Mongeese's Ultimate Team War

"It's a piece of equipment that isn't allowed." Sure it is. I never used two sources to give Mewtwo any powers, equipment, etc. Mewtwo's powers were generally described, and then it was mentioned that he/she/it uses a piece of equipment specifically in the manga. I didn't use anything "non-canonical." My opponent has decided to rehash more points in his argument. We're just gonna be going around in circles if he chooses to use arguments and points which have already been negated. Such arguments are: "If Manhattan can stop time and travel through time as he pleases, without being able to be stopped, then it's an unlimited ability." "The fact is, Superman has limits. You don't." "Superman has limits. Manhattan doesn't." Firstly, my opponent clearly doesn't know much about Watchmen, and how Adrien Veidt rendered Doctor Manhattan useless. But that's all irrelevant, because I've already addressed these points in my second round argument; my opponent has chosen not to put forth a retort to the argument *I* put forth; he's merely using the same argument I addressed, which means my argument stands. "However, if the plan cannot be countered, then you're out of luck." If there's a plan, it can be countered. Besides, my opponent already showed me his plans, and I've already countered them. "You can't just say that Nezarr would know what to do." I didn't. Not at all. I clearly and concisely said what would happen. "Wrong. Margaritaville nullifies your time powers." Explain how, then. Just because my opponent says it doesn't make it so. He's again stating something which I've already addressed, and not providing an un-rebutted rationale. Again, whether the planet is "Margaritaville" or not is completely independent from Manhattan's ability to cease time. "The time is stopped at five o' clock. Time doesn't pass, but everybody thinks that it does. It's kind of like how Manhattan can still move after freezing time, but everybody in Margaritaville can still move." This doesn't make any sense...at all. Absolutely none. If time is stopped *already,* then Doctor Manhattan's work is already done for him, which is an advantage for me. Simple as that. And my opponent has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the science behind time stoppage -- let me explain: To be in motion requires speed; speed is dependent on time; therefore, if time stops, so does speed, which means you cannot be in motion. Not only that, but light would be unable to be perceived and the flow of oxygen and sound would stop completely. Just because the people in "Margaritaville" don't perceive time's stoppage doesn't mean it isn't stopped. If the time is stopped at 5 o'clock, then the effects of time stoppage will consequently occur, too, which means all my opponent's team are completely at the will of Doctor Manhattan, considering his powers make it so that he wouldn't be affected. Manhattan's control over time isn't "nullified" at all -- rather, it's assisted. So yeah, thanks. "Yugi can put the puzzle back together again if you shatter it. Plus, it's protected by dark magic." You can't put something which was evaporated back together, because there wouldn't be any visible traces of it remaining. And so what if it's protected my dark magic? 1: I don't see how that counteracts Manhattan and the Surfer's ability to manipulate anything composed of matter; 2: nowhere in my opponent's chosen source does it say that the Puzzle is protected by "dark magic," which means he's applying something which is "non-canonical," which is in violation of the rules. "Yugi is in the Shadow Realm. Apparently, you lack power over dimensions." The Surfer is capable of going back and forth through any dimension he chooses. As is Manhattan. Not only that, but being in the "shadow realm" doesn't impact my team's powers; again, the area of battle is independent from my team's abilities. Yugi's power would be increased -- but he's still no match for my team, which is composed of the most powerful beings in the universe. "The Triforce of Courage does grant certain protection, and the Triforce of Courage isn't matter." As for the idea of the Triforce of Courage offering protection...I already addressed and debunked it; my opponent is yet again rehashing arguments. Using arguments which have already been negated probably isn't the best way to go...just sayin'. Anyway, here's how it's debunked: "So, the idea that the Triforce of Courage protects Link cannot be verified by the "canon" my opponent has chosen, which therefore means it's irrelevant, and that my opponent has broken a rule by applying a trait to Link which is "non-canonical." ...and I never claimed that the Triforce was matter, so my opponent is using a straw man argument. (1) I simply said Manhattan and the Surfer wouldn't have too tough a time breaking it up -- not once did I say they'd use their matter manipulation ability. ...besides, the Triforce *has* to be composed of energy or matter, which means it is, indeed, susceptible to Manhattan and the Surfer's ability to manipulate those two things. "However, Link and Yugi are underage, so they don't drink." Underage people drink. Besides, if a teammate did decide to attack them in a drunken rage, they'd have to defend themselves, whether they were drunk or not. "This is what happens when unlimited powers are used." Again, I've addressed the "unlimited powers" argument. My opponent really needs to get some material which hasn't been negated. "However, Ganondorf can't be evaporated or controlled, and sending him into space wouldn't defeat him." If Ganondorf is made of energy or matter, than yeah, he's susceptible to being evaporated. And, well, my opponent says "sending him into space wouldn't defeat him," but he doesn't back himself up. It'd be kinda hard for him to be in battle when he's busy at the outer limits of the universe, no? Plus, my opponent never rebutted the strategy of sending him to a planet and then destroying it, so it stands. "Bada-bing, bada-boom. My opponent has clearly broken the rules, and has broken the spirit of Ultimate Team War." ...no, I haven't. Not at all; I've already explained how: Me: "you cant place a limit on something in which limits can't logically apply, which means it cant be with nor without limits. it's essentially like asking if there's a limit on one's ability to walk -- sure, you can get tired, but there isn't an energy bar which runs out, rendering an individual unable to walk. It's the same thing with Manhattan's ability to manipulate time, energy, and matter -- there isn't an energy bar, which means limits don't apply. The mentioned abilities aren't really fields in which having a magnitude of power makes sense." So no, I haven't broken the rules. My opponent is attempting to distort them in the middle of the debate to fit his argument. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, so it really is too bad for him. "He has the unlimited power of immortality." Him: "Team Member 2: Ganondorf Dragmire (The Legend of Zelda series) Ganondorf (http://zelda.wikia.com......) is the wielder of the Triforce of Power (http://zelda.wikia.com......). "Presumably through possession of the Triforce of Power, Ganondorf gain near invulnerability and astonishing magical powers, even allowing transformation into various beastly forms and, apparently, granting immortality." However, in this debate, he only has to be defeated, not killed." Notice the following: ". . . apparently, granting immortality." However, in this debate, he only has to be defeated, not killed." Not only does my opponent have an immortal member of his team -- but that's irrelevant, because "in this debate, he only has to be defeated, not killed." My opponent can either stick to his distorted rule and have it used against him, or he can realize it's irrelevant. Either way, it's good for me.