Darth Nihilus versus Marka Ragnos

Glentract, source that quote please.

It's still irrelevant, those swords weren't lightsaber-resistant at the time the comic was written. That's like me saying character X broke a wooden stick, and then in an Essential Guide book we find out the stick was made of diamond. Nonsense. There's no reason for the Sith to have made their blades resistant to lightsabers; they had no contact with lightsabers for centuries.

When did I assume the positive? I said "Sadow's ship blew up the star, ergo Sadow couldn't. Hardly true. This is an unknown. Sadow very well could have the capacity, but the ship be more efficient."

You just did. You assume that he could when evidence points to the contrary. He needed the ship to perform the feat, or else he would have performed other impressive feats on his own power.

No it isn't. Because the Ancient Sith are described as immensely powerful by the narrator. The burden of proof falls back on you since you're trying to contradict it. Learn that fact.

Immensely powerful is a subjective term, Illustrious. I'm sure you know what that means. Description, I argue, means nothing without evidence. And evidence is something you've failed to provide.

Then it's the same with Kun, as he wasn't even able to get out from under Nadd's foot until he got a hold of an amulet.

Or until he embraced the Dark Side. What kind of offensive powers could he have used against Nadd? None. He was fresh out of Vodo's tutelage, you expect him to stand a serious chance against an experienced and comparatively ancient Dark Side spirit?

What's your point? You have no conclusive point he's weak without his items.

You have zero conclusive proof that he's strong without his items. On the contrary, evidence that his best feats were the total result of his artifacts leads me to believe otherwise.

Oh good, you can argue that absence of proof is proof of absence.

No, I just point out that, when challenged to display evidence, you don't, and change the subject. As you just did. Nor did you answer the fact that you claimed my narrator quote "doesn't prove anything" yet yours somehow does.

I now declare it, your narrator quote "doesn't prove anything." Can I dance around the subject and refuse to provide evidence just like the great Illustrious, now?

They were defined as "titanic" in comparison to the later Jedi. Where's your proof?

Where's your proof that by "later Jedi" they mean "all later Force users?"

Yes, but that feat wasn't duplicated by Aleema, so it's not proven it was his ship. And secondly, even if it was his ship, it still doesn't show he is weak.

The fact that he's in the ship casts doubt on his natural ability to perform the feat. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. If I invented artificial arm strengtheners, and I can lift cars with them while normally I can only lift something like 25 lbs., am I weak or not? The answer is yes, I am.

It wasn't described as any metal. It was later filled in. How is that invalid? Later EU can fill in for earlier EU if it isn't contradictory. By that logic, the PT can't be canon since it fills in for canon established earlier.

The problem is when later EU changes the nature of a feat. What if later EU said that the swords were made entirely of balsa wood? Would you still be claiming that the later EU takes precedence?

Now you're being daft. We see his lightning barely able to fry Luke, yet you're assuming he can make force storms.

And need I remind you Palpatine was never once described with anywhere near the grandiose language as the Ancient Sith.

Actually, I was pointing out the logical flaws in your argument, that "just because we don't see examples of a person's power doesn't mean that they don't have the power." And Palpatine is described, by Yoda himself, as powerful. He warns Luke not to underestimate his power. Grandiose language would have been inappropriate in such a situation. The best assumption, rather than believing each person to be a demi-god, is to believe they do not have power until we are shown otherwise.

False. The narrator talks up the ENTIRE ANCIENT SITH of which only Sadow is shown with a bunch of toys.

Oh yes, because Sadow's the only one that can create artifacts, right? Never mind you just supported that Sith swords were imbued with power. Oh, my, did I just catch you in an inconsistancy?

More semantics. Somehow doing what Kun did is impressive, but doing what Nadd did and conquering armies of Beast Riders or what Sadow did by creating armies out of illusions is not impressive.

Nadd's feat was impressive, but not any more so than Kun's because Kun could have replicated it with the freeze spell. That may simply have been what Nadd did anyway. Sadow's feat was even less impressive because of Aleema's ability to match it. Aleema's nowhere near the power of either of these three.

