Exar Kun vs. Marka Ragnos

If the Clone Wars were the only evidence we had of Yoda's power, then yes.

So you've efffectively submitted to the logical fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence.

Okay. I see no reason why this debate even exists then. Since clearly logic only exists as IKC deems fit.

Oh, right, that's why the Lucas Books seal is stamped prominently on the back of DLotS. You didn't answered my analogy. Which book is correct? Which book should be correct, if you're going to blindly follow the arbitrary canon rules of Lucasfilm.

You seem to forget that Lucasfilm has all rights to their enterprise. If they say it's official, if they want to retroactively change stuff, they can do it. Period.

You arguing levels of canon counterintuitive to what Lucasfilm says is blatantly wrong.

That's why debating with you is like arguing with a Christian zealot about religion. You are quite possibly the more narrow minded individual on this forum. And like ER, you think you can debate.

For all facts concerning Star Wars (copyright Lucasfilms!) I will take their word over yours. Are you going to argue otherwise? If you are, you are clearly daft.

Oh, it doesn't say that Kun's the most powerful of the era in the comics themselves. Look for your vaunted reference works for that particular statement. "zOMG, THEY ARE TEH CANON!"

No, it doesn't state it. And unless your satirizing yourself with that quote, you're not doing anyone any justice.

You can't really say that, since the fight was a lightsaber stalemate that was interrupted midway. Say Obi-Wan fights Obi-Wan. One has to win eventually, right?

And besides, Kun would most likely get tired of the saber fight and start using the Dark Side, which Ulic hadn't fully accepted yet.

Wait a minute.

Why does this logic apply to Exar?

According to you, Mr. Internation Kun Cult fanboy, narration is nothing compared to on panel evidence. Kun never beat Ulic on panel, nor was it referenced offpanel. Ergo, by your rules, it didn't happen, Exar did not do it, and he could not do it.

Touche. If you even attempt to argue this, you basically conceded you were being a hypocrite and selectively choosing which quotes are valid.

I say all narrative quotes are valid, I do not attempt to argue what is hyperbole. I say all personal quotes have a possibility of hyperbole. Your policy is "whatever helps Kun's case I'll use." You are literally nothing more than an illogical fanboy.

"It never happened. It was not on panel. Exar is not stronger than Ulic."

Actually, the narration says that "neither can claim an advantage with the lightsaber!" That doesn't mean that they're going to be fighting forever or that it's a conclusive draw. It certainly doesn't mean they're definite equals.

And the narration in GAotS say the ancient Sith are godlike, titanic, and frightening. That doesn't mean Sadow can't use other abilities, or that he's weaker than Nadd or Kun.

BE CONSISTENT. APPLY LOGIC BOTH WAYS.

Just because you are so blind, I bolded it for you 🙂.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that if you have a powerful technique you don't give it a try while you're retreating. Sadow's ace up his sleeve was his ship's ability to affect the stars. He used that while making his final escape from republic pursuers.

And Kun's "ace up his sleeve" was force power, yet he didn't do it, now did he?

According to you, Kun can't.

Watch, now you're going to come after me with some more semantics bullshit. -waits.-

Alright, let's accept the premise that these two could only perform these feats at the time they did. Maybe the planets were in alignment! Nevermind that I've never said anything similar regarding Sadow's feats.

What, then?

Quite obviously, Exar never had to freeze anyone he dueled, since he curbstomped them without even using offensive force powers. But what does it matter whether he can use it only once or many times?

Because you do not know the context.

If Aleema did not duplicate some feats of Sadow, you would never have guessed his ship did anything.

You applying logic down a one-way street does not work. Period.

I've already proved that it is impossible for Ragnos to have created the message. He was dead before the Hyperspace war even started, certainly long before the Republic and Jedi were winning the war and making the Sith extinct. It is a temporal impossibility that he could've made the message. Ergo, Ragnos did not create the message.

It's also a temporal impossibility for it not to be him. Get this through your head. And not to mention, later sources of canon DO say it's Ragnos.

Star Wars EU is not up to your interpretation. Your opinion is irrelevant. Stop pretending to be Supershadow. Lucasfilms says it's Ragnos, it's Ragnos.

Your opinion and observations, even if you have a valid grip, do not supercede Lucasfilms.

The Ancient Sith lords certainly did not have access to all these Dark Side sources. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that Ludo Kressh could have walked into Naga Sadow's stronghold, sat down with his alchemical equipment, and tinkered around without Naga Sadow trying to lop his head off? Certainly not. The fierce rivalry precludes the Ancient Sith from learning a great deal from each other. Exar Kun had no such rivalries to contend with and thus was able to build up an immense wealth of knowledge, which, with what he stole from Ossus, was "more wealth and knowledge than he can ever use," as described by the vaunted narrator.

That being said, the outcome of this battle is unknown.

You're still effectively trying to convince people that a paleontologist knows more about Ancient Egypt than a pharoah.

I don't care if you spend your life plundering dead stuff, being immersed is still a more effective way of learning. You applying the analogy of Kressh tinkering with Sadow's stuff is irrelevant, because it is your assumption that Kressh does not have access to his own materials.

And additionally, if you want to throw that kind of crap logic out, I can just as easily say that as soon as an individual develops an incredible new piece of technology or ability, he will dominate over the others until another matches it. Competition drives progression far more than dispersion. Basic economic principle.

So you've efffectively submitted to the logical fallacy that absence of proof is proof of absence.

This was your question: "So I can assume Obi-Wan is stronger than Yoda with just the context of the Clone Wars, because Obi-Wan was in the fields leading battles while Yoda sat on his green ass?"

This was my response: "If the Clone Wars were the only evidence we had of Yoda's power, then yes."

Tell me how that is an illogical response. Matters aren't proven based on hearsay and supposition, they're proven on evidence. Which, of course, you're consistantly refused to provide.

You seem to forget that Lucasfilm has all rights to their enterprise. If they say it's official, if they want to retroactively change stuff, they can do it. Period.

Do you honestly believe that Lucas himself reads through every piece of material that his company verifies and approves it?

Now we've switched sides. I'm arguing logic whereas you're arguing evidence. I say that, logically, a "Cliff's Notes" cannot contradict the novel it's based on and be correct. You're saying that because Lucasfilm sets arbitrary rules of canon that they should be followed at all times, even when doing so makes no sense.

