# Hancock vs Raditz



## potential (Jul 10, 2008)

Just as it says.


----------



## Nightmare (Jul 10, 2008)

_hmmm ... i might give this to Raditz only cuz hancock can't generate tornadoes and lighting like that psycho bitch  _


----------



## enigma6 (Jul 10, 2008)

Why, Potential, why. 

On-topic: Raditz.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jul 10, 2008)

What is up with all these Handcock threads?


----------



## Stan Lee (Jul 10, 2008)

I say Raditz.


----------



## Emery (Jul 10, 2008)

And I say Hancock is immortal, so all of Raditz' efforts would be completely futile.


----------



## Zetta (Jul 10, 2008)

Can't Hancock keep coming back to life and chuck Raditz into space?


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 10, 2008)

I haven't seen Hancock yet, so I have to go off of what I've seen said about him. He's apparently invincible and immortal. Raditz can't win. He tires out and Hancock rips his face off.


----------



## HumanWine (Jul 10, 2008)

Hancock cant die unless his womenz is next to his cock.


----------



## Deleted member 45015 (Jul 10, 2008)

> *by Killfox*
> For those of u who arent framiliar with his abilities here they are.
> 
> -Can only be hurt when near his opposite.
> ...





> *by Xanxus*
> He threw a 36 ton whale apporx 200m from a angle of negative leverage with litterally no difficulty at all
> 
> he should be about class 100 at least
> ...



Nothing Raditz has done even compares to Hancock, even if he does hurt him he's not going to be winning this fight.


----------



## troublesum-chan (Jul 10, 2008)

Raditz

unless he calls hancock an asshole


----------



## Lance Vance (Jul 10, 2008)

Probably Will Hancock, Raditz was saiyan fodder


----------



## BAD BD (Jul 10, 2008)

Hancock wins this.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Wait, since when was Hancock invulernable and invincible again?

BFRing normal humans and a whale ain't that impressive. And he certainly doesn't tank attacks from a guy who casually busted two mountain ranges like it was nothing.

Raditz stomps.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Wait, since when was Hancock invulernable and invincible again?
> 
> BFRing normal humans and a whale ain't that impressive. And he certainly doesn't tank attacks from a guy who casually busted two mountain ranges like it was nothing.
> 
> Raditz stomps.


Did you watch the movie?

God created him to be immortal and invulnerable to damage.

and for those who were like "Well tur godz iz were notz creating himz to takez 100 ton punchez!!!111"



Gooba said:


> a train of that size weighs far more than 100 tons, and so to stop it in nearly 0 time takes way more force than a 100 ton punch based on F=MA.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 10, 2008)

CrazyMoronX said:


> *I haven't seen Hancock yet, *




just pm me, I can give you the links to see that and just about any other superheroed movie out for free. I got you.


and as for this fight, I go with raditz.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Did you watch the movie?
> 
> God created him to be immortal and invulnerable to damage.
> 
> and for those who were like "Well tur godz iz were notz creating himz to takez 100 ton punchez!!!111"



You have hersey to base off that, which isn't taken at face value. And Dragon Ball fighters were well above class 100 since the Red Ribbon Arc.

So arguing a no limits fallacy isn't going to help you here. Clips of Hancock tanking city and mountain busters now.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> You have hersey to base off that, which isn't taken at face value. And Dragon Ball fighters were well above class 100 since the Red Ribbon Arc.
> 
> So arguing a no limits fallacy isn't going to help you here. Clips of Hancock tanking city and mountain busters now.


Like Gooba said, saying Hancock isn't invincible is abuse of the no limits fallacy.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Burden of proof is on you. Hersey doesn't cut it and I'm still waiting for where in the film Hancock was tanking city and mountain busters.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Burden of proof is on you. Hersey doesn't cut it and I'm still waiting for where in the film Hancock was tanking city and mountain busters.


Burden of proof is on you also.

Because not once did Hancock get hurt in the movie when Mary wasn't around.

So how could you say Hancock isn't invincible when you never seen him get damaged by anything when Mary wasn't in the vicinity?


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Getting hit by a train isn't a city-buster or mountain-buster, being invulnerable to bullets isn't the same.

And your the one making the no limits fallacy claim.

So prove it.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Getting hit by a train isn't a city-buster or mountain-buster, being invulnerable to bullets isn't the same.
> 
> And your the one making the no limits fallacy claim.
> 
> So prove it.


I repeat, How could you say he isn't invulnerable to city-busters or mountain-buster when he has never been hit by one?


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> I repeat, How could you say he isn't invulnerable to city-busters or mountain-buster when he has never been hit by one?



Stop with the Strawman arguments, post the evidence or conceed.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Stop with the Strawman arguments, post the evidence or conceed.


Can you post evidence that Hancock isn't invincible?


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Burden of proof is on you to prove he can.

I'm waiting.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Burden of proof is on you to prove he can.
> 
> I'm waiting.


You said Hancock isn't invincible, so now I'm waiting for you to post proof that he isn't.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

I don't have to prove a negative.

You have to prove a positive claim.

I'm still waiting.


----------



## Bender (Jul 10, 2008)

Hancock rips Raditz a news asshole


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> I don't have to prove a negative.
> 
> You have to prove a positive claim.
> 
> I'm still waiting.


Even though I can't prove Hancock is invincible that doesn't mean he isn't, that just means we don't know for sure.

You can't prove Hancock isn't invincible.

And from the movie we have more proof towards him being invincible than him not being invincible.

so...


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

It isn't hearsay, she said it about herself and her kind.  Hearsay would be if she heard Hancock tell someone he was invincible, then she testified that he said he was invincible.  Telling someone something about yourself is completely different.

The evidence is that she said their kind was invincible, and every single thing we saw in the movie confirmed that.  With absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and with a handful for the positive it is more than reasonable to say he is probably actually invincible.


----------



## Silent Tatsumaru (Jul 10, 2008)

Hancock. Hancock takes no damage.


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> It isn't hearsay, she said it about herself and her kind.  Hearsay would be if she heard Hancock tell someone he was invincible, then she testified that he said he was invincible.  Telling someone something about yourself is completely different.
> 
> The evidence is that she said their kind was invincible, and every single thing we saw in the movie confirmed that.  With absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and with a handful for the positive it is more than reasonable to say he is probably actually invincible.



QFT Without feats we cant say anything,judging from the movie Hangcock and his god are gonna get it straight from behind


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

wiesmann said:


> QFT Without feats we cant say anything,judging from the movie Hangcock and his god are gonna get it straight from behind


Did you even read his post?


----------



## Tasmanian Tiger (Jul 10, 2008)

Raditz of course. DBZ bitch


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Did you even read his post?



Dude your "no limits fallacy" means shit without actual feats


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> It isn't hearsay, she said it about herself and her kind.  Hearsay would be if she heard Hancock tell someone he was invincible, then she testified that he said he was invincible.  Telling someone something about yourself is completely different.
> 
> The evidence is that she said their kind was invincible, and every single thing we saw in the movie confirmed that.  With absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and with a handful for the positive it is more than reasonable to say he is probably actually invincible.



He isn't invincible, and its still a no limits fallacy to claim he can sustain damage that he has never shown to tank.

I don't trust face-value statements from a character with ambigous objectives.

Now I want clips of Hancock tanking megaton level blasts.


----------



## Tash (Jul 10, 2008)

You're wrong Gooba. Calling handcock invincible based on a character statement fall right in with "nobody but an Uchiha can defeat me" it's completely limited to what that character knows, and the credibility of that character. And without some actual feats to back it up, it's just another no-limits fallacy.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

You guys are abusing the no limit fallacy claim here.  As I said in the other thread it isn't an absolute yes no thing.  If I was to claim that Hancock is absolutely and without any doubt completely invincible because it was said then yes, I would be making a no limit fallacy.  That is not my claim.  I am saying based on that statement and the limited number of feats we have seen it is logical to conclude that he might actually be invincible.  That is not a no limit fallacy.  When we debate in here we just try and figure out who will most likely win based on a very limited set of information.  With Hancock we have about 10 feats and a few statement.  To restrict our evidence to only the feats without trying to analyze the statements as well we do not come to the best possible conclusion.  Claiming he is not invincible is just as much a claim as saying he is, and it can't be done.  You can say that he might not be because we haven't seen it yet and the statement might have been wrong, but you can't be sure, and acting sure does a disservice to our ultimate goal of making the best guess possible.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

No.

What feats absolutely justify your claim? Bullets don't hurt him, so what,  a train hit him and he was tanking blows from someone with class 50 strength, and another character falliable statement.

None of which justify the claim that tanking a blast from a character who casually tosses around blasts that go easily in the megaton range is fair, since Hancock has never come close to displaying that level of durability.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> What feats absolutely justify your claim?


None!  I am not saying it is absolutely justified.   I am saying it is reasonable to think so based on the evidence.  Your claim that he isn't is also not absolutely justified.  In here things don't need to be because that does not get us to the most likely possible conclusion.

Also, they are both over class 100 based on the train stoppage and whale throwing.


----------



## BAD BD (Jul 10, 2008)

It is a no limits fallacy both ways. If Gooba were to ask you to disprove that Hancock was immortal first, he could use the exact same argument you are currently using.


----------



## maximilyan (Jul 10, 2008)

I say hancock, dude is christlike.


----------



## Kameil (Jul 10, 2008)

Haven't we already fucking established the fact that Hancock is a god?

Sure he's merely low herald lvl but he could still kick raditz's ass.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

BAD BD said:


> It is a no limits fallacy both ways. If Gooba were to ask you to disprove that Hancock was immortal first, he could use the exact same argument you are currently using.



No, because the point was that the burden of proof is on Hancock's supporters to actually prove that he has the durability in which he has shown.

That isn't how the fallacy works.

Secondly Gooba, since when did the wife throw a whale or stop a train? You can't justify his feats for her.


----------



## Tash (Jul 10, 2008)

BAD BD said:


> It is a no limits fallacy both ways. If Gooba were to ask you to disprove that Hancock was immortal first, he could use the exact same argument you are currently using.



And it would be a burden of proof fallacy on Gooba's part. In a normal situation that question would be follow Gooba making a claim to his immortality. And saying that Hancock is not immortal is not a fallacy, in any way shape or form, do you know what a no-limits fallacy is?

And Gooba to give a really short answer, Burden of proof fallacy. Lack of evidence is not proof of an argument. Because they said he was invincible despite the best showing of him being stopping a train, would you say he can take a building buster? Block buster? Mountain buster? Planet buster? There's a limit to it in a logical argument and that limit is his highest showing.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 10, 2008)

I haven't actually seen Hancock, but from what I've seen he can only be hurt if his "other" or something like that is near. So Raditz would find his other and beat Hancock senseless...on the other hand, if he still retains his strength powers after his "other" is there (I wouldn't know) Hancock wins...


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Pengu-Yasha said:


> I haven't actually seen Hancock, but from what I've seen he can only be hurt if his "other" or something like that is near. So Raditz would find his other and beat Hancock senseless...on the other hand, if he still retains his strength powers after his "other" is there (I wouldn't know) Hancock wins...


Lolwut?

How the fuck would he know where his other is?


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

He has a scouter, and its not like he needs to kill the wife or bring her to Hancock to fucking him.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> No, because the point was that the burden of proof is on Hancock's supporters to actually prove that he has the durability in which he has shown.
> 
> That isn't how the fallacy works.
> 
> Secondly Gooba, since when did the wife throw a whale or stop a train? You can't justify his feats for her.





Mirai Gohan said:


> *Except Hancock isn't invincible.*
> 
> Thor uses Odinforce to travel back in time and erase Hancock from existence or blasts away the galaxy with Hancock with one of his Hammer's god-blasts.


Lol.

Prove it.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

All of this stuff you guys are saying only applies if we are trying to prove something.  We _aren't_.  We are trying to find what is most likely true, which opens us up to a lot more than just the hard feats.  It will get us to the more likely conclusion than ignoring evidence.


----------



## Slips (Jul 10, 2008)

no limits fallacy
Burden of proof

all boring arse shite

Hancock rapes raddish bye shoving his head up his own arse

if we are going bye the above shite Goku cant bust planets horay its simply a crap term used bye people who cant handle a favorite character of theres getting owned


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Lol.
> 
> Prove it.



I *don't have to prove a negative claim*. Get it through your head, the burden of proof is on you.

No one here with any reasonable common sense is going to accept a fallacy argument that Hancock is completely invincible when you have nothing to prove your claims.

I'm still waiting for that damn evidence that showcases he'll survive a guy who can casually bust mountain ranges with each of his hands without powering up or even trying.

So show me where he tanks megaton level blasts.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> I *don't have to prove a negative claim*. Get it through your head, the burden of proof is on you.
> 
> No one here with any reasonable common sense is going to accept a fallacy argument that Hancock is completely invincible when you have nothing to prove your claims.
> 
> ...


I don't have any proof that he is invincible.

And you have no proof he isn't.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> I don't have any proof that he is invincible.
> 
> And you have no proof he isn't.



Guess what, a concession to that means you can't prove he will survive it. By your "logic" Radit is completely invincible because Hancock has never showcased any way of harming him.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Slips said:


> no limits fallacy
> Burden of proof
> 
> all boring arse shite
> ...


I agree with this guy.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Guess what, a concession to that means you can't prove he will survive it. By your "logic" Radit is completely invincible because Hancock has never showcased any way of harming him.


Lol.

Just STFU and accept that Hancock is able to fuck up your favorite comic/anime/manga character while not being damaged at all.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Lol.
> 
> Just STFU and deal with Hancock being able to fuck up your favorite comic/anime/manga character while not being damaged at all.



Deal with what? That you have no evidence to provide proof to your claim? That your essentially working on a argument with no substance?

Also cute flaming.


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> I don't have any proof that he is invincible.
> 
> And you have no proof he isn't.



I dont know if you do this just to troll  but by your logic Pain from Naruto is invincible to because someone said so? And even if Hangcock has his power from a god that means nothing,in DB Kami is god and he is fodder for Raditz.


----------



## Kameil (Jul 10, 2008)

Didn't Hancock survive being on the surface of the sun for awhile before he flew down for Icecream? I'd like to see Raditz do that.


----------



## Slips (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> I *don't have to prove a negative claim*. Get it through your head, the burden of proof is on you.
> 
> No one here with any reasonable common sense is going to accept a fallacy argument that Hancock is completely invincible when you have nothing to prove your claims.
> 
> ...




Raddish blowing up a mountain




Raddish failing to hurt hancock



it happened after the credits finished rolling




Kameil said:


> Didn't Hancock survive being on the surface of the sun for awhile before he flew down for Icecream? I'd like to see Raditz do that.




er he pulled a family out of a fire at there house but yeah surface of the sun house fire smiler heat


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

wiesmann said:


> I dont know if you do this just to troll  but by your logic Pain from Naruto is invincible to because someone said so? And even if Hangcock has his power from a god that means nothing,in DB Kami is god and he is fodder for Raditz.


I'm talking about him being hit by a train that weighs more than 100 tons and stopping it in 0 time.


----------



## Tash (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> All of this stuff you guys are saying only applies if we are trying to prove something.  We _aren't_.  We are trying to find what is most likely true, which opens us up to a lot more than just the hard feats.  It will get us to the more likely conclusion than ignoring evidence.


You're not? Then what are we having this back and forth argument about, if you aren't trying to prove yourself correct? What's more likely? Well it's likely that Handcock has never been hit by a mountain destroying blast, or a planet destroying blast, and it's likely that nobody in the movie including the one who says he is invincible knows about the wide world of fiction with mountain, planet and galaxy destroyers. 


Slips said:


> if we are going bye the above shite Goku cant bust planets



Explain this.


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> I'm talking about him being hit by a train that weighs more than 100 tons and stopping it in 0 time.



LoL A train?  Thats your invincible Hangcock? Stoping a train is not a big feat for DB standarts.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

Actually, if he did stop it in 0 time it would have been as much force as an infinite mass punch... so yea... depending on how you want to look at the train crash he could have taken more physical punishment than anyone in fiction can put out.

I'm not actually serious, but I don't really have more to add other than the way you are trying to debate this is not proper given the tools at our disposal.  While it would work great for actual science in the real world, or a context in which we have vastly more information available, in this case it isn't the optimal way of doing things.  In some ways I'm happy the Bdome has shifted this way to recognizing fallacies and proper rules of debate from where it once was, but now it needs to learn how to _properly _bend those rules for even better results.  Similar to martial arts, going from white belt to brown to black.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

wiesmann said:


> LoL A train?  Thats your invincible Hangcock? Stoping a train is not a big feat for DB standarts.


Noone in DBZ could do damage to Hancock.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> You're not? Then what are we having this back and forth argument about, if you aren't trying to prove yourself correct? What's more likely? Well it's likely that Handcock has never been hit by a mountain destroying blast, or a planet destroying blast, and it's likely that nobody in the movie including the one who says he is invincible knows about the wide world of fiction with mountain, planet and galaxy destroyers.


You guys shouldn't be either, because it is impossible.  If you are actually trying to prove that he can't take a hit from a planet destroyer you would need to have evidence for it.  The reason why you can't prove it is because they could make a Hancock 2 and without changing the power set they laid out in the first one make him take a planet busting attack.  _Nobody _can prove anything in this fight other than "he can at least take a train."  We are both arguing probabilities whether you realize it or not.  I am saying it is _possible _he is invincible because there isn't any evidence of him taking damage and he was stated to be so.  Durability isn't _always _an analog scale just because comics have trained us to see it like that.


----------



## Slips (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Actually, if he did stop it in 0 time it would have been as much force as an infinite mass punch... so yea... depending on how you want to look at the train crash he could have taken more physical punishment than anyone in fiction can put out.
> 
> I'm not actually serious, but I don't really have more to add other than the way you are trying to debate this is not proper given the tools at our disposal.  While it would work great for actual science in the real world, or a context in which we have vastly more information available, in this case it isn't the optimal way of doing things.  In some ways I'm happy the Bdome has shifted this way to recognizing fallacies and proper rules of debate from where it once was, but now it needs to learn how to _properly _bend those rules for even better results.  Similar to martial arts, going from white belt to brown to black.



Goobs you have to be joking the OBD was all about having some fun a few years back going back and forth for pages on end

Ever since this no limits fallacy bollacks came about it went to shit street people just pull it out of there arse every time there favorite character is in battle and become egotistical pricks spouting lol lol I accept your concession.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> Goobs you have to be joking the OBD was all about having some fun a few years back going back and forth for pages on end
> 
> Ever since this no limits fallacy bollacks came about it went to shit street people just pull it out of there arse every time there favorite character is in battle and become egotistical pricks spouting lol lol I accept your concession.


Fun yes, but in actual debating skill it was pretty weak.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Noone in DBZ could do damage to Hancock.



Yeah, I'm sure.



Gooba said:


> You guys shouldn't be either, because it is impossible.  If you are actually trying to prove that he can't take a hit from a planet destroyer you would need to have evidence for it.  The reason why you can't prove it is because they could make a Hancock 2 and without changing the power set they laid out in the first one make him take a planet busting attack.  _Nobody _can prove anything in this fight other than "he can at least take a train."  We are both arguing probabilities whether you realize it or not.  I am saying it is _possible _he is invincible because there isn't any evidence of him taking damage and he was stated to be so.  Durability isn't _always _an analog scale just because comics have trained us to see it like that.



Your aruging a point that has little validity, and we do have certain standards to maintain to make these vs threads possible.

Otherwise, you could make an illogical argument ad naeusem that Naruto can tank planet busters because there no evidence that he couldn't.

That said, Hancock hasn't shown the ability to tank those levels of attacks, so he isn't.

That simple.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> Otherwise, you could make an illogical argument ad naeusem that Naruto can tank planet busters because there no evidence that he couldn't.


Actually, there is.  He has been hit by people way less than planet busters and been hurt.  99% of the time someone claims invincibility there is some evidence of them being hurt which mitigates it.  This is one of the few where there isn't.



> Your aruging a point that has little validity, and we do have certain standards to maintain to make these vs threads possible.


They would be possible if you all debated the way I did, you just wouldn't be able to declare any 100% assured victories.  It would just rely on people being good enough to realize exactly what they are arguing towards.  If we want to have debates which come to proven victors we have to follow certain standards.  If we want to have discussions which come to the most accurate conclusion of who would win given two combatants we have to follow others.  I've always been in the second school.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Actually, there is.  He has been hit by people way less than planet busters and been hurt.  99% of the time someone claims invincibility there is some evidence of them being hurt which mitigates it.  This is one of the few where there isn't.



He was being hurt by the Wife's hits, he wasn't shrugging them off, both who share the supposedly same powers with the later having little in the way of actual strength feats other then power scaling going with her when we ignore her power stripping/immortality rendering ability.



> They would be possible if you all debated the way I did, you just wouldn't be able to declare any 100% assured victories.  It would just rely on people being good enough to realize exactly what they are arguing towards.  If we want to have debates which come to proven victors we have to follow certain standards.  If we want to have discussions which come to the most accurate conclusion of who would win given two combatants we have to follow others.  I've always been in the second school.



Which is why we have those standards in place to begin with.

No evidence indicates that he absolutely invincible because no evidence to prove that exists from the film. There is little to actually show that he can tank planet-busters, which is why I find it wrong that your making this claim when all you have is ambigous shownings.

