yourself. Incorrect

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Easy. AOS showed even an Asgardian farmer is completely knife and bullet proof. We've also seen Thor's physical inferior (Loki) brush of bullets.

So quit being ridiculous. Farmer wasn't knife proof. He bent the knife from the side.

Being bullet proof isn't enough. You have to be bulletproof of the highest level (aircraft bullets).

Superman is Thor's physical superior. Should Superman get his durability feats too? Hulk punch did almost nothing to the Leviathan. I went over that already. If you disagree then address what I said about the feat. Also, even if the feat was legit, it still has no bearing on the force we actually see Hulk hit Thor with.

Thor is not a speedster. Where the phuck was he going to go? The fire didn't last long. Those bullets were less powerful than the other ones.



He didn't topple shit with the punch. Hulk didn't slow it down enen 5% with the punch. More than 95% of the slow down was Hulk pushing and holding back the Leviathan AFTER THE PUNCH.

I don't have to prove things that you can see. The walls of the ship were charged with energy. The walls exploded outward. Thor was relatively safe by being in the center. You see little to no shrapnel pass through the center. You are confusing that feat with an explosion that originates in front of Thor and towards him.

Zod has taken hits that knocked him almost a mile through the air. Taken hits that created large craters as a side effect.
Taken hits that launched him through skyscrapers.
All of those are far more powerful than the hits we actually see Thor get hit with. You argued hypothetically if both can survive a nuke then it still is less than the star feat.

If you disagree with the reasoning "since Zod is a near equal to Clark in the physical department then he gets his durability feats" then the same can be applied to Thor. Thor gets no one's feats .
But his skin wasn't melted was all I was addressing. Superman didn't die. Thor would have.

The article didn't mention force, it mentioned energy output. Then mentioned we have the sun beat in temperature. What does more damage? :
1. Getting hit with a hose of 30 degree Celsius water for 5 minutes (more energy)?
or
2. from a quick splash of 3000 degree liquid? Use common sense.

"Force force of the Sun" has no meaning just as the "full force of a crayon" doesn't. That's the common sense reason why it was figurative talk. It makes no sense to be literal (has no meaning).
Forces push and pull (by definition).

Stars only forces are gravity and magnetism. Thor wasn't getting hit by gravity or magnetism was he? Lol. It was a pure beam of radiation used to heat and melt the metal.




Wrong terminology. You mean a character stated, "full force of a star" as figurative language to mean full temperature.

It was figurative because it makes no sense to be literal. Isn't that how we can tell the difference between figurative language and literal language?

Incorrect. Thor was being pushed through space with a certain acceleration. Only Mass (not durability or strength) resists acceleration in free moving objects.


There was some force. I didn't see any shrapnel pass through the center.
Sokovia wasn't a good feat either.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Zod has never taken on a nuke.

Since you are lazy.
I stated that Thor could possibly take more heat than Zod (which is in the thread) assuming Zod =/= Superman.

Darth then stated Thor can take more heat than Superman (both of them). That's where I disagreed and argued from there.

So me assuming Zod =/= Superman is not a correct one?
I somehow derailed the thread.
Darth equating Thor to feats of other characters not in the thread is ok though? You didn't address him on that. Pick and choose for your bias.

Originally posted by h1a8
Incorrect

Stop lying, you were the first person in this thread to mention Superman

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has been cut everytime. He can not be above them in cutting resistance.


Zod has better blunt force feats than Thor. He can take more powerful punches without bleeding. Thor can possibly take heat better (assuming Zod =/= Superman).

Zod is bulletproof of the highest level. Thor isn't (no feats to back it up by your logic).

There is no way Thor is more durable than Zod. You are a bias troll Thorbag for saying otherwise.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Stop lying, you were the first person in this thread to mention Superman

If one part of a multifaceted statement is incorrect then the whole statement is incorrect. My reply "incorrect" wasn't referring to who mentioned Superman first, it referred to another part of the statement.

With that said

I stated assuming Superman =/= Zod.
Was that a wrong statement?
What about Darth mentioning feats by Loki for Thor to share or him mentioning characters not in the thread (Hulk, etc)?

Originally posted by h1a8


I stated assuming Superman =/= Zod.
Was that a wrong statement?
What about Darth mentioning feats by Loki for Thor to share or him mentioning characters not in the thread (Hulk, etc)?


The difference is Thor has proven time and time again to be stronger and more durable than Loki.

Zod is not proven to be Superman's equal even as of MOS, let alone by BvS.

IIRC, in materials outside of the film (maybe one of the official fim comics), it was stated that Zod was not as powerful as Superman since his exposure to a yellow sun and Earth's atmosphere was very short compared to Kal's lifelong exposure. But Zod's superior fighting ability and genetic-warrior makeup allowed him to contend. Zod specifically brags about the later.

The maths checks out.

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, in materials outside of the film (maybe one of the official fim comics), it was stated that Zod was not as powerful as Superman since his exposure to a yellow sun and Earth's atmosphere was very short compared to Kal's lifelong exposure. But Zod's superior fighting ability and genetic-warrior makeup allowed him to contend. Zod specifically brags about the later.

The maths checks out.


Yeah backed by the fact that ultimately Superman snapped Zod's neck.

That too.

Originally posted by h1a8
If one part of a multifaceted statement is incorrect then the whole statement is incorrect. My reply "incorrect" wasn't referring to who mentioned Superman first, it referred to another part of the statement.

With that said

I stated assuming Superman =/= Zod.
Was that a wrong statement?
What about Darth mentioning feats by Loki for Thor to share or him mentioning characters not in the thread (Hulk, etc)?

You're the one that brought him up, thus FrothByte's statement was correct. no need for you to continue lying about it

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, in materials outside of the film (maybe one of the official fim comics), it was stated that Zod was not as powerful as Superman since his exposure to a yellow sun and Earth's atmosphere was very short compared to Kal's lifelong exposure. But Zod's superior fighting ability and genetic-warrior makeup allowed him to contend. Zod specifically brags about the later.

The maths checks out.

It's really the only explanation that would have made sense considering Kal'el was a farm boy who's never been in a decent fight his entire life whereas Zod is a bred and trained warrior who's the head of the kryptonian military.

I don't think Kal had ever been in a fight before Zod and crew showed up, he was strong enough to crush steel as a 12yo, he'd have accidentally murdered any human he fought.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're the one that brought him up, thus FrothByte's statement was correct. no need for you to continue lying about it

Ill talking to an illiterate fool. Multifaceted is the key. Focusing on one part of a statement and not all the parts shows your level of intelligence. FrothByte said multiple things in the statement i replied incorrect to. Use your common sense to find out which part he said was incorrect.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah backed by the fact that ultimately Superman snapped Zod's neck. A human can snap another humans neck. Vultrimites can gore other stronger vultrimites.

Snapping someones neck doesn't prove stronger.
I replied to your lengthy post before you commented here. Did you miss it?

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, in materials outside of the film (maybe one of the official fim comics), it was stated that Zod was not as powerful as Superman since his exposure to a yellow sun and Earth's atmosphere was very short compared to Kal's lifelong exposure. But Zod's superior fighting ability and genetic-warrior makeup allowed him to contend. Zod specifically brags about the later.

The maths checks out.

I disagree. Zod was hitting Clark with more force than the other way around. No where in the film do we get a sense where Clark is stronger. Both rammed with pure force (not skill) into each and canceled each OTHER out AS EQUALS. What is shown by movie >>> interviews.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The difference is Thor has proven time and time again to be stronger and more durable than Loki.

