Bump
who hits harder superman thor or hulk ?
@boogie123: Reed flat out said that it was Onslaught plan all along and he never had a physical body.
Wong again. Onslaught had a physical body, he had a physical shell, stop being so willingly dumb.
But they were attacking the force field and not his armor. And Cyclops damaged final form Onslaught, he didn't get more powerful later.
Wrong again
Top left Onslaught gets hit by dozens of different attacks.
And neither did Hulk break the shield . Wolverine sliced the same force field with his bone claws.
Who said Hulk broke the shield? Hulk broke his physical body, try to keep up here.
Rogue made Onslaught stronger as she was a mutant.
Rogue didn't have the time to do anything, she just bounced off him.
No, he didn't. Reed straight up said so.
Onslaught never had a physical body.
This is false and complete opposite to what is shown in the comic, as Onslaught had a physical shell.
You fail again.
@lan_fan said:
@redheathen: Now that I think of it. It is kinda funny ^_^
this what funny looks like
@supermanthor said:
@redheathen: ooo okay dude can post that gif one more time
It's all fun and games until the baby falls down.
@virtuozzo said:
Wonder Woman isn't Doomsday. But Superman did not want to kill with that punch. It was not his intent with that punch.
That literally says nothing about the particular punch, just the overall fight Supeman had there and it was recap he had afterwards.
When you are fighting in character with a mindset of not holding back you mean to hurt your opponents, that exactly what Superman wanted to do, doesn't mean they are delivering kill shots, as for that single punch (from that entire fight) he did not want to kill that much he did not do "with that particular punch" Superman did not want to kill with that hit, he was not holding back in his fight, but a fight is longer than one punch, it also involves heat vision, frost breath etc. Which Supermans used later.
You can hurt your opponents just as easily while holding back, the whole point of not holding back means you run the risk of killing someone. Because there is literally no place higher to go then no holding back. A no holding back punch is the strongest punch you can deliver. So i am not seeing where Superman did not intend to kill with that punch, other than pure assumptions. Superman was bloodlusted, out of his mind with anger and not holding back, any punch he delivered was deadly, unless the opponent has the durability to tank it.
That literally says nothing about the particular punch, just the overall fight Supeman had there and it was recap he had afterwards.
That punch is on the same panel, as the statement in comic.
You can hurt your opponents just as easily while holding back,
Not really Superman hurting to a degree is not literally making them suffer or KOing them. It depends on your intentions, Supermans can't hurt guys Like Kyle Rayner, Hal Jordan just by holding back. He can hurt guys like Wonder Woman and Supergirl even while holding back.
the whole point of not holding back means you run the risk of killing someone. Because there is literally no place higher to go then no holding back.
You can have whole fights while not holding back, which what it was but hold back on one punch and not try to kill someone just like the panel says.
A no holding back punch is the strongest punch you can deliver. So i am not seeing where Superman did not intend to kill with that punch,
Oh no, Superman was not holding back in the fight, overall. But that punch he delivered was not meant to kill.
other than pure assumptions.
The things not shown in the panel and going against Supermans statement is not only an assumption it is stated up false.. He did not want to kill in that instant. he wanted to kill him after making him suffer.
Superman was bloodlusted, out of his mind with anger and not holding back,
He was all that and yes he was fighting conditionally like stating that I want him to suffer before killing and I want him to burn by the heat of the Sun.
any punch he delivered was deadly,
To a lot of people sure.
unless the opponent has the durability to tank it.
Wonder Woman can't tank such punches, but that was not my point. It is about what Superman said in the moment he punched her.
That still doesn't answer my question as Superman is talking about the overall fight.
Answering your question isn't going to prove my point. Supermans statement that is right there on the panel does.
This has nothing to do with what i was saying.
It has to do with what I was saying.
What punch is stronger than a non-holding back punch?
Since Supermans was not killing with that punch, the punch where he tries to kill someone. Basically, you are missing the point that Superman was going all out in the fight overall doesn't mean every punch is meant to kill. Which is why Superman has to try hard to hurt powerful characters like Darkseid, Kyle and Hal but he doesn't want to kill them. Superman doesn't want to kill Dakrseid or he did not want to Kill Black Racer either when he cracked the Moon, Its against Supermans nature to kill but there are fights where he doesn't hold back.
