Clash of Titans Season 3 Round 2.

[u/KenfromDiscord]

Out of Tier Rules

For Out of Tier requests, Simply debate better than your opponents. The judges will judge the quality of both participants arguments into question and decide a winner based on that.

Battle Rules

Speed - movement speed and combat speed will be set at Mach 1, Combat and movement speed, with their reactions scaled down/up relatively. Speed boosts via abilities, however, are indeed allowed to make one surpass this base speed threshold.

Battleground:

Its SCP-3008. SCP 3008 is an huge space (Current measurements indicate an area of at least 10km2) designed to look like the inside of a regular Ikea store. The arena will be tall enough that the largest submitted character can fit comfortably inside. Combatants start 10 meters away from each other, and in a line spaced 2 meters apart from their allies. Every combatant starts each round being 'teleported' into the arena, knowing full well whomever they face down needs to die or be incapacitated in order for they themselves to advance and win and will do so, and with knowledge of their allies' weapons and abilities. All combatants begin without any weapons drawn or abilities active, hands idle at their sides, weapons holstered, and the moment they teleport in they can begin combat. All combatants are in-character for the tourney itself. No character can escape SCP-3008.

As a side note, the towns that have been set up as well as SCP-3008-2 are not present for the tourney.

Side side note, while combatants cannot exit the arena that does not preclude parts of the arena being torn off and used as weapons.

Combatants spawn in the very center of the Ikea.

Submission Rules

Tier:

Must be able to win an unlikely victory, draw/near draw, or likely victory against

Ben Grimm AKA The Thing

in the conditions outlined above; All entrants will be bloodlusted against The Thing, meaning they will act fully rationally and put down their opponent in the quickest, most efficient manner possible regardless of morality, utilizing any and all possible techniques/tactics/attacks if necessary.

For tier setter fights/OOT requests assume both Thing and your character are bloodlusted

Debate Rules

Rounds will last 5 days, hopefully from Tuesday until Sunday of each week of the tourney; there is a 48 hour time limit both on starting (we do not care who starts, you and your opponent can figure that out) AND on responses, AND ADDITIONALLY each user MUST get in two responses or else be disqualified. If one user waits until the very last minute to force this rule to DQ their opponent without any forewarning to their opponents or the tournament supervisors, they will be removed from this tournament, no exceptions.

Format for each round: both respondents get Intro + 1st Response, then 2nd response, then a 3rd response and closing statement individual of one another that can be posted any time after both 3rd responses are complete. EACH RESPONSE MUST BE NO LONGER THAN THREE REDDIT COMMENTS LONG WITH A HARD CAP OF 25,000 CHARACTERS SPLIT BETWEEN THE THREE.

Rounds will either be a full 3v3 Team Match, or 1v1 single matches. 1v1 matches are determined by randomization. Match format will switch every round, with Team Matches always followed by single matches, and vice versa. First Round will be determined by coin flip.

Brackets Here

Round 2 will be

1v1 match ups.

Round 2 Ends Tuesday April 14th Midnight EST

Format for each round: both respondents get Intro + 1st Response, then 2nd response, then a 3rd response and closing statement individual of one another that can be posted any time after both 3rd responses are complete. EACH RESPONSE MUST BE NO LONGER THAN THREE REDDIT COMMENTS LONG WITH A HARD CAP OF 25,000 CHARACTERS SPLIT BETWEEN THE THREE.

Rounds will either be a full 3v3 Team Match, or 1v1 single matches. 1v1 matches are randomized based on sign up order via an internet list randomizer. Match format will switch every round, with Team Matches always followed by single matches, and vice versa. First Round will be determined by coin flip, and as it is 3v3s, next shall be 1v1, and so on and so forth.