Zod is not proven to be Superman's equal even as of MOS, let alone by BvS. Zod proven that he is a close peer to Superman in MOS. Actually Zod hit Superman harder than Superman hit him. Anyone unbiased will tell you that. Its clear as day the two were close as hell physically in MOS.

Also you are now equating different durabilities (heat, cut, blunt, etc) when at first you were separating them.

Tbh I have no problem giving Thor Loki's durability feats. But i have a problem when the same isnt done for other characters when they are clearly about equal. Clark wasn't shown stronger than Zod. Actually maybe slightly weaker imo.

Zod is more durable than Thor against blunt force.
Zod is more durable than Thor against high temperatures assuming Superman is more than Zod but less than 2x Zod.
Blunt force is the most important aspect of durability, then cutting, then energy.

My rankings

Zod
Silver Samurai
Mjolnir
Ultron
Thor (Thor has Ultron beat in temperature though)
Wonder Woman
Aquaman
Iron man.

The last 3 and be changed around.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ill talking to an illiterate fool. Multifaceted is the key. Focusing on one part of a statement and not all the parts shows your level of intelligence. FrothByte said multiple things in the statement i replied incorrect to. Use your common sense to find out which part he said was incorrect.

His entire statement was correct, thus even with your backtracking, you're still wrong.

BTW, it's "I'm" not "Ill", a literate person would know that.

Originally posted by Silent Master
His entire statement was correct, thus even with your backtracking, you're still wrong.

BTW, it's "I'm" not "Ill", a literate person would know that.

No it wasn't.

Prove his statement was wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8
Zod is more durable than Thor against blunt force.
Zod is more durable than Thor against high temperatures assuming Superman is more than Zod but less than 2x Zod.
Blunt force is the most important aspect of durability, then cutting, then energy.

My rankings

Zod
Silver Samurai
Mjolnir
Ultron
Thor (Thor has Ultron beat in temperature though)
Wonder Woman
Aquaman
Iron man.

The last 3 and be changed around.

Problem is you still haven't provided any feats to back up your claims.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Problem is you still haven't provided any feats to back up your claims.

I'll provide the feats.
Name a claim I made.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove his statement was wrong. Superman is relevant to the thread as is Hulk and all the characters and items who Thor's feats are based.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'll provide the feats.
Name a claim I made.

Prove that Zod has better cutting or energy resistance than Thor.

Oh, another huge durability feat for Thor can be seen in Thor (2011), he survived the massive explosion and release of energy of the exploding Bifrost without injury and he was at ground zero.

He still got zapped into retardedness by a little circle thingy.

That had the power of a billion, billion, billion Tsar Bombas behind it.

He pooped his armour when he got zapped and sat on his little throne on his little ship and still hadn't even wiped his balloon knot by that point and got a streak of jobbies on the seat.

The smell of it revived miek.

Do Asgardians even shit? Maybe they're like Kim Jong-un and use it all up as spent energy

.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do Asgardians even shit?

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/stargate/images/6/69/Supreme_Commander_Thor_.jpg/revision/latest/top-crop/width/720/height/900?cb=20210519053308

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman is relevant to the thread as is Hulk and all the characters and items who Thor's feats are based.

What Thor feats are based on Superman?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Prove that Zod has better cutting or energy resistance than Thor. Zod is more resistant against being punched and aircraft bulletproof. Thor has been cut by random knives. Therefore, he is automatically more resistant against being cut.

I said temperature, not energy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
What Thor feats are based on Superman? huh? What's the purpose of that question?
You mean how is Superman related to Zod?

Originally posted by h1a8
Zod is more resistant against being punched and aircraft bulletproof. Thor has been cut by random knives. Therefore, he is automatically more resistant against being cut.

I said temperature, not energy.

I thought you said you were going to post feats to back up your arguments? Where are they? All you're doing is repeating your arguments.

Also, are you therefore admitting that Thor has better energy resistance?

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh, another huge durability feat for Thor can be seen in Thor (2011), he survived the massive explosion and release of energy of the exploding Bifrost without injury and he was at ground zero.


Yeah was supposed to mention that one as well, but completely forgot.

Clearly that's not the same as taking a bullet though

Originally posted by h1a8


Snapping someones neck doesn't prove stronger.
I replied to your lengthy post before you commented here. Did you miss it?


Yes it does. How else did he get him in a choke to begin with? Through superior technique against a soldier? Lmao quit being ridiculous.

I'm pondering whether your continued trolling is even worth responding to anymore.




Originally posted by h1a8
Zod proven that he is a close peer to Superman in MOS.




No he didn't. The moment Kal stopped holding back, Zod got his neck snapped.

And that by Noob Kal who was clearly still growing in power.

Ergo Your comparison sucks.

Originally posted by h1a8
huh? What's the purpose of that question?
You mean how is Superman related to Zod?

He isn't, you're just trying to derail the topic. how about you stick to Zod's feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He isn't, you're just trying to derail the topic. how about you stick to Zod's feats.

So Superman punching Zod hard without injuring Zod isn't a Zod feat? Zod showing himself to be a physical equal to Superman isn't a Zod feat?

We now know who the troll is.


Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes it does. How else did he get him in a choke to begin with? Through superior technique against a soldier? Lmao quit being ridiculous.

I'm pondering whether your continued trolling is even worth responding to anymore.







No he didn't. The moment Kal stopped holding back, Zod got his neck snapped.

And that by Noob Kal who was clearly still growing in power.

Ergo Your comparison sucks.

Giving a counterexample destroys the rule. A human can snap the neck of a stronger human. Vultrimites have gored stronger Vultrimites before. Therefore, your theory that Clark snapped Zod's neck because he's stronger is false. Zod sucked at fighting skill. Just look at all the times Clark manage to hit him. Foara showed much better skill.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah was supposed to mention that one as well, but completely forgot.

Clearly that's not the same as taking a bullet though

Nope it's not. Not even close. Captain America could have survived that. Conventional explosions (from explosives) are more impressive since the blast pressure sends shrapnel at speeds multiple times faster than a handgun bullet.
The speed in which everything expanded in that explosion proves the blast pressure was weak and the shrapnel was moving at speeds several times slower than a handgun bullet.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I thought you said you were going to post feats to back up your arguments? Where are they? All you're doing is repeating your arguments.

Also, are you therefore admitting that Thor has better energy resistance?

I gave feats. Zod being punched really hard without being injured. Thor being stabbed by a knife. Thor running away from aircraft bullets, etc.

Originally posted by h1a8
Neither is Hulk, Loki, Thanos, or any character in which one can derive feats for Thor or Zod.


Except Thor is clearly =/> Hulk and Loki.

You bringing up Superman, a clearly more powerful character than Zod, is just to give DC characters the full benefit of the doubt on power levels, whilst continually lowballing Marvel characters with your own made up head canon.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except Thor is clearly =/> Hulk and Loki.

You bringing up Superman, a clearly more powerful character than Zod, is just to give DC characters the full benefit of the doubt on power levels, whilst continually lowballing Marvel characters with your own made up head canon.

that wasn't the comment. The stupid comment was about bringing up characters who aren't in the thread period.

Superman punched Zod a zillion times without any damage. I guess it's wrong to mention that since it would mean mentioning Superman

Zillion?

Originally posted by h1a8

Superman punched Zod a zillion times without any damage. I guess it's wrong to mention that since it would mean mentioning Superman



It's pointless to bring up because:

1. Superman was still growing in power.
2. Superman was likely holding back given how he screamed when he finally killed Zod, and begged him not to make him do that.


And what's your point bringing that up anyway? As if Thor hasn't taken hits from powerhouses.

