Tulak Hord vs Yoda

Why are we even arguing this guy?

Normally we can afford it to just talk to stubborn people a million times because eventually they will leave. Numan is 10 years old, medically speaking he doesn't have the brain power to accept reasoning like this.

Its just stupid if we would continue talking to him... Numan you lost, come back when your older and then claim the same thing. Sorry to say this, but you are just simply unable to understand what we are saying here... Your brain can't really comprehend it. Keep in mind this is not meant as an insult its just a medical fact.

I'm pretty sure I could comprehend defeat before my tenth birthday. . .

Originally posted by Faunus
I'm pretty sure I could comprehend defeat before my tenth birthday. . .

Defeat yes, but its just true that the brain of a 10 year old is to stubborn for debates like this, its unable to handle critizism on its points. Try arguing anything with a 10 year old they are far more stubborn then we are. The basics of science also ussually escape their mind and to admit that is even harder. Because children have a habbit of thinking they are everything.

I wouldn't call that medical so much as who they grow up with / around.

Ten year-olds may be comparatively stubborn, but not all of them are stupid. My cousin, at ten, was one of the most astoundingly open-minded people I've ever met. Oftentimes, it's opinionated and elder people who've been molded into a certain mindset who are ridiculously stubborn and unmoving.

Originally posted by Faunus
I wouldn't call that medical so much as who they grow up with / around.

Ten year-olds may be comparatively stubborn, but not all of them are stupid. My cousin, at ten, was one of the most astoundingly open-minded people I've ever met. Oftentimes, it's opinionated and elder people who've been molded into a certain mindset who are ridiculously stubborn and unmoving.

Could you convince your cousin he was wrong in a situation like this? Its probably a language barrier here, so I can't really say what I'm trying to say. But its just a fact that the brain of a 10 year old isn't developed enough to handle discussions like this or many others for that matter... Sorry for not being able to explain it better.

No, I understand that you think a ten year-old is incapable of comprehending criticism and correction, but that's not always the case.

As to my cousin, he wouldn't have bothered himself with arguing Star Wars versus matches in the first place.

Originally posted by Faunus
No, I understand that you think a ten year-old is incapable of comprehending criticism and correction, but that's not always the case.

As to my cousin, he wouldn't have bothered himself with arguing Star Wars versus matches in the first place.

There are always exceptions, they prove the rule but in general people under the age of 16 have a harder times comprehending things said in debates or in general. The ability to think logically is lower with them, the older you are the lower this difference becomes with people, some people can think logically at 10 some still can't when they are 20. Its just a medical established fact...

Originally posted by Numan
"Ever heard of theoretical physics? Just because there is no object on earth like a lightsaber doesn't mean we can't calculate the power generated."

Yes but the lightsaber beam goes against science as there is nothing scientific that gives it its power.

No it doesn't.

A beam of solid photons does not go against science, sorry. It's still theoretically predictable because the blade has no mass. You're wrong sorry.

I have proven that the lightsaber is more powerful already. If you are too lazy to read back to my earlier posts, you will see that and I am not going to reapeat it if you are too lazy to do so. There is no way that the power of a lightsaber can be proven by physics. Scientifically there are no reasons to explain this power, but the power is still evident. There are many things in star wars that science cannot explain and one of them is the power that a lightsaber can produce.

No you haven't. I've read and picked apart your posts with actual science and physics.

First you say "science can't apply to lightsabers" then you say "you proved me wrong scientifically"?

You can't even stop contradicting yourself.

A lightsaber is not more powerful because you said so. You have to establish that a lightsaber is more powerful. Considering a sith sword easily blocked a lightsaber, the premise has been undermined and your point is moot.

And you still don't know what "power" means. It does not mean "Power" Rangers, okay?

Originally posted by Fishy
There are always exceptions, they prove the rule but in general people under the age of 16 have a harder times comprehending things said in debates or in general. The ability to think logically is lower with them, the older you are the lower this difference becomes with people, some people can think logically at 10 some still can't when they are 20. Its just a medical established fact...