[u/feminist-horsebane]

Part I: Captain Planet’s offense

My opponent characterizes Captain Planet’s offense based on three things at this point:

1. This striking feat
2. Captain Planet’s lifting strength
3. Captain Planet’s heat.

The lifting strength and heat attacks are worthless as they are not used in a combat situation in literally a single feat Captain Planet has. My opponent attempts to negate this by reinterpreting the rules, namely- "whomever they face down needs to die or be incapacitated in order for they themselves to advance and win and will do so". He leaves out, however, the point about how all characters are in-character for the tourney itself, essentially trying to turn the rules of the tourney into “bloodlusted lite.” In reality, Captain Planet has never once used his heat or lifting strength to enact a win condition vs an opponent, these are not in character methods of attack for him and it’s dishonest to pretend that they are. If my opponent truly wishes to push this flawed line of argumentation, i’d ask him to at least get off his soapbox he’s calling me dishonest from while he does.

With the heat and lifting gone, we are dealing only with the singular sodium carbonate feat. This seems to be the only striking feat my opponent wants to deal with, as it’s the only feat he’s compared to Ragnarok’s durability, saying- “This is still a worse feat in real terms than if Captain Planet were to hit him with the same punch that busted the sodium carbonate sphere, because the amount of rock is so much smaller.” As he’s shown a lack of interest in quantifying how hard the material being destroyed is here, he’s instead relying on the fact that it's a lot of material being destroyed to keep it in tier.

1. First of all, Captain Planet isn’t actually destroying this entire sphere. His initial punch breaks a massive hole in the sphere, and it then crumbles from structural insecurity.
2. Not quantifying this feat of breaking a big chunk of baking soda leaves us no way to interpret how good of a feat it is. Is this akin to breaking concrete? Rock? Sod? Glass? Marshmallow? “A lot of material got destroyed” means nothing.
3. Overall, this feat is meaningless. It’s a much smaller amount of material being destroyed by the punch itself than my opponent claims, and the material being destroyed has no level of strength associated with it.

Captain Planet’s powers are either drastically below tier or do not translate into win cons that can be enacted in a fight.

Part II: Captain Planet’s durability

So we’re essentially dealing with a singular in tier durability feat for Captain Planet, in which a building collapsing hit knocks him out of the sky and puts him off his feat for a solid eight seconds. If this is what a building busting hit does to Captain Planet, he is screwed the moment that Ragnarok attacks. Even if a single hit doesn’t kill him outright, it will leave him defenseless for long enough that Ragnarok can easily finish him off. Since Ragnarok opens with ranged 1v1's (2) that do building level destruction, his attacks will land first and either OHKO or turn CP into a sitting duck. Even if this were not the case, the fact that Captain Planet provably has great struggles with in tier damage means that no extended bout could favor him, if one were even possible in the first place.

My opponent attempts to offset this problem with fictitious claims about how Captain Planet’s durability works, claiming that he will be healed by Ragnarok’s lightning the second it touches him due to his connection with the elements.

• First off, this is not a true healing factor. The elements at play here are purging pollutants from CP’s body, cleansing his system. Claiming that this means that exposure to elements repairs all damage to him would be like me claiming that taking laxatives fixes concussions.
• Second, it doesn’t work with all elements he has control of. Captain Planet has a similar degree of control over metal, wind, and earth, yet he isn’t healed here by contact with the earth he’s lying on or the presence of the air he’s exposed to.
• Third, Captain Planet’s exposure to electricity doesn’t show any signs of amping or healing him in any way.
• Even if all of this weren’t true, the “healing factor” takes place over a span of five seconds, too slow to keep him from being incapped.

As an aside, for this line of logic to even get off the ground, my opponent claims over and over that Ragnarok’s lightning is natural lightning when it provably is not. Natural lightning doesn't do shit like this, it does not have a kinetic component that does things like this, Storm even notes that his lightning is not natural.

Captain Planet is either OHKO’d or setting himself up to be finished off by Ragnarok, his “healing factor” is based on absolutely nothing.

Part III: Rebuttals

• Captain Planet durability antifeats
  • “Is literally not harmed by this feat.”
  • “Meters thick rock as well as the initial strike that has to have more energy attached to it.”
  • “This is "my opponent's character has some wacky feats, aren't they funny" instead of an actual point.”