We've seen his established low-end feats ie tossing a whale thousands or so meters casually, him stopping a train and BFRing normal humans, deflecting a RPG and being invulernable to bullets.

But mountain range busting, island busting, city busting are well beyond those feats of his. Its reasonable and logical that if he isn't shown the ability to take them, he can't.

That simple.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> He was being hurt by the Wife's hits, he wasn't shrugging them off, both who share the supposedly same powers with the later having little in the way of actual strength feats other then power scaling going with her when we ignore her power stripping/immortality rendering ability.


You can't really ignore her power stripping ability.  That is kind of like saying Superman is no more durable than a normal human because he can be hurt after bathing in Kryponite or while under a Red Sun.  Hancock getting hurt when his invulnerability wasn't up isn't evidence of anything other than her explanation of what happens when they get together is correct.  Also, she hit him with a cement truck and he wasn't hurt.  So the fact that he could tank that while weakened is more evidence he can tank a lot while at full strength.



> But mountain range busting, island busting, city busting are well beyond those feats of his. Its reasonable and logical that if he isn't shown the ability to take them, he can't.


It isn't, it is reasonable to say if he hasn't shown it then he might not be able to.  I agree that he might not.  But to deny that it is possible is a fallacy fallacy, my new term for using a fallacy to prove something when it can only be used to disprove.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> *He was being hurt by the Wife's hits, he wasn't shrugging them off, both who share the supposedly same powers with the later having little in the way of actual strength feats other then power scaling going with her when we ignore her power stripping/immortality rendering ability.
> *




That's because whenever he is around his wife he is mortal.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> He was being hurt by the Wife's hits, he wasn't shrugging them off, both who share the supposedly same powers with the later having little in the way of actual strength feats other then power scaling going with her when we ignore her power stripping/immortality rendering ability.



Uh, you need to rewatch the movie.  She didn't hurt him at all during their fight.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> It isn't, it is reasonable to say if he hasn't shown it then he might not be able to.  I agree that he might not.  But to deny that it is possible is a fallacy fallacy, my new term for using a fallacy to prove something when it can only be used to disprove.



Actually it still is a no limits fallacy because your the one claiming it. If he hasn't shown the capacity to do so, he can't.

Its really as simple as that. Otherwise, I'm still waiting for that tangible proof that he can tank megaton level blasts. And its not my job to prove what Hancock can or can't do, thats for you.

Stopping a train the strength and durability isn't the same as tanking the destruction of mountain ranges, islands, cities, ect..

You can disagree with this, but it really doesn't change what Hancock displayed, and mountain busting/island busting/city busting durability certainly isn't one of his feats.


----------



## Kameil (Jul 10, 2008)

Neither of them were hurt throughout the duration of the fight.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> Actually it still is a no limits fallacy because your the one claiming it. If he hasn't shown the capacity to do so, he can't.


No, that is silly.  It just means we don't know for sure whether or not he can.



> And its not my job to prove what Hancock can or can't do, thats for you.


Actually it is both of our jobs, all this thread is is an attempt for everyone to figure out whether or not Hancock can or can't beat Radditz.  Also, neither of us is trying to prove it because it is impossible to prove anything based off of the limited evidence we have and the lack of ability to experiment.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> No, that is silly.  It just means we don't know for sure whether or not he can.



So Kid Buu for example, was called a galaxy buster in the Dragon Ball manga, but never actually showed any on-panel feats to destroy galaxies despite the fact that the Supreme Dai-Kaiou-Shin claimed that he could.

Is he a galaxy buster?



> Actually it is both of our jobs, all this thread is is an attempt for everyone to figure out whether or not Hancock can or can't beat Radditz.  Also, neither of us is trying to prove it because it is impossible to prove anything based off of the limited evidence we have and the lack of ability to experiment.



Which is why in the short answer is simply he can't since that is what we have to work with, right?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> So Kid Buu for example, was called a galaxy buster in the Dragon Ball manga, but never actually showed any on-panel feats to destroy galaxies despite the fact that the Supreme Dai-Kaiou-Shin claimed that he could.
> 
> Is he a galaxy buster?


He might be, but after looking at all the other evidence we have I'd have to say probably not.



> Which is why in the short answer is simply he can't since that is what we have to work with, right?


Short answer is "maybe."  Longer answer is "probably based on the other supporting evidence all backing up that claim," or "probably not since his wife hurt him," or whatever you want to put there.  

We as debaters can't say simply "can" or "can't" when it comes to things we have never seen tested.  I can say he can lift a whale, but I can't say anything definite when it comes to feats whose limits were not demonstrated.  The nice thing about most comic book characters is we usually have seen them lift very heavy things, and fail lifting heavier things, thus giving us some sort of range.  Unfortunately Hancock was never too weak to do something, or too vulnerable to tank something so we only have his lower range.  It would be entirely consistent if he got mad at Jason Bateman and punched the moon in half which is why we can't say he _isn't_ a planet buster.  However we can say he is most likely not close to that level based on the limited damage the fight with his wife caused.

We can't deal in absolutes here, and to try to is a mistake.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> He might be, but after looking at all the other evidence we have I'd have to say probably not.
> 
> Short answer is "maybe."  Longer answer is "probably based on the other supporting evidence all backing up that claim," or "probably not since his wife hurt him," or whatever you want to put there.



His wife never hurt him.

Just pointing it out.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> He might be, but after looking at all the other evidence we have I'd have to say probably not.
> 
> Short answer is "maybe."  Longer answer is "probably based on the other supporting evidence all backing up that claim," or "probably not since his wife hurt him," or whatever you want to put there.
> 
> ...


WTF?

Hell-fucking-o.

When he's near his wife he is mortal.

So of fucking course if she attacks him he is gonna get hurt.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> He might be, but after looking at all the other evidence we have I'd have to say probably not.



But we're going by the same logic as you claimed for Hancock, his low end feat included generating ten times the energy required to completely atomize the Earth, why not?




> We as debaters can't say simply "can" or "can't" when it comes to things we have never seen tested.  I can say he can lift a whale, but I can't say anything definite when it comes to feats whose limits were not demonstrated.  The nice thing about most comic book characters is we usually have seen them lift very heavy things, and fail lifting heavier things, thus giving us some sort of range.  Unfortunately Hancock was never too weak to do something, or too vulnerable to tank something so we only have his lower range.  *It would be entirely consistent if he got mad at Jason Bateman and punched the moon in half which is why we can't say he isn't a planet buster.  However we can say he is most likely not close to that level based on the limited damage the fight with his wife caused.*



High end feats >=< Low end feats. Can't exactly swap them around.

Which is why we go by the collateral damage caused by combatants feats in the OBD, yes?



> We can't deal in absolutes here, and to try to is a mistake.



There can't be a grey line in a debate, it either is or isn't. That simple. 



Snake Plissken said:


> His wife never hurt him.
> 
> Just pointing it out.



He also never showed durability to what 23rd Budokai Dragon Ball fighters have shown much less Raditz as well.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 10, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> WTF?
> 
> Hell-fucking-o.
> 
> ...



Goddamn it people his wife never hurt him.  It takes time for his immortality to wear off, he wasn't hurt in their fight.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Immortality isn't the same as Invincibilty, Snake.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Snake Plissken said:


> Goddamn it people his wife never hurt him.  It takes time for his immortality to wear off, he wasn't hurt in their fight.


She did have some effect on him because she moved him.

I'm not sure how hard his wife pushed him but when he was hit by the train he didn't move at all.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Immortality isn't the same as Invincibilty, Snake.



Never said it was but fine, Hancock's immortality and invincibility take time to wear off.  The fact still stands that he was never hurt in his fight with Mary.



			
				Hunter X One Piece said:
			
		

> She did have some effect on him because she moved him.
> 
> I'm not sure how hard his wife pushed him but when he was hit by the train he didn't move at all.



Uh, being able to move someone doesn't mean they are hurt.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 10, 2008)

Due to the success of Hancock they might create web comics or something based on it.

That might clear up a few things.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> There can't be a grey line in a debate, it either is or isn't. That simple.


Actually there has to be, that complex because this isn't a simple issue.  Actually trying to figure out what makes the most sense given all that we know is a lot more complicated than using very rigid guidelines and applying them without thinking.  If we just did that we wouldn't need a Battledome, we could throw our brains out the window and just search through comics for whose has the biggest number.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Actually there has to be, that complex because this isn't a simple issue.  Actually trying to figure out what makes the most sense given all that we know is a lot more complicated than using very rigid guidelines and applying them without thinking.  If we just did that we wouldn't need a Battledome, we could throw our brains out the window and just search through comics for whose has the biggest number.



That really wasn't my point, and we're getting sidelined from the topic on hand.

Is it not sufficent reasoning to assume if a character hasn't showed case the ability to tank something on a level they've never expierenced/performed before, they wouldn't be able to survive it?


----------



## Jackal (Jul 10, 2008)

i just saw the movie a few days ago. hancock sneezes, raditz dies. (to all the people that saw the movie, you should get the sneeze joke.)


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Is it not sufficent reasoning to assume if a character hasn't showed case the ability to tank something on a level they've never expierenced/performed before, they wouldn't be able to survive it?


It is only sufficient to say they _might _be able to.  The weight of that might is based on whatever other evidence you have at hand.  Since our other evidence is someone else saying he is invincible, saying he was created (which probably means by an omnipotent God), and the fact that he never even struggled with durability issues makes me put a decent amount of weight behind it.  Kid Buu doesn't really have much support for the Galaxy busting because he didn't exactly demonstrate that ability when he was pushed by elite fighters.  Same with Itachi saying they can only be defeated by an Uchiha.  It might be true, but all of the other surrounding evidence makes me not put much weight in it.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> It is only sufficient to say they _might _be able to.  The weight of that might is based on whatever other evidence you have at hand.  Since our other evidence is someone else saying he is invincible, saying he was created (which probably means by an omnipotent God), and the fact that he never even struggled with durability issues makes me put a decent amount of weight behind it.  Kid Buu doesn't really have much support for the Galaxy busting because he didn't exactly demonstrate that ability when he was pushed by elite fighters.  Same with Itachi saying they can only be defeated by an Uchiha.  It might be true, but all of the other surrounding evidence makes me not put much weight in it.



Wait its okay to take a statement from the woman saying their invincible but from an actual deity it isn't?

And your logic on this matter is some what...convulted. If the evidence isn't there, there should no question that he simply can't survive it.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> Wait its okay to take a statement from the woman saying their invincible but from an actual deity it isn't?


Completely based on the other evidence surrounding it.  There is lots in DBZ which makes me think he was wrong, there was nothing in Hancock that makes me thing she was.  However, there wasn't too much in it to make me sure she was right either, which is why I go with a maybe.



> If the evidence isn't there, there should no question that he simply can't survive it.


Her statement is part of the evidence, and even if she didn't say it there would be a question because he still hasn't been shown to be hurt.  _Just _based on feats there is a question because you can't actually answer what his upper limit is, which is required of you before you can say "this _will _destroy him."


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Completely based on the other evidence surrounding it.  There is lots in DBZ which makes me think he was wrong, there was nothing in Hancock that makes me thing she was.  However, there wasn't too much in it to make me sure she was right either, which is why I go with a maybe.



And there's indication to say that was more then probably a hyperbole from her, to point out to you.



> Her statement is part of the evidence, and even if she didn't say it there would be a question because he still hasn't been shown to be hurt.  _Just _based on feats there is a question because you can't actually answer what his upper limit is, which is required of you before you can say "this _will _destroy him."



Again her statement falls under unsubstaniated hyperbole.

Unknown upper limits for Hancock is an X variable, meaning from what I can quantify from his lower end feats, and that indicates he simply can't.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> Unknown upper limits for Hancock is an X variable, meaning from what I can quantify from his lower end feats, and that indicates he simply can't.


No, not can't.  How can you be 100% sure he can't take more force than he has shown to take?  Any claim such as "he can't" or "he can" is a positive claim that gets the burden of proof.  The only ones which don't have as strict a requirement are the gray area in which I operate because there isn't enough evidence to support either burden.



> And there's indication to say that was more then probably a hyperbole from her, to point out to you.


This is how the debate should be going.  What is that indication?  If you make a point I haven't considered I could change my answer from probably to probably not, and that is how we should be have been working on this whole time.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> No, not can't.  How can you be 100% sure he can't take more force than he has shown to take?  Any claim such as "he can't" or "he can" is a positive claim that gets the burden of proof.  The only ones which don't have as strict a requirement are the gray area in which I operate because there isn't enough evidence to support either burden.



No, I don't agree with that. How can you claim he can do this, but he can't do that without explicit proof to actually iron out that claim, on his *shown limits*?



> This is how the debate should be going.  What is that indication?  If you make a point I haven't considered I could change my answer from probably to probably not, and that is how we should be have been working on this whole time.



You have a singularly unknown factor: the Wife, who was only making the statement in regards to normal, mortal humans. That simple, if she wanted to be specific, she would've been about megaton level destruction like atom bombs, hurricanes, hydrogen bombs, mountain busting, ect...

But she was only comparing Hancock and her kind to normal humans.  And aside from that we take the actions of characters over their actual claims and dialogue ie Cell's solar system busting claim.


----------



## Kameil (Jul 10, 2008)

I'm assuming this the new WWH vs. Bleach thread.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> No, I don't agree with that. How can you claim he can do this, but he can't do that without explicit proof to actually iron out that claim, on his shown limits?


Those claims can't be made.  The problem is that we don't have that proof either because we _haven't_ seen his limits.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Those claims can't be made.  The problem is that we don't have that proof either because we _haven't_ seen his limits.



I can make the claim he can't because he hasn't shown to be able to do so.

You can't really use that sort of circular logic here.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> I can make the claim he can't because he hasn't shown to be able to do so.


No you can't.  Hancock has never demonstrated the ability to add 1+1, can we say he can't?  No, we can only say he might not be able to.  I personally have never demonstrated the ability to add 19014+1930+12.  Can you say I can't.  Given your logic, you could say that I can't.  You would be wrong.  I would say that I might not be able to, but given what evidence there is I probably could add those.  I wouldn't exactly be right, but I would be closer than you.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> No you can't.  Hancock has never demonstrated the ability to add 1+1, can we say he can't?  No, we can only say he might not be able to.  I personally have never demonstrated the ability to add 19014+1930+12.  Can you say I can't.  Given your logic, you could say that I can't.  You would be wrong.  I would say that I might not be able to, but given what evidence there is I probably could add those.  I wouldn't exactly be right, but I would be closer than you.



Non sequitar.

One is making the claim about his physical capacities, one is disagreeing because of the lack of evidence, nothing more.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Non sequitar.
> 
> One is making the claim about his physical capacities, one is disagreeing because of the lack of evidence, nothing more.


Actually it is completely applicable.  Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean they can't, it just means you can't be sure they can.  I have never lifted a 2 year old baby over my head, does that mean I can't?  I have never walked for 10 miles straight, does that mean I can't?  I don't really know what else to say here.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Actually it is completely applicable.  Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean they can't, it just means you can't be sure they can.  I have never lifted a 2 year old baby over my head, does that mean I can't?  I have never walked for 10 miles straight, does that mean I can't?  I don't really know what else to say here.



It really doesn't follow in this debate at all, which is why I'm saying you have nothing to prove his upper limits and I have evidence of his lower limits, which means he can't survive what Raditz has to offer since they are well and beyond what Hancock has shown.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 10, 2008)

> It really doesn't follow in this debate at all, which is why I'm saying you have nothing to prove his upper limits and I have evidence of his lower limits, which means I can't survive what Raditz has to offer since they are well and beyond what Hancock has shown.


It does follow.  I have never seen the upper limits of my stamina because I've never flat out walked as far as I could before falling down.  Same with Hancock not testing the upper limits of his durability because he was never killed.  You can say you don't think he would be able to, but you can't say can't.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 11, 2008)

[YOUTUBE]http://youtube.com/watch?v=7vfM3V9QoBU&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
We see throughout the whole video Raditz's immense speed, and Piccolo at 8:56 even saying out right he has incredible speed, even though he burnt Raditz's shoulder a little. So who cares if Hancock's invincible, Hancock wouldn't be able to even hit Raditz!!! 

We see Raditz level two entire mountain ranges with two simultaneous blasts as well as taking off Piccolo's arm with one of them... 

If he was somehow able to locate Hancock's wife, then Raditz would have no problems with beating him to a bloody pulp... 

And for those who saw the tail bit as a weakness at the end there, the only reason Goku did that was because he knew about the tail-weaker-business and Hancock wouldn't be any the wiser...


----------



## Apollo (Jul 11, 2008)

Since when was Raditz class 100?


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Jul 11, 2008)

Apollo said:


> Since when was Raditz class 100?



Asuming Raditz is much stronger then the DB characters,i mean Goku as a kid without any training from Roshi could lift rocks that probably weight over 20tons.Goku after master Roshis training was class 100,Raditz was stronger then Goku.
A person with a PL of 136 like Roshi can destroy the moon,Raditz has 1200max.


----------



## Apollo (Jul 11, 2008)

Show me a scan of someone showing Class 100 strength.

What does destroying the moon with a ki attack have to do with physical strength?


----------



## Fang (Jul 11, 2008)

Apollo said:


> Show me a scan of someone showing Class 100 strength.
> 
> What does destroying the moon with a ki attack have to do with physical strength?



Striking force in > Lifting strength in Dragon Ball.

Especially considering back in the 21st or 22nd Budokai Kurrin as a kid kicked Roshi across an entire city, Tao Pai Pai throwning and riding a pillar hundreds of kilometers.

They were hitting with easily hundreds of tons of force since the 21st Budokai, more so again at the 22nd, and thousands of tons at the 23r Budokai, enough that Goku can physically shrug off mountain and and island busting blasts from Ma Junior, who then goes all out and wails on him.


----------



## Stan Lee (Jul 11, 2008)

And died from an explosion that only destoryed a planet that was as big my backyard.



wiesmann said:


> Asuming Raditz is much stronger then the DB characters,i mean Goku as a kid without any training from Roshi could lift rocks that probably weight over 20tons.Goku after master Roshis training was class 100,Raditz was stronger then Goku.
> A person with a PL of 136 like Roshi can destroy the moon,Raditz has 1200max.



Roshi was at max power when destoryed the moon meaning his true power was hidden when Raditz looked at his PL.


----------



## Apollo (Jul 11, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Striking force in > Lifting strength in Dragon Ball.
> 
> Especially considering back in the 21st or 22nd Budokai Kurrin as a kid kicked Roshi across an entire city, Tao Pai Pai throwning and riding a pillar hundreds of kilometers.
> 
> They were hitting with easily hundreds of tons of force since the 21st Budokai, more so again at the 22nd, and thousands of tons at the 23r Budokai, enough that Goku can physically shrug off mountain and and island busting blasts from Ma Junior, who then goes all out and wails on him.



Striking force > lifting force in pretty much anything, including real life...

Class 100 is lifting strength, not striking force


----------



## Fang (Jul 11, 2008)

Apollo said:


> Striking force > lifting force in pretty much anything, including real life...
> 
> Class 100 is lifting strength, not striking force



I know that.

Yeah, and I trust the evidence from hand that already had Goku and Tien punching each other from 700 to 1400 tons of striking force from the 22nd Budokai.


----------



## Apollo (Jul 11, 2008)

OK, but how does that translate to them being Class 100?


----------



## Fang (Jul 11, 2008)

You know what I was trying to get at.

Goku kicking Freeza through two islands, Freeza again sending Super Saiyan Goku hurling at mach speeds through an island again after his transformation before he had time to power up, Vegeta hurling Recoome thousands of meters through a massive bluff of rocks.


----------



## potential (Jul 11, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> You know what I was trying to get at.
> 
> Goku kicking Freeza through two islands, Freeza again sending Super Saiyan Goku hurling at mach speeds through an island again after his transformation before he had time to power up, Vegeta hurling Recoome thousands of meters through a massive bluff of rocks.



Raditz is a ant compared to the above mentioned characters in your post. Just Thought I should mention that.


----------



## Fang (Jul 11, 2008)

That wasn't at all revelant to Raditz, so what is your point?


----------



## potential (Jul 11, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> That wasn't at all revelant to Raditz, so what is your point?



Well saying those characters are Class 100 surely dosent mean a much weaker character i.e Raditz is Class 100.


----------



## Fang (Jul 11, 2008)

No the point of the argument was the weaker characters were striking with thousands of tons of force at the 23rd Budokai and Raditz is physically stronger then Post-23rd Goku and Piccolo.

So where is this weakness argument coming from when I was making a direct comparison to strength feats prior and after Raditz in Dragon Ball?


----------



## Aokiji (Jul 11, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Actually it is completely applicable.  Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean they can't, it just means you can't be sure they can.  I have never lifted a 2 year old baby over my head, does that mean I can't?  I have never walked for 10 miles straight, does that mean I can't?  I don't really know what else to say here.



Naruto never reached lightspeed does that mean he can't?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 11, 2008)

Aokiji said:


> Naruto never reached lightspeed does that mean he can't?


