Joining the High Council after the death of Yarael Poof, Coleman Trebor's wisdom and insight was greatly revered by his fellow Jedi. He peacefully settled a number of major interplanetary disputes, and was considered more of a negotiator than a combatant. Still, when required to do so, Trebor brandished his lightsaber in the defense of the Republic.
Trebor was a male Vurk from the watery world of Sembla. The planet is marked by warm seas separated by volcanic ridges that are slowly forming continents. Vurks are a nomadic, amphibious species generally considered primitive by the rest of the galaxy.
Check the EU tab.
Originally posted by Ianus
Joining the High Council after the death of Yarael Poof, Coleman Trebor's wisdom and insight was greatly revered by his fellow Jedi. He peacefully settled a number of major interplanetary disputes, and was considered more of a negotiator than a combatant. Still, when required to do so, Trebor brandished his lightsaber in the defense of the Republic.
Trebor was a male Vurk from the watery world of Sembla. The planet is marked by warm seas separated by volcanic ridges that are slowly forming continents. Vurks are a nomadic, amphibious species generally considered primitive by the rest of the galaxy.Check the EU tab.
Yes, theres a difference between "revered wisdom and insight" from SW.com and "very strong and wise in the ways of the force" from you.
Originally posted by 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:
[b]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. [/B]
I'll answer in order.
Need I remind you that it was me who pointed out that you simply dismiss my quotes while retaining yours as gospel?
You have repeatedly claimed that your evidence will disprove everything I've said. You've repeatedly, I point out, use insults and namecalling in your vaunted debating technique. However, you refuse to come forth with clear evidence.
Your transcript is highly inaccurate, displays a mocking tone clearly unnecessary in a debate, and shows you don't care enough to be correct. I started out by stating zilch about Exar Kun. I state that Naga Sadow, and the rest of the Ancient Sith, are not as powerful as we think they are because, while the narration does describe them as powerful, the on-panel evidence (Sadow's feats) have been replicated by a being clearly less powerful than Sadow.
So either A) Aleema and the rest of the Force users of her time are miles above the Ancients in Force strength or B) the Ancients are not necessarily the pinnacle of all Force users.
Quoting myself from a related thread:
However, because neither the evidence nor the quotes indicate or state such (that they are literally superior to specific Force users that came before or after), their power is impossible to judge. Ergo, it is not illogical to assume that previous or later Force users could have bested one of them. As well, it is folly to put them in a versus match.
1) Sadow having powerful tools shows that his feats are not a result of his personal power. If Sadow blew up a star with his own Force power, unaided by any ship or similar device, we wouldn't be having this debate. He did not, and he can not, or else why would he be defeated? A being of that kind of power could have feasibly crushed the Republic by themselves.
2) Absence of feats does not prove he's weak, but they show he is not clearly superior either. You claim that even though there's no evidence, either on-panel or narrative, that shows or states that the Ancients were superior to the Force users that came after or before them, they must be because the narratives do state that they were titanic in comparison to an amorphous "later Jedi."
Nonsense. And because there's no on-panel evidence, there's no proof.
3) I have never said that the narrator is lying. I've pointed out that the narrator may be not omniscient. I've also pointed out that he uses subjective language, and the only comparative language you've shown relates to, again, unknown "later Jedi." I point out this doesn't state all later Jedi, much less later Sith or other such Force users.
4) The question was, if I state a clown is godlike but provide no evidence in the story, is he godlike? Would you believe that he is godlike? What exactly do I mean by godlike?
Subjective language.
5) The statement was not she was beaten by Kun. It was actually more along the lines of she's never won a fight or struggle against another Force-user, minus her use of Sadow's weapon. (Nomi Sunrider repeatedly asserted her superiority over Aleema by dispelling her visions, at one point entering her mind and knocking her out). In comparison to other Force users, she was quite weak.
6) Again, the "ergo" is that he may be weaker than the third party. Indeed, I'm inclined to believe he is because of the lack of evidence for his strength. However, as I stated above, it is unknown.
And grandiose language? Please. For one, you've not proven whether or not that language meant the Sith Empire in its entirety or each individual member. Secondly, Kun and Nadd's power was clearly evident in their comics. What use would there be in emphasizing the point with grandiose language when on-panel evidence speaks for itself?
7) Pardon? Clarify.