The first scan shows him being knocked limp for a solid ten seconds and not being able to right himself until he lands on ground. Being dazed for ten seconds is not “literally not harmed.” The second feat gives no mention of this wall being “meters thick”, and the third one highlights the sort of damage that CP “no sells”.

• Ragnarok durability antifeat
  • “This is still a worse feat in real terms than if Captain Planet were to hit him with the same punch that busted the sodium carbonate sphere, because the amount of rock is so much smaller.”

This is Ragnarok being bullrushed into a large granite hill hard enough to cause it to collapse and send pieces flying. Suggesting that punching a big hole in a pile of baking soda is superior to this feat is just ridiculous.

• Ragnaroks’ lightning
  • Also, all lightning has concussive force attached to it, including lethal force, per research published in Academic Forensic Pathology (via NIH). Saying "but Clor's lightning has concussive force" doesn't separate it at all from naturally occurring lightning in terms of anything but sheer amount of lightning.”
  • “The fact that Clor's lightning has concussive force doesn't make it unnatural lightning because all lightning has concussive overpressure due to the immense energy exchange taking place during a lightning strike, Clor just summons more of it than usually occurs in nature”
  • “Also, didn't you literally just argue that the composition of a blast was immaterial to its concussive force? Pick an argument and stick to it, dude. Stop applying double standards”

My opponent attempts to claim that Ragnaroks’ lightning must be natural lightning because natural lightning can kill people whereas Ragnarok’s lightning eviscerates buildings. Drawing an equivalence between these two things is just ridiculous.

As for the radiation scan, if my opponent can prove that whoever this is has concussive aspects to their radiation as consistently as Rag’s does to his lightning, i’ll gladly concede this point as fair game. That has, like most everything else my opponent has said, been left unquantified.

**Captain Planet's striking (the sole valid win con for him) is below Ragnarok's durability, his antifeats retain their validity, Ragnarok's lightning is demonstrably different from natural lightning.**

[u/feminist-horsebane → u/feminist-horsebane]

Part I: Quicksands durability/win cons

My opponent claims repeatedly that Quicksand must be taken out of the match immediately, or she becomes an unbeatable force that Iron Man will never be able to stop who will “eventually put Tony down”. His entire win condition for Quicksand is based off of this, claiming:

“Iron Man cannot ever put her down, and Iron Man can eventually be put down.”

The problem is that he’s simultaneously arguing that Thing can disperse this storm with his clapping feats, which entail this "huge amount of force" that amounts to knocking some people over and this feat of destroying some metal that my opponent has admitted is not building busting.

So in other words, if you are able to create concussive force strong enough to knock over a handful of dudes or destroy a refrigerator, you can beat Quicksands win con. Iron Man can surpass these amounts of force several times over, therefore Quicksands win con is moot.

He also claims that Quicksand is in tier for Thing because -“Quicksand loses to Thing as tiersetter by being repeatedly denied the opportunity to coalesce and form a sandstorm that overwhelms him.”

So in other words, if you can break apart Quicksands body, you can keep her from reforming, and in my opponents eyes, this counts as a win condition. The threshold to break apart Quicksands body, as of right now, is hitting hard enough to break a bunch of concrete. As i’ve said, Iron Man can surpass this amount of force several times over. Ergo, Iron Man replicates Thing win condition and just destroys Quicksands body any time she attempts to reform. As my opponent finds this an acceptable win con for Thing in order to keep Quicksand in tier, he must accept this to be the case.

In other words, in addition to being able to just turn her to glass with his heat attacks she can't resist 2, 3, he can easily beat Quicksand in the same way that Thing can. In addition to this, he can also beat her with use electrics or sonics. She has no usable resistance to any of this, just a gimmick and unquantified scaling.

1. For what it’s worth I don’t think the sonics or electric attacks are particularly relevant in this fight, as they aren’t the primary methods of attack that Tony uses. However, my opponent is wrong to suggest that Quicksand no sells them based off of scaling to Thor and Songbird he hasn’t quantified to begin with.

In order for Quicksand to stop any of this from happening, she would have to beat Tony before Tony can beat her. My opponent repeatedly refers to Quicksands win conditions taking time to enact, saying she can eventually put Tony down, and otherwise framing this as a war of attrition. In other words, even my opponent himself doesn’t think Quicksand can put Tony down quickly.

