baneblade

I get what you are saying bro, but perhaps you and I are just taking a different angle here. Your statement (part of it) he is a sentient human being, still means that he is capable of using the things taught to him by X, in ways that X may not have foreseen/anticipated is true, and universally applicable, but not the chosen path in a debate, at least for me. That would mean for me, that an able fighter like Damian, or Tim Drake, both of who have sprung surprises for Batman in terms of their abilities and mindset, could take out just about anyone. If they face off DD or Ironfist, being human, and comprised of a battle to die mindset, they could win. Why, because realistically then, such factors work both for and against, since, collectively they are composed of the physical and mental balance that could alter now and then. The bottom line in such a realistic, very possible assumption is COULD. I for one, bro (and I know you can't either as I have seen you debate) use that logic in an argument. It is opening the possibility field too much in a forum like this, where folks are trying to cut a line between feats and assumptions/derivations. That is why I went along a logical line: comprising stats and feats, and especially in this forum: One who trains another who is lesser in terms of experience, knowledge, skill has no chance to beat the trainer, if the trainer and him exist in the same circle. Throw in the factors you mentioned, and it becomes a new ballgame, at least to me bro. Sorry if this sounds convoluted bro, but I am just trying to keep up here.

Ok bro. 1. I already have. Mike Tyson, Muhammed Ali, Mayweather, Pacquiao, etc. etc. That's in boxing. In Taekwondo, Steven Lopez. The student surpasses the teacher CONSTANTLY. Not only does it happen, it's commonplace. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this point. All of these references in my opinion, are not the examples I am looking for. Ex: (These I have tried to and am sure upto a degree were the mainstay trainers in the sportsmen careers, that you have given examples of) Cus D’Amatto, Kevin Rooney, Archie Moore, Angelo Dundee, Chuck Bodak: all past prime age of boxing. In a unique case, only 1 trainer actually faced his 'disciple', when Moore faced Ali. Again, re-stating that Moore was way past his prime, and not the ideal' trainer for Ali since I know Ali disliked him and never really regarded his training/principles. As for Lopez, did his dad ever compete anywhere even? Roger Mayweather or Flyod Sr., again out of their element, past their primes, or never even in a real ring at that competitive level. Freddy Roach must be in his early 50s by now, if not his late 40s. Again, past prime, and never at that competitive level. Bro, Shiva's example is not the same. At least this is the way I see it. She is in the same prime/circle, and moreover on the opposite side of the mix. She is a professional/voluntary assassin. She is not past her prime, or done with, or been there. 2. It is completely fair, since, as far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that her fighting abilities were impaired at that moment in time, you're completely making up the "sluggish" part. That is the way you look at it, and I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. Grey area. 3. You brought up a counterexample of your own point. You don't have to be able to better at fighting than someone to train them, you could just have one instance of something they know. Guy A is a novice in martial art A. Guy B is a world master in martial art B. Guy A can train Guy B in martial art A. Guy B can still beat the shit out of Guy A regardless. If Guy B is a Master, he would have to suck really bad for a 'lesser' A to train him. In which case, the case will be moot. That is just not logical. It is like a street body builder telling Arnold in his prime on what to do to get to the next level. Again, Shiva just didn't train Bats, she trained him while being his equal or better. Not his inferior. She is an assassin, he is an advocate of law. For him to seek an active combatant on the 'other' side would mean serious skills, skills which she routinely implies, not like any of the folks you listed in their last ebb. Also, you just said that Lady Shiva equals DD in raw fighting ability. Even if that's true, DD has the tactical advantage, physical advantage, equipment advantage, and the range advantage, still making it a hard win in favor of Daredevil. I agree on DD's 'advantages' leave for tactical, or physical. Those bro are subjective and will probably tilt one way or another, depending on how this debate progresses eh?

Agree 100% bro. Could be a tic right here. Part of my conscious though, intends to say it as a natural thing, well meaning tho. The mind is a slippery beast.

Its a 'bad habit', embedded in me. Gives a sense of familiarity, respect, something like that. Its always on my tongue even when I converse casually with folks. By the by I still remember those funny bro-variations of names you brought up a while ago. In any case, Hope you don't mind my using it.

Good debating my bro. Good solid debating. I believe we are narrowing to some junction, if not a definitive result. In your able statements, I picked the one that is the 'extract' of the lot: Comes down to whether Shiva is continuously improvising, training as well. In that, I will say, we will not know for sure, what with the new 52 discarding the old 'guard', but a conjecture has to be made there no? The conjecture would of course, be in line with the character's history, habits etc. I say she will be tougher: she fights to live- check, she was tougher in that some folks who gave Bats a 'sort of headache' fell to her almost casually - check, she knew all of what Bats was, leaving the psychological part and tailor made a routine for his recovery and training-check. With those stats I would go to the bank with the assumption she will be tougher, by leagues. Alas, it has to be an assumption, in the absence of current story or feats, and one that of course opens the 'grey doors' bro. In any case, good debate going.

