#1 Posted by Final Arrow (24359 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanks to Jezer for sending this to me, thought I would put it up and pin it for awhile then add it to the FAQ sections after.

Hello. After debating in different threads, I've noticed that significant number of users don't know how to argue effectively using comicvine's feat system.

Even if you think you know, I suggest you read this thread to help any new or old users debate more efficiently. After all, while debating on the comicvine has no real significance, debating skills in general - logical reasoning - will help you in many areas of life. The more you do something, the more your brain reinforces those neural pathways using your previous experience to allow you to do it again. You don't want to develop bad debate habits on comicvine, and have them spill over into how you debate, in real life.

This post will be divided into different issues/points. Even if you skip the bulk of the post, please skim the titles. Without further ado

1. Use Your Feats to Supplement An Existing Argument

Let me make it clear; you should always argue using logic and reasoning. If you aren't even attempting, you aren't really debating.

For example, I see a lot of people go into battles, post a scan, and then say a character wins. While they may be right or wrong, their method is flawed.

You have to establish a connection between the feat and your conclusion. Even if it seems obvious, because generally scans are open to different interpretations.

What you should do is post an argument, and then post your scan and interpretation of it as proof for your argument. The feat is the metaphorical cherry on top of the cake.

Is the cherry alone a substitute for the cake? No. Neither does a feat substitute an actual argument.

Is the cake alone substitute for the cherry? Yes. A cake can fullfill you as a snack more than a cherry. However, the cherry may be the crucial component that puts the snack over the top. That completes it. In that sense, feats can be used to make an argument fullproof.

2. Feats Must Be Relevant To The Situation

Feats have to be relevant to what you're trying to argue.

If I was trying to argue that Flash is faster than Superman, would there be any point in posting a feat showing that he can punch a hole in the wall!!!

No, because there's no logical relation between speed and him punching a wall.

Similarly, Batman can't fight off a thousand bloodthirsty Lions, trapped in their den, just because he's beaten Mr. Freeze and has batkicked Spawn.

There must be a relation between the feat posted, and what you're trying to prove. This is why a feat should supplement an argument, because if it's not related or if someone interprets it differently, your stance can still hold depending on the strength of your argument

3. Interpretation Of a Feat Is An Argument

If you've missed the point of my first section, let me reiterate: A feat should not be alone. Whether you're concluding your argument using a feat, or making an argument based on a feat, there should always be an argument present.

With that in mind, you don't have to do it one way or the other. Instead of using a feat to support an existing argument, you can analyse a feat and use it to make an argument. The only problem with this is that feats/scans can be interpreted differently, so if someone doesn't hold the same view as you about what the feat demonstrates, your argument is irrelevant. The base is gone and your argument falls apart from the bottom up, for them. Nonetheless, you can still argue with them about what the feat is showing and try to bring them to your interpretation....which brings me to my next section

4. Establish The Context of Your Feat, Context is Everything

For example, earlier I mentioned that Batman batkicked Spawn. I'm pretty sure that crossover is non-canon. The context of that feat is a non-canon storyline, and thus the feat is worthless. Maybe I post a scan of Batman outrunning the Flash. "Batman wins" I say. What I don't mention is that the scan is from a dream that Batman is having after Flash just knocked him out with a million super speed punches. No, Batman is not faster than the Flash.

The context of a scan/feat significantly influences the interpretation and value of that feat. If you don't establish the context, you may deceive someone in some way about the feat. Establishing the context could require anything from explaining the plot surrounding the feat - to noting the comic issue and version of the character.

5. There Are Different Types of Feats

As I previously mentioned, feats must be related to the battle and an argument.

The relation of different feats/scans leads to different categories:

-Strength Feats

-Speed Feats

-Intelligence Feats

-Skill Feats

-Durability Feats

-Healing Feats

Etc.

For example, if I was arguing or wanted to argue that Superman was stronger than the Hulk, or vice versa, I would post a strength feat.

That's because I'm trying to establish how strong Superman is. I might argue "Well, Superman pulled a billion planets at the same time. Is Hulk that strong?" I may even post a strength feat for Hulk to establish just how strong(or weak) I think he is - and then compare it to Superman's.

What I'm not going to do is simply go "Superman has more impressive feats thenHulk". Remember, you have to argue using specific feats. And, you have to relate the feat to the situation.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out a common mistake I occasionally see. Within those categories, the feats can be broken down into subsections depending on how they're supposed to relate to the argument.

Running speed is different from reaction speed. I'm not going to post a speed feat of someone running, and say that means they're fast enough to think at the same speed. Reflexes are different from flying. Reaction/Operational speed is different from flying speed.