My opponent has conceded that below tier damage is sufficient to both keep Quicksand from enacting her win con, as well as conceded that being able to keep Quicksands body from reforming is a sufficient win condition. Additionally, Quicksand continues to have no relevant heat durability and only antifeats, meaning she loses to any heat attack Iron Man uses. Quicksand loses to Iron Man’s primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary attacks. Meanwhile, my opponent himself concedes that any hypothetical win condition vs. Iron Man would take time to enact.

Part II: Rebuttals

I’ll be rebuking the relevant points my opponent made in this section.

• Iron Man’s heat attacks

  • I think in order for Iron Man to put together this level of heat, the beams need to be concentrated such that they can only cut, and if he's cutting, he can't glass Quicksand in one go.”
  • “Destroying the wing of a plane doesn't translate to glassing Quicksand, especially when I contest that he's just blowing it to small enough bits not to matter (with force), not disintegrating it with heat.”
  • “Iron Man is destroying the airplane wing with heat.”
  • “Iron Man has to focus his repulsors to such a degree that they won't encompass Quicksand's body to produce the heat to glass her.

Gotta say, going from claiming that Iron Man is destroying this plane wing with solely heat to going to claiming he’s destroying it with only concussive force in the same comment, all in the same response you’re telling me to “pick an argument and stick to it” and basing so much of your argument around character attacks is a pretty meme duality of man moment. That aside, it doesn’t matter if this is heat or concussive force, as you have not demonstrated any durability that is meaningful vs. either method of attack. Furthermore, the idea that Iron Man can only use his heat in cutting attacks is based on pretty much nothing. It’s nice that you think that, but you haven’t provided any evidence for it, whereas I have provided evidence that all repulsors have heat components. As for the idea that Tony must destroy her whole body to win, if it's even the case, that's easy.

• Iron Man’s concussive force

  • “That doesn't mean anything when you haven't proven (or even shown) Iron Man is hitting that hard. She instantly regens from that. They're literally a page apart, and right next to each other on the RT.”
  • “It's on you to prove that Iron Man is hitting harder than weakened Thor.”

My opponent still has not quantified a durability for Quicksands concussive force durability yet, other than that you can destroy her storm form by clapping. The closest he’s come is just saying “luke cage luke cage luke cage” or “Thor thor thor thor” without ever quantifying it. He hasn’t quantified what taking strikes from Thor or Luke Cage even means, let alone weakened versions.

• Quicksand offense antifeats

  • “This is not a punch and thus probably not relevant to the fight at large.”
  • “This is clearly just a comparison Thor makes to say "I can break this because I'm strong", this doesn't literally mean it's concrete level.
  • Not what the scan shows. He seems to be in a good amount of pain, based on his "YEEARGH!"

My opponent claims that antifeats that aren’t traditional punches aren’t relevant to the fight itself. I’m not sure why, but it’s fine with me, as Quicksands only building tier feat isn’t a traditional punch. If only her punching feats are relevant, then she’s generously a wall level fighter. Her lifting strength, the other tertiary win con presented by my opponent, is explicitly as easy to break as concrete, as agreed upon by Thor, Quicksand, and myself. If my opponent wants to claim it’s stronger than that, he needs feats to do so, which have not been supplied.

• Quicksand durability antifeats

  • “Also, she no-sells a punch from Luke Cage, so this seems more like a function of the form of how she was hit rather than how hard.
  • “You're right, I can't prove she is dousing his most powerful heat. However, he is starting up an attack against Atlas,meaning he is at least approaching combat heat (this can be proven to be the case by the way his hands are not passively on fire). But in case that isn't convincing, immediately after touching him, Spidey's hands are on fire due to his armor's heat.”
  • *“That literally doesn't matter when she takes hits again later in the arc, after he stopped holding back, and can overpower Thor then, too.