I like thy straightforward style, oh Sirmethos. I have accounted for everything good bro, as possibly as my limited understanding will allow. More than anything, I would like to go into the grey open range and 'improvise' on debates and throw in all possible factors than a humanoid being (human or alien) can go through in their specific spheres of existence. Not too many have welcomed that approach kindly I' say. However, what I said perhaps needs to be streamlined. In that, perhaps I need to correct myself. 'Zero chances' would imply in the same line: I implied same consequences, same tourneys, same element in as much entirety as possible. It simply meant: same teacher. Not 'break out, learn more combinations from elsewhere, improvise, learn more, become tougher on one's own'. That bro, would of course, be a different ball game. I only and only spoke about the definitive area that Darxeth pointed out: If St. Pierre trained students, who primarily had him as a teacher, and are training in that same element, and are competing in the same tourney, my logical take is, and in fact it is that way; they will lose. If a student broke off from that 'reality', got a different teacher now, and went other ways in training, he would of course rack up more knowledge, in what capacity and become more. Ala Cassandra Cain. Not Bats. The last real teacher Bats had was Shiva. Not the League even, who he merely used to uncover inner demons on a psychological level. In other words good bro, I agree with you. What you said is 100% true. But what I am saying is true as well. In a capsule again sir, if X trained Y, and they remain in those circles, train with each other even, there are zero chances logically for Y to trump X; it would only become applicable if X taught Y everything. But that will be an out of the box, wild assumption. If X trained Y, and Y then went a different path; right from there the scenario becomes open to every possibility. I wouldn't discount X entirely in a fight down the road, but I wouldn't give X a definitive edge either. Y would have a possibility in winning. I hope that clarifies a few things.

Thanks bro. To address some concerns: 1) I would like (if at all possible), to see examples where both student and teacher were in the same line of 'fighting' (ex: Mixed martial arts teacher, or kung fu master, or even Tae Kwon Do or Karate 'competitors' who are also teachers, and were in their active competitive years beaten by their students. I am sure bro, there are no examples. Even if you manage to pick out an example or two; it will be far and in between, and the scales will tilt in one side's favour. To try and say this clearly, when a martial arts teacher, or lets say a brawler, fights actively int he industry, and teaches, there are zero chances that a student and especially a student will trump him. Bro Darxeth smartly pointed it out, so I am only reiterating and opining. 2) That aside, Bats beat Shiva with Robin's aid once, essentially when Bats had his hands full, and she was blindsided by Robin. She trained him after that encounter. Both were at that point, 'more enhanced, understandably and even in comic terms' with regards to skills and experience. Their other encounter was a Shiva out of her element. In a mind control sluggish situation. All the villains Bats and Superman faced off at the point were like that. It wouldn't be fair to judge a fight like that. As for Cassandra bro, I tried to explain and will do so for the convenience of the post again, as you re-mentioned it: Cassandra Cain is essentially both over Shiva and bats, in their individual elements. She is an amalgam, of many skills, including Shiva's, and has even been unfairly attributed with a shrouded past that has been partly revealed, and with the new 52, will probably never be revealed. The one thing that is standard is, she used what Shiva gave, added a lot more, because of her singular 'body movement shadowing technique' to trump Shiva. Also, the writer himself stated in one of the fights, that seeing Cain injured, led Shiva to underestimate her, and Cain, using her enhanced 'out of this world' pain numbing factor, sucker punched Shiva. It would not be hard to deduce that in all these instances, Shiva didn't drop in a fair conventional H2H. She is not a mainstream character, and yet has the stats that she was not downed fairly and in a straightforward combat situation; leave for the one in which Cassandra Cain fights her nearly to the death. Lets go form there bro.

Hey there bro. Good posts. I like your style. Your points, and I decided to go to this post because it is farther along. I will try to make it concise this time, more bearable in terms of volume and application: 1) The one thing that is either not mentioned or mentioned fleetingly in posts is Bats greatest ability: His brain. Lets say DD is actually a better fighter. Bats is a good fighter. The one thing that DD will never trump is Bats brains (Bat-brains, if you may). Batman's critical thinking is always ON. He thinks 10 steps ahead. Just as you pointed out the possible amendment in the 'constitution', in terms of being bad ass at fighting; I actually nominate his thought process as an amendment more than the bad-assery. I say amend it as 'You can't outhink the Bat'. He lives to think, and even out-thought himself to fight mental manipulation one more than two occasions. I am willing to bet, in perfect comic sense, that if not in a few seconds, than in a minute, he will figure out DD is blind, and is hence moving and throwing down with the aid of heightened senses (ala Clark). He will know a loud noise making something will put him out, push his senses, or hearing to the limit in a hurry. He always has sonar equipment on him. Punisher has done it, albeit with preparation. Bats doing it int he middle of a fight is a no brainer bro. Just re-iterating: Bats is very deadly with the one thing folks quite miss; his power, channel of thought. 2) As far as their physical attributes go, I rather go with your rightfully picked out fight. In the cross-over. Many folks will say that it is non-canon. I for one, however, don't turn my head on a properly penned cross-over, and actually even quote from it, because, both publishers' scribes agreed on the outcome/events. Hence, even if you take that pick, and I have read it; bottom line was DRAW. Sadly, draw in the sense that fans on both ends were kept happy, and it was a match left in progress. However, even close to the end of the issue, Bats had deduced DD was blind. This was Bats a long time ago. The Bats we know today is definitely, surely more devious, and experienced in much more than just H2H. DD, has the aid of his 'radar sense'. However, fighting folks like Superman, Wonderwoman, a handful of Amazons, (who are not only 'powered up enough', but articulate and deadly due to their 'other worldly' fighting techniques, will do that to a man. Bats in one outing actually (almost fully) avoided, and even fought back a creature aping Martian Manhunter's powers up close. Those reflexes bro, are unbeatable. He also landed a critical blow in that he actually smashed a weight plate to pieces on 'Manhunter's' head. That strength feat alone is enough, coupled with reflex and response timing ratio; to trump almost any 'urban' fighter who is slightly enhanced even. True, the creature didnot have DD's prowess in articulated battle. But he had the insane strength, and speed, and to boot, was in extremely closed quarters. If you check out the scribe's comments, you will see that it points out to one fact there, or status quo: Bats is used to rolling like that now, on an upper level than he always did. These arguments were to marginally substantiate Bat's stats in terms of physical ability. Not saying you didn't know them, but just re-iterated. Now, in the actual match at hand. Why did I ask about this? Simply to compare two fighters in terms of liaisons or opponents. DD has fought Bats, lets say to a standstill. Bats has fought Shiva, beaten her once in stupor, and once with Robin's aid. Both instances were 'convoluted'. However, Shiva, in the same line of work, except on the opposite side, has trained Bats. I am only logically making a deduction, that if not above, she is equal to DD in raw fighting ability. If I begun to ask you bro, about how DD would fare against Cassandra Cain, you would have a harder time. I only threw these components into the mix for deduction's sake, and to me, it is easy to deduce, that logically being in the same line of work, Shiva had 'more skills' than Bat; enough to teach him. It s not hard to do the math from there. As I said before, there are too few Shiva feats, leave for major ones as these, that we just have to derive from.

