Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
>Your response to the radiation effect killing people canonically within hours is asserting that radiation effects kill people within months?
Prove it was cancer that killed them then, because you're glossing over my argument which had been reinforced throughout this debate;
Ive given examples like Chernobyl for Radiation poisoning, which is far greater than the radiation feats SAID (not shown) here, the majority of effects are all effects Metal Bat would over come as he's already done so before.
>Yeah that is just going against in-universe details and ignoring the point of the argument
Its really not, as I've asked for quantifications and nothing has been presented besides "Made a few city blocks inhospitable" which is fodder, Nuclear Bombs are far worse in Radiation alone, and Chernobyl spread over West Russia, Ukraine and Belarus;
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1144581/chernobyl-radiation-map-how-far-radiation-travel-did-Chernobyl-affect-Britai
A point I already made which negs your argument.
>And tone down the hostility, you labelling someone as dishonest or biased will accomplish nothing if they have legitimate reasons
They flat out don't, I've countered each point they've made even the ad nausuem arguments, so no, he doesn't have legitimate reasons and by reading the thread one would know this.
>and if you can't convince someone to agree with your points don't act like you're undeniably in the right and demand them to accept defeat.
If they no longer provide arguments in a debate, they cannot counter your arguments and just say "Nuh ugh, I'm in the right, you've not debunked anything" then they concede via Burden of Rejoinder as they are no longer furthering the debate.
Again, look up Burden of Rejoinder. And I'm actually not being hostile, me affirming my points isn't hostility, it's confidence.
Prove it was cancer that killed them then, because you're glossing over my argument which had been reinforced throughout this debate;
Ive given examples like Chernobyl for Radiation poisoning, which is far greater than the radiation feats SAID (not shown) here, the majority of effects are all effects Metal Bat would over come as he's already done so before.
>Yeah that is just going against in-universe details and ignoring the point of the argument
Its really not, as I've asked for quantifications and nothing has been presented besides "Made a few city blocks inhospitable" which is fodder, Nuclear Bombs are far worse in Radiation alone, and Chernobyl spread over West Russia, Ukraine and Belarus;
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1144581/chernobyl-radiation-map-how-far-radiation-travel-did-Chernobyl-affect-Britai
A point I already made which negs your argument.
>And tone down the hostility, you labelling someone as dishonest or biased will accomplish nothing if they have legitimate reasons
They flat out don't, I've countered each point they've made even the ad nausuem arguments, so no, he doesn't have legitimate reasons and by reading the thread one would know this.
>and if you can't convince someone to agree with your points don't act like you're undeniably in the right and demand them to accept defeat.
If they no longer provide arguments in a debate, they cannot counter your arguments and just say "Nuh ugh, I'm in the right, you've not debunked anything" then they concede via Burden of Rejoinder as they are no longer furthering the debate.
Again, look up Burden of Rejoinder. And I'm actually not being hostile, me affirming my points isn't hostility, it's confidence.