None of the Luke Cage or Thor scaling means jack shit if you don’t quantify it. You yourself claimed that Thor scaling was OOT in your initial comment due to Thors strength, yet now you’re claiming your character can overpower him even when he’s not weakened? I ask again, what does “Quicksand can overpower and take hits from Thor” mean in the context of this building tier tourney? You have spent two responses now hiding from this, giving no quantification of what you’re scaling to, and repeatedly asked me to prove my characters are stronger than a baseline you have not established.

Luke Cage scaling is useless. Quicksand is shattered by Luke Cage smacking rubble into her hard enough to break it, more evidence pointing in the direction that Quicksand is a wall level combatant. Claiming this is only applicable because of “the method it’s done ” when both instances are just concussive force is just a waste of character count.

For the Scorcher scaling, my opponent has conceded it’s meaningless. “Approaching combat heat” means nothing, these flames could be the same temp as what comes out of my oven for all we know.

• “Quicksand's durability is immutable fact, as I have linked a number of scans indicating that Iron Man will not be able to dissipate her with his arsenal, and will instead have to do the most optimal possible sequence of attacks to defeat her, since his strength is not enough.”

1. Quicksands blunt durability: breaks when you smack concrete against her.
2. Quicksands heat durability: touches something hot once.
3. Quicksands electric durability: Based on unquantified scaling from a weakened Thor she ran away terrified from when he started fighting earnestly

[u/feminist-horsebane → u/feminist-horsebane]

Cannonball vs. Volcana

My opponent has conceded Volcana’s durability feats regarding Hulk/Thor scaling. Instead, he scales entirely to Volcana herself, saying that Volcana’s durability must be >She Hulks, since Volcana has taken hits from herself:

• Volcana is incapped by the hit she takes from herself. This in no way presents durability above She Hulks.
• The blast that incaps She Hulk is a surprise attack, hardly representative of She Hulk's normal durability.
• He hasn’t quantified what being “> 80’s She Hulk” even means.

In other words, Volcana has no durability whatsoever, and certainly none that translates to being able to take a hit from either the tier setter or Cannonball himself. Ergo, she gets one shot.

• “Cannonball's tier status depends heavily, in my mind, on how fast his base speed is.”

Cannonball being able to increase his travel speed as he flies means he’ll get the initiative on most opponents who won’t be able to dodge his attacks, as well as making himself too fast for most people to tag with projectiles. While these two things together make Volcana, a glass cannon with slow ranged attacks, extremely vulnerable to Cannonball’s blastin’, they barely affect Thing at all. Thing does not attempt to use agility to dodge attacks, and doesn’t fight with projectiles. I haven’t presented Cannonball as an opponent who one shots Thing, so getting initiative on him isn’t OOT.

• “Antifeats don't actually mean anything when you have feats that go directly against the intent of an antifeat.”

What feats have been presented that supposedly outweigh the antifeats i’m showing? My opponent backed off from the claims of S tier scaling for Volcana’s durability, and is now relying on a flawed “>80’s She Hulk” claim to justify competitive durability, when he hasn’t even explained what “80’s She Hulk’s” durability supposedly is. I’ve shown several clear instance of Volcana, in both her forms, being hurt by critically below tier damage.

• “Volcana can still hold her own against Cannonball.”

The justifications for Volcana being able to take even a single hit from Cannonball remain absent.

• “My opponent is again, as he is doing in the Clor debate, obfuscating our points behind strawmen and ambiguity so you pay more attention to the declarative statements he doesn't have to specifically back up ever time he says them, like describing Cannonball in positive terms.”

Man I don’t even know how to respond to this shit. What does “describing Cannonball in positive terms” even fucking mean here? I’m backing up all of my claims (Volcana is weak, her durability is weak, Cannonball is strong, durable and fast) with multiple scans. My opponent has barely quantified anything he’s saying.

Volcana has no durability feats. Volcana’s She Hulk scaling is nonsensical, misunderstood, and unquantified. Her antifeats remain valid. Cannonball’s travel speed allow him to dick on Volcana, a foe wholly separate from Thing. As the match sours for him, my opponent turns more to character attacks vs. proper debating.