No, that fact alone means nothing towards proving he can or can't, however all the other piles of evidence say he can't.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 11, 2008)

Perhaps this will shed some light on his power level: 

I had read somewhere that Raditz's power was just above a Saibaiman's, so I looked up the DBWiki page about Saibaiman, it says that their power level is about 1,200 - 1,500 similar to Raditz! So there you have it...


----------



## Soljer (Jul 11, 2008)

Hancock, without a doubt.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 11, 2008)

My fucking brain is about to explain with all the no limit fallacy shit going on here.

Gooba, fuck man what the hell? You had my respect man. You probably don't know me but a freaking mod using no limits like it is justified is just shit written all over it. Shit if my friend called me god and I had a town worshipping me, we don't know I am a god so we are goin to assume it? What the fuck, I see fireman going in fire to rescue kids with their suits so Fireman with suits on equal god? Hancock, although CALLED god, by someone who knows his powers well, isn't a fucking god until he freaking shows it. His immortality isn't impressive. Even Hidan had it.

Invincible? Train stopping? PLease. This is ridiculous. Here is what you guys are saying

Hancock is a god

He threw a whale
Stopped a train
Someone who is similar to him says so
He is immortal
He is only weak when next to opposite.

Oh yeah that is fucking god right there. Are you joking me?

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO SHOW THAT HE IS INVINCIBLE.

IF you FUCKING said Naruto can jump 329328938923829 miles high and I say proof it. You are basically saying he jumped as much as he needed to in the manga and so you prove he can't.

Bull-fucking-shit. Go learn to fuckin debate.

OBD turned into shit. I need to come more regularly to keep this shit under control


----------



## potential (Jul 12, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> My fucking brain is about to explain with all the no limit fallacy shit going on here.
> 
> Gooba, fuck man what the hell? You had my respect man. You probably don't know me but a freaking mod using no limits like it is justified is just shit written all over it. Shit if my friend called me god and I had a town worshipping me, we don't know I am a god so we are goin to assume it? What the fuck, I see fireman going in fire to rescue kids with their suits so Fireman with suits on equal god? Hancock, although CALLED god, by someone who knows his powers well, isn't a fucking god until he freaking shows it. His immortality isn't impressive. Even Hidan had it.
> 
> ...



Chill, Dude relax for you get banned.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 12, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> My fucking brain is about to explain with all the no limit fallacy shit going on here.
> 
> Gooba, fuck man what the hell? You had my respect man. You probably don't know me but a freaking mod using no limits like it is justified is just shit written all over it. Shit if my friend called me god and I had a town worshipping me, we don't know I am a god so we are goin to assume it? What the fuck, I see fireman going in fire to rescue kids with their suits so Fireman with suits on equal god? Hancock, although CALLED god, by someone who knows his powers well, isn't a fucking god until he freaking shows it. His immortality isn't impressive. Even Hidan had it.
> 
> ...


You all need to actually read and understand what I'm saying, I'm being attacked with Strawman arguments after every post.  You guys are abusing no limits by so blindly sticking to it as a yes or no type of thing.  I am _not _saying he _is _invincible because nothing could hurt him.  I am saying he _might _be invincible because nothing could hurt him, and someone with his power set said he was, and that person said he was created, probably by God.  No limits doesn't mean that the person is unable to do something until they prove it, it says you can't _prove _he can until he does.  That doesn't mean you can't speculate that he might be able to, and that if he can he could win the fight.  It is still a _possibility _ that he is invincible and dismissing it outright is an incorrect usage of no limit.


----------



## tictactoc (Jul 12, 2008)

Way to miss the point. Hancock being invincible is like super sayajin having blond hair and blue eyes. That's a part of his character. So until shown otherwise, Hancock should be considered as invincible, at least when it comes to physical damages.


----------



## Basilikos (Jul 12, 2008)

This thread is a joke. Raditz stomps with ease. Gooba, being an admin I would think you would be familiar with OBD assumptions and the way things are debated here. I can't believe Mirai Gohan had to do several pages of explanation for you.  Until Hancock shows he can tank mountain busting attacks he cannot do so and thus he gets owned by Raditz in seconds.


----------



## Mystic Aizen (Jul 12, 2008)

Raditz is a full blooded saiyan. His power level in the saiyan saga was around 1,200 (same as saibamen) which he can grow if he needs to. If he transforms into a giant ape that would make his power level equal to 12,000 (1,200 times 10) He also has the ability to transform into a super saiyan with a little bit of effort (which would increase his power level even more) This would at the very least make him a city buster. Based on these factors and Raditz fighting experience I am going to say he wins this fight with some effort.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 12, 2008)

Mystic Aizen said:


> Raditz is a full blooded saiyan. His power level in the saiyan saga was around 1,200 (same as saibamen) which he can grow if he needs to. If he transforms into a giant ape that would make his power level equal to 12,000 (1,200 times 10) He also has the ability to transform into a super saiyan with a little bit of effort (which would increase his power level even more) This would at the very least make him a city buster. Based on these factors and Raditz fighting experience I am going to say he wins this fight with some effort.



His power was said to be just above a saibamen's, actually. But let's not get to nit-picky about that, I'd just say more of on the 1,500 side. And as for going SSJ, I think it'd take a good amount of effort for Raditz to become one seeing as he hasn't had much tragedy effect him (he believed the lies about the destruction of planet Vegeta) and I doubt Hancock will be the one to reveal to him the Freeza actually blew up his planet and Father... (but imagine SSJ3 Raditz )


----------



## Gooba (Jul 12, 2008)

Basilikos said:


> This thread is a joke. Raditz stomps with ease. Gooba, being an admin I would think you would be familiar with OBD assumptions and the way things are debated here. I can't believe Mirai Gohan had to do several pages of explanation for you.  Until Hancock shows he can tank mountain busting attacks he cannot do so and thus he gets owned by Raditz in seconds.


Actually being an admin isn't the reason I should be, being the first OBD mod is.  I do know all about the OBD assumptions, and right now I'm working on refining and improving them.  You guys finally mastered "I before E" and I'm trying to get you to learn "except after C or sounding like A as in neighbor or weigh."



			
				Fallacy Reference Thread said:
			
		

> 17. No - limits fallacy. This is when someone states that because something has not demonstrated any limits (or only certain limits) then it has none (or only the ones demonstrated).
> 
> Example: "Itachi said that no one without a Mangekyou Sharingan can defeat him. Therefore he can beat all of DC, Marvel, DBZ, and Tenchi Muyo."
> 
> The person in this argument holds Itachi's statement to be *absolute truth*, ignoring the *possibility *that Itachi has no knowledge of certain enemies, or never expected to encounter them. The same can be said of Kishimoto: He never intended for his characters to be pitted in battle against characters from other works of fiction, so therefore statements like this do not hold true to other works of fiction *necessarily*. Furthermore, there is the possibility that in - universe, Itachi was lying or bluffing, misinformed, or deluded.


The bolded parts are the important ones.  I am not saying he is invincible as an absolute truth, just that it is a possibility.  It fits in perfectly with the no limits fallacy.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 12, 2008)

What Gooba was trying to tell you people that you can't rule out Hancock being invincible as a possibility due to there being evidence pointing to that being true.  He is also telling you that there is not enough evidence to give a definite level to Hancock's abilities.

Gooba, some of your evidence is wrong.  First off, there is nothing to imply that an omnipotent made them.  You should have paid more attention to the movie.  People keep saying God made them and that's just flat out wrong.  Mary says the GODS, not GOD.  Then there is the fact that Mary can only base what they can do on her own personal experiences, meaning that you can't even use her words as proof because they could be hyperbole since she most likely has never taken a blast like Thor can do.

Hancock shouldn't be used in debates until more evidence is shown about him, because it's always going to come down to "yes he can" "no he can't" arguments like this.  If we are going to use Hancock in debates we should at least consider the fights in two scenarios, one where he is invincible and one where he isn't.  Otherwise every debate thread with Hancock is gonna have people spouting "Hancock is invinicible he bends your fav hero over and spanks 'em!" and people throwing around "Nope that's a no limits fallacy".


----------



## Gooba (Jul 12, 2008)

> Gooba, some of your evidence is wrong. First off, there is nothing to imply that an omnipotent made them. You should have paid more attention to the movie. People keep saying God made them and that's just flat out wrong. Mary says the GODS, not GOD. Then there is the fact that Mary can only base what they can do on her own personal experiences, meaning that you can't even use her words as proof because they could be hyperbole since she most likely has never taken a blast like Thor can do.


It has been over a week since I've seen it so I might be a little fuzzy, but I don't think she ever refers to who created them.  She says that humans called them gods, angels, and now superheroes, but she only said that they were created.  I just assume it would be god because it is the simplest explaination.  I could be completely wrong, but that is still a possibility so it means it is possible he really is invincible.  Which is all I'm trying to argue.  



> Then there is the fact that Mary can only base what they can do on her own personal experiences, meaning that you can't even use her words as proof because they could be hyperbole since she most likely has never taken a blast like Thor can do.


Yea I agree that she might be wrong, which is why I've never said he is invincible, just that she might actually be right.



> Otherwise every debate thread with Hancock is gonna have people spouting "Hancock is invinicible he bends your fav hero over and spanks 'em!" and people throwing around "Nope that's a no limits fallacy".


If people adopt my way of thinking we would all be in the middle debating like your second paragraph and my first.  Which is the only way we really can, or adopting the "Hancock with invincibility wins, Hancock without loses," type of debate.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 12, 2008)

You needed to have seen Hancock to understand why he shoves Raditz's head up in his own ass.

He has no feats that bother Hancock


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 12, 2008)

Hancock wins..


----------



## HK-47 (Jul 12, 2008)

Footpenis wins.


----------



## Mashiro (Jul 12, 2008)

I'd say Hancock wins because he is invulnerable.


----------



## Whippersnap (Jul 12, 2008)

Isn't Gooba just saying that Hancock may not be completely invincible but probably is? 

I really don't see a problem with that.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 13, 2008)

Gooba said:


> It has been over a week since I've seen it so I might be a little fuzzy, but I don't think she ever refers to who created them.  She says that humans called them gods, angels, and now superheroes, but she only said that they were created.  I just assume it would be god because it is the simplest explaination.  I could be completely wrong, but that is still a possibility so it means it is possible he really is invincible.  Which is all I'm trying to argue.
> 
> Yea I agree that she might be wrong, which is why I've never said he is invincible, just that she might actually be right.
> 
> If people adopt my way of thinking we would all be in the middle debating like your second paragraph and my first.  Which is the only way we really can, or adopting the "Hancock with invincibility wins, Hancock without loses," type of debate.



I don't think you realize that she "might" be=shit until proven.

I MIGHT actually be a god but it is shit until proven.

Get how it works?

Possibilities=shit in the OBD

It has to be proven. That is the how it always worked.

You can argue he might be invincible but in the OBD, he is considered vulnerable as long as it hasn't been proven. Proven with feats of course.

He can never tank what Raditz can dish either.


----------



## Apollo (Jul 13, 2008)

Hancock punches his head off. 

Hancock must be pretty fast, he flew to the Moon!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gooba (Jul 13, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> I don't think you realize that she "might" be=shit until proven.
> 
> I MIGHT actually be a god but it is shit until proven.
> 
> ...


I know how shit works in here.  What I've been saying all along is that the current way is an inaccurate and simplistic way to debate.  There is a much better way but it actually requires thinking and analysis instead of mindlessly flipping through scans to see who can find the biggest number.  



> He can never tank what Raditz can dish either.


Yes, he can, if he is invincible, which _is _a possibility.


----------



## Goom (Jul 13, 2008)

Goku could barely lift up 40 tons of weight on his whole body (he was being bogged down) as a base saiyan. At that form he was way stronger than radditz as well.   Hancock threw a whale weighing way more than 100 tons with ease.  He stopped a train instantly.  The train itself weights over a 100 tons but because its moving at him its potential force is a lot more.  Even more he stopped it instantly with 0 stop time.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 13, 2008)

Moogoogaipan said:


> Goku could barely lift up 40 tons of weight on his whole body (he was being bogged down) as a base saiyan. At that form he was way stronger than radditz as well.   Hancock threw a whale weighing way more than 100 tons with ease.  He stopped a train instantly.  The train itself weights over a 100 tons but because its moving at him its potential force is a lot more.  Even more he stopped it instantly with 0 stop time.



The whale only weighed about 40 tons.  Grey whales don't weigh nearly 100 tons T_T


----------



## Violent by Design (Jul 13, 2008)

Snake Plissken said:


> The whale only weighed about 40 tons.  Grey whales don't weigh nearly 100 tons T_T



He barely tried and the whale went far as hell.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 13, 2008)

Violent By Design said:


> He barely tried and the whale went far as hell.



I don't recall ever saying it didn't.  I do recall saying that the whale only weighed about 40 tons, which is much less than "way more than 100 tons".


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 13, 2008)

Ok, I just saw Hancock so now I get the whole invincibility argument and everything. So my thought processes for this battle would not be to find out whether or not he is invincible, but if he can take the hits given out by the particular opponent, Raditz in this case... 

As far as I saw, he's totally invulnerable towards bullets and ergo fists, seeing as bullets > fists. And in my book it goes *Ki Blast > Bullet > Fist*. Now we've seen The Z fighters take on a Ki blast right into their palm like nobodies business, simply because they're used to it. I believe Hancock could in fact catch the ki blast just like they do and just like he did to the grenade or whatever that was they shot at him during the bank robbery.

And although Hancock has incredible speed, we didn't see much fighting action like we see with DBZ in the movie so I'm going to assume he's not the most skilled, but he probably can still throw some decent punches and such. Raditz, however, has displayed an impressive dodging ability and would probably be able to dodge the armature punches.

As for the Train stopping, Hancock stopped it dead in it's tracks whereas if Raditz had tried, he most likely would have skidded backwards a bit slowing the train to a stop. And Hancock did lift that whale with complete ease and fling it very far; Raditz would have had to gone to the middle of the whale, balanced the weight, and THEN hurl it not quite as far.


*Spoiler*: _Large Movie Spoiler_ 




Now I see now that Mary herself has powers, so Raditz might be able to capture her and bring her to Hancock, but aside from the fact that Raditz probably wouldn’t want to go through all that trouble, I doubt Raditz knows about the whole “pairs” business…



Now as for the invincibility debate, I think that basically anything Raditz throws at him can easily be withstood or deflected. The only thing that's airy in this whole debate is the fact of whether or not Hancock can take on a ki blast... ?


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 13, 2008)

Raditz gets sonned if he tries to do that thing in the spoiler

Hancock throws a random disk at soundspeed at raditz neck and slices his head off


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 13, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Hancock throws a random disk at soundspeed at raditz neck and slices his head off


That's another thing, Raditz might not expect the ways Hancock fights. Raditz is used to fighting with punches, kicks, and ki blasts; I think he'd be surprised to find his head suddenly up someone else's arse...


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Jul 13, 2008)

Lance Vance said:


> Probably Will Hancock, Raditz was saiyan fodder



Yeah, characters who basically open up the plot to the entire second half of the manga/anime is "fodder".

Right.


----------



## Fang (Jul 14, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Raditz gets sonned if he tries to do that thing in the spoiler
> 
> Hancock throws a random disk at soundspeed at raditz neck and slices his head off



Yeah lets just ignore the fact that Raditz casually tanks a full powered blast from a Piccolo who casually nukes mountains with his Masenkos at Part I.

Disc > Mountain buster amiright?


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Moogoogaipan said:


> Goku could barely lift up 40 tons of weight on his whole body (he was being bogged down) as a base saiyan. At that form he was way stronger than radditz as well.   Hancock threw a whale weighing way more than 100 tons with ease.  He stopped a train instantly.  The train itself weights over a 100 tons but because its moving at him its potential force is a lot more.  Even more he stopped it instantly with 0 stop time.



Nothing pisses me off more than people who misrepresent that. It was forty tons on each limb in an ISOMETRIC excersize. He was only using a fraction of his full lifting strength. And another thing, DB characters  do far more destruction with Ki than 100 tons is capable of, Raditz included.


----------



## Fang (Jul 14, 2008)

Let's not forgot Goku kicking apart two very fucking large islands on Namek with Freeza's body.


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> The bolded parts are the important ones.  I am not saying he is invincible as an absolute truth, just that it is a possibility.  It fits in perfectly with the no limits fallacy.



So basically an incomplete comparison fallacy then? How do you form an argument off of possibility? Countering people saying Raditz blows him up with mountain buster by saying "Hancock might be invincible" is far to vague to be proven true or false.


----------



## Aokiji (Jul 14, 2008)

Moogoogaipan said:


> *Goku could barely lift up 40 tons of weight on* his whole body (he was being bogged down) as a base saiyan. At that form he was way stronger than radditz as well.   Hancock threw a whale weighing way more than 100 tons with ease.  He stopped a train instantly.  The train itself weights over a 100 tons but because its moving at him its potential force is a lot more.  Even more he stopped it instantly with 0 stop time.



Oh please cut the fucking shit.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

> So basically an incomplete comparison fallacy then? How do you form an argument off of possibility? Countering people saying Raditz blows him up with mountain buster by saying "Hancock might be invincible" is far to vague to be proven true or false.


It isn't too vague, and it would be very easy to prove false if we ever see him get a scratch or bruise in a sequel.  The problem is that saying anything else is just _wrong_ as opposed to vague.  You can't say he is vulnerable because there is no evidence for it.  You can't say he is invincible because the evidence isn't strong enough.  We are forced to take a middle ground by the limitations of the evidence provided.


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> It isn't too vague, and it would be very easy to prove false if we ever see him get a scratch or bruise in a sequel.


And how does what might happen, in an unconfirmed sequal help your argument NOW?




> The problem is that saying anything else is just _wrong_ as opposed to vague.


So your argument is in a nutshell saying; Hancock might be invincible because the movie did not show him harmed by a train, or rockets, so he might be able to tank explosions far bigger than anything seen in the Hancock verse, correct?



> You can't say he is vulnerable because there is no evidence for it.


Do you know how bad this sounds?
Basically you're making an argument off of a complete lack of evidence for your own supposition.



> You can't say he is invincible because the evidence isn't strong enough.  We are forced to take a middle ground by the limitations of the evidence provided.



Alright, hold up. Gooba, in _your_ opinion, what is the logical answer to this thread then?


----------



## Aokiji (Jul 14, 2008)

Aizen was never hurt by anyopne. that means saying he could be hurt by Superman is baseless speculation?


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jul 14, 2008)

Pengu-Yasha said:


> Ok, I just saw Hancock so now I get the whole invincibility argument and everything. So my thought processes for this battle would not be to find out whether or not he is invincible, but if he can take the hits given out by the particular opponent, Raditz in this case...
> 
> As far as I saw, he's totally invulnerable towards bullets and ergo fists, seeing as bullets > fists. And in my book it goes *Ki Blast > Bullet > Fist*. Now we've seen The Z fighters take on a Ki blast right into their palm like nobodies business, simply because they're used to it. I believe Hancock could in fact catch the ki blast just like they do and just like he did to the grenade or whatever that was they shot at him during the bank robbery.
> 
> ...




Oh! I just saw the movie tonight, and it looks like part of Hancock's power set (their race in fact) is immortality if the opposite wasn't arroud. As to invicinbility he probably has that as well; based on the context, dialogues, feats to a certain extent, and Hancock as protector of earth/etc. With that I'd say he's invincible to anything that Earth could through at him. That being said, the movie wasn;t 'clear cut' enough to decide either way. Meh.

Pretty Interesing movie.  I would like to see is an ongoing comic with no other villians around, but perhaps the coming of an alien race at some point.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

Tash said:


> And how does what might happen, in an unconfirmed sequal help your argument NOW?


Scientific conclusions and threories are tested by making predictions and then seeing how those predicitions hold up to testing.  Right now we gathered evidence and some people predicted he would be invulnerable, some said he would not, the only way to know would be in an unconfirmed sequel.  If there never is one, we will never have a better answer.



> So your argument is in a nutshell saying; Hancock might be invincible because the movie did not show him harmed by a train, or rockets, so he might be able to tank explosions far bigger than anything seen in the Hancock verse, correct?


Exactly.  He might be able to.  It is completely consistant with everything we saw in the movie for him to be able to take Superman, Sentry, and Galactus's best punches right in his nose and be unharmed.  It would also be consistant for one of them to kill him in one hit.  Since both are consistant we can't conclude either is a certainty.



> Do you know how bad this sounds?
> Basically you're making an argument off of a complete lack of evidence for your own supposition.


No, everyone else is making an arguement off a complete lack of evidence and trying to present their conclusion as fact.  I'm saying that because we have a lack of evidence we can't conclude anything and that it is faulty to pretend we can.



> Alright, hold up. Gooba, in _your_ opinion, what is the logical answer to this thread then?


If Hancock is actually invincible he wins, if he isn't he loses, and I think he probably is so I think he'll probably win.  Or ditto then I think he probably isn't so he will probably lose.  It is just inaccurate to say he _will _lose or he _will _win because it is impossible to know based on the movie.



Aokiji said:


> Aizen was never hurt by anyopne. that means saying he could be hurt by Superman is baseless speculation?


You really aren't even trying to understand my argument, I've answered that question multiple times.  Hancock has feats supporting his invulnerability as well as plot and dialog evidence.  Aizen has none (that I've read so far, I stopped halfway into the Rescue Orihimi arc).


