CaV: MCU Hulk (Subline) vs DCEU Aquaman (TonyMartial) - [SUBLINE WINS]

Great debate, cut a little short but that happens boys. I’m going to vote for @tonymartial.

My reasoning is thus. He showed some solid scaling from steppenwolf (honestly seems like steppenwolf could’ve lost a long drawn out fight against Aquaman. Especially new movie feats Aquaman.) Tony gave us some good feats to consider, bloodlusted superman, steppenwolf stuff etc. The fact is current hulk has just been dropping off and it shows. We’ve seen Thor rock him and I think Aquaman would do the same. Tony showed this in his posts and I think it’s a great point. While Subline clearly showed hulks best feats and his dura is there. The fact is Aquaman is simply superior to the Hulkbuster. I think if they went to 3rd posts Tony could’ve showed this and so that’s why Tony gets my vote here.

Most honest vote yet tbh.

It's open.

BUMP

Are we allowed to talk about the arguments that were presented?

@subline: actually I don't a few things about cav's. So if voting is open now can I vote or voting was open before I said tv4

After reading through this. My vote goes to @tonymartial for having the best overall debate. He wasn't lazy with his responses and he took the time to address every point @subline made. Some of @tonymartial arguments were dubious (such as Hulks Leviathan punch, or Hulk punching Vibranium), at best. But overall he was the better debater.

This is close.

@darkthunder: Voting was already open now. Anyway, you can vote now.

My vote goes to sublime.

Reasoning- sublime pointed out good hulk regeneration feats to tank the trident and and also good strength feats to say he can ragdoll aquaman as he did to Thor who is a quite superior to the mermaid except in water

Well , @tonymartial@subline , you both did a good job , but my vote goes to Subline. Sub's counters were slightly better and he established Hulk's Strength/Striking advantage very well , although Tony was arguing for Aquaman's speed , but he couldn't prove if Aquaman could actually damage Hulk.

Good job by both , though.

This is really Good.

Bump for Votes

This is close. I honestly had to think for a few minutes before voting.

I'm going to (narrowly) vote for @tonymartial. I believe the examples he used, like Aquaman taking hits from Karathen and fighting Steppenwolf, were better than @subline's examples. But again, props to both of you.

This was a mediocre debate. Not much for substance.

I second (third?) this.

Aquaman's feats basically stack up to Thor with gladiator gear, and Hulk was able to ragdoll that version of Thor. Hulk was able to establish a position on top of Thor where he could throw strikes unanswered, and Thor only managed to escape the mount by using lightning. Aquaman's striking feats had to be substantially better than the hits Thor was laying on the Hulk, and Tony Martial's argument fell short in that regard. I feel like his examples could make the case that Aquaman's feats were comparable, but never did I get the sense that they were outright superior to the attacks thrown around in the gladiator match. Arthur has a piercing weapon, which changes the dynamic somewhat. However, Hulk's pain tolerance and regeneration allowed him to keep pounding on Fenris as he was chewing on his leg. At the very least this means non-fatal shots would largely be ignored by Hulk. If Arthur threw his trident into Hulk's shoulder like he did Steppenwolf, Hulk would largely be able to hussle through that.

If there's one thing I wish subline did, it was to use the footage from the VFX breakdown to show exactly how destructive Surtur is in his movements. Then obviously scaling this back to Hulk. I feel where Tony Martial's argument was the most impressive is when he scaled Arthur's durability to Karathen. Hulk and Arthur both had feats with Surtur and Karathen, but Surtur is canonically 800 meters larger with more powerful striking than Karathen. This may be a nitpick though.

I'm voting for Tony, his debates and counters were structured more cleanly and he provided solid evidence to every claim he made.

I'll say Subline. The argument that Hulk could close the distance and end the fight in a few shots seems viable at first, but Sub did a better job highlighting that Arthur's got enough speed and skill with a versatile 1 shot weapon to make sure that H2H never happens.

I'm gonna go with Subline. Firstly, I have to commend both sides. The way this goes is obviously there can only be one winner at the end, but we gotta take our hats off to both sides who presented their sides of the argument. At the end of the day, the Vine should be abt the respect we have for one another as debaters. So awesome job to you both.

I went with Subline bc a lot of his argument points were derived and retrieved from direct feats of the Hulk. Ofc TonyMartial presented direct feats from Aquaman, too, but my gist here is the mere comparison between the amount of direct feats by Subline vs the amount of direct feats by TonyMartial. Now, one can argue that well that's because there's a limit in terms of availability of direct feats for Aquaman since he's only had 2 movies of feats vs. the Hulk's x amount of appearances. Yes, that is understood. That is out of TonyMartial's control, we get it. Nonetheless, ya know, I have to judge what's in front of me. Solely focusing on the sheer quantity/quality of direct feats, Subline gave us readers more.

For Aquaman, some degree of the presentation for Aquaman was determined via scaling to Steppenwolf / Karathen. Moreover, to that point, Steppenwolf & Karathen aren't well established to the general audience in terms of where they stand on the MCU/DCEU hierarchy of beings. Thus, scaling suffers a bit in that regard. In basic words, scaling may not be a super strong point since Steppenwolf/Karathen aren't very well-defined in the eyes of the general public. So scaling can only do so much. Again, this isn't TonyMartial's fault. It's not his fault. But I have to examine & analyze the arguments given in front of me. To be fair, TonyMartial did as well as anybody could with the amount of feats Aquaman has shown. He did as well as anybody could with what he was given. And he did the best he could using the scaling aspect.

