storm VS ironman

Started by 2damnloud54 pages
Originally posted by Blair Wind
This is hearsay from another forum, but apparently Tony has created tech that actually controls the weather (fairly recently). Guess tech>>mother nature nowadays 🙂

Go find.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Go find.
You want Blair wind to prove that Ironman has created weather controlling satelites?

Do you even read any comic involving him? Or do you just masturbate to storm all day that you're not on here trolling?

Originally posted by Creshosk
You want Blair wind to prove that Ironman has created weather controlling satelites?

Do you even read any comic involving him? Or do you just masturbate to storm all day that you're not on here trolling?

Go find. 😆

Your arguments have shifted from him blocking her, to him speedblitzing with his inferior speed.

Bring it on.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Yes. go find.
I need issue numbers. What issue did he kill a guy and zap him back guys? I have proof.

It's in his respect thread.

He can pretty much do anything he pleases and still win this. Storm is utterly powerless against Iron Man - this is just a bad match for her.

One repulsor, at speeds far far greater than those with which Storm can cope, Storm's dead.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Go find. 😆
Found it:

Originally posted by 2damnloud
[QUOTE=9592753]Originally posted by Blair Wind
[B]This is hearsay from another forum, but apparently Tony has created tech that actually controls the weather (fairly recently). Guess tech>>mother nature nowadays 🙂
Go find. [/B][/QUOTE]

That was easy considering it was in the same damned thread and had just happened.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Go find. 😆

Found.

Mighty Avengers #4
Pages 9-11 explain specific details... that will be victim to your misinterpretation.

I would post the images for all to view, but Imageshack seems to be down atm.

Originally posted by Soljer
He can pretty much do anything he pleases and still win this. Storm is utterly powerless against Iron Man - this is just a bad match for her.

One repulsor, at speeds far far greater than those with which Storm can cope, Storm's dead.

His whole means of winning is subject to Storm's control. 😂

I knew that, I was being sarcastic.🙄

So dense.

Originally posted by 2damnloud

His whole means of winning is subject to Storm's control. 😂

You're ignoring the sheilding that keeps psionics out.

You have yet to prove that Storm's psionics work without using psioncs.

I already explained to you how FALSE that whol premise is.

Read back like two pages, or do you need me to go and quote it?

You never did counter it.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
I already explained to you how FALSE that whol premise is.
Storm's Psionics work differently from otherpsionics.. yeah you've said that, but you haven't backed the calim up with evidence.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Read back like two pages, or do you need me to go and quote it?

You never did counter it.

You never proved it. It doesn't work like "I make a claim and then you need to counter it."

It works like "I make a claim and back it with evidence, then you have to counter it."

So where's your evidence that Storm's psionics, work differently from other psionics?

Its a sham distinction... That's a logical fallacy. That means your argument is not valid. That means that I don't need to counter gibberish.

Originally posted by Soljer
'Nuff said.

I have actually studied diagnostic psychology. And, again, you fit several of the criteria.

you dont know me personally, so dont act like youve met me and know i have disadvantages. ill say it once again for the dumest of the dumb. im not the best typer... but i can spell and write circles around the best... on this dame computer i dont go back and spell check. so you and you little friends who are attempting to prove a point are wasting your time.

i have studied, you and you not so far from the criteria that you try to fit me with.

Wrong usage😂

Trope of argumentation where one word, or phrase, is argued for in favor of another word, but there is no difference in the final result of the argument. The substitution of words is often made because one word has emotional connotations, or an established history. For example "Creationism" is a word with a history, and thus many anti-evolutionists want to avoid the "Creationist" label, even if they use the same ideas, the same arguments and come to the same conclusions.

In legal terminology a "distinction without a difference" is more specific, it means a change in definitions which does not change the set which is defined. For example changing "unseparated married men" to "males who have a non-separated spouse" is a distinction without a difference.

You are using a sweeping generalization(claiming all psionics are the same), circumstantial evidence(using completely unrelated facts of IM blocking psionics) and argumentum ad ignorantiam(claming that my premise is false onlt because it has not been proven true) which I HAVE proven.

There is a difinite distinction between the two forms of psionics, especially in the context you're using to garner IM a win.

It's soooo simple, anyone can get it.

One form of psionics is hampered by EM, while the other THRIVES and directly controls EM, which strangely enough, in my opinion, will garner Storm a win every single time in this fight.

G'day🙂

Originally posted by stormfront
you dont know me personally, so dont act like youve met me and know i have disadvantages.

i have studied, you and you not so far from the criteria that you try to fit me with.

😐

Hypocrisy much?

Originally posted by Creshosk
😐

Hypocrisy much?

Just about to point that out, actually.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Wrong usage😂
Glasd to know you don't understand the logical fallacies you try to use. 🙂 I got accused of that before, but I was able to show it was just spite.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
You are using a sweeping generalization(claiming all psionics are the same),
No, its not a sweeping generailization to say that psionic energy is psionic energy.

The energy is all the same, its the application of that energy that differs.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
circumstantial evidence(using completely unrelated facts of IM blocking psionics)
IOTs not circustantial since it relates DIRECTLY to your argument that Storm will shut off his power.

She can't shut him down because of that "circumstantial" fact.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
and argumentum ad ignorantiam(claming that my premise is false onlt because it has not been proven true)
Except in this case its true. Otherwise I could claim that Storm's lightning would power up Jubilee so she could steal Storms soul. You would be unable to claim that the premise is false, only because I haven't proven it to be true.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
which I HAVE proven.
No, you haven't. You've show circumstantial evidence of Storm powering down something that is not Ironman. 🙂

Because all technology is the same right? (sweeping generalization)

Originally posted by 2damnloud
There is a difinite distinction between the two forms of psionics,
Sham distinction without proof.

Psionic energy is psionic energy. As if Psionic Energy were something else.. we'd call it something else.

Circumstantial evidence? He's able to block psionics, which is why he'd be able to block Storm's psionics, which is why your tactic will fail.

Its not circumstantial. It's related, just because you can't see how its not, doesn't mean that it isn't.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
especially in the context you're using to garner IM a win.
Actually its not circumstantil in the context you're using for storm to win.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
It's soooo simple, anyone can get it.
Except for you appearently and obviously.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
One form of psionics is hampered by EM while the other THRIVES and directly controls EM, which strangely enough, in my opinion, will garner Storm a win every single time in this fight.
And you have yet to show that Storm's psionics are different. Or that she'd be able to bypass sheilding desgined to keep out psionics.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
G'day🙂
Oh look he can use google... Too bad he's still wrong. 😆

its not hipocracy. dont get frustrated when you cant win a retared argument with me... basically stop calling people names. and your trying to point out a few typos, it doent mean im retarded.

even if stark does have a weather suit. storm is immune to all forms of weather. she would easily turn off his abilities.... this is like putting thor against that guy with the wand from dc, i think his name was twinkle wand or weather wand somethin like that.