Very good point bro. Again, a point some bros. are not acknowledging. They are looking at a coin, but not flipping it to see the other side.

That is your grey area bro. As is mine for that matter. You believe it isn't, where as I say it is. If I said to my cousin; lets grapple, and see who can get to apply a rear naked choke first, I would not do it without the skills, or strength. As for Shiva and Cain, fully agree she was beaten. If you check out (if it even exists now) Kelly Pucket's commentary on this, he stated two things: 1) Shiva underestimated Batgirl, in part due to her injury. Call it an excuse for one of the fights. 2) Cassandra Cain's added ability to forgo language for 'body language' gives her an edge over anyone, absolutely anyone at all. It is not something Shiva taught her. David Cain was to figure into as well. Cassandra is the amalgam of two deadly teachers, not one, not to mention Bat's defensive technique. She is one of the few people who are hardest to deal with in H2H. She is better than Shiva. That still does not take away Shiva's skills that I honestly believe trump DD's. As for your point if Phelps trainer couldn't outrace him even in his prime, again bro; swimming is not martial arts. Grey area bro!!.

Good point bro. That is what I am trying to tell these bros. Martial arts training, or fighting period does not mean you stand aside and tell a student how to apply a kimura lock. You get into the thick of it and demonstrate. The test really comes during sparring sessions. Our instructor once dropped me in the span of seconds by method I had not foreseen or comprehended. In part it was due to my underestimation of his age and weight. It meant he had those skills, and he implied them to a good degree. In comics, it is not too far off. Shiva has those skills and is to boot, a stated Master assassin. Just trying to re-inforce the point there).

I wholly agree. Even the guy who trained me to do art, will be surprised at how far I have ventured from what he taught me, in the good way. Swimming bro is a lot different than martial arts. A master can't just sit there and instruct to channel chi (as they opine heavily in Wingtsun), or channel poise and strike down a collection of cinder blocks. He has to do it to demonstrate. If that same master faces off the student, and the student loses, it will be understandable. If the master loses at a certain age, my bet is that it is way past his prime. That is what I was implying, that martial arts training is a different ball game all together, even in comics, to a great degree, if not definitely.

Hey bro Oltobaz. The grey area that we all tread right now is; are DD and Wolverine better combatants than Bats? Many will tell you no. Many will say yes. It really depends on who you are debating with here bro. Ex: A scribe once called Elektra over rated. One called Bullseye over rated. Another called Bats a mere cheat to win guy instead of just a well meaning honourable fighter. Another called Nightwing underrated. As I said, many will agree, others will not. The real junction at which we stand is, do you consider DD to be a better fighter than Bats? I know this is Shiva vs Bats. Since Shiva's feats are not physically as 'chronicled' as DD's, for apparent reasons that she is not a mainstream character like DD, nor had her own comic, thereby lessening the feats; at least in print, we have to derive from what we have. That of course, involves pulling comparisons with liasons, and fellow fighters and opponents, and that thankfully is a standpoint, you have taken as well. Hence again, do you consider DD better than Cassandra Cain, or Bats. Do you think he would be at par with Bats or Cain in a H2H? I do believe that whatever your reply is, will greatly affect the opinion on the outcome of this match. Ex: Many debate that Ironfist is better than DD. Many say no. What is your take bro? Is DD a better fighter than Bats?

Hey bro Methos. How's it going? Training does imply skill, certainly, definitely, absolutely. What I was trying to stress was that Shiva was not any (much) older or younger than Bats), nor was she past an age of experience. Yet, she trained them in the same 'categorization' as hers. Martial arts training takes the same vigor, exertions and skills, not just 'knowledge'. Shiva trained Cassandra Cain the shadow movement technique not by just telling her, but by displaying it. She also physically matched blows with Bats, albeit stated to hold back. as she knew he was not in his element then. She demonstrated the killing blow, not just 'taught him on paper' or verse. Had she been an old hag, I might have realistically thought, that while she had the know how, and somehow exerted herself mentally and physically to teach the moves, for those brief periods, she would have dropped in a stretched combat scene. She is however, a master assassin, and a little past her prime, like Bats. If she can stave off folks like Huntress, and Catwoman, while casually standing her feet, and blocking and probing with the same arm, these are not simple indications of skill. That aside, the real argument I guess is, to substantiate Shiva's 'feats' in terms of opponents. I have already mentioned that it is hard to do, as knowingly, DC does not (like any other publisher) utilize 'over the top' elusive bad guys to a fore. However, through scribe statements from story lines, and references as the ones in which she trained some kick ass fighters, and even fought them, have to be derived from. That's they way it has to be. That aside, I don't see DD trumping Bats or moreover,. teaching, or 're-inventing' him. She did. That shows only one thing: Not only is she an assassin, but gave only a portion of what she knew in a scenario where he, who is himself a master trainer, sought her. It is not hard to do the match there bro. As for your concern of Thanos training Gamorra. Thanos trained her in a vast backdrop. Jim Starlin, a great helmsman of the Marvel 'intergalactic sagas ages', hinted that Thanos training involved Gamora's prime intergalactic H2H combat, not all the extensive martial arts that she knows today. He in a way, both trained her, and facilitated her training. Hence, she learned quite a bit from him, in regards to unconventional H2H combat, but learned a whole lot more from various sources, and even continued to hone her skills on her own after a period of time. Hence bro, Thanos teaching her involves a more vague and wider scenario, than just the two of them training under one roof, and she primarily learning from him. Shiva, Bats, one of the Robins, Batgirl, are a different thing, and situation all together.

