CaV: Iron-Man Post-Infinity War (AvengersAssemble) vs Superman Pre-Justice League (BOC): ***VOTING OPEN***

@boc swept this CAV.

@avengersasssemb did pretty much everything wrong - he massively wanked Stark, using outliers so far above his regular level that it was laughable, and focused on only considering Superman's absolute worst feats. He also tried bringing science in to support his arguments, but clearly had no grasp of physics considering how incorrect his explanations were (the time he tried comparing Stark lifting up that carrier from AoU to Superman pulling a ship was notably terrible). He did word his arguments eloquently, but the arguments themselves were terrible.

On the other hand, BOC effectively countered pretty much everything AA said in a concise manner. The only thing he could have improved on is being more assertive on some main points. That's why I'm giving the win to BOC.

@avengersasssemb: I would but Cavs are extremelly time consuming for me, I'm trying to stick with regular debates for now.

@avengersasssemb: All he did was point out what I said in my second post. For example: the physics of it, showcasing Superman at his worst, etc. He even complemeted your style at one point and said how I could have improved.

But it would be mostly pointless to debate whether or not a vote should be counted. If you find his vote to be bias we won't count it.

@avengersasssemb: I'm fine with not counting it, and I realize he could have worded that a lot better. It was pretty rude. I just think that his points still remain being that they referenced the posts we each made. And he said that your style was good, just not your points.

@avengersasssemb: I'm talking about his direct references to points that were actually made. Bias doesn't change that, but it obviously effects the way they view them so we won't count it.

@avengersasssemb: I'm not going to get into our points, so agree to disagree. His vote will not be counted.

@boc swept this CAV.

@avengersasssemb did pretty much everything wrong - he massively wanked Stark, using outliers so far above his regular level that it was laughable, and focused on only considering Superman's absolute worst feats. He also tried bringing science in to support his arguments, but clearly had no grasp of physics considering how incorrect his explanations were (the time he tried comparing Stark lifting up that carrier from AoU to Superman pulling a ship was notably terrible). He did word his arguments eloquently, but the arguments themselves were terrible.

On the other hand, BOC effectively countered pretty much everything AA said in a concise manner. The only thing he could have improved on is being more assertive on some main points. That's why I'm giving the win to BOC.

Reading through this I thought @AvengersAsssemb did a pretty good job at trying to compare Superman and Ironman to a degree in most physical and offensive categories

What you did right I'd say was highlighting their strength feats, by showing what both we're capable of doing. Also got points from me for showcasing Ironman taking repetitive firepower better.

But lost me when it came in regards to speed. You tried comparing sidestepping a singular missle to outracing being shot at by jetfire.

This is one of the many examples where he was just plain wrong in what he argued. Superman didn't outpace jetfire, he was shot by them. He also had several seconds to anticipate the movement of the jetfire. But if you believe otherwise, that's fine. But that doesn't make you right.

A lot of your comparisons fell flat in my honest opinion. The Zod being frightened of a falling building for one sounded like a bad point to bring out. Given Superman is being used in this fight and in the gif you posted Superman is casually hovering in said crumbling building with no fear whatsoever. Which helped @BOC point of Zod not knowing what can hurt him and can't hurt him yet.

The expression on Zod's face was fear. That's undisputable. It also follows consistently with Nam-Ek and Faora being stunned by .25 mm gunfire, which Iron-Man has already withstood. By the time the building started falling, Superman was already in flight mode, so what would he have to fear? He could fly away, whereas Zod (at least at that time), was limited to his ground movement, thus putting him in danger.

You also compared one shockwave the Hulkbuster and Hulk did in their combined built up punch to Superman and Zod creating shockwaves with almost every single one of their hits. Though I'll give you the point with the shockwave because it was grander in scale. But it fell apart in your argument cause you tried to suggest Ironman had superiority based off a shockwave he created in a different suit which just supported the idea @BOC stated of the Hulkbuster being physically superior to The Bleeding Edge armor.

The combined forces of Hulk and Hulkbuster was insurmountably more powerful than any punch from Zod or Superman.

Furthermore, we know that Thor is physically weaker than Hulk, but definitely more capable than a Kryptonian e.g. his punch against Hulk during the events of Thor: Ragnarok while fighting him demonstrates this. He was helpless against Thanos while Hulk was not.

We know that individually, Hulk is Zod's and Superman's superior in terms of brute force because of how he scales to Thor. However, Iron-Man's Bleeding Edge armor was able to damage Thanos more than Hulk could, which leads me to the conclusion that his strike against Thanos is stronger than what Hulk can do. This leads to the conclusion that Bleeding Edge is more powerful than the Hulkbuster armor is.

