Iron Man V.S. The Hulk THE LIMITED DEBATE

Another poor showing from my opponent. "1)My opponent doubted my sources, but he himself provides no sources. coincidence? I think NOT! "I had already provided them the previous round. You didn't respond to them. You are at fault here. This alone is a concession. As the link I provided in round 2 states; in the Hulk's professor hulk incarnation, he retains Banner's intelligence. My opponent seems ignorant of the fact that there are multiple incarnations of the hulk. "And the pictures that my opponent provided showed the hulk with armor, and in this battle he has no armor. That is from previous battles, and if my opponent says he does have it, he will be contradicting himself from his own conditions in round 1. The armor helped him stop it. "Are you kidding? That armour is regular metal. Against Skaar, he might as well be wearing his purple shorts for all the extra protection it gives. I am arguing he doesn't have it, but doesn't need it. Here is a link establishing that Skaar was fighting with 100 trillion ton level strength [. http://marvel.wikia.com...(Earth-616)] "My opponent didn't refute this point, and only diverted our eyes with stuff from the comic. My opponent will accept links from the comics, but not the movie? "I actually pointed you to the first round where I said there are thousands examples of these times when x has beaten y, through plot device (for example, hulk by himself has trashed the entire avengers including ironman - see avengers 1). It is utterly irrelevant to the debate however, as plot device was in play. Furthermore, yes, it has been established that the movies are not canon, so are inferior sources to the comics. " Also, in the comics, (I havent read them and since there is only a 30 minute time limit I had no time to read them) I assume that the hulk had troubles right? Stan Lee made no comic where the character just ran over every enemy with absolutely no restraint. "That was my point genius. Plot device. Please do be so polite to actually read my arguments. "The Hulk absolutely had trials, and would definately lose against Iron Man. "Assertion without warrant. B - "I guess I win this point. "In crazy land, does dropping an argument mean you win? As I stated, and proved, Hulk has much superior strength to Ironman (functionally infinite). You failed to respond to this, so you dropped it. "Everyone gets tired. The hulk is not a god. He can get tired. Thirdly, Iron Man's speed could avoid a hurricane. He would dodge all of the Hulk's attacks, and then blow him up. "Hulks stamina is based on his anger. The longer the battle goes on, the longer he can fight. Ironman could not dodge a hurricane if he is engaging the Hulk, and for the hundredth time, Ironman's weapons could barely harm the Hulk, let alone blow him up. "As I have said repeatedly, Iron Man would stay out of the attack range of the Hulk with his speed. If there ever was the of chance that it would result in close quarters, Iron Man would shoot a critical hit pulst blast that would abliderate the Hulk. "If he stays out of range, then he runs out power and loses. If he fights, he loses. The most powerful blast of ironman's is far weaker (like a worm compared to human difference) than Black Bolt's blast, the Human Torches Nova or Skaar fighting at 100 trillion ton strength, all of which the Hulk has survived. You have provided no evidence Ironman could even scratch Hulk, let alone kill him. "The Hulk has claps, whilst Iron Man has lasers, missles, and pulse cannons from his hand. The Hulk isn't fast enough to dodge those attacks, whilst Iron Man can dodge them. "Irrelevant if they only make Hulk stronger. My opponent has consistently made assertions without warrant, used poor sources which have no bearing on the arguments, and failed to read my arguments.