8) I have never said that Sadow was weak. Do not put words in my mouth, you've done it throughout your post. I have stated, in essence, that we've overestimated his power as well as the power of the other Ancients. I've stated that they are not as powerful as we think they are. That doesn't mean Coleman Trebor is going to pound them. I say this because there's no on-panel evidence giving us a clear picture of their Force power, as we have with others like Nadd, Kun, and DE Sidious.
Because of this, we cannot with intellectual honesty assume that they're superior to all others.
9) You've never had to use on-panel evidence to justify Ragnos' position at the top of the heap of the Ancient Sith. However, you assume that he's the most powerful Dark Lord of the Sith of all time, when, with the language you're given, you can't honestly do.
Secondly, it's impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to use evidence to justify subjective language.
And not to correct you for the second or third time, but the on-panel evidence only shows a draw in lightsaber skill.
I could go on, but you'd probably misinterpret it and continue namecalling.
Need I remind you that it was me who pointed out that you simply dismiss my quotes while retaining yours as gospel?
I have never dismissed your quotes. I have stated your quotes don't demonstrate anything. They do not put Kun's power in context with another individual. Then you had 2 quotes with Kun speaking, which is a character and easily thrown out.
Me, on the other hand, have given you my quotes, and then I have used logical inference to apply it to later generations.
The only response you have to my first order logic is basic hypothetical.
Logic > Supposition.
Your transcript is highly inaccurate, displays a mocking tone clearly unnecessary in a debate, and shows you don't care enough to be correct. I started out by stating zilch about Exar Kun. I state that Naga Sadow, and the rest of the Ancient Sith, are not as powerful as we think they are because, while the narration does describe them as powerful, the on-panel evidence (Sadow's feats) have been replicated by a being clearly less powerful than Sadow.So either A) Aleema and the rest of the Force users of her time are miles above the Ancients in Force strength or B) the Ancients are not necessarily the pinnacle of all Force users.
Wait. A lesser force user can use Sadow's stuff indicates Sadow is not necessarily as powerful as we believe?
Again. The postulate does not support the conclusion. I've said this several times. This is a logically inaccurate statement.
1) Sadow having powerful tools shows that his feats are not a result of his personal power. If Sadow blew up a star with his own Force power, unaided by any ship or similar device, we wouldn't be having this debate. He did not, and he can not, or else why would he be defeated? A being of that kind of power could have feasibly crushed the Republic by themselves.
No it doesn't. It just shows that his natural powers aren't on a level of destroying a star with a wave of his hand, or that he can't create an entire army of illusions with a thought either.
Neither can Kun. So what's your point there?
2) Absence of feats does not prove he's weak, but they show he is not clearly superior either. You claim that even though there's no evidence, either on-panel or narrative, that shows or states that the Ancients were superior to the Force users that came after or before them, they must be because the narratives do state that they were titanic in comparison to an amorphous "later Jedi."Nonsense. And because there's no on-panel evidence, there's no proof.
How's the statement "amorphous" again? Later generations of Jedi were not as powerful as the Ancient Sith, i.e. the proceeding generations of Jedi never attained the Ancient Sith's power. Considerng following the Golden Age of the Sith, the Sith Empire (as far as being a member of the Sith race) almost all the Sith proceeding were initially Jedi.
I'm I necessarily going to apply this to Nadd or Kun? No, but I'm pointing out you can.
It's not nonsense because the on-panel evidence in a narrative is not the know-all-end-all in this debate.
On-panel evidence does not show Kun beating Sadow. Ergo, you can't simply use on-panel evidence to indicate he is superior. You have to use logical reasoning in application of that power. I have done that, you have attempted to say certain on-panel feats prevail without a context.
3) I have never said that the narrator is lying. I've pointed out that the narrator may be not omniscient. I've also pointed out that he uses subjective language, and the only comparative language you've shown relates to, again, unknown "later Jedi." I point out this doesn't state all later Jedi, much less later Sith or other such Force users.
If I say you are "a noob," can I infer that I don't like you very much?
Certainly. The statement is not any more amorphous than saying Kun is the darkest dude in the galaxy. If I wanted to be obnoxious, I could ask does that mean Kun is the blackest man in the galaxy?
If you want to go against the narrator's word and argue he is subjective. You have to go to the comics, and indicate that his word is questionable. Then and only then can you prove that those quotes regarding Sadow are false.