For the Hulk, Subline just presented copious direct feats from the Hulk. It's not just about quantity, but the quality of the feats for the Hulk speaks for itself. Subline was able to communicate and present strong standalone feats from the Hulk. And by standalone, I mean the feats that the Hulk has displayed in and of themselves w/o the need for extracting outside contexts & scaling.

Well done to both. But yeah, Subline has my vote. Again, TonyMartial did as well as he could with what he was given. Tony gets a lot of respect when we consider the contrast in screentime between the two characters.

Never seen so many votes in a CaV

Great CAV I think the format was well done on both sides. Tony did well in his arguments but as everyone pointed out he relied heavily on scaling. This of course was hindered by the fact Steppenwolf doesn't have a lot of feats himself. But his skill arguments where steller and i do believe Arthur scaled well to Thor in skill, kudos.

Sub also did well and I think his scaling worked better eg how a hit from SW affected Arthur. He also established a good healing factor and a more likely win scenario. Comparing Sw catching Aquamans trident to Hulk catching Thors hammer was clever.

All in all this cav would have done better with closing statements.

I vote sub

@the_gaurdian: Sorry bro but I'm a bit confused, who are you voting for?

Thanks in advance.

Bump for Votes

This CAV was fairly close in my opinion, but I also think there were many mistakes. @subline focused a little too much on the Hulk's piercing feats, and should have focused more on the Hulk's speed and pain tolerance. However, I think @tonymartial made more mistakes, the most important one was confusing Aquaman's powers in water, and his powers on land. Arguing for Arthur surviving Hulk's punches was simply a waste of time. On the other hand, I thought @tonymartial made a fantastic argument for Aquaman via scaling to Thor, but unfortunately the scaling wasn't as accurate as it could have been. I'm giving my vote to @subline because of his arguments for the Hulk's regen/speed, but this debate was Far closer than it should have been

I'm going with @subline to me he showed better feats and rebuttals to what Tony brought up. Also evidently showcased the superior strength and durability. However both did make mistakes and I think Sublime could've used other feats but it's all cool. Both did great nevertheless

(STILL WAITING FOR CONFIRMATION OF @the_gaurdian's VOTE).

@subline: My apologies. I'm voting for Tony. Got the names mixed up lmao

Oh alright, I just got confused because your post said that I pointed out Arthur's Speed & Skill but in fact I was debating for Hulk not Aquaman.

@the_gaurdian: Alright thanks for clarifying.

Bump

Aquaman would win

Bump for Votes

@subline: Stop.

This is a cav not a battle thread gtfo with that bullshit, dense fanboy...

Going to vote today.

This was a great debate and it's surprisingly a tough choice, but I'm going with @subline here due to fact he was able to show Hulk's great regen and striking power to put down Authur in only a couple of hits.

I’m going to officially vote for Subline, although Tony didn’t make it easy at all, especially since he’s arguing IMO a mismatch.

Tony relied a lot on speculation that the trident would skewer Hulk, and that he wouldn’t be able to survive. Subline did a great job of pointing out the Hulk’s crazy regen and ability to fight through pain. I wasn’t convinced by Tony that AM has the speed advantage necessary to dance around Hulk, and it is not in character for AM to just start dishing out headshots. As for Subline, I’m not sure why you didn’t post the grenade launcher KO’ing AM, or AM getting KO’d by the Red Atlantean guard. That would have been the nail on the coffin in this debate as unfortunately AM can be KO’d by what the Hulk does best, punching the hell out of him.

Honestly I wish y’all would have done your respective last posts, but thanks for this!

Bump.

Bump for Votes

Thanks for reminding me, I should be able to go through it and vote in a day if you guys don't mind.

Yeah, that's fine.

Getting to this a bit late, but I'm giving my vote to @subline here. IMO he did two key things that put him ahead of @tonymartial.

First, he did a good job of showing why Arthur's feats in water didn't necessarily apply here - using directly comparable examples of hits from Steppenwolf in and out of the water was a great move that solidified him winning this argument. (I'll also take this opportunity to commend both debaters on using examples of previous fights VS Thor and VS Steppenwolf to show exactly they they think it would go).

Second, Sub's counters seemed to have more depth to them. By the end of the debate some of Tony's points were being repeated without actually responding to Sub's new counters, whereas Sub didn't suffer from that problem to the same extent. It meant his arguments stuck throughout the debate far better.

Overall, I think that Tony proved Arthur's trident would pierce Hulk, but Sub managed to counter this well by showing that Hulk could regenerate quickly from non-fatal injuries and was fast enough to avoid taking any lethal hits. The blunt-force arguments were weighted really far in his favour too, to the point where I struggled to see Arthur taking more than a few hits and didn't think his water shield would be particularly useful.

The one thing I wish Sub had pointed out was that Diana's sword did pierce Steppenwolf's armour in the final battle when she landed a clean hit on his stomach - we see the slash and a bit later in the battle we see that Steppenwolf is bleeding in the exact place where she tagged him. It's pretty clear-cut, and Sub could have used it to show that the only reason why she didn't pierce him in the example provided by Tony is because it was a glancing blow. This would have really hurt the scaling for Arthur's trident's piercing capabilities, and solidified Sub's win.

As it happened, however, the debate was reasonably though not extremely close for me. There are minor things that both debaters could have done to boost themselves further but overall it was a great read and a solid CaV. Well done to both participants.

Bump.