@uberhikari:
Majestic = Gladiator = Silver Surfer = Thanos with respect to speed.These are all herald level characters because they all have roughly the same speed, roughly the same durability, roughly the same destructive capacity, etc. What other powers they have or possess is irrelevant. They're all FTL with nanosecond reaction speed. Speed is really the only thing that matters in this thread because the only argument for why Majestic even has a 1% chance of victory is the speed blitz argument.
This is preposterous. Thanos is not as fast as Gladiator. He can't, like, run faster than Gladiator can fly around(and not just in a straight line) when Gladiator's at his best. Marvel has a large homogenization of combat speed amongst their cosmic characters when they fight but that doesn't magically make up for any actual showing of superspeed the character has. Thanos hits hard and arguably has pretty good reaction speed, but LOTS of people have fought evenly with Gladiator or Surfer when it comes to speed and that doesn't make all of them "around" the same level of combat speed. Especially when you go cross franchise with characters who actually frequently and effectively use their speed as combat speed, rather than rare showings of high tier reaction compounded by constant showings of either jobbing or low level combat speed. Thor's not as fast as Majestic because he fought Surfer.
Furthermore, you're using the same straw man fallacy tactics as WillPayton. I never said that it was "impossible" for a herald level character to speed blitz someone in a higher tier. You just made this up. I acknowledged there may be exceptions but that what I'm saying is generally true. And it's certainly true in this particular case.
Your exact words were that speed does not matter when you compare characters across different tiers, when clearly it could. You don't give absolutes like "Well, if you're not powerful enough to fight Odin then it doesn't matter how fast you are," when this very thread could be a situation where that doesn't apply. Why bring up asinine power level listings instead of actually playing out the fight? Why say stuff like this:
"Moreover, I never said anything about raw power negating speed, that's your misinterpretation of what I wrote. Speed means nothing to universal beings. Either you're strong enough to defeat your opponent so speed is useless or you're not strong enough to beat your opponent so speed is useless. Speed is never the deciding factor when someone is on a higher tier than you."
What is the point of this statement? Strength, raw power, you keep bringing up these buzzwords when we are specifically dealing with a cosmic artifact that gets around these kind of ideas and makes speed more relevant. You brought up this entire line of discussion for no other reason to say "Well, I was generalizing," when pressed. Then you call everything a strawman when I wasn't even arguing your point, I was attempting to address a philosophy you've seemingly developed about character tiers making discussion practically irrelevant. I've never seen someone more happy to toss the word strawman around. I didn't create a false argument, attribute that argument to you, and then defeat that argument to assume victory of a debate. I posed you a hypothetical to question your logic. I'm not trying to misrepresent your argument. I'm more interested in a tendency.
Characters have different writers over different books spanning decades. Honestly no character has consistent feats. That's just an illusion debaters use to help themselves to make it easier to debate these hypothetical fights. So, your point is irrelevant because it's self-defeating. If the feats aren't consistent, then how do we gauge the extent of a character's abilities? There's no point in debating if we can't keep the feats straight. That's why I said that all these characters are roughly equivalent. FTL w/ Nanosecond reaction speed.
I can't make heads or tails of this because it seems so darn right silly. Characters have different writers so my assumptions of their abilities are correct while yours are irrelevant and self defeating! All of your ideas of their capabilities are merely illusions to facilitate your debates! You can't homogenize every character because you want to. Characters aren't magically even because you say they are. They have vast, consequential differences in what they are capable of.
Now what did you accuse me of cherry picking? I never claimed that Majestic definitely would or would not do anything. I claimed that it's hard to see why Majestic would just happen to start the fight in the only way it would be possible for him to win. Again, you just used a straw man fallacy.
Just because you attach a question mark to your prodding doesn't mean you weren't pushing a point, dude. You were clearly, and very aggressively, pushing the idea that because someone brought up decapitation + speed blitz for Majestic that that is his only path to victory, and then posited that that's not what he would always do with the clear intent of trying to say Majestic loses. It isn't strawman just because you weren't 100% blunt about it. Did you think up every infinite way the fight could go down? Did you expect King Saturn to think up every possible conclusion of the fight to determine that blitz + decap is Majestic's only path to victory? Are you Barry Allen, UberHikari? You don't go through any logic of how Odin approaches the fight, merely assuming that every way he does means he wins(this is obviously not the case, there are technically infinite numbers of ways Odin could handle the fight that end up with him losing, they're just not the most likely). You push someone into a corner to try to remove the options from the debate.