That's why debating with you is like arguing with a Christian zealot about religion. You are quite possibly the more narrow minded individual on this forum. And like ER, you think you can debate.

And, of course, insulting your opponent and calling him names is the clear sign of superiority in a debate.

Six year olds may think so.

According to you, Mr. Internation Kun Cult fanboy, narration is nothing compared to on panel evidence. Kun never beat Ulic on panel, nor was it referenced offpanel. Ergo, by your rules, it didn't happen, Exar did not do it, and he could not do it.

Yet more name-calling. Please, my nephew at this point does better than that.

Of course Kun never beat Ulic on-panel. The fight was interrupted. It did not happen. That does not mean that, were they to fight again uninterrupted, that Kun would not beat him, because of on-panel evidence of Kun's superiority (use of Sith Magic, etc.).

I say all narrative quotes are valid, I do not attempt to argue what is hyperbole. I say all personal quotes have a possibility of hyperbole. Your policy is "whatever helps Kun's case I'll use." You are literally nothing more than an illogical fanboy.

And you must be literally nothing more than the same, save for your devotion is to the "godlike" Ancient Sith who don't seem to show a great many reasons to be described as such.

And the narration in GAotS say the ancient Sith are godlike, titanic, and frightening. That doesn't mean Sadow can't use other abilities, or that he's weaker than Nadd or Kun.

And subjective quotes can be applied to any one. It does not make them superior, especially since your only comparative quote relates to the amorphous "later Jedi."

Furthermore, what makes you think those quotes are speaking of the Ancients as individuals, rather than the collective? Certainly an empire made up of those beings would deserve such adjectives.

And Kun's "ace up his sleeve" was force power, yet he didn't do it, now did he?

Query: What are you even talking about? Do you mean when he faced the combined might of all Jedi? Clarify.

If Aleema did not duplicate some feats of Sadow, you would never have guessed his ship did anything.

Yes, but since she did we now know his ship is the reason he was able to perform those feats. If she were never able to duplicate his feats, and it's not shown in GAotS or FotSE that he used artificial means to perform them, then I'd assume him and the rest of the Sith to be far more powerful than those that came before or after.

Pay attention to the next paragraph.

However, because neither the evidence nor the quotes indicate or state such (that they are literally superior to those 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.

It's also a temporal impossibility for it not to be him. Get this through your head. And not to mention, later sources of canon DO say it's Ragnos.

Oh. So the Sith Empire, after Ludo's death and Naga's exile, just sat around while the Republic and Jedi drove them to extinction without being led by a new, unknown to us Dark Lord? That makes plenty of sense.

If you believe that, I'm not surprised you'd believe that a man who happened to be dead at the time somehow reigned as Dark Lord of the Sith during a war he didn't want to happen and created a message for the future Dark Lord.

You're still effectively trying to convince people that a paleontologist knows more about Ancient Egypt than a pharoah.

I'd submit that he does know more about certain aspects, such as the life of a slave and others in the lower classes as well as the wars Egypt fought. He doesn't know more about the Pharoah's life, obviously, but his other knowledge compensates.

You applying the analogy of Kressh tinkering with Sadow's stuff is irrelevant, because it is your assumption that Kressh does not have access to his own materials.

Nonsense. Do you then claim that Naga and Ludo specialized in the same fields? Do you claim that they both knew the same spells? Of course not. They guarded their secrets for a reason.

And additionally, if you want to throw that kind of crap logic out, I can just as easily say that as soon as an individual develops an incredible new piece of technology or ability, he will dominate over the others until another matches it. Competition drives progression far more than dispersion. Basic economic principle.

Just so you know, that's exactly why they guard their own secrets. I don't see how this counters my point.

Originally posted by IKC
I've already proved that it is impossible for Ragnos to have created the message. He was dead before the Hyperspace war even started, certainly long before the Republic and Jedi were winning the war and making the Sith extinct. It is a temporal impossibility that he could've made the message. Ergo, Ragnos did not create the message.

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know anything about that "message". First off it wasn't a message it was the spirit of the Sith Lord and the spirit of a force user of course knows about events happening after their death. The same way Nadd knew what was going on at Onderon and Obi-Wan knew what Luke was doing in ROTJ and ESB.

The point is that the Sith Lord appearing to Ulic and Exar looks like Ragnos and as you might have noticed, Ragnos was a half-blood and therefore he looked different than all the Sith that did have "pure" Sith blood in the comics.

And now despite the fact that Ragnos is the only individual from the time mentioned that looks like that (even different enough from all others that Kun can recognize him by only having seen his mumified body), the only possible Sith Lord from this time which remains Kun could have seen on Korriban and it's said in every damn source that it was Ragnos you still want to argue that it wasn't Ragnos. Lmao.

The Ancient Sith lords certainly did not have access to all these Dark Side sources. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that Ludo Kressh could have walked into Naga Sadow's stronghold, sat down with his alchemical equipment, and tinkered around without Naga Sadow trying to lop his head off? Certainly not. The fierce rivalry precludes the Ancient Sith from learning a great deal from each other. Exar Kun had no such rivalries to contend with and thus was able to build up an immense wealth of knowledge, which, with what he stole from Ossus, was "more wealth and knowledge than he can ever use," as described by the vaunted narrator.

Just go back and study the sources. We have seen that Kressh and Sadow were both able to use Sith Lightning and they both used swords which were enchanted with Sith magic - so obviously there was some "basic knowledge" that all Sith were able to use.

Next thing is that it doesn't matter. With all the powers Kressh and Sadow had (and most of Kun's knowledge was coming from Sadow) both didn't even think about fighting Ragnos. Why ? Because Ragnos had simply more power and knowledge then them. Ragnos killed Simus who was said to be the most powerful Sith magician at his time - powerful enough to keep his own servered head alive in a jar for more than a century. Still Ragnos wasted him and reigned over an entire empire filled with powerful Dark Side users for more than a century.

Now please tell me how Kun can even hope to defeat Ragnos...

IKC, one thing I'd like to address right now...

You're calling the New Essential Guide of Star Wars, authorized and licensed by LucasFilm, the company completely in charge of the EU projects, the equivalent of unofficial Cliff Notes?