This is speculative.
Not. Here is the evidence.
This is entirely an assumption on your part,
NO. I am just going by what Superman wanted as shown in the panel.
during no point does Superman say i dont want to kill him with this punch.
He said he wanted to kill him but wanted him to Suffer first. Meaning he was not going to end it right there.
You can want someone to suffer while also wanting to kill him with every blow you deliver.
Not really if you kill them and they die you can't hurt them physically which is what Superman wanted. He wanted to hurt him and make him burn make him suffer etc.
He did not say that in the moment he punched her, this was him looking back on the fight and narrating it, he didn't say "while i punch DD here i did not mean to kill him with that punch but make him suffer".
He said that he wanted him to suffer "FIRST" then he would have killed him, eventually.
How does answering a question not prove a point?
It doesn't because your question was not relevant to my point.
The hell?
yeah exactly what the hell?
Superman never stated on any panel that his punch on DD wasn't meant to kill.
He did right there on the panel.
Circular logic.
Circular because of you. I'm just going by and showing what is on the panel.
This is a lot of mental gymnastics
There is absolutely not a mental gymnastic here only denying of cold hard facts right there on the panel.
that still doesn't answer my question.
Answering your question which is not relevant or another question?
Why is a non-holding back punch different to a one meant to kill?
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
What is higher than a non-holding back punch?
A punch that Superman would unleash with the intent to Kill. Which he did not in that instant.
That's no evidence,
The evidence is the image.
you are just reposting the same image over and over without even using spoiler blocks
It's my wish to use spoiler blocks. But anyway Its difficult on the phone. The image is the evidence.
to artificially inflate your argument, you have been caught doing this many times already. And i will point it out next time you use it as well.
Point out and do whatever you want. It is a cropped scan anyway.
He wanted DD to suffer =/= didn't mean to kill him with said punch.
it's exactly what is means.
Again speculative
Your part is speculative.
, in fact the very notion of Clark carrying him into the Sun was meant to kill him, but he punched him back to Earth.
he said he wanted to burn him and he was going to kill but that's where he decided that he wants to make him suffer first.
That's not what i meant,people have stabbed others dozens of times each stab being a killing blow while still repeating they want them to suffer. In blind rage, you don't have much reason behind your words and actions.
Except in Supermans case that words are a part of the comic where we get context using an invalid example to justify your claims and countering a legit example is not a counter-argument, Its build up stuff.
Right there on the panel Supermans did not want to kill. Simple.
No he actually wanted him to suffer for eternity if we take his statement literally, that's why i told you in the first place that it was metaphorical.
Right there on the panel Supermans did not want to kill. Simple.
@empressofdread: actually,i doubt even superman intent kill ww(his perspective as doomsday) he will really to do so,because his subconscious morality holding him........though that mentioned after booster gold altered timeline,successful rescued blue beetle,changed history.but this should be only logically reason why superman didn't killed batman in the first place
As already predicted by me perfectly, you are doing the exact same thing.
The exact same thing which is of no concern to you. Which is not using spoiler for my evidence from the phone ok.
Not that it should be of any concern to you, its not against the rules, It is a CROPPED scan.
You can't even stop contradicting yourself,
You did contradict many things including the evidence on the panel. I didn't.
you said Superman wants to kill
Eventually not with that hit.
but didn't want to kill in one specific panel despite there being no evidence that the punch he delivered was not meant to kill.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
Except Supermans was for the punch relaxing his power a bit based on his intention, of course, Wonder Woman could have died she is not as durable as Doomsday, but that isn't my point anyway. My point is Superman did not want to kill with that punch, which is opposite to what you said in your post which was contradicting on panel statements.
So in the end you don't have actual proof,
I gave the proof it is pretty clear.
you are speculating on this
I have proof.
just as much as me
You don't have proof.
and you haven't explained why a non-holding back punch can't kill someone.
I already explained it with an example. If you want I can do a CAV on the exact same topic.
Of course heres the argument -
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
@qwertyuiop1998 said:
@empressofdread: actually,i doubt even superman intent kill ww(his perspective as doomsday) he will really to do so,because his subconscious morality holding him........though that mentioned after booster gold altered timeline,successful rescued blue beetle,changed history.but this should be only logically reason why superman didn't killed batman in the first place
Alright, my friend, Nice giving further evidence that can prove some claims. Yeah, I don't think Supermans kills unless he was raised or made someone without morals, (there are some exceptions however I'm afraid).
