Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

How precisely is this quantified? And how does it take into account the sith apprentices who betrayed their masters through sheer trickery and cunning as opposed to besting them in actual combat?

It's just a holistic system.

There isn't any finely detailed report of how the acquired the power, just that they did. Even then, it's still up to interpretation. Sidious doesn't have to be more powerful than Bane - and when it comes to a fight, I daresay Bane could win. For example, Gravid could have royally thawted any difference between Bane and Sidious - it's certainly possible.

One problem is the setback that Darth Gravid caused by destroying much of the gathered Sith Archives. Secondly there is no accurate way to mesure the difference in power between a master and his/her apprentice. I also ask questions by the fact that every Sith is combatively more powerful since there are quotes that somewhat contradict this. For example Darth Plagueis admitted that even in his time (the very end of the Banite Sith) Bane's powers were considered legendary which seems controversial if these Sith surpassed him.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
One problem is the setback that Darth Gravid caused by destroying much of the gathered Sith Archives. Secondly there is no accurate way to mesure the difference in power between a master and his/her apprentice. I also ask questions by the fact that every Sith is combatively more powerful since there are quotes that somewhat contradict this. For example Darth Plagueis admitted that even in his time (the very end of the Banite Sith) Bane's powers were considered legendary which seems controversial if these Sith surpassed him.

To add to this, if raw power is correlated with midi-cholrians(spelling) how could their have been a perfect stepping-stone, in which one apprentice succeeds the other? It's highly illogical to assume there's any difference in the rudimentary categories, such as TK, speed and barriers.

I agree with this, tbh. Ellimist's arguments utilizing Banite scaling are essentially flawed.

Originally posted by Petrus
I agree with this, tbh. Ellimist and Nova's arguments utilizing Banite scaling are essentially flawed.

Alexander's military tactics could be considered legendary; that doesn't mean he could beat modern America.

It's been written that every generation grew stronger; that includes Gravid, who mind you lost to his apprentice in one vs one combat.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Alexander's military tactics could be considered legendary; that doesn't mean he could beat modern America.

It's been written that every generation grew stronger; that includes Gravid, who mind you lost to his apprentice in one vs one combat.

Yeah, except that doesn't make much sense, because there are a ton of Banite Sith and we don't even know the circumstances of each of their deaths. Plus all the arguments presented above that you're choosing to ignore.

Palpatine is a good example of why the Rule of Two doesn't necessarily mean the apprentice is/will be stronger than the master.

You don't understand; three sources have explicitly stated that each Banite sith was stronger than their master. It's not speculative.

Mind posting the relevant source(s)?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
You don't understand; three sources have explicitly stated that each Banite sith was stronger than their master. It's not speculative.

Either way, these sources are contradicted thanks to Palpatine. Neither Maul, Dooku nor Vader ever surpassed Sidious. And they're all Banite.

Lol, that just means the trend ended at Sidious, as the sources dealt with Sidious's lineage. That's a ridiculous reason to dismiss it.

Links here.

For a millennium, the Sith maintained the order in secrecy, passing down their evil heritage. As they gained knowledge of the dark side of the Force, their powers increased with each generation.
--Taken from Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook

http://static2.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_medium/12/122946/5065516-6932865122-rule%25.jpg

http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/4/48954/5065982-heritage+of+the+sith%2C+insider+88.jpg

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol, that just means the trend ended at Sidious, as the sources dealt with Sidious's lineage. That's a ridiculous reason to dismiss it.


Can you provide these sources?

EDIT - nvm.

As far as tactical ability is concerned, modern technological advancements render most, if not all of Alexander's tactical repertoire, obsolete. This is not to say that he is a crappy tactician by today's standards, but that there are additional factors by today's standards that he would not be able to overcome with his tactical aptitude alone.

We see a fine example of this concept in the Mutara Nebula battle of Star Trek II Wrath of Khan in which Khan, despite being openly acknowledged as the superior tactician, is bested by Kirk due to being unfamiliar with three dimensional naval combat. As Spock put it, Khan's pattern indicated "two dimensional thinking."