You DO realize that Lucasfilm has a dynamic EU canon policy, right? They retroactively changed their stance so that Boba Fett lives after ROTJ. They CAN and they DO make adjustments to suit themselves. Hell, Tolkien made adjustments and changes in the transition to LOTR from the Hobbit. Such a large and diverse creation, submitted by various authors commissioned for such projects, cannot be 100% in sync. After all, there are TWO post-ROTJ books depicting the marriage of Princess Leia and Han Solo. Since they don't easily fit together at all, overall EU canon policy tends to use a mutated version of both to get the "real" story done.

EU sources in particular are examined much in the same way that history sources are: they are correct until something later of similar or greater validity overturns them. This is simply the way it is. An excellent example is Bartholomew Roberts, the pirate, was a dandy who slept alone in a cabin and wanted his body thrown overboard at his death. But new evidence could surface that would confirm many suspicions that Captain Roberts was in fact a woman, and one of Jack Rackham's crew nonetheless.

You arguing against the solidified canon policy of the company that has ALL rights to the material and continuity is hubris.

Sith swords have cortosis weaving and are reinforced via Sith magic.

Ludo Kressh broke one with his bare hands.

Done.

This was your question: "So I can assume Obi-Wan is stronger than Yoda with just the context of the Clone Wars, because Obi-Wan was in the fields leading battles while Yoda sat on his green ass?"

This was my response: "If the Clone Wars were the only evidence we had of Yoda's power, then yes."

Tell me how that is an illogical response. Matters aren't proven based on hearsay and supposition, they're proven on evidence. Which, of course, you're consistantly refused to provide.

Bullshit.

If you are the ones supposing or assuming they are powerful, or if characters within the comics are supposing, then it's possibly hyperbole. When the narrator assumes it, you have to PROVE THE NARRATOR WRONG.

You haven't done that. QED. Done.

Do you honestly believe that Lucas himself reads through every piece of material that his company verifies and approves it?

Now we've switched sides. I'm arguing logic whereas you're arguing evidence. I say that, logically, a "Cliff's Notes" cannot contradict the novel it's based on and be correct. You're saying that because Lucasfilm sets arbitrary rules of canon that they should be followed at all times, even when doing so makes no sense.

When have I switched sides? I've always argued that narrative canon without being proven as hyperbole is acceptable. And that's actually irrelevant towards the original point. The Ancient Sith are godlike, they're power was titanic compared to later generations.

QED 2.

And, of course, insulting your opponent and calling him names is the clear sign of superiority in a debate.

Six year olds may think so.

Then show me you can debate. Otherwise, don't bother.

QED 3.

Yet more name-calling. Please, my nephew at this point does better than that.

Of course Kun never beat Ulic on-panel. The fight was interrupted. It did not happen. That does not mean that, were they to fight again uninterrupted, that Kun would not beat him, because of on-panel evidence of Kun's superiority (use of Sith Magic, etc.).

Exactly. It did not happen. The other bits of on-panel evidence is irrelevant. Because he did not beat Ulic.

Feats are irrelevant unless you can put them in context. This isn't "FEAT WARS." You have not demonstrated to me the logic behind Exar being greater than Ulic, because he DID NOT DEFEAT HIM ON-PANEL. You are attempting to put Exar's feats in context to what now? Right, there is nothing you're attempting to put his feats in context to. Are you putting them in context with Superman? With Galactus? With Sponge Bob?

The only argument you have is that Naga Sadow has a shortage of demonstrated on-panel abilities. Wow, that's so astounding that I knew it before you even said anything.

I'm using your own logic against you. Because you are holding Sadow in question because of a lack of on-panel evidence.

And you must be literally nothing more than the same, save for your devotion is to the "godlike" Ancient Sith who don't seem to show a great many reasons to be described as such.

The whole point is they don't need a reason to be described as such. The narrator did it.

IKC's opinion or on-panel evidence of a different comic series does not supercede the narrator's word. Get that grandiose notion out of your head. Who do you think you are? Lucas?

And subjective quotes can be applied to any one. It does not make them superior, especially since your only comparative quote relates to the amorphous "later Jedi."

Furthermore, what makes you think those quotes are speaking of the Ancients as individuals, rather than the collective? Certainly an empire made up of those beings would deserve such adjectives.

Those same quotes were applied to individuals like Ragnos and Sadow, yes.

Again, you haven't read the comics. QED I-lost-count-but-it's-rather-high.

Query: What are you even talking about? Do you mean when he faced the combined might of all Jedi? Clarify.

He never did use his "superior force power" as you claimed, to defeat Ulic on screen, now did he? So if I was going strictly on on-panel evidence, Exar has never shown to be stronger than Ulic.

Yes, but since she did we now know his ship is the reason he was able to perform those feats. If she were never able to duplicate his feats, and it's not shown in GAotS or FotSE that he used artificial means to perform them, then I'd assume him and the rest of the Sith to be far more powerful than those that came before or after.

So you should assume Kun to be far weaker than he is now, considering later NJO Jedi could cloak entire ships, or control a black hole, right?

Duplication of feats or demonstration of feats of a similar level doesn't make a feat less impressive. Aleema knew the ancient technique and had access to the ancient weapon, how does this show Sadow is weaker again?

Oh wait, you're dodging the question.

However, because neither the evidence nor the quotes indicate or state such (that they are literally superior to those 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.

So you just admitted to being illogical. Because you uphold the firm belief that Kun is stronger than Naga Sadow.

Then this debate is really over. Someone who can't even conform to logic and then attempts to use what I have been saying the entire "debate" as ammo against me. Good job. So maybe you can listen to what I've typed.

Excuse me while I step back and take an extended "ROFL" moment.

I'd submit that he does know more about certain aspects, such as the life of a slave and others in the lower classes as well as the wars Egypt fought. He doesn't know more about the Pharoah's life, obviously, but his other knowledge compensates.

How the hell does it compensate for anything?

Just in case you don't know anything about paleontology, we know relatively little as far as the lives of slaves. We know practically zero names, zero birthdates, zero accomplishments. We know about Pharoahs, some of them in length, but no paleontologist will ever claim to know more about Ancient Egypt than a pharoah. No scientist would be stupid enough to make that claim.

First order logic tells me the same thing. How is Kun, who goes about and loots the stuff, going to be more powerful than Sadow?

How is Kun, with one Sith amulet, going to be more powerful than Sadow with several?

