alex mercer vs hancock

The arguments put forth by my opponent are absurd at best, and I shall prove this in my third and final set of rebuttals, which will be followed by my conclsuions on this debate.http://www.youtube.com...___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Rebuttals:you wrote alex wrong if you want help with your spelling go to schoolFirstly, I never "spelled" (not wrote) Alex wrong.Secondly, I would like to point out disrespectful conduct on my opponent's part.I'm not raising any fingers, but looking at the overall spelling & punctuation errors, I think we all see who needs to go back to school.---------------------------------------------------throwing alex mercer to the sun now that is some stupid non senseI see that my opponent is new to the site, but such a statement would be perceived as offensive almost anywhere.Also, it is not some stupid non sense, because: 1. Mercer cannot resist Hancock as Hancock's strength is many times greater than Mercer's (obviously, a train is many times heavier than a tank). 2. Space is vacuum, and hence it is Mercer cannot change his direction once propelled by Hancock, and will fly straight to the sun, where he'll be completely incinerated.In any case, it was just a scenario. I put one out there, and I defended it successfully.Con's response: Calling it stupid non sense and not presenting any scenarios supporting his case either. ---------------------------------------------------when hancock is gonnna be flying up to the sky alex is gonna punch him, grab him and do his bullet drop....And what impact will that produce on an immortal who wasn't even bruised by a freight train?Besides, Mercer cannot do his bulletdive drop (seriously, I'm starting to think that I know Prototype better than my opponent himself) if he cannot overcome the force with which Hancock is pulling him upwards. It's simple physics.And he CANNOT overcome that force, because, for the umpteenth time, Mercer is far weaker in strength as compared to Hancock....which will allow him to go back in earth and hancock will be damagedIt's as if Con has been paying no attention to my arguments at all. In any case, I'll present my defense.At the start of my arguments for the current round is an example video of the bulletdive drop: The best it can do is blow a few cars away.Now, at the risk of over-repetition, check this out: By the way, there were about 20 freight containers (not visible in photo) behind that locomotive engine.How can Con even think that this guy can be damaged by a bulletdive drop? I'm sorry, but that is beyond absurd.---------------------------------------------------alex was gonna consume ray embray who means alot to hancocks wife he might then persuade herHow is anyone supposed to know who Alex was gonna consume unless you said it?And even so, Ray Embrey will persuade Hancock's wife to do what? Go and hang out with Hancock? Doesn't that sound totally out of character?I would like to point out that even Con thinks that Embrey only might persuade her. If even my opponent isn't sure of his statement, then what reason does anyone have to believe it?I really think my opponent should have provided a more solid basis for his argument. One cannot simply say thats all i have to say for now. This shows appalling ignorance on my opponent's part.----------------------------------------------------i am sure he will find away how to defend himself. Nobody cares what Con is sure about. What the voters care about is the quality and quantity of the actual arguments presented by the debaters.The fact remains that since Con is presenting Mercer's case, it is his duty to think and give statements, thoughts and facts on Mercer's behalf, and not simply leave everything up to a video game character. That's childishly ignorant._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Conclusion:I have conclusively disproved all of my opponent's arguments.I have demonstrated why one must infer that Hancock's strength, speed and vitality are far superior to Mercer's.I have provided a believable scenario in which it is possible for Hancock to completely destroy Mercer, and Con has failed to disprove it.Also, Con has provided no indisputable scenarios which involve Mercer killing or consuming Hancock.Con has shown repeated disregard for the evidence I have presented regarding Hancock's strength and invulnerability.In conclusion, I believe I have proved very well, that JOHN HANCOCK (the superhero, not the statesman) CAN DEFEAT ALEX MERCER. I don't see why any fair voter wouldn't award points in my favour.Vote Pro!__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Sources:Video found on: http://www.youtube.com...Images found on: http://images.google.com...;