And then you go off on a complete tangent bringing up Superman getting hit by a nuke

Originally posted by carver9
Zillion?


I think he just means "a lot". I don't think he means Superman speed blitzed him or something.

But I can understand your skepticism when it comes to h1 and his fantasy version of super speed.

Originally posted by h1a8


I gave feats. Zod being punched really hard without being injured. Thor being stabbed by a knife. Thor running away from aircraft bullets, etc.

Thor has also been punched really hard without being injured. You're going to need to show that Zod was actually punched harder. Also, please provide feats for Zod tanking any cutting attacks or tanking aircraft bullets better than we have from Thor.

The lowballing of Thor here is just silly trolling, Thor's feats speak for themselves:



Survived the exploding Bifrost without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/iwQMalt.gif

Survived the explosion at Sokovia without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/x9MKaoP.gif

Tanked the "full force of a star" for couple minutes

https://i.imgur.com/42NRxqa.gif

Originally posted by h1a8
So Superman punching Zod hard without injuring Zod isn't a Zod feat? Zod showing himself to be a physical equal to Superman isn't a Zod feat?

We now know who the troll is.

You're being very dishonest about how you were trying to use Superman.

Originally posted by Robtard
The lowballing of Thor here is just silly trolling, Thor's feats speak for themselves:



Survived the exploding Bifrost without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/iwQMalt.gif

Survived the explosion at Sokovia without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/x9MKaoP.gif

Tanked the "full force of a star" for couple minutes

https://i.imgur.com/42NRxqa.gif


Ah a picture (or a gif) speaks a thousand words

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor has also been punched really hard without being injured. You're going to need to show that Zod was actually punched harder. Also, please provide feats for Zod tanking any cutting attacks or tanking aircraft bullets better than we have from Thor.

Zod was punched multiple times farther than Thor was. Therefore he was hit harder. Zod was hit with a force so hard that it created a huge crater.

Force = mass x acceleration
Multiple Kryptonians were tanking bullets. Zod and Superman are physical peers. Superman

Thor has 0 cutting or bullet proof feats. I give him Loki level of bulletproof since he's roughly Loki's better physically (not way above though).

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It's pointless to bring up because:

1. Superman was still growing in power.
2. Superman was likely holding back given how he screamed when he finally killed Zod, and begged him not to make him do that.


And what's your point bringing that up anyway? As if Thor hasn't taken hits from powerhouses.

And then you go off on a complete tangent bringing up Superman getting hit by a nuke




I think he just means "a lot". I don't think he means Superman speed blitzed him or something.

But I can understand your skepticism when it comes to h1 and his fantasy version of super speed.

This is fiction. We don't get to make shit up. The only thing that exists is what the writer WANTS US TO KNOW.
Superman wasn't holding back because the writer didn’t show the audience that he was.

I was saying Superman tanking a nuke implies that Zod can do the same if you are allowed to scale Thor off other character's based solely off physicality.

Originally posted by Robtard
The lowballing of Thor here is just silly trolling, Thor's feats speak for themselves:



Survived the exploding Bifrost without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/iwQMalt.gif

Survived the explosion at Sokovia without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/x9MKaoP.gif

Tanked the "full force of a star" for couple minutes

https://i.imgur.com/42NRxqa.gif

Posting the clips doesn't defeat my arguments.
If I lowballed then articulate how I did and properly rebut my arguments. This is a debate forum. Debate!

I addressed everything you said. You basically ignored what I said.
Ignoring evidence is the epitome of trolling.

Bifrost explosion was weak. Look at the speed of the blast wave and shrapnel (multiple times slower than a bullet).

Sokovia explosion was weak. Everything was rather breaking apart and not so much exploding. The actual minor explosion that occurred didn't produce speeds of objects faster than a bullet.

The star feat shows that Thor is incredibly resistant against high temperatures. Thor still can be cut and punched in the face to bleed. Makes sense since he controls lightning.

Originally posted by h1a8
Zod was punched multiple times farther than Thor was. Therefore he was hit harder. Zod was hit with a force so hard that it created a huge crater.

Force = mass x acceleration
Multiple Kryptonians were tanking bullets. Zod and Superman are physical peers. Superman

Thor has 0 cutting or bullet proof feats. I give him Loki level of bulletproof since he's roughly Loki's better physically (not way above though).




Zod and Superman were trading blows where they remained mostly stationary. The only times they sent each other flying was when they user power shots or when then were already flying... and which case it seems easier to push them around since they seemed weightless.

In comparison, every single hit that Hulk hit Thor with sent THor flying. Whether that was with a punch, a kick, or a hammer hit. There's literally zero proof that Zod got hit harder than Thor. Besides, Thor has a feet of falling for around 30,000 feet without getting hurt. Zod has no feat to equal that.

Zod never got shot by a bullet either. So if you're giving him the bulletproof feats of other kryptonians then it's only fair to give Thor the bulletproof feats of Loki. Though to be fair, the other kyrptonians had armor on and were still knocked back by gunship fire. In comparison, Thor stood in the line of fire against Ultron's jet and didn't get knocked back at all.

As for cutting feats, I'm still waiting for your promise to provide Zod's cutting resistance feats. You can hate on Thor's cutting resistance feats all you want but in the end, they're still far better than anything Zod has shown.

Originally posted by h1a8
Posting the clips doesn't defeat my arguments.
If I lowballed then articulate how I did and properly rebut my arguments. This is a debate forum. Debate!




You dont debate though. You just make shit up.

Like an island destroying blast was weak. What a troll you are.

Oh and btw the BiFrost explosion starts in slow mo as seen at 0:48:

https://youtu.be/qqsJs7_YAo0

Originally posted by h1a8

Multiple Kryptonians were tanking bullets. Zod and Superman are physical peers.


Zero indication of that. Superman was clearly stronger and holding back.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has 0 cutting or bullet proof feats. I give him Loki level of bulletproof since he's roughly Loki's better physically (not way above though).


Laughable.

You only have to look at how Thor brushed off Hulk's ragdolling, compared to Loki being completely immobilised by it to see that Thor's durability is far greater than Loki's.



Originally posted by h1a8
This is fiction. We don't get to make shit up.


Super ironic.

Originally posted by h1a8
The only thing that exists is what the writer WANTS US TO KNOW.
Superman wasn't holding back because the writer didn’t show the audience that he was.


The writer/director literally showed us Kal was holding back when he hesitated to kill Zod until the very last second.


Originally posted by h1a8
I was saying Superman tanking a nuke implies that Zod can do the same


No it doesn't at all. MOS Kal > Zod, let alone BvS Kal.

Also you are redefining "Tanking" here.


Originally posted by h1a8
if you are allowed to scale Thor off other character's based solely off physicality.

Because Thor was proven to be =/> than those characters. This isn't difficult.

Power scaling is still a thing. But proven power scaling, not your own made up speculative power scaling.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You dont debate though. You just make shit up.

Like an island destroying blast was weak. What a troll you are.

I just didn't state it was weak. I gave reasons why it was weak. Therefore, I am debating and not making stuff up.


The speed of the debris wasn't very fast. Bullets travel far faster.
The explosion doesn't look impressive at all.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Oh and btw the BiFrost explosion starts in slow mo as seen at 0:48:

https://youtu.be/qqsJs7_YAo0

It amazes me that you post this feat after I explain why the explosion was weak (the speed of the explosion is many times slower than a real explosion from explosives). Thank you for posting the damning evidence.

Also, it amazes me that you don't believe Zod or Superman could pull that off just as easily. To me, that is a true telling of bias.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Zero indication of that. Superman was clearly stronger and holding back.

