faulty analogy. 2+2=5 is a formula that can be disproved using mathematical evidence. The result of a fight that has never happened is purely opinion because no one knows how it would actually go. Maybe Doom would blast her, maybe she'd cause an electric storm through his shields, maybe he wouldn't put his shield up because he's arrogant, maybe she'd hit herself with a brick. What makes it a fight subject to opinion is the fact that either can hurt the other if they're not careful. That doesn't apply to a fight like, say, Wolverine vs. Galactus. G could just stand there and Wolverine could pound on him all day and nothing would happen. If Doom said, "Take your best shot, I won't fight back" to Storm, he'd regret it.
THAT is what makes it an opinion and a valid debate.
Statistically, this debate can be proven as well. How you may ask???
Well allow me to enlighten you all my kiddies.
Based upon simply of both respective characters previous feats, battles, and conquests, one could safely conclude that Doom has the advantage in most instances, therefore concluding that he would be victorious from this encounter.!!!
Untrue. Doom has never fought someone with extreme elemental control. The closest he came was Torch, and Torch hurt him pretty badly. The reason? He didn't have his shield up. Oops. Stastically, that proves that Doom can be hurt if he uses the wrong strategy. The fact that we don't know what his strategy would be is what makes this a debate - we can only estimate the strategies.
Previous feats, battles and conquests when they don't apply to the specific fight are meaningless. Doom's previous feats almost exclusively revolve around tech and prep, not so much combat. Most of the feats people named here are inapplicable. So it's entirely subjective, nothing "fact" about Doom beating Storm at all.
Yes they do because they can tell us what tendencies and style or method of fighting a fighter will utilize in a fight.
If that character has a particular trend of fighting then we can assume that he will employ that method in this fight. Each fighter has a preferred method of fighting or approahing a fight and that can be determine by his/her previous fights. Simple. That is a rational way of debating. It's not just making up shit because we don't know. Everything or something must have a point of reference. That info is not subjective at all it's quit the opposite. If I posted a scenario which the character has never ever done since their creation, then that's subjective cuz I have no point of reference to back it up. Understand!!
How do you think analysts and commentators predict boxing matches??
Purely based on the two fighters style of fighting and medthod of fighting referenced from PREVIOUS fights!!!
Originally posted by LordFear
Yes they do because they can tell us what tendencies and style or method of fighting a fighter will utilize in a fight.
If that character has a particular trend of fighting then we can assume that he will employ that method in this fight. Each fighter has a preferred method of fighting or approahing a fight and that can be determine by his/her previous fights. Simple. That is a rational way of debating. It's not just making up shit because we don't know. Everything or something must have a point of reference. That info is not subjective at all it's quit the opposite. If I posted a scenario which the character has never ever done since their creation, then that's subjective cuz I have no point of reference to back it up. Understand!!
How do you think analysts and commentators predict boxing matches??
Purely based on the two fighters style of fighting and medthod of fighting referenced from PREVIOUS fights!!!
Doom's particular trend of fighting almost always involves preparation and having some kind of invention brought into the fight. This is a no-prep fight. It's actually out of Doom's element, and his record in situations like that isn't nearly as good. I see posts like, "He took Beyonder's power" and, "He stole Surfer's power" and the like. Those are all prepped battles.
Going back to your boxing analogy, it's like a heavyweight moving down to cruiserweight to fight someone. How will he fare against lighter, faster, opponents with more stamina if you've been fighting 250lb bruisers? They have no idea. They can SPECULATE, but, as I said before, it's opinion. Boxing analysts have been wrong plenty of times in the past.
Likewise, we can speculate. Storm has created weather effects through forcefields, she's overloaded Doom's technology with electrical attacks, she's blinded and suffocated people before. Doom hasn't demonstrated immunity to any of that. So that could be Storm's approach. MAYBE Doom can get around it, MAYBE he can't. That's YOUR OPINION. There's not a right or a wrong there.
Once again,
Whether it's provable or not, regardless of how convinced we ALL are that Doom would finish her off no contest, that doesn't matter.
What matters is that if you look closely enough, you'll either see why we believe it's that easy. Whether you agree or not is your choice. You've chosen to base Storm winning on something I believe to be theoretical (not to mention nonsensical) crap. We haven't.
That's your choice. You think Storm would win based on those reasons. I don't and most of the people here agree with me.
-AC
52.46% of people agree with you, at least. lol.
You can't use what "majority" believes as proof that something is fact. Just look at America and the opinions of majority of the people there now that it's gone Right wing crazy. I'm sure you'd pretty heavily disagree with most of what they think...and you'd be in the minority there. That doesn't make you wrong. Just outnumbered.
The fact that you and others said, "Anyone who believes that Storm could beat Doom is stupid" suggests that Doom being able to beat Storm is fact. I'm far from stupid and I believe Storm could beat Doom, and I gave valid reasons for thinking so. I don't belittle Doom supporters, just disagree with them, because I respect everybody's opinion.
But I guess that's just the difference between me and you.
When that is said, from me, it's not meant as labelling the person stupid. I know plenty of smart people with stupid opinions. There's a big difference.
You gave REASONS, not VALID reasons. You talked so much irrelevance that you managed to convince yourself it was possible.
I respect the fact that you have the right to an opinion and that's all anyone has the right to. I don't have to respect your actual opinion because I think it's a stupid opinion. I just respect that you have the right to it.
If you want me to respect the theories you came up with, sorry. Not gonna happen.
-AC
Well, none of my opinions were irrevelant in any way, shape or form, and I think my opinions on how Storm could win are a hell of a lot more valid than 90% of the posts on here, which consisted of "Doom is DOOM. Storm is only Storm" and "Storm is only a second in command". If you want to talk about stupid opinions, that's where you go. Not, "Storm has demonstrated the ability to create weather conditions inside forcefields. Doom relies on his forcefield to protect him. Therefore, Storm has an excellent chance of also creating weather conditions inside his forcefield, bypassing Doom's primary protection". There's nothing "stupid" about that, and the best anyone could come up with is, "Well, maybe she can't do it". That's meaningless to me.
But there's no point in arguing why we have different opinions. If you want to think those opinions are stupid, that's fine. I think the reasoning for Doom winning is stupid, big deal...
You know perfectly well why I think your theories were stupid. None of the theories I personally came up with were based on inconsistencies or eventualities. Which is what you chose to go by.
You think Doom winning in general is stupid, quite clearly. Because in other threads you have voted against Doom purely based on who he is.
Storm was once my favourite X-Man, so to claim I'm biased is silly.
-AC
You didn't have any theories. You just attacked mine. Your basic idea was that Doom will have his shield up and then shoot Storm. Your speculation is that he'd have his shield up (he often doesn't), that Storm could NOT do anything from inside of his forcefield (even though she proved that she can bypass four or five different forcefields in he past), and that Storm could not overload his armor (even though she overloaded his gauntlet and defeated a Doombot's shielding that's based on technology designed by Doom himself). I provided specific evidence with every theory of times she's done that. I was the only person to do so. There wasn't a single inconsistency or eventually in any of my theories (except for when we got into the whole creating storms inside of a person thing, but that in response to the whole magic issue).
I never said you were biased. Stop putting words in my mouth. And I never voted against Doom purely on who he is. I never do that. I analyze fights and determine the winnter based on their powers, strengths and weaknesses.