CaV: Belcross (GearSecond659) vs Asura (HigherPower) OPEN FOR VOTES

@higherpower: I ask that you delete your comment and take this to a PM as I don't want you influencing voters after the debate has finished.

@gearsecond659: No problem

Expect my vote soon

bump for votes

Uh. This debate, while good in of itself, represents many things I hate about the state of current debates. I will vote on this though, I definitely wouldn't miss it.

Interesting. Looking forward to what you have to say

Great job to the both of you but I have to give my vote to @higherpower.

Honestly I think the problem is that Asura had a lot more clear feats and Belcross can only be scaled vaguely. So it didn't feel like a match of comparing feats, it was a match of debating whether Belcross's power levels are legit or not. Moreover he never performed feats on that level as @higherpower said so Asura felt like the overall superior character.

The Actual Debate

I couldn't watch the videos @gearsecond659 posted since it was banned in my country. Though seeing as how the debate went, nobody was lying ( except for the part for energy projection which I am not sure who is right ), so I looked at the actual debate itself. I'll start with ants heap.

Ants Heap

So Gear was really reliant on using ants as a metric and compared it to another planets. Higherpower was able to prove him wrong showing that every other visual was the same for other planets too.

Also with

Calling Ant Heaps planet sized is an extremely laughable assertion, especially considering that there are multiple shots of Ant Heaps in comparison to actual planets that show them as blatantly smaller. The most prominent and indisputable example of this is seen in the first episode...

You do realize Ant Heaps vary in size... by pretty substantial margins.

and

There's like a dozen more of these but I think I got my point across.

Literally showing me an example of one of the smaller Ant Heaps is not getting your point across. But whatever makes you sleep at night.

I didn't like this counter because the point was to show whether ant's heap was planet sized or not. @higherpower consistently pointed out that there are multiple shots of ants heaps being smaller than planets so I don't think he just meant the smaller ones. At this point I was expecting you to put a scan of a bigger ants heap or just a substantial argument.

The rest of your arguments didn't add any fruit at all, like how the ships were the same size as the ants. In the last round Gear tried comparing ships to an ants heap in this photo.

At this angle is no clear way of saying the ship was the size of an ants heap. Like what if the ship is sooo much closer to the camera than the ant heap. The line of thinking would lead us to believe everything below us when we are in a plane is the actual size itself. No solidification. Not adding to the debate, just pointing out how not very convincing this is.

And correct me here

If we compare your scan of Jupiter and the thumbnail of this video, the ants appear as smaller blue dots in this video which would make Io planet sized. But we know how large Io is.

Again, Ants are significantly smaller than Ant Heaps and yet they were drawn as the same size relative to the Ant Heap and moon they were nearest to. This should tell you that an Ant Heap is bigger than a moon.

This really didn't counter the point @higherpower was trying to prove. Or at least I don't think so. Correct me if I am wrong here but @higherpower was clearly trying to make the assertion that you both know Io has a set size, so you needed to counter what he thought about Io and how your line of thinking would still be valid but as of that it isn't.

So honestly when it comes to the ants heap's argument @higherpower takes a solid majority.

Multiplier

Gear almost proved his power was multiplied a million times. The implications were pretty clear because if anyone is taking a million belcross to amp someones power and give "everything" in order to destroy someone who was beating up the Nodos, its kinda clear he is a million times stronger. I mean IMO writing perspective is very very very important here.

But then @higherpower did make a few pointers

Lecty also stated that she can only complete 20,000 jumps, yet she jumped millions of times to collect those past versions of Bellcross. Contradictions aside, I'm starting to realize that Lecty didn't go back into the past linearly. She stated, "Instead of interfering with the past and returning the present to nothingness... we [will] collect millions of pasts from faraway time and space", which leads me to believe she was referring to other timelines. This actually makes sense, because one version of a person only has one past. Furthermore, Bellcross wasn't even in Madness 100 hours or so before that scene happened.

Correct me, did you actually counter this Gear? This is important because I think what @higherpower was trying to say is that she wasn't collecting the same Belcrosses you are referring to. So not all of his powers and possibly his physical stats would have been the same. She can only do 20,000 jumps so it wouldn't have made sense she collected a million of the same Belcrosses. I mean is this true or not? You didn't put that in your next counter.