The same can't quite be said as far as ancient force wielding sith and modern force wielding sith are concerned. In their case, a great deal of knowledge had actually been lost, not gained, over time, as we see in the case of Darth Gravid. This is not to say that each generation didn't grow stronger over time, but that it's a bit difficult to quantify precisely how.

Ah, I see. Thanks Zoltan.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
To add to this, if raw power is correlated with midi-cholrians(spelling) how could their have been a perfect stepping-stone, in which one apprentice succeeds the other? It's highly illogical to assume there's any difference in the rudimentary categories, such as TK, speed and barriers.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
One problem is the setback that Darth Gravid caused by destroying much of the gathered Sith Archives. Secondly there is no accurate way to mesure the difference in power between a master and his/her apprentice. I also ask questions by the fact that every Sith is combatively more powerful since there are quotes that somewhat contradict this. For example Darth Plagueis admitted that even in his time (the very end of the Banite Sith) Bane's powers were considered legendary which seems controversial if these Sith surpassed him.


What about this? Wouldn't this sort of contradict that every apprentice surpassed their masters?

Mental gymnastic can't contradict flat out canon statements lol.

It's not all mental gymnastics, Plagueis outright stated Bane's prowess was considered legendary.

Trying to argue Banite scaling raises the Banite masters is one thing

Trying to argue it somehow lowers Bane beneath the point his feats would otherwise place him at, or arguing it somehow carries over to apprentices who never attained the rank of mastery is unfounded BS

Originally posted by Petrus
It's not all mental gymnastics, Plagueis outright stated Bane's prowess was considered legendary.

Gravid setting them back in knowledge means little since his apprentice did surpass him, which should logically imply she gained at least a respectable portion of his knowledge. Now granted, some vital techniques were lost, but they were later rediscovered... mostly.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
For a millennium, the Sith maintained the order in secrecy, passing down their evil heritage. As they gained knowledge of the dark side of the Force, their powers increased with each generation.
--Taken from Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook

http://static2.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_medium/12/122946/5065516-6932865122-rule%25.jpg

http://static8.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/4/48954/5065982-heritage+of+the+sith%2C+insider+88.jpg


The first refers to powers in a political sense.

The second refers to the number of powers accessible to them.

It doesn't take much mental gymnastics to figure that out, your mongolaid Hungarian prostitute of a sister got that much

Again, there is not one statement that says Banite masters got powerful in the Force as they went along. Hence the controversy. So yes, Bane vs Sidious is very much on the table. And yes, 'Banite scaling' is still a non argument.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
The first refers to powers in a political sense.

The second refers to the number of powers accessible to them.

It doesn't take much mental gymnastics to figure that out, your mongolaid Hungarian prostitute of a sister got that much

You even suck at trolling. You are just an utter failure, aren't you?

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
You even suck at trolling. You are just an utter failure, aren't you?

I'll tell you what I am Zoltan. Smarter than you, that is all. But lets take a critical look at your sacred - and indisputable - Banite scaling theorem. Here, not only do we have a premise based on blind faith in the source text, but also a theory that is likely to be a misinterpretation of the text itself. You assume the word power means power in the Force. Common sense disagrees, but so do the people responsible for those sacred and infallible source-books. Leland chee had this to answer regarding Palaptine being the most powerful.

Question asker - "Right, one question Leland: say if we were having a debate on who was the most powerful sith ever, and a random sourcebook states that Sidious is, would that make it absolute, and render the discussion over, or would is still only be a matter of opinion and still up for debate?"

Leland Chee himself - "There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate. Is the power being measured referring to his mastery over the dark side of the Force, the governmental powers he wields as Emperor , or some combination of both?"

