Worst "VS" Arguments You've Heard?

[chiasaur11]

Not at Dicefreak's at least. There Sephiroth is stated as a 20 hit die custom build. Even their Spider-Man stats have a higher hit die than that.

Thus the some.

I'm sure most FF 7 fans are much more reasonable.

[hamishspence]

Nothing more than an average star at this point in its life, actually. You want big ones you need to look for red or blue giants, which can be hundreds of times the size of the sun. Hell, as the sun ages, it will eventually become a red giant itself, and if nothing alters the orbit of the planets it will be big enough then to engulf all the inner planets of our solar system, Earth included.

Zevox

However, there is something that alters the orbits- the fact that aging stars lose mass rapidly.

I think there was something about tidal forces between the giant star and the planet, in an article, that explained that even if star does not quite engulf the planet, they will move inwards.

So, you've got forces moving them in, and loss of mass of star causing conservation of angular momentum to move the planets out.

Making what happens to planets close to the borderline (such as Earth, in the case of our Sun) a little difficult to predict.

[Zevox]

However, there is something that alters the orbits- the fact that aging stars lose mass rapidly.

I think there was something about tidal forces between the giant star and the planet, in an article, that explained that even if star does not quite engulf the planet, they will move inwards.

So, you've got forces moving them in, and loss of mass of star causing conservation of angular momentum to move the planets out.

Making what happens to planets close to the borderline (such as Earth, in the case of our Sun) a little difficult to predict.

Aye, Wikipedia said as much when I double-checked to make sure I was right about that. I just didn't feel the extra detail was necessary when my point was just to demonstrate the kind of sizes that truly large stars reach compared to our sun as it is now.

And in any event, Earth will be an uninhabitable scorching wasteland planet long before the sun threatens to envelope it, between the expanding size and increasing luminosity of the sun as it grows older, so it makes fairly little difference to us whether the planet gets absorbed into the sun or not. Humans won't be around to care if it happens - either because we died off long beforehand, or because we made it off this rock and found another world to live on before it was too late.

Zevox

[hamishspence]

the sun has increased in luminosity by 15% since the beginning of the solar system, roughly. Yet overall temperatures have actually decreased quite a long way since the Carboniferous (admittedly a much shorter period).

While I wouldn't expect surface life to survive all the way to the red giant phase, its surprising how much temperature has changed on Earth, without destroying life.

[Gralamin]

Why would he bother? What's so bad about them that he'd feel compelled to do so? I mean, he might screw with them for the hell of it, but I doubt he'd just annihilate their civilization for giggles. He doesn't seem like that kind of guy.

However he might kidnap Picard when the Federation needs him the most, causing him to go through some scenario that if Picard finishes will teach him the Valuable Life Lesson needed to defeat or make Peace with the Star Wars Universe.

But hey, thats just as bad as an argument as "Link will travel through dungeons until he gets the item that lets him beat Threat X"

[Kris Strife]

Slightly off topic, but has anyone been reading Quentyn Quinn, Space Ranger lately? http://www.rhjunior.com/QQSR/ the current chapter seems to be doing an homage/parody/commentary on the bad physics and cultural sciences in Star Trek. Ship design, unshielded matter/antimatter reactors, teleporters and the assumption that all species have one single homogenous culture. Seems to oriented on ST:TNG.

[Llama231]

Sephiroth and time travelers tend to get the worst arguments.

I mean, most of the time Trek arguments, for example, are perfectly reasonable (by vs. thread standards.) but if someone mentions that in even one episode Kirk traveled back to the fourties via a one in a million wormhole based accident, then suddenly good old Jim is the Doctor, but able to punch paradoxes to death. Error of stoicism, I suppose. (Thinking one can do at all times what we can do some of the time, for those unaware of the term.)

Sephiroth arguments have been better documented errors, with fewer defenses.

Basically, as everyone else has said, just because he pulled a Norman Osbourne, some fans of 7 tend to assume he's the God Emperor of Mankind, Goku, Superman, and Pun-Pun rolled into one, but without the limits on power.

Eesh.

Sephie vs. Teh Doctor?


Also, what about epic level wizards vs. anything?

[Prime32]

Also, what about epic level wizards vs. anything?

The "Ask Red Mage" page at 8-Bit Theatre had these two questions answered on different occasions:

Q: Who would win, Thor or Superman?
A: Thor because he has magic.

Q: Who would win, Elminster or Superman?
A: Superman by a landslide.

There's enough magic in Elminster's pipe to beat Superman.

[The Glyphstone]

The "Ask Red Mage" page at 8-Bit Theatre had these two questions answered on different occasions:

Q: Who would win, Thor or Superman?
A: Thor because he has magic.

Q: Who would win, Elminster or Superman?
A: Superman by a landslide.

There's enough magic in Elminster's pipe to beat Superman.

You do realize we're talking about Red Mage, right? it's not a wall banger that his answers are inconsistent, it's a miracle that he actually managed to answer both questions with one of the given choices.

[TengYt]

The "Ask Red Mage" page at 8-Bit Theatre had these two questions answered on different occasions:

Q: Who would win, Thor or Superman?
A: Thor because he has magic.