Prove that Superman was clearly stronger and holding back. Just stating it isn't proof.




Yet Loki taking bullets >>> being ragdolled by Hulk. So what we have is fiction inconsistency (common thing).
I agree that Thor's durability is greater than Loki's. I agree that Thor can take the same bullets that Loki did. But I don't believe that Thor can take aircraft bullets (20mm). Those type of bullets are several times more powerful. That's why the writer had Thor run from them.

You flaw is thinking all bullets are equal.



Hesitating to kill someone (faultily assuming Kal was even thinking about killing all up until the last moment) doesn't translate into holding back your punching strength. Professional fighters will not hold back their punching power but most will definitely hesitate to kill another human by snapping their neck.



Correct tanking is the wrong word. Surviving without visible damage to skin is better. Anyway, if Kal > Zod then it isn't by a lot (either a tiny bit or not at all).
There is absolutely no solid evidence showing Kal > Zod. When they collided they canceled each other out perfectly (writer's intent to be equals right there). They punched each other with similar power (actually Zod hit Superman kinda harder in one scene than Superman ever hit Zod).


You don't get to make up the rules. Oh we can powerscale if someone is > but we can't powerscale if someone is near equals with. We either powerscale for both cases or neither case.

Originally posted by h1a8
I just didn't state it was weak. I gave reasons why it was weak. Therefore, I am debating and not making stuff up.


The speed of the debris wasn't very fast. Bullets travel far faster.
The explosion doesn't look impressive at all.


The whole Island explodes at the end. Just watch the GIF through to the end. Jeez.

Let me know what bullet could disintegrate that whole Island.



Originally posted by h1a8
It amazes me that you post this feat after I explain why the explosion was weak (the speed of the explosion is many times slower than a real explosion from explosives). Thank you for posting the damning evidence.

Also, it amazes me that you don't believe Zod or Superman could pull that off just as easily. To me, that is a true telling of bias.


It amazes me more that you completely missed my point.

Did you even go to 0:48 ?

Maybe try 0:47.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove that Superman was clearly stronger and holding back. Just stating it isn't proof.


I already have. He didn't want to kill Zod as we were clearly shown at the end.




Originally posted by h1a8
Yet Loki taking bullets >>> being ragdolled by Hulk. So what we have is fiction inconsistency (common thing).


OR there's no inconsistency, and Hulk's hits are >>>>>> bullets.

The only inconsistency is the one you are forcing yourself to make to downgrade Marvel characters.



Originally posted by h1a8
I agree that Thor's durability is greater than Loki's. I agree that Thor can take the same bullets that Loki did. But I don't believe that Thor can take aircraft bullets (20mm). Those type of bullets are several times more powerful. That's why the writer had Thor run from them.

You flaw is thinking all bullets are equal.



Except he didn't run from those TYPE of Bullets in AOU. Thor also fought Hulk as an equal in Ragnarok and we saw Hulk take those same bullets.

You're over obsessed with this Thor ducking for cover in the first Avengers, when he literally never went up against 21st Century man made weapons before.

You're no different to Quan who was over obsessed with Kal struggling to hold up an Oil tank, and continued to troll that info for all Superman versus threads ever (that little fact btw does prove that he was still growing in power, hence your faulty logic of comparing Superman and Zod from different time periods).




Originally posted by h1a8
Hesitating to kill someone (faultily assuming Kal was even thinking about killing all up until the last moment) doesn't translate into holding back your punching strength. Professional fighters will not hold back their punching power but most will definitely hesitate to kill another human by snapping their neck.


Professional fighter where gloves. And they have the referee to intervene.

Otherwise continued punches are very deadly and can absolutely kill. Something Kal clearly didn't want to do.




Originally posted by h1a8
Correct tanking is the wrong word. Surviving without visible damage to skin is better. Anyway, if Kal > Zod then it isn't by a lot (either a tiny bit or not at all).


There clearly was visible damage. He looked Ill as f***. So that feat proves absolutely nothing when comparing to Thor. Not that we are comparing Superman to Thor here. ONLY YOU are doing that.


Originally posted by h1a8
There is absolutely no solid evidence showing Kal > Zod. When they collided they canceled each other out perfectly (writer's intent to be equals right there). They punched each other with similar power (actually Zod hit Superman kinda harder in one scene than Superman ever hit Zod).


There's no evidence at all that Zod was Superman's physical equal even in MOS, let alone BvS or JL.

Writers intent was they were not equals, ergo why farmboy Superman snapped warrior soldier's neck. If they were physical equals, Zod frankly would have stomped.

Plus we factually know Kal was trying not to kill.



Originally posted by h1a8
You don't get to make up the rules. Oh we can powerscale if someone is > but we can't powerscale if someone is near equals with. We either powerscale for both cases or neither case.


And You don't get to avoid basic common sense.

Of course power scaling only works if you are physically equal or superior to a 3rd character. It kind of goes out of the window when you are physically Inferior to the random other character you are bringing up and from completely different time periods to boot! There's no logic to that at all and clearly brought up for no reason but a desperate attempt to make a case where there is none.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The whole Island explodes at the end. Just watch the GIF through to the end. Jeez.

Let me know what bullet could disintegrate that whole

You can't debate. You keep ignoring what I said. Is it that you don't understand what I said?

The speed of the debris/shrapnel is relatively small in comparison to a real explosion (typically involving explosives). In a real explosion, the material protrudes from the origin of the explosion at speeds several times the speed of a bullet.

The force of that explosion (at the end) was therefore small. Thor got hit with shit moving far under bullet speed. Just look at the speed of the tiny debris coming from the explosion. This is the proof.

In a powerful explosion, the blast force pushes objects with speeds several times faster than the speed of sound.



I didn't miss your point. You missed mine.
We judge the power of an explosion by
1. The damage it does to objects with known durability
Or
2. The speed in which the shrapnel/debris protrudes outward from the explosion.

Originally posted by Robtard
The lowballing of Thor here is just silly trolling, Thor's feats speak for themselves:



Survived the exploding Bifrost without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/iwQMalt.gif

Survived the explosion at Sokovia without injury, was at ground zero

https://i.imgur.com/x9MKaoP.gif

Tanked the "full force of a star" for couple minutes

https://i.imgur.com/42NRxqa.gif

https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/qo/9cmzka7ysm14.gif

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I already have. He didn't want to kill Zod as we were clearly shown at the end.







OR there's no inconsistency, and Hulk's hits are >>>>>> bullets.

The only inconsistency is the one you are forcing yourself to make to downgrade Marvel characters.


You continue to ignore what I said.
Not wanting to kill someone has nothing to with holding back the power of your strikes.
You are erroneously assuming that Clark was even thinking about killing or not killing Zod during the entire fight.

The force in which Hulk slammed Loki is not that large.
We clearly see from the damage of the floor and the speed in which Hulk was slamming Loki that rifle bullets >>>>> being slammed by Hulk.


Thor didn't have an opportunity to do anythin but duck a little. He was instantly showered with bullets. The shower was unexpected and only lasted a split second.

Ok I'll drop the argument since it's not strong as I like.
Thor can't withstand aircraft bullets because he has no feats to support that he can.
Is that better?

Now debate according to that.
The oil tank is due to fiction inconsistency.
You are making stuff up about him growing in power.
In that universe, Kryptonians were fully powered after just a few moments in the sunlight.

Look at Clark after he got nuked. He recovered completely after being exposed to sunlight for a few moments.
Look at Nam Ek. Dude threw a train several blocks away. That feat >>> oil tank.

