Mongeese's Ultimate Team War

<"If a limit is unknown, then how can I know when you pushed him across this limit? I can't."> It was never specified that indeterminable and unknown limits could be used, so it's too bad; be more specific next time. Also, unknown =/= limitless, either. <"You claim for Mewtwo to have both Special manga abilities and his abilities from the movie. You were supposed to pick."> 1: he can do the same thing he does in the manga in the movie, and vice versa. Mewtwo fights using telekinetic waves, and such; that trait isn't exclusive to any one area; it's something which definitively applies to him/her/whatever Mewtwo is. That power remains consistent in both the manga, the movie, and even in the video games (for gameboy. Ex: red, blue, gold, yellow, etc...) 2: the blurb about the manga doesn't introduce any new abilities of Mewtwo's, which negates his point that I chose abilities from two areas. <"Doctor Manhattan has immortality and intangibility, which means that he can never be defeated."> ...uh-huh, and? That simply means it was a good pick; that's in no violation of the rules. <"How am I supposed to out-strength incalculable strength? Neezar's page is covered with "immeasurable" things. So, yeah, that's unlimited. If you don't know the limit, it doesn't have one. So, you need some real limits, or you lose."> My opponent's rebuttal is...well, lacking. I'll rebut it point-by-point: <""How am I supposed to out-strength incalculable strength?"> You can't. Hence the pick. <"Neezar's page is covered with "immeasurable" things. So, yeah, that's unlimited. If you don't know the limit, it doesn't have one."> This is just plain wrong; there's no other way to put it. The logic of "X's limits can't be substantiated; therefore, X doesn't have limits," is a non-sequitur; the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.(1) Just because something is unquantifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. And, again, indeterminable =/= unlimited. <"So, you need some real limits, or you lose."> Limits probably exist; they just aren't known, and, as stated multiple times, unknown =/= limitless. The rules can't be amended to say that limits have to be measurable and known during the debate. <"His powers include X-ray vision, Telescopic Vision, Strength, Stamina, Speed, Microscopic vision, Jump, Invulnerability, Intelligence, Hypnokinesis, Heat vision, Hearing, Healing Factor, Flight, Enhanced Senses, Energy Absorption, Durability, and Breath."> ...if Doctor Manhattan is against the rules by your logic, then so would Superman be. In the comments, my opponent stated the following: <"Does he have a limit on his time power? Does he have a limit on his matter power? Does he have a limit on his energy power?"> Does Superman have a limit on his hearing power? Does Superman have a limit on his heat vision? ...but such questions seem futile, because 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. Further, my opponent's rule states that an ability can't be unlimited; it doesn't say that limits absolutely have to apply. Now, why my team is inherently superior to my opponent's team: 1: before my opponent can even think about making a move, Doctor Manhattan's ability to see the future allows him know what pro's team will do; the simply insane intelligence of him and Nezarr the Calculator then allow them to come up with a counterattack for any possible strategy pro could use, which means there's seemingly no strategy which can be used by pro to defeat my team, because they know what will happen, and are therefore, prepared. 2: quite a few members of my team have the ability to take control over another person: Mewtwo, Nezarr the Calculator, and the Silver Surfer. That means that if pro's team were to somehow take control of a member of my team, I can take control back immediately, using any of the members I previously mentioned. Also, if pro intended to take control of one of my team members, my team would already know, and would then take control of the member of pro's team who's trying to control a member of my team before he gets a chance to even make an attempt. 3: Doctor Manhattan can simply stop time, and vanquish all of my opponent's team to the outer limits of the universe -- battle over. Or he could use his ability to manipulate matter to defeat them with spontaneous combustion (ex: the way he killed Rorschach in the movie.) 4: Doctor Manhattan can stop time, and then vanquish my opponent's team to a far away planet. Mewtwo and Nezarr the Calculator then would destroy the planet with relative ease (after Manhattan ceases his stopping of time.) 5: the members of my team who can control members of my opponent's team would simply do so, and then make them fight to the death among themselves. There are many, many scenarios I could use which are similar to the one's I've put forth. Simply put, my team cannot be defeated by my opponent's team; my team's ability to know what my opponent's team will do before they do it makes it so that they can counter anything my opponent does. <"3. Ganondorf transforms into his god form."> I mean, I'm getting criticized for using a guy who's close to being a god (Doctor Manhattan) -- but he's actually using a god? The rules my opponent has seemingly randomly attempted to apply to me mustn't apply to him -- he's clearly attempting to distort the rules to fit his side of the debate. (1) = http://mw1.m-w.com...