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:
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.
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.