4) The question was, if I state a clown is godlike but provide no evidence in the story, is he godlike? Would you believe that he is godlike? What exactly do I mean by godlike?Subjective language.
And my counter question was "Do you as the author have full creative license and state he is godlike in earnest?"
You replied "Yes." Ergo, the clown in godlike. The author who has the literary power over his comics as well as speaking in earnest can make the clown (or any of his characters) godlike.
5) The statement was not she was beaten by Kun. It was actually more along the lines of she's never won a fight or struggle against another Force-user, minus her use of Sadow's weapon. (Nomi Sunrider repeatedly asserted her superiority over Aleema by dispelling her visions, at one point entering her mind and knocking her out). In comparison to other Force users, she was quite weak.
Nomi Sunrider also stripped Ulic of the force.
If I was simply going off result, like you are, I would ignore all the other circumstance.
6) Again, the "ergo" is that he may be weaker than the third party. Indeed, I'm inclined to believe he is because of the lack of evidence for his strength. However, as I stated above, it is unknown.
He is an unknown, ergo yo are inclined to believe he is weaker? That indicates a clear personal bias. Why should I hold your opinion to be more valid than the narrator, which you have not proven to be biased?
And grandiose language? Please. For one, you've not proven whether or not that language meant the Sith Empire in its entirety or each individual member. Secondly, Kun and Nadd's power was clearly evident in their comics. What use would there be in emphasizing the point with grandiose language when on-panel evidence speaks for itself?
It referred once to the wealthy Ancient Sith empire, once to the Sith Lords of the Ancient Sith Empire (of which there were quite a few nameless ones), and numerous times to leaders like Naga Sadow, Kressh, and Ragnos. And several times, the text stated lines along the line of the Ancient Sith's force powers to be simply immense.
Capiesch? Like I said, read the comics.
The point is that in a crossover versus fight, the evidence does not speak for itself. You must tie in logic into your supposition.
How is Kun's force powers stronger than Sadow? How is Kun using one ancient amulet stronger than Sadow who had several? How is Kun who looted from Sadow suddenly more knowledgeable in the ways of Sith Magic than Sadow? How is Kun who learned to use some of Sadow's technology indicate he is more powerful than Sadow? How is Kun who commands the degenerate creations of Sadow (Massassi) more powerful than Sadow?
You have to prove these points to be the contrary. Because logic dictates just the opposite. See?
7) Pardon? Clarify.
Where's your on panel evidence of Exar being superior to Ulic?
8) I have never said that Sadow was weak. Do not put words in my mouth, you've done it throughout your post. I have stated, in essence, that we've overestimated his power as well as the power of the other Ancients. I've stated that they are not as powerful as we think they are. That doesn't mean Coleman Trebor is going to pound them. I say this because there's no on-panel evidence giving us a clear picture of their Force power, as we have with others like Nadd, Kun, and DE Sidious.
You've stated they are not as powerful as we think they are, but you've never once were able to prove it. Why? Does having tools that another individual with tutelege does not indicate they are weaker than previously assumed? No, the logic applied in the statement is false.
Because of this, we cannot with intellectual honesty assume that they're superior to all others.
I have stated several statements using first order logic to argue my case. You have not replied to them. How exactly can DE Sidious or Kun who have one amulet have stronger force powers than someone with several and who is described as being immensely powerful?
Seriously, don't dodge this question.
9) You've never had to use on-panel evidence to justify Ragnos' position at the top of the heap of the Ancient Sith. However, you assume that he's the most powerful Dark Lord of the Sith of all time, when, with the language you're given, you can't honestly do.
He is clearly the top of he heap of the Ancient Sith. He ruled unquestioned for over a century during the Golden Age, the peak of the Sith's power. He is stated in both the comics but the official synopsis as being the most powerful of the most powerful, as well as being the Dark Lord of the Sith. Considering later generations were also given that title, you have to indicate to me that they have a prayer of trumping Ragnos. Otherwise the entire debate is moot if you can simply throw out everything the narrator says.
Secondly, it's impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to use evidence to justify subjective language.
You've never indicated the narrator would not be honest with his assessment.
And not to correct you for the second or third time, but the on-panel evidence only shows a draw in lightsaber skill.I could go on, but you'd probably misinterpret it and continue namecalling.
No, the on-panel evidence shows Kun never being able to overpowerul Ulic during their duel. The fact that Kun did not rely on his "superior force powers" (your word), does not prove he is the superior.