If that's his take on the continuity in general, then there is no reason to apply the same logic here. For Bane's sith lords - power - can refer political and economic standing within the Galaxy. For example - When Tenebrous was searching for a Sith apprentice, he manipulated a powerful InterGalactic Bank agent named Caar Damask into meeting his future wife, knowing that if they had a child (Plagueis) , their offspring would be strong in the Force - but he'd also have a large influence of the Galatic economy. And of course, Sheev's ascension from an untarnished ambassador to supreme ruler of the Galaxy, does for-fill the 'power' scale prophesied by Bane. This shouldn't be to hard of a concept to grasp, but seen as I'm fairly certain you have a learning disability, then perhaps I could draw pictures?

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
I'll tell you what I am Zoltan. Smarter than you, that is all.

http://i.memeful.com/media/post/Xw7DDpM_700wa_0.gif

Concession accepted.

Tell your sister that I'll be mailing her 20 Hungarian Forints for last nights endeavors.

Originally posted by Petrus
It's not all mental gymnastics, Plagueis outright stated Bane's prowess was considered legendary.

And that means... What? lol

The idea that Bane was surpassed by subsequent generations of Sith Lords and the idea that Bane's powers were legendary are not mutually exclusive. Ancient Spartans were a legendary fighting force... And they'd still be utterly annihilated by any contemporary fighting force.

Behold, no contradiction. Bane is simply the weakest of his line.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
And they'd still be utterly annihilated by any contemporary fighting force. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNn5TZu6R8&t=0m10s

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Concession accepted.

Tell your sister that I'll be mailing her 20 Hungarian Forints for last nights endeavors.

You still didn't advance from the sister jokes? Ant made better comebacks on his off-days.

The political power argument is a neat one, but considering that by Plagueis' own omission, most of the Banite Sith did little to advance the Grand Plan, and rather where distracted by personal ventures (Plagueis and Sidious doing most of the leg work) it's arguably even more problematic a reading.

Nor does there exist a direct correlation, or frankly any correlation, between knowledge of the dark side, and an advancement of political power, so its seems rather a stretch to interpret in that manner.

I'm also not seeing any concrete reasons for why the Banite line increasing in power in this manner is unlikely, when it was intended to do so by design.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm also not seeing any concrete reasons for why the Banite line increasing in power in this manner is unlikely, when it was intended to do so by design.

Yeah, but it was Bane's design

What a dilemma for DMB. Bane is either the weakest member of his line, or he is a failure like Ziggy.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Trying to argue Banite scaling raises the Banite masters is one thing

Trying to argue it somehow lowers Bane beneath the point his feats would otherwise place him at, or arguing it somehow carries over to apprentices who never attained the rank of mastery is unfounded BS

Nobody's actually arguing that, though. We know exactly where Bane stands, he has three novels dedicated to him and various spinoffs. The reasoning you're talking about is only used in a hypothetical "if Tenebrous/co. were weak" scenario, as a kind of reverse reasoning. Vader and the others are superior to Bane because their fears are superior; not because they surpass a Banite master.

Factually speaking, Bane isn't even a top 50 Sith Lord in terms of power.

If you kinda think about it, yeah. That 50 will be filled with Banite Sith and a few other characters like Kun, Caedus, Taalon and Valkorion... but the other 46? All Banite.

That depends on when you think the Banites surpassed the top ancients. And there weren't 46 Banites.

Honestly, I place: Kun, Valkorion, Malgus, Jadus, Remulus Dreypa, Muur, Ulic, Pal, Sadow, Ragnos, Hord, Nadd, and maybe even Ludo Kressh above Bane -- and maybe even Nihilus. Depends, tbf.

Then, there is all the Banite Sith that came after him --- yes: Vader, Dooku, and Maul included, maybe even Venamis, too.

I would also put the likes of Krayt, Caedus, Wyyrlok (III) above him as well. So yeah, I wouldn't put Bane in my top 50, personally.

"Ultimately, Bane's plan produced more powerful Sith Lords with each generation."

Cognus and co. moving up that political ladder LMFAO.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Nobody's actually arguing that, though. We know exactly where Bane stands, he has three novels dedicated to him and various spinoffs. The reasoning you're talking about is only used in a hypothetical "if Tenebrous/co. were weak" scenario, as a kind of reverse reasoning. Vader and the others are superior to Bane because their fears are superior; not because they surpass a Banite master.
No I'm referring to Ellimist's bullshit argument that if there were that many generations between Bane and Sidious Bane has to be scaled down beneath Dooku regardless of what arguments you can build around his feats.