Bro she trained Casandra Cain and Bats. If that does not a feat more impressive make, I take it nothing will. As I stated in my posts to bro Baller Ju, that Shiva's level is so high, that most of her feats are shrouded in ambiguity, and only set the bar through her 'passing of the knowledge to supreme fighters', like Bats and Cain. To Cain, she passed the most versatile and unbeatable skill; that of projecting any opponent's moves beforehand, through instant body movement/language. To Bats, who is himself billed as a supreme combatant, she not only fixed him, but 're-invented' him. He relied on her. Not that she is much older, or Sensei-age/level, but her knowledge was so great that he did not think of turning to anyone else. If that does not indicate tactics, or skills, or lets just say 'art'; I do not know what does. Sometimes, it takes 'grander' feats to dwarf 'great' ones. I know we are severely in the dreaded grey area here, but I guess that's the way a debate goes bro.

Baller ma bro. Good debate going. I will try to see if I can type on some of your points. 1 - Facing other powerhouse fighters/super powered fighters: One of the oft quoted and produced scenarios is his infiltration and dropping of the Avengers like flies. While not THE feat, it to this day, stands as a talked about feat in comicdom. Why? Because almost all folks debated that the mix had Cap, Herc and Black Widow al at once! True. But with more mirrors than the eye has begun to see: Point is, DD exploited a scenario when he took the Avengers, in that he not only sprung a surprise, but there were external factors at work, ex: his out of the usual feral mindset, and the darkness that aided him. Many call it PIS. I accept it though, as it happened, but I do not in any case see it as a run of the mill occurring. For the feat to stand, both team and DD would have to be in their elements, not heightened or more brutal, or taking advantage of an external factor that suits them more than it suits an opponent. I only gave the example so you can see where I am coming from when trying to gauge the fighter's 'prowess'. 2 - DD being faster than Shiva: Bro mine, it is debatable. I am not saying he is, or isn't. I am only saying that it is debatable. Shiva is a character whose traits are as ambiguous as they are shown. Ex: Not all her fights have been chronicled, but only spoken about. Then she goes on to train Bats, without breaking a sweat. Hence, while her feats are 'lesser' in quantity than DD's, the quality of that one feat alone is one hell of a derider to any fighter's resume. You will have to work damn hard to deride this one bro. While the League of Assassins also trained Bats, Shiva 'rebuilt him', restructured his skills, and took him to the next level without 'engaging' him. That is no small feat. Mr. Moench, and O'Niel who were onboard writing duties then, stated this. What that shows is that while an old guy can teach a young one new tricks, two folks in their prime can not exactly do the same with each other. It would only work, if one had extraordinary skills wildly out of the ordinary. Bats' re-structuring was a much more complex challenge. In that, it is a severely underestimated feat. What does it underestimate exactly? It underestimates her knowledge that was both vast enough to concoct a recovery, and intensive regimen for a broken Bats. 3 - Opponent nature: DD has faced mostly urban opponents. The brunt of the hits came from either Kingpin or Bullseye. If you state that DD has faced 'stronger, fatser, more powerful beings', you could refer to my point mentioned above in this post. Again bro, lots of ambiguity there. Ex: Cassandra Cain might not be able to beat Lex Luthor in a battle suit, but she might beat Deathstroke one on one. Ex: DD might not be able to take on Hulk, but may be able to trump Cap. In a one on one. In both cases, while the former opponents, i.e Luthor and Hulk are more powerful, there is no doubt that Cap and Stroke are better fighters. When two skilled fighters meet, it is a different ballgame. Just because DD's strike might have down a powerhouse like Emma Frost, doesnot mean he will take out Shiva or Cain one on one, because the fight scenario is much different than with a power house. In that regard, you will need to substantiate how DD fared against fighters you have mentioned could be, or are more 'fighter' than Shiva. I know this, that while DD had certain out of the box outings with credible fighters, his mainstay opponents are not more than Shiva. In fact, they are much less. Hence, those out of the box outings will help DD's argument here, depending on what scenario it was, what mindset, backdrop or opponent reality it was. Lets hear it bro, and we can then go from there. Perhaps your instances will be something I am hearing about for the first time, and which will change my opinion of the match. 4 : As for the concern that I am taking DD lightly, I am not. I stated clearly this will not be a cakewalk for either fighter. I also stated DD 'drawing' logically with Shiva, if there is a re-match at the dojo backdrop. That says that I am not underestimating him.

