Round 3: mik vs. ken

***

There was a lot of back and forth on this one with some very personal issues, argument reliability, arguments attacking the character of the person debating. I'll just be trying to go over the round-by-round arguments with as much objectivity as I can.

***

Strode vs. Tak

Mik lays out his wincons right off the bat with Strode, starting off by claiming he has the advantage of initiative while having methods of OHKOing his opponent. I judged Mik's round last time so there isn't too much to say here on Strode that I didn't say there - Mik once again leaves no stone unturned and gives a portfolio of analysis on Strode's predictions and senses. The section on Strode being faster than Tak was interesting since Tak appears fast on the surface, and while I think Stode's speed is evidence well I don't think the linked examples of Ken "castrating himself" make Tak appear to be particularly slow or vague, although in a vacuum it gives the *impression* Strode has better objective speed, and with the aforementioned meme senses and precog the argument that Strode has a better time keeping up with Tak than vice versa is laid out concretely. Strode's ability to throw things at high-speeds is brought up like last time, and while I think Mik is being generous with his definition of piercing the feats on either side of the fight here are laid out pretty well. The durability bit is kind of similar to speed in where it heavily relies on a generous interpretation of stuff Ken has previously said, but it works to at least demonstrate Strode's best strength feats. I once again buy that Strode's endurance is crazy, and for the time being his piercing resistance comes off as good but even just a passing familiarity with Tak's feats makes me doubtful if it's any relevant for what Tak pulls off.

Like Mik, Ken opens with simple and straightforward wincons - Tak is more mobile, reacts faster, and can tag Strode with his weapon. He establishes that Tak has senses that would allow him to locate his opponent immediately, which is already a big hit on one of Mik's primary arguments. It's nice to see some solid anti-feats posted for Strode - and Ken responds to Mik's claims of meme senses with times Strode is successfully sneak-attacked, and if there's no mitigating context it seems as though Tak has the more consistent initiative. It's the same thing over for Strode's speed, and between both the anti-feats Ken and Mik have posted so far I'm leaning on Tak being more consistently fast. Movement speed is introduced as a factor in the fight and Tak is showcased to have good acceleration, maneuverability, and top velocities. The comparison to Strode is short, concise, and once again really picks at Mik's initiative argument. I was already having trouble buying Strode's ability to take Tak's weapon but yeah, he cuts good and there's not much to add on that. Strode's range is attacked by forcing Mik to explain how his character finds these projectiles on the roof, a very entertaining bit on how him finding these projectiles doesn't screw him over, how fast these are vs. bullets Tak can dodge, and how Strode goes for melee more often than he throws projectiles out. I don't feel like all of these is rock solid, but holy hell if it doesn't slap back on Mik's initial arguments. And yeah the difference in range for sword vs. fist is a thing.

Mik's R2 is a lot more solid than his R1, for sure. The mitigating context for Strode's feats were much needed (although I don't think Strode's RT was as crystal-clear to navigate as Mik suggested in terms of chronology). I *do* agree that Strode has better senses than Tak, although at the same time I'm not sure how relevant it is in a straight-on fight, and I don't think Mik does a good job explaining how stuff like omnidirectional sensing will help Strode have an initiative advantage specifically. The prediction points were solid though, and that's entirely more relevant to the fight, although it highly depends on the speed comparison between Tak and Strode. I don't think the "comparison is obvious" for Ken vs. Mik's antifeats and when the comparison *isn't* obvious it makes this kind of argument look extremely bad, however thankfully Mik doesn't just leave it at that and goes into more context on Strode's antifeats. This kind of argumentation repeats itself for the major talking points - however Mik's rebuttal to Ken's piece on range didn't really tackle all of the points against this tactic and sort of talks past Ken. He continues to argue that Tak's piercing isn't good enough for Strode, which once again doesn't really dive as deep into what Ken established as it should have, and I thought the response to Tak's durability continuing to rely on stuff Ken claimed in his OOT defense rather than take on the feats as seriously as the sections on speed and precog makes the argument for Strode's strength vs. Tak's durability feel extremely vague to judge on both ends in this comment.

Ken points out a lot of arguments Mik sort of talked past by restating his wincons before he heads into rebuttals. Ken's rebuttals themselves address Mik's points on mitigating context by re-making his points with later volume content, which makes Mik's R2 come off pretty bad when much of it was trying to pass of Ken's arguments as illegitimate because of this. Mik's arguments relying too much on his other arguments being true comes to bite him in the ass with his point on Strode catching swords with his muscles. Ken brings up a lot of thoughts that came up in my head reading both Mik's R1 and R2 with how certain advantages he argues for Strode, such as stuff that wouldn't really apply in a swordfight, don't really apply to the fight. And yeah I still don't buy Strode being able to take Tak's sword.

Tak wins. I felt like Mik spread his arguments far too thin on this one, and his habit of arguing every factor in a fight to his advantage diluted some of his better arguments and make them easier for Ken to pick apart and attack. And while I feel like it's fine to weaponize past arguments against the person debating you this was done so often where straightforward feat analysis could have been done it was pretty exhausting to read. Ken did a fantastic job of taking a character that I previously saw as objectively impressive and showcasing imperfections.

