Thor was still pretty powerful and versatile by the end of Ragnarok. Could see him taking Ares.

As usual Thor solos via lightning spam. Neither Ares or Nan-Ek have the durability to avoid being on shotted.

Hulk makes Nam-Ek his son and Thor solos Ares.

Ares is fodder here. Thor could win but nam ek could blitz him

Hulk and Thor

MCU team, with Thor as the MVP.

Hulk is a non-factor and Thor isn't taking both, an argument could be made that either DCEU character solos but regardless, the DCEU duo win decisively.

Based on what? If you're going to argue that neither has feats of tanking lightning then I could equally say that lightning has no feats of damaging Kryptonians. You need failed durability feats to make objective claims like "Neither...have the durability to avoid being on shotted".

Ares and nam-ek. Nam-ek tanks everything hulk has to offer and then snaps his neck while ares lodges stormbreaker in thor's skull

I don't really see why we should do this again. We've been over it before. The way I and the vast majority of debaters debate on this site is that a character needs proof to be able to do something. If they have not had a feat or a statement or at least something to put them at a level where they can endure a certain attack, than we assume it will one shot them.

This style of debating is meant to avoid NLF arguments that place a character at levels where no one can defeat them since they haven't shown specific weakness. I understand why you don't like it but I haven't changed my mind about using it.

If you disagree with this style of debating than that's perfectly fine. But that's you're preference and style. Not mine.

@amcu: You're probably right, but can't Ares use lightning aswell? And Thor repeatedly gets KOd / Incapacitated from electric shocks.

Thor oneshots

The Sakaar tech isn't just electric devices. The shock effect seems to have been done for humor. You can also clearly see his veins pulsing black with poison or something IIRC.

More importantly obedience disks where confirmed to depower Thor by the director of Ragnarok. So it's not just electricity. I'd assume that net that bothered him was the same as it seemed to do the same to him and IIRC it had a bunch of disk devices on it which are likely what effected him.

Thor has consistently shown complete immunity to his own lightning. And has tanked or no sold massive extremely powerful explosions on multiple occasions. I don't see Ares's lightning doing anything to him personally.

It's not about "preference", your "style of debating" is just wrong. You are welcome to argue as fallaciously as you like, but don't use fallacious reasoning to make objective claims.

Yeah, Thor one-shots both Nam-ek and Ares.

@aka_aka_aka_ak: What Amcu is saying is that Thor's damage output feats >>>> their durability feats. That's not a fallacious logic at all. Your comparison on the other hand is not only the complete opposite of what he is saying and is completely fallacious, but it's also using no limit fallacy concept.

Plus, there's no such things as an "objective claim" in battle forum unless the characters had fought in the past. The purpose of this kind of stuff is to "imagine" what would happen if the scenario was actually happening, which on its own is subjective.

@amcu: @aka_aka_aka_ak: Ares has a bad track record with lightning... Just thought I’d point that out

@amcu: Ok, thanks for clearing it up.

It is fallacious logic to say that lack of demonstration of "X" is demonstration of "not X" i.e. A has not been shown to do X, therefore A cannot do X.

What comparison? I have no idea what you're talking about here. The Urban Dictionary gives a definition and an example of the "No Limits Fallacy", the definition it gives is not a fallacy and is perfectly sound. It is essentially the statement of "lack of proof of "X" is not proof of "not X" ", which is not a fallacy and is actually important reasoning that users here could do with educating themselves on. The example that it gives however, is a fallacy but is the total opposite of the definition it gives. The example it gives is "lack of proof of "X" is proof of "not X" ", which is exactly the same fallacious reasoning that users like you and amcu are using.

"there's no such things as an "objective claim" in battle forum"

There is no objective answer to these battles, but people can still make objective claims. amcu made such an objective claim, here you are actually agreeing with me that we ought not make such objective claims, we agree on this, it is amcu who you ought to criticise on this issue.

@aka_aka_aka_ak: Don't really care about what you think is sound or not, no limit fallacy isn't accepted in online battle scenarios in general, so if you want to be laughing stock on an online forum then so be it. But I'm telling you that NLF concept is what differentiate your logic and Amcu's.

And I was talking about this comparison.

I could equally say that lightning has no feats of damaging Kryptonians.

That's NLF, unlike Amcu's logical reasoning. It's not remotely "equal" like you claimed whatsoever.

For example, I've never seen DCEU Ares getting his soul stolen, that means we can't claim the soul steal would work on him because it hasn't been shown before. Now tell me with a straight face that the logic is not fallacious right there, because that's the type of stuff that you're claiming here. More extreme example would be characters like Saitama (who only has planetary feats at best). We can't claim that attacks from Silver Age Superman or even Living Tribunal can harm him because he hasn't been harmed by anything in the past, so who knows if he can or not?

As soon as I change the topic to the more extreme cases, your "logical reasoning" completely falls apart. That's how I know that it's gotta be fallacious. It does not require failed durability to make a claim.

The Urban Dictionary gives a definition and an example of the "No Limits Fallacy", the definition it gives is not a fallacy and is perfectly sound. It is essentially the statement of "lack of proof of "X" is not proof of "not X" ", which is not a fallacy and is actually important reasoning that users here could do with educating themselves on. The example that it gives however, is a fallacy but is the total opposite of the definition it gives. The example it gives is "lack of proof of "X" is proof of "not X" ",

No, we're not using that logic. The urban dictionary is incorrect. NLF is when a certain ability is elevated to heights it was never shown to be capable of achieving. It's the exact same message as I previously given and is still the same fallacious logic that you're using. X here or X that, they don't matter as they don't actually determine whether it's NLF or not. It depends on the situation and how you're saying it.