How is Kun, possessing remnant knowledge from Sadow, going to be stronger or better at it then the source itself?

You can not answer these basic logical inferences without going into pointless and unfounded "hearsay and supposition." Ergo narrator + logic suggest the Ancient Sith are stronger than Kun.

QED!

Nonsense. Do you then claim that Naga and Ludo specialized in the same fields? Do you claim that they both knew the same spells? Of course not. They guarded their secrets for a reason.

Where does it specify they guarded their secrets in GAotS?

You argued that the spirit was not Ragnos because a later canon changed it. I can easily use your same logic and say the events in The Sith Wars and The Fall of the Sith are invalid.

Just so you know, that's exactly why they guard their own secrets. I don't see how this counters my point.

It easily counters your point. Because of them to still be alive, they would have to become more powerful. It's a logical factor that does not exist for Kun. He did not have several rivals with the motive, the method, and the means to kill him.

Nai:

You've just shown your ignorance of the story. It was a message. Quoting:

"This is a moment conceived in the long-forgotten time when the Sith were a mighty race of magicians...a time when the Sith people were being driven to extinction by the Jedi Knights and the armies of the Galactic Republic. A time when Sith Magic learned how to construct amulets to carry a message down through the centuries... a message from their reigning Dark Lord of the Sith!" Emphasis mine.

I believe I just shot you down. Ragnos was dead at the time. He can't reign when he's dead. There's nothing saying Ragnos was the only half-blood. The only appearance similarity is the fact that they both had horns. However, the Dark Lord's horns in the message go outward and curve up and in, unlike Ragnos' which go up. There's nothing to indicate that there were no more Dark Lords named after Kressh's death. It's a temporal impossibility for it to have been Ragnos.

We have seen that Kressh and Sadow were both able to use Sith Lightning and they both used swords which were enchanted with Sith magic - so obviously there was some "basic knowledge" that all Sith were able to use.

Question: Where in hell does it show Kressh and Sadow using Force Lightning? I've never seen that. I don't doubt they can, but I don't think we've seen it.

Now please tell me how Kun can even hope to defeat Ragnos...

Because there's nothing to indicate that the Ancients were clearly superior to everyone that came before or after them. Ergo, a battle between them would be up in the air. Kun could have easily reigned over the Jedi if they were an organization set up to be controlled in such a manner. What's your point?

Ianus:

You're calling the New Essential Guide of Star Wars, authorized and licensed by LucasFilm, the company completely in charge of the EU projects, the equivalent of unofficial Cliff Notes?

No, I'm calling specific entries the equivalent of Cliff's Notes. If there's an entry regarding the Sith War, for example, I would expect it to be a summation. I'd expect to learn more about the Sith War from the actual source material.

If you are the ones supposing or assuming they are powerful, or if characters within the comics are supposing, then it's possibly hyperbole. When the narrator assumes it, you have to PROVE THE NARRATOR WRONG.

I've not seen the Clone Wars, Illustrious. I've been going on your description that Yoda "sat on his green ass." Was there a narrator during the Clone Wars? Did he describe Yoda's power?

Based on what you've given me, my answer stands.

When have I switched sides? I've always argued that narrative canon without being proven as hyperbole is acceptable. And that's actually irrelevant towards the original point. The Ancient Sith are godlike, they're power was titanic compared to later generations.

No, according to you it reads later Jedi, something not quite definitive. It doesn't read all later Jedi, as I've pointed out repeatedly, much less does it refer to other Force users.

Then show me you can debate. Otherwise, don't bother.

Oh, so insults and namecalling are acceptable things to stoop to during a debate?

I'm using your own logic against you. Because you are holding Sadow in question because of a lack of on-panel evidence.

And you're not doing so well. I don't have a lack of evidence. Quoting from the other thread:

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.

Therefore, Exar could beat Ulic. And, I remind you again, they were only equal for a time in lightsaber combat, as described on-panel and by the narrator.

IKC's opinion or on-panel evidence of a different comic series does not supercede the narrator's word. Get that grandiose notion out of your head.

But the narrator's word does not indicate their clear superiority over specific individuals who are similarly powerful. Nor does it indicate their inferiority. It is up in the air. My personal belief is that beings like DE Sidious and Exar Kun stand a good chance of beating some of the Ancients like Naga, because of the lack of evidence for their power. But that doesn't make it true.

Those same quotes were applied to individuals like Ragnos and Sadow, yes.

As stated in the other thread, I'd like some specifics. Which quotes applied to whom, and the like.

He never did use his "superior force power" as you claimed, to defeat Ulic on screen, now did he? So if I was going strictly on on-panel evidence, Exar has never shown to be stronger than Ulic.

No he didn't. But we don't know how long their fight laster, either. It was interrupted, you remember. But on-panel evidence indicates he is stronger than Ulic. When has Ulic ever fired literal beams of energy from his hands? Never. When has he ever used Sith magic? Never. Exar has. Exar is more powerful in the Force. He wasn't stronger in lightsaber combat at the time.

So you should assume Kun to be far weaker than he is now, considering later NJO Jedi could cloak entire ships, or control a black hole, right?

No, because they don't easily replicate his feats or show them to be the product of artifice.

Duplication of feats or demonstration of feats of a similar level doesn't make a feat less impressive. Aleema knew the ancient technique and had access to the ancient weapon, how does this show Sadow is weaker again?

Duplication of a feat removes the novelty of it, makes it more common and less impressive. Like I've said before, it shows that Sadow's power is not what caused the core to be ripped from a star. It shows he's weaker than our previous estimations indicated.

So you just admitted to being illogical. Because you uphold the firm belief that Kun is stronger than Naga Sadow.

Incorrect, I hold the personal belief that while the Ancients' power is relatively unknown, Exar Kun and others like him have a great chance of beating them because we do have a fairly accurate estimate of their power.

However, this belief is not substantiated by enough evidence to make it viable in a versus forum. Nor is the belief that the Ancients would curbstomp these individuals substantiated by evidence. The outcome of these battles is up in the air, which makes it folly to put them in a versus forum.

How the hell does it compensate for anything?

It compensates insofar as he has more general knowledge about Egypt than the Pharoah in many ways, Illustrious. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Just in case you don't know anything about paleontology, we know relatively little as far as the lives of slaves. We know practically zero names, zero birthdates, zero accomplishments.

