Exar Kun and Mace versus Yod and Dooku.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Wesker
Setting is in a Dantooine field.

Faunus

zephiel7
Since Yod is in there I am not sure whether Exar and Mace really stand a chance. J/K MAN

Exar and Mace. I don't feel like proving why big grin

Faunus
I see it going either way: reasons come tomorrow. Go wet your beds in anticipation of the pwnage.

Wesker
Dammit, I typoed Yoda AGAIN in a thread title. Rex, can you edit that?

Faunus
Nyahah! U sux. . .

Wesker
No u sux00rz!

DarthBanevv
Going off-topic. But I say Kun and Mace. Kun destroys Dooku, while Yoda and Mace duke it out. Yoda comes out on top. Kun and Yoda fight for a few seconds, before Kun pwns him.

Captain REX
Originally posted by Wesker
Dammit, I typoed Yoda AGAIN in a thread title. Rex, can you edit that?

I'm going to leave it to spite you. raver

But I can kick everyone who brings up the typo. stick out tongue

tdtd
That's a good battle. It depends who fights who
Scenario #1. Yoda fights Mace while Kun fights Dooku. If Yoda defeats Mace before Kun curbstomps Dooku then it'll be interesting to see if Kun can hold his own.. If Kun finishes DOoku first, Yoda is toast..
Scenario #2. Actually there is no scenario two because I see Mace and Dooku going at it for a while. In that time Kun might or might not finish Yoda and then gang up on Dooku.

Darth Traya
What fight?

IKC
Yes, Janus. You should clarifiy that it's a lightsaber fight, else Dooku and Yoda get curbstomped by Kun alone.

tdtd
Gotta love those amulet blasts... That is of course if Kun could use it against a living force user which he hasn't proven to do..

IKC
Nevermind that the Massassi are, by definition, living Force users. Nevermind that the burden of proof is on the other side to show that they can stop the beams, which are shown to be a physical manifestation of the Force since they rip through everything they're shown to touch, including stone walls.

Logic: 1
Trolling: 0

tdtd
Burden of proof to show that Jedi can stop the beams? Actually since you brought up the amulets and since they haven't shown to work on a living FORCE user( I don't know where you got the concept that massassi are force users), much less a LIVING JEDI, I believe the burden of proof is on you... Plus your scores are backwards..

Darth Traya
LMAO, pwnt!

Get over it, Tdtd...

tdtd
Ok someone that can construct logical arguments like NAI, or illustrious, or wesker.. Someone not who's response is "LMAO pwnt" without merit. Speaking of trolls....

Darth Traya
I'm pulling a "tdtd"...

tdtd
No no, you've been trolling long before I got here.. Good try though smile

Darth Traya
I'm not sure about that, I'm following in your example...

tdtd
My point has been proven. Thank you Traya..

IKC
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/8872/massassidarkside5hj.th.jpg

QED.

tdtd
..... Thank you IKC.. Now until you can prove that Kun can use his blasts on living force users/capable Jedi, you can continue to repost your own quotes..

IKC
Originally posted by IKC
Nevermind that the Massassi are, by definition, living Force users. Nevermind that the burden of proof is on the other side to show that they can stop the beams, which are shown to be a physical manifestation of the Force since they rip through everything they're shown to touch, including stone walls.

Logic: 1
Trolling: 0

Originally posted by Faunus
Stow it already with the ''zOMg! ur a fanboy1'' IKC, unlike any of you, as actually provided proof for his stance. And so far, I haven't seen anyone successfully beat them down. So until you can do so, stfu.

When you successfully address my posts, you can be treated to a response.

tdtd
I don't need to sucessfully answer your posts while you dodge my questions because you can't back up your argument. So keep proving that with your ignorant quotes, thanks.

BTw you don't use logic when it comes to Kun, nor when it comes to your hatred of Luke. Come back when you're ready to prove up... If ever..

IKC
troll, n.

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.



Logical fallacies:

Argumentum ad hominem - "To the man." Use of personal attacks and insults to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument.

Begging the question - A statement that presumes the question being argued has already been proved.