I don't agree with who you have above Bane, but if they aren't a Banite master and didn't match a Banite master in combat, you need reasoning other than Banite scaling. You don't apply Banite scaling to Maul/Dooku/Vader, so while I definitely disagree with you having them above him (especially Maul wtf), I'm not accusing you of using that bullshit argument.

Originally posted by Trocity
Cognus and co. moving up that political ladder LMFAO.
I could see Cognus ****ing with the political ladder quite a bit tbh given her insane foresight.

The political/economic/milatary argument is fine

Cognus for example had plenty of networking skills, despite her sadistic tendencies. She even found friendship in a Princess of some planet - and you do realise Sith lords posses the ability to mind controll people, yes? That simple execution of such a technique - on the right person - could mean a planets worth of resources, military, infrastructure and bureaucracy ?

Lel.

Oh Syndi.

Oh Troc. I've been looking for you. Wanted to ask your thoughts on a certain SK related matter.

PM me, fellow. Let us converse.

Can't. My PM's don't get sent for some reason.

Get on hangouts you little shit.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
The political/economic/milatary argument is fine

Cognus for example had plenty of networking skills, despite her sadistic tendencies. She even found friendship in a Princess of some planet - and you do realise Sith lords posses the ability to mind controll people, yes? That simple execution of such a technique - on the right person - could mean a planets worth of resources, military, infrastructure and bureaucracy ?

That's low Dark Jedi level stuff.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
The political/economic/milatary argument is fine

Cognus for example had plenty of networking skills, despite her sadistic tendencies. She even found friendship in a Princess of some planet - and you do realise Sith lords posses the ability to mind controll people, yes? That simple execution of such a technique - on the right person - could mean a planets worth of resources, military, infrastructure and bureaucracy ? Lmao what are you implying? That as the Sith grew more powerful their ability to influence others and so become more politically powerful increased as well?

Wait doesn't that mean... oh yeah right lol.

Originally posted by Trocity
"Ultimately, Bane's plan produced more powerful Sith Lords with each generation."

Cognus and co. moving up that political ladder LMFAO. Honestly reading this:

For a millennium, the Sith maintained the order in secrecy, passing down their evil heritage. As they gained knowledge of the dark side of the Force, their powers increased with each generation.
--Taken from Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook

And interpreting it to be referring to their political or economic powers is just ****ing stupid lmao.

This is the same case as with the Exar Kun quote Nova mentioned in another thread, it depends on the context in which this quote is given. The word 'power' has quite litteraly dozens of different meanings, like Ziggy already mentioned, it goes from political power to Force Power however to make a distinction between those is difficult. Now we can take a look at the Bane trilogy (and partly Darth Plagueis's novel) to gain more knowledge in which context these quotes apply. Bane creates the Rule of Two to make sure the Sith as a whole make progress towards their ultimate goal (= the destruction of the Jedi Order) instead of their personal progress, which causes infighting. Bane purposefully said that the true power of the Dark Side was not just combative Force Power, which is only a means to an end, but deception, manipulation, ... and that they (the Banite Sith) would destroy the Jedi not trough military prowess but by using their skills of manipulation and ... (which Palpatine eventually does).

So in that context it's pretty much possible that the Banite scaling isn't referring (only) to combatively prowess since Darth Bane himself said it was more important to advance as an organisation. This by no means makes these quotes wrong, on the contrary, it shows again that accolades can have different meanings dependent on the context in which it's created.

Kill yourself. But first dig your own grave. You are not even worthy to make the effort to dispse of your body.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Honestly reading this:

For a millennium, the Sith maintained the order in secrecy, passing down their evil heritage. As they gained knowledge of the dark side of the Force, their powers increased with each generation.
--Taken from Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook

And interpreting it to be referring to their political or economic powers is just ****ing stupid lmao.