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Scientific conclusions and threories are tested by making predictions and then seeing how those predicitions hold up to testing.  Right now we gathered evidence and some people predicted he would be invulnerable, some said he would not, the only way to know would be in an unconfirmed sequel.  If there never is one, we will never have a better answer.


You're dodging the question. Saying that he might be invincible in response to somebody saying a blast larger than anything he's taken isn't even a proper rebuttal. There are no contradicting facts, no reliable statements, nothing. At all.



> Exactly.  He might be able to.  It is completely consistant with everything we saw in the movie for him to be able to take Superman, Sentry, and Galactus's best punches right in his nose and be unharmed.  It would also be consistant for one of them to kill him in one hit.  Since both are consistant we can't conclude either is a certainty.


This doesn't even make sense. First of all in these threads nothing is certain because nothing can be tested.But there are things that are far more likely. The same way it's likely for Natsu to die from balefire because he hasn't shown anything that suggest he would resist it. Now can we test that? No. Is it likely considering Natsu has never survived anything of the sort ever? Yes. Basically you're saying Hancock will survive because he hasn't been exposed to that level of force, which is flawed beyond belief.



> No, everyone else is making an arguement off a complete lack of evidence and trying to present their conclusion as fact.  I'm saying that because we have a lack of evidence we can't conclude anything and that it is faulty to pretend we can.


*sigh*


> Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.






> If Hancock is actually invincible he wins, if he isn't he loses, and I think he probably is so I think he'll probably win.  Or ditto then I think he probably isn't so he will probably lose.  It is just inaccurate to say he _will _lose or he _will _win because it is impossible to know based on the movie.


You could pretty much use that same logic in an attempt to counter even the most obvious curbstomps.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

Tash said:


> You're dodging the question. Saying that he might be invincible in response to somebody saying a blast larger than anything he's taken isn't even a proper rebuttal. There are no contradicting facts, no reliable statements, nothing. At all.


Yes, there are.  There are him being completely unharmed by anything in the movie, and the statements by the only other person with his powerset.



> This doesn't even make sense. First of all in these threads nothing is certain because nothing can be tested.But there are things that are far more likely. The same way it's likely for Natsu to die from balefire because he hasn't shown anything that suggest he would resist it. Now can we test that? No. Is it likely considering Natsu has never survived anything of the sort ever? Yes. Basically you're saying Hancock will survive because he hasn't been exposed to that level of force, which is flawed beyond belief.


I have never said anything even close to that.  That would be flawed beyond belief.  So is saying he will be destroyed because he's never encountered that level of blast.  We just don't know and we can't know.  Now if he had ever gotten as much as a scratch from anything else we could say he would be destroyed, but he hasn't so we can't say he will.



> *sigh*


You really aren't listening to my side at all.  You are saying I am saying Hancock will win because he is invincible.  I am not.  I am saying that is a possibility and just because he hasn't proven it doesn't mean he isn't.  I am not saying one side or the other is proven, I am saying *both *aren't, and the people who are saying one side is are wrong.

EDIT: Wow, I just realized that quote you have there "Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven. " was from the Wiki page.  I thought you had quoted something I said earlier because that sentence is _exactly _my argument.  People see a lack of evidence for invincibility so they consider it proven that he is vulnerable (despite that having even less evidence).


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Yes, there are.  There are him being completely unharmed by anything in the movie,


Was he hit with a blast capable of leveling a mountains in the movie? Or even something in the same league?



> and the statements by the only other person with his powerset.


A statement from what? Her own limited knowledge.



> I have never said anything even close to that.  That would be flawed beyond belief.  So is saying he will be destroyed because he's never encountered that level of blast.  We just don't know and we can't know.  Now if he had ever gotten as much as a scratch from anything else we could say he would be destroyed, but he hasn't so we can't say he will.


Pein says he's God.
He's never been defeated.
We can't say LT will kill him or not because he's never shown to be defeated.

That closer to your idea of "proper logic" ?




> You really aren't listening to my side at all.  You are saying I am saying Hancock will win because he is invincible.  I am not.  I am saying that is a possibility and just because he hasn't proven it doesn't mean he isn't.  I am not saying one side or the other is proven, I am saying *both *aren't, and the people who are saying one side is are wrong.
> 
> EDIT: Wow, I just realized that quote you have there "Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven. " was from the Wiki page.  I thought you had quoted something I said earlier because that sentence is _exactly _my argument.  People see a lack of evidence for invincibility so they consider it proven that he is vulnerable (despite that having even less evidence).



The idea of a faulty basis seems foreign.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba, you talking shit like probability and saying YOU probably think Hancock wins.

HE FUCKING DOESN'T.

THERE ISN'T A POSSIBILITY IN THE OBD BECAUSE IN THE OBD POSSIBILITIES DON'T EXIST!

possibility=shit.

Stop saying shit like that because all you are doing is spamming and trolling when you fucking know that isn't even allowed in the OBD. Just stop.

Don't ban me.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 14, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Gooba, you talking shit like probability and saying YOU probably think Hancock wins.
> 
> HE FUCKING DOESN'T.
> 
> ...


Why do people get so mad over someone claiming Hancock could win against (insert character name here)?

I understand the movie wasn't that great, but god, it's like saying Hancock could win a fight is trolling to you guys.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

> Pein says he's God.
> He's never been defeated.
> We can't say LT will kill him or not because he's never shown to be defeated.
> 
> That closer to your idea of "proper logic" ?


He's shown limitations in his fight.  He didn't do everything effortlessly and flawlessly.  So has _everyone _else used by the examples brought against me.  Hancock has not.  So it is still within his possibility to be invincible.  You can't rule out him being able to take a mountain busting attack just because he hasn't.  There has to be any logical connection towards him being vulnerable.  There isn't a single shred of evidence that he is, so you can't say it is definite.



> The idea of a faulty basis seems foreign.


Funny, that's my line.  The basis for saying he is definitely vulnerable is as faulty as they get.



thegoodjae said:


> Gooba, you talking shit like probability and saying YOU probably think Hancock wins.
> 
> HE FUCKING DOESN'T.
> 
> ...


It _should _be, because it is far far more accurate.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 14, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Why do people get so mad over someone claiming Hancock could win against (insert character name here)?
> 
> I understand the movie wasn't that great, but god, it's like saying Hancock could win a fight is trolling to you guys.



What type of shit response are you saying? Hancock would beat the fuck out of Naruto and I know it. I am just saying he hasn't prove that he can beat Raditz, the guy stronger than both Goku and Piccolo who are stronger than they were when they started blowing up cities. Yeah.

WHy the fuck do you not comprehend thatt in the Outskirts Battledome, you must PROVE that a person  HAS a capability with feats of the character DOING/BECOMING whatever the shit you are trying to prove.

Saying it has a possibility is shit even if it sounds reasonable.

YOu can't fucking go and say PROVE THAT HE ISN'T.

IF Naruto says I can jump to the moon and I go that is a fucking hyperbole and lie and you go PROVE THAT HE CAN'T, that is stupid because the burden of proof is on you and you should back up the argument that you are using instead of someone fucking telling you they can't when the proof, in fact, DOESN'T EXIST, because the character never got in that situation and the character never proved it themselves so they CAN'T do it. The fact that no scans are available or clips of a movie should be proof FUCKING enough.

whew

@Gooba

Disregard my language, I just rolled my ankle and I feel like shit since no basketball this week.

should, could, maybe, possibility=SHIT


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

Well if SHIT is more accurate than what is currently going on in here, what does that make this place?


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 14, 2008)

but SHIT isn't allowed and SHIT can't be used as an argument.

YOu need fucking PROOF. PROOF. NOT SHIT OR POSSIBILTIES. PROOF.


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> He's shown limitations in his fight.  He didn't do everything effortlessly and flawlessly.  So has _everyone _else used by the examples brought against me.  Hancock has not.  So it is still within his possibility to be invincible.  You can't rule out him being able to take a mountain busting attack just because he hasn't.  There has to be any logical connection towards him being vulnerable.  There isn't a single shred of evidence that he is, so you can't say it is definite.


And for all that bragging about him being invulnerable, and how strong his constitution is, he can still become drunk from drinking alcohol, a toxin. Something tells me invulnerable livers don't get overloaded with alcohol.




> Funny, that's my line.  The basis for saying he is definitely vulnerable is as faulty as they get.
> 
> It _should _be, because it is far far more accurate.



Assuming character statements to be absolute truth, no, I'm pretty sure that was my cue.


----------



## Bobby Drake (Jul 14, 2008)

Hancock hasnt really fought someone of Raditz's calibur. 

Raditz destroyed a mountain while attacking Piccolo casually. 

Hancock would win though because isnt he immortal?


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 14, 2008)

Tash said:


> *And for all that bragging about him being invulnerable, and how strong his constitution is, he can still become drunk from drinking alcohol, a toxin. Something tells me invulnerable livers don't get overloaded with alcohol.
> *
> 
> 
> ...




Lolwut?


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Full sentences, grammar, actual counter-points tend to work better.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 14, 2008)

Tash said:


> Full sentences, grammar, actual counter-points tend to work better.


True.


----------



## Bobby Drake (Jul 14, 2008)

Very well said Tash


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 14, 2008)

Bobby Drake said:


> Hancock hasnt really fought someone of Raditz's calibur.
> 
> Raditz destroyed a mountain while attacking Piccolo casually.
> 
> Hancock would win though because isnt he immortal?



Immortal=shit if your body is split into parts. He never was shown to be immortal under the conditions of head/body split. Only with his body still connected as one.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

Tash said:


> And for all that bragging about him being invulnerable, and how strong his constitution is, he can still become drunk from drinking alcohol, a toxin. Something tells me invulnerable livers don't get overloaded with alcohol.


That isn't about invulnerability, it is about metabolism.


> Assuming character statements to be absolute truth, no, I'm pretty sure that was my cue.


I never said it was absolute truth, I'm just not assuming she is automatically wrong.


----------



## C. Hook (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> That isn't about invulnerability, it is about metabolism.



Alcohol is a toxin. A resistance to toxins is provided by invulnerability. Metabolism only effects how fast the toxins are cleansed by the liver.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

Toxins don't neccessarily damage the body, some just alter how it functions which wouldn't need to be protected against.


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> That isn't about invulnerability, it is about metabolism.


See Hooks post.





> I never said it was absolute truth, I'm just not assuming she is automatically wrong.



The "I'm on the fence" stance is not a proper response to my point. I'm not assuming she is automatically wrong, I'm assuming she's not omniscient.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

> The "I'm on the fence" stance is not a proper response to my point.


Yes it is.  You said I'm assuming she is automatically right, I am not.  I am saying she could be.


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Toxins don't neccessarily damage the body, some just alter how it functions which wouldn't need to be protected against.



So a weak toxin can impair his senses. What do you think a toxin twenty times as powerful would do? A hundred? The fact that his body can't resist a weak toxin like alcohol shoots all notions of invunerability down the drain.


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Yes it is.  You said I'm assuming she is automatically right, I am not.  I am saying she could be.



And her being right within her knowledge changes the fact that she is not all knowing how?


----------



## C. Hook (Jul 14, 2008)

Tash said:


> *See Hooks* post.



I love puns.



Tash said:


> So a weak toxin can impair his senses. What do you think a toxin twenty times as powerful would do? A hundred? The fact that his body can't resist a weak toxin like alcohol shoots all notions of invunerability down the drain.



To be fair, exactly how much alcohol did Hancock drink? I haven't seen the movie yet.


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Assuming he didn't raid a liqour store off-screen, a bottle.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> That isn't about invulnerability, it is about metabolism.
> I never said it was absolute truth, I'm just not assuming she is automatically wrong.



Why are you not assuming she is auto wrong? I mean, anywhere else that would be fine, but in the OBD, her statement =0 value so I don't even know why you guys brought it up.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

If he can get drunk off a single bottle, and getting drunk is a sign of vulnerability, then he is as vulnerable as a college frat boy and being hit by a train would kill him.  So is Superman from Superman 3, and I think Lobo gets drunk but don't quote me on that.

I am not assuming she is auto wrong because she could be right.  Hancock _could _be able to take multiverse busting attacks which means she is right.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 14, 2008)

I've got a quick question here. Are you all debating over whether or not Hancock is completely invulnerable, or whether or not he can withstand what Raditz dishes out (i.e. Saiyan punches and Ki Blasts)? 


*Spoiler*: _Large Movie Spoilers_ 




If you think he's not invulnerable due to the last fight he was in (where he got hurt by bullets and punches); it's just because he was near Mary.

Remember how he lost his memory? Mary and him were *together* coming from the movies, but they got ambushed and his head got busted open and he needed to be rushed to the hospital. Mary couldn't ride with him and they were separated, then when he had woken already and didn't remember anything, *she went away* thinking it was for the better. Once she got far enough away his powers obviously came back and he healed very fast and the needles couldn't go into his arm.

So seeing as how he is now once again separated from Mary at the end of the movie, he should be invulnerable once more... 



Sorry for having to put that all in a spoiler, I don't want to ruin the movie too much...


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> If he can get drunk off a single bottle, and getting drunk is a sign of vulnerability, then he is as vulnerable as a college frat boy and being hit by a train would kill him.  So is Superman from Superman 3, and I think Lobo gets drunk but don't quote me on that.
> 
> I am not assuming she is auto wrong because she could be right.  Hancock _could _be able to take multiverse busting attacks which means she is right.



That is a terrible  way to debate. Obviously you are trying  to show us that we are stupid by using arguments such as drunk, but drugs show to effect his body, I guess one of his weaksides. Just like Mary. Mkay? K.

You HAVE to assume she is wrong if he didn't prove it. It is the only way to take her statement in terms of debates. there is not "taking" her statement as a "possibility" in a debate. Mkay? I know it doesn't sound fair or reasonable but that is how it works. 

Ever hear innocent until proven guilty? Kinda like that rule. K thx bai.


@Penguin

No one is debating about Mary, it is just that Hancock never displayed the feat to soak up the damage Raditz does.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

> That is a terrible way to debate. Obviously you are trying to show us that we are stupid by using arguments such as drunk, but drugs show to effect his body, I guess one of his weaksides. Just like Mary. Mkay? K.


I wasn't trying to say you were stupid, I was trying to say that he was drunk after a certain amount of alcohol, which is equal to what it takes college kids to get drunk in order to set a baseline for his tolerance.  Also, I don't consider it a weakness because getting inebriated is not doing damage so invulnerability wouldn't need to protect him.  When you breathe oxygen and eat food it changes the way your brain is working then too, releasing different chemicals and whatnot.  The same stuff happens with alcohol, just different.  As long as it isn't damaging his liver, which we never saw any evidence of, it isn't a flaw in invincibility.



> You HAVE to assume she is wrong if he didn't prove it. It is the only way to take her statement in terms of debates. there is not "taking" her statement as a "possibility" in a debate. Mkay? I know it doesn't sound fair or reasonable but that is how it works.
> 
> Ever hear innocent until proven guilty? Kinda like that rule. K thx bai.


No, that isn't how it works.  Trying to get to the conclusion which most accurately depicts what would happen if this fight occurred is the goal, and that rule goes against that purpose.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> ...Trying to get to the conclusion which most accurately depicts what would happen if this fight occurred is the goal...



But that isn't possible in this given situation. With the limited amount of feats on both sides we get a number of different conclusions...

*For example:*

If Hancock is *TOTALLY* invulnerable towards everything (including mountain busting ki blasts), he wins...

If Hancock is only invulnerable towards things on Earth (Saiyan attacks being not of that kind) and nothing greater, Raditz wins...

If Hancock is NOT invulnerable and Raditz is faster, Raditz wins...

There simply is not enough evidence to declare a rock solid winner...


----------



## Gooba (Jul 14, 2008)

Pengu-Yasha said:


> But that isn't possible in this given situation. With the limited amount of feats on both sides we get a number of different conclusions...
> 
> *For example:*
> 
> ...


That is exactly what I've been saying all along.  We can't declare a rock solid winner but lots of people are trying to declare either Hancock and his definite invulnerability the winner or Radditz with his Hancock busting attacks as the definite winner.  Both don't meet the burden of proof to make those claims so they have to find a middle ground.  The whole alcohol debate is a good way to try and see if he is most likely vulnerable.  I disagree with it, but it is good to try and undermine the likelyhood of one side while boosting yours.  That way we can agree most likely Radditz would beat him.  I still don't think that is evidence enough so I'm sticking with Hancock would _probably _win.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> That is exactly what I've been saying all along.  We can't declare a rock solid winner but lots of people are trying to declare either Hancock and his definite invulnerability the winner or Radditz with his Hancock busting attacks as the definite winner.  Both don't meet the burden of proof to make those claims so they have to find a middle ground.  The whole alcohol debate is a good way to try and see if he is most likely vulnerable.  I disagree with it, but it is good to try and undermine the likelyhood of one side while boosting yours.  That way we can agree most likely Radditz would beat him.  I still don't think that is evidence enough so I'm sticking with Hancock would _probably _win.


You must've really liked the movie? ;p


----------



## Tash (Jul 14, 2008)

Gooba said:


> If he can get drunk off a single bottle, and getting drunk is a sign of vulnerability, then he is as vulnerable as a college frat boy and being hit by a train would kill him.  So is Superman from Superman 3, and I think Lobo gets drunk but don't quote me on that.


Cool. No if only we were talking about frat boys, superman and Lobo being invulnerable.



> I am not assuming she is auto wrong because she could be right.  Hancock _could _be able to take multiverse busting attacks which means she is right.



Shoot and miss again.

Hint: Character statements are limited to character knowledge. Unless you have evidence of her being knowledgable on multiverse attacks, the statement does not apply.

And now that I think about it, what were her words again? Invincible or immortal?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

> You must've really liked the movie? ;p


Actually, besides Hellboy it was probably my least favorite of the movies I've seen in the last 2 months.  However, I don't like letting fallacious arguments go.



> Cool. No if only we were talking about frat boys, superman and Lobo being invulnerable.


What we are talking about is how alcohol is linked to durability.  If Hancock, a frat boy, Superman, and Lobo all have the same level of alcohol resistance and their durabilities are completely different then it has no link.  I could go through fiction and make a big plot of how many beers it takes for various characters to get drunk vs their best durability feat and do statistical analysis on it to see the correlation, but seeing how the same beer feat matches up with planet busting, train busting, and killed by car accident the correlation is going to be near 0.



> Shoot and miss again.
> 
> Hint: Character statements are limited to character knowledge. Unless you have evidence of her being knowledgable on multiverse attacks, the statement does not apply.


Hint:  How correct a statement is 100% independent of the person saying it.  I know jack shit about whether or not there actually is a god.  If I was to say "there is a god" would I automatically be wrong?  Does that mean I just made God not exist?


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 15, 2008)

Tash said:


> And now that I think about it, what were her words again? Invincible or immortal?




*Spoiler*: _Mary, Hancock, Ray at house after M/H Fight, verbatim_ 




Ray: "Why were you flying? You were flying, Mary!"
Hancock: "Yeah, she was definitely flying."
Mary: "Ok, I was flying, and I'm very strong as well.  It's just the way we are."
R: "We?"
M: "Me and him, it's just us now.  The others paired up and died."
H: "Woah you didn't say anything about the others pairing up at the trailer."
R: "You were at his trailer?"
M: "This is very hard to explain."
R: "Great, I'm all ears Mary."
H: "Me too."
R: "Do me a favor, just give me and my wife one moment, please."
H: "Ray don't, don't bring it here Ray."
R: "The adults are talking for one second."
M: "Technically speaking... he's my husband."
H: "Holy shit."
R: "What?"
M: "We broke up decades ago, long before you were born, he just can't remember."
R: "But you can?  Right?  You knew?  That's something you might wanna bring up on a first date, Mary.  I don't like to travel, I'm allergic to cats, I'm immortal.  Kay?  Those are like some of the things you might wanna give a little heads up on."
M: "Whatever we are, we were built in twos, ok?  We're drawn to each other.  No matter how far I run he's always there, he finds me, it's physics."
R: "What are you saying, are you saying that you two are fated to be together?"
M: "I've lived for a very long time, Ray... and the one thing I've learned, fate doesn't decide everything.  People get to choose."
H: "And you chose to let me think I was here alone..."
M: "I didn't think you'd miss what you didn't remember."
R: "Great.  Now what?"
M: "I didn't plan for this."




Give me a second and I'll do the hospital convo between Mary and Hancock.

Edit:


*Spoiler*: _Hancock and Mary at the hospital, verbatim_ 




Mary: "You're becoming mortal.  It's us, being close to each other.  Never happened this fast before.  You have to leave.  The further away you get from me, the better you're gonna feel, you'll start getting your powers back and, and be flying and breaking things and saving people before you know it."
*cuts to hook man in elevator, then back to convo*
Mary: "It's like I said.  We were built in pairs, and when we get close to our opposites we lose our power."
Hancock: "Why?"
M: "So we can live human lives.  Love, connect, grow old, die."
H: "What happened... to us?"
M: *Showing Hancock a scar on his shoulder* "Summer of 4, BC.  You were becoming mortal, like now.  They came after me with swords... and you saved me."  *Showing him another scar on his arm* "1850.  They set our house on fire... and you pulled me out of the flames."
H: "80 years ago... What happened then?"
M: "We were living in Miami, and a new movie was playing in town."
H: "Frankenstein."
M: "And after, we walked out of Flagners Street, and you took my hand and you held it so tight." *kisses their hands* "And they attacked us in an alley.  They hit you so hard, there was so much blood.  They wouldn't let me ride in the ambulance with you, and by the time I got to the hospital you were awake... but you didn't know me... so I left.  Everytime we're together, they come after you through me.  You're built to save people, more than the rest of us, that's who you are, you're a hero.  The insurance policy of the gods.  Keep one alive, you, to protect this world."