His radar sense is not being under estimated at all. In fact, (from how I look at it), most good bros. on this post have acknowledged that advantage one way or another. The pivot of the fight lies not in the conventional on goings here bro. It is the 'unconventional' side we are referring to. (some of us anyway). That be Shiva's fighting sense. While DD has his sense, and like bro Darxeth correctly pointed, out; he has been tagged before in spite of it, from fighters not as articulate or versed as Shiva, (or even if they are as versed as her in H2H); Shiva is not your regular top of the line baddy: She trained the Godda**** Batman to help him get back, with rather 'unconventional' techniques that were 'tailor made' for his condition, that not only healed him, but attempted to make him a ruthless fighter. That letter didn;t work as his meditative edge held sway over the psychological 'attempts'. These were of course, fueled singularly by her imparting him knowledge of singular 'killing blows' designed to push the mind to extremes. All she wanted in return was, a fight to the death any good time in the future. To able to do that to one of the most highly rated 'fighters' in any comic universe is not some mere feat. It showed that she had much more in tow, and only lived to fight. Traditionally, DD's sense would avert a less articulate fighter, but not some one as knowledgeable in the arts as Shiva. The only time(s) she has billed to lose is due to under estimation. Cassandra Cain being an example. Kelly Pucket himself confirmed this. Believe me bro, DD is a 'new' opponent, and at least 'threatening looking' enough for Shiva not to drop her guard. Each action he projects will be used against him, as will hers against hers. Except, hers will be far lesser than his.

Lets all not delude ourselves here brothers. I am taking the encounters as they occur, as listed in that order: 1) Random fight: Shiva. DD will be more taken by surprise than anticipated in this one 2) (I presume) re-match in a dojo: Scenario A - In a re-match, in closed quarters, and both fighters knowing the other's capability, I just don't see one winning there. Draw, whichever way you cook it. Reason is simple: DD can get taken down by Shiva once, in the random match, which is not a cakewalk by any means. Shiva is a better martial artist, which is why she will trump DD's senses in the first match. In the second match, in closed quarters and a terrain limit, Shiva could avert DD's strikes, but he will also both from experience and the unfair radar sense advantage, avert many of her key strikes, if not all. This is strictly if it is a re-match. Scenrio B - Again, if I missed something bluntly, and this is not a re-match, Shiva will win, even harder than she did on open terrain, because the 'rooftop' advantage goes both ways, for both fighters. DD will have an advantage if he has faced off Shiva before. If he hasn't, then his 'inexperience' with her, and that too, in closed quarters will afford her an easier win than on the roof top. As for skill sets. Lets say they were evenly matched, there is one thing that is in Shiva's favour, certain surefire 'killing' strikes, which she can land on DD. She will also figure out quickly he has 'senses', and he is blind. She is devious, whereas he is essentially a good person, in spite of being a kick-ass fighter. Even with his radar sense, she will be ruthless enough to stand out. My take bros. Good debate going though.

Me thinks Thanos will win.

Hey there bro Force. How's it going? In regards to your reply, Facts are not negligible, but quite often, not 'anchor' enough to count as routine debate tools. Which makes the point of facts counting period as only way to go, 'mixed' and much more than it seems. Ex: I know and I know you know too, that Cap can not best Hulk on his best day. He will need distractions, extras, or a load of PIS to survive. Yet he downed Hulk, and downed him in his intelligent form. Although that is a fact too, it can not be just used every time Cap and Hulk square off. Yes, in certain unique circumstances, it will work. The circumstance in that case was overwhelming long established facts: Hulk was stated as more 'serene', at that point and place, than he usually is. - So, if it was a straight up fight where a rampaging Hulk invaded Avengers quarters, and I recount the fact that Cap downed him then and co do so again, it wouldn't be right, as Hulk was out of his element. In that case, the scenario, and character mindset counted. - If it is Hulk walking to the quarters and taking on Cap, on an out of the usual suppressed nature, I will give it to Cap again, as the circumstance and history overwhelm the fact that Cap bested Hulk upfront in that unique once in a blue moon instant. That makes the statement that facts, cold hard facts are the way to go, period, a little moot. I only say bro mine, that there is a lot more in comprehension going into a debate than just cold hard facts. Now, just to clarify this thing, and I hope you are not fed up with it, many folks will just take the scenario, and count the whole thing as a 'fact'. I have seen it on debates. I personally think that the easy way is to separate facts ad stats, or bits from feats, rather than mix in a unique scenario in there and call the whole thing a fact, or dispel it all together. Again, that is me, but I am sure a few folks, if not all, will agree with this approach. I have seen brothers debate on this point itself in the past that why is a certain debater just using hard facts, when some of them won't even be wildly applicable in the battle? Just reiterating what some folks said and I agree with them. Debate's nature itself is much more versatile.