So the ship's power came from Sith Batteries? Unless you prove that Sadow didn't imbue sith powers into the ship or otherwise, you can't prove they didn't come from his person, at least originally.

I've already disproved this with the temples argument, and I'll go further.

All of the temples on Yavin IV were built by the Massassi. Not by either Kun or Sadow. Were the massassi secretly the master race, the most powerful force users ever, because they can make temples that focus tremendous Forfce energies? Hell no.

DLOTS - Narrator: "He (Kun) has ordered the Massassi to build temples according to the ancient Sith designs... Temples which will focus great Dark-Side energies in this place.

Emphasis mine. Obviously, something about their design allows them to channel and focus the force. There's absolutely nothing about imbuing them. The same goes for Sadow's ship, and the rest of the Ancient Sith baubles.

You asked if Kun creating these temples made him more powerful than he was.

No, I asked if he created those temples (he didn't, but replace him with the Massassi) then did he have the power, naturally, to throw Super Star Destroyers out of orbit?

That's because there's a difference between sarcasm and narration. If you described your clown as godlike and you meant him as such, then he is. You will have to prove the narrator had no intention of meaning they were godlike through literary analysis.

If I describe my clown as godlike, and mean it, and throughout the story the clown does nothing more than entertain children, are you going to assume that the clown is still very powerful?

He was not depicted wearing them in the GAotS, and like you said, since it's the source, it's a higher level of canon.

And he is depicted wearing them in FotSE. It's also the source, and a higher level of canon than any reference book.

Not really. So suddenly Sadow has "many" when he isn't even depicted as wearing one. He sure wasn't wearing one while arguing with Kressh, who was his biggest rival.

If Sadow didn't have many, Illustrious, how the hell did later generations like Sidious and Exar Kun manage to find them, hm? And like I said, he's shown wearing at least Exar's in FotSE. As I recall, he was adorned with quite a bit more.

And Sadow's army was up to 90% illusions. The other 10% were able to drive back the main Republic forces. Yes, I'll say it's not on the same scale.

And Aleema's "fleet" was at least 50% illusions, the rest of which, when the illusions were dispelled by Nomi Sunrider, were able to perform kamikaze attacks on the Republic fleet and drive them back.

Definitely on the same scale.

Really? Care to repoint it out? I believe I already took care of it. You're arguing against the source while proving a negative. Logical fallacy on you man.

Oh. Okay. So since the OT is about Vader and Luke Skywalker, can we say that OT Palpatine was out making Force Storms and teleporting people during ANH? "Waah, absence of proof isn't proof of absence, you can't prove he didn't! Nyah nyah! Simply because he didn't do it on screen and there's no evidence of him being able to do it doesn't mean he can't execute it!"

non-lightsaber-resistant? Where does it show a lightsaber cutting through a sith sword?

The Ancients had no lightsabers, and had no contact with lightsabers for thousands of years. What point would there be in making them lightsaber resistant?

With his bare hands?

With his own lightsaber. It shows him literally plowing through the staff. He either overpowered it physically or he disabled Vodo's empowerment with his own power.

By that logic, Nadd is more impressive because he conquered an entire warlike planet (of more persons than the Senate, btw).

What you quoted and what you wrote don't jive. Two different subjects. But I'll remind you he didn't have to conquer Iziz, he took control relatively peacefully. The Beast Riders he wiped out, sure.

You argue absence of proof is proof of absence, and you argue descriptive narrative holds no water.

You still haven't answered my calls for evidence.

If you have full creative license and you mean it seriously, then it is serious.

But it isn't true. Not all narrators are omniscient.

Yet somehow this change from an "wealthy empire" to a rule of two indicates improvement? Substantiate.

Here's the substantiation: The Sith had their revenge, took control of the galaxy, and "won." Simple, no?

I argue against History?

Yes. You were essentially stating that since the Jedi of the PT times were in their greatest period of prosperity, then they should have been inventing new and better ways to use the Force, or a lightsaber, like mad.