Again, I never denied that he become overall more powerful. But we don't know if he was fused physically, spiritually, mentally or another way entirely. It's just incredibly unclear what happened, and Lecty's statement actually throws further confusion into the mix. At the end of the day, you've still presented no proof that his stats increased millions of times linearly and Bellcross is a predominantly physical fighter.

And even this kinda added.

So which solidifies @higherpower's argument that his stats didn't multiply linearly. In fact it was never explicitly said that his power multiplied by a million times.

He also pointed this out

"Everything" clearly meant rights and wrongs. You have to prove that the rights and wrongs of Bellcross' past specifically alludes his physical stats/raw power. However, according to you-

-rights and wrongs means knowledge in that context. Which ends the debate here.

At this point, there is more reason to think Belcross's power wasn't multiplied by a million in physical stats.

This was hard to deduce. You made really good pointers there Gear, its just that I think @higherpower has the edge here.

Energy Projection

I don't wanna touch what you guys were discussing in the story. I couldn't play those videos because funimation hates me and the country im in. However this is what I look at.

And do you have any proof to suggest he could do it in a matter of seconds like Asura?

Well the exact time frame is unknown, and I will say that Belcross generates these level of energies OVER THE COURSE OF A FIGHT, as seen with Mehitak. However, I have no doubt that Belcross will have the chance to release the same level of energies agaisnt Asura because given their close stats, I'd imagine their fight would be long and drawn out, giving Belcross time to generate these level of energies.

This falls really short. From what I have seen, Belross is nowhere as strong as Asura and you really couldn't prove he could do what Asura does.

You also would have really relied on Belcross doing his energy attack times a million. But that also went down.

Verdict or Who wins

This was a speculation argument and not the argument of whose feats are superior. Honestly, Gear's means of winning was really reliant on both the multiplier and ants heap. If one of them was to fall short I don't know how much of a chance Belcross has at winning. Honestly both these arguments fell short, more into the ants heap one. Ants heap clearly couldn't be proven planetary in size.

Reading the multiplier thing almost felt like rocket science so I had to read those arguments a couple times and from what I saw, @higherpower solidly debunked that. Maybe if you were able to counter the contradiction with the person only being able to jump 20k times you might have had a chance. He didn't deny his power got higher exponentially, its just a million times planetary is false based on multiple sources. Belcross could have been much much less.

This while he reminds us that in context feats Asura has done things Belcross has done on a much much higher scale.

So my vote goes to @higherpower

This CaV was pretty short and to-the-point, so it didn't take me very long to read through the arguments. After some deliberation, I'll have to give my vote to @higherpower. He demonstrated Asura's capabilities with explicit showings, whereas Gear's argument hinged on a degree of speculation through a multiplier that was never actually stated, and although it was reasonable enough to at least make an argument, I feel his assertion about it granting Belcross striking power millions of times greater than planet level based on the Ant Heaps only obstructed his case further due to having virtually no method of adequately proving their size.

@red_ruby_petal: Thanks for the vote and the in-depth analysis.

Just making sure, you were able to see the videos I posted right? Gear's were banned for you, but his were youtube videos and mine came from youtube as well.

@thedarkpaladin: Thanks for the vote.

Me: 2

Gear: 0

@higherpower: You mostly used streamable videos so I was able to watch them. I was able to see some of Gear's gifs too. Anything from funimation in youtube is what I couldn't see. I am not sure how much that would have impacted my vote if I saw the videos.

@red_ruby_petal: In that case here is the original video Gear posted. This is the scene where Bellcross was amped by the character Lecty.

This is also where the main debated statement came from.

@red_ruby_petal: Nothing would change as far as your vote goes since me and Gear analyzed the video word for word, but I just feel you'd like to see it visually.

@higherpower: Yeah definitely wouldn't have changed my vote since the statement stayed true to both people arguing so CAVs should be analyzed through debates.

Thanks anyway now I see it clearly.