Rebuttals from here forth

• Volcana’s durability antifeats

  • “So what? Prove Cannonball's attacks are stronger than hers.The scan says she was caught surprised, not that she was hurt by this.”
  • “She isn't down for long enough for this to be significant.”

This amounts to “Fuck you prove that your characters feats are better than the baseline I haven’t establlished”. We’re two thirds into the debate and we still have no idea what Volcana’s durability is even supposed to be.

• Cannonball’s strength feats

  • “Looks like a pretty small building, like a house only a bit larger than a shed. Is there more context?”
  • The narration says that, but the little hole Cannonball made flying through a wall on the panel says otherwise. This is not building busting.

As far as i’m concerned, I don’t even need to prove Cannonball is a building buster yet as the baseline to incap Volcana is drastically below that. However, the building Cannonball busts is a house At least large enough for six people to comfortably fit in one room of. As for the secondary feat, the majority of the collateral isn’t shown on panel, but the initial hole in the wall isn’t enough to disprove a clear building busting statement.

• Volcana speed antifeats

  • “Caught by surprise”
  • “First time she ever did that”
  • “Not necessarily. In the exact same scan they're moving fast enough that Hellcat has to avoid them acrobatically, and is challenged in doing so. Plus, they're massively sped up by her relation to speed equalization.”
  • “If Volcana has regular human reactions of 250ms and can run at normal human speeds of like 20mph highball (i dare you to find a speed feat for her), her movement is scaled to Mach 1 and her reactions to be 38.35x faster (767/20), or about 7ms (.25/38.35)”

My opponent can attempt to explain away the lack of speed for Volcana’s transformations and healing all he wants, he can pretend that “fast enough that Hellcat has to dodge them (?????)” is a speed feat all he wants, but he still hasn’t not offered a single speed feat that refutes any of this. Did Volcana get faster? Did she learn to heal quicker, or even ever use this healing again? He still hasn’t provide feats that counteract the antifeats i’ve presented.

As for the calc, I...don’t even know what to say here. He’s trying to stealth OOT me on Cannonball while simultaneously presenting his character as reacting 38.5x faster than the tier? I.E. completely unreactable to Thing? Speed equalization doesn’t make characters faster, it makes speed equal. This would be stupidly OOT if it weren’t utter nonsense.

• Volcana’s strength antifeats

  • “You have no idea of the timeframe of this feat, you can't just call it slow because you want to lol”
  • “Because she didn't want to fuck up the store?”
  • “A man, unaffected.”

If my timeframe of “slow” isn’t suitable, i’m assuming you have your own you can provide for the first feat?

The second feat is Quicksand explicitly not having control of her powers, so her “trying not to fuck up the store” is a pretty stupid argument when a) her trying didn’t work and b) she still fucked up the store.

The Wolverine feat shows no redness, swelling, or raw skin to indicate these did even first degree burns to him.

• Cannonball durability feats

  • “As far as my opponent has shown, Pyro has worse feats than Volcana in both real terms and in terms of scaling.”
  • “None of Magma's linked feats are at all better than Volc
  • This is on top of the fact that Volcana oneshots She-Hulk, lifts 50 tons, and incinerates massive boulders with her plasma blasts, as I've already evidenced in my first response. Cannonball doesn't have any recourse, especially when his blastin' is imperfect in some instances, something I've also demonstrated.
  • “Interesting. How does Thing get through Cannonball's blastin', if a feat of this magnitude couldn't? Or maybe Sunfire didn't use any such attack against Cannonball, and this attack is completely irrelevant to Cannonball's blastin' durability. Also, this isn't no-selling any actual attack, his blast shield is just on fire. Scaling Cannonball to the "vaporize millions of tons of metal" feat is completely fucking wrong.”

My opponent never gives a reason or explanation for why Magma or Pyro’s feats are worse than Volcana’s and just says “they’re worse” so I’m not inclined to treat those claims with any merit when there’s nothing in them for me to respond to.

