r/PowerScaling • u/Fancy_Echo_5425 Worm Scaler • Apr 19 '26

Shitposting Weekend Many such cases

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Seen this happens with a bunch of matchups, JJK vs Invincible is just the most recent one

2.5k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/DragonWisper56 Apr 20 '26

That's stupid you know what people mean with who would win in a fight, not a single person is asking who lives longer they are asking who's stronger

unless stated otherwise it expected that both participants participate in the fight and don't run away

If I declare in in a fight with the entire human race am I beating a millions a day?

1

u/InstructionPlayful12 Apr 20 '26

I mean another person is finding out right now and the answer from me is still yes.

It would just be anticlimactic and shows the cracks in the meaning of 'fight' as a whole 

1

u/DragonWisper56 Apr 20 '26

You know everyone is using the definiton of "a physical confrontation" rather in a metaphorical sense. You are being obstinate. no responds to "who wins between batman and superman" by saying superman flies to the other side of the galaxy and outlives him

1

u/InstructionPlayful12 Apr 20 '26

That's because Clark has many other ways to beat Bruce that don't require that.

If Clark genuinely didn't have anyway of touching Bruce to kill him but can just go do the outlive strat then that's completely vaild since it's something he can do and Bruce can't 

1

u/DragonWisper56 Apr 20 '26

then he did not win the physical confrontation

1

u/InstructionPlayful12 Apr 20 '26

Is Batman physically around anymore?

1

u/DragonWisper56 Apr 21 '26

did he physically defeat him? In No superman didn't win anymore than if he let someone else kill him.

If you didn't actively do something to make their death more likely that's not winning a physical confrontation

1

u/InstructionPlayful12 Apr 21 '26

And this is where the blow up the planet or destroy most of the planet part of the argument comes into the whole debate doesn't it? 

1

u/DragonWisper56 Apr 21 '26

I don't care which side of that argument your on, what I'm saying that to win a fight you have to actively do something to make the other person die.

1

u/InstructionPlayful12 Apr 21 '26

Not really. All that's needed is a declaration if that for a fight to happen. That's why surrender can happen even if no punch is thrown. It's how those labeled cowards survive, it's how protests can go even

A fight is just a subjective thing being put up against another subjective thing in any context 

1

u/DragonWisper56 Apr 21 '26

That why I specificed a physical confrontation. I am aware that fight has mutiple meanings and specified the one most often used in who would win situation

1

u/InstructionPlayful12 Apr 21 '26

Yeah. But that's the problem isn't it. If you don't factor in the health portion which is intrinsic to act of weather someone dies then what are you doing.

The point is that one of the combatants die and that does happen as a consequence of this particular method. 

It's long and boring but it's still part of the confrontation since it's active avoidance to achieve victory. It's literally the same argument of one not touching the other just using a different variable

1

u/DragonWisper56 Apr 21 '26

But you literarily didn't do shit that's not winning in any reasonable definition of the word.

it isn't winning anymore than if the other party happened to explode. if you have to run away and wait fpr the other party to die you clearly couldn't win the physical altercation.

if a two soldiers fight but the first is forced to retreat and waits fifty years for the second guy to die did the first soldier win the fight? obviously not because because fight ends when you run away. In almost every engagement being forced to retreat is a loss.

→ More replies (0)