6. Some Characters Don't Have On Panel Feats, Argue Based on Their Character

what comes to your mind is probably TOAA. Yet, would you argue that KickAss can beat him because of this?

No, you argue TOAA based on the logical implications of his character. To One Above All, while featless, is supposed to be like Comic God.

Logically, he should have no problem beating the tar out of Kick Ass if he decided KickAss was too wimpy to continue living.

In that sense, you can argue that a character can do something even if they don't have a feat of it. I can argue that Superman can beat a grown man in a fight, even though the man doesn't have any feats showing his fighting skills, based on the character of a man. Lacking a feat doesn't necessarily mean a character can't do a feat.

We take character from many different worlds and situations. If a character hasn't been exposed to a situation, and it is within the attributes of that character to accomplish a feat, then it is possible to argue it as within their power.

Last

7. Theoretical Characters Don't Have Feats, Yet You Can Still Argue For Them Using Feats

So, what if I gave KickAss a Green Lantern ring, the Infinity Gauntlet, and a full year to learn how to use them.

Kickass has thus become a theoretical character. You can't argue that Hit Girl has better or more impressive feats (fighting feats, etc.) than Kickass, and expect that to mean anything since this KickAss has theoretical items/power that will enable him to do amazing things he has never done before.

This also brings me to the fact that you should make sure you read the Original Post, and know the situation and scenario surrounding a battle.

But yeah, I could now use Infinity Gauntlet feats to establish what's within the power of the Infinity Gauntlets and then argue for KickAss with the Infinity Gauntlet. Though, keep in mind you can still argue for things the Infinity Gauntlet has not done on panel, based on what should be within its power.

In response, my opponent may use Intelligence Feats of KickAss and an argument to establish that he may be so stupid that he simply kills himself with it.

Theoretical characters don't have feats, but you can use the feats of the theoretical situation and the original character to establish what the person may be able to do. Furthermore, you can use the logical implications of what the theoretical character may be able to do based on the logical implications of what he was given in the situation.

Thank you for reading this and happy debating! I now open the floor for any questions about what has been said, or any additions to this list.

#2 Posted by Mercy_ (92473 posts) - - Show Bio

AWESOME THREAD

Moderator
#3 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (23168 posts) - - Show Bio

Great Thread.

#4 Posted by MikeLitoris (138 posts) - - Show Bio
@Final Arrow: There is one problem I see that often comes from arguing simply the idea or concept of a character. That is the no limits fallacy. For example, a lot of people seem to think that since no one has been shown to be faster than Zoom in comics, he is infinitely fast. They've extracted a hyperbolic statement from Flash that is contradictory to the scans themselves (the debris from their fight continues to move without contact from either character). That is simply not true and I believe feats must be used when arguing against a similar character who has shown on panel to be faster. That's just my two bits.
#5 Posted by MikeLitoris (138 posts) - - Show Bio

TOAA has plenty of feats by the way...you might want to use a different example.

#6 Posted by Jezer (3076 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm assuming the Presence has virtually no feats. If that's true, we can replace TOAA with him. 
 
Also, MikeLitoris, that's not the reason people think no one is faster than Zoom. It's because his power works so that speed doesn't matter. That's not a no limits fallacy; it's the concept of his character.  
Speed= Distance/Time. Zoom can go any distance - in no time. In that sense, his speed is only scientifically limited to how far he decides to go. It's limitless. 
  
It's the same concept of Absolute Speed that the Runner used. Quotes of Zoom, expert on the character Zoom and Daak:
 
@daak1212 said:


@Zoom said:
"

How exactly is anyone faster than Zoom?

Zoom stops time altogether, making him infinitely fast.

There's no such thing as faster than Zoom. To be faster than Zoom, you'd have to arrive before you freaking left.




"
RUnner does the same thing with absolute speed. speed=-distance/time, both Zoom and Runner get rid of the time part making speed=distance



#7 Posted by MikeLitoris (138 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm sorry. I don't want to turn this into another Zoom debate, but asides from a statement from Flash that can be proven to be hyperbole, nowhere is it stated or shown that he has infinite speed. Zoom, the user, is not the be all end all on the character Zoom. We can go back to a Zoom thread if you want to debate this further.

#8 Posted by Jezer (3076 posts) - - Show Bio

You can debate with Zoom the user on that. When you go to the thread, ask him to show you the scan of when Zoom got his power, ask him to show you the scan of the Flashes and others theorizing on how they think his power works, and.....Actually, he'll be able to show you on his own. 
 