The claim that Sunfire isn’t using his heat on Cannonball here, in a feat where an amped Sunfire is attempting to “cook Cannonball like a snail in it’s shell” is similarly nonsensical, and trying to OOT based on heat resistance for Thing Tier is some marble brained shit.

• Miscellaneous Volcana claims

  • “where she melts asphalt when she sits on it and sets her fuckin apartment on fire by standing in it, yeah what else do you want”
  • Seems like the only option she would have? Besides giving Cannonball a blast when he's coming at her or smacking him when he gets there.
  • “I think if she throws him around enough he'll eventually get KO'd, but that's not a primary wincon, just something that's technically feasible due to her lifting strength clowning on him.”

There is no consistency to the idea that Volcana is constantly setting everything around her on fire. She isn't melting the metal around her here or doing anything to the soil and grass around her here, or melting ground whenever she wants. The heat aura is fake and inconsistent, and she doesn’t even have a reason to try this over the blasts or strikes you’ve mentioned that are far more in character for her.

Furthermore, her lifting strength feats come from her rock form (You know, the one she forgets she has), rather than her standard volcanic form. If she wants to try and enact a lifting win con, she has to stop progressing her primary win con of “burning out all the oxygen in the 10x10km IKEA until Cannonball passes out” or whatever.

Volcana does not have any presented meaningful durability or speed that outweigh her antifeats, no evidence has been presented that discards Cannonballs feats for either strength or durability, Volcana’s primary win condition is nonsensical, out of character, and impossible to enact against an opponent who can blitz and one shot.

u/corvette1710

[u/corvette1710 → u/feminist-horsebane]

Conclusions

As agreed upon by myself and my opponent, we will both present our conclusions and leave the debate at 2 responses each.

Captain Planet vs Clor

• Captain Planet's lifting beats Clor's
• Captain Planet's striking beats Clor's
• Captain Planet takes building busting blasts and Clor doesn't actually output building busting damage with his lightning
• Captain Planet absorbs or is immune to Clor's lightning or electricity because regardless of kinetic component it is one or the other and not magic
• Captain Planet's heat offense cannot be countered
• Captain Planet's contact freezing cannot be countered
• Clor's only building busting striking feats are augmented by lightning

Quicksand vs Iron Man

• Iron Man's offense isn't enough to oneshot Quicksand before she gets going
• Iron Man cannot strike Quicksand, cannot grapple Quicksand, and cannot engage with Quicksand as a rule
• Quicksand is basically immune to a number of Iron Man's offensive options
• Iron Man has not been evidenced to engage immediately with a heat attack that can glass Quicksand and engaging in any other option gives Quicksand the win
• The heat attacks shown have not been proven to glass Quicksand at the necessary scale to defeat her

Volcana vs Cannonball

• Volcana's lifting beats Cannonball's and as such she can ragdoll him
• Volcana can strike with a weapon providing 50 tons of resistance
• Volcana's blasts are strong
• Volcana's heat aura will make it harder for Cannonball to occupy the same space and fight for any length of time
• Cannonball's blastin' is imperfect in some cases
• Volcana's reactions are scaled up more by speed equalization rules than are Cannonball's, leveling the speed playing field considerably

good debate fem let's do it again next year u/feminist-horsebane

[u/feminist-horsebane → u/corvette1710]