The Hasty Generalization - Conclusions founded in insufficient and inadequate evidence or reasoning.

tdtd
You forgot dodging arguments that would successfully discredit your characters power because of bias, using useless quotes to dodge questions, and justifying the use of useless quotes to dodge questions..

IKC
Logical fallacies:

Argumentum ad hominem - "To the man." Use of personal attacks and insults to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument.

Straw Man - The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Special Pleading - Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

tdtd
Originally posted by tdtd
You forgot dodging arguments that would successfully discredit your characters power because of bias, using useless quotes to dodge questions, and justifying the use of useless quotes to dodge questions..

IKC
Originally posted by IKC
Logical fallacies:

Argumentum ad hominem - "To the man." Use of personal attacks and insults to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument.

Straw Man - The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Special Pleading - Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

tdtd
AHAHA how predictable..
Originally posted by tdtd

IKC
Oh, and:

Begging the Question - Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." (Important!)

Illustrious
Originally posted by tdtd
You forgot dodging arguments that would successfully discredit your characters power because of bias, using useless quotes to dodge questions, and justifying the use of useless quotes to dodge questions..

Wow, that is trolling, I'm sorry.

Why not prove that Mace can slash his lightsaber through Ulic Quel-Droma, cite examples please.

Sorry, but making ridiculously specific requirements to "prove a point" is lame.

The amulet blasts literally vaporized everything they touched; so it's your job to prove that Jedi somehow have bodies that resist being vaporized, or that they can dodge it.

tdtd
The master debater, the king of dodging questions that may destroy or hurt his arguments, the greatest at justifying his action with the dictionary, we have IKC.

tdtd
Originally posted by Illustrious
Wow, that is trolling, I'm sorry.

Why not prove that Mace can slash his lightsaber through Ulic Quel-Droma, cite examples please.

Sorry, but making ridiculously specific requirements to "prove a point" is lame.

The amulet blasts literally vaporized everything they touched; so it's your job to prove that Jedi somehow have bodies that resist being vaporized, or that they can dodge it.

Sorry Illustrious but Luke's blasts instakilled the Vong so if you're going to use your logic that it has never been shown to use on a force user, then I can use my logic and say Kun's blasts have never been shown to work on a living force user regardless of what it did. Since it was never shown to be used on a living force user it is on you to prove that it would work. To discredit my argument and use yours would be a logical fallacy.

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
The master debater, the king of dodging questions that may destroy or hurt his arguments, the greatest at justifying his action with the dictionary, we have IKC.

Ad hominem.

tdtd
Point proven

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
Point proven

Begging the question.

The hasty generalization.

tdtd
Dodging the question/argument with insignificant posts..

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
Dodging the question/argument with insignificant posts..

Straw man

tdtd
Unable to formulate an argument, unable to answer any question, only defense mechanism is dodging everything and copying the dictionary. Incredible.

w00t2112
Originally posted by tdtd
Sorry Illustrious but Luke's blasts instakilled the Vong so if you're going to use your logic that it has never been shown to use on a force user, then I can use my logic and say Kun's blasts have never been shown to work on a living force user regardless of what it did. Since it was never shown to be used on a living force user it is on you to prove that it would work. To discredit my argument and use yours would be a logical fallacy.

However, whilst the emerald lightning has not been known to inflict any form of damage upon a living organism, its quite simply destroying the interior of the organism's structure, however, its quite logic to assume that a force empowered figure is able to prevent it from happening, yet the amulet blasts vaporize everything it touches, when comparing the power of both and the effect of the both instakills, it would be safer to assume the amulet blasts are superior to the emerald lightning.

tdtd
How is it logical to assume that a force empowered figure would be able to simply stop the instakill? W00t are you forgetting Luke's ability to stop an AT-AT blast, which has shown to do the exact same thing as Kun's? No my friend, it's not logical to assume 1 and not the other.. At least we've seen Luke block a blast equivalent to Kun's. We've not seen Kun able to block a force attack like his lightning, whether or not it can be used against a force user. Oh and Kun's blast wasn't an instakill

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
Unable to formulate an argument, unable to answer any question, only defense mechanism is dodging everything and copying the dictionary. Incredible.

Ad hominem.

Straw man.

Begging the question.

Hasty generalization.