Simply ask  him why he thinks Zoom has infinite speed. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
However, to add to my first reply to your post, when arguing for the concept of the character - you also argue based on their character(which includes skill, experience, ect.). 
For example, someone once told me Movie Thor could draw the air out of people's lungs because it's in his powerset to control weather. 
Even though it is in his powerset, if he hasn't displayed the necessary skill and precision with his power, you can't argue it. There's a difference between drawing air out of someone's lung and making a giant Tornado by swinging your hammer. 
 
In that case, you use similar feats to establish he has enough skill(with manipulating wind in subtle, small ways) to do it. And then argue based on the fact that the concept of his character and powerset gives him the potential to do it. 
So, if Movie Thor had a feat where he say used a small bit of air to flip a single page of a book - you may argue that he may be able to manipulate the small bit of air out of a person's lungs because it's within his skill.
#9 Posted by Pokeysteve (8022 posts) - - Show Bio

MikeLitoris reminds me of another debate problem. Character statements. Batman saying Tim Drake is clever enough to take out Superman doesn't make it so (I don't believe he ever said that and it's just an example haha). I see stuff like this all the time and it gets annoying. It's that character's opinion and means very little.

#10 Posted by Outside_85 (8105 posts) - - Show Bio

Great post. But there is one thing I wonder about regarding scanned feats, this one specifically related to Storm. Someone once claimed that her reaction times were down to split seconds, due to the way she sees the world and somethign i ended up being the weather being able to second guess her wishes before she had even thought about it, except on a subconscious level. By with this he/she, had posted a scan where it was written in the little text boxes around the sides of the image that it was split second reactions, it didn't say who it was that said it and it left me with the lingering question about how much I should actually put in it. 
 
*Btw, Zoom isn't infinitely fast, he basically stops time for everyone else but himself, making him look like hes that fast. (My 2 cents)

#11 Edited by AgeofHurricane (7261 posts) - - Show Bio

Thank you so much for creating this thread, not to be a bother but i want everyone (if your bothered) to go to this thread and answer me this question.........was i wrong ? http://www.comicvine.com/forums/battles/7/x-team-a-vs-x-team-b/620322/?page=3
 
i mean seriously, you have absolutely no idea how much i wanted to throw insults at this guy because of his..........NVM! just please check it.
*EDIT* read my whole argument with czarny and comment back.

#12 Posted by difficlus (10679 posts) - - Show Bio

Good points. 
@Jezer: well done. 

#13 Posted by difficlus (10679 posts) - - Show Bio
#14 Posted by God_Spawn (37300 posts) - - Show Bio

Good thread....though I hate the bat kick Spawn example -_-

Moderator
#15 Posted by Jezer (3076 posts) - - Show Bio

@difficlus said:


                    @Final Arrow: I feel this one should be added to the existing argument also 
http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/wyldsong/the-manhattan-effect-aka-why-we-use-feats/87-56654/ it was pretty useful. 

                   

               

Thanks Difficlus. And I agree with you about the thread above - it's true to a certain point. 
 
However, after a certain point of not having enough showings, you really don't have enough information to conclude a battle - scientists know when they don't have enough to go on and draw a conclusion. I guess we'll just ignore that issue though for the sake of judging battles with those type of characters. 
#16 Edited by Jezer (3076 posts) - - Show Bio

Also, there should be something added about consistency of feats. 
 
Like, if I post a feat of Batman punching Wonder Woman out, that doesn't mean much - since Batman generally doesn't possess the strength to harm Wonder Woman (right?). 
 
Basically, there are low showings and high showings and then general showings. Unless the OP specifies a specific incarnation or version of a character(Current Superman vs. Silver Age Superman), one that has higher or lower showings than normal levels, then you should go by feats that are consistent with most of the (strength, or speed, or whatever) feats they've shown. 
#17 Posted by difficlus (10679 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jezer said:

@difficlus said:


                    @Final Arrow: I feel this one should be added to the existing argument also 
http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/wyldsong/the-manhattan-effect-aka-why-we-use-feats/87-56654/ it was pretty useful. 

                   

               
Thanks Difficlus. And I agree with you about the thread above - it's true to a certain point.  However, after a certain point of not having enough showings, you really don't have enough information to conclude a battle - scientists know when they don't have enough to go on and draw a conclusion. I guess we'll just ignore that issue though for the sake of judging battles with those type of characters. 
yes i agree with your last 2 points about if a character has no feats or they can't  be displayed or is theoretical. 
#18 Posted by higher_evolutionary (2015 posts) - - Show Bio
@Final Arrow: thumbs up 
i suggested this a long time ago
#19 Posted by Final Arrow (24359 posts) - - Show Bio

This will be getting added to the battle forum FAQ section in the next couple of days and will also be linked from the rules as well. Just don't want to many pinned items.

#20 Posted by majestic99 (8638 posts) - - Show Bio

@Mercy_ said:

AWESOME THREAD