Originally posted by tommy vercetti
i did not divide this fight between tulak and ragnos, i just think that tulak would win and you think ragnos so therefor i am involving the two of them but my reasons for tulak winning and ragnos not has involved the other 4 this whole thread.
Let me help you, when you argue, you have to give yourself supporting evidence. Your opinions have to be supported by facts to make a point, otherwise they are just that -- opinions. Until you figure this out, you're not debating, you're simply leveling insults.
For example:
windu force powers do not leave you defenceless in one to one duels but in this sort of duel it does because you have to concentrate hard on dealing damage when there are 5 other people who can easily strike you down while you are using concentration. oh and have you ever heard of a little something called resisting force powers.
It might leave you defenseless, but no more than moving your lightsaber in direction to parry a blow, as it leaves you open to another attack. In general, most force powers don't leave you more open than anything else.
Secondly, why would this affect Ragnos and not anyone else? Ragnos is one of the few guys that can simply beat up people with his immense strength. And if the game data has anything to say from JK:A, he's fast too.
im not sayin that ragnos is a pushover but neither is tulak. in this sort of duel, with all sorts of stromg opponents it is hard to speculate who would win but im just saying that i think it would come down to who has the best speed and technique and out of everyone involved that is tulak
Okay, this is your opinion, now support it with facts.
The fact is you have not seemed to grasp the idea of what a royal rumble involves you idiot. at the end of the day we both think that we are right and so its up for others to decide but considering that you seem to have relationships with all of them means we cant get a non biased answer. I can guarantee if we got 10 random guys to decide they would go with me and you can deny that all you want bit it wont be true
I am a random guy, and I don't go with you, because I don't see the evidence presented that would say Tulak would win.
You have the word of one person saying Tulak was the best lightsaber duelist of the Sith. It has no mention about Sith Swords, just lightsabers. Now tell me, where was Tulak born? When did he/if ever, become Dark Lord of the Sith? Use canon evidence to support this.
What people who support Ragnos use is:
1) Ragnos ruled for over a century over the height of the Sith Empire (this is fact, it is canonically stated).
2) The Sith Empire had numerous Sith Lords underneath the Dark Lord, and the ideology was that the strong shall rule.
Conclusion: Ragnos died a natural death, so none of the Sith Lords was able to defeat him.
Sith Lords that include Naga Sadow, Ludo Kressh, and various other unnamed baddies.
We know he is said to have "immense" physical strength, as well as a "frightening" grasp on the force. So clearly, he is not lacking in that aspect.
size is not in fact a help but a drawback as it is harder to defend youeself when you are big then when you are small as there is more space to be hit. And the fact that ragnos is so big probably makes him quite slow.
See this is just random speculation. Do you KNOW Ragnos was slow? No. Do you have anything to come to the logical conclusion that Ragnos was slow? No. You have the fact that he is "big", but never once does it matter that Ragnos was overwhelmingly big, he was a large man, but he clearly had the speed to keep up with all the other Sith Lords that were gunning for his position AND defeat them. Just like he defeated Simus.
Bottom line is that you don't level assumptions and debase people who give their opinions. Most of your reasons are logical fallacy, it's that simple -- get off it.
Originally posted by Illustrious
Let me help you, when you argue, you have to give yourself supporting evidence. Your opinions have to be supported by facts to make a point, otherwise they are just that -- opinions. Until you figure this out, you're not debating, you're simply leveling insults.For example:
It might leave you defenseless, but no more than moving your lightsaber in direction to parry a blow, as it leaves you open to another attack. In general, most force powers don't leave you more open than anything else.
Secondly, why would this affect Ragnos and not anyone else? Ragnos is one of the few guys that can simply beat up people with his immense strength. And if the game data has anything to say from JK:A, he's fast too.
Okay, this is your opinion, now support it with facts.
I am a random guy, and I don't go with you, because I don't see the evidence presented that would say Tulak would win.
You have the word of one person saying Tulak was the best lightsaber duelist of the Sith. It has no mention about Sith Swords, just lightsabers. Now tell me, where was Tulak born? When did he/if ever, become Dark Lord of the Sith? Use canon evidence to support this.
What people who support Ragnos use is:
1) Ragnos ruled for over a century over the height of the Sith Empire (this is fact, it is canonically stated).
2) The Sith Empire had numerous Sith Lords underneath the Dark Lord, and the ideology was that the strong shall rule.
Conclusion: Ragnos died a natural death, so none of the Sith Lords was able to defeat him.Sith Lords that include Naga Sadow, Ludo Kressh, and various other unnamed baddies.
We know he is said to have "immense" physical strength, as well as a "frightening" grasp on the force. So clearly, he is not lacking in that aspect.
See this is just random speculation. Do you KNOW Ragnos was slow? No. Do you have anything to come to the logical conclusion that Ragnos was slow? No. You have the fact that he is "big", but never once does it matter that Ragnos was overwhelmingly big, he was a large man, but he clearly had the speed to keep up with all the other Sith Lords that were gunning for his position AND defeat them. Just like he defeated Simus.
Bottom line is that you don't level assumptions and debase people who give their opinions. Most of your reasons are logical fallacy, it's that simple -- get off it.
I was waiting for that. Thank you, Illustrious.
Originally posted by Darth_Frobo
Tulak was calle the greatest sith duelist. ragnos would still put up a good fight however.
Tulak was called the greatest lightsaber duelist in KotoR times. That:
a) doesn't say anything about people past KotoR times
b) doesn't say anything about people that didn't use a lightsaber (Pall, Ragnos, Kressh, Sadow)
So basically in this fight Hord is only > Nadd in terms of melee combat.
It also doesn't take into account the ability to mess around with the force. Mace is arguably the best lightsaber duelist in the Jedi Council, but that doesn't mean he is the most powerful with the force. Nadd could potentially thoroughly outclass Tulak in terms of force knowledge.
Tulak is too much of an unknown. Outside of one line in dialogue in a game, we practically know nothing about him.
Originally posted by tommy vercetti
i believe that lightsabers are more powerful than the sith swords and the only reason the other sith didnt use them was because the lightsaber chrystalks were very rare in those times and the sith did not know how to make them at that time
For once i kind of agree with you man, lightsabers CAN be more powerful then sith swords however that's ONLY if it has certain crystals like the one that makes your saber stronger with your connection to the force/uses your excess force energy to power the saber.