My Problems with the Format of the Debate

Now, this part of the vote isn't me critiquing the debating skills of either @higherpower or @gearsecond659 nor their arguments(which, incidentally, were both rather good), but rather the format of the debate and the points discussed. In my opinion, the fact that there was little to no debate about the validity of the feats presented nor any strategies is rather unfortunate and presents one of my major problems with some of the debates used nowadays. The second one being the unnecessary amount of semantics discussed, especially when dealing with the topic of Belcross' Multiplier and it's relevance to the debate at hand, which went on to the point that a sizeable portion of both debaters posts were taking about the wording used by Lecty when describing the process of Belcross' "fusion". I understand that it was hard to get around due to the vague nature of Belcross' final form, but still. My final problem would be one that pertains exclusively to @gearsecond659's part of the debate and his complete reliance on one piece of unusually vague scaling as the most important part of his characters way to victory. Usually, I have no issues with scaling as long as it's done correctly. My primary forte interms of Comicvine debating is Seven Deadly Sins, a series that also uses a large amount of scaling in its deduction of characters' strengths. However, I must say, when the entire CaV is essentially determined by just one use of power scaling and an incredibly hard to pinpoint one(that isn't really backed by feats, unfortunately) to boot, the rest of the debate kind of becomes redundant.

Just my 2 cents though, now onto the actual debaters and who I thought won this.

Right off of the bat I want to note how content of almost this entire CaV pertained exclusively to the debatable nature of Bellcross' feats, not Asura's. In my opinion, this is a real exclamation as to the quality of @higherpower's opener and 1st counter post, as they left almost nothing to dispute at all and really showed the extent of Asura's ability perfectly, proving his superiority to base Bellcross in such a way that left @gearsecond659 no choice as to press the whole "millions of times multiplier" thing and, of course, the Ant Heap argument, which I'll now address.

With this being a major part of the debate as almost the only proof for Bellcross' comparable striking strength, it was a highly contested point. However, I feel @higherpower had a significantly more compelling argument here, as he showed multiple scans clearly depicting the size of several Ant Heap's, as apposed to @gearsecond659, who relied exclusively on scaling to the Ants, who in turn scaled to Jupiter as proof, an approach which was also proved unreliably by @higherpower. HP effectively showed that using the Ants, or swarms of them, being minimal in comparison as proof Ant Heaps are planet sized wasn't a viable approach, since they were also were also portrayed as tiny compared to a small country sized moon, which Gear provided virtually no viable counter to.

Now, for the other major argument, which would be the Multiplier argument(uh). Probably, the most contested argument in the whole CaV, it was a very messy and vague process, which resulted in a semantics debate about the nature of character statements. All-in-all, I can't really say either of you really definitively convinced me of your position in this part of the argument. But, unfortunately for Gear, he hadto prove the increase Bellcross received was actually millions of times and not just a 5 or 10 times boost or something, since the burden of proof was on him, which he failed to do, largely due to the vague nature of the scaling and the lack of definitive feats or statements to back it up, as HP kept on showing.

All-in-all, I'd give the victory to @higherpower, the feats he presented were more definitive and not really countered and his job of debunking the Ant Hills and protesting against the multiplier as well as @gearsecond659's interpretation of Bellcross' energy projection feats(though Gear may have had an edge in that latter argument, it was close enough). Good debate guys, nice, short and crispy.

@red_ruby_petal: @thedarkpaladin: @hittheassasin: Thanks for voting. Definitely know where I can improve

@hittheassasin: Thanks for the vote and the comprehensive analysis. It was very insightful.

Me: 3

Gear: 0

This going exactly how i thought it would.

It wasn't fair from the begging though i guess gear did well with what he had

HP could of attacked some of the feats more and gear likewise

The debate wasn't bad but wasn't great.

GL in your future debates

Edit:Oh and scales on scales on scales

@hittheassasin said:

Generally, I don't like to quote votes, but this perfectly summarizes what I wanted to say.

Alright, my vote goes to @higherpower:

Reasons:

He demonstrated Asura is superior with a more clean argument, whereas Gear relied more on scaling/speculations.

Mainly the Ant Heap size argument.