ILS
I've thought about this for a while and it makes some level of sense to me.
"You are what you eat" is a simple way of saying "the input is equal to the output". Meaning, what you take in reflects what you put back out, whether that be the food you're eating or the ideas you expose yourself to. People who eat well, for example, feel better. People who express themselves negatively (a$$holes) probably had something negative happen to them which laid the foundation for that behaviour.
Could it be the same with Star Wars debating? Take me, for example. I think it's fair to say I can be pretty aggressive at times, and am relentless in my ideas/arguments to the point of getting too tired to post anymore (at least that's how I view myself and what some have told me over the years). Is it mere coincidence that I've read nearly everything Darth Maul has ever been in, and spent the majority of my time collecting and analysing information on this one character? Or have I become so exposed to ideas presented in Maul books (relentless fanaticism, aggression etc) that I've started to express little bits of Maul's personality in my arguments for him?
Then there's Tempest; calm, collected, manipulative, sadistic, and so on. I think saying he embodies some of the traits most would associate with Palpatine is an understatement. His prime directives are to uphold the Sheevite legacy, and inflict suffering on anyone who gets in his way, in the most elegant manner possible.
I also think people who primarily debate for Obi-Wan share similar approaches (just as fanatical as me while remaining composed the whole time, what a horrible thought). Same with Dooku. And within that, I find that people who debate for Kenobi also favour Dooku, and visa versa, likely because of the calm, collected, sophisticated traits both characters share.
What about Nai? One thing that is immensely important to him is providing alternative arguments from the mainstream, or "devil's advocate". And the most obvious example of this is him making arguments for why Exar Kun would defeat Sidious.
Completely unconventional. And with frequent use of underhanded tactics (insulting the intelligence of the opponent, drawing on methods of analysis the opponent isn't using), he begins to remind me of someone... yes, he does remind me of someone.
Exar Kun, the first guy to create a saberstaff. Not just a saberstaff, but a short-handled, immensely specialised and unconventional saberstaff. One that facilitates use of a fighting style that relies on tricking the opponent, causing them to lose balance, and then punishing them for it on the backswing. There's also Exar's use of less conventional and direct attacks: sorcery.
Here's another idea; all of the "experts" of the most prominent Star Wars characters, are also among the loudest/most dedicated debaters. Whereas with less prominent, more reserved characters that don't see as much light of day (Barriss, Luminara) you'll find someone like KingJoker debating for them; kind, delightfully gay and overall not the first person who springs to mind when you think about Star Wars debating. Whereas, at least for me, the Dooku, Maul, Kenobi, Vitiate and so on debaters seem overall more active and create more noise.
What's fun to think about as well, is that with Ahsoka's rise to prominence in the Rebels TV show, and increase in overall power, so has KingJoker's dedication to and skill in debating for her. It's almost like he's powering up alongside her.
Or take Legend with Vitiate. What do they have in common? Both spend incalculable amounts of time gathering knowledge in their respective fields, but in practice, aren't skilled fighters/debaters.
Or, take the absolute clusterf*ck of a character that is Revan and... yeah, Ant. I would say Ant is very similar to Revan.
You get the point. Am I on to something or are these comparisons too vague to be useful? Do we embody in our debating of these characters, the characters themselves? Do we at least embody some of their traits?
"You are what you eat" is a simple way of saying "the input is equal to the output". Meaning, what you take in reflects what you put back out, whether that be the food you're eating or the ideas you expose yourself to. People who eat well, for example, feel better. People who express themselves negatively (a$$holes) probably had something negative happen to them which laid the foundation for that behaviour.
Could it be the same with Star Wars debating? Take me, for example. I think it's fair to say I can be pretty aggressive at times, and am relentless in my ideas/arguments to the point of getting too tired to post anymore (at least that's how I view myself and what some have told me over the years). Is it mere coincidence that I've read nearly everything Darth Maul has ever been in, and spent the majority of my time collecting and analysing information on this one character? Or have I become so exposed to ideas presented in Maul books (relentless fanaticism, aggression etc) that I've started to express little bits of Maul's personality in my arguments for him?
Then there's Tempest; calm, collected, manipulative, sadistic, and so on. I think saying he embodies some of the traits most would associate with Palpatine is an understatement. His prime directives are to uphold the Sheevite legacy, and inflict suffering on anyone who gets in his way, in the most elegant manner possible.
I also think people who primarily debate for Obi-Wan share similar approaches (just as fanatical as me while remaining composed the whole time, what a horrible thought). Same with Dooku. And within that, I find that people who debate for Kenobi also favour Dooku, and visa versa, likely because of the calm, collected, sophisticated traits both characters share.
What about Nai? One thing that is immensely important to him is providing alternative arguments from the mainstream, or "devil's advocate". And the most obvious example of this is him making arguments for why Exar Kun would defeat Sidious.
Completely unconventional. And with frequent use of underhanded tactics (insulting the intelligence of the opponent, drawing on methods of analysis the opponent isn't using), he begins to remind me of someone... yes, he does remind me of someone.
Exar Kun, the first guy to create a saberstaff. Not just a saberstaff, but a short-handled, immensely specialised and unconventional saberstaff. One that facilitates use of a fighting style that relies on tricking the opponent, causing them to lose balance, and then punishing them for it on the backswing. There's also Exar's use of less conventional and direct attacks: sorcery.
Here's another idea; all of the "experts" of the most prominent Star Wars characters, are also among the loudest/most dedicated debaters. Whereas with less prominent, more reserved characters that don't see as much light of day (Barriss, Luminara) you'll find someone like KingJoker debating for them; kind, delightfully gay and overall not the first person who springs to mind when you think about Star Wars debating. Whereas, at least for me, the Dooku, Maul, Kenobi, Vitiate and so on debaters seem overall more active and create more noise.
What's fun to think about as well, is that with Ahsoka's rise to prominence in the Rebels TV show, and increase in overall power, so has KingJoker's dedication to and skill in debating for her. It's almost like he's powering up alongside her.
Or take Legend with Vitiate. What do they have in common? Both spend incalculable amounts of time gathering knowledge in their respective fields, but in practice, aren't skilled fighters/debaters.
Or, take the absolute clusterf*ck of a character that is Revan and... yeah, Ant. I would say Ant is very similar to Revan.
You get the point. Am I on to something or are these comparisons too vague to be useful? Do we embody in our debating of these characters, the characters themselves? Do we at least embody some of their traits?
