Storm vs. Doomsday

Started by Creshosk13 pages
Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
It would work if what was in question had more than one "authority" 🙄

Stop trying so hard.[]/b]

We're the same on this. neither of us are trying. You're not trying to prove your case. and I'm not really trying to debunk it. Kinda easy to do so when there isn't one. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
[B]Not my claim, it's Marvels' claim.
Nope. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
That all I'd really have to say for it to be a valid argument.
Nope. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
It's like me saying she can do something, and..... she ya know, "did it"( in the comic sense, of course).
Circular reasoning. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
But, since I don't want to be a dick,
Too late.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
I will say, storm's powers include, but are not limited to.....(it's true based on the evidence).
Circular reasoning. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Stop trying so hard.
Strawman.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
No misleading meanings.
Who's misleading whom? That would be youm. 😄

Originally posted by 2damnloud
There is nothing to "prove".
Right. Glad you admit it didn't happen. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
It's written in stone.
Supressed evidence fallacy

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Not red herring. For what I am asking is cogent to the argument.

Stop trying so hard. 😂

red herring. 🙂

2damnloud Restricted

What's funny is your whole exchange with me was based on my favortie fallacy.(Denying the Antecedant)

I just indulged you.

You would have to go fix that in order for me to take you seriously in a real debate.😂

nvrbeenwthagirl Restricted

Originally posted by 2damnloud
What's funny is your whole exchange with me was based on my favortie fallacy.(Denying the Antecedant)

I just indulged you.

You would have to go fix that in order for me to take you seriously in a real debate.😂

How come storm never like owns magneto or phoenix or even apocolypse if she's so powerful. Onslaught? Mr. Sinister? Some body.

Badabing Gym rat

Originally posted by 2damnloud
What's funny is your whole exchange with me was based on my favortie fallacy.(Denying the Antecedant)

I just indulged you.

You would have to go fix that in order for me to take you seriously in a real debate.😂

The real joke is on you. Nobody believes what you're trying to pass off as fact. You're like our own person clown. durclown Amuse us more please. 😊

Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
How come storm never like owns magneto or phoenix or even apocolypse if she's so powerful. Onslaught? Mr. Sinister? Some body.
Because the 2damn and Rutog version of Storm only exists in their minds. 😂

2damnloud Restricted
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
How come storm never like owns magneto or phoenix or even apocolypse if she's so powerful. Onslaught? Mr. Sinister? Some body.

Why doesn't WW kill every villain who is below lightspeed if she can instantly just fly at super luminal speeds?

That must mean she can't fly that fast, or at least fly and launch an offensive.

iceman24567 Senior Member

Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
How come storm never like owns magneto or phoenix or even apocolypse if she's so powerful. Onslaught? Mr. Sinister? Some body.
At the moment it's beyond her but like i said Halle Berry is hot so.. 💃

nvrbeenwthagirl Restricted

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Why doesn't WW kill every villain who is below lightspeed if she can instantly just fly at super luminal speeds?

That must mean she can't fly that fast, or at least fly and launch an offensive.

WW actually has a code of honor she follows. It's also shown that she would rather not fight if she doesn't have to. She is always looking for a peaceable solution. Brave and The Bold.

2damnloud Restricted
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
WW actually has a code of honor she follows. It's also shown that she would rather not fight if she doesn't have to. She is always looking for a peaceable solution. Brave and The Bold.

seems like an excuse to me. 🙄

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
What's funny is your whole exchange with me was based on my favortie fallacy.(Denying the Antecedant)

I just indulged you.

You would have to go fix that in order for me to take you seriously in a real debate.😂

No, circular reasoning is the one you commit the most. 🙂

You think anyone ever takes you seriously? 😆

Well, of course you do, you like to delude yourself just like Storm likes to delude herself.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Why doesn't WW kill every villain who is below lightspeed if she can instantly just fly at super luminal speeds?

That must mean she can't fly that fast, or at least fly and launch an offensive.