I know plenty of younger people who can argue effectively. They just know when there are clearly outclassed. Numan has no idea just how badly he has been pwned. I should email him this stuff when he's older just so he can be embarassed.

Yes, there are those idiots at age 20 and a large population under 16 who can't comprehend things, but the issue here is they shouldn't be trying to argue it in the first place.

Ok, folks, first of all, these arguments seem to be getting rather personal. Cut it out.

Secondly... there is an incredible amount of nonsense being talked here. No, science can NOT be used to describe a Lightsabre- it is a completely non-scientific object, it may as well be magical. it melts but does not radiate heat, it's energy release seems to be contained, it acts solidly against some energy, bounces from others...

But far more to the point, the films clearly show that sabres have a solid presence. They cast shadows and you can be impaled on them. They are not just energy, and they are certainly neither light nor laser.

Anyone trying to make out that a sabre can be in any way at all explained by science is making a bit of a fool of himself.

Also, it is pretty clear here that not many people here know about swordfighting. A light weapon ALWAYS outfights a heavy one. The only reason to use a heavy one is penetration. Sabres don't need penetration. Sabres win.

They are the ultimate close combat weapon in Star Wars; that is how GL designed them and that is how it is. No ancient EU source that has had its continuity torn out already can possibly contradict that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, folks, first of all, these arguments seem to be getting rather personal. Cut it out.

Secondly... there is an incredible amount of nonsense being talked here. No, science can NOT be used to describe a Lightsabre- it is a completely non-scientific object, it may as well be magical. it melts but does not radiate heat, it's energy release seems to be contained, it acts solidly against some energy, bounces from others...

But far more to the point, the films clearly show that sabres have a solid presence. They cast shadows and you can be impaled on them. They are not just energy, and they are certainly neither light nor laser.

Anyone trying to make out that a sabre can be in any way at all explained by science is making a bit of a fool of himself.

Also, it is pretty clear here that not many people here know about swordfighting. A light weapon ALWAYS outfights a heavy one. The only reason to use a heavy one is penetration. Sabres don't need penetration. Sabres win.

They are the ultimate close combat weapon in Star Wars; that is how GL designed them and that is how it is. No ancient EU source that has had its continuity torn out already can possibly contradict that.

That's nonsense. What we're trying to say is that to someone with the physical power of the ancient sith, whether or not a weapon is heavier or not doesn't matter. And indeed, a heavier weapon can have more power put into it.

Hence your ridiculous assertion that "they are the ultimate close combat weapon in Star Wars" is wrong.

No it isn't, because that is a fundamental principle of Star Wars. Sorry, but if you don't get that, then you have serious issues with understanding.

And power for what, exactly? Like I say, all a heavier weapon does is penetrate. A Lightsabre will penetrate anyway. You don't need the power. A light weapon is quicker and far more eifficient. It will win every time in such a battle.

If you contest this, you are suffering from a severe logical failure. Sorry, but you are, and I really am quite sorry to see a poor state of logic around here, though it would be ironic, seeing how much you guys seem to want to champion it. Sad, really.

No it isn't, because that is a fundamental principle of Star Wars. Sorry, but if you don't get that, then you have serious issues with understanding.

Yep, sure.

And power for what, exactly? Like I say, all a heavier weapon does is penetrate. A Lightsabre will penetrate anyway. You don't need the power. A light weapon is quicker and far more eifficient. It will win every time in such a battle.

Power for striking? Are you seriously saying that Obi-Wan Kenobi would be able to win a sabre-lock situation with Kressh? Or Ragnos? Or Sadow? Nope, his hand and arm would get smashed up. A lightsabre has no weight, a sword does. Ergo, you can put more impetus and power into a strike with a sword.

If you contest this, you are suffering from a severe logical failure. Sorry, but you are, and I really am quite sorry to see a poor state of logic around here, though it would be ironic, seeing how much you guys seem to want to champion it. Sad, really.