Nonsense. They were a civilization that was stagnant and had been unchallenged for centuries, just like Rome before the fall.

You have not been able to show with any level of certainty that the narrator is not being sincere, greatly exaggerating, or otherwise being dishonest with the audience. In fact, he seems to keep a relatively unbiased third party view of the entire situation.

Except his third party view is not at all corroborated by the story itself. Indeed, all the evidence we apparently have is the narrator's word. That isn't good enough. We do ourselves a great disservice by overestimating their power and believing them to be the pinnacle of all Force users.

Additionally, you have shown to defy first order logic because you do not deem it fit. Somehow, after the Sith Empire is fragmented, shattered, and pretty much disjointed, you claim that an individual scouring the remnants is both more immersed and more powerful than those same Sith titans; you back this up with the almighty power of IKC's opinion.

Nevermind that those Sith titans would have slaughtered each other if they had the audacity to snoop around for each other's knowledge. Nevermind that Ludo Kressh, for instance, could not possibly have more information on Naga Sadow's techniques than Sadow himself. Indeed, he may have very little knowledge because of the fierce protection of these secrets. Kun, however, had to contend with none of this, and while he may not have picked up as much knowledge as Sadow died with, he had more than Kressh ever had.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm done going around in circles with an individual who can't even substantiate their logic.

Tired of dodging my requests for evidence, hm?

You just did. You assume that he could when evidence points to the contrary. He needed the ship to perform the feat, or else he would have performed other impressive feats on his own power.

No I said it is not logical to assume he is incapable of doing it on his own. It is logical that it is easier with the ship, I have conceded that.

Immensely powerful is a subjective term, Illustrious. I'm sure you know what that means. Description, I argue, means nothing without evidence. And evidence is something you've failed to provide.

You can't disprove description with absence of proof. That's the point from the beginning. Saying that Ragnos is the most powerful of the most powerful of the Dark Lords encompasses those both preceeding and proceeding. The honus then goes to you to prove the contrary, you can not do this by saying the Ancient Sith did not demonstate on panel evidence.

Or until he embraced the Dark Side. What kind of offensive powers could he have used against Nadd? None. He was fresh out of Vodo's tutelage, you expect him to stand a serious chance against an experienced and comparatively ancient Dark Side spirit?

Again semantics. The fact of the matter is that he did not defeat Nadd until he received the amulet.

You have NEITHER on-panel evidence to support your assumption NOR do you have the narrator's word. You have less than I do.

You have zero conclusive proof that he's strong without his items. On the contrary, evidence that his best feats were the total result of his artifacts leads me to believe otherwise.

You have zero conclusive proof that Kun without the amulet was even in the realm of defeating Nadd's spirit. But again, that's your logic speaking, now isn't it?

No, I just point out that, when challenged to display evidence, you don't, and change the subject. As you just did. Nor did you answer the fact that you claimed my narrator quote "doesn't prove anything" yet yours somehow does.

I now declare it, your narrator quote "doesn't prove anything." Can I dance around the subject and refuse to provide evidence just like the great Illustrious, now?

You don't get it do you? You're using your quote in an attempt to prove a negative. You don't prove negatives, they're negatives for a reason.

Where's your proof that by "later Jedi" they mean "all later Force users?"

It doesn't, but it does indicate they were substantially greater than the later Jedi. Where's your proof that by saying Kun's the darkest person indicate he is more powerful than preceeding force users?

The fact that he's in the ship casts doubt on his natural ability to perform the feat. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. If I invented artificial arm strengtheners, and I can lift cars with them while normally I can only lift something like 25 lbs., am I weak or not? The answer is yes, I am.

That's irrelevant because you haven't established that Sadow can only lift 25 lbs in comparison to his aided ability to lift a car. Until you can establish that, your point is moot.

The problem is when later EU changes the nature of a feat. What if later EU said that the swords were made entirely of balsa wood? Would you still be claiming that the later EU takes precedence?