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Gooba said:


> What we are talking about is how alcohol is linked to durability.  If Hancock, a frat boy, Superman, and Lobo all have the same level of alcohol resistance and their durabilities are completely different then it has no link.  I could go through fiction and make a big plot of how many beers it takes for various characters to get drunk vs their best durability feat and do statistical analysis on it to see the correlation, but seeing how the same beer feat matches up with planet busting, train busting, and killed by car accident the correlation is going to be near 0.


Haha, no we're not. We're talking about his invulnerability, which besides being shot down with the fact his body can't resist a mild toxin, i.e. he's VULNERABLE to it, it is shot down by the fact that "invulnerable" is not the word used. "Immortal" is. Immortality is absence of death, not absence of damage. Making basically everything you've posted until now a big non-sequitor.



> Hint:  How correct a statement is 100% independent of the person saying it.  I know jack shit about whether or not there actually is a god.  If I was to say "there is a god" would I automatically be wrong?  Does that mean I just made God not exist?



The whole "NO U" bit never packed very much of a punch to begin with, combining it with a bad example doesn't help very much. Actuality in a debate is all about what you can prove. Your belief in God would be based on your faith, not any type of factual knowledge. She is immortal by her own knowledge, belief, whatever you want to call it. Unless you're suggesting, and can PROVE she's been put through every possible death technique to have ever existed and come out fine, it's fallible.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

> The whole "NO U" bit never packed very much of a punch to begin with, combining it with a bad example doesn't help very much. Actuality in a debate is all about what you can prove. Your belief in God would be based on your faith, not any type of factual knowledge. She is immortal by her own knowledge, belief, whatever you want to call it. Unless you're suggesting, and can PROVE she's been put through every possible death technique to have ever existed and come out fine, it's fallible.


That ignored my point.  





> How correct a statement is 100% independent of the person saying it.


No matter what beliefs or knowledge the person has doesn't change  the validity of their statement.  It just changes how much we trust it.  Even if she knew absolutely nothing about him, and said he was invincible just as a guess, that wouldn't make her wrong.  It would just make her untrustworthy.



> Haha, no we're not. We're talking about his invulnerability, which besides being shot down with the fact his body can't resist a mild toxin


Except it isn't shot down by that for all the reasons I've stated that you've ignored.


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Gooba said:


> That ignored my point.  No matter what beliefs or knowledge the person has doesn't change  the validity of their statement.  It just changes how much we trust it.  Even if she knew absolutely nothing about him, and said he was invincible just as a guess, that wouldn't make her wrong.  It would just make her untrustworthy.


So she's untrustworthy then. Yaay for your argument.



> Except it isn't shot down by that for all the reasons I've stated that you've ignored.



You mean all those stawmen you beat up on the durability front?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

That isn't strawmen, are you sure you know what that fallacy means?  They are counterexamples.  If durability is linked to alcohol resistance as you say it is, then we could see it in how much alchol it takes various people to get drunk.  Since in those 4 characters can all get drunk in somewhat similar amounts of alcohol but they don't have similar durability there must not be a link.



> So she's untrustworthy then. Yaay for your argument.


I am not trying to prove she is right, I'm trying to prove you can't rule out that she is.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 15, 2008)

Tash said:


> Cool. No if only we were talking about frat boys, superman and Lobo being invulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mary: Hey, Hancock.
Hancock: What?
Mary: We're invulnerable to damage.
Hancock: Okay...
Mary: Yeah....Do you know of a show called Dragon Ball Z?
Hancock: Why yes Mary, why yes I do.
Mary: Well, their is this character called Raditz on the show.
Hancock: And?
Mary: Well, we can beat him.
Hancock: Cool.
Mary: Yup.

This proves it.

Hancock wins.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 15, 2008)

Gooba said:


> I wasn't trying to say you were stupid, I was trying to say that he was drunk after a certain amount of alcohol, which is equal to what it takes college kids to get drunk in order to set a baseline for his tolerance.  Also, I don't consider it a weakness because getting inebriated is not doing damage so invulnerability wouldn't need to protect him.  When you breathe oxygen and eat food it changes the way your brain is working then too, releasing different chemicals and whatnot.  The same stuff happens with alcohol, just different.  As long as it isn't damaging his liver, which we never saw any evidence of, it isn't a flaw in invincibility.
> 
> No, that isn't how it works.  Trying to get to the conclusion which most accurately depicts what would happen if this fight occurred is the goal, and that rule goes against that purpose.



Yeah but to get that goal, we have to use proven facts in the OBD. Plain and Simple.

Why the HXOP want to troll so bad?

Fine, if you really want, we  can say all this if shit but if we have to go down with one answer, it is Raditz rapes Hancock until he proves he can tank the damage(probably never will unless HanCock 2 comes out


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Gooba said:


> That isn't strawmen, are you sure you know what that fallacy means?  They are counterexamples.  If durability is linked to alcohol resistance as you say it is, then we could see it in how much alchol it takes various people to get drunk.  Since in those 4 characters can all get drunk in somewhat similar amounts of alcohol but they don't have similar durability there must not be a link.


Gooba, why is this the second time I  have to tell you it's not about durability, but vulnerability? And why is it the second time I have to tell you it's all useless when in the end the word "invulnerable" was never used? And...



> I am not trying to prove she is right, I'm trying to prove you can't rule out that she is.



why am I once again telling you that's a statement based on her limited knowledge. As far as she knows, she is right. That's the problem. As far as SHE KNOWS. Her statement of immortality is based off of her own personal experience. It's not an absolute statement made by some omniscient being that we can take at face value. It's a stament that has proven true for her SO FAR. In short, you miss the point, it's not about her being wrong, so much as it's about her not being all knowing.


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Mary: Hey, Hancock.
> Hancock: What?
> Mary: We're invulnerable to damage.
> Hancock: Okay...
> ...



Dealing with people like this is your jurisdiction right Gooba?


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 15, 2008)

Tash said:


> Dealing with people like this is your jurisdiction right Gooba?


Calm the hell down man.

God.

You can't take a joke?


----------



## Fang (Jul 15, 2008)

Why are character falliable statements taken at face value anyway?

They aren't reliable sources of information in most contexts, this one included.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

Tash said:


> Gooba, why is this the second time I  have to tell you it's not about durability, but vulnerability? And why is it the second time I have to tell you it's all useless when in the end the word "invulnerable" was never used? And...
> 
> 
> 
> why am I once again telling you that's a statement based on her limited knowledge. As far as she knows, she is right. That's the problem. As far as SHE KNOWS. Her statement of immortality is based off of her own personal experience. It's not an absolute statement made by some omniscient being that we can take at face value. It's a stament that has proven true for her SO FAR. In short, you miss the point, it's not about her being wrong, so much as it's about her not being all knowing.


You are still not getting what I'm saying.  I am not saying she is absolutely right.  I am saying it is possible she is right.  It is also possible she is wrong.

The fact that she never actually said invulnerable doesn't change my point, but it does change how probable I think him being invulnerable is.  I still think he could probably take Radditz's attacks, just because I got the general idea from the movie that he is supposed to only be vulnerable near her and the perfect protector of Earth when not.  Now most of my view is based on the plot, and because of how casually he stopped the train.

Overall my point is that using only feats, and assuming they can't do anything not shown in feats is inaccurate.  Even if I'm 100% wrong about Hancock being invulnerable, or even immortal, it doesn't change that point.



> Why are character falliable statements taken at face value anyway?


They aren't, I never have said we should.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 15, 2008)

> 2. Strawman. This is when one person corrupts an opponent's argument into something different, a "straw man" that they set up just to knock it down.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



This isn't usually used by you guys.



> 3. Burden of proof fallacy. This is when someone attempts to make someone else prove a claim when the burden of proof is really on them to prove it. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, and the person who makes the claim.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



USED. FUCKING USED.



> 4. Appeal to motive. This is when someone attempts to rebut an argument by speculating on what ulterior motives the person making the argument might have, instead of addressing the argument itself.
> 
> Example: "You only think Superman could beat Goku because you hate DBZ!"
> 
> In this case, the person is not actually debating the point (Superman vs. Goku) and is only attempting to invalidate his opponent's argument based on a possible motive.



USED.



> 8. Non - Sequiter. This is when someone's conclusion is not implied at all by the premise.
> 
> Example: "Goku leaves afterimages, therefore Goku is faster than light".
> 
> The person in this example starts with a true premise (Goku leaves afterimages), but then jumps to a conclusion which is in no way implied by that premise (Goku is FTL).



Hancock stopped a train so he invincible -_-



> 13. Argument from belief. This is when someone states that they personally believe something to be true, without providing any actual evidence.
> 
> Example: "It's my opinion that DBZ characters are faster than light, so they are."
> 
> The person in this example states that because he believes something, it should be assumed to be true, without any actual evidence


.

Gooba, you are like I believe Hancock is blablabla WELL NO



> 17. No - limits fallacy. This is when someone states that because something has not demonstrated any limits (or only certain limits) then it has none (or only the ones demonstrated).
> 
> Example: "Itachi said that no one without a Mangekyou Sharingan can defeat him. Therefore he can beat all of DC, Marvel, DBZ, and Tenchi Muyo."
> 
> The person in this argument holds Itachi's statement to be absolute truth, ignoring the possibility that Itachi has no knowledge of certain enemies, or never expected to encounter them. The same can be said of Kishimoto: He never intended for his characters to be pitted in battle against characters from other works of fiction, so therefore statements like this do not hold true to other works of fiction necessarily. Furthermore, there is the possibility that in - universe, Itachi was lying or bluffing, misinformed, or deluded.



Another thing. The people in Hancock or race never dealth with real damage so what the fuck do they know?



> 18. Undistributed middle. This is a fallacy where someone makes an argument of the following form: "All contents of set A are also contents of set B. X is in set B. Therefore X is in set A." The opposite would be true, though.
> 
> Example: "All omnipotent beings are gods. Enel from One Piece is a god. Therefore, Enel is omnipotent."


Pretty much you guys again.



> 19. The Fallacy Fallacy. This is when someone accuses someone else of making a logical fallacy, when they have not actually made one. It is an attempt to dismiss an argument by saying it is fallacious without explaining how or why.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



Stop telling us we are assuming cause we aren't.



> 41. Argumentum ad verbosium. This is when someone makes a claim and writes a long, often repetitive essay in order to prove it, when they really do not have very strong evidence whatsoever and are just trying to make their opponent accept their claim by barraging him with long, drawn - out writing.
> 
> Example: "Naruto can beat Luffy, because Naruto has the Kyuubi, and the Kyuubi is really powerful, and you know, Luffy really isn't that strong, I mean he can stretch and stuff, but he'll die if he gets thrown in the water, and lots of Naruto characters can use water techniques, (which are known as suitons, which is Japanese for "water release"), and they also have Katons (Japanese for "fire release"), and Dotons (Japanese for "Earth release") and even Mokutons (Japanese for "wood release"), although the latter cannot be created by most ninjas, only ones with a Kekkai Genkai (That's Japanese for "Bloodline limit") can use them, by combining their elemental affinities, and Naruto beats Luffy... etc."
> 
> You can see the person is trying to just exhaust his opponent with tons of words and unnecessary verbosity instead of arguing the actual points.



Pretty much Gooba



> 42. Figure of speech. This is when a person confuses a saying which is not meant to be literal, with a literal meaning.
> 
> Example: "Mr. Popo said Goku could move faster than lightning. That means he could move at relativistic speed."
> 
> The person in this example is ignoring the fact that "lightning speed" or "faster than lightning" are very common figures of speech that rarely ever denote actual speed of that level.



Invincible is very common for fast regen or really strong.



> 43. Argumentum ad nauseum, or argument from repetition. This is when someone keeps making a claim over and over again, but either does not provide actual evidence, or provides evidence which is later debunked, but keeps making the claim. Eventually (or so he hopes), his opponent will get tired of arguing and he can declare victory.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Person A: "Goku has VAST senses! He would easily sense the Flash and beat him. Goku's senses are BEYOND those of the Flash."




Hancock is STRONG. HE WINS.



> 50. Incomplete comparison. This is when someone makes a claim that is too vague to be proven or disproven.
> 
> Example: "Dark Schneider is really powerful."
> 
> Powerful compared to what? Something powerful compared to an ant is hardly in the same league as something powerful compared to an exploding star. This example is merely a vague statement that carries no real meaning without a point of reference.




That is like 11 or 12 fallacies you should read completely.

Don't fucking type a word, any of you, until you read *ALL* of my fucking post. I'm tired of all this explaining.


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Calm the hell down man.
> 
> God.
> 
> You can't take a joke?


But it wasn't funny...



Gooba said:


> You are still not getting what I'm saying.  I am not saying she is absolutely right.  I am saying it is possible she is right.  It is also possible she is wrong.


So after all that you still don't understand why I'm discrediting it huh? I made a point to mention it's not about her being right in the very same post.



> The fact that she never actually said invulnerable doesn't change my point, but it does change how probable I think him being invulnerable is.  I still think he could probably take Radditz's attacks, just because I got the general idea from the movie that he is supposed to only be vulnerable near her and the perfect protector of Earth when not.  Now most of my view is based on the plot, and because of how casually he stopped the train.


Argument from belief.
None of that is solid proof of him being invulnerable, it's your own speculation.
Now that we got the fact that she never mentioned invunerability out of the way, it's pretty much BS.



> Overall my point is that using only feats, and assuming they can't do anything not shown in feats is inaccurate.  Even if I'm 100% wrong about Hancock being invulnerable, or even immortal, it doesn't change that point.


Never did I even hint to accepting that line of logic, the problem with your argument is that for starters, it's baseless because he was never said to be invulnerable, second, he hasn't shown anything remotely in Raditz league of destruction, and finally there are things that even contradict he being completely invulnerable.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

I've read all of the logical fallacies.  I understand them, apparently better than you do.  I haven't tried to prove a single thing this whole thread.  I haven't tried to _prove _he is invincible because I believe he is.  I haven't tried to _prove _he is invincible because he has shown no limit.  All of those fallacies haven't applied because I am not trying to provide solid proof that he is.  In my first post here I stated 





> With absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and with a handful for the positive it is more than _reasonable _to say he is _probably _actually invincible.


I am not trying to provide proof via no limit that he is invincible.  I am saying that it is in the realm of possibility.  While you guys have tried to say it is not.

The only reason I'm forced to approach ad nauseum is because you guys have been attacking a Strawman since the very beginning and I am trying to explain my side as clearly as possible, and you guys can't get it.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 15, 2008)

Obviously you don't understand them. You were all like this way of debating isn't accurate and taking possibilities in this situation is. Well it isn't.

SOme of those were directed at HXOP.

You tried to prove that Hancock being invincible is a possibility and that you believe it so you think Hancock wins. Shit.

Stop talking of possibilities what so ever because that is shit here as the fallacies I put show.

I fucking said you aren't even using strawman much, that was directed at HXOP.

Others you use alot. To get your "point" across. Even if you aren't trying to prove anything but just trying to point something out, using shaky shit makes even that comment shit and I was just trying to tell you to stop saying stuff like that because it is embarrassing.


----------



## Kamen Rider Godzilla (Jul 15, 2008)

Since the reading comprehension in this thread is so low it'd make a first grader twinge, I'll simplify what Gooba is trying to say for you.

With the current level of evidence (which is very little), giving a definite level to Hancocks abilities is impossible.  It's impossible to state who will DEFINITELY win a match with him, because at this moment there is just not enough evidence.  Saying the most he can take is a train is wrong since he casually shrugged that train off, meaning that he would be able to take at least a deal more than that train without serious injury.  Since we don't know how much more than that train he can take, automatically saying he could take Raditz hits is also wrong.

In short, trying to say exactly who will win is impossible, the most we can do is say who we think will probably win, or at least it's possible for him to win.  Probably/possible =/= will, Gooba never said that Hancock would definitely win.  There is no way currently to say who would definitely win.


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

I honestly don't see why your still harping the invincible strings (yes, even the possiblity of it) when I've noted several blatant contradictions in the movie itself.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 15, 2008)

Snake Plissken said:


> Since the reading comprehension in this thread is so low it'd make a first grader twinge, I'll simplify what Gooba is trying to say for you.
> 
> With the current level of evidence (which is very little), giving a definite level to Hancocks abilities is impossible.  It's impossible to state who will DEFINITELY win a match with him, because at this moment there is just not enough evidence.  Saying the most he can take is a train is wrong since he casually shrugged that train off, meaning that he would be able to take at least a deal more than that train without serious injury.  Since we don't know how much more than that train he can take, automatically saying he could take Raditz hits is also wrong.
> 
> In short, trying to say exactly who will win is impossible, the most we can do is say who we think will probably win, or at least it's possible for him to win.  Probably/possible =/= will, Gooba never said that Hancock would definitely win.  There is no way currently to say who would definitely win.




Honestly, do you think I am fucking stupid? I would agree with you guys on normal circumstances but this is the fucking OBD and in here, feats are what we go by, not fucking possibilties.We know this shit is impossible and so the OBD made a system to make as much as possible and this is the system. Might not be so great all the times, like in this case, but we fucking use it. So please understand how the OBD works and get use to it.

K, thanks, bye.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

> Obviously you don't understand them. You were all like this way of debating isn't accurate and taking possibilities in this situation is. Well it isn't.


Saying it isn't isn't an argument.  I do understand them, and I am arguing in a way that doesn't have them apply strictly.  Trying to strictly apply them to my statements shows you don't understand.



> You tried to prove that Hancock being invincible is a possibility and that you believe it so you think Hancock *possibly *wins. Shit.


Small correction, but it makes all the different.



> Stop talking of possibilities what so ever because that is shit here as the fallacies I put show.


Fallacies don't apply to possibilities.  Well, they do, but only to disproving them which I'm not trying to do.



> I fucking said you aren't even using strawman much, that was directed at HXOP.


I know, I am saying you guys are because even in this latest post of yours you misinterpret my argument.



> Others you use alot. To get your "point" across. Even if you aren't trying to prove anything but just trying to point something out, using shaky shit makes even that comment shit and I was just trying to tell you to stop saying stuff like that because it is embarrassing.


It isn't, because I'm right.  Using shaky shit is enough to justify possibilities, but not enough to justify definites.  You guys saying Hancock would definitely be destroyed are actually based off less evidence than anything I've said, and thus it is even shakier shit.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 15, 2008)

Tash said:


> I honestly don't see why your still harping the invincible strings (yes, even the possiblity of it) when I've noted several blatant contradictions in the movie itself.


He might not be completely invincible, but you still cannot rate out the possibility that he is still a good amount invulnerable...


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

> Honestly, do you think I am fucking stupid? I would agree with you guys on normal circumstances but this is the fucking OBD and in here, feats are what we go by, not fucking possibilties.We know this shit is impossible and so the OBD made a system to make as much as possible and this is the system. Might not be so great all the times, like in this case, but we fucking use it. So please understand how the OBD works and get use to it.


Before this system was in place there was one before it which was more inaccurate than this one.  It was reformed and has been improved towards being more accurate.  Now that it seems most of you do have a good understanding of the strict use of fallacies I thought we could up the level of discourse to the more masterful use of them and come to even better conclusions.  I see that I was wrong.  I'm sorry for trying to be the Black Monolith to this group of Daves in the bedroom.  I misjudged where this place was developmentally.


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Partly invincible/invulnerable is the same as being a little pregnant. You either are, or you are not.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

> Partly invincible/invulnerable is the same as being a little pregnant. You either are, or you are not.


I agree, but you still haven't convinced me that getting drunk = not invulnerable because I refuse to agree that inebriation is a vulnerability in the same sense that damage invulnerability protects you from.  The same way an invulnerable person can still feel emotional pain.  Also, Pengu was probably meaning super-durable, the term comics have taught us is a synonym for invincible.


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

There's really nothing to convince, the facts stand on their own.
He was never called invincible or invulnerable.
A toxin overcame his bodily defenses, which is a direct contradiction to the term.
And the defenition of invulnerable never applied to your mental state to begin with.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 15, 2008)

Tash said:


> Partly invincible/invulnerable is the same as being a little pregnant. You either are, or you are not.


Ok, so then we need a different word then...

Hancock might be be able to deflect/withstand all earth technology, but he might not be able to go up against anything greater, we don't know.

It's like taking bullet proof vest and shooting it. Is it invulnerable? no, it's just made to withstand bullets. But what happens to the vest when we hit it with a ki blast? well you would think it'd go away, but have you ever seen a bullet proof vest get hit with a ki blast? No? So you can't prove that. It's the same scenario!!!

EDIT: 





Gooba said:


> Also, Pengu was probably meaning super-durable, the term comics have taught us is a synonym for invincible.



Thank you! "Super-Durable" is perfect!!!