Ragnarok vs. Captain Planet

• Captain Planet was given several win conditions at the matches start; lifting, freezing, heat and striking.
  • The lifting and heat have been discredited as being methods of attack Captain Planet has never used in character to win a fight.
  • The freezing has been shown to take too long to be viable in a combat setting.
  • The striking is based off of a singular feat that has been left unquantified and shown to be less impressive than my opponent presents it as, and less impressive than what is needed to bypass Ragnarok’s durability.
• Ragnarok was given a singular win condition at the start of the match; incapacitating Captain Planet with concussive force, either with his strikes or his lightnings KE.
  • Said scan shows Captain Planet being incapacitated for ten seconds, meaning the level of damage that Ragnarok attacks with will either OHKO or set him up to be finished off.
  • The sole durability scan my opponent has presented for Captain Planet is an esoteric attack that does not provably always have concussive force associated with it as Ragnarok’s does, and could just as easily be incapacitating CP due to his weakness to it's nature.
• With Captain Planet’s win cons being insufficient, and Ragnarok’s ability to outpace CP’s durability being clear, my opponent relied on fallacious claims that Ragnaroks’ lightning would heal or amp CP when used.
  • It has been noted that Ragnarok’s lightning behaves differently than traditional natural lightning, containing far more kinetic energy.
  • It has further been noted that the ‘healing factor’ in question is in fact simply purging pollution from his system rather than outright healing him.
  • It has also been noted that Captain Planet has never healed from exposure to lightning, nor does he always heal from exposure to elements he can manipulate.
  • Furthermore, Captain Planet’s healing has been shown to be too slow to be relevant in a fight.
• With no competitive durability, no win condition sufficient to put down Ragnarok, and no way to offset either of these problems, Captain Planet succumbs to Ragnarok at first clash.

Quicksand vs. Iron Man

• Quicksand was given no clear win condition at the start of the match, instead getting an argument centered around how hard to put down she is “once she gets going” into a supposedly unstoppable storm that will eventually put Tony down in some way.
  • My opponent has conceded that this storm can be dispersed by ludicrously below tier levels of force.
  • My opponent has also conceded that doing this is a win condition in and of itself.
  • It has been shown that Iron Man can put out this level of force with ease.
• Quicksand was later given secondary win conditions that revolve around striking and grappling.
  • My opponent and I agree offensive striking outside of Quicksands traditional punches is irrelevant to the fight at large as they are not in character moves.
  • This includes Quicksands best striking feat, leaving her as a generously wall level combatant otherwise, unable to surpass Tony’s durability.
  • Quicksands grip has been shown to be as easy to break as concrete, no evidence has been provided that implies it to be harder to break.
• Iron Man was given two win conditions at the start of the fight: Heat attacks and concussive force.
  • Quicksands resistance to concussive force has been based solely on scaling her to Luke Cage and Thor in ways that have been left unquantified and are thus meaningless. Without this, her bodies best objective feat is being destroyed by having a chunk of concrete smashed into it, a metric Tony has been shown to be capable of beating several times over.
  • Quicksands heat resistance is similarly based on unquantifiable scaling, nothing that implies an ability to stand up to heat that can melt through planes instantly.
  • Resistance to tertiary win conditions brought up by my opponent are similarly reliant upon wonky scaling that has been left unquantified.
• My opponent interprets this fight as being a war of attrition. His character does not have any standing durability, meaning the chances of winning this war are nonexistent. Quicksand dies at the first interaction

Volcana vs. Cannonball

• Volcana was given three win conditions at the start of the fight: lifting, heat, and weakening CB via "heat aura".
  • The lifting is reliant on a form that Volcana barely uses and even forgets she has, and has never been used to execute the grappling win con my opponent suggests.
  • The heat has been shown to have more antifeats than feats, utterly insufficient to beating out Cannonballs heat resistance, and too slow to tag in the first place.
  • The “heat aura” that my opponent claims will create a stage hazard for Cannonball has been shown to be a fallacy, the arena is far too large for this to be a problem, regular heat is provably nothing to Cannonball.
• Cannonball was given a singular win condition at the start of the fight: Blastin’.
  • Volcana’s durability to blastin’ was originally based on Thor and Hulk scaling that was quickly retreated from.
  • Said durability was then re-established to be “>80’s She Hulk” based on Volcana taking down She Hulk and then taking a hit from herself thirty years later.
  • It was never made clear what the She Hulk scaling is supposed to mean, what feats She Hulk has that Volcana is surpassing, how Volcana’s resistance to her own heat based attacks translates to building busting durability.
  • It was also shown that the scan used to present Volcana as “> 80’s She Hulk” was misinterpreted, as the hit Volcana takes from herself incapacitates her rather than being something she “tanked”.
• With Volcana’s win condition unable to be executed and her having no durability to speak of in face of the antifeats presented against her, she has no way to survive an initial blitz from Cannonball.

Good debatin', glad we got do to this again, see you in NW tier