Yes, then I'll say Ludo's maneuver wasn't as impressive. But later EU clearly states they were sith monstrosities that could resist lightsaber blades, which makes Ludo's action greater.

Nadd's feat was impressive, but not any more so than Kun's because Kun could have replicated it with the freeze spell. That may simply have been what Nadd did anyway. Sadow's feat was even less impressive because of Aleema's ability to match it. Aleema's nowhere near the power of either of these three.

You're assuming he could replicate the spell. If I was a strict-constructionist like you, I would challenge you to offer proof that he could do it. That does not indicate that Sadow was in any way less powerful because his toys could be used by a lesser force user. You have not established that Sadow naked is a weakling with anything other than negative assumptions.

I've already disproved this with the temples argument, and I'll go further.

All of the temples on Yavin IV were built by the Massassi. Not by either Kun or Sadow. Were the massassi secretly the master race, the most powerful force users ever, because they can make temples that focus tremendous Forfce energies? Hell no.

But did those temples make them powerful enough to blow up stars, boost up force power to tremendous levels? Hardly.

Sadow had toys that could do that. It's not comparable.

Emphasis mine. Obviously, something about their design allows them to channel and focus the force. There's absolutely nothing about imbuing them. The same goes for Sadow's ship, and the rest of the Ancient Sith baubles.

It says it itself, "dark side energies of this place."

So when Sadow's ship is flying around space, where's it drawing from dark side energy? Sith batteries? Without knowing how Sadow built his ship, it's unreasonable to assume the very lowest possible outcome and hold it against him, which is what you're doing.

Notice how I don't definitively state that Sadow imbued his ship with his own power, ergo he had that power. Why? Because I'm not you and try to argue with Feat Wars and petty extremes.

No, I asked if he created those temples (he didn't, but replace him with the Massassi) then did he have the power, naturally, to throw Super Star Destroyers out of orbit?

If those temples have demonstrated the abillity to greatly amplify the power of the force user to be able to perform events on a cosmic scale, then yes. But the temples do not. The Amulets do: they powered up Kun, they powered up DE Sidious.

If I describe my clown as godlike, and mean it, and throughout the story the clown does nothing more than entertain children, are you going to assume that the clown is still very powerful?

If you are the omniscient style narrator, then yes.

In comic book fashion, the narrator describes the thoughts of MULTIPLE characters, it is not described from one single POV, ergo, omniscient narrator.

That's like me saying "God is not almighty as the Bible claims because he has not demonstrated feats of infinite power, only of great power."

And he is depicted wearing them in FotSE. It's also the source, and a higher level of canon than any reference book.

Not according to Lucasfilm it's not. And I'll trust their word over yours in matters regarding EU canon. Sorry, but that's the case.

If Sadow didn't have many, Illustrious, how the hell did later generations like Sidious and Exar Kun manage to find them, hm? And like I said, he's shown wearing at least Exar's in FotSE. As I recall, he was adorned with quite a bit more.

Did Sadow use many? No. For example, when he was arguing with Ludo, he did not have one on. The amulets don't do much sitting on his desk.

And Aleema's "fleet" was at least 50% illusions, the rest of which, when the illusions were dispelled by Nomi Sunrider, were able to perform kamikaze attacks on the Republic fleet and drive them back.

Definitely on the same scale.

90% of an intergalactic army's threat was illusions, yet it's topped because Aleema had a fleet that drove Republic starships back? The forces of Naga Sadow didn't drive people back via Kamikazi either.

Need I remind you that the Japanese could "drive back" much larger forces because they rammed planes into ships, but that doesn't indicate they were a more able army.

The Ancients had no lightsabers, and had no contact with lightsabers for thousands of years. What point would there be in making them lightsaber resistant?

So it's not plausible they were resistant to lightsabers, even if later canon states they were?

With his own lightsaber. It shows him literally plowing through the staff. He either overpowered it physically or he disabled Vodo's empowerment with his own power.