I was throwing that out as an example. I could have easily said "pig farmer" or something.

Zero accomplishments? What about the pyramids?

First order logic tells me the same thing. How is Kun, who goes about and loots the stuff, going to be more powerful than Sadow?

He's possibly more powerful because he may have looted knowledge that Sadow would not have had access to (especially that which came from Ossus).

How is Kun, with one Sith amulet, going to be more powerful than Sadow with several?

For one, it's only one confirmed amulet. Kun is shown in TSW to wear numerous other such baubles. To answer your question, it's possible that Kun has more Force potential than Sadow. We don't know because of reasons stated above.

How is Kun, possessing remnant knowledge from Sadow, going to be stronger or better at it then the source itself?

I wouldn't diminish it by calling it remnant knowledge. Kun literally came across a treasure trove. To answer your question, I never stated he would be. However, the knowledge he gleaned from other sources would compensate for it. There's also the possibility that Kun has more natural talent. Like the entire fight, it is up in the air. We can't possibly know for sure.

Ergo narrator + logic suggest the Ancient Sith are stronger than Kun.

Again, no they don't. The narrator indicates nothing of the sort. I've said this numerous times. Summation:

1) Narrator only speaks of "later" Jedi, never using the word "all."

2) He speaks only of Jedi, not Sith as Kun became, or any other misc. Force users.

Where does it specify they guarded their secrets in GAotS?

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. The Sith were ruthless and backstabbing. Conducting your own research into Sith Magic to increase your standing would be fruitless if you didn't protect what you gleaned and allowed your rivals access to it.

It easily counters your point. Because of them to still be alive, they would have to become more powerful. It's a logical factor that does not exist for Kun. He did not have several rivals with the motive, the method, and the means to kill him.

Really? Is that why Kun is primarily concerned with acquiring more knowledge? Is that why his primary purpose in having Aleema detonate the Cron Cluster is to land on Ossus and steal priceless Jedi secrets?

Just because he didn't have the same motivation doesn't mean he didn't want to become more powerful.

I've not seen the Clone Wars, Illustrious. I've been going on your description that Yoda "sat on his green ass." Was there a narrator during the Clone Wars? Did he describe Yoda's power?

Based on what you've given me, my answer stands.

Because your answer stands. You submit to logical fallacy. Period.

Because while Obi-Wan demonstrated more feats, there is no logical reason to believe Yoda was less powerful. Same with this situation.

You have not offered any logic other than "well he has more feats, lol!"

No, according to you it reads later Jedi, something not quite definitive. It doesn't read all later Jedi, as I've pointed out repeatedly, much less does it refer to other Force users.

Funny how things work when you can subjectively change the meaning of statement. Why would that statement not refer to all later Jedi? It certainly does not pin any timeframe for that remark.

Again, you're assuming a negative when there is none.

Oh, so insults and namecalling are acceptable things to stoop to during a debate?

That's not namecalling. I poked holes in your logical reasoning in this "debate."

You have not recovered from them. You have shown to commit more fallacy than truth, ergo, bad debater.

And you're not doing so well. I don't have a lack of evidence. Quoting from the other thread:

Nope. I'm actually doing very well.

You have a lack of evidence Exar is greater than Ulic. You have logic to support that point, I have logic to support that Sadow is greater than Exar.

We're on the same damn square. The only difference is that in the context of the Sadow vs. Kun debate, you're losing.

No he didn't. But we don't know how long their fight laster, either. It was interrupted, you remember. But on-panel evidence indicates he is stronger than Ulic. When has Ulic ever fired literal beams of energy from his hands? Never. When has he ever used Sith magic? Never. Exar has. Exar is more powerful in the Force. He wasn't stronger in lightsaber combat at the time.

Abilities without context don't mean a thing.

Logically, it indicates Kun is superior, but on-panel evidence shows a draw.

Logic indicates Sadow is superior to Kun, on-panel evidence is inconclusive.

It's the same damn boat. Stop trying to tip it.

No, because they don't easily replicate his feats or show them to be the product of artifice.

Oh don't be daft. You're arguing semantics again.

So in order to duplicate Kun's feat, a future Jedi has to walk into the Senate and freeze the same individuals? I personally find controlling a black hole with the force to be quite a bit more impressive, does that mean I can automatically assume Luke to be stronger than Kun?

According to your opinion: no. According to the garbage you spewed in this thread and others: yes.

Be consistent.

Duplication of a feat removes the novelty of it, makes it more common and less impressive. Like I've said before, it shows that Sadow's power is not what caused the core to be ripped from a star. It shows he's weaker than our previous estimations indicated.

My previous estimation never said he could throw around stars at will. It shows that with his gear, he clearly can.

Are you arguing what Kun is capable of without a lightsaber or his amulet? No. So why should I argue what Sadow is like naked?

Again, inconsistent logic.

Incorrect, I hold the personal belief that while the Ancients' power is relatively unknown, Exar Kun and others like him have a great chance of beating them because we do have a fairly accurate estimate of their power.

However, this belief is not substantiated by enough evidence to make it viable in a versus forum. Nor is the belief that the Ancients would curbstomp these individuals substantiated by evidence. The outcome of these battles is up in the air, which makes it folly to put them in a versus forum.

You still didn't show why you believe Kun to be stronger. In fact, you said it was up in the air.

Thereby you submit to having a personal bias. Personal bias = illogic.

It compensates insofar as he has more general knowledge about Egypt than the Pharoah in many ways, Illustrious. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Not really, you automatically assume the Pharoah would not know about his own state as much as a researcher does. I fail to see how this is viable.

I was throwing that out as an example. I could have easily said "pig farmer" or something.

Zero accomplishments? What about the pyramids.

You can tell me what each individual slave did for the pyramids?

No. The paleontologists can tell me that slaves collectively built the pyramids. The same knowledge and more would be available to the pharaoh.

Wow, that statement backfired, huh?

He's possibly more powerful because he may have looted knowledge that Sadow would not have had access to (especially that which came from Ossus).

Can you demonstrate Sadow didn't have access to Ossus?

Again, pointless supposition and assumption. You didn't disprove the original logical postulate.

For one, it's only one confirmed amulet. Kun is shown in TSW to wear numerous other such baubles. To answer your question, it's possible that Kun has more Force potential than Sadow. We don't know because of reasons stated above.

Assumption again.

Assumption does not trump logic.