I have never dismissed your quotes. I have stated your quotes don't demonstrate anything. They do not put Kun's power in context with another individual. Then you had 2 quotes with Kun speaking, which is a character and easily thrown out
That'd be correct if my quotes had a thing to do with Kun's power, Illustrious. They didn't.
They were about Sadow's ship, how the ship itself was powerful and how it was the reason the user can rip the cores from stars.
Wait. A lesser force user can use Sadow's stuff indicates Sadow is not necessarily as powerful as we believe?
No, a lesser force user can replicate his on-panel feats, indicating he's not necessarily as powerful as we believe.
And I remind you Aleema had nothing of Sadow's when she used illusions on his level.
No it doesn't. It just shows that his natural powers aren't on a level of destroying a star with a wave of his hand, or that he can't create an entire army of illusions with a thought either.
Good, we're getting somewhere. Since his powers, obviously, are not on that level and he hasn't had the opportunity to display more of his personal strength, then it is rather hard to gauge, isn't it?
Ergo, we can't necessarily say that he'd curbstomp character X, because we don't know. We cannot say that he and the rest of the ancient Sith are more powerful than all later Jedi, much less all later Force users, especially since the quote doesn't read that way.
How's the statement "amorphous" again? Later generations of Jedi were not as powerful as the Ancient Sith, i.e. the proceeding generations of Jedi never attained the Ancient Sith's power. Considerng following the Golden Age of the Sith, the Sith Empire (as far as being a member of the Sith race) almost all the Sith proceeding were initially Jedi.
The statement is amorphous because it reads, "later Jedi." Not "all later Jedi" or "later Force users" or "all later Force users."
For all we know, it could be speaking of Jedi of the Ruusan era. It is certainly not, however, speaking of the Sith or Dark Jedi.
I'm I necessarily going to apply this to Nadd or Kun? No, but I'm pointing out you can.
I point out, to counter, that Nadd and Kun grew exponentially more powerful when they stopped being Jedi. You can't even prove the quote applies to Jedi of either Nadd or Kun's era, much less Nadd or Kun once they are no longer Jedi.
On-panel evidence does not show Kun beating Sadow. Ergo, you can't simply use on-panel evidence to indicate he is superior. You have to use logical reasoning in application of that power. I have done that, you have attempted to say certain on-panel feats prevail without a context.
I have not done so, but I have argued that Sadow is not a demigod Force user, and that he would not necessarily curbstomp Nadd, Kun, or DE Sidious, etc. Those battles would be up in the air, because we have no on-panel evidence to show Naga's superiority.
Certainly. The statement is not any more amorphous than saying Kun is the darkest dude in the galaxy. If I wanted to be obnoxious, I could ask does that mean Kun is the blackest man in the galaxy?
Yes, it is. Saying Kun is the darkest power in the galaxy is definitive. Saying the Ancient Sith's power is titanic in comparison to unknown "later Jedi" is definitive, but not universal. It does not use all, and it only refers to Jedi.
Then and only then can you prove that those quotes regarding Sadow are false.
I've not argued that they are false for the second time, Illustrious. Read what I wrote.
Nomi Sunrider also stripped Ulic of the force.
What's your point? She did so while he was overcome with grief and not resisting anything. That plus the fact that Ulic is never shown to have learned Sith magic.
And you haven't denied that Aleema's a relative weakling.
He is an unknown, ergo yo are inclined to believe he is weaker? That indicates a clear personal bias. Why should I hold your opinion to be more valid than the narrator, which you have not proven to be biased?
No, he is an unknown that displays less feats of personal power. I'm inclined to think he's weaker, but that doesn't make it true. What is true is that the fight would be up in the air, because we don't know.
It referred once to the wealthy Ancient Sith empire, once to the Sith Lords of the Ancient Sith Empire (of which there were quite a few nameless ones), and numerous times to leaders like Naga Sadow, Kressh, and Ragnos. And several times, the text stated lines along the line of the Ancient Sith's force powers to be simply immense.
I'd like some specific quotes, please. Does it refer to, for example, Ragnos' power being "titanic in comparison to later Jedi?"
How is Kun's force powers stronger than Sadow? How is Kun using one ancient amulet stronger than Sadow who had several? How is Kun who looted from Sadow suddenly more knowledgeable in the ways of Sith Magic than Sadow? How is Kun who learned to use some of Sadow's technology indicate he is more powerful than Sadow? How is Kun who commands the degenerate creations of Sadow (Massassi) more powerful than Sadow?