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

> A toxin overcame his bodily defenses, which is a direct contradiction to the term.
> And the defenition of invulnerable never applied to your mental state to begin with.


Getting drunk isn't something your bodily defenses try and fight against.  You immune system is not used.  Also, getting drunk is affecting your mental state so if that isn't used you just proved my point.  Getting drunk changes the chemical makeup of your brain, so does getting sad or depressed.  Now if we saw that he had liver damage, or that brain cells were dying I'd agree with you, but we only saw his behavior shift.  You still have yet to prove to me that getting drunk is a toxin damaging his body.  The science might be out there and I might be ignorant to it.  If you find it I'd admit defeat on his complete invincibility.  However, as it stands, that isn't evidence against.

Another thing is that if they were made to be the timeless defenders of Earth, they would have to be more durable than anything humanity can throw at them.  Since humans could nuke them now, and who knows how powerful we will get in the future, he'd have to have a rather ridiculous max to insure he can serve his god given purpose.


----------



## Fang (Jul 15, 2008)

Except for the fact that your immune system has antibodies to fight against foreign elements in your bloodstream.


----------



## BIGASIA (Jul 15, 2008)

im sorry but raditz wins...


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Getting drunk isn't something your bodily defenses try and fight against.  You immune system is not used.  Also, getting drunk is affecting your mental state so if that isn't used you just proved my point.  Getting drunk changes the chemical makeup of your brain, so does getting sad or depressed.  Now if we saw that he had liver damage, or that brain cells were dying I'd agree with you, but we only saw his behavior shift.  You still have yet to prove to me that getting drunk is a toxin damaging his body.  The science might be out there and I might be ignorant to it.  If you find it I'd admit defeat on his complete invincibility.  However, as it stands, that isn't evidence against.


Yea, emotional effects are 1 part of being drunk, so are the physical effects. It's not even that a toxin did considerable damage to his body, it's that a body which is supposed to be immune to all forms of attack succumbed to it. As a matter of fact, him showing the short term effects of alcohol would by definition make it possible for his body to suffer the long term effects.



> Another thing is that if they were made to be the timeless defenders of Earth, they would have to be more durable than anything humanity can throw at them.  Since humans could nuke them now, and who knows how powerful we will get in the future, he'd have to have a rather ridiculous max to insure he can serve his god given purpose.



Assuming of course that we all lived in a perfect world where everything did as it was supposed to, maybe.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 15, 2008)

> Yea, emotional effects are 1 part of being drunk, so are the physical effects. It's not even that a toxin did considerable damage to his body, it's that a body which is supposed to be immune to all forms of attack succumbed to it. As a matter of fact, him showing the short term effects of alcohol would by definition make it possible for his body to suffer the long term effects.


Actually no, the effects are caused by different things.  The long term effects are caused by damage, the short term ones are caused by changes in body chemistry which by themselves aren't harmful.  Getting drunk isn't succumbing to a form of attack, it is allowing something you eat to change your body chemistry in a non damaging way.  It slows down the metabolism of glucose in the brain which causes your eyes to get blurry.  It makes you dizzy because it changes the density in your inner ear and makes you think you are spinning.  This isn't an attack, this is just a change in your body chemistry which happens whenever you eat anything.  It just happens that this one is considered imparing.  It is like saying that chocolate causing your brain to release the pleasure chemical is an attack, it is different.

The long term effects are caused by cells dying in the liver.  If this happens to Hancock I'd agree he isn't invulnerable because of it.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 15, 2008)

After watching the movie, and given the limited feats, it is impossible to determine the victor of this fight.


----------



## Tash (Jul 15, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Actually no, the effects are caused by different things.  The long term effects are caused by damage, the short term ones are caused by changes in body chemistry which by themselves aren't harmful.  Getting drunk isn't succumbing to a form of attack, it is allowing something you eat to change your body chemistry in a non damaging way.  It slows down the metabolism of glucose in the brain which causes your eyes to get blurry.  It makes you dizzy because it changes the density in your inner ear and makes you think you are spinning.  This isn't an attack, this is just a change in your body chemistry which happens whenever you eat anything.  It just happens that this one is considered imparing.  It is like saying that chocolate causing your brain to release the pleasure chemical is an attack, it is different.
> 
> The long term effects are caused by cells dying in the liver.  If this happens to Hancock I'd agree he isn't invulnerable because of it.



The short term effects are direct cause for the long-term. The constant release of insulin from the liver is what eventually causes it to fail. But all that aside, by definition, a poison should not have any effect on somebody with a body impervious to any and all possible harm. And in the end it's really futile discussion when there's nothing that logically suggest he is anything more than incredibly durable.


----------



## Darts (Jul 15, 2008)

Does it take someone who's invulnerable to beat Raditz now? 

This fight is as stupid as those Naruto Battledome fights with Pein, _pre-timeskip_

And for anyone who needs to explain to someone what irony is in the future and needs a perfect example, refer to them thegoodjae's posts.


----------



## Rashou (Jul 16, 2008)

After reading through this thread I have to say that I'm in agreement with thegoodjae, Tash, Mirai Gohan, and a handful of other people when they say that the possibility of invulnerability is a moot point. I won't say it's fallacious, not in the real world, but considering this is the Outskirt's Battledome... Yeah, it's pretty pointless to pursue the thought. 

Not only does the argument hinge on a fallible character's statement (one who has limited knowledge of the phenomenon in the first place- she doesn't even know _who or what_ created them, much less the true motives behind their creation) but the statement itself only mentioned immortality, didn't it? 

Then there's the inherent disconnect in going with a 'it's a possibility' stance considering all other matches in the OBD don't follow the same stance. We don't assume that Ganon can only be hurt by the Master Sword, or that just because a character is said to be unbeatable he will never lose a match. Not just because their fallible statements and no-limits fallacies, but because the matches would instantly be kind of moot if we continued saying that we can't determine anything given what we've seen, but that a character might or might not be unbeatable or some such. 

For the sake of rational matches to which an accurate (but _not_ final or infallible) conclusion can be reached, I think it would be best to assume that Hancock isn't invulnerable to the extent of taking any more damage than what he's taken in the movie. After all, leaving the possibility of him being invincible up for debate in the OBD will detract from actual _topic's_ debate and give us a 12 page topic arguing almost solely on whether or not the possibility exists.

EDIT: And as to the match, Raditz would win in the logical scenario that Hancock isn't invulnerable. Although even if Hancock is invulnerable, he's not going to be able to hurt Raditz.


----------



## Naruto Uzumaki (Jul 16, 2008)

Handcock, pwns.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Before this system was in place there was one before it which was more inaccurate than this one.  It was reformed and has been improved towards being more accurate.  Now that it seems most of you do have a good understanding of the strict use of fallacies I thought we could up the level of discourse to the more masterful use of them and come to even better conclusions.  I see that I was wrong.  I'm sorry for trying to be the Black Monolith to this group of Daves in the bedroom.  I misjudged where this place was developmentally.



Really, you didn't misjudge anything.

You are just trying to tweak your own system to get your win because I used the actual fallacy statements and showed about ten different ways you guys were wrong and now yu go, " I SWITCH SYSTEM JUS NAO CUZ I THOUGHT U SMART FO DAT!" I mean, what type of shit is this? This system works the best and if you go with your new possibility shit system, every single battle will have a UM POSSIBILITY BLA BLA ending where there is no clear cut answer or conclusion. Sure this system isn't perfect but is a hell of a lot better than the system you are trying to use. That system will create shit in the OBD that was actually the reason why we use the system we have now. Because of shit possibility arguments you are trying to bring back. So please STOP.

K? k.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2008)

About getting drunk
You people are all wrong
Alcohol is something that activates the senses. Getting drunk is a sensorial reaction, not a poisoning one. It's like feeling angry when you see red.
Giddyness and so on, is the body sensing alcohol.
A consequence of having ethanol in your bloodstream is liver kidney and brain damage, but, because he manages over 80 years of being a wine-o, it prooves it does no damage to him.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

...-_-



Excessive consumption of alcohol leads to a toxication-induced delayed poisoning called hangover (in Latin, crapula refers to intoxication and hangover) and represents the inhibited state of the brain in the initial phases of addiction. Various factors contribute, including the toxication of ethanol itself to acetaldehyde, the direct toxic effects and toxication of impurities called congeners,[2] and dehydration. Hangover starts after the euphoric effects of alcohol itself have subsided, typically in the night and morning after alcoholic drinks were consumed. However, the blood alcohol concentration may still be substantial and above the limits imposed for drivers and operators of other dangerous equipment. Hangover subsides during the day. Various treatments, many of them pseudoscientific, are presented to "cure hangover". However, activities such as driving are still dangerous.

 Hangover much?


----------



## Apollo (Jul 16, 2008)

If you say Hancock loses you're a racist~!


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 16, 2008)

Apollo said:


> If you say Hancock loses you're a racist~!


Raditz is a Saiyan, that means he's a different species. So if you say saying Hancock loses is racist, then I say saying Raditz loses is specist...


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> ...-_-


Lol, wikipedia


> Excessive consumption of alcohol leads to a toxication-induced delayed poisoning called hangover (in Latin, crapula refers to intoxication and hangover) and represents the inhibited state of the brain in the initial phases of addiction.


 Not prooven wrong yet. And when did you see Hancock hung over? The one time we see him drink he's still drunk off his ass.
Plus, hangover is sensorial response the change in the threshold of the absence of Alchohol. Not a damaging poison.


> Various factors contribute, including the toxication of ethanol itself to acetaldehyde, the direct toxic effects and toxication of impurities called congeners,[2] and dehydration. Hangover starts after the euphoric effects of alcohol itself have subsided, typically in the night and morning after alcoholic drinks were consumed.


Wich is medical jargon for what I said


> However, the blood alcohol concentration may still be substantial and above the limits imposed for drivers and operators of other dangerous equipment. Hangover subsides during the day


Yes. Because alcohol leaves the human body at the rate of one gram per hour. So the sensory change variates acordingly. Still, prooves no damage to Hancock's body


> Various treatments, many of them pseudoscientific, are presented to "cure hangover". However, activities such as driving are still dangerous.



Your source is stating that hangovers cannot be healed. Wich is pretty normal because they aren't a wound.


----------



## Darts (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Really, you didn't misjudge anything.
> 
> You are just trying to tweak your own system to get your win because I used the actual fallacy statements and showed about ten different ways you guys were wrong and now yu go, " I SWITCH SYSTEM JUS NAO CUZ I THOUGHT U SMART FO DAT!" I mean, what type of shit is this? This system works the best and if you go with your new possibility shit system, every single battle will have a UM POSSIBILITY BLA BLA ending where there is no *clear cut answer or conclusion*. Sure this system isn't perfect but is a hell of a lot better than the system you are trying to use. That system will create shit *in the OBD* that was actually the reason why we use the system we have now. Because of shit possibility arguments you are trying to bring back. So please STOP.
> 
> K? k.


lol 
limit


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

Genius! Boldy random parts of my paragraph to make me look dumb leaving the rest out! How did you ever come up with that idea?


----------



## Gooba (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Really, you didn't misjudge anything.
> 
> You are just trying to tweak your own system to get your win because I used the actual fallacy statements and showed about ten different ways you guys were wrong and now yu go, " I SWITCH SYSTEM JUS NAO CUZ I THOUGHT U SMART FO DAT!" I mean, what type of shit is this? This system works the best and if you go with your new possibility shit system, every single battle will have a UM POSSIBILITY BLA BLA ending where there is no clear cut answer or conclusion. Sure this system isn't perfect but is a hell of a lot better than the system you are trying to use. That system will create shit in the OBD that was actually the reason why we use the system we have now. Because of shit possibility arguments you are trying to bring back. So please STOP.
> 
> K? k.


Actually, the whole reason I got into this debate was because I wanted to get beyond the flawed fallacy system currently in place.  This system works the best only if the people debating aren't good enough to handle cogency.  If they can it is much more accurate.  Sure there won't be clear cut answers at the end, because there _shouldn't_ be.  We never have enough to make clear cut answers, although we get pretty damn close in some cases such as Goku vs Naruto.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2008)

Abstract reasoning of comics and action movies?
For the love of Gooba


----------



## Darts (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Genius! Boldy random parts of my paragraph to make me look dumb leaving the rest out! How did you ever come up with that idea?


I don't specialize in spoon feeding but apparently you can't draw a simple connection between OBD and clear cut conclusions.
They don't mix.
If the outcome is obvious, why the hell are you making the topic? We don't need countless spinfoffs of Naruto vs fodder fight just so you can see you favourite characters win.
As with this fight, the clear cut answer is 50/50, which is why the fight is stupid.
Oh and if you meant clear cut in the sense that someone has to win 100%, which is what I think you're doing (whoever with better feats wins), I'd lol.
So uhh, fodder ninja A has shown he could kill fodder B, while Konan has managed to miss a shuriken, thus fodder A wins?


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

Gooba said:


> Actually, the whole reason I got into this debate was because I wanted to get beyond the flawed fallacy system currently in place.  This system works the best only if the people debating aren't good enough to handle cogency.  If they can it is much more accurate.  Sure there won't be clear cut answers at the end, because there _shouldn't_ be.  We never have enough to make clear cut answers, although we get pretty damn close in some cases such as Goku vs Naruto.



WE try to make them clear cut as possible. That is the fucking point. Why ask if you don't even expect a fucking answer?

Look, I know and can handle fucking cogency but you should know half the OBD is fucking two cent brained idiots and this cogency shit won't work for more than two fucking days before chaos happens. OBD set a strict system and even if you don't want to do it, you should.

@Darts: lol you thinking I'm fucking stupid. Obviously people ask so they can get a fucking answer and this possibility shit isn't the way to go, as you can see. Your example on showing why fodder A and shit stuff is stupid since you think I don't even recognize different level of speed toss and shit and fodderness but w/e.

Anyways, this is what happened.

Someone similar to Hancock went we are god.
Hancock can live forever(not at the least impressive, several hundreds of cahracters can live forever but gets fucking killed)
okay regen(isn't great like Wolverine or anything)
good strength(whale toss)
good defense(stop train)

YAH OKAY HE INVINCIBLE. HE CAN TANK MOUNTAIN BUSTA CAUSE YU KNA HE WAS SAID TO BE INVINCIBLE AND DID SUM STRUN STUFF!

Fuck that. No feat.


----------



## Darts (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> @Darts: lol you thinking I'm fucking stupid. Obviously people ask so they can get a fucking answer and this possibility shit isn't the way to go, as you can see.


So uh we know absolutely nothing about this one guy, therefore he loses automatically against anyone you know about? Right on.



> Your example on showing why fodder A and shit stuff is stupid since you think I don't even recognize different level of speed toss and shit and fodderness but w/e.


Come again?



> Anyways, this is what happened.
> 
> Someone similar to Hancock went we are god.
> Hancock can live forever(not at the least impressive, several hundreds of cahracters can live forever but gets fucking killed)
> ...


Yea except no. He did these effortlessly. Unless you can name one thing that shows his limit, nobody wins.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

Yea except no is a VERY GREAT WAY TO FUCKING DEBATE. 

lol that is why we made a fucking system. So we can have a better answer or at least an answer. That until proven, can't do it.

You are trying to put the burden of proof by going he did it without trying sooo he doesn't have limit soo we don't know if people like Galactus can kill him cause yah he did it with out tryin right? Yeah thank you come again.


----------



## Gooba (Jul 16, 2008)

You guys don't get a better answer, but you do get a clear answer.  I think getting the better one is... better.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Yea except no is a VERY GREAT WAY TO FUCKING DEBATE.
> 
> lol that is why we made a fucking system. So we can have a better answer or at least an answer. That until proven, can't do it.
> 
> You are trying to put the burden of proof by going he did it without trying sooo he doesn't have limit soo we don't know if people like Galactus can kill him cause yah he did it with out tryin right? Yeah thank you come again.








Stop flame baitin man.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2008)

I'dd rep if I could


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Stop flame baitin man.



This post is fucking halarious seeing as how you served no purpose to the thread while I was actually showing how it was not probably that Hancock is not invincible. So please as of now, go fucking learn to stop trolling.

@Gooba: Your answer isn't even a real answer though.

Anyways, thinking of it now, Hancock is PROBABLY not invincible.

Think about it.

He met some crazy chick saying she is old and has powers like him.

Says they were called god and angels(why the fuck an angel?).

They can be weakened.

They don't age. Which is complete shit in a battle.e

Okay healing factor(which kinda proves they are not invincible).

Threw a whale easily. Low tier strength.

Stopped a train easily. Low tier defense.

They are the strongest in their universe most likely, which is why they assume they are the shit and can tank anything, since they can deal the most damage they ever seen, but in reality, they never had to deal with country busters and such to test their durability nor had to deal with anyone that powerful.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> This post is fucking halarious seeing as how you served no purpose to the thread while I was actually showing how it was not probably that Hancock is not invincible. So please as of now, go fucking learn to stop trolling.
> 
> @Gooba: Your answer isn't even a real answer though.
> 
> ...


Stop flamebaiting.

I am just spectating not trolling, I see you have been flamebaiting in your last few posts so I kindly asked you to stop.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

AS kind as you seem, you are not fucking producing anything in this thread, which means you are flame baiting yourself.

I just gave a logical reason why Hancock is probably not invincible as well as the burden of proof is on you guys, so please stop saying DONT FLAMEBAIT and start debating.

Understand? Is that too hard? Probably so.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> AS kind as you seem, you are not fucking producing anything in this thread, which means you are flame baiting yourself.
> 
> I just gave a logical reason why Hancock is probably not invincible as well as the burden of proof is on you guys, so please stop saying DONT FLAMEBAIT and start debating.
> 
> Understand? Is that too hard? Probably so.


Like I said, I'm just spectating, I do not want to debate.

I just have been reading your last few posts and notice you have been flamebaiting, and kindly asked you to stop.


----------



## strongarm85 (Jul 16, 2008)

Post 250!

Dang this has been going back and forth for a while now.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

Hunter x One Piece said:


> Like I said, I'm just spectating, I do not want to debate.
> 
> I just have been reading your last few posts and notice you have been flamebaiting, and kindly asked you to stop.



I'm not really flamebaiting. Only you are by posting without a reason but to aggrivate someone. You are pretty good at it too.

Watch out or you might get banned mkay? Just saying I been here for a while and you can fucking spectate without posting comments so please do.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 16, 2008)

I think going to the moond and blasting off a sign that could be seen from earth within a month was a pretty neat feat to his durability
Plus, where did he get all that red paint?
My best guess, he went to mars to get it.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

All that calculation would have to be solved to show durability. I'm not doing it.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> I'm not really flamebaiting. Only you are by posting without a reason but to aggrivate someone. You are pretty good at it too.
> 
> Watch out or you might get banned mkay? Just saying I been here for a while and you can fucking spectate without posting comments so please do.


I'm not trying to aggrivate you.

I just asked you to stop flame baiting.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 16, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



haha, Mars would be a pretty nice feat indeed. Although I think it was just paint...maybe he has paint vision?


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

Sorry if you don't like my style of debating, that is just how it freaking is. Some people debate better this way, and if you can't accept that, you are naive.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Sorry if you don't like my style of debating, that is just how it freaking is. Some people debate better this way, and if you can't accept that, you are naive.


You can't debate without flame baiting?


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 16, 2008)

I don't think you understand flamebaiting. What you are doing now is flamebaiting. Talking shit for no reason.

I use heated debates. My first reason for posting is to get my debating point across while I am a bit aggrivated.

Flame baiting is when the purpose of the post is the bait someone to flame. Difference. Please telll me you can see it.


----------



## Darts (Jul 16, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Yea except no is a VERY GREAT WAY TO FUCKING DEBATE.


It's as good as leaving caps lock on so people would actually read through your shit.



> lol that is why we made a fucking system. So we can have a better answer or at least an answer. That until proven, can't do it.


Are you kidding me? So since we knew jack shit about most of Akatsuki pre-time skip, while we've seen TenTen or some other fodder show some feat,  the fodder wins? That's definitely the better answer.



> You are trying to put the burden of proof by going he did it without trying sooo he doesn't have limit soo we don't know if people like Galactus can kill him cause yah he did it with out tryin right? Yeah thank you come again.


Why would I have the burden of proof? I am not even trying to prove anything because I dont know. You need to show how Raditz is going to win despite knowing nothing about Hancock's limits.

Not familiar with Galactus, but if he can be beaten physical then yes, we wouldn't know.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 17, 2008)

Know when they are same fucking universe and classes are given it is fucking different.

You need to show Hancock can tank mountain busting feats.

If you don't know Galactus, you don't know the fucking OBD. lol at you thinking Hancock can touch Galactus.


----------



## Apollo (Jul 17, 2008)

Even if Hancock were completely invulnerable he has no chance of beating Galactus.


----------



## Darts (Jul 17, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Know when they are same fucking universe and classes are given it is fucking different.


English?



> You need to show Hancock can tank mountain busting feats.


Oh look I can play this game too.


> Why would I have the burden of proof? I am not even trying to prove anything because I dont know. You need to show how Raditz is going to win despite knowing nothing about Hancock's limits.





> If you don't know Galactus, you don't know the fucking OBD. lol at you thinking Hancock can touch Galactus.