How so? Bane himself says the TRUE power of the Dark Side is manipulation, deception, ...

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I could see Cognus ****ing with the political ladder quite a bit tbh given her insane foresight.

To be honest, Bane mentioned that Cognus's foresight was a valuable asset for the Sith Order, again implying it's more important advance as an organisation instead of personal power.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
How so? Bane himself says the TRUE power of the Dark Side is manipulation, deception, ... That's just a set of beliefs friend not actual knowledge of the dark side, lol.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Honestly reading this:

For a millennium, the Sith maintained the order in secrecy, passing down their evil heritage. As they gained knowledge of the dark side of the Force, their powers increased with each generation.
--Taken from Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook

And interpreting it to be referring to their political or economic powers is just ****ing stupid lmao.

People are stupid and hilariously biased. It's really that simple.

Perhaps a simple quote isn't completely binding. But the "political power" argument holds no weight with a statment like this.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
That's just a set of beliefs friend not actual knowledge of the dark side, lol.

The beliefs which are the very basis of Bane's Order and that's exactly what that quote described, the intention behind the Banite Sith Order.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
The beliefs which are the very basis of Bane's Order and that's exactly what that quote described, the intention behind the Banite Sith Order. No it says through gaining knowledge of the dark side the Sith grew steadily more powerful, not by re-reading Bane's rules of conduct. Which technically hadn't been written yet as this source predates the Bane trilogy.

only thing cool about Darth Bane is he finally provides a solid connection between Batman and Star Wars

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
The beliefs which are the very basis of Bane's Order and that's exactly what that quote described, the intention behind the Banite Sith Order.

http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2016/01/17/6358865180472733511677332949_reach.jpg

Originally posted by ares834
People are stupid and hilariously biased. It's really that simple. Yeah its no surprise that the most outspoken person on this issue is both of those things.

Well, seeing as Palpatine was the culmination of the Banite Sith's "political power", which made him so politically powerful that Yoda couldn't defeat him in one-on-one combat, then yeah, we can presume that the Banite Sith advanced in "political power" in that context

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Honestly reading this:

For a millennium, the Sith maintained the order in secrecy, passing down their evil heritage. As they gained knowledge of the dark side of the Force, their powers increased with each generation.
--Taken from Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook

And interpreting it to be referring to their political or economic powers is just ****ing stupid lmao.

Again Beniboy,

This is another misinterpretation. We are agreed that this passage doesn't refer to political power, but it does not refer to power in the force either. Rather that it refers to the number of power(s) that are disposable to them. Of course, if your knowledge of force lore is increased you would know more 'powers' - hence the plural. Which is the only logical interpretation of that sentence. This should be basic comprehension - but yet again - it's essentially it's another issue of Sidious supporters wearing beer goggles, in which case I'll have to cite Leland Chee on the matter again:

"There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate"

"us continuity people don't deal in absolutes."

- Leeland Chee

You can't win this argument Beni, unless you can literally find me a text stating that each member of the Banite line's "power in the dakrside / Force" increased, one after the other. Yet even then, it's still up for interpretation as LFL house policy

Originally posted by SunRazer
Well, seeing as Palpatine was the culmination of the Banite Sith's "political power", which made him so politically powerful that Yoda couldn't defeat him in one-on-one combat, then yeah, we can presume that the Banite Sith advanced in "political power" in that context Yoda didn't even defeat that pile of shit Dooku. Yoda was failure personified so it isn't that impressive considering his amount of failure in the Star Wars mythos.

Bane's thoughts are what formed the basis of his Order, there is little discussion in that and that they are important for it's working is only logical nor do I think that it's reaching to look deeper into the real working and idea behind the Order. That many have not even committed one argument in favor of their 'theory' speaks volumes about how strong it actually is.