I refer you to the response before the last, as well as this:
However, because neither the evidence nor the quotes indicate or state such (that they are literally superior to specific Force users that came before or after), their power is impossible to judge. Ergo, it is not illogical to assume that previous or later Force users could have bested one of them. As well, it is folly to put them in a versus match.
You have to prove these points to be the contrary. Because logic dictates just the opposite. See?
This is where you're wrong. Logic cannot dictate the opposite here, because none of the quotes read that they're superior to all that came after them. As well, the on-panel evidence gives us no indication that they'd be able to best everyone that came after them.
Where's your on panel evidence of Exar being superior to Ulic?
The mere fact that Ulic is never shown using Sith magic (Indeed, the most he does with regard to Force powers is choke a man in the War Room on Coruscant). As well, we can logically assume that since Ulic was running a war effort and shacking up with Aleema while Exar was studying Sith magic and honing his Force powers in the interval between DLotS and TSW, Exar has grown more powerful.
You've stated they are not as powerful as we think they are, but you've never once were able to prove it. Why? Does having tools that another individual with tutelege does not indicate they are weaker than previously assumed? No, the logic applied in the statement is false.
I've stated that because we've repeatedly assumed that the Ancient Sith batted stars around on their own power. That's false. We've also assumed that they'd be able to curbstomp literally anyone (save maybe Nihilus) that comes from either another faction or another time period. That is false, not even your quotes indicate that, as I've expressed above.
I have stated several statements using first order logic to argue my case. You have not replied to them. How exactly can DE Sidious or Kun who have one amulet have stronger force powers than someone with several and who is described as being immensely powerful?
How is it "first order logic" to assume that because the narration reads that their power is titanic in comparison to "later Jedi," they must be more powerful than every Jedi that came after, as well as every Sith and other miscellaneous Force user?
So because the Ancients are described as being "immensely powerful" then they can slap around anyone not so lucky to be described that way? Nonsense. Narration is not the end-all gauge of power. Sidious in the PT and OT is powerful himself, and he doesn't have any amulets. You're assuming that because the Ancient Sith are described as being immensely powerful, which is subjective and not comparative language, then they automatically win. That is not the case. It is possible that Kun or DE Sidious and the like could simply have more Force potential.
There's no evidence to indicate that, but "absence of proof isn't proof of absence" as you like to claim.
Continued:
He is clearly the top of he heap of the Ancient Sith. He ruled unquestioned for over a century during the Golden Age, the peak of the Sith's power. He is stated in both the comics but the official synopsis as being the most powerful of the most powerful, as well as being the Dark Lord of the Sith. Considering later generations were also given that title, you have to indicate to me that they have a prayer of trumping Ragnos. Otherwise the entire debate is moot if you can simply throw out everything the narrator says.
Yes, he's at the top of the Ancients. It's questionable whether the Golden Age was the peak of the Sith's power, I'd argue that Palpatine's New Order was. Yes, he was the most powerful of the most powerful, of the Ancient Sith. The use of the Dark Lord of the Sith indicates that others like Naga and Ludo were also Dark Lords, but Ragnos himself held the official title. Kressh and Sadow certainly didn't call themselves merely Sith. They were Lords of the Sith.
As stated before, there's no comparative language used in this description regarding him or the other ancients to those that came before or after them. Ergo, it is possible that those Force users could have beaten Ragnos, because we have nothing to indicate his superiority or inferiority. It is up in the air.
I'm not sure why you like to read comparisons into these descriptions. They aren't there. You seem to want to believe that they are.
You've never indicated the narrator would not be honest with his assessment.
For the third time, I've never said he was lying. I have pointed out that he uses subjective language. We wouldn't be having this debate if he came out and said something like, "The Ancient Sith were the pinnacle of Force use. Their power was unmatched by any that came before or after them."
He doesn't say that.
No, the on-panel evidence shows Kun never being able to overpowerul Ulic during their duel. The fact that Kun did not rely on his "superior force powers" (your word), does not prove he is the superior.
The on-panel evidence lasts all of a page, Illustrious. We cannot know for certain who would come out on top if their battle had gone uninterrupted. However, I'm inclined to believe Exar would, because of his knowledge of Sith magic.