You are missing the point. The point was that it's not only possible, but extremely likely, to fight someone with full force punches but not want to kill them.

You continue to make stuff up.


No damage to the skin is what I said.
The damage was that it drained Superman of his power reserves.

To say that there is no evidence to show they were equals is a lie. I gave several evidences.
1. Punches were similar in power (Zod actually hit harder).
2. Colliding with full force and canceling each other out perfectly.

You keep spouting Clark snapped neck to proves he's stronger. I rebutted that.
1. It's possible to snap the neck of an equal or superior.
2. Not wanting to snap someone's neck doesnt imply holding back full force with punches.




From my estimate Zod is slightly superior to Superman (so slight that they are basically equals).

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I already have. He didn't want to kill Zod as we were clearly shown at the end.







OR there's no inconsistency, and Hulk's hits are >>>>>> bullets.

The only inconsistency is the one you are forcing yourself to make to downgrade Marvel characters.







Except he didn't run from those TYPE of Bullets in AOU. Thor also fought Hulk as an equal in Ragnarok and we saw Hulk take those same bullets.

You're over obsessed with this Thor ducking for cover in the first Avengers, when he literally never went up against 21st Century man made weapons before.

You're no different to Quan who was over obsessed with Kal struggling to hold up an Oil tank, and continued to troll that info for all Superman versus threads ever (that little fact btw does prove that he was still growing in power, hence your faulty logic of comparing Superman and Zod from different time periods).







Professional fighter where gloves. And they have the referee to intervene.

Otherwise continued punches are very deadly and can absolutely kill. Something Kal clearly didn't want to do.







There clearly was visible damage. He looked Ill as f***. So that feat proves absolutely nothing when comparing to Thor. Not that we are comparing Superman to Thor here. ONLY YOU are doing that.





There's no evidence at all that Zod was Superman's physical equal even in MOS, let alone BvS or JL.

Writers intent was they were not equals, ergo why farmboy Superman snapped warrior soldier's neck. If they were physical equals, Zod frankly would have stomped.

Plus we factually know Kal was trying not to kill.






And You don't get to avoid basic common sense.

Of course power scaling only works if you are physically equal or superior to a 3rd character. It kind of goes out of the window when you are physically Inferior to the random other character you are bringing up and from completely different time periods to boot! There's no logic to that at all and clearly brought up for no reason but a desperate attempt to make a case where there is none.

Agreed

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/qo/9cmzka7ysm14.gif

so? nobody said he was impervious to silly plot devices

Originally posted by h1a8
You continue to ignore what I said.
Not wanting to kill someone has nothing to with holding back the power of your strikes.


I literally and directly addressed that.


Originally posted by h1a8
You are erroneously assuming that Clark was even thinking about killing or not killing Zod during the entire fight.


You think murderous intentions don't effect the way you fight?

Is Superman a villain now that he doesn't hold back? Goes all out for the kill?

Originally posted by h1a8
The force in which Hulk slammed Loki is not that large.
We clearly see from the damage of the floor and the speed in which Hulk was slamming Loki that rifle bullets >>>>> being slammed by Hulk.


Oh quit being a troll. His ragdoll smashed the the marble floor, even left Loki underneath the floor level:

YStUg14_23o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YStUg14_23o


Originally posted by h1a8
Thor didn't have an opportunity to do anythin but duck a little. He was instantly showered with bullets. The shower was unexpected and only lasted a split second.


The humans moved out of the way. Of course Thor could have. We've seen how fast he can bullrush (@1:35):

SLD9xzJ4oeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLD9xzJ4oeU


Originally posted by h1a8
Ok I'll drop the argument since it's not strong as I like.
Thor can't withstand aircraft bullets because he has no feats to support that he can.
Is that better?
Now debate according to that.

Yes it's a terrible argument which pre assumes Thor knew the full power of all Shield's military aircraft before Thor ever lived on Earth.

Because an exploding Island is less destructive than a few bullets right?


Originally posted by h1a8
The oil tank is due to fiction inconsistency.


Oh that's such BS. Because you're losing the debate, you have to resort to it being an inconsistency instead of just admitting my argument is more logical and consistent than yours.


Originally posted by h1a8
You are making stuff up about him growing in power.


So he was flying from the start of the film ?

There was no training session where he was learning to grow the limits of his power?

I'll take your blatant BS as a concession that you've lost this debate.


Originally posted by h1a8
In that universe, Kryptonians were fully powered after just a few moments in the sunlight.


Oh really? That's why they had no HV or flight?

Quit the BS.


Originally posted by h1a8
Look at Clark after he got nuked. He recovered completely after being exposed to sunlight for a few moments.


Which has what to do with Zod or Thor?


Originally posted by h1a8
Look at Nam Ek. Dude threw a train several blocks away. That feat >>> oil tank.


Which has what to do with Zod or Thor?


Originally posted by h1a8
You are missing the point. The point was that it's not only possible, but extremely likely, to fight someone with full force punches but not want to kill them.


If you continually punch someone in the head then that is lethal force. You can easily kill them.

Originally posted by h1a8
You continue to make stuff up.


Funny because I'm the one backing up my points from the films, whereas you're making your own head canon, like the oil tanker scene doesn't count. That the writers and directors simply forgot how strong Kal was in that scene.


Originally posted by h1a8
No damage to the skin is what I said.
The damage was that it drained Superman of his power reserves.

That doesn't sound like he tanked it at all.

But again what does this have to do with Zod or Thor?


Originally posted by h1a8
To say that there is no evidence to show they were equals is a lie. I gave several evidences.


Lie is a hell of an accusation. Specially coming from someone who clearly makes up his own head canon and tries to present that as some sort of fact.


Originally posted by h1a8
1. Punches were similar in power (Zod actually hit harder).


Which means jack if Superman was holding back more than Zod.

Also means Jack is Superman was still growing in power, given your case seems to rest on comparing BvS Superman to Thor, instead of comparing MOS Zod to Thor.



Originally posted by h1a8
2. Colliding with full force and canceling each other out perfectly.


Same as above.

Originally posted by h1a8
You keep spouting Clark snapped neck to proves he's stronger. I rebutted that.
1. It's possible to snap the neck of an equal or superior.
2. Not wanting to snap someone's neck doesnt imply holding back full force with punches.


A farm boy winning against a soldier can only be logically explained by the farm boy being physically superior.

Again what does this have to do with Thor and Zod's durability comparison.

Quit taking us for a loop with your BS attempt at head canon power scaling.

Power scaling is simple. e.g. Thor is physically > Loki, therefore Thor can take bullets.

Not Superman can do this and that many years after Zod died, and Zod once fought him and lost, ergo Zod is > Thor. That's just turd logic.




Originally posted by h1a8
From my estimate Zod is slightly superior to Superman (so slight that they are basically equals).


Im sure that true in your own head canon.

Explain to me how in your head canon version a physically superior soldier loses to a physically weaker farm boy. That should be some nice turd logic reading.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I literally and directly addressed that.





You think murderous intentions don't effect the way you fight?

Is Superman a villain now that he doesn't hold back? Goes all out for the kill?




Oh quit being a troll. His ragdoll smashed the the marble floor, even left Loki underneath the floor level:

YStUg14_23o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YStUg14_23o





The humans moved out of the way. Of course Thor could have. We've seen how fast he can bullrush (@1:35):

SLD9xzJ4oeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLD9xzJ4oeU




Yes it's a terrible argument which pre assumes Thor knew the full power of all Shield's military aircraft before Thor ever lived on Earth.

Because an exploding Island is less destructive than a few bullets right?