The right logic sounds like this using the same example: " we've never seen Ares resisting soul steal before, therefore we can claim that he can't resist soul steal."

"We've never seen Saitama being harmed in the past but he can still be harmed if the damage output is above his best durability feats"

Both claims are true, yet they're the opposite of each other.

Going with team 2 btw, Hulk is a weak link.

Meh. Nam-Ek can take hulk and I don't see Thor being able to hurt Ares without weapons at all.

The lightning that killed Ares wasn't normal lightning. It was amplified by Diana who was born with an innate ability to kill Gods, as mentioned in the movie. We already saw Ares effortlessly conduct the same lightning that killed him moments later. Ares also has TP, Teleportation, TK, illusions and Thermokinesis.

I don't see anyone in the MCU Team with the ability to tag or hurt him. He on other hand can. His TK is at least at several thousand tonnes level going by how he lifted that huge mass of land. He could also trap Thor and Hulk in illusions.

Ares can solo.

I'm done with you. You are just wrong and your comments are making my blood boil. I will shortly be making a thread tackling this and I'll link you to that if you like but I refuse to engage with you until you acknowledge the following

• Lack of proof of "X" is NOT proof of "not X"

Do you understand that?

You (or amcu) are saying that 'because Kryptonians have not been shown to resist lightning that is proof that they can't'. I am using the exact same faulty reasoning to say that 'because lightning has not been shown to damage Krypotnian that is proof that it can't', both statements are fallacious in exactly the same way. You even tried to give some examples of my "fallacious reasoning" and every single one is perfectly sound if we're working off feats alone. Using feats alone, Saitama has not been harmed so it is perfectly sound to say that we do not know if those you listed could harm him or not. I don't care if that seems "ridiculous" to you, the fact that it seems ridiculous to you is not an argument. If we actually break it down, the reason it seems ridiculous to you will actually have nothing to do with Saitama's feats, you're using some other measure when you determine that The Living Tribunal can harm Saitama and you're subconsciously letting that influence how you reason with feats.

I'm not trying to be rude or edgy and I don't want to end up on r/iamverysmart but you're not on my level with regards to an understanding of sound logical reasoning. I have a degree in mathematics from the University of Cambridge with an emphasis on logic, sets and computation. I have spent years studying logic and sound reasoning, please trust me that I know what a fallacy is.

Ares and Nam ek

@aka_aka_aka_ak: Nah man, you're just being stupid and everyone knows it. I only replied to you because it's kind of embarrassing to be associated with other DCEU debaters like you.

You are just wrong and your comments are making my blood boil.

I'm making your blood boil? You're making other people that read your posts lose brain cells.

• Lack of proof of "X" is NOT proof of "not X"

It purely depends on the context. Truth to be hold, this doesn't even matter. That's such a one dimensional way of debating, that it sounds borderline stupid when the context changes.

You even tried to give some examples of my "fallacious reasoning" and every single one is perfectly sound if we're working off feats alone.

And that's where you lose all credibility. Both are perfectly sound? I was trying to sound as stupid as I possibly could. Maybe if I try to sound even dumber, it will work. Let me try again: Wonder Woman hasn't been killed before in DCEU, therefore she can probably survive the destruction of the multiverse, because there's no proof that anything can kill her!

Is it dumb enough to make you realize how stupid you sounded? At this point I don't care if it sounds logical to you or not. It is simply a stupid argument and anyone can see it.

Using feats alone, Saitama has not been harmed so it is perfectly sound to say that we do not know if those you listed could harm him or not.

That's what we do here, we theorize things. We don't need to know anything, we need to ASSUME what's going to happen according to the scenario. Go wank Saitama on Myanimelist forum or something, maybe you can find people that agree with you, I heard a lot of weebs use NLF like you. You won't find much luck down here.

I don't care if that seems "ridiculous" to you, the fact that it seems ridiculous to you is not an argument. If we actually break it down, the reason it seems ridiculous to you will actually have nothing to do with Saitama's feats, you're using some other measure when you determine that The Living Tribunal can harm Saitama and you're subconsciously letting that influence how you reason with feats.

Yeah, it's called common knowledge/logic or general assumption, which you seem to be lacking.

I have a degree in mathematics from the University of Cambridge with an emphasis on logic, sets and computation. I have spent years studying logic and sound reasoning, please trust me that I know what a fallacy is.

I guess you and Nucleon both went to the same school. Of course both of you are respected debaters due to your flawless logic. I even thought you 2 were the same person for a second.

Again, NLF is when a certain ability is elevated to heights it was never shown to be capable of achieving. It's basically a baseless wanking. You may graduated from whatever school, but know your place. This is just battle forum, you need to know the general logic and assumptions that should be used or not.

I will shortly be making a thread tackling this and I'll link you to that if you like but I refuse to engage with you until you acknowledge the following.

And please do, I can't wait to see the whole thread making fun of you.

@aka_aka_aka_ak: what does the UoC have anniething to do w/this? Chill dude, this is a fictional battle xD