PS My favorite Banite Sith is Darth Tenebrous so if I really am biased then I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Well, seeing as Palpatine was the culmination of the Banite Sith's "political power", which made him so politically powerful that Yoda couldn't defeat him in one-on-one combat, then yeah, we can presume that the Banite Sith advanced in "political power" in that context

No one says it's only referring to political power, it can define multiple interpretations of power. However you can't deny that Bane's primary goal was to destroy the Jedi Order through the manipulation of the political world, something which Palpatine eventually succeeds in.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
No one says it's only referring to political power, it can define multiple interpretations of power. However you can't deny that Bane's primary goal was to destroy the Jedi Order through the manipulation of the political world, something which Palpatine eventually succeeds in.

I'm being sarcastic and referring to Ziggy's infamous "it refers to political power" argument.

Originally posted by SunRazer
I'm being sarcastic and referring to Ziggy's infamous "it refers to political power" argument.

My arguments disagree with your view on the matter, and that is simply why you don't like them. Which is the same reason you've auto-conceded on many occasions - because your arguments for Sheev rely on me accepting various rules, and trying to dispute premises according to your logic. But when I debunk the philosophy, starting with the assumptions and then move into various contradictions that may arise. You're literally impotent - hence the ducking. The assumption here is that 'power' refers to a small slice of a bigger cake. Power must mean power in the Force' because Sunrazor wants it to mean that, rather than power referring to a multitude of things - IE political/military might. For the final time:

Question asker - "Right, one question Leland: say if we were having a debate on who was the most powerful sith ever, and a random sourcebook states that Sidious is, would that make it absolute, and render the discussion over, or would is still only be a matter of opinion and still up for debate?"

Leland Chee himself - "There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate. Is the power being measured referring to his mastery over the dark side of the Force, the governmental powers he wields as Emperor , or some combination of both?"

There is no article in canon declaring Sidious is the most powerful Force wielder among the sith lords, because it goes against LFL house policy.

You might think that. Too bad nobody takes that seriously, so I (nor Zoltan, or anybody else) don't have to worry about the apparent "auto-concessions" I'm making to you.

Besides, nobody debates with flat-earthers, but is that a recognition in logical flaws? Hardly. Nobody debates with people who aren't worth their time. That you proposed "political power" in quotes that blatantly refer to Force mastery... well, you can figure out what that means for yourself, my much wittier and much more intelligent friend.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
That many have not even committed one argument in favor of their 'theory' speaks volumes about how strong it actually is.

We don't make arguments, because it's ****ing obvious. What should I debate next? That water is wet?

Originally posted by SunRazer
You might think that. Too bad nobody takes that seriously, so I (nor Zoltan, or anybody else)

That is not an excuse to attempt to save face. You avoided every turn to debate when you were so convinced I was Nai on comicvine too - which btw is hilarious - causing you to shit your pants. There is no denying it Nova, you don't like entering debates you can't win and you don't like answering questions that don't have justified answers. It really is that simple. Arthur Schopenhauer once said When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer or reply, but evades it by a counter-question or an indirect answer, or some assertion which has no bearing on the matter, and, generally, tries to turn the subject, it is a sure sign that you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. I have, as it were, reduced you to silence. And now your getting upset that I repeat these points. And Zoltan, really? the guy almost certainly has a case of autism given his tendancy to get hostile when people don't agree with his opinions - telling darthduelist to kill himself, and I don't think he was joking either.



You have so far not brought up a single quote that blantanly refers to 'Force powers', making this point a moot one.



Don't forget better looking.

The damage Gravid did to the Order of the Sith Lords was eventually recovered and taken even further in its vastness. So that is a non-point.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Again Beniboy,

This is another misinterpretation. We are agreed that this passage doesn't refer to political power, but it does not refer to power in the force either. Rather that it refers to the number of power(s) that are disposable to them. Of course, if your knowledge of force lore is increased you would know more 'powers' - hence the plural. Which is the only logical interpretation of that sentence. This should be basic comprehension - but yet again - it's essentially it's another issue of Sidious supporters wearing beer goggles, in which case I'll have to cite Leland Chee on the matter again:

"There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate"

"us continuity people don't deal in absolutes."