Vodo had to use the force to keep his staff lightsaber resistent. Exar had a lightsaber. How this is more impressive than someone breaking apart enchanted sith metal with their bare hands is beyond me.

What you quoted and what you wrote don't jive. Two different subjects. But I'll remind you he didn't have to conquer Iziz, he took control relatively peacefully. The Beast Riders he wiped out, sure.

I'd like to see the canon where he definitively took them peacefully. The only proof you have is the suspect tyranny of his future generations.

You still haven't answered my calls for evidence.

My descriptive narrative clearly doesn't work for you.

I already said that the Ancient Sith suffer from a lack of evidence. This does not mean you have the ability to go against narrative, assume them weak, then pass it off in debate.

But it isn't true. Not all narrators are omniscient.

Comic book narrators are almost always omniscient. If you don't realize this by now, you haven't read many comics.

Do you have any reason to believe the narrator is being dishonest or uninformed? And if so, point it out.

You really can't, because you don't even own the comics.

Here's the substantiation: The Sith had their revenge, took control of the galaxy, and "won." Simple, no?

Yeah, they "won" 4000 years after Exar Kun. By that logic, then Sidious is greater than Kun, because you substantiated the Sith's improvement with their "victory."

Yes. You were essentially stating that since the Jedi of the PT times were in their greatest period of prosperity, then they should have been inventing new and better ways to use the Force, or a lightsaber, like mad.

Nonsense. They were a civilization that was stagnant and had been unchallenged for centuries, just like Rome before the fall.

Rome still produced more advancements during their "stagnation" than they did AFTER their fall.

You're effectively attempting to argue that Rome after their fall did more than before, since you said the Sith advanced, but the Jedi didn't. Please.

Except his third party view is not at all corroborated by the story itself. Indeed, all the evidence we apparently have is the narrator's word. That isn't good enough. We do ourselves a great disservice by overestimating their power and believing them to be the pinnacle of all Force users.

I covered this point already. You can not prove a definitive positive with an irrelevant negative.

I can't say Superman isn't super because he we never see him shit at rocket speed. It's an irrelevant negative that you're attempting to disprove the narrator's word with.

Tired of dodging my requests for evidence, hm?

Tired of dodging my requests for basic logic, hm?

No I said it is not logical to assume he is incapable of doing it on his own. It is logical that it is easier with the ship, I have conceded that.

No, there is no evidence that he could possibly have performed such a feat divorced from his ship. The fact is, the ship is the only thing that enabled him to wrench power from the stars, not his own power. If you don't concede that, then you have to assume that Kun, for example, could have ripped apart the spirit of Freedon Nadd without Sadow's amulet, even though he did use the amulet to do so.

You can't disprove description with absence of proof. That's the point from the beginning. Saying that Ragnos is the most powerful of the most powerful of the Dark Lords encompasses those both preceeding and proceeding. The honus then goes to you to prove the contrary, you can not do this by saying the Ancient Sith did not demonstate on panel evidence.

Absolutely 180 degrees backwards. That it says that Ragnos was "the most powerful of the most powerful" means only that it was for his time, period. There is nothing in that language stating he's the most powerful ever. As well, there's nothing in the narrator's language stating that the Ancient Sith themselves are the pinnacle of Force use, never exceeded and never to be exceeded.

Again semantics. The fact of the matter is that he did not defeat Nadd until he received the amulet.

He defeated Nadd by using the amulet. But by your logic, you can't prove that he couldn't have without it. He had, after all, just embraced the Dark Side and blasted apart a Sith monstrosity similar to a leviathan.

Double-standard, Illustrious. The fact of the matter is that Sadow couldn't do a damned thing to stars without his ship.

You have zero conclusive proof that Kun without the amulet was even in the realm of defeating Nadd's spirit. But again, that's your logic speaking, now isn't it?

Like I just said, you have zero conclusive proof that Sadow without his ship could've done jack to affect a star! What's that? Double-standard? But that's your logic speaking, isn't it Illustrious?

You don't get it do you? You're using your quote in an attempt to prove a negative. You don't prove negatives, they're negatives for a reason.

