• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Composite Godzilla vs Abomination

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you have no counter-argument other than "Oh it's never stated so it's not" that's very hypocritical on you because you've gone on to say numerous times you don't take statements for Godzilla (as biased and stupid as that is, that is your logc) so if it was stated, you'd be guaranteed to deny it by it being a statement rather than a visual feat whereas this is the opposite situation, you're just supposed to know what this is. That's why they don't name monsters, you should know things by now. That is the expectation.

So please provide valid reasons as to why this would not be Gorath or this feat must be held true as a display Toho made of Godzilla's power so none of that canon crap, none of that "just statement" crap, I want an actual reason as to why this would not be Gorath. If you cannot provide this, you have lost the debate and thus this would be a valid feat.
 
SuperGodzilla Kaiju King said:
If you have no counter-argument other than "Oh it's never stated so it's not" that's very hypocritical on you because you've gone on to say numerous times you don't take statements for Godzilla (as biased and stupid as that is, that is your logc) so if it was stated, you'd be guaranteed to deny it by it being a statement rather than a visual feat whereas this is the opposite situation, you're just supposed to know what this is. That's why they don't name monsters, you should know things by now. That is the expectation.
If it was stated in the game then yes i'd believe it, but it wasnt.

'Youre supposed to know what it is' isnt a valid argument, im sorry to burst your bubble but this wiki as a whole works around the principal of "You need actual solid evidence to support your claims if you want your argument to be accepted". No 'It looks like it so it must be it'. No 'Youre supposed to know its Gorath'. You need evidence.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
If you want a connection to the film, the scene from Final Wars that inspired this scene also had meteor Gorath on fire. And no, you havent presented any legitimate evidence, only massive assumptions with no backing and comparisons based on visuals and nothing else.
Yes, if you superheat a large rock it will glow
The scenes play out differently, thus meaning that the comparison between them and thus the downplay of this feat are dismissed, first off Godzilla actually destroys the object here unlike in the film and they are without a doubt on different scales of size by visual display. It's funny how you use the FW scene when we see that asteroid as a brown slab of rock with a red stream whereas here, the ojbect glows the entire time. I have presented legitimate evidence-images, movie plots, visual comparisons and real life science. Thus, I have evidence and you have nothing but denial. This is not a debunk. This is denial, which is a fallacy.


But not like this. And rocks don't just hurtle towards planets when they are this grand in stature (it is very much comparable to Earth in physical size). An object this massive would not glow as it spun towards the planet because of the fact it is too large to begin heating up on such a scale (also asteroids don't glow on their entire surface, only what is being heated by friction, so one side. This object is glowing completely).
 
You have presented no evidence, just massive assumptions and visual comparisons. Instead of trying every method under the sun of trying to convince that its Gorath because it looks similar, do the logical thing and provide actual evidence from the game.

Yes actually they do, its how the moon came into existence.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
SuperGodzilla Kaiju King said:
If you have no counter-argument other than "Oh it's never stated so it's not" that's very hypocritical on you because you've gone on to say numerous times you don't take statements for Godzilla (as biased and stupid as that is, that is your logc) so if it was stated, you'd be guaranteed to deny it by it being a statement rather than a visual feat whereas this is the opposite situation, you're just supposed to know what this is. That's why they don't name monsters, you should know things by now. That is the expectation.
If it was stated in the game then yes i'd believe it, but it wasnt.
'Youre supposed to know what it is' isnt a valid argument, im sorry to burst your bubble but this wiki as a whole works around the principal of "You need actual solid evidence to support your claims if you want your argument to be accepted". No 'It looks like it so it must be it'. No 'Youre supposed to know its Gorath'. You need evidence.
By your own claims before, that's a lie. It was stated to be about to destroy the Earth, but there isn't much talking before the scene is shown.

Uh no, this wiki hardly bothers with solid evidence 90% of the time, emphasizing scaling over statements and feats which is rather foolish. I provided evidence, you have no counter other than "it's not stated" when you'd deny that anyway, don't bother lying you've said it before, it is clearly not an asteroid by physics, it's not a normal planet by physics and if it was an actual star...well...it gets to the same end result. The game plays out like this, thus it's not going to explain everything. This is clearly not the Monster X asteroid (the Ghidorah fight is an entirely separate scene in fact), so downplaying it to being the same by images, lore and logic is absolutely wrong. It's undeniable what this is unless you have a legitimate counter. No denial, no straw manning, no red herrings. I placed my cards on the table, you have yet to pull out cards. Either provide a good reason or concede.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top