There was a time when Supermans was not having any morals this happened.
I still see no proof of any of the claims you made and are just repeating yourself ad nauseam, so i will repeat myself
I already gave the proof you are being blind about facts. Because you don't have a real argument. That anyone would take seriously, I mean ignoring the evidence and just debating against real facts isn't going to be a convincing argument.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
So in the end you don't have actual proof, you are speculating on this just as much as me and you haven't explained why a non-holding back punch can't kill someone.
Heres the Proof big old scan.
I already explained it with an example. If you want I can do a CAV on the exact same topic.
--------------And now you can repeat.
@boogie123: hysical shell doesn't mean physical body child.
You are not right in the head. A physical shell is a physical body.
Onslaught was always just a psionic entity.
A psionic entity that occupied a physical body.
Reed straight up said so.
No Reed clearly stated that prolonged contact with mutants gives him the reason to live again.
You know what's funny? When Onslaught got a physical body due to the heroes sacrificing themselves, X men blasted Onslaught to Kingdom Come.
He never got a physical body there, that's what them sacrificing themselves prevented in the first place and it wasn't just X-men it was all of the heroes present there.
Gallery
So a few X men did what puny Hulk couldn't.
You mean destroy the physical form of a being that no hero there could
Physical shell doesn't mean physical body. Onslaught was defeated by X men when he got a physical body. Don't let me keep spanking you
Yes it does actually, his psionic essence occupied a physical body. Onslaught was defeated by all the heroes jumping in to destabilize him while the X-men shot at him, you skipped one vital page
The scan that shows them attacking his psionic form, not physical body.
You mean the way you spanked me when you thought the Infinity gems did different things? Or when you thought Old Asgard tanked a bomb when in reality it got teleported away?
Your existence on this site, gives me great joy.
Compelling argument indeed.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
You just copy pasted as a quote, I can do that too if you want.
Because in this way, the counters are still the same, see what follows after the quote.
@virtuozzo said:@empressofdread: yes I have.
Compelling argument indeed.
no scan is out of context, You are lying now. The scan is 100% in context.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
Since you are ignoring basic facts yes. I have to show the scan again.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
Nope. you are becoming less credible though.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating, while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of but your interpenetration of. So no.
The fact that Superman did not want to kill shown in the scan.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
As he is saying he wants him to suffer first and not outright kill him.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there, you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
No. It is on the same panel he is talking in that instant.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
You think you debunked it. But no such thing happened for real.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
That whether Supermans punch was a "I want to kill you" blunt force in the moment.
You want to CAV that? Are you high? How do we even CAV that, you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
And obviously this- the fact about damaging people just to stop holding back but not trying to have the intention to kill.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
The scan is the proof you ignore. Anyway, I can CAV this argument, You can try to prove your this was a kill shot and intent vs consequences, I'll take care of proving that scan as a legit evidence that you ignore. We'll see whos argument holds up better?
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is. There are no CAVs on arguments, how old are you?
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them, the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Compelling argument indeed.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
Compelling argument indeed.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
Yes.
The scan never mentions the specific punch yet you use it as evidence for said specific punch, out of context.
The scan is showing Superman did not intend to kill. Especially with that punch since it is on the same panel.
Basic facts of scans talking about something else entirely?
They talk about my point. Which is relevant.
Between the 2 of us only i am the one saying both of us are speculating,
And that isn't a proof. Your arguments are coming from ignorance and speculation that is the lack of proof for one. Ignorance is well astounding.
while you are saying you are absolutely right on something you can't even show actual proof of
I have the proof here it is.
but your interpenetration of. So no.
Your interpretation is very wrong. It is -
- Ignoring the evidence shown on the panels in comics.
- Relies on speculation, which you have admitted to use already.
- Right now in this post and before, you admitted you are relying on speculation.
- Therefore, you have no argument admittedly you have only speculations. More on that later.
He did want to kill he stated as much, he just wanted him to suffer as well.
He wanted to kill him eventually sure, who knows what he would have done. He was under an illusion, but at that moment he clearly stated he wanted him to suffer first. So he did not throw him in the Sun, as well.