And you're using yours to do the same thing: That no force user that came before or after what we define as the Ancient Sith could possibly hope to overpower them. Quite a lot of double-standards I'm catching you in, actually.

It doesn't, but it does indicate they were substantially greater than the later Jedi. Where's your proof that by saying Kun's the darkest person indicate he is more powerful than preceeding force users?

I was using that quote to show how ludicrous yours was. To use the narrator's descriptions as gauges of power is a fallacy. What's the scale? Weakling, decent, fairly powerful, powerful, awesomely powerful, titanic, godlike? Nonsense. Unsubstantiated quotations are worthless evidence.

That's irrelevant because you haven't established that Sadow can only lift 25 lbs in comparison to his aided ability to lift a car. Until you can establish that, your point is moot.

I have submitted that he can not rip the core from a star without his ship, just as you say Kun couldn't have beaten Freedon Nadd at the time he did without his amulet. It's your double-standard that needs to be checked.

Yes, then I'll say Ludo's maneuver wasn't as impressive. But later EU clearly states they were sith monstrosities that could resist lightsaber blades, which makes Ludo's action greater.

But the previous EU was not penned with the later change in mind. Do you understand my point with this? At the time they wrote it, the authors could merely have assumed the swords were steel or a similar metal, not knowing that Ludo's feat would be exaggerated by people who write reference books about their work.

You're assuming he could replicate the spell. If I was a strict-constructionist like you, I would challenge you to offer proof that he could do it. That does not indicate that Sadow was in any way less powerful because his toys could be used by a lesser force user. You have not established that Sadow naked is a weakling with anything other than negative assumptions.

Nor have you established that Sadow is an out-and-out powerhouse even without his baubles. Yes, he must have been strong, but how strong? His feats and actions are all we have to go on, and they don't speak highly of his power. I have not stated that Sadow could not have replicated his own feats over and over, therefore your logic is flawed.

But did those temples make them powerful enough to blow up stars, boost up force power to tremendous levels? Hardly.

Yes they could. Mere padawans in Luke's academy used the power of the temples to literally push a Super Star Destroyer out of orbit. They are on the same level of the ship.

It says it itself, "dark side energies of this place."

Nice try changing the quote. It says dark side energies in this place. By changing it to "of," you changed the meaning. With "of" it means that it gathers Dark Side energies, but with the original "in" it means that it generates those energies itself. Therefore, Sadow's ship generates its own Dark Side energy or at the very least draws it from the Force around it, which wouldn't be difficult as the Force is described as surrounding and binding the galaxy.

If those temples have demonstrated the abillity to greatly amplify the power of the force user to be able to perform events on a cosmic scale, then yes. But the temples do not. The Amulets do: they powered up Kun, they powered up DE Sidious.

I already made this point, but a bunch of padawans used those temples to amplify their force power and literally threw a Super Star Destroyer out of orbit.

That's like me saying "God is not almighty as the Bible claims because he has not demonstrated feats of infinite power, only of great power."

Well, that's up for debate, is it not?

Not according to Lucasfilm it's not. And I'll trust their word over yours in matters regarding EU canon. Sorry, but that's the case.

Hello? You used GAotS against me, I countered with FotSE. They are equal in regards to canon. You stated he didn't wear his amulets, I showed he did. That has nothing to do with Lucasfilm and what it thinks is canon.

... You do understand that the story continues in FotSE, right?

Did Sadow use many? No. For example, when he was arguing with Ludo, he did not have one on. The amulets don't do much sitting on his desk.

Here's another double standard. I thought absence of proof wasn't proof of absence? Perhaps he wore one but you couldn't see it?

90% of an intergalactic army's threat was illusions, yet it's topped because Aleema had a fleet that drove Republic starships back? The forces of Naga Sadow didn't drive people back via Kamikazi either.

The forces of Naga Sadow are helped inasmuch as every single one of them are Force users. Aleema's feat is comparable because she used illusions to attack an enemy just as Sadow did. The fact that Sadow's army was superior isn't relevant to the feat.