Oh red herring. What Does WW have to do with a storm thread?

🙂

nvrbeenwthagirl Restricted
Originally posted by 2damnloud
seems like an excuse to me. 🙄

So what's storm's excuse for being owned by a brick and almost being beaten to death by a crowd of humans?

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
So what's storm's excuse for being owned by a brick and almost being beaten to death by a crowd of humans?
What's her excuse for not just dispersing a storm like Thor could do?

Oh right "She doesn't run roughshod over them like a dumb animal" Sounds like an excuse to me. 🙂

2damnloud Restricted

Originally posted by Creshosk
No, circular reasoning is the one you commit the most. 🙂

Wrong.

You can't exclude what is deemed evidence(canonical events) and then ask for proof of said events.

You say she can't do something, I say she can, You ask why, I say because she can.

Circualr reasoning/ begging the question.

You say she can't do something, I say she can, you ask why, I present canon(proof).

How do we know Storm can do what I say she can, because she'd done it( in canon)

Valid argument.

😮‍💨

Learn, son.

2damnloud Restricted
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
So what's storm's excuse for being owned by a brick and almost being beaten to death by a crowd of humans?

Red herring.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Wrong.

You can't exclude what is deemed evidence(canonical events) and then ask for proof of said events.

Actually you can't use what's in question as proof of the event in question.

"It happened because it happened".

Originally posted by 2damnloud
You say she can't do something, I say she can, You ask why, I say because she can.

Circualr reasoning/ begging the question.

Which is happening all the time so yes. Thank you for disproving yourself. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
You say she can't do something, I say she can, you ask why, I present canon(proof).
No, you present the thing that's in question.

Prove she can do that and that it wasn't SmvsFL, and then you present the feat again. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
How do we know Storm can do what I say she can, because she'd done it( in canon)
Circular reasoning.

Prove that she can actually do that.
"She actually did that"

That's like using the bible to validate the bible. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Valid argument.

😮‍💨

Learn, son.

Calling an invalid argument valid doesn'tr make it valid. in fact it's another invalid argument. 🙂

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Red herring.
Yes because Storm being owned by a brick has nothing to do with the fact that she's fighting a brick. 🙄

Endless Mike Sqirrel Girl fanboy

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Yea, but Classic X-men and the original for her summoning millions of whole stars(not just the solar winds) go hand in hand so obviously "physics" don't matter when Storm uses her powers.

HoF expertly thrashed Exoduscloak in that other thread about this so-called retcon.

Here.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=8209514&highlight=solar+wind+retcon#post8209514

If physics don't matter concerning Storm's powers, then the power of the stars she harnessed could have only been equal to a small lightbulb, since we only know how much power stars emit by using physics.

Creshosk Senior Member

Hey Mike! 😄

2damnloud Restricted

Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually you can't use what's in question as proof of the event in question.

"It happened because it happened".

Fallacy fallacy

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which is happening all the time so yes. Thank you for disproving yourself. 🙂

Suppressed evidence fallacy

Originally posted by Creshosk
No, you present the thing that's in question.

Prove she can do that and that it wasn't SmvsFL, and then you present the feat again. 🙂

The comics proved it.

Powers are sufficient to do that and greater.🙂

Originally posted by Creshosk

Circular reasoning.

Nope.

False analogy.

Equivocation.

Using the bible, or what's IN the the bible to prove that what the bible says is true??

Using the comic events to prove what I say about Storm is true.

Non circular since I'm using the comics to prove my point.

Suppressed evidence--You omitted relevant data.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Calling an invalid argument valid doesn'tr make it valid. in fact it's another invalid argument. 🙂

Strawman.

2damnloud Restricted
Originally posted by Endless Mike
If physics don't matter concerning Storm's powers, then the power of the stars she harnessed could have only been equal to a small lightbulb, since we only know how much power stars emit by using physics.

😂

This is just stupid.