Not to mention the fact BOC mentioned of Thanos tearing apart the suit with no shockwave induced punches.

Superman's punches are consistently portrayed to be more powerful, but they never actually are. By this I mean that the people who animate Man of Steel and Justice League place special care in the special effects e.g. shock-waves, but that doesn't matter because we know that Thor can deliver punches that generate far more force than Zod or Superman: However, Hulk is his superior in terms of brute force since he could contest Thanos, while Thor could not. Just because the special effects do not demonstrate this (probably because their budget is already stretched out from incorporating so many different actors) consistently, does not mean that these characters are not capable of it.

There's also the Hulk/Bleeding Edge armor using Thanos to reference but that was pretty flawed because there was no way around the fact the circumstances were different. Thanos had armor in one scenario while the other he didn't. I had gripes with both of your points here. @BOC took it because of bringing up the armor point but I felt like he could of provided the proof of the directors saying Thanos bleeding was a result of all the damage he withstood. Instead of just mentioning it for wordvalue.

I think my biggest issue was or second biggest might of been the Batman blocking Superman's punch mention and Ironman analyzing Cap's fight pattern. I feel like this shouldn't have been something brought up atleast the Batman mention given context but I dont think it was really disputed well either.

My biggest issue though was it honestly came off like you were honestly suggesting Ironman wont have a problem with heatvision because his lasers are more powerful.. Which by statements id agree his lasers are more powerful but visually it comes off as the writers dont know what theyre talking about. It also does nothing to suggest his durability can withstand heatvision.

Moving on to @BOC who definitely had an advantage in this argument.

My biggest issues with your post was you made a statement without backing it up.

For one Doomsday's striking power being greater then the Hulk's you said it but didnt showcase it which made it rather questionable to me.

The tectonic plate mention is iffy to me and your post didnt do anything to cement how it was done. You used it as a strength feat for Superman but all the article said was Superman shifted a tectonic plate. How did he do so? No idea and no mention of him physically pushing it.

TBH that might honestly be my only issues with your side of the debate. I'll end my post with saying @BOC has my vote.

As unbiased as I can judge this, and going strictly off the debaters, @boc objectively won this CaV.

@avengersasssemb had some of the worst arguments I've ever seen. And by debating with MCU fanboys I've seen some of the worst arguments you can imagine. His section on combat speed is frankly downright laughable. He referenced Stark dodging a Mach 1 tanks shell as his best reaction feat, and claimed with no evidence Stark's IW armor, which is not the same as his Civil War armor, would be able to analyze the fighting patterns of Superman because he did it to Captain America. When he wasn't lowballing, ignoring the context of Superman's feats, or misinterpreting and wanking Stark's feats, he was flat out incorrect such as the physics on pushing/pulling.

The one positive thing I will say is his formatting is quite nice and pleasing to read. But contained within are some of the most horrendous lines of logic and argumentative fallacies I've ever had the misfortune of reading.

@boc effectively countered the speed argument by noting that Captain America isn't in the same class of Superman in combat speed and it takes several precious seconds to analyze, seconds he doesn't have. You showed Superman's strength feats which are far more consistent and higher level than Stark's and that he has the strength necessary to put him down and damage his IW armor.

But this was your fist CaV and that was clear. I feel you could of done a better job demonstrating Superman's striking strength and why Stark's durability doesn't last more than one punch against strikes that can bust mountains casually and punch through material that can tank re-entry. Stark's meteor feat is massively taken out of context considering the gravity on Titan was weakened at the time, he never tanked the full force of a meteor. Iron Man in IW was beaten and almost killed by Cull Obsidian, someone far below Superman in all categories, and would have been defeated if Wong didn't save him. Cull no sold his lasers and then through him to the ground with one hand. Thanos was toying with him on Titan and ripped his armor off and punched his helmet off and he doesn't have striking feats on Superman's level. You also could of displayed Superman's other versatility a little better such as building+ level heat vision, frost breath and x-ray vision so he could just scan Stark's heart problem and punch his reactor like Cap.

Overall @boc left a lot of points on the table, but brought up the necessary speed and strength feats to show Tony has no way of reacting to or tanking Clark's attacks. And the fact @avengersasssemb is trying to discount @blackspidey2099s completely legitimate vote because it wasn't for him is a farce and makes a mockery of himself and this already ridiculous CaV.