First off, I've previously asked you not to call me bro, I don't care that you typically use it as a term of respect, I find it annoying. There's only one person on the forum who is in any position to call me that, and you are not him. So: 1. You do know, not merely acknowledge, but do know it is a sign of respect; yet you are annoyed with it. I don't know if that is rational thought, or impulsive thought. I am used to respecting others, and it may take me a few go's to embed into my system, that I shouldn't be 'in character' on the posts with you. No disrespect or pun intended. 2- I promise to try though, but at the same time, am re-stating, that it is quite odd, that knowing it to be a sign of respect, you are annoyed with it. No hard feelings here though. We are all human. Moving on to your points, I won't address them all at this point, as I don't really have the time or energy, but I will eventually get around to them, for now, I'll just address a couple of them. Spider-man has a stated strength of 10 tons, and that's usually the general level of strength he exhibits, that's a fact. Cases where he exhibit higher or lower strength, usually have an explanation for them, which fits the fact of his strength being 10 tons. We see this in the real world, It's called Hysterical strength, where regular people perform great feats of strength that they wouldn't be able to do under normal circumstances, like lifting a car of a member of their family, or wrestling a bear to ensure that their child can get away from it. 1. Yes, I myself stated that, or tried to in a manner and perhaps didn't come across in that context. The bottom line result is, at least to me, is then quite simple: Hard, cold facts are not necessarily the way to debate, always. History, scenarios, convoluted plot points, pivotal feats are not necessarily discarded because they are out of the box, or not standard facts. If Spiderman had taken 'juice' of some sort, I would call it an 'extra', outside his abilities. He did that by himself. While I know his anguish and mental condition, and his dire consequence drove him to do it, it is still fact, isn't it? That does not make it a standard fact in every argument does it? Yet, it also does not mean that it can not be used in specific scenarios. 2- This is what I was trying to say: If the scenario hits, where his opponent is gunning for his wife or aunt's life, I might bring up that piece of history, where he accomplished that feat; it would fit into such a scenario. Although referring to it, I would not count that feat as a standard 'fact' at that time. Of course, you may or may not agree with it as a fact, but it would still either be an anomaly in terms of 'fact', but one that is undeniable as it happened, or it would be that gray area thing, that is there, and can not be argued with, but not necessarily cold hard fact. 3. That said, my bottom line then is; that many folks then will say, that it is not a fact, that Spiderman routinely dodges Nova, or lures him past a gas station; or routinely leads Rhino into a metal wall, or routinely presses a weight that exceeds his stated limits. Some will say, it is. Hence, saying that cold hard facts are just the way to go in a debate is a moot/limiting point. Because, facts are part of the debate, not the turning point of one. I also said, that we are in a gray area here. Perhaps what I am saying is not making sense to you and vice versa; perhaps we are implying the same thing; just our definition of facts or what they encompass in a comic debate, perhaps varies. Bullsh*t, picking out the various points that are wrong, and then commenting/debating on them is a perfectly valid way of doing it. The fact that I'm simply picking out various points that I disagree with, and commenting upon those, doesn't mean that I can't comprehend the whole thing. I among my choices, also mentioned, that if they go one on one, period. You either missed the part bro, or confused it Actually, I didn't comment on that particular part, because I don't disagree with it, I commented on the part of your 'analysis' where you claimed that Zeus would 'absolute' because I disagree with that part. The fact that I disagree with one part of your post, yet agree with another, is apparently a concept you have a hard time understanding, what with your talk about "comprehending the whole thing" I hope my explanation has helped you understand this obviously hard concept. 1. You are free to comment on any post, regardless of my saying that, but when you pick points that have by a 'poster's' own further elaboration been encompassed into the explanation, and both stand as a separate argument, and also a part of a whole, there is no need to pick that point and comment on it. 2- Ex: If I stated Zeus as absolute in terms of consolidating power with others, being a chief figure among the Olympians, and yet commented in the same post, that it only implied that he 'consolidated' power, especially when Olympus is threatened; picking on the point of just separating the comment of him being absolute would not be a very effective point of debate. What would work there is if the entire point was commented on: he is not absolute in 'any' sense, not even in terms of consolidating power. Just an example, not saying you commented that way in particular. If you know this, it is fine, if not, then as stated earlier, we would be in a grey area, where we can agree to disagree. 3- That said, this post has more been as I expected of our psychological comic sense, than it has been about debating the feats or facts. Happens though. No, if you act like a fanboy, you get called a fanboy, and so on. I've acted this way the entire time I've been on EF, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise, but since you didn't remember me asking you to not call me "bro", I guess I can't really fault you for not remembering that either, now you know. 1. Ok, that fanboy thing, your pick, your call. 2. I will try and remember, and furthermore, try to be out of habit and character of 'implying' respect when I debate with you in the future. 'Coincidentally' in all stages of school, and then in the mixed fighting training I attended, I met unique people, and they somehow embedded this into me. Not easy to get out or simply avoid. 3- I ask though, another question in the element of fairness: While you stated correctly that I might have forgotten you previously asking me not to call you bro (out of respect), and I in the same element, forgot to remember your sarcastic style (forgive me for putting it so concisely there; no harm meant), isn't it fair then, that you should remember to let go of your sarcasm and your 'style' in future posts that are directed toward me? If terms meant to respect bother you, is it fair for some one to ask you to let go of something that whether applied fairly or unfairly, is meant to dish out disrespect? Let me know if that is unfair to ask. I mean not to preach ethics, but may across as such; Remember, the smart thing is, tolerance. That does not mean tolerate disrespect or abuse, but tolerate what is well intended. I am no saint, but I know what I am saying is right. Let me know your thoughts. Finally, as a minor side-note, the posting window, shows the text with a certain format, mainly half a line distance between the various lines, whereas when you actually post, everything is bunched up in a huge block of text, making it all but unreadable. I hope I did better, if not absolutely better in this regard.

Huge block of text that apparently was not read in entirety then bro? Its ok, I can clarify the portion you are referring to. Kain bro was saying that facts counted period. I agree. But to what degree? I never dispelled any facts, but he got that impression. So I tried to clarify, what degree of the fact you could use in a scenario made sense when you see some examples. So, if you count feats by way of facts as they are: 1) Is Spiderman in Ironman, or Wonderman's strength class? 2) Does Superman 'exert' while pushing lesser weight and smile when moving significantly more weight? 3) for that matter, will Spiderman defeat Nova every time they meet? 4) Will Captain America beat Hulk every time they meet? 5) Will Superman withstand kryptonite for a prolonged period while fighting a Doomsday villain every time 6) How about the fact that magnetism manipulates/affects most metals; in that, a scribe once discounted Wolverine's every attack on Magneto, who of all, is the Master of magnetism. Fact: Magnetism over 'affactable' metal, by which advantage Magneto forced the very admantium out of Wolverine's body once, which to me, logically was not PIS. So, did, or will Magneto do that every time he faces off Wolverine in combat? Go ahead and asnwer these questions, and perhaps you will see what I implied in a portion of my text. Perhaps your part of concern may be answered bro.