Q: Who would win, Elminster or Superman?
A: Superman by a landslide.

There's enough magic in Elminster's pipe to beat Superman.

Er...you do realise that was a joke, right?

[Prime32]

Er...you do realise that was a joke, right?

This was a column written by someone other than the author, not part of the strip, and the answers were given some time apart. It seems to have vanished from the new site.

[GoC]

I mean, most of the time Trek arguments, for example, are perfectly reasonable (by vs. thread standards.) but if someone mentions that in even one episode Kirk traveled back to the fourties via a one in a million wormhole based accident, then suddenly good old Jim is the Doctor, but able to punch paradoxes to death. Error of stoicism, I suppose. (Thinking one can do at all times what we can do some of the time, for those unaware of the term.)

According to ST 4 time travel methods are well known and reasonably reliable.
That said: Inconsistent.

[Agrippa]

Sephie vs. Teh Doctor?

Doctor wins of course. The Doctor fought Davros and his Daleks, both the Mondas and Lumec cybermen, killed at least two Satan analogues and used nanogenes from a stolen chula ambulance to restore a small group of victims of the London blitz to life. Gods quake in terror before him, demons flee from his sight and the Daleks have relearned fear from him. I don't care how cool you think Sephiroth is, but there is no way that some white haired pretty boy, supersoldier Norman Bates and Gollum hybrid would stand much of a chance against him.

[Strawman]

In a mall I overheard part of an oxygen vs. nitrogen argument. I kept walking.

[Robert Blackletter]

In a mall I overheard part of an oxygen vs. nitrogen argument. I kept walking.

Well I want more details, as they have different properiitys so it would depend on what your using it for

[Nerocite]

Zombie Apocalypse vs. Robot Apocalypse vs. Apocalypse.

[Strawman]

Well I want more details, as they have different properiitys so it would depend on what your using it for

It was something to do with which was better for breathing. But it wasn't about which we needed to breathe, or something else that would be immedietely obvious. I think it was a hypothetical about "if we could evolve to only need one, which would be preferable?"

[chiasaur11]

Zombie Apocalypse vs. Robot Apocalypse vs. Apocalypse.

I trust robot won?

[Robert Blackletter]

It was something to do with which was better for breathing. But it wasn't about which we needed to breathe, or something else that would be immedietely obvious. I think it was a hypothetical about "if we could evolve to only need one, which would be preferable?"

But... but that just dumb.

[Strawman]

But... but that just dumb.

See thread title.

[Nerocite]

I trust robot won?

No, they combined with the zombies, some ninjas, and a couple of pirates to form NPZRs them defeated Apocalypse.

And they all lived happily ever after.

[imp_fireball]

That looks exactly like those walking tiles in mario 64 (the crushers... can't remember the actual names).

[Nerd-o-rama]

That looks exactly like those walking tiles in mario 64 (the crushers... can't remember the actual names).

Thwomps. (The large cubes that drop on you are Whomps - I may have these backwards.)

[Dhavaer]

It was something to do with which was better for breathing. But it wasn't about which we needed to breathe, or something else that would be immedietely obvious. I think it was a hypothetical about "if we could evolve to only need one, which would be preferable?"

Nitrogen. It's less volatile, thus less of a fire hazard.

[Dervag]

Nitrogen. It's less volatile, thus less of a fire hazard.

Yes, and it's also inert. You can't drive chemical reactions with it, so it's useless as a breathing gas. The chemical reactions in fire and the chemical reactions that make oxygen useful to your body are the same, just progressing at different rates under different circumstances. Nitrogen is inherently less useful for catalyzing any kind of reaction than oxygen. That's why it's less of a fire hazard.

[Zeful]

Yes, and it's also inert. You can't drive chemical reactions with it, so it's useless as a breathing gas. The chemical reactions in fire and the chemical reactions that make oxygen useful to your body are the same, just progressing at different rates under different circumstances. Nitrogen is inherently less useful for catalyzing any kind of reaction than oxygen. That's why it's less of a fire hazard.

So then it would be better to breath something like Hydrogen?

[kpenguin]

But... but that just dumb.

Are you kidding? That's an awesome hypothetical!

[Nerd-o-rama]

So then it would be better to breath something like Hydrogen?

It's a safer compound than O2 - isn't flammable, doesn't corrode metals, etc. - but by the same token and for the same reasons, there's no way that any life as we understand it could find it useful as an inhalant.

It's easy to turn into a metaphor for the need to take risks in life, but fairly inane as a versus topic.

[Zeful]

It's a safer compound than O2 - isn't flammable, doesn't corrode metals, etc. - but by the same token and for the same reasons, there's no way that any life as we understand it could find it useful as an inhalant.

It's easy to turn into a metaphor for the need to take risks in life, but fairly inane as a versus topic.

Isn't flammable? The Hindenburg wasn't filled with hydrogen?

[Guancyto]

Paint.

The Hindenburg had what was essentially incendiary paint. Pure hydrogen isn't actually that flammable.