I wouldn't diminish it by calling it remnant knowledge. Kun literally came across a treasure trove. To answer your question, I never stated he would be. However, the knowledge he gleaned from other sources would compensate for it. There's also the possibility that Kun has more natural talent. Like the entire fight, it is up in the air. We can't possibly know for sure.

Possible. It's more logical to assume Sadow had more knowledge.

Sadow and Kun's inherent force potential is a complete unknown.

With that being said, an unbiased observer would disregard that as a wash, and focus on other logic. Ergo, Sadow wins because logic dictates he has more logic.

You assuming Kun had more force power and then believing he would defeat Sadow because of it indicates a character fixation, fanboyism, and a clear personal bias.

Again, no they don't. The narrator indicates nothing of the sort. I've said this numerous times. Summation:

1) Narrator only speaks of "later" Jedi, never using the word "all."

2) He speaks only of Jedi, not Sith as Kun became, or any other misc. Force users.

I've already argued your point on the "all" semantics. You're twisting language now for your argument. Bad move against someone who's got plenty of experience with literature.

He's also spoken of Sadow as godlike, with immense powers. Technological or not, nothing of Kun's narration applies to the same degree.

And of course, the same logical inferences I said above, you simply batted away with pointless hypotheticals.

Again, you're grasping now.

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. The Sith were ruthless and backstabbing. Conducting your own research into Sith Magic to increase your standing would be fruitless if you didn't protect what you gleaned and allowed your rivals access to it.

Then let the logic be consistent.

Either they had open access and advancements were shared.

OR

They had many esoteric advancements, and they required great skill in order to not be wiped out by the advancements of their peers. Competition that Kun did not have.

Either postulate is in the Ancient Sith's favor.

Really? Is that why Kun is primarily concerned with acquiring more knowledge? Is that why his primary purpose in having Aleema detonate the Cron Cluster is to land on Ossus and steal priceless Jedi secrets?

Just because he didn't have the same motivation doesn't mean he didn't want to become more powerful.

Who competed with him?

What makes you think the ancient Sith had no intention of becoming more powerful? The primary doctrine of the Sith and of the Dark Side in general is acquiring more power. The Sith Empire had competition and thereby progress, what did Kun have besides looting?

Again, where's your logic, did you leave it at home?

I like how subjective and definitive change definitions when one is focusing on Kun, and when one is focusing on the ancient Sith. Nice double standard, IKC.

Because your answer stands. You submit to logical fallacy. Period.

Because while Obi-Wan demonstrated more feats, there is no logical reason to believe Yoda was less powerful. Same with this situation.

You have not offered any logic other than "well he has more feats, lol!"

Maybe you didn't read what I posted and that's why you didn't answer my questions. I don't think I can dumb them down, so please try to answer them this time.

Was there a narrator during the Clone Wars? Did he describe Yoda's power?

If there was not one, or he doesn't, and the Clone Wars were all we had to go on on Yoda and your description of his actions is accurate, then my answer stands.

Funny how things work when you can subjectively change the meaning of statement. Why would that statement not refer to all later Jedi? It certainly does not pin any timeframe for that remark

Exactly, it doesn't pin a timeframe, nor does it say all. It's an amorphous statement that essentially means they're more powerful than a random group of Jedi.

I submit that if they had meant to mean that the Ancients were more powerful than all later Jedi, then they would have said that explicitly. Because they didn't, you can't prove that they did, and you can't ask me to prove the negative. The burden is on you.

That's not namecalling. I poked holes in your logical reasoning in this "debate."

And I've been asking for evidence for a week, which you've failed to produce.

Oh, and I seem to have caught you in a bald-faced lie.

In the other thread, you claimed the following:

Did Sadow use many (amulets)? No. For example, when he was arguing with Ludo, he did not have one on.

Really? What's that on his hand, here, with a chain running up his arm to a shoulderpad suspiciously similar to the amulet Kun later acquires?

You also wrote the following:

And need I remind you that there is not a SINGLE panel with Sadow having a prominent amulet on his person. Obviously he didn't need it as much as you are trying to claim.

As well as,

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

I refer you to the above scan, as well as the following:

Look at his hand! Red crystal on the back of the hand, mysteriously like Kun's! The only difference is that Kun's was gold.

I'd go on and post more, but this is sufficient to show that you talk out your ass. Back to your "points."

You have a lack of evidence Exar is greater than Ulic. You have logic to support that point, I have logic to support that Sadow is greater than Exar.

Nonsense. On-panel evidence shows Kun grew exponentially more powerful in TSW than he was in DLotS.

Quoting myself:

In DLotS, Exar Kun was unable to beat Vodo Baas in a fair duel. In TSW, he was able to slap Vodo around like an initiate. As well, he was able to kill a Jedi Master comparable to Vodo in Force power with a wave of his hand.

He grew more powerful, on-panel and narrative evidence dictates it.

Logically, it indicates Kun is superior, but on-panel evidence shows a draw.

No, panel evidence shows Kun's superiority.

Logic indicates Sadow is superior to Kun, on-panel evidence is inconclusive.

No, logic is inconclusive as well. The comparative quotes do not apply to Kun.

So in order to duplicate Kun's feat, a future Jedi has to walk into the Senate and freeze the same individuals? I personally find controlling a black hole with the force to be quite a bit more impressive, does that mean I can automatically assume Luke to be stronger than Kun?

You can. That's why NJO Luke vs. Exar Kun would be such a titanic battle. Personally I favor Exar Kun but it could feasibly go either way.

My previous estimation never said he could throw around stars at will. It shows that with his gear, he clearly can.

So wait, you count a capital ship as "gear?"

Are you arguing what Kun is capable of without a lightsaber or his amulet? No. So why should I argue what Sadow is like naked?

You aren't arguing that, and I never tried to make you.

You still didn't show why you believe Kun to be stronger. In fact, you said it was up in the air.

I state that I favor Kun because we know more about him and have more on-panel evidence of his power. That doesn't mean I know for certain that he would win, but I do believe he has as much a chance as Sadow.

Not really, you automatically assume the Pharoah would not know about his own state as much as a researcher does. I fail to see how this is viable.

So the Pharoah knows every picayune detail about his state, many things that researchers were able to discover later on?