Just like if you don't determine the winner solely with feats, you don't know the OBD. Am I right?


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 17, 2008)

Oh, so you aren't even debating?

Not really, you are wrong. Too bad we actually go with feats and burden of proof is the person trying to prove feats. If you aren't trying to prove Hancock can take mountain blasting attacks and just decide to accept defeat, w/e, I'll stop posting.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 17, 2008)

I think the fact that hurricanes occured just by pissing off Mary is a true testimony that the extent of their powers is far beyond what was shown


----------



## Fang (Jul 17, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> I think the fact that hurricanes occured just by pissing off Mary is a true testimony that the extent of their powers is far beyond what was shown



You mean those crappy twisters that were size of buildings that did little in collateral damage other then screwing up the faces of buildings and causing craters in pavement and concrete throughout the city?

Or are you still trying to play off the argument that a guy who tanks mountain busting attacks is going to get his head chopped off by Hancock throwning a disc at him?


----------



## Darts (Jul 17, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Oh, so you aren't even debating?


I'll ask again.


> Know when they are same fucking universe and classes are given it is fucking different.


What?



> Not really, you are wrong. Too bad we actually go with feats and burden of proof is the person trying to prove feats. If you aren't trying to prove Hancock can take mountain blasting attacks and just decide to accept defeat, w/e, I'll stop posting.


It's obvious that I am speaking to a monkey. 

I think the question is, if Raditz invades Hancock 2, would you be surprised?
Is anyone going to go "PLOT HOLE", "BAD WRITING", etc? Seriously.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 17, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Know when they are same fucking universe and classes are given it is fucking different.


He means if two characters are of the same universe (like your Tenten vs. Akatsuki pre-skip example), you already know that Tenten can't beat an S-Rank missing Nin. But since Raditz and Hancock are from different universes, this situation is different...


----------



## Darts (Jul 17, 2008)

Pengu-Yasha said:


> He means if two characters are of the same universe (like your Tenten vs. Akatsuki pre-skip example), you already know that Tenten can't beat an S-Rank missing Nin. But since Raditz and Hancock are from different universes, this situation is different...


I wanted him to confirm it but okay.
1. Who said Akatsuki=all S-Rank missing nins?
2. Credibility? Nobody even knew who the majority of the members were.
3. Since Team snake is now in Akatsuki, are they S-rank too? lol

Feats only is stupid no matter how you look at it.


----------



## vagnard (Jul 18, 2008)

Will Smith lose by default


----------



## Tash (Jul 18, 2008)

Darts said:


> I wanted him to confirm it but okay.
> 1. Who said Akatsuki=all S-Rank missing nins?


Jiraiya did I believe.




> 2. Credibility? Nobody even knew who the majority of the members were.


Jiraiya knew just about everyone except pain.




> 3. Since Team snake is now in Akatsuki, are they S-rank too? lol


Considering their ties to Orochimaru they should be. Hell, even Zabuza was S rank. It's not like that level of power is something amazing.



> Feats only is stupid no matter how you look at it.



You probably won't like it here.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 18, 2008)

Darts said:


> I wanted him to confirm it but okay.
> 1. Who said Akatsuki=all S-Rank missing nins?
> 2. Credibility? Nobody even knew who the majority of the members were.
> 3. Since Team snake is now in Akatsuki, are they S-rank too? lol
> ...



lol get the fuck out the OBD if you don't like feats only. It's been like that forever


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 18, 2008)

even if hancock cant die he wont be able to hurt raditz meaning that raditz can use him as a punching bag.


----------



## Darts (Jul 18, 2008)

Tash said:


> Jiraiya knew just about everyone except pain.


Source?
Even if it were true, it's still irrelevant. 



> Considering their ties to Orochimaru they should be.


Weak.



> Hell, even Zabuza was S rank. It's not like that level of power is something amazing.


Source?
So should Kakashi and Gai be S-rank pre-time skip now?



> ol get the fuck out the OBD if you don't like feats only. It's been like that forever


You stay out of Hancock and I'll stay out of Galactus, how about that?
And lol Tenten wins.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 18, 2008)

lol you are pretty much red herring but mkay, you support fallacies so i'm goin to stop here because it is pointless.


----------



## Hamaru (Jul 18, 2008)

Going by what their feats are only, I would go with Handcock. He tanked every hit like it was nothing and unless lala is around him he cant die.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 18, 2008)

.

Hancock never showed to take hits as big as Raditz can dish. About the invincibility shit, I already explained how Hancock's race probably never had to deal with mountain+ buster attacks daily and that the damage they can dish is the highest level of damage they feel is possible in their own universe, which isn't enough to hurt them, so that is why they call themselves invincible.

I mean that added with the fact that he lacks feats of actually having the durability needed, than Hancock loses.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jul 18, 2008)

Thread will never end, but I'll post my opi anyway.

Mary died, she had no brain/heart function, and came back to life when Hancock moved away in the hospital. Hence when the opossite isn't around they removed/negate death, and damage. Therefore, Immortality//invincibility = stated/ shown/proven, with nothing to contradict it in the movie.

Heck,  the writers specifically put in the scene showing Hancock had unhealed scars to indicate he is immortal and invincble, sans condition. That is to say, if you possessed spontaneous or rapid regeneration then the wounds should not be there. However, if you were only vulnerable under a condition, the damage would remain in superficial nature, as per the condition.

Invincibility...
'Hancock" verse exist in the real world where nukes and many weapons of mass destruction are present. Hancock is the protector of Earth, he is at least at that level of tank humanity could dish out with our weapons.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 18, 2008)

Immortality=/=invincibility.


Not really he isn't. he can stop it before it happens but as far as tanking it? Never shown.

Batman was protector of Gotham so I'm sure he can tank Bazookas and stuff right? :/

Anyways, you are right. This thread won't end so I'll just give up trying to get my point across as well as you guys should too. It is a rinse and repeat process now.


----------



## Tash (Jul 18, 2008)

Darts said:


> Source?
> Even if it were true, it's still irrelevant.


The manga



> Weak.


Crappy rebuttal, but if Sasuke effectively killing Orochimaru should be proof enough.



> Source?


The manga.



> So should Kakashi and Gai be S-rank pre-time skip now?



Nope, only missing ninja recieve that type of rank.


----------



## Tash (Jul 18, 2008)

Redux-shika boo said:


> Thread will never end, but I'll post my opi anyway.
> 
> Mary died, she had no brain/heart function, and came back to life when Hancock moved away in the hospital. Hence when the opossite isn't around they removed/negate death, and damage. Therefore, Immortality//invincibility = stated/ shown/proven, with nothing to contradict it in the movie.
> 
> ...



You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 18, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> Batman was protector of Gotham so I'm sure he can tank Bazookas and stuff right? :/


Yes, but was Batman/Bruce himself created for the sole purpose of being a protector? No, he's just a human that became motivated and had the drive to fight crime against all odds (plus he's smart and rich, so that helps too ).

Hancock, on the other hand, is said to be the protector of Earth and so since he was created for that purpose, he should be able to tank anything made here (which includes nukes and such). On the other hand Raditz, being a Saiyan, is not of the Earth so there's no way of knowing if he can survive a mountain busting ki blast. But what Redux is saying is that if he can survive a nuke, he should be able to survive a mountain busting attack...


----------



## Fang (Jul 18, 2008)

None of the statements pertained about anything involving nuclear devices or megaton level convential warheads.

Mary's memory isn't infalliable, she doesn't know why their kind was created, how, what reasons, or what their limitations are.

Simple.


----------



## Tash (Jul 18, 2008)

Pengu-Yasha said:


> Yes, but was Batman/Bruce himself created for the sole purpose of being a protector. No, he just a human that became motivated and had the drive to fight crime against all odds (plus he's smart and rich, so that helps too ).
> 
> Hancock, on the other hand, is said to be the protector of Earth and so since he was created for that purpose, he should be able to tank anything made here (which includes nukes and such). On the other hand Raditz, being a Saiyan, is not of the Earth so there's no way of knowing if he can survive a mountain busting ki blast. But what Redux is saying is that if he can survive a nuke, he should be able to survive a mountain busting attack...



You can rephrase it a hundred times, it's still a non-sequitor. I'm gonna take this pen in my hand, tape it to a wall for the purpose of curing world hunger, that doesn't mean it will work.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jul 18, 2008)

Tash said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about.



Thanx all knowing and all seeing Tash. I will take your words as absolutle truth.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 18, 2008)

I still think that there's no rock solid answer, and until we see Hancock take on a Z Warrior, we wont have one...

And even if Hancock can't withstand a mountain buster, he still might be able to dodge them given his impressive speed. He also thinks outside the box and his tactics (or lack of them) might catch Raditz off guard and Hancock can kill him...or shove his head up some one's arse...


----------



## Tash (Jul 18, 2008)

Redux-shika boo said:


> Thanx all knowing and all seeing Tash. I will take your words as absolutle truth.


You're welcome come again.


Pengu-Yasha said:


> I still think that there's no rock solid answer, and until we see Hancock take on a Z Warrior, we wont have one...
> 
> And even if Hancock can't withstand a mountain buster, he still might be able to dodge them given his impressive speed. He also thinks outside the box and his tactics (or lack of them) might catch Raditz off guard and Hancock can kill him...or shove his head up some one's arse...



Again, your problem is not understanding the premise the OBD runs on. None of the conclusions we come to are fact, some are just more likely than others based on evidence. Which is severely lacking on the Pro-hancock side of the argument.

And saying Hancock's speed is impressive to Raditz is way too generous.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 18, 2008)

lol Roshi and Krillen playing rock paper scissor ftw


----------



## Darts (Jul 18, 2008)

Tash said:


> The manga


Yes, I am supposed to look through 40 volumes to find it. Give me an estimate or concede.



> Crappy rebuttal, but if Sasuke effectively killing Orochimaru should be proof enough.


So Shika, Kabuto and Naruto are S-Rank now too? Fail.
Besides, this is what you said.


> Considering their ties to Orochimaru they should be


How is ties to Oro an indicator of strength? So the Sound 4 are S-rank too now?


----------



## Tash (Jul 18, 2008)

Darts said:


> Yes, I am supposed to look through 40 volumes to find it. Give me an estimate or concede.


When Jiraiya first told Kakashi about the Akatsuki and how he would be taking Naruto under his care.




> So Shika, Kabuto and Naruto are S-Rank now too? Fail.
> Besides, this is what you said.


You have to actually be a renegade ninja from you country to be ranked like that, out of all the people you named the only person who almost fits the bill is Kabuto, who for all intents and purposes should be S-rank when he's on par with Kakashi who beat an S-rank ninja senseless while defending Sakura and the bridge builder.



> How is ties to Oro an indicator of strength?


Because Sasuke killed him.
Because Sasuke considered Orochimaru mediocre.
Because Sasuke considered an S-Rank ninja mediocre.
Because Sasuke then seeks out ninja he feels are talented.
Because those ninja he felt were talented are the current team hawk.



> So the Sound 4 are S-rank too now?


See: Renegade ninja.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 18, 2008)

Tash said:


> You can rephrase it a hundred times, it's still a non-sequitor. I'm gonna take this pen in my hand, tape it to a wall for the purpose of curing world hunger, that doesn't mean it will work.



Then you're not taping hard enough.


----------



## Darts (Jul 18, 2008)

Tash said:


> When Jiraiya first told Kakashi about the Akatsuki and how he would be taking Naruto under his care.


Can't find it. Irrelevant regardless because according to you, he knows everyone except pein. So Tenten beats Pein.



> You have to actually be a renegade ninja from you country to be ranked like that, out of all the people you named the only person who almost fits the bill is Kabuto, who for all intents and purposes should be S-rank when he's on par with Kakashi who beat an S-rank ninja senseless while defending Sakura and the bridge builder.


So are you saying all renegade ninjas are S-ranked?



> Because Sasuke killed him.


Shika and Naruto both have beaten Akatsuki members.



> Because Sasuke considered Orochimaru mediocre.


So did Neji and countless fodders who got their ass kicked after.



> Because Sasuke then seeks out ninja he feels are talented.
> Because those ninja he felt were talented are the current team hawk.


I am guessing the radar is S-rank too.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 18, 2008)

S-Rank means of extreme importance
Much like Loli Nico Robin was worth millions of berri.
If shizune went rogue, she'd be S-Rank because of the classified information in her head alone.

Sasuke sought out ninjas whose special abilities he needed for his plan. He admits that there were many other ninjas far more talented than the ninfobitch that he could have gotten in.


----------



## Tash (Jul 19, 2008)

Darts said:


> Can't find it. Irrelevant regardless because according to you, he knows everyone except pein. So Tenten beats Pein.


What?




> So are you saying all renegade ninjas are S-ranked?


No




> Shika and Naruto both have beaten Akatsuki members.


Yay for them.




> So did Neji


hahahahaha



> and countless fodders who got their ass kicked after.





> countless fodders who got their ass kicked after.





> fodders who got their ass kicked after.





> got their ass kicked after.


This.



> I am guessing the radar is S-rank too.


Care to rip any other parts of my post out of context or are you done?


----------



## Darts (Jul 19, 2008)

Tash said:


> What?


What?



> No


So Zabuza is S rank how?



> Yay for them.


So beating someone, regardless of the circumstances, must mean that they are stronger than them. Got it.



> Care to rip any other parts of my post out of context or are you done?


Never done that. 
Care to stop your selective responses? 



> Because Sasuke killed him.
> Because Sasuke considered Orochimaru mediocre.
> Because Sasuke considered an S-Rank ninja mediocre.
> Because Sasuke then seeks out ninja he feels are talented.
> Because those ninja he felt were talented are the current team hawk.


1. Responded above.
2. Neji>Naruto because he considers him mediocre. Oh wait.
3. Stupid repeat of 3.
4. Karin chosen as his radar. Karin in Akatsuki. Karin=S rank now?

Oh and how is ties to Oro an indicator of strength again?


----------



## Tash (Jul 19, 2008)

Darts said:


> What?


That would be your cue to explain yourself.




> So Zabuza is S rank how?


Durrrr i dunno cuz he iz




> So beating someone, regardless of the circumstances, must mean that they are stronger than them. Got it.


And the strawman bashing continues.




> Never done that.
> Care to stop your selective responses?


Really? Then care to explain why you find the need to go back and readdress the whole point? And it's funny watching you knock down your own points.




> 1. Responded above.
> 2. Neji>Naruto because he considers him mediocre. Oh wait.
> 3. Stupid repeat of 3.
> 4. Karin chosen as his radar. Karin in Akatsuki. Karin=S rank now?
> ...



1. And changes nothing. Sasuke bested him physically and even in his own mind. Which is the difference between your shitty examples, and my own.
2. Stop the sarcasm, you don't have the wit to back up when your example is different than my own, greatly.
3. And there goes Dart, right past the point.
4. Why do you keep asking me if so and so is S-rank? What if she is? Are you going to pull up the cast list and ask me if everybody from Aoba to Yugitois S-rank? Not only is it utterly useless when you still miss that vital detail that makes them elligible for that ranking system in the first place, it's retarded dribble when you'r speaking as if her non-existant performance contradicts it.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 19, 2008)

What does any of this have to do with Hancock vs. Raditz? I believe we've gone on a tangent here...


----------



## strongarm85 (Jul 19, 2008)

Oh I love it. Almost 300 post of people arguing back and forth over which fictional character would kick the others ass.

Will Smith only rarely does sequels (Men in Black 2 being the only one that comes to mind at the moment), so Hancock more than likely wont get any better feats on the big screen. If we ever see what his real limits are, it will most likely be on a completely different format.

In any case for the time being we can only base Hancock's strength and Durability on his best showings and Raditz is more than capable of exceeding Hancock's best defensive showing. Until he has a feat for it, he can't take it.

Raditz takes it.


----------



## Ssj3_Goku (Jul 19, 2008)

thegoodjae said:


> but SHIT isn't allowed and SHIT can't be used as an argument.
> 
> YOu need fucking PROOF. PROOF. NOT SHIT OR POSSIBILTIES. PROOF.



then this thread should have never been created (or any thread with hancock). 

Seriously gooba is right in all his points ( I read up to page 10 so far).


We can say based off the movie that he is immortal / invincible. But you are taking a character out of that and then saying "he has not been tested against this" blah blah. These types of arguments you cannot say who wins against who. Information is lacking and therefore it gets dropped.


----------



## Darts (Jul 19, 2008)

Tash said:


> That would be your cue to explain yourself.


What do you mean what? Choice of words, grammar, reasoning, purpose? 
You see how retarded a "what?" is?



> Durrrr i dunno cuz he iz


Your circular reasoning that Kabuto is S-Rank relies solely on Zabuza being S rank. Horrible.



> Really? Then care to explain why you find the need to go back and readdress the whole point? And it's funny watching you knock down your own points.


How does me going back to readdress the point have anything to do with me ripping your shit out of context?
I wouldn't have to repeat myself if someone wasn't so incompetent. At reading or at debating.



> 1. And changes nothing. Sasuke bested him physically and even in his own mind. Which is the difference between your shitty examples, and my own.


Too bad Oro's body was at its end and he just got back from a fight with KN4.
Try again.



> 2. Stop the sarcasm, you don't have the wit to back up when your example is different than my own, greatly.


Lolz im smrter then u so ur rong. 
Retarded. Learn to debate properly or concede.



> 3. And there goes Dart, right past the point.


50 reasons why you shouldn't be fat.
1. You'd suck at sports
2. You'd suck at basketball
3. You'd suck at soccer
4. You'd suck at ...
5. ... 
6. ...

Sorry. It's a stupid repeat.



> 4. Why do you keep asking me if so and so is S-rank? What if she is? Are you going to pull up the cast list and ask me if everybody from Aoba to Yugitois S-rank? Not only is it utterly useless when you still miss that vital detail that makes them elligible for that ranking system in the first place, it's retarded dribble when you'r speaking as if her non-existant performance contradicts it.


What's the rank system for? Power.
For our purposes, why can't we use it to measure power then? You're basically nitpicking about one completely irrelevant detail. Sorry but if you can assign class 100 strengths to anime characters, you can use the S-rank system for non missing nins.
You're stupid. When did I ever say it contradicts? or that she MUST be S rank? Im saying that since a handful of members aren't proven to be S-rank, it's weak reasoning to say that Pein>Tenten just because he's in Akatsuki.

It's amazing how people still make the same mistake after Gooba's 10 page explanation. A monkey would learn by now.


----------



## Red (Jul 19, 2008)

Hancock is immortal and Physically stronger than radditz. I really honestly don't see why this fight should last more than 3 pages.


----------



## Fang (Jul 19, 2008)

Reload said:


> Hancock is immortal and Physically stronger than radditz. I really honestly don't see why this fight should last more than 3 pages.



Hancock could wail on Raditz all day, he isn't phasing him considering his strikes don't do close to thousands of tons of force nor does he possess the power of megaton level destruction.

Not too mention the horrid speed advantage Raditz has on him.


----------



## Darts (Jul 20, 2008)

Hey guess what. "You are missing the point."
Save your shit. Anyone with a brain could tell that you started making baseless variants of "you're wrong" when you were getting owned. 

It's also amazing how you were able to rephrase what I said and sent it right back at me. I guess you're less of a monkey than I thought you were.

Oh and I guess Oro was lying to himself in thought bubbles. And someone's outer appearance must represent their state of being.
Right. 

For the second time, back up your shitty claims with evidence (regardless of how stupid they are, like the support for the Oro claim) or go troll somewhere else.


----------



## Tash (Jul 20, 2008)

> Oh and I guess Oro was lying to himself in thought bubbles. And someone's outer appearance must represent their state of being.
> Right.
> 
> For the second time, back up your shitty claims with evidence (regardless of how stupid they are, like the support for the Oro claim) or go troll somewhere else.


Orochimaru "at his limit" while fighting KN4.
Tsunade has 1000 jutsu
Orochimaru weeks later.
here
His body being at his limit isn't as much of a cap as you wish it was. And not that this point isn't expendable when you've effectively given up have your argument for the sake of trolling.








Darts said:


> Hey guess what. "You are missing the point."
> Save your shit. Anyone with a brain could tell that you started making baseless variants of "you're wrong" when you were getting owned.
> 
> It's also amazing how you were able to rephrase what I said and sent it right back at me. I guess you're less of a monkey than I thought you were.



Staff Conference Room


----------



## Darts (Jul 20, 2008)

In case you have forgotten, here's what you've been doing.
"Oh shit, he owned me. No worries though, I'll just randomly pick a all purpose come back from my basket of shit.
Damn, not again. "You're missing the point" worked well last time, let's do it again.
Woot, I could point out shit as irrelevant as spelling errors on this one."

Did you honestly expect me to form a rebuttal against "You're missing the point."?

I did a post to mock your stupid shit and you think it's smart to mock that back. Classic. Now assuming you were too stupid to notice that, and you're actually serious about debating, I'll repost what I said before you started trolling with variants of "you're wrong". I'll even take out the flames and update the Oro one.



Tash said:


> That would be your cue to explain yourself.


What do you mean what? Choice of words, grammar, reasoning, purpose? 



> Durrrr i dunno cuz he iz


Your circular reasoning that Kabuto is S-Rank relies solely on Zabuza being S rank. Scans.



> Really? Then care to explain why you find the need to go back and readdress the whole point? And it's funny watching you knock down your own points.