@avengersasssemb: Given the CAV is over and your trying to counter my issues with your debate that already took place I'll reestablish my issues with your thoughts on Bleeding Edge's placement.

From what I've seen, our arguments are supposed to be called into question post debate.

Even if you disregard the Superman jetfire thing as aim dodging which id dispute given its basically turret fire and not people holding a gun and pointing at him there's still the fact he fought Faora, Non and Zod with burst of highspeed and even traded blows with Faora and Zod in highspeed fashion. Compare that to Ironman failing to keep up with Starlord in aerial combat or the rather slow Cul keeping up with the Bleeding Edge armor. Speed really isnt debatable Superman takes that area rather easily.

This can be countered by the fact that hypersonic Superman was somehow incapable of dodging machinegun fire that he had several seconds to react to, whereas Iron-Man essentially dodged a missile (projectiles that travel as fast as bullets) without any preconceived notion of what was happening.

Even if you attempt to low-ball, it can be easily be addressed.

I don't even know what to say to your point of Superman not being in flight mode so he wasnt worried of the falling building whereas Zod wasnt so he was? You really have to explain how that makes sense to you and why it should make any sense to me.. Superman was further in the building..

Zod had more limited mobility, whereas Superman did not.

Before that scene earlier in the movie Superman flew into a mountain top shattering it which should be greater than a building falling on him. Given density not to mention it was when he was just discovering to fly when he shattered the mountain top. The gunfire did no damage whatsoever to the Kryptonians they were moved I guess but it wouldnt have put them down so its a pretty moot point regardless. Though I agree visually Ironman took it better.

The sunlight was out when Superman flew into the mountain, and we all know how quickly he recovers while bathing in the sun. This is why the wound on his face during his battle against Doomsday didn't heal until after he was struck by the nuclear bomb e.g. the sunlight was there to heal him.

I could back the idea Hulkbuster and Hulk had a greater punch in their combined strike. Being more powerful is debatable an

d you didn't necessarily show it.

I used irrefutable evidence that shows us Iron-Man being able to damage Thanos while Hulk could not. Therefore, Iron-Man generates more force behind his punches by combining them with his thrusters.

Superman and Zod created shockwaves with almost every punch they landed on each other. It wasnt two punches coming together. But hits landing on each other that were creating shockwaves. A better comparison between two forces coming together would of been using Superman and Zod when they clashed in their final fight.. That clash caused the ground beneath them to shatter so I could understand why you wouldn't use it though.

Just because the special effects team for Justice League takes special care to portray that, doesn't mean they're stronger than Hulk, Thor, or even Iron-Man.

We know that Hulk and Thor have greater strength feats than Superman, but they don't generate shock-waves (normally, but when the special effects team takes care to portray the ferocity of their strikes, they do: And to a much greater destructive force than Superman orZod).

Avengers: Infinity War already has a production budget of $400,000,000, nearly twice that of Man of Steel. Why would they go to such great length to portray these minor details? All that needs to be known is:

1. Thanos is stronger than Hulk and Thor, who are both stronger than Superman.
2. Iron-Man generated a punch with his thrusters that was greater in power than a punch that Hulk could generate.
3. Therefore, Iron-Man can generate a punch that can damage Superman.
4. Conclusion: Shock-waves are irrelevant due to the production constrains between these two films.

The end result is what follows logically. You don't have to like it, that's just the way it is.

Your using a lot of ABC logic with the Thor/Hulk/Ironman stuff. By the end of Ragnarok Thor was Hulk's superior. Thor only has shown greater striking power than the kryptonians via his hammers also no we don't know Hulk is the Kryptonians superior you say it but dont actually show it.

Incorrect. Hulk was compared to Thanos, not Thor. Hulk was able to move Thanos with his strikes, not Thor. Hulk is stated to be comparable to Thanos in terms of strength by the writers and directors, not Thor. By conclusion: Hulk is stronger than Thor, who has generated more powerful shock-waves with his strikes and punches than Superman and Zod did together.

You also once again bring up Thanos to suggest Ironman having superiority to Hulk which is fallible. The point of armor is to protect the wearer from harm. There's a reason Bucky beat Tony pretty easily in their first fight on civil war and struggled in their second fight. Tony was fully armored in one situation and wasnt in another.

The point of Tony's armor is also to increase his strength, which he does when he combines it with his thrusters.

You keep ignoring the fact Thanos was armored in his Hulk fight and wasnt on Titan for some reason. There's also the fact Hulk and Ironman didnt fight Thanos in the same way. Ironman for the most part kept his distance and stayed range. When he got close the fight ended pretty fast similar to Hulk and if you want to notice something interesting Hulk took more physical strikes from Thanos that were pressure points. Whereas when Stark started taking direct hits from Thanos his armor was breaking apart.