Maybe Majestic throws a sword at Odin and, due to his very frequent penchant of tanking attacks from lesser foes, incidentally eats a hit from the creation blades(which he knows nothing about) and goes down to their ability. A very unlikely occurrence that relies more on Odin's hubris, and I would hardly resort to it as a reason for Majestic winning even 1 out of 10 matches (more like one in a trillion), but there, the blitz+decap is now not the only way Majestic wins. It's, maybe, the only way he could win if Odin goes all out on him from the start, which is also something Odin never does unless he's facing down Surtur or Galactus or the like. You can't bring up Majestic's usual course of action to discredit the blitz argument then ignore Odin's to posit that Majestic only has one way to win. It's not that you're cherry picking -- you're intentionally excluding a part of the fight from your own logic of how the characters act. I specifically said you were insinuating others of cherry picking and it was a double standard, and I stand by that. This isn't a strawman -- I'm not making up an argument for you, I'm pointing out that part of your argument lacks a piece that should add more substance to the conversation.
Odin is a universal threat. This has been established through multiple feats. So either it's WIS/PIS or Odin wasn't going all out. You take your pick. What's clear is that it's a great durability feat for Thanos either way. I don't see how me pointing this out is being biased. No one believes that Thanos can actually survive against Odin, so I'm clearly not in the minority.
I remember when you asked around for Odin's feats of universal level. Just earlier in this post you talk about how, since writers are inconsistent, it's more important to homogenize characters into tiers rather than use specific feats. Yet, here you are, using very specific feats. Why not homogenize Odin into a level of power, Skyfather, that's lower than several kinds of beings who AREN'T universal? Like, Galactus has bested Odin enough times that we know that Odin is his inferior, but how many times has Galactus been bested by sub universal threats? What about Celestials, who an uber prepped Odin couldn't even phase? Is every Celestial in 616 a universal threat? Does your homogenization mean that there's literally thousands upon millions of universal threats? Because that's silly.
I brought up the Thanos fight not to talk about how Odin isn't that powerful or how Thanos is that powerful, but to talk about how Odin clearly doesn't go into every fight against weaker opponents to defeat them instantly, just as you posited Majestic doesn't. This leaves a lot more ways the fights could go (some in Majestic's favor) than "either Majestic blitzes (which he's not capable of) or he loses because Odin is so powerful." Do not say this is a strawman because you were clearly pushing the point. If you want to say you weren't and that now you think blitz + decap isn't Majestic's only path to victory then sure, whatever, but don't for a second insinuate that I just pulled this out of nowhere and I'm somehow attacking you for something you never said. We're both smarter than that.
I never claimed that people of a higher level of power should automatically be assumed to win. That's another straw man fallacy on your part. Again, how many times do I have to repeat myself? I've already acknowledged that there may be exceptions but it's rare. Giorno Giovanni is not a herald level character but his stand is ridiculously haxed. His stand has infinite reaction speed, reduces an opponent's willpower to 0, manipulates causality, and requires multiversal reality warping to get around. And Giorno Giovanni is a human. But he would beat the hell out of Odin.
Again with the strawmans. You were the one who brought this entire line of debate up, pushed it incredibly hard, defended it, and you can't just go "Well I said there are exceptions so you are making a strawman." If there are enough exceptions to make an argument out of it then why bring it up at all other than to, what, flaunt how you think tiers work in comics? You had a point in saying stuff like "either you're powerful enough to fight Odin or, if you're not, your speed doesn't matter." You don't just say things for no reason only to claim everyone and their mothers are using fallacies against you. I specifically posed the hypothetical just to point out how unreasonable is to bring up what you are bringing up. Just treat the fights individually instead of trying to bring your really, really irrelevant generalizations you like so much up only to constantly qualify them with "But I said exceptions!"
I understand you're basically a brick wall in a debate but, I don't know, every now and then I get the urge to point out how really obtuse your debates get because you layer everything you say very generally then blast everyone with the word strawman when they address your generalizations.
Log in to comment