- Leeland Chee

You can't win this argument Beni, unless you can literally find me a text stating that each member of the Banite line's "power in the dakrside / Force" increased, one after the other. Yet even then, it's still up for interpretation as LFL house policy Loving the double standards friend "it's up for intepretation but this is the only logical intepretation" (almost as bad as "only a Sith deals in absolutes" tbh). Lmao I'll assume that to be a concession that LFL "house policy" is just a front for your biased and stupidity, dropped at the first sign of inconvenience.

Anyway you've got in wrong again, any one Sith Lord has access to a plurality of powers (i.e. telekinesis, telepathy, Force lightning etc.), so it's no surprise the plural would be opted for when referring to them, plural, increasing.

However, nowhere does it specifically refer to only the number of powers they knew, increasing. It uses general terms, we must therefore assume general terms, i.e. of their preexisting powers increasing, new powers they learned increasing, and yes the number of abilities they gained increasing. Overall power in general. You have no basis I'm afraid for reducing it to any one aspect.

Aside from biased and stupidity of course.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Bane's thoughts are what formed the basis of his Order, there is little discussion in that and that they are important for it's working is only logical nor do I think that it's reaching to look deeper into the real working and idea behind the Order. That many have not even committed one argument in favor of their 'theory' speaks volumes about how strong it actually is.

PS My favorite Banite Sith is Darth Tenebrous so if I really am biased then I wouldn't be having this discussion. So? It's irrelevant, it's not what the source is referring to. Sorry.Originally posted by cs_zoltan
What should I debate next? That water is wet? Tbh fact that nobody has even committed one argument in favour of that theory speaks volumes as to how strong it actually is.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
What should I debate next? That water is wet?
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-water-wet

Good debate. mmm

https://media0.giphy.com/media/rngE31q0PTHbO/200.gif

The word 'power' has different meanings, regardless from this quote, Bane uses the word power for combative Force power, political power, ... while Leland Chee mentioned the same thing. That's an undeniable fact, like how Bane's intention behind his Order is to destroy the Jedi by manipulating galatic events, which Sidious eventually succeeds in. The quotes that are presented in this thread describe the ultimate goal of Bane, every generation of Sith gaines power, yet we know that his ultimate goal (according to the Bane trilogy) is to destroy the Jedi through the true power of the Dark Side (manipulation, cunning, ...) so there's the conflict. Reducing Bane's entire Order to just gaining Force power seems very limited thinking and is close to ignoring Bane's true intentions. Does this mean that it's unpossible for a Banite Sith to gain more power? Not at all, I see it as entirely plausible that the combative Force power of at least a few Sith improved (most notably Plagueis and Sidious) but I regard it more as a side effect then the primary goal of the Banite Sith Order.

It's apparently "obvious" that in this case power refers to actual Force Power but where do we draw the line between something that's "obvious" and something that's worth having a debate over? It's entirely subjective, so even if someone starts a debate about something you regard as "obvious" by presenting actual feats & facts it can in the end only strengthen your theory (if it's so "obvious".

I only presented facts about Bane's use of the word power and his intentions behind his Order which could very well make one doubt it's meaning yet because I go in against the generally accepted theory it means I'm biased. I responded to this thread because I actually had these kind of doubts before but in no way do I have a preferable outcome so If you can counter my arguments then please do so, I would definitely encourage it.

Originally posted by Petrus
What about this? Wouldn't this sort of contradict that every apprentice surpassed their masters?

No, given that Gravid's apprentice still beat him in one vs. one combat. You can take a step back but still take two steps forward right afterwards.

Originally posted by Dark-Kenshin
As far as tactical ability is concerned, modern technological advancements render most, if not all of Alexander's tactical repertoire, obsolete. This is not to say that he is a crappy tactician by today's standards, but that there are additional factors by today's standards that he would not be able to overcome with his tactical aptitude alone.

We see a fine example of this concept in the Mutara Nebula battle of Star Trek II Wrath of Khan in which Khan, despite being openly acknowledged as the superior tactician, is bested by Kirk due to being unfamiliar with three dimensional naval combat. As Spock put it, Khan's pattern indicated "two dimensional thinking."