How does me going back to readdress the point have anything to do with me ripping your shit out of context?



> 1. His body being at his limit isn't as much of a cap as you wish it was. And not that this point isn't expendable when you've effectively given up have your argument for the sake of trolling.


So Oro's lying to himself in thought bubbles and physical appearance represents all. Got you



> 2. Stop the sarcasm, you don't have the wit to back up when your example is different than my own, greatly.


Explain this difference. 



> 3. And there goes Dart, right past the point.


50 reasons why you shouldn't be fat.
1. You'd suck at sports
2. You'd suck at basketball
3. You'd suck at soccer
4. You'd suck at ...
5. ... 
6. ...

Sorry. It's a stupid repeat.



> 4. Why do you keep asking me if so and so is S-rank? What if she is? Are you going to pull up the cast list and ask me if everybody from Aoba to Yugitois S-rank? Not only is it utterly useless when you still miss that vital detail that makes them elligible for that ranking system in the first place, it's retarded dribble when you'r speaking as if her non-existant performance contradicts it.


What's the rank system for? Power.
For our purposes, why can't we use it to measure power then? You're basically nitpicking about one completely irrelevant detail. Sorry but if you can assign class 100 strengths to anime characters, you can use the S-rank system for non missing nins.
You're stupid. When did I ever say it contradicts? or that she MUST be S rank? Im saying that since a handful of members aren't proven to be S-rank, it's weak reasoning to say that Pein>Tenten just because he's in Akatsuki.


----------



## Fang (Jul 20, 2008)

Its cute how Darts entire argument is essentially ad homiem attacks coupled with bad analogies and illogical assocation fallacies.

And the blatant flame-baiting from the get-go.


----------



## Darts (Jul 20, 2008)

And you're wrong.

Haha I pulled a funny. Under the bridge you go.


----------



## Tash (Jul 20, 2008)

Then I'll be clear.


Darts said:


> In case you have forgotten, here's what you've been doing.
> "Oh shit, he owned me. No worries though, I'll just randomly pick a all purpose come back from my basket of shit.
> Damn, not again. "You're missing the point" worked well last time, let's do it again.
> Woot, I could point out shit as irrelevant as spelling errors on this one."
> ...


No, I expect you to go back and read my post to find out what you're missing, that's not tossing a tantrum and calling everybody stupid.





> What do you mean what? Choice of words, grammar, reasoning, purpose?


How to you come to the conclusion that tenten is stronger than pein by any means through that?  That's what "what" means, and that also what "that would be your cue to explain yourself" means.




> Your circular reasoning that Kabuto is S-Rank relies solely on Zabuza being S rank. Scans.


It's out of the databook.
Check the Sharingan section here, please.
He's successfully completed twelve S-rank missions before leaving the mist.





> How does me going back to readdress the point have anything to do with me ripping your shit out of context?


Because there's no reason to address a point twice, and somehow you felt the need to.




> So Oro's lying to himself in thought bubbles and physical appearance represents all. Got you


Who said he was lying?




> Explain this difference.


Neji said that and got his ass kicked.
Sasuke said that, and kicked his ass.
The difference is the result, which is what matters.




> 50 reasons why you shouldn't be fat.
> 1. You'd suck at sports
> 2. You'd suck at basketball
> 3. You'd suck at soccer
> ...


The difference here is that I'm not listing results, I'm naming a fact and relating it to the conclusion, which is the point you missed.




> What's the rank system for? Power.


Threat, which is why it's not assigned to loyal ninja.




> For our purposes, why can't we use it to measure power then? You're basically nitpicking about one completely irrelevant detail. Sorry but if you can assign class 100 strengths to anime characters, you can use the S-rank system for non missing nins.


You can quantify strength feats with accuracy. Quantifying the threat level of a ninja to a government run on odd politics that's riddled with inconsistency throughout the series, not so much.




> You're stupid. When did I ever say it contradicts? or that she MUST be S rank?


And again, that's not the point. You have no evidence as to whether or not half those you named are S rank or whatever. Incredulously asking whether somebody not missing from their village is S rank or not is nothing but post filler when there's zero to contradict it.




> Im saying that since a handful of members aren't proven to be S-rank, it's weak reasoning to say that Pein>Tenten just because he's in Akatsuki.


That's pretty strong reasoning actually. For one all tenten has done on panel in 400 chapters is toss kunai and a ball. By feats I shouldn't eve have to explain why Pain destroys and by powerscaling he leads and controls a pack of ninja who would destroy her.

And there, spelled, spoon-fed, put in the simplest terms I can.


----------



## Tash (Jul 20, 2008)

Darts said:


> And you're wrong.
> 
> Haha I pulled a funny. Under the bridge you go.



TWF. You happen to have that Sanford head smiley from NPC saved?


----------



## Aokiji (Jul 20, 2008)

Reload said:


> *Hancock is immortal* and _Physically stronger_ than radditz. I really honestly don't see why this fight should last more than 3 pages.



*1. Bullshit.*

_2. This matters how?_


----------



## Darts (Jul 20, 2008)

Tash said:


> No, I expect you to go back and read my post to find out what you're missing, that's not tossing a tantrum and calling everybody stupid.


That's a great way of debating. "Just think about it".
Actually you started the flames. Bs more.



> How to you come to the conclusion that tenten is stronger than pein by any means through that?  That's what "what" means, and that also what "that would be your cue to explain yourself" means.


Who was I originally arguing with? thegoodjae, who thinks feats only is the way to go.
It was mostly targeted at him. I don't know if you agree with him. Either way, doesn't matter. Tenten>Pein feats only.



> It's out of the databook.
> Check the Sharingan section here, please.
> He's successfully completed twelve S-rank missions before leaving the mist.


I think it's generally accepted that the data book is a bunch of crap.



> Because there's no reason to address a point twice, and somehow you felt the need to.


You


> Care to rip any other parts of my post out of context or are you done?


My reply


> Never done that.
> Care to stop your selective responses?


Your reply.


> Really? Then care to explain why you find the need to go back and readdress the whole point? And it's funny watching you knock down your own points.


So to repeat my question.


> How does me going back to readdress the point have anything to do with me ripping your shit out of context?





> Who said he was lying?


Then you must know his body more than he does.



> Neji said that and got his ass kicked.
> Sasuke said that, and kicked his ass.
> The difference is the result, which is what matters.


What did you think my example was for? 
It's to prove that A considering B mediocre does not equate A>B. Which is one of your reasons that Sasuke>Oro.



> The difference here is that I'm not listing results, I'm naming a fact and relating it to the conclusion, which is the point you missed.


What does 3 bring to the table (consider S-rank ninja mediocre) after 2? (replace with Oro)



> Threat, which is why it's not assigned to loyal ninja.
> You can quantify strength feats with accuracy. Quantifying the threat level of a ninja to a government run on odd politics that's riddled with inconsistency throughout the series, not so much.


Right.


> Hell, even Zabuza was *S rank*. It's not like *that level of power* is something amazing.





> And again, that's not the point. You have no evidence as to whether or not half those you named are S rank or whatever. Incredulously asking whether somebody not missing from their village is S rank or not is nothing but post filler when there's zero to contradict it.
> That's pretty strong reasoning actually. For one all tenten has done on panel in 400 chapters is toss kunai and a ball. By feats I shouldn't eve have to explain why Pain destroys and by powerscaling he leads and controls a pack of ninja who would destroy her.


I'd assume that you know I have been talking about pre time skip. 
One


> So since we knew jack shit about most of Akatsuki pre-time skip


and two, Pein actually has feats now, which would make the comparison irrelevant.
Lastly, you are ignorant in believing that leaders must be stronger than their followers.



> And there, spelled, spoon-fed, put in the simplest terms I can.


You honestly think what you said earlier translates to what you are saying now? 
Stop with the flame bait. If you think backing your claims up with reasoning is spoon feeding, then I've been doing that for you the whole time.


----------



## Tash (Jul 20, 2008)

Darts said:


> That's a great way of debating. "Just think about it".


I personally find thinking leads to better debate. But it looks like you don't share that philosophy.



> Actually you started the flames. Bs more.


Hahahahaha, ah god.



> Who was I originally arguing with? thegoodjae, who thinks feats only is the way to go.
> It was mostly targeted at him. I don't know if you agree with him. Either way, doesn't matter. Tenten>Pein feats only.


Go ahead, show me some scans of what tenten did pre-skip.




> I think it's generally accepted that the data book is a bunch of crap.


Appeal to popularity fallacy.



> You
> 
> My reply
> 
> ...


You can find my answer a couple posts up.





> Then you must know his body more than he does.


No, I just recognize all the implications of his statement and what does, and more importantly does not contradict them.




> What did you think my example was for?
> It's to prove that A considering B mediocre does not equate A>B. Which is one of your reasons that Sasuke>Oro.


I know what your example was for, it was just incredibly shitty. Notice that the statement is backed up by Sasuke killing orochimaru, which I made a point to mention before but you missed. Which doesn't surprise me.




> What does 3 bring to the table (consider S-rank ninja mediocre) after 2? (replace with Oro)


The concept of drawing relations shouldn't be this difficult. Two to three serve the purpose of making the comparison I'm drawing painfully clear.



> Right.


Ooo, just keep trying to bend my words dart, you are SO close. Just a little bit further and you might actually find a contradiction in my claims. Like my actual claims, not the ones you misinterpreted.





> I'd assume that you know I have been talking about pre time skip.
> One


Goodie. The guy who leads a pack of S-rank ninja through force against the genin who has zero on-panel feats and one of panel feat of getting her ass kicked.



> and two, Pein actually has feats now, which would make the comparison irrelevant.
> Lastly, you are ignorant in believing that leaders must be stronger than their followers.


I can't believe you still think beating on strawmen hurts my argument still. I never said leaders are stronger than those that follow them as a rule. I'm speaking of the SPECIFIC case of Pein.




> You honestly think what you said earlier translates to what you are saying now?
> Stop with the flame bait. If you think backing your claims up with reasoning is spoon feeding, then I've been doing that for you the whole time.


Holy shit this is funny for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Fang (Jul 20, 2008)

Tash said:


> TWF. You happen to have that Sanford head smiley from NPC saved?


----------



## Tash (Jul 20, 2008)

And I like how he has sand in his vagina about flamebaititng when this was his first post in the thread.



Darts said:


> And for anyone who needs to explain to someone what irony is in the future and needs a perfect example, refer to them thegoodjae's posts.


----------



## Darts (Jul 20, 2008)

Tash said:


> I did. I'm not.


Nah you're wrong. Think harder.



> Tanking blows when? Scans?


Genin exams?
Not to mention she can throw weapons, what featz.



> Is there some part of appeal to popularity you're not understanding?


Fail.


Mizura said:


> - that no-one can escape Jiraiya's toad stomach summon (guess what happened)
> - that Kimimaro's bone attack is unbreakable (guess what Then happened)
> - and then there are all the attacks qualified as "invincible" (guess what happened to them?)
> - and then there's even More subjective facts such as the fact Ino will not slacken her pursuit of Sasuke (ri-ight. I like to use this example to show that the databook Cannot be taken literally when it comes to subjective matters)


You might as well use shit from fillers.



> No the part where I tell you about how there's no reason to go back and readdress a point you're convinced you addressed.


It was a question. I didn't get an answer.



> It's pretty funny considering this is english. Are you new to it? They have online dictionaries for people like you ya know.


I never said that you weren't writing in english, retard.
Your use of proverbs is horrid.



> You ever see Remember the Titans? I swear everytime you ignore the argument and start calling somebody a monkey I keep recalling the scene where they basically kick the ass of the team with the racist coach who's sarcastic retorts consisted of "HURR HURR FUCKING MONKEY" much like your own, and coach boone hands him a banana while he's taking th walk of shame, just to piss him off. But anyway, no you didn't come anywhere close to damaging the point.  Saying it's part of his personality does not prove it false. And he himself proves it correct by killing him.


I ignored your argument. Right now you're responding to nothingness. 
Assuming that Sasuke did kill Oro under normal circumstances after considering him mediocre, the killing is the reason that Sasuke>Oro. His thought is not a reason, moron.



> So I take it you're being dense on purpose now?


Painfully clear. Unnecessary. Stupid repeat.



> This would be so much more effective if I was actually making a claim here and not correcting you.


Correcting me=claiming I am wrong. Stop with this stupid shit. 
Oh wait. You can't help being stupid, can you?



> It's funny how you still haven't shown me what tenten can do pre-skip.


This doesn't even have to do with feats.


> No? So Pein>Tenten based on him being the leader is stupid.
> Just because he is shown to be strong now does not validate your argument.


Your shit just keeps getting worse. Just go back to full time trolling.



> U mad?


All hail the master of trolling.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 20, 2008)

Why the fuck are you Narutofags talking about Naruto?


----------



## Tash (Jul 20, 2008)

Darts said:


> Nah you're wrong. Think harder.


This is about as effective as you trying and failing at the NO U meme.




> Genin exams?
> Not to mention she can throw weapons, what featz.


These words are not scans. Scans, or concede.




> Fail.


So about trolling.





> It was a question. I didn't get an answer.



Argument ad nauseum.



> I never said that you weren't writing in english, retard.
> Your use of proverbs is horrid.


A grammar Nazi who can't spell feats, you, and forgot several punctuation marks.
...





> I ignored your argument. Right now you're responding to nothingness.
> Assuming that Sasuke did kill Oro under normal circumstances after considering him mediocre, the killing is the reason that Sasuke>Oro. His thought is not a reason, moron.


This is pretty funny considering I've said multiple times that Sasuke killing Orochimaru confirms it. Moron indeed.




> Painfully clear. Unnecessary. Stupid repeat.


Since you still don't seem to understand it apparently not.




> Correcting me=claiming I am wrong. Stop with this stupid shit.
> Oh wait. You can't help being stupid, can you?


So if this stupid person knows that claims lie in the affirmative, what does that make you?




> This doesn't even have to do with feats.


Zat so? Then tell me what you were basing Tantan beating Pain off of, I'd love to hear it.



> Your shit just keeps getting worse. Just go back to full time trolling.
> 
> 
> All hail the master of trolling.


BAAAWWWWWW


----------



## Darts (Jul 21, 2008)

Tash said:


> This is about as effective as you trying and failing at the NO U meme.


It's as effective as your classy "you're missing the point" garbage.



> These words are not scans. Scans, or concede.


From the same person that gave me "The manga."
Give me scans of Jiraiya saying that he knew every member except Pein and scans of Oro being ready for battle. Then we'll talk.



> So about trolling.


You take the data book more seriously than retarded fanboys. 



> Argument ad nauseum.


"I didn't make a mistake as long as I don't admit to it." Suck more.



> A grammar Nazi who can't spell feats, you, and forgot several punctuation marks.


Ye lolz featz own u. Monkey can't even tell when he's being mocked.
Remove the pronouns and make it readable. 



> This is pretty funny considering I've said multiple times that Sasuke killing Orochimaru confirms it. Moron indeed.


Did I say that you didn't? Learn to read.
A killing B=A>B works if there's no handicap.
A considering B mediocre=A>B is plain shit. And it was included in one of your list of reasons why Sasuke>Oro. Do I have to explain why you're a moron?



> So if this stupid person knows that claims lie in the affirmative, what does that make you?


Nothing. But it does show me that you're actually more stupid.
It's completely pointless because you could easily put things into the other perspective. Aka claiming "Darts made a mistake" or "Tash is right"



> Zat so? Then tell me what you were basing Tantan beating Pain off of, I'd love to hear it.


You were replying to this


> No? So Pein>Tenten based on him being the leader is stupid.
> Just because he is shown to be strong now does not validate your argument.


with "show Tenten's feats".
Why would I need her feats to prove that?


----------



## strongarm85 (Jul 21, 2008)

Wow, this thread has turned retarded. Well seeing how its no where close to being on topic now I'm going to go ahead and request a lock on this.


----------



## Pengu-Yasha (Jul 21, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> Wow, this thread has turned retarded. Well seeing how its no where close to being on topic now I'm going to go ahead and request a lock on this.


I pretty much gave up on this thread a while ago. It's no longer about Hancock vs. Raditz, it's just two people arguing over Naruto facts and trying to prove each other wrong. It's a total bickerfest... 

In before lock...


----------



## strongarm85 (Jul 21, 2008)

Well, I sent a PM to Sir Hater of Aid so hopefully this shouldn't go on too much longer.


----------



## Aokiji (Jul 21, 2008)

Darts said:


> It's as effective as your classy "you're missing the point" garbage.
> 
> 
> From the same person that gave me "The manga."
> ...



Darts you can't debate for shit. Get the fuck out of the OBD.


----------



## Darts (Jul 21, 2008)

You're like that sissy tool that goes "oo burnedd"
Go cry in the corner.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 21, 2008)

lol at Darts red herring like a whole fucking page and gettting beat at his own game.


----------



## Aokiji (Jul 21, 2008)

Darts said:


> You're like that sissy tool that goes "oo burnedd"
> Go cry in the corner.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 21, 2008)

I already freaking explained why Hancock has  a VERY POOR chance of being invincible and that isn't enough, plus his feats, and so this is done deal for Raditz to win.

A clear CUT answer because of course since they aren't in two fucking universes  we have to use our little fucking brains, Dart(you might not know what that is) and imagine them being in the same one and them fucking fighting. Of course one will win and if it is pretty fucking obvious who will (like say GALACTUS vs. Goku, of course Galactus wins with 1/10000 of his strength) win, then it is a clear cut answer.


It is like saying Itachi vs. a fucking kitten and saying we don't have a clear cut answer. Why the fuck do you and Gooba seem to believe OBD doesn't have one? I don't know but somehow you got into fucking Naruto and than S rank ninjas and tried to red herring me to fucking get your point across, which is just stupidity, and now you go down to telling people to go to a corner.

Fucking pathetic.


----------



## Darts (Jul 21, 2008)

Irony overload.
Coming back 5 pages later to repeat points that I've already nulled just means you're trying to impress the audience.
Your conclusion to this debate is drawn from a faulty system, so obviously I have to first prove why it is.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 21, 2008)

Irony at its best? That wasn't a response. Sorry I tried to  give you time to deal with this ninja shit and when I saw it being over I came back. Your conclusion is fucking faulty with assumptions and shit. Obviously you didn't null shit as all you did was red herring. I can't believe you actually thought you nulled shit.


----------



## Aokiji (Jul 21, 2008)

Darts said:


> Irony overload.
> Coming back 5 pages later to repeat points that I've already nulled just means you're trying to impress the audience.
> Your conclusion to this debate is drawn from a faulty system, so obviously I have to first prove why it is.



Why don't you stop rambling about how the big bad OBD is evil and faulty dozens of times and start showing what "fallacy" we committed?


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 21, 2008)

I named around 12 fucking fallacies that anyone debating against just decided to go EHH or "WELL THIS OBD SO NO CLEAR ANSWER!"

What the fuck is this? I know. Bailing out.


----------



## Darts (Jul 21, 2008)

When did I ever do that?
And how can there be fallacies when you're just trolling with variants of "oo burned"?
Do you even have an argument?

As for the other guy, again, refer to 5 pages back.


----------



## Chocochip (Jul 21, 2008)

I posted 12 fallacies used in this thread.

Five pages back all you did was red herring and not even debate. All you did was YOU DUN GET A CLEAR CUT ANSWER IN OBD BECAUSE I SAY SOOO LAWLLL and now you got into deep shit. Why the fuck are you even arguing that?


----------



## Darts (Jul 21, 2008)

K


> I already freaking explained why Hancock has a VERY POOR chance of being invincible and that isn't enough, plus his feats, and so this is done deal for Raditz to win.


Explain this very poor chance. 
And are you playing dumb or are you just plain dumb? Either way it's sad. I'll repeat again, does it take an invincible man to beat Raditz?



> and imagine them being in the same one and them fucking fighting. Of course one will win and if it is pretty fucking obvious who will (like say GALACTUS vs. Goku, of course Galactus wins with 1/10000 of his strength) win, then it is a clear cut answer.


No rly?
When did I ever say otherwise?



> It is like saying Itachi vs. a fucking kitten and saying we don't have a clear cut answer. Why the fuck do you and Gooba seem to believe OBD doesn't have one? I don't know but somehow you got into fucking Naruto and than S rank ninjas and tried to red herring me to fucking get your point across, which is just stupidity, and now you go down to telling people to go to a corner.


Do you not see the difference between a kitten, which can be put to its limits, with Hancock, who's limits is pretty much completely up to the writer?
How do you scale 0 effort and 0 damage? You can't. 
And again, if Raditz invade Hancock 2, would you say it's contradictory if Hancock wins? If so, give me evidence from Hancock which shows that he couldn't have been that strong.
Unless you're writing Hancock 2, the chance is 50/50. 



> Irony at its best? That wasn't a response. Sorry I tried to give you time to deal with this ninja shit and when I saw it being over I came back. Your conclusion is fucking faulty with assumptions and shit. Obviously you didn't null shit as all you did was red herring. I can't believe you actually thought you nulled shit.


Give me time? Weren't you the pansy who wrote in broken english, and then chose to ignore me when I asked for clarification?


----------



## Rice Ball (Jul 21, 2008)

I guess this topic has ran its course.


----------