***

Ben vs. Guts

This follows a similar pattern to the previous matchup - Mik argues initiative first and Spidey's precog looks nice and relevant. I don't think the Spider-Sense maps too great based on the scans Mik provides, but it's still a great advantage to have in a fight without LOS. Guts wasn't really coming of as vertically mobile for me to start with but Mik showcases the advantages of webslinging in a city environment and Guts' lack of advantages should he be taken off of the building. I don't think Mik's anti-feats for Guts being slow are well-described even if the rhetoric is hilarious, but Ben's feats all being laid out is nice and helps establish groundwork for the debate to develop. Ben has good ranged weapons that a swordfighter will struggle to deal with. Ben punches good, Guts can't take these punches, Ben on the other hand has extremely good endurance and blunt durability.

Ken starts off with a pretty damning point - Mik's scans ignore Ken's stip that Guts is in his Berserker Armor. Right off the bat that forces Mik to either double-down or throw in rebuttals to restate his arguments. Guts cuts good vs. Ben getting cut is as straightforward as arguments get. The Berserker Armor makes a return in how it's defensively relevant vs. Ben's piercing implements, attacking both the vector of the attack and its effect. A run-down of Guts' lifting strength is given for Ben's restraining webs, and Guts having good grip strength alongside his lifting is argued to help him overcome Ben's capacity to disarm him. Unexpectedly the Berserker Armor is brought up again and a new set of feats are brought to the table to invalidate Mik's analysis. Ken's breakdown of the fight is surprisingly detailed considering his how he normally argues, going into how the fight would naturally progress into a melee that advantages Guts. Interestingly enough there's no talk of speed, and while that might not be important if Ken wins his argument on durability it does hinge a lot on a specific point.

Like a shark smelling blood, this is what Mik starts off with in his R2, and Mik points out that Ken is putting all of his eggs in one basket (Gut's durability) for this debate. I buy Mik's argument on his darts KOing Guts if they pierce him, and while I still think Ken presented his piercing resistance well Mik's breakdown of the line of argumentation seeds a lot of doubt into what's supposed to be Ken's core argument. Mik points out that Guts lifting is both taken from a high-end that isn't replicated and is also far less impressive then is being sold, using leverage he wouldn't have if restrained. Gut's blunt force durability is argued around well, Mik both throws in that the feats heavily injure Guts and once again puts forward that if Guts isn't argued to have good speed Ben's damage will accumulate and take Guts out. While there is mitigating context provided for Ben being hit by piecing implements, none of it comes off as too relevant in his fight with Guts or to his ability to take a solid blow from the weapon, however Mik's core arguments lie outside of this anyways.

Ken kicks by attacking the weakest of Mik's defenses by restating that Guts landing a good blow on Ben would slice him apart/kill him past his resilience. He restates a bunch of other stuff from his R1, then moves into rebuttals - finally making an argument for Guts' speed. Ken's attack on Ben's piercing implements was extremely solid, and yeah, I failed to see the gaps Mik was reffering to as well with the full armor he linked. I don't particularly buy that Guts' armor would keep him awake through paralytic toxins, although Ken sold me on the armor's piercing resistance so that doesn't particularly matter. Guts' lift taking as much effort as it did has mitigating context Mik didn't take into account, and while Ken establishes that it's heavy he doesn't really tackle Mik's point of this feat requiring Guts' full body to just support the structure.

Ben wins. I think there was some major fuckups on both ends here. There were much more straightforward ways to refute being restrained by Ben than arguing Guts having meme lifting strength through feats that Mik could pick at (such as attacking the tensile strength feats of the webs themselves), Mik tripped over himself a bunch with much of his initial arguments and even later into the debate with some misinterpretations of Guts' stipulations. The way Ken argued this made it so that Guts needed to tank *everything* Ben threw at him - and at the end of the day I don't think he was argued to have a solid answer to Ben restraining him. This was extremely close though, and had the debate progressed slightly differently I could easily see Ken winning this.

***

BB vs. Sniper Mask

Third time's the charm, and Mik starts his R1 with initiative again. Sniper's fear of heights doesn't pair well with the battlefield, while BB has scanning and tracking tools that would allow him to be immediately on-top of the situation. BB has vertical mobility and good speed for the tier that would allow him to dictate the fight. Sniper has bad durability, BB can restrain/blast/punch Sniper to death with a single attack. BB has piercing resistance for Sniper's bullets. Out of all Mik's R1s this is by far the most straightforward to follow.

Ken starts by showcasing how Sniper Mask's fear doesn't mean anything for serious combat. He has good, precise hearing and would be able to pick up BB's location as well. Sniper's bullets travel fast, BB is slow, BB gets shot. While both of these points are argued well, there's a lot of what Mik brought up that was unaddressed and just some vital factors in the fight like BB's durability that weren't tackled, as Mik later points out.

Mik brings up that Ken did not address his arguments for BB's durability or explain why Sniper would be able to shoot him to death. Sniper's heights-fearing comes up in the same scene Ken uses to disprove it, and Mik convinces me that most of the time BB gets tagged it's due to some circumstance (although it does kind of run into the meme senses argument).

Ken doesn't comment on the matchup in his R2 I guess.

BB wins. I don't think there was any great ways to argue Sniper winning from the getgo, but if there was any Ken didn't go for them.

***

Mik wins 2-1.