Your ability to commit logical fallacies is incredible, indeed.

tdtd
And your ability to lie to yourself and dodge arguments because you can't formulate your own is unmatched..

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
And your ability to lie to yourself and dodge arguments because you can't formulate your own is unmatched..

Ad hominem

Hasty generalization

Begging the question

Straw man

tdtd
Originally posted by tdtd
And your ability to lie to yourself and dodge arguments because you can't formulate your own is unmatched..

Predictable Myriam-Webster.

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
Predictable Myriam-Webster.

I've decided to help you understand the concept of logical fallacies.

Ad hominem - Personal attack. But you know what that is, I'm sure.

Straw man - Rhetorically setting up a mockery of my actual argument in order to attack my argument. Fallacious.

Begging the question - X isn't true just because you say it's true, tdtd.

tdtd
Originally posted by IKC
I've decided to help you understand the concept of logical fallacies.

Ad hominem - Personal attack. But you know what that is, I'm sure.

Straw man - Rhetorically setting up a mockery of my actual argument in order to attack my argument. Fallacious.

Begging the question - X isn't true just because you say it's true, tdtd.

Let me help you understand the difference between a personal attack and an accurate or truthful statement since you seem confused..

Personal attack: Me calling you a moron and possibly a fan boy.
Accurate statement: You are dodging the questions, and the arguments and justifying them with dictionary definitions that don't necessarily have anything to do with this.

Now that you know the difference you continue the argument you disappeared from weeks ago because you had no rebuttal, or you can keep posting definitions..

IKC
No, it appears you don't understand ad hominem.



Oh, and you committed -

Hasty generalization

Straw man

Begging the question

tdtd
I'm so glad you understand the definitions you are copying..
You forgot I'm making a claim with proof, which in turn would make it an accurate statement, while youre spewing out terms. Perhaps you need to understand those definitions a little more.

IKC
No, it appears you need to look more closely. Here, this may help:

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

You're also, by extension, committing:

Circumstanstial ad hominem - A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

Begging the question

Hasty generalization

Straw man

tdtd
Let me help you understand the definition of that since you seem to have difficulty understanding it although you've copied it 50 or so times. I make a claim, I back up that claim with proof(your inability to form an argument aind instead dodge the discussion with insignificant definitions). That claim becomes a logical statement.

Example. Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time..
Proof. Search google..

Get it?

IKC
I'd go into the individual logical fallacies, but the over-arching one is:

Begging the question - Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.



i.e. Just because you claim it doesn't make it true. You're arguing from circular "reasoning."

tdtd
You're right.. Me claiming that Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time, and offering proof, doesn't make it true. What an excellent way to continue this debate, tired IKC?

Rayvann
Why don't the two of you just pretend the other does not exist than we won't have this constant annoying bickering.

tdtd
Because I don't need to get defensive when someone is insulting my favorite star wars character... Oh wait, that's a claim!

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
You're right.. Me claiming that Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time, and offering proof, doesn't make it true. What an excellent way to continue this debate, tired IKC?

I was referring to your entire post (over-arching). Reading comprehension is your friend.

tdtd
Hmmm my entire post had to do with my example which clearly went over your head.. You're right, reading comprehension IS your friendsmile

IKC
Except that applying it to the main argument, it becomes a logical fallacy.

Reading comprehension and base reasoning are your best friends.

tdtd
Again... Me making a claim and backing up that claim makes it a logical statement.. And again, reading comprehension IS your friend.

IKC
Nonsense. You could "back it up" with virtually any kind of logical fallacy, be it ad hominem, straw man, etc.

tdtd
Again, just because youre claiming I'm committing illogical fallacies doesn't make it so..

IKC
I've posted the definition for "begging the question" often enough for you to understand it.

I've substantiated merely by quoting your posts and listing the fallacies within. I'd say "begging the question" is your most common fallacy, if not ad hominem.

tdtd
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=397498&pagenumber=5#post6237061

Faunus
These last fifty posts weren't a waste of time. . .

Illustrious
Originally posted by Faunus
These last fifty posts weren't a waste of time. . .

No, they were rather entertaining.

Faunus
If pointless, off-topic, and redundant. This is going on in about six different threads. I've got to hand it you guys, though; you're persistent as hell.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.