So it's not plausible they were resistant to lightsabers, even if later canon states they were?

It's not probable. For example, why would I get a vaccine for polio in this day and age?

Vodo had to use the force to keep his staff lightsaber resistent. Exar had a lightsaber. How this is more impressive than someone breaking apart enchanted sith metal with their bare hands is beyond me.

Not lightsaber resistant. DLotS specifically states it is more powerful than a lightsaber. Someone breaking apart an object more powerful than a lightsaber is comparable to me.

I'd like to see the canon where he definitively took them peacefully. The only proof you have is the suspect tyranny of his future generations.

Actually, I'd like to see the canon too. And I said relatively, you understand.

From my understanding, there's no comics specifically relating to the life of Freedon Nadd.

I already said that the Ancient Sith suffer from a lack of evidence. This does not mean you have the ability to go against narrative, assume them weak, then pass it off in debate.

I do not assume them weak, but I also do not assume them more powerful than any beings that came before or after, because there's no evidence for it. Their most impressive feats were matched by later generations. Until we get more information, then someone who has shown better, unmatched feats has a damned good chance of beating an Ancient.

Do you have any reason to believe the narrator is being dishonest or uninformed? And if so, point it out.

Yes, the fact that the narrator's claims are largely unsubstantiated by the story. Until we get more examples of the power of the Ancients, we cannot definitively say that they'd curbstomp the handful of powerful beings that came before and after them.

Yeah, they "won" 4000 years after Exar Kun. By that logic, then Sidious is greater than Kun, because you substantiated the Sith's improvement with their "victory."

To be honest, Sidious is greater, not necessarily more powerful, than Kun, because he nearly accomplished the ultimate goal of the Sith. He was the only Sith to ever come so close to ultimate success.

You're effectively attempting to argue that Rome after their fall did more than before, since you said the Sith advanced, but the Jedi didn't. Please.

No, I'm saying that a civilization that remains unchallenged will stagnate and become lazy. The Sith were challenged by their hatred of the Jedi, and almost won for good. The Jedi weren't challenged at all, and almost disappeared from the face of the galaxy.

You can not prove a definitive positive with an irrelevant negative.

It's not a definitive positive if it isn't substantiated by evidence. The narrator can dance around claiming a character or group of characters have godlike power all it wants, but I'm not going to forsake all others until I get conclusive examples of that power.

Tired of dodging my requests for basic logic, hm?

Hardly. Avoiding double-standards would help if you attempt to argue logic, Illustrious.

Originally posted by IKC
To be honest, Sidious is greater, not necessarily more powerful, than Kun, because he nearly accomplished the ultimate goal of the Sith. He was the only Sith to ever come so close to ultimate success.

No, I'm saying that a civilization that remains unchallenged will stagnate and become lazy. The Sith were challenged by their hatred of the Jedi, and almost won for good. The Jedi weren't challenged at all, and almost disappeared from the face of the galaxy.

It's not a definitive positive if it isn't substantiated by evidence. The narrator can dance around claiming a character or group of characters have godlike power all it wants, but I'm not going to forsake all others until I get conclusive examples of that power.

Hardly. Avoiding double-standards would help if you attempt to argue logic, Illustrious.

You are the one's that have double-standards. Apparently all quotes that apply to Kun are valid, yet all quotes that apply to Sadow are not.

You have repeated attempted to argue against both narration and logic without offering definitively, contextual points. You have shown to be nothing except an insufferable Kun fanboy and a really poor debator, sorry.

Effectively this is the transcript of the "debate" (since you do need to know how to debate to have a debate):

IKC: "Kun is the most uber."

Me: "Not necessarily."

IKC: "Yes, necessarily, I have evidence!"

Me: "Show me."

IKC: -lists off random Kun feats- "See?!"

Me: "There's no context. That doesn't prove Kun is superior than Sadow."

IKC: "Yes it does! Kun has more feats than Sadow!"

Me: "Having more feats don't mean anything."