The GIF I posted shows Hulk smashing Thanos repeatedly in the face, and yet he didn't draw any blood.

Iron-Man engaged Thanos in close-quarter hand-to-hand combat and was able to do something. Yes, I'll say it: Iron-Man can generate stronger punches than Hulk can while he is wearing his Bleeding Edge armor. He does this by increasing his striking force by using his thrusters.

You keep suggesting Thor could create stronger punches and you dont have nothing to show for it. Ive never seen MCU Thor doing anything without Mljonir or Stormbreaker with a physical strike that I couldnt see DCEU Superman replicate.

Thor's punch against Hulk in Thor: Ragnarok generated a far larger shock-wave than what Zod and Superman did in Man of Steel.

@avengersasssemb: stop kidding around Thor is stronger than hulk period.

As to why he seemed useless at the beginning of IW, he probably put up a good fight and was exhaust from universal attack potency of the power stone.

@avengersasssemb: You ignoring the fact Thanos was wearing armor against the Hulk and not in Titan is one of my issues. It doesn't matter how many times Hulk hit Thanos in the face he still had armor on. I admit my Bucky example wasn't great but I'll give you two better examples. That I think most people would admit is in line with the point of armor.

No I'm not. I posted a GIF that supports my argument and discredits yours. Hulks punches were to his face, not his armor.

In BVS Batman took repetitive knife stabs with his suit. Why? Because he was protected by his suit. His suit acts as a form of armor to trauma.

If I'm wearing a T'challas' vibranium armor it doesn't matter how many times I'm shot cause the function of the armor is to protect the wearer of the force of bullets and to some degree blunt force trauma.

You can't say Ironman hits harder because Thanos didn't fight Ironman under the same circumstances. Sure you can say Ironman performed better I think anyone could agree with that but that's because of versatility, not physical superiority. Were derailing your thread by the way and I didn't mean to do that if you want to continue an argument about Hulk vs Bleeding edge in a purely physical battle you can make a thread and tag me or find one and tag me.

Iron-Man performed better because he was able to generate more force behind his punch than Hulk did. His thrusters amplified his puinches.

@triplek:I'm talking about striking strength. I agree Thor is physically stronger then Superman I just don't think he can hit harder without a weapon.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Gallery

compare that to

Gallery

you really can't see the difference? I'm tempted to draw circles around the armored parts of Thanos. But I'm hoping it doesn't have to come to that.

In regards to the strength/striking thing. I think there should some level of strength left when it comes to striking but these are comic based/films a lot of stuff doesn't make sense. Just because DCEU Aquaman can lift a seafloored sub doesn't mean he can punch with that amount of force without being shown doing so.

@avengersasssemb: Your the one ignoring the evidence. Hulk is swinging at Thanos with side punches. He doesnt do straight Jabs to this face.

The facts is Ironman made Thanos bleed on the cheek and area of Thanos face that was covered when he fought Hulk.

Its possible Ironman has greater striking power then Hulk but that's not the example to use to showcase given circumstances are different.

Same logic would be like scaling M'Baku to a suited Black Panther given he fought a non suited BP pretty evenly. Though the herb doesn't factor in that's probably the closest example I can think of.

Will agree to disagree then. Since we can't agree on the usage of face armor.

This thread got off topic really fast...

Anyway my vote goes to @boc for debating far better. Most of @avengersasssemb arguments were taken out of context, were low showings ect. Boc counter everything AA threw beautifully and methodically. AA did a good job at sounding eloquent and looking good on a surface level but in terms of substance Boc was far greater. If I'm being honest AA's arguments irritated me heavily at points, they relied on serious misinterpretations of physics, mental gymnastics, lowballing ect. Boc however was perfectly reasonable and addressed everything without resorting to blatant lowballing like AA did.

Overall he was far greater and wins my vote.

This thread got off topic really fast...

Anyway my vote goes to @boc for debating far better. Most of @avengersasssemb arguments were taken out of context, were low showings ect. Boc counter everything AA threw beautifully and methodically. AA did a good job at sounding eloquent and looking good on a surface level but in terms of substance Boc was far greater. If I'm being honest AA's arguments irritated me heavily at points, they relied on serious misinterpretations of physics, mental gymnastics, lowballing ect. Boc however was perfectly reasonable and addressed everything without resorting to blatant lowballing like AA did.

Overall he was far greater and wins my vote.