How's it going Kain bro? Multiple concerns here eh? What you too are doing is walking in a gray area. I will keep this as less confusing as I can, and try to do it for the both of us: 1 - No source material states Hades, Zeus, Poseidon as 'equals'. In fact, source material depicts Zeus as the head figure among Gods. Did I say clearly, concisely, that he consolidated power? Or, all Gods do not fall in line with him, or that Zeus is 'more' powerful? I think not. I said, powerful by default. If I didn't come clearly enough the last time, I beg to correct myself then. Zeus is powerful over any, by defauly. In ancient greek mythology, he is the ruler of Olympus. Lets delve on common sense here and think to ourselves, that for a party of Gods power-hungry and essentially control-hungry, what is to stop them wresting control from him? Hades, Poseidon if equals, in mythology, you suggest, inadvertently, are agreeable with everyhting Zeus does? I think not. 2 - EVen if you check their feats, I am sorry to say, the lineup of Zeus, Apollo and Ares overwhelm the opposite lineup in power, and numbers. It is logical, not just a taken. Even so, if I did say 'power', my implication was not in terms of power sets. Zeus is a leading figure of Olympus, has the support of the God of War. You really want to tell me bro, that Hera and Athena in facing off with them in tag style match would win over the former combo? I think not. 3 - Reasearch not being wrong is not he same as research being yet to be complete. There is a difference between the two. In case you didn't notice, but pointed out inadvertently, I added to his 'research', not take away from it. 4- Simply using the facts according to you bro, is the right way to debate then? OK, lets pick an example: How strong do you think is Spiderman? Can he lift 'tons' of metal? Yes, how much? 20, 30, at best? Yet, he lifted close to 50 tons in a storyline from the past. I am not saying it bro, the main scribe, Mr. Ditko stated it, when Spiderman had to save Aunt May and ended up being buried under a factory-load of metal, and powered out by lifting, and throwing it aside. What is the 'fact' there bro? Is it 50-60 tons? No? But did he lift it? Yes. What the scribe said, was the fury arising in Spiderman's heart and mind, that enabled even his injured frame to ppower otu of the debris? So does that make him Wonderman class strong? I think not. The fact, then could logically be used, that Spiderman has pressed close to 50 - 60 tons, so he can do it routinely? No bro. That fact is a fact, but yet, it can not be used in a debate to beat another opponent. Period. Lets talk Cap, falling the smarter, more resilient and resourceful Hulk, by exploiting his pressure points. Now, is that a taken, routine fact? WIll Cap fell a less smarter but rempaging Hulk using the same technique? Fact there is, Cap won, straight up, hand to hand, without Hulk holding back. Yet, on another one of his finest days, he could be taking a licking along with a few of the Avengers, trying to multiple team Hulk. What is the fact to be taken there bro? Superman presses tons, and grunts; is a fact. He tugs aline og planets, or moves another planet sized sructure effortlessly, no grunts. What is the fact. Did he have issues lifting something smaller, and scoffed and smiled at something much much heavier? The facts there would be convoluting, even if produced in these forums, and they have confused and derided reason. No bro, the way to go is this, it depends, on your definition of facts. If it is a close minded thing, where you do not comprehend the whole picture, and then pick what you want to debate, from a set of lines, it will confuse, and make the argument bleak. If you comprehend the big picture, and see from a set of established stats, your argument will be better. I will tell you, what I stated, and what then always works. History, character psyche, published/established characteristic of determination, extras, sources and of course, many a time, feats. That is the only fact there is to know in a debate bro. 5 - While you addressed my few concerns, you did the dreaded, pick your statement to debate thing. Never do that bro. Comprehend the whole thing. I gave a synopisis of the outcomes, as I saw it, and I think in it, comprehended a lot, if not all. While you can disagree, you can not say, that I didnot try from my end to cite every possible scenario. I among my choices, also mentioned, that if they go one on one, period. You either missed the part bro, or confused it; and I know you to be smart enough debater to get confused in that part. It was pretty straight forward, literally. yet you, picked a statement from a set of, and stated on it, contradicting the practice of full comprehension and then answer. Other than that, bro, lets keep the respect going on these threads, name calling, even 'remotely'; ex: 'like a fanboy', or implied sarcasm, showing the other to be 'stupid' or not smart enough, doesnot a debate make, rather outdoes it. You agree with me on this do you not bro?