IKC: "Well Sadow's feats were duplicated! Pwned."

Me: "Hardly."

IKC: "Oh yeah? Show me."

Me: "Points to narration... oh wait, you don't have the comics."

IKC: "Narration is BS!"

Me: "You used Narration."

IKC: "So? Mine are valid!"

Me: "Why?"

IKC: "Why do you change the subject?"

Me: "I asked why you think your narration is valid but mine isn't."

IKC: "Clearly the narration is trying to state they are greater than Kun, it's not valid!"

Me: "That's the shittiest logic I've ever heard."

IKC: "Lies. I have on-panel evidence!"

Seriously. If you are going to debate, pretend you can. Please. Fake it baby, fake it. Pretend you have logic.

Here, since you need it handicapped for you:

1. How are you going to argue against the canon narration when you have no proof of it? Because legitimtely, you do not have proof. You have a duplicated feat. Yet how does Sadow having powerful tools indicate he's weak? It doesn't. Logical fallacy 1.

Simply because his tools can be used by a lesser force user does not indicate he's weak. And not to mention that Sadow's not going into any versus fights naked either.

2. An absence of feats proves he's weak. No it doesn't!

Absence of anything in a non-scientific experiment does not prove anything. I hope you know what "scientific" and "experiment" are, because I'm not going to define them for you if you do not know.

An absence of something in a story simply indicates it did not happen in the current arc. It does not show it is a logical impossibility, or that it certainly did not happen. Period.

You assumed otherwise. Logical Fallacy 2.

3. The narrator is lying.

WTF? What evidence do you have do indicate the narrator is lying? You have absence. I already addressed that. Absence in a non-scientific (i.e. inductive) experiment is irrelevant.

You can not prove a positive with an absence in a non-scientific experiment. Logical Fallacy 3.

4. If I say a clown is godlike, is it godlike?

If you mean it, and you have full creative license like the comic book writer/narrator, yes it is.

False analogy, logical fallacy 4.

5. Aleema is a weakling, she was beaten by Kun.

And? If she has the technique for using a superweapon, it doesn't indicate much now does it? Ad nauseum. Logical fallacy 5.

6. "Sadow has tools that can be used by a lesser force user, ergo he is weaker than a third party because we do not see other feats."

False. Kun, Nadd, etc. are never put in context with Sadow. They were never described with anywhere near the grandiose level of Sadow. I do not give a damn what IKC feels about their feats. Like I said, your personal opinion is irrelevant.

Affirming the consequence. Logical Fallacy 6.

Appeal to Popularity. Logical Fallacy 7.

Appeal to Ignorance. Logical Fallacy 8. "I do not know of additional Sadow's feat, ergo he's weak despite canonically described."

7. Hypocrisy.

Apparently I have to use onpanel evidence to justify the writer saying Ragnos is the most powerful of the most powerful dark lord (It is the author, because it's not only in the text, but also on the cover), or that the Ancient Sith were titans or godlike. But you do not have to justify that Kun is more powerful than Ulic even though the onscreen evidence shows draw.

Logical Fallacy 9.

I can go on, but this doesn't look good for you.

Damn. Es ist ja toll.

Translation.

That is cool/pimp/wicked, etc. But then again, I might be off. I only heard it said a few times.

No, me gusta ayudar en casa y cocinar.

Well then, your parents must love having you around. So helpful all the time. . . 😉

*cough*

marka ragnos is stronger than nihilus and more powerful for sure!

Yeah, but he is a Force using and dependant being and Nihilus eats the Force.

No! Do not argu that nihilus could MARKA RAGNOS the most powerful sith ever save tulak hord!

Pfft.

For all we know Sadow and Kressh could crush Tulak witht he Force alone. Tulak is such a great unknown arguing his rank is ridiculous.

And Nihilus eats the Force. KO.

Back then sith where more powerful than any sith now and marka ragnos was the big one then.

How many times need we say it? Nihilus literally eats Force-users.

Janus, remember your arguing with a 12 year-old.