Oh that's such BS. Because you're losing the debate, you have to resort to it being an inconsistency instead of just admitting my argument is more logical and consistent than yours.





So he was flying from the start of the film ?

There was no training session where he was learning to grow the limits of his power?

I'll take your blatant BS as a concession that you've lost this debate.





Oh really? That's why they had no HV or flight?

Quit the BS.





Which has what to do with Zod or Thor?





Which has what to do with Zod or Thor?





If you continually punch someone in the head then that is lethal force. You can easily kill them.




Funny because I'm the one backing up my points from the films, whereas you're making your own head canon, like the oil tanker scene doesn't count. That the writers and directors simply forgot how strong Kal was in that scene.




That doesn't sound like he tanked it at all.

But again what does this have to do with Zod or Thor?





Lie is a hell of an accusation. Specially coming from someone who clearly makes up his own head canon and tries to present that as some sort of fact.





Which means jack if Superman was holding back more than Zod.

Also means Jack is Superman was still growing in power, given your case seems to rest on comparing BvS Superman to Thor, instead of comparing MOS Zod to Thor.






Same as above.




A farm boy winning against a soldier can only be logically explained by the farm boy being physically superior.

Again what does this have to do with Thor and Zod's durability comparison.

Quit taking us for a loop with your BS attempt at head canon power scaling.

Power scaling is simple. e.g. Thor is physically > Loki, therefore Thor can take bullets.

Not Superman can do this and that many years after Zod died, and Zod once fought him and lost, ergo Zod is > Thor. That's just turd logic.







Im sure that true in your own head canon.

Explain to me how in your head canon version a physically superior soldier loses to a physically weaker farm boy. That should be some nice turd logic reading.


1. It's possible to strike someone with all your might but have no murderous intentions. Thsts possibilty rebuts your claim. Unless you want to argue that it's impossible for a person to want to punch someone with all their might if they don't want to kill them.

2. Again resisting rifles bullets > being twice slammed into a particular area and leaving a crater of a few inches. If you disagree then you certainly can agree that it isn't much higher than resisting rifle rounds.

3. Thor had no time to run. It was totally unexpected and only lasted a split second. The fact that he kinda ducked means something.

4. You are making stuff up. Thor didn't run from the bullets because he falsely thought they could hurt him. There is no evidence of that.
You making up reasons doesn't fly in debates.

The objects from THAT PARTICULAR exploding island was moving far slower than a bullet. So Thor could have gotten hit with hundreds or thousands of objects that were all moving under bullet speed. In a real explosion, shrapnel moves at speeds of a rifle bullet or more.

5. Fiction inconsistency occurs a large amount of times. It is very common. I proved your logic was wrong by giving feats from the newly powered Kryptonians that exceeded the oil rig by many times.
If Clark was so much stronger than them then why did he struggle with something far weaker than what they achieved strength wise?
Why being under the sun for a few seconds fully powered Clark when he was drained? Learning to fly or use other powers has nothing to do with growing physically stronger over time. Zod learned to fly and use HV very quickly.
The point is I proved how the physics work in that universe. It only takes a few seconds of sunlight to be fully powered.

7. You lied and said there was no evidence that points to Zod and Superman being physical equals. You stated this AFTER I gave the evidence (collision as equals and similar punch power). And again, no where in the film does it point out that Clark was holding back his punches. Not wanting to kill Zod doesn't prove it because of counterexample (it's possible to try to punch someone with all your might but not want to kill them). You continue to make stuff up. And yet I suppose to be the troll.

8. The soldier showed no great fighting skill. He threw wild haymakers and failed to block or dodge many of the farm boys attacks. You can't attribute skill to someone based off their status if it contradicts what we see. Again, making stuff up. When two physically equal characters with similar shown skill fight then either can win.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. It's possible to strike someone with all your might but have no murderous intentions. Thsts possibilty rebuts your claim. Unless you want to argue that it's impossible for a person to want to punch someone with all their might if they don't want to kill them.


Okay let's assume I think it's "possible" that a guy without murderous intent might go for a full haymaker.

Tell me who will hit with more of their full potential force?

a) a trained boxer, or

b) a guy whose never been in the ring and never been in a real fight?


Don't think too hard before your inevitable troll denial and jibberish response.



Originally posted by h1a8
2. Again resisting rifles bullets > being twice slammed into a particular area and leaving a crater of a few inches. If you disagree then you certainly can agree that it isn't much higher than resisting rifle rounds.

YStUg14_23o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YStUg14_23o

At 0:18 a single hit smashes the floor underneath. I'd love to see a single bullet do that.

Look this isn't difficult to grasp if you just stop with your trolling for a second. Bullets did jack to him, and the Hulk left him immobilised and crying. Ergo The Hulk's ragdoll was >>>>> bullets.

Try to put your blatant bias aside or admit you're not objective enough for a proper debate, ergo quit wasting my time.


Originally posted by h1a8
3. Thor had no time to run. It was totally unexpected and only lasted a split second. The fact that he kinda ducked means something.


v=pVuIszzqnrc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVuIszzqnrc

He has from 0:36 to 0:39 to jump out of the way. That's 3 damn seconds. Even Cap manages to put his shield up and get cover. And I've already shown you how fast Thor can bull rush.

Not to mention at 0:40 it clearly shoots all over the area he is at.

Will you quit talking shit now ffs.


Originally posted by h1a8
4. You are making stuff up. Thor didn't run from the bullets because he falsely thought they could hurt him. There is no evidence of that.
You making up reasons doesn't fly in debates.


I thought you were going to quit this argument because it was't a great one by your own admission. And then you accuse me of being a liar.


Watch the films. He's an alien and has no clue of Earth's defences. Why would he know? HOW would he know?

YOU'RE the one assuming he does know exactly how hard the bullets from a military aircraft fire. Heck if his math is as bad as yours he'll assume it's billions of ton of force.




Originally posted by h1a8
The objects from THAT PARTICULAR exploding island was moving far slower than a bullet. So Thor could have gotten hit with hundreds or thousands of objects that were all moving under bullet speed. In a real explosion, shrapnel moves at speeds of a rifle bullet or more.


So I guess a bullet proof vest would protect you if we put you at the centre of that exploding Island

Quit making a fool out of yourself.




Originally posted by h1a8
5. Fiction inconsistency occurs a large amount of times. It is very common. I proved your logic was wrong by giving feats from the newly powered Kryptonians that exceeded the oil rig by many times.
If Clark was so much stronger than them then why did he struggle with something far weaker than what they achieved strength wise?
Why being under the sun for a few seconds fully powered Clark when he was drained? Learning to fly or use other powers has nothing to do with growing physically stronger over time. Zod learned to fly and use HV very quickly.
The point is I proved how the physics work in that universe. It only takes a few seconds of sunlight to be fully powered.


Firstly, making up your own head canon isn't proving jack.

Second we don't just assume fiction inconsistency due to not liking a feat. Inconsistency is clear cut. Like when Wolverine gets KO'd by a single bullet in one film, then shrugs bullets to the head in another (a prequel film no less).

Inconsistency is not you playing mental gymnastics.

Your comparison to other Kryptonians is completely faulty given how Zod began to fly the same day he was on Earth, whereas Kal wasn't flying his whole life until his first training session from Jor-El. And EVEN THEN he did not manage it on his first attempt.

Clearly Kryptonian soldiers were just better trained and more easily able to adapt.

There was no inconsistency, you simply can't compare different Kryptonians with different levels of training, and different amounts of time spent on Earth.

So interchanging feats between them is not legitimate for a debate.