Hey bro. I think more than butting heads on the facts, we are walking the dreaded gray area. Even the comprehension of the whole scenario will just open a can of 'mythology' than folks would like here. It will all eventually come down to what I and you think in our particular capacities. In any case, to address your comments bro, your research was never stated to be 'wrong'. If I said that, I take the statement back. I know I didn't though. What you are trying to do is pin point just the abilities, and pit Seid and Zeus against each other? Forgive me for my mindset, that usually goes all out, takes in the character history, references, tendencies, fallibility, and then place them in scenarios in which they are most likely to be able to go to their full set of abilities and that (to me) includes 'extras'(, if that is the way a character rolls). Eg: Zeus being absolute? Perhaps I should have explained better the way I see it. He is the chief figure among Gods. To be able to face Seid in his 'mythic' glory derived from the works you cited and core greek religious beliefs, that would mean his full reach to the other Gods and deities, that cover an extensive array of domains, places and spheres of power. (Hercules, Poseidon, Athena etc.). To me, the mythical Zeus often had a hand, making his power overwhelming by default. Whether he effected something with this luxury or not is irrelevant in mythical works; what is important is that he had a varying set of Goddesses and Gods that either opposed him or stood with him. Ex: Could Zeus, Aphrodite, Ares and Apollo, who supported the Trojan wars simply overpower the opposite, greeks' supporting combo of Hera, Athena and Poseidon, literally speaking, in terms of raw power and ruthlessness? I think they would, but that's not how the 'fate' played out. Complexities, outer elements, all related to them came into the 'myth' and convoluted a war scenario, the way I see it. What I was trying to explain was, my derivation is simple: He is the 'head honcho GOD', and in that, while other Gods don't fall into line all the time, there are enough that will help him consolidate the power, truly, literally in terms that have been exemplified in Greek mythology. Take the support of the Trojan war for instance, or Zeus' mistrust, or alliances of the others. When Olympus is threatened, I know in literal terms they will consolidate power, especially when they see the threat as a New God. That is all I tried to say, that picking from that area of myth, Zeus would be 'absolute'. He would just direct, and point power and Seid wouldn't stand a chance. Remember too, bro, that the Greek mythological references have one thing in common, variations in laying out the events and myths. In that case, you would pick from one degree or another. No rules or tethers there. Now, with my jargon, that might or might not sound confusing at this point; if you yourself begin citing pin-pointed facts, and particular scale sets of powers, then it is what we call, like an arcade isn't it? In that case, character backdrops, and hooks, and fates don't matter. So which is it bro? All the hooks loopholes and tethers in tow, or just the character and his power-set? Is it the character in character, or just the character with the power sets and abilities? If you even mention history here, it begins convoluting the match. Ex: if you say, yup; Zeus was stomped by Typhon (whereas, in the same convoluted manner, it states on every man's layman reference, Wikepedia, that Zeus beat him), or if he won, and he is experienced from that angle, then it wouldn't be fair. Fair to Seid that is. Since Seid has battled Superman, tot to toe, and others in synch some times, and stood his ground. In each battle though, Seid relied on extras, like you state Zeus relying in part or more, on the Eagle. Hence, is it just two beings here, sans experience and only skills sets, or do you cite skill sets and a portion of experience and battle cred? You can't just say I pick this element out of a charcter's psyche or abilities, and here he is. It only sounds balanced, that if a certain portion of the experience is there, it might as well be all of it, and likewise, the character's experience, and his backdrop of his mannerisms, tendencies, and battle cred and deception or duplicity. Sorry if I sound confusing, (maybe not), but to put it best in a capsule, here goes: 3 takes bro. If this is battle upfront, with both 'out of their element' and in their particular power sets only: Seid wins. Seid's speed outpaces Zeus, as does his strength and durability. Zeus could not out wrestle Hercules. Superman has greater feats of strength and speed, and Seid matched him in those fights, toe to toe, tooth and nail. He has even knocked him out. Seid has also shown multiple abilities, and has a motherbox, that advises, heals, and protects him to a great degree. Even if not for that, his ability to manipulate matter, and channel energy, or teleport his intended target to makeshift prison dimensions upon mere contact is something I just don't see Zeus trumping, or avoiding, for that matter. Zeus has teleportation ability, but Seid has deceptive abilities in battle that helped him pin point Superman's next 'stop' and land a blow, counting in certain part, as a speed ability, but also quick thinking. His beams are stated in power-set in standard media as unavoidable. That itself puts Zeus and his Eagle against insurmountable odds. Seid's latest power the sanction, is even worse. Now, if this is a battle taken as one on one, strictly again, but with the underpinnings you mentioned, that their respective baggage is with them, from myth or comic, but it is still strictly 'direct battle', then Zeus with his excessive 'godly' baggage wins. His assistance, and support is just too much for Seid to overcome. That is the way I see it. If this is a battle staged as a free thinking man's ground, where both characters face off, but bring all that is characteristic of them, eventually, into the battle, Seid wins. He will plan a plan, and take a take that will be too much for Zeus... to uh, take. Now bro, this is my opinion. I respect yours, and am not an avid 'brawler' when it comes to debates. I don't call names or state incapacities in my fellow ferreters. I can be wrong, and will admit my defeat if it is there in front of me. Right here, it is my take, in 3 scenarios that I see this happening. Cheers, till next post bro.

If that is the case, then there really is no match at all. See, Zeus in mythological depiction, has sketchy, but 'absolute' power. Meaning he is 'God' literally. That only means, that he is above diety-level. Also, Seid is being pushed into a heads-on pinfall style confrontation. In this case, there is no match. Zeus just thinks a scenario, and it is. Seid loses. What threw me off was the particular set of Zeus' powers mentioned on the first page. With those powers (alone), he has no chance against Seid. Now though, that it is being stated that he is the mythological Zeus only, and not any other media depicted Zeus, then he is God as in Greek religlious belief. There is no competition there. Perhaps you could have conducted some additional research and just plainly stated that it is the Zeus of ancient greek mythology. Check it out, and in multiple sources, the depiction is, that the use of these 'toys' you mention in the description, is only a fun thing for Zeus. Yest, he is a God in description much less than the real thing, that needs no physical medium to 'operate'. Even though, he is the next best thing to actually God. Also, I only said Seid loses, because per the developments now, 1) This is only an upfront slugfest 2) Zeus is Zeus as in ancient greek mythology, only, no other filtered depiction The result/opinion of outcome aside; I think rumbles should be more 'constructive'. Example. Seid with his natural backdrop, and Zeus with his. If that happens, my opinion on the outcome will be different, since even with the God thing going, he is still a physical medium that uses a physical materialistic backdrop to 'operate'. Again, that is another story for another debate. This one, Zeus takes, with clarification of the fight background.