This analogy isn't quite accurate regardless. The Ancient Sith literally helped those who came after them find their preserved knowledge, sometimes teaching it directly as spirits. Pharoahs aren't able to do such things. All they have is the preservation part.

Wow, that statement backfired, huh?

Nonsense, you claimed that the slaves had no accomplishments. I said they had the pyramids. That wasn't the intent of the argument. Like I said, you could easily substitute "pig farmers."

Which, I'll note, you didn't respond to.

Can you demonstrate Sadow didn't have access to Ossus?

Mostly because Ossus as a Jedi stronghold didn't exist, Illustrious. Odan-Urr vows to make it one at the end of FotSE. Incalculable amounts of Jedi knowledge are stored there by the time of Exar Kun.

Ergo, Sadow wins because logic dictates he has more logic.

No, you've yet to prove that. To say "later Jedi" means "all later Force users" is a mightier assumption than mine.

You assuming Kun had more force power and then believing he would defeat Sadow because of it indicates a character fixation, fanboyism, and a clear personal bias.

It would if that's what I believed. It isn't. It is possible that he has more Force power. I do believe he has an equal a chance as Sadow of coming out on top, simply because all evidence regarding Sadow's power is inconclusive.

Because you believe the opposite, Illustrious, and you indeed make a mighty leap to the conclusion that "later Jedi" means "all later Force users," those epithets can clearly apply to you.

I've already argued your point on the "all" semantics. You're twisting language now for your argument. Bad move against someone who's got plenty of experience with literature.

And you cannot prove the positive. I'm not the one twisting language. It is your assumption that comprises this debate.

He's also spoken of Sadow as godlike, with immense powers. Technological or not, nothing of Kun's narration applies to the same degree.

Nonsense. As I wrote before, this is subjective and not comparative language. As I wrote in the other thread, godlike doesn't translate to "most powerful" nor does immense or titanic translate to "largest."

And of course, the same logical inferences I said above, you simply batted away with pointless hypotheticals.

And of course, if the opposite questions were posed to you, you could only do the same if you kept to being intellectually honest.

Either postulate is in the Ancient Sith's favor.

The latter is true, but the last statement is not. This isn't in the Ancient Sith's favor, because Kun continued his own advancement at an impressive speed even though you claim he had no competition. Indeed, increasing his own power seemed to be his primary goal, as the decimation of Ossus shows. However, it could be said that Kun's competition is the Jedi Order itself, since he was more exposed to it than the Ancients were.

Who competed with him?

Either A) nobody or B) the Jedi as a whole. Whichever is true, it doesn't change Kun's actions.

What makes you think the ancient Sith had no intention of becoming more powerful? The primary doctrine of the Sith and of the Dark Side in general is acquiring more power. The Sith Empire had competition and thereby progress, what did Kun have besides looting?

In order: Nothing. Yes, and? Kun had progress inasmuch as most of his actions increased his own power. As well, looting was not his only means of progressing. He did his own experiments with Sadow's equipment, turning the massassi priest Zythmnr into an alchemical monster, among other things.

Originally posted by IKC
Nai:

You've just shown your ignorance of the story. It was a message. Quoting:

"This is a moment conceived in the long-forgotten time when the Sith were a mighty race of magicians...a time when the Sith people were being driven to extinction by the Jedi Knights and the armies of the Galactic Republic. A time when Sith Magic learned how to construct amulets to carry a message down through the centuries... a message from their reigning Dark Lord of the Sith!" Emphasis mine.

And you have shown your ignorance of the fundamental workings of the SW universe, the story and logic itself.

Have you ever seen an interactive "message" ? I sure as hell haven't.

Quotes from the Dark Lord in the "message":
"You have chosen... Now you are the chosen."
"Exar Kun, because of you, the Sith will never die... you have rightly earned the title of Dark Lord of the Sith!"

How the hell would a "message" from a time period thousand years before Exar Kun know Exar Kun's name and know about what he has done, hmm ? It was the spirit of a force user and not a normal message.

I believe I just shot you down. Ragnos was dead at the time. He can't reign when he's dead. There's nothing saying Ragnos was the only half-blood. The only appearance similarity is the fact that they both had horns. However, the Dark Lord's horns in the message go outward and curve up and in, unlike Ragnos' which go up. There's nothing to indicate that there were no more Dark Lords named after Kressh's death. It's a temporal impossibility for it to have been Ragnos.

The point is that the comic itself says that "message" shows the Golden Age of the Sith Empire. The Golden Age of the Sith Empire is clearly associated with Marka Ragnos. Besides of this we have seen no other half-blood sitting in the Council under Ragnos and it's mentioned throughout the comics that a half-blood is something very special in such a high position. That and the point that every official source stated it was Ragnos talking to Ulic and Exar make it perfectly clear that it in fact was Ragnos spirit and not a "message" as you like to put it.

And before you go on comparing Sadow to Kun (and make seem Sadow less powerful than he really was) - why don't you just read the comics, eh ?

Kun talking about Sadow's powers and what he left behind:
"His magician's power lives on. A power that could easily destroy me, unless I learn to master it. So master it I shall." (DLotS #5)

Now this is just talking about what Sadow actually left behind which is not everything Sadow had. Do you really want to tell me that Kun mastered everything Sadow has developed, mastered and left behind in less than a year ? And even if he should have done this (which seems to be impossible) he would be not as powerful as the living Sadow. And yet even if you want to assume that Kun could be as powerful as the living Sadow he would not be as powerful as Ragnos.

So it's pretty much clear that Ragnos > Sadow > Kun meaning that Ragnos would pretty much destroy Kun in a fight.

Maybe you didn't read what I posted and that's why you didn't answer my questions. I don't think I can dumb them down, so please try to answer them this time.

The narrator did not describe his power. But again, there is no reason to assume Yoda is weaker than Obi-Wan, considering he outranked him, he gave him pointers, and he was the individual who scolded him when he did something wrong.

Still, he was depicted on his green ass, while Obi-Wan in the field. What's the prove? That Obi-Wan has more feats?

Well obviously, but that doesn't indicate anything.

Again, you're the one speaking out of your ass, you make logical claims you can't even back up.

Exactly, it doesn't pin a timeframe, nor does it say all. It's an amorphous statement that essentially means they're more powerful than a random group of Jedi.

I submit that if they had meant to mean that the Ancients were more powerful than all later Jedi, then they would have said that explicitly. Because they didn't, you can't prove that they did, and you can't ask me to prove the negative. The burden is on you.