Originally posted by h1a8
7. You lied and said there was no evidence that points to Zod and Superman being physical equals. You stated this AFTER I gave the evidence (collision as equals and similar punch power). And again, no where in the film does it point out that Clark was holding back his punches. Not wanting to kill Zod doesn't prove it because of counterexample (it's possible to try to punch someone with all your might but not want to kill them). You continue to make stuff up. And yet I suppose to be the troll.


Similar punch power is down to all sorts not just strength. What does that have to do with durability anyway?

And how does that make Zod the equal of BvS Superman in durability, and what is the nuclear explosion which Kal barely survived supposed to prove anyway?

Your mental gymnastics of comparing one thing to another to another is why your points are invalid. This is why you can't simply interchange feats. You can only power scale with CLEAR, SIMPLE, and DIRECT Comparisons.


Originally posted by h1a8
8. The soldier showed no great fighting skill. He threw wild haymakers and failed to block or dodge many of the farm boys attacks. You can't attribute skill to someone based off their status if it contradicts what we see. Again, making stuff up. When two physically equal characters with similar shown skill fight then either can win.

v=06Qm8cKJ-jo&t=123s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Qm8cKJ-jo&t=123s

At 1:57, Kal had already physically overpowered Zod before the headlock.

So clearly they were not physical equals.

Zod was not only a soldier, but didn't need training to fly. Clearly he had all sorts of advantages over Kal, and yet was still clearly physcially overpowered. The only logical explanation is that Kal was physically superior.

And that's as of the end of MOS. Who knows how much stronger Kal was by BvS.

Now quit this Kal vs Zod shit. Set up another thread for that if that's waht you want to discuss.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Okay let's assume I think it's "possible" that a guy without murderous intent might go for a full haymaker.

Tell me who will hit with more of their full potential force?

a) a trained boxer, or

b) a guy whose never been in the ring and never been in a real fight?


Don't think too hard before your inevitable troll denial and jibberish response.





YStUg14_23o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YStUg14_23o

At 0:18 a single hit smashes the floor underneath. I'd love to see a single bullet do that.

Look this isn't difficult to grasp if you just stop with your trolling for a second. Bullets did jack to him, and the Hulk left him immobilised and crying. Ergo The Hulk's ragdoll was >>>>> bullets.

Try to put your blatant bias aside or admit you're not objective enough for a proper debate, ergo quit wasting my time.





v=pVuIszzqnrc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVuIszzqnrc

He has from 0:36 to 0:39 to jump out of the way. That's 3 damn seconds. Even Cap manages to put his shield up and get cover. And I've already shown you how fast Thor can bull rush.

Not to mention at 0:40 it clearly shoots all over the area he is at.

Will you quit talking shit now ffs.





I thought you were going to quit this argument because it was't a great one by your own admission. And then you accuse me of being a liar.


Watch the films. He's an alien and has no clue of Earth's defences. Why would he know? HOW would he know?

YOU'RE the one assuming he does know exactly how hard the bullets from a military aircraft fire. Heck if his math is as bad as yours he'll assume it's billions of ton of force.







So I guess a bullet proof vest would protect you if we put you at the centre of that exploding Island

Quit making a fool out of yourself.







Firstly, making up your own head canon isn't proving jack.

Second we don't just assume fiction inconsistency due to not liking a feat. Inconsistency is clear cut. Like when Wolverine gets KO'd by a single bullet in one film, then shrugs bullets to the head in another (a prequel film no less).

Inconsistency is not you playing mental gymnastics.

Your comparison to other Kryptonians is completely faulty given how Zod began to fly the same day he was on Earth, whereas Kal wasn't flying his whole life until his first training session from Jor-El. And EVEN THEN he did not manage it on his first attempt.

Clearly Kryptonian soldiers were just better trained and more easily able to adapt.

There was no inconsistency, you simply can't compare different Kryptonians with different levels of training, and different amounts of time spent on Earth.

So interchanging feats between them is not legitimate for a debate.








Similar punch power is down to all sorts not just strength. What does that have to do with durability anyway?

And how does that make Zod the equal of BvS Superman in durability, and what is the nuclear explosion which Kal barely survived supposed to prove anyway?

Your mental gymnastics of comparing one thing to another to another is why your points are invalid. This is why you can't simply interchange feats. You can only power scale with CLEAR, SIMPLE, and DIRECT Comparisons.




v=06Qm8cKJ-jo&t=123s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Qm8cKJ-jo&t=123s

At 1:57, Kal had already physically overpowered Zod before the headlock.

So clearly they were not physical equals.

Zod was not only a soldier, but didn't need training to fly. Clearly he had all sorts of advantages over Kal, and yet was still clearly physcially overpowered. The only logical explanation is that Kal was physically superior.

And that's as of the end of MOS. Who knows how much stronger Kal was by BvS.

Now quit this Kal vs Zod shit. Set up another thread for that if that's waht you want to discuss.

1. Irrelevant. It's possible to strike with all ones might but have no murderous intentions. You are trying to change the goalposts. So your made up theory is not proven.

2. Ultron starts firing at 0:37. Thor is shown at 0:39-0:40. Thor ducks. Stop ignoring that. You have to prove that Thor didn't run away because he knew he was resistant. Good luck.
Again Thor has no feats to show him being resistant against aircraft bullets.

3. If the exploding bits of the island where hitting the only vest but at speeds far less than bullet speed then yes, the vest will protect you. Duh.

4. You say that Clark was stronger than Zod because he was on Earth longer. Yet you can't explain why Zod and the other Kryptonians have strength feats beyond the oil rig.
Note: I already proven the physics of that universe (a few seconds to be fully powered).

5. Both are Kryptonians (same species) with equal shown physicality. Therefore Zod has the same (or damn near the same) durability as Superman.

6. A weaker person can easily overpower a stronger in a headlock position. So again, you failed to prove that Clark overpowered Zod due to him supposedly being stronger.

7. Kal wasn't stronger in BvS because he wasn't shown to be.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/qo/9cmzka7ysm14.gif

, dick

I see H1 has turned this into another clusterf*ck of a thread... all because he refuses to back his arguments up with feats.

You'll notice h1's entire argument is "this is my interpretation of the feats" only he claims that his interpretation = writers intent and thus is the only legit interpretation.

Originally posted by Robtard
, dick

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GrippingRareBordercollie-size_restricted.gif

Those were scary lights and Thor was an emotional mess from just having lost a loved one, his beloved hammer Mjolnir.

Originally posted by Robtard
Those were scary lights and Thor was an emotional mess from just having lost a loved one, his beloved hammer Mjolnir.

https://media.tenor.com/images/6d4af5cff23f4f0950d66194d37215cb/tenor.gif

Originally posted by FrothByte
I see H1 has turned this into another clusterf*ck of a thread... all because he refuses to back his arguments up with feats.

I gave feats. Zod against Superman showings remember?

Weren't you the one trying to scale Thor and Sif off Asgardian farmer.
Darth scaling Thor off Loki, etc?

Originally posted by h1a8
I gave feats. Zod against Superman showings remember?

Weren't you the one trying to scale Thor and Sif off Asgardian farmer.
Darth scaling Thor off Loki, etc?


No you repeatedly IGNORED feats in favour of your own head canon.

FFS Kal > Zod (he clearly overpowered him then snapped his damn neck), whereas Thor is the strongest of all Asgardians minus Odin and Hela (notice how nobody is scaling Thor off Hela).

Plus youre scaling an earlier Zod against a later possibly much stronger Kal. Whilst in the Abom vs Aquaman thread youre claiming Abom is weaker because he went up against Hulk from a time when he had less showings. Complete hypocrisy.

