quote: (post)

Originally posted by BlueTiger1144
Yoda disintegrates with a thought.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In the aftermath of the destruction of Ziost, Valkorion had become so powerful that he had to be careful in creating a VOICE for himself. Even powerful Force-users could not bear the pressure of his essence anymore.

After loosing his major VOICE in a fight (see Chapter 1 of Knights of the Fallen Empire), Valkorion infiltrated the mind of the Outlander and slowly but surely enhanced the latter's Force-sensitivity (and powers) in order to transform him into a vessel that could house his essence safely, much like in the case of the original Valkorion.

"You were an exemplary pawn, one I forged into a vessel of supreme power--worthy of preserving my spirit." (Valkorion)

We see evidence of that in this fight:

(please log in to view the image)

(please log in to view the image)

That power swiftly overwhelmed Arcann and Senya (together) and was ripping the entire setting apart. And the latter two are powerhouses in their own right.

The Outlander is also superb with a lightsaber.

---

This should be an excellent fight for both.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Azronger
You said in the other thread that you wanted feedback. Alright, I'll give it to you:

The primary reason this argument fails is that it has literally no connection to Yoda. You are pushing an extremely controversial stance that virtually no one on these boards agrees with, so forming a logical connection between the two combatants is vital, even if everyone is already familiar with the lore. Yet such a connection doesn't exist in your post; you simply present material for the Outlander and then conclude that he can present a challenge for Yoda. The basic structure looks something like this:

Premise 1: The Outlander has this and this going for him
Conclusion: A fight between the Outlander and Yoda would be excellent

Simply based on the premise you have outlined, this conclusion is not logical, because - and this is the key here - it doesn't explain why the Outlander's feats and such make him a challenge for Yoda; it doesn't explain why you arrived at this specific conclusion. I could make all sorts of conclusions just based on this single premise, for example:

Premise 1: The Outlander has this and this going for him
Conclusion: The Outlander gets stomped by Darth Maul

Or:

Premise 1: The Outlander has this and this going for him
Conclusion: The Outlander solos all of Star Wars

Neither of these are logical, because they are based on just a single premise i.e. they follow the exact same structure that your argument does. For the conclusion to be supported, more than one premise is required. Here is an example of a proper way to do it:

Premise 1: The Outlander has this and this going for him
Premise 2: Yoda's best feats are of similar caliber (obviously I don't agree with this but you'd provide evidence)
Conclusion: A fight between the Outlander and Yoda would be excellent

There is a clear connection between the two premises that can be found, and from which a conclusion can be drawn. My advice for you here would be to break down your argument to its fundamental pieces i.e. premises, and then look for a logical connection between them, and then see if it supports your conclusion. If it doesn't, more premises are needed, or your conclusion is simply erronous and needs readjusting.