The same can't quite be said as far as ancient force wielding sith and modern force wielding sith are concerned. In their case, a great deal of knowledge had actually been lost, not gained, over time, as we see in the case of Darth Gravid. This is not to say that each generation didn't grow stronger over time, but that it's a bit difficult to quantify precisely how.

That's just getting stuck on the particulars of the analogy; Stonehenge is legendary but we obviously can outstrip it today, etc.

Originally posted by Ziggystardust
Arthur Schopenhauer once said When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer or reply, but evades it by a counter-question or an indirect answer, or some assertion which has no bearing on the matter, and, generally, tries to turn the subject, it is a sure sign that you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. I have, as it were, reduced you to silence.I suppose I should take Ziggy's silence to mean that I've struck upon a weak spot.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No I'm referring to Ellimist's bullshit argument that if there were that many generations between Bane and Sidious Bane has to be scaled down beneath Dooku regardless of what arguments you can build around his feats.

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, given your hilariously transparent evasion of ever engaging me in a debate, but it isn't clear to me why powerscaling downwards is less valid than scaling upwards, seeing as how Sidious has better established feats than Bane's dubious ones on a nexus, so it makes more sense to use him as the benchmark.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I suppose I should take Ziggy's silence to mean that I've struck upon a weak spot.

No you shouldn't.

On phone right now though, so you can expect something with pretty pictures and links soon.

OK. But just remember, there is no shame in a concession.

Yes there is.

I won't hold it against you, I promise.

But I would hold it against myself. However, if you did truly bring light to some-point and urge in a manner I can not contest - I would concede the point.

*eventually.

Originally posted by Syndicate
Can't. My PM's don't get sent for some reason.

Sorry just saw this now. Shall we use this thread to converse?

Yeah my PM's aren't working either.

Sure. Ever read Insomnia Troc?

So now it is up for interpretation, I thought there was only one possible reading? Stick to a story please, I'm beginning to think you're biased.

Regardless the general gist of you argument seems to be that an increment in knowledge of the dark side could not lead to an increment in their Force abilities in general. But like, no? All knowledge of Sith techniques would feed into their knowledge and understanding of the nature of the dark side as a whole, as well as press and therefore expand the limitations of the practitioner, altogether contributing to and advancing their command of the Force in a wider sense. There being many examples of Sith Lords uncovering ancient Sith knowledge and become holistically stronger because of it, not simply learning a few new spells and tricks.

For example Bane during his apprenticeship describes how the ancient Sith knowledge would be key to unlocking his full potential:
While Exar Kun's acquisition of the Dark Holocron is said to have made him more powerful:Knowledge of the dark side can also take the form of more basic and fundamental techniques, like those Sidious detailed in the Book of Anger, which essentially describes how to effectively call on your rage, and apply that to any one expression of the Force.

So no, I'm not seeing how there is a lack of correlation between the two at all. An understanding of the nature of the dark side is fundamental to any and all of its expressions.

You can also add Krayt getting more powerful when learning DT.

Or Revan getting stronger trapped for 300 years.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, given your hilariously transparent evasion of ever engaging me in a debate, but it isn't clear to me why powerscaling downwards is less valid than scaling upwards, seeing as how Sidious has better established feats than Bane's dubious ones on a nexus, so it makes more sense to use him as the benchmark. DMB, you're not allowed to say another thing about the DBT until you face Elimist.

Originally posted by Sinious
DMB, you're not allowed to say another thing about the DBT until you face Elimist. Agreed.

Originally posted by Syndicate
Sure. Ever read Insomnia Troc?

Did you get my pm?

Originally posted by Sinious
DMB, you're not allowed to say another thing about the DBT until you face Elimist.

Originally posted by Trocity
Did you get my pm?

Yes. Want to continue the convo here anyways?

.

Lel, wrong thread. A quality one though.

Banite Sith grow stronger due to cunning and dark side knowledge.