Not to mention youre comparing bullets to a massive ground zero explosion. And not just one, but multiple massive ground zero explosions! Just zero logic and common sense there all down to bias.

And purposely ignoring on screen statements about the force Thor took then have the nerve to talk about writers intention.

The sheer hypocrisy, bias and purposely ignoring common sense is exactly why youre wasting everyones time and no one can be bothered with you.

Carry on living in your own head canon. Im done here.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
No you repeatedly IGNORED feats in favour of your own head canon.

FFS Kal > Zod (he clearly overpowered him then snapped his damn neck), whereas Thor is the strongest of all Asgardians minus Odin and Hela (notice how nobody is scaling Thor off Hela).

Plus youre scaling an earlier Zod against a later possibly much stronger Kal. Whilst in the Abom vs Aquaman thread youre claiming Abom is weaker because he went up against Hulk from a time when he had less showings. Complete hypocrisy.

Not to mention youre comparing bullets to a massive ground zero explosion. And not just one, but multiple massive ground zero explosions! Just zero logic and common sense there all down to bias.

And purposely ignoring on screen statements about the force Thor took then have the nerve to talk about writers intention.

The sheer hypocrisy, bias and purposely ignoring common sense is exactly why youre wasting everyones time and no one can be bothered with you.

Carry on living in your own head canon. Im done here.

Kal never overpowered Zod. He snapped his neck yes, but that is not equivalent to overpowering someone (as proof of being stronger).

Both were shown as equals when they collided at full force. Zod took Clark's best shots without damage. So either he is a peer or slightly greater (Zod hit harder than Clark did).

P. S you are the one creating head canon (making up shit the writer never intended). Im going by facts, not made up head canon as you are doing.

If Abom failed to break a metal chain then by what insane logic should he be stronger than AM?

I explained why full force was figurative language. I didn't ignore anything.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
No you repeatedly IGNORED feats in favour of your own head canon.

FFS Kal > Zod (he clearly overpowered him then snapped his damn neck), whereas Thor is the strongest of all Asgardians minus Odin and Hela (notice how nobody is scaling Thor off Hela).

Plus youre scaling an earlier Zod against a later possibly much stronger Kal. Whilst in the Abom vs Aquaman thread youre claiming Abom is weaker because he went up against Hulk from a time when he had less showings. Complete hypocrisy.

Not to mention youre comparing bullets to a massive ground zero explosion. And not just one, but multiple massive ground zero explosions! Just zero logic and common sense there all down to bias.

And purposely ignoring on screen statements about the force Thor took then have the nerve to talk about writers intention.

The sheer hypocrisy, bias and purposely ignoring common sense is exactly why youre wasting everyones time and no one can be bothered with you.

Carry on living in your own head canon. Im done here.

It's what he does.

In summary, Darth is claiming that Kal is stronger than Zod because he snapped his neck.
The conclusion does not follow.

He claims that Kal was stronger because he was on Earth longer.
Well Zod and the other kryptonians have strength feats far beyond the oil rig. Yet he cant explain why is that. He does not accept fiction inconsistency as a possible explanation. It has been shown that a few seconds of sunlight gives kryptonians full power. Clark was powerless on Zods ship and gained full power once he left the ship. Kal was drained completely from a nuke and gained full power as a few seconds in the sun. Kryptonians have greater strength feats than him in MOS.

He claims that "full force" is meant literally and not figuratively when the term makes no sense literally. we all know that heat is needed to melt metal (not force). Stars have heat. Writer intends for the heat of the star to be used to melt metal.

He claims that Thor can resist aircraft bullets when Thor has no feats that are equivalent or greater.

In summary, h1 believes his massively biased interpretations trump what the movies actually show

Originally posted by h1a8
In summary, Darth is claiming that Kal is stronger than Zod because he snapped his neck.
The conclusion does not follow.

He claims that Kal was stronger because he was on Earth longer.
Well Zod and the other kryptonians have strength feats far beyond the oil rig. Yet he cant explain why is that. He does not accept fiction inconsistency as a possible explanation. It has been shown that a few seconds of sunlight gives kryptonians full power. Clark was powerless on Zods ship and gained full power once he left the ship. Kal was drained completely from a nuke and gained full power as a few seconds in the sun. Kryptonians have greater strength feats than him in MOS.

He claims that "full force" is meant literally and not figuratively when the term makes no sense literally. we all know that heat is needed to melt metal (not force). Stars have heat. Writer intends for the heat of the star to be used to melt metal.

He claims that Thor can resist aircraft bullets when Thor has no feats that are equivalent or greater.

Superman is stronger than Zod because he defeated Zod in combat. It's not like he defeated him via great skill no? Or do you think that was sheer luck?

And you keep harping on Thor not having feats of resisting aircraft bullets when you yourself have provided zero feats of Zod resisting aircraft bullets or any sort of piercing attack.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Superman is stronger than Zod because he defeated Zod in combat. It's not like he defeated him via great skill no? Or do you think that was sheer luck?

And you keep harping on Thor not having feats of resisting aircraft bullets when you yourself have provided zero feats of Zod resisting aircraft bullets or any sort of piercing attack.

Being stronger does not logically follow from winning in combat.
Zod wasn't particularly skilled (whats shown >>>> speculation). They both hit each other about equally (Kal probably struck Zod more).

Zod is physically equal or greater than Kal who has resisted aircraft bullets.

Originally posted by h1a8


Zod is physically equal or greater than Kal who has resisted aircraft bullets.


Hilarious how this logic works for Zod, but not for Thor.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Hilarious how this logic works for Zod, but not for Thor. Logic does work for Thor. Thor is resistant to the same bullets Loki is.
Aircraft bullets he is not though.

Originally posted by h1a8
Logic does work for Thor. Thor is resistant to the same bullets Loki is.
Aircraft bullets he is not though.

Ironman has tanked aircraft bullets before, and Thor is demonstrably tougher than Ironman.

Originally posted by h1a8

Aircraft bullets he is not though.


Why do you continually insist on lying ?



Originally posted by FrothByte
Ironman has tanked aircraft bullets before, and Thor is demonstrably tougher than Ironman.


Not to mention if Zod gets to be physically =/> Kal despite losing to him, then Thor is physically =/> Hulk.

I mean At least Thor has never lost to the Hulk.

Originally posted by h1a8
Aircraft bullets he is not though.

Provide examples of Thor being injured by aircraft bullets.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ironman has tanked aircraft bullets before, and Thor is demonstrably tougher than Ironman.

No he didn't. They created bullet holes in him.


Originally posted by Silent Master
Provide examples of Thor being injured by aircraft bullets.

Why?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Why do you continually insist on lying ?






Not to mention if Zod gets to be physically =/> Kal despite losing to him, then Thor is physically =/> Hulk.

I mean At least Thor has never lost to the Hulk.

Correct. Zod >= Superman physically while still losing.
No fallacy there.

Originally posted by h1a8
No he didn't. They created bullet holes in him.




It still protected TS. And think you missed the part where Froth explains that Thor is demonstrably TOUGHER than IM. Ergo he would be fully protected against the same bullets.

Does show how ridiculous your logic is though, that both IM and Hulk can all take aircarft bullets, but for some unknown reason Thor can't.

Yet Zod can.

Ridiculous bias.


Originally posted by h1a8

Correct. Zod >= Superman physically while still losing.
No fallacy there.


Cool. Thor >/= Hulk physically. Whilst NOT Losing.

Ergo Thor is also completely bullet proof.

/Conversation.

Originally posted by h1a8
Why?

To back up your claim with actual proof, rather than your massively biased opinion.