If it means a random group of Jedi, then it is essentially pinning a timeframe.

It does not pin a timeframe, nor does it modify to specify which Jedi. So it can not be simply indicating a particular group or time of Jedi, got it?

The statement is a positive there is no modifier. QED. STFU.

Really? What's that on his hand, here, with a chain running up his arm to a shoulderpad suspiciously similar to the amulet Kun later acquires?

Since when does it state in Golden Age of the Sith that the shoulder pad is the enchanted amulet?

Look at his hand! Red crystal on the back of the hand, mysteriously like Kun's! The only difference is that Kun's was gold.

I conceded Sadow used magical gauntlets. Good job Captain Obvious.

I'd go on and post more, but this is sufficient to show that you talk out your ass. Back to your "points."

Wow, you assume you can say something with such bravado after you "proved"... something obvious. Good job.

Nonsense. On-panel evidence shows Kun grew exponentially more powerful in TSW than he was in DLotS.

Since when can you quantify his power based on one scene?

No, panel evidence shows Kun's superiority.

Yet it was a draw.

You don't seem to understand I'm using your own BS logic against you. Prove to me that Kun beats Ulic. If you can't, I suggest you not holding others to the same standard.

No, logic is inconclusive as well. The comparative quotes do not apply to Kun.

Since when? Don't twist the statements. Also, by Kun's own admission, he was inferior. For one known to be a bit big-headed, that's quite a statement.

Also, logic indicates the superior. You know... those perfectly viable logical quotes you answered with half assed assumptions? yeah, those.

I state that I favor Kun because we know more about him and have more on-panel evidence of his power. That doesn't mean I know for certain that he would win, but I do believe he has as much a chance as Sadow.

on-panel feats that are not put in context.

You claim the narrative and logic do not put Kun in context, which is debatable. Your feats surely do not have Sadow in context.

You have nothing.

So the Pharoah knows every picayune detail about his state, many things that researchers were able to discover later on?

This analogy isn't quite accurate regardless. The Ancient Sith literally helped those who came after them find their preserved knowledge, sometimes teaching it directly as spirits. Pharoahs aren't able to do such things. All they have is the preservation part.

The information is available to him. What? Do you think the hieroglyphs poof centuries later?

Yeah, so even by helping them, can you prove that he learned all of the ancient Sith secrets? Can you indicate he learned them better than the ancient Sith?

No. You can't. And you haven't. And since you haven't, you're debate falls through.

You seem to forget I've taken out the very logical foundation of your debate, and yet you're so slow to respond you haven't even noticed.

Nonsense, you claimed that the slaves had no accomplishments. I said they had the pyramids. That wasn't the intent of the argument. Like I said, you could easily substitute "pig farmers."

Which, I'll note, you didn't respond to.

If I take notes on what you don't respond to, or can't respond to, the list would be far too long.

I said can you account for an individual slave? No.

Surely the knowledge that some highly-inclusive group built the pyramids is common knowledge, hell, even the hieroglyphs have depictions of the Slaves building the pyramids. Any self-serving Pharoah would know that fact and more.

Mostly because Ossus as a Jedi stronghold didn't exist, Illustrious. Odan-Urr vows to make it one at the end of FotSE. Incalculable amounts of Jedi knowledge are stored there by the time of Exar Kun.

What did he learn there that would indicate his superiority?

You said yourself that the advantage he had over Ulic was "Sith Magic." So clearly, where did he have an advantage in Sadow over Sith Magic?

No, you've yet to prove that. To say "later Jedi" means "all later Force users" is a mightier assumption than mine.

So I am to assume that a phrase with no modifier anywhere in the text refers to a select cult of Jedi in some 2 year period in the future?

Bullshit. That's a stupid statement. Learn English. Take a course in literature.

It would if that's what I believed. It isn't. It is possible that he has more Force power. I do believe he has an equal a chance as Sadow of coming out on top, simply because all evidence regarding Sadow's power is inconclusive.

Because you believe the opposite, Illustrious, and you indeed make a mighty leap to the conclusion that "later Jedi" means "all later Force users," those epithets can clearly apply to you.

When was the conclusion there?

Do you find it funny that all the other readers can infer that "later Jedi" means all, and that the very basis of the English language (a modifier-less adjective) says it's absolute?

Oh wait, of course not, because this debate hinges on Star Wars as IKC interprets it.

And you cannot prove the positive. I'm not the one twisting language. It is your assumption that comprises this debate.

You twist the semantics of every quote.

Apparently "titanic" doesn't mean "titanic," "Godlike" clearly only indicates the entire Empire in reference to one man, "later Jedi" only indicates 2 particular Jedi stuck in a blizzard, and modifiers like "immense" and "frightening" are groundless.

Wow, I'm surprised the author hasn't bitchslapped you yet.

Nonsense. As I wrote before, this is subjective and not comparative language. As I wrote in the other thread, godlike doesn't translate to "most powerful" nor does immense or titanic translate to "largest."

When one is titanic in comparison to others, it does translate into largest.

Godlike is a very powerful modifer. Because a deity is far above the lower entities. It standsalone far better than the "darkest person in the galaxy," statement.

How do you even define "darkest," as in "most evil," "darkest skinned"?

Please.

And of course, if the opposite questions were posed to you, you could only do the same if you kept to being intellectually honest.

When was this? I pointed out the first order logical statements.

You attempted to prove they were false with pointless speculation. Then when I point this out, you claimed I did the same thing? Uh where? My ass.

Either A) nobody or B) the Jedi as a whole. Whichever is true, it doesn't change Kun's actions.

Yeah, and clearly that is not a point in his favor.

In order: Nothing. Yes, and? Kun had progress inasmuch as most of his actions increased his own power. As well, looting was not his only means of progressing. He did his own experiments with Sadow's equipment, turning the massassi priest Zythmnr into an alchemical monster, among other things.

Need I remind you that the Massassi were Sadow's own invention?

If you specify he did any experiments, you are basically saying that he learned everything Sadow knew, and thus by experimenting, it put Kun over the top. Where does it even indicate he knew all that Sadow knew?

It's a simple temporal impossibility, like you like throwing around. Sadow was around for hundreds of years, Kun attempted to learn all of this in a few years? Prove he did.