Which is why he took him all the way to the Sun to try and throw him there,
And then he changed his mind and decided not to kill him. Before making him suffer "FIRST".
you are trying to justify actions of a bloodlusted, mind-controlled character, who is seething with rage and beyond rational thought.
He was under an illusion, he has to go by what he was thinking. And of course what is stated on the panel.
That's a recap of what happened, it does not mean he was talking about that specific punch, since he does not reference that specific punch.
Since he stated he wanted him to suffer and decided not to throw him into the Sun, he did not want to kill there. That is on the same panel.
If you think so then you don't understand the difference between intent and consequences.
Actually, you have ignored the on panel evidence and relies on speculations which you have admitted to already.
So based on your own admittance, you argument is relying on speculation. So come to think of it, I don't even need to disprove you. You've already done that.
You want to CAV that?
If you are agreeing to it, sure.
Are you high?
No, but what about you, you yourself admit that your claims are relying on pure speculation and are ignoring the clear evidence. As if you can't see what's right in front of you.
How do we even CAV that,
By setting up the parameters and then doing the arguments then do a callout and go for voting.
you honestly sound like some rando on the internet screaming into the mike "fight me IRL bro" when he doesn't know what else to say, also how many times do i have to repeat to you that i don't do CAV's for it to finally to sink into your head?
What? Who can fight "IRL" just for some internet debate? Is that what you keep thinking about everyone you debate with, that certainly tells a lot about your personality.
Let me teach you though -
- I told you are ignoring the evidence which you are.
- You admitted you are relying on pure speculation, ergo, you got nothing.
- You are not only relying on speculation but are asking weird questions that shed some light on your personality, why?
- The reason why we should CAV is that I called you out some important stuff that you ignored. Since your ignorance is "WILLFUL" there cannot be done anything about it, rather than to show you how it works in a competitive setting.
This is intent vs consequences, Supermans intention was not to kill someone but when you deliver non-holding back blows you run the risk of killing someone just as much as when you intend to kill someone.
"Supermans intention was not to kill" and that is my point. He did not want to kill with that punch. Of course Wonder Woman was at risk of getting killed as she is already admitting that a Superman can kill her in 3 hits. But she is not Doomsday. Anyway, you concede that Supermans intention was not to kill. That is fine.
I haven't ignored it, i mentioned the scan half a dozen times already and why it's not the proof you think it is.
It is the evidence and you admitted his intention was not to kill, that is fine.
There are no CAVs on arguments,
There are CAVs on debates. This is a debate where one has to provide his set of arguments and in the next counter his opponents set of arguments following a logical closure so as to avoid repetition of the same argument. Go for voting.
how old are you?
Who are you to ask me about my age, no I can't tell you I'm afraid. Go ask these things to other people on other forums, if you want.
Every punch Superman hit was a non-holding back punch - FACT.
Except for the punch where Superman did not intend to kill. Doesn't count as an evidence in your original argument. The point of this whole conversation entirely. I can post the screenshot again if you want but I beleive you remember it.
Every non-holding back punch is the strongest punch you can do, as in be a killer blow - FACT.
You are already admitting Superman did not want to kill. But Let's talk about facts, shall we -
- "Supermans intention was not to kill someone" --- You already admitted this much, FACT
- You admitted you are relying on speculations, FACT.
- Superman did not hold back against Orion in his fight, that does not mean he was going to kill Orion. Supermans doesn't kill in character as simple as that.
- Superman did not hold back against Darkseid but he does not kill in character.
- Superman did not want to kill Black Racer.
Cold hard facts. Are when Superman did not have the intention to kill still with that punch.
It is against the rules but i can show you in PM videos of people playing the knockout game punching random people with the intent to knock them out with 1 punch and accidentally killing them without wanting to kill them,
I'll Pass. Superman has practised his whole life how to hold back, he can also KO normal people by giving only his softest taps, an important part of his character is holding back and how much to release. Superheroes are way different than normal people buddy.
the fact that we need to argue such ridiculous semantics even going for a CAV which would be the dumbest CAV this site has ever seen is really astounding.
Yeah, If you don't want to do it thats fine. You did ignore my evidence though and anyway, it's not happening now is it. Besides being dumb isn't going to be the point, whos the winner and who has the better argument is the point, who debater better is the point.
Log in to comment