|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Aug 2, 2011 14:00:12 GMT -5
I haven't been keeping up with the debate, so I'll read through it and make my vote then.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 14:04:08 GMT -5
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Aug 2, 2011 17:09:28 GMT -5
After looking through the thread and reading up on the disscussion, I'm agreeing more with the fact that just because something is stated (Especially considering the years in between then and now), doesn't neccessarily make it fact. From what it looks like there is enough examples of other characters with the ability to dodge it like it were a bullet or any other projectile. I'm not sure I beileve it being lightspeed, based on that fact.
Now, a question that popped into my head, can Cyclops control the speed of his blast? That could explain why others have been able to dodge it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 17:12:34 GMT -5
So, your final vote is "no, it is not fact" then?
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 2, 2011 17:32:23 GMT -5
After looking through the thread and reading up on the disscussion, I'm agreeing more with the fact that just because something is stated (Especially considering the years in between then and now), doesn't neccessarily make it fact. From what it looks like there is enough examples of other characters with the ability to dodge it like it were a bullet or any other projectile. I'm not sure I beileve it being lightspeed, based on that fact. Now, a question that popped into my head, can Cyclops control the speed of his blast? That could explain why others have been able to dodge it. So how could you determine if something is indeed moving at light speed if it is never stated? It has to be stated or else nobody would ever know.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 17:36:02 GMT -5
I think it's best when the judges make their vote, we just let it register and move on. Otherwise, our judges our going to end up in the debate and this will never end. I think it's fair that the vote just remains, since they've now had the chance to read the whole ordeal. And no, I'm not saying that because he agreed with my opinion However, if the judge wishes to change his vote, that's fine. I'd just like to finally move on.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Aug 2, 2011 17:55:08 GMT -5
After looking through the thread and reading up on the disscussion, I'm agreeing more with the fact that just because something is stated (Especially considering the years in between then and now), doesn't neccessarily make it fact. From what it looks like there is enough examples of other characters with the ability to dodge it like it were a bullet or any other projectile. I'm not sure I beileve it being lightspeed, based on that fact. Now, a question that popped into my head, can Cyclops control the speed of his blast? That could explain why others have been able to dodge it. So how could you determine if something is indeed moving at light speed if it is never stated? It has to be stated or else nobody would ever know. I agree, but just being stated isn't enough, considering the consistent contradictions. In this case, there would have to be more recent evidence, and more consistent showings for me to back this up as a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Aug 2, 2011 17:55:37 GMT -5
So, your final vote is "no, it is not fact" then? Correct.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 17:57:09 GMT -5
Okay, thanks for reading the debate and voting. Now we just need Phantom and Vance.
By the way, you should make a proposal for Quinn. I remember there being a big debate about her physicals.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Aug 2, 2011 18:00:03 GMT -5
Okay, thanks for reading the debate and voting. Now we just need Phantom and Vance. By the way, you should make a proposal for Quinn. I remember there being a big debate about her physicals. I honestly don't want to be the only one debating for her again. Also, I don't know where exactly to put her in terms of physical stats. I might make a proposal about Katana's sword though.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Aug 2, 2011 18:28:23 GMT -5
I'm voting no as well.
Just to be clear, I am not dismissing the feats. A very strong argument can, and has been presented, and it would probably be accepted in any normal debate, but as this past few pages display, it is not irrefutable.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Aug 2, 2011 18:32:49 GMT -5
I'm voting no as well. Just to be clear, I am not dismissing the feats. A very strong argument can, and has been presented, and it would probably be accepted in any normal debate, but as this past few pages display, it is not irrefutable. I have to be honest, if we are going to even bother with whether or not counter evidence can be provided, this thread is pointless. There is counter evidence for damn near every thing in comics short of things like "Superman can fly".
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Aug 2, 2011 18:41:51 GMT -5
I have to be honest, if we are going to even bother with whether or not counter evidence can be provided, this thread is pointless. There is counter evidence for damn near every thing in comics short of things like "Superman can fly". True enough, but if we don't bother with every bit of evidence, we'd be unfair to debaters who would use said evidence to challenge the feat, only for the issue to be forced by staff fiat. But this was only our first proposal and we're still getting the hang of all this. I'm sure we'll work out the kinks along the way.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Aug 2, 2011 18:56:25 GMT -5
I have to be honest, if we are going to even bother with whether or not counter evidence can be provided, this thread is pointless. There is counter evidence for damn near every thing in comics short of things like "Superman can fly". True enough, but if we don't bother with every bit of evidence, we'd be unfair to debaters who would use said evidence to challenge the feat, only for the issue to be forced by staff fiat. But this was only our first proposal and we're still getting the hang of all this. I'm sure we'll work out the kinks along the way. My point is that if we are going to vote that things are "not facts" just because there is counter evidence, nearly nothing can be voted as facts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 19:07:06 GMT -5
Wait a tick, wasn't Vance (the final judge) also involved in the debate? My goal was to pick people who played no part. Perhaps Sloth or Sparda?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 19:18:47 GMT -5
Erik-El, I don't believe having ANY example of counter evidence is enough to hold up against a case in favor of the theory. There needs to be ample material to bring the theory into question. And in this case there's (what I believe to be) a firm amount of evidence which is enough to bring the caption statements of his optic blast into question. But, my opinion has been transparent since the beginning. It's up to the judges at this point.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 2, 2011 20:34:32 GMT -5
Wait a tick, wasn't Vance (the final judge) also involved in the debate? My goal was to pick people who played no part. Perhaps Sloth or Sparda? Didn't matter who the judges were after Strafe voted because it must be a unanimous yes among the three judges in order for it to be deemed fact.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 20:36:44 GMT -5
Ah, okay.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 2, 2011 20:49:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2011 19:19:12 GMT -5
Debating for Gambit having super human reflexes will be open shortly.
This will remained locked until I present my opening argument.
|
|