Poor state of logic? Pfftt...

Hey Ushgarak. I have an idea.

Give a lightsaber-resistant claymore to the Hulk and give a lightsaber to Batman. What in God's name do you think is going to happen then? That is exactly what will happen in this fight. Obviously you have little to no understanding of physics if you think that a lightsaber, with no mass, can generate more striking power than a solid metal object with a lot of mass.

See, this is the problem, you guys waste page after page talking about science when we are talking here about weapons which bear no relation to real science at all...

... and miss the more fundamental point about how fights work.

WHY would Kenobi even enter into a sabre lock? Why would the situation have even arisen?

Try thinking things through, guys. Brainpower is a very useful thing, so try and apply it.

Let's make some points clear here:

1. History is your friend. There are very important reasons why, in history, large weapons were only ever used, and were only ever useful, when fighting armoured opponents, Why? Because only a heavy weapon would penetrate the armour.

2. As soon as armour was not being used, swords switched from heavy construction to light, fast weapons. This was because you didn't need to power a blow in any more- you just needed to stab your foe with your weapon. What counted now was a lightweight, speedy weapon that could be controlled more easily and was faster.

You put a man with a claymore up against a man with a fencing sword, and the claymore guy would get hit a dozen times before he could even manage his first blow. Now, this wouldn't matter if the claymore guy was in plate armour and the rapier couldn't hurt him.

But a sabre cheats- it is light, but it is also devastating. It doesn't need to be heavy, it wins anyway. It is both fast and deadly.

3. Your lock issue... this is another seirous brain failure. You assume that when fighting with a lighter weapon, someone who knew how to use it would fight in exactly the same way as they would when fighting an equal weapon.

Say, for no readily apparent reason, Mr Claymore does get a blow in. Sure, if Mr, Rapier tries to block it directly, he'd lose his sword and probably break his arm.

But Mr. Rapier actually knows what he is doing, so he would not do that. The number of things he CAN do are impressive. He can use the superior reach and dexterity of his weapon to ensure that the blow is never going to hit in the first place. or he can use his superior mobility to get out the way.

Or, and here is the clincher, he CAN block it, he just doesn't block it directly. When blocking a heavier weapon, you don't take it straight on, you direct the force away or downwards, with an angled blade and good momentum. It's easily done and this way a lighter blade with any decent quality at all can deflect a much heavier one without any great risk to the defender.

Then once the blow is countered, Mr. Claymore's stupid, over-extended power blow of idiocy has left him wide open for a very quick kill indeed.

This is not being made up. This is real life. So if you want to live by the sword and try and apply real life logic to this argument... the sabre wins. No contest.

And so yes- a very poor state of logic here.

Actually, Ush... the idea is that the ancient Sith are incredibly strong and use their heavier weapon to deadly effect. If you knew about ancient swordfighting, you would know that medieval knights practiced with browdswords and longswords for hours a day, since the age of 6 or perhaps starting at age 8 into adulthood. The kind of muscle control that gives a person gives them a superior advantage to say, a 16-17th century fencer. If you were to see a sword in their hands, it would be moving far faster than you could hope to do, simply because their body is so used to the action. I'm pretty sure you can understand that concept.

Lightsabers, meanwhile, have no such counterbalance. The training behind a lightsaber is all about speed. And while I will grant you that speed is a very good trait for a swordsman to have, it needs to be properly used speed and it needs to be enough to surprise or defeat an opponent. We've seen the movies and read the books, etc. Lightsaber fighting is not that much faster than what a masterswordsman could attain. Indeed, I'd argue that most modern fencers can meet or beat any movie battle for speed and precision.

So here's what you have: a larger, stronger and very seasoned opponent with a heavy, deadly and enchanted weapon that can resist lightsaber damage... versus a smaller person with a weapon used mostly for defense that, while faster, doesn't have enough weight behind it to properly do more than poke at an enemy. And I doubt very much that your average jedi is going to be a better fighter than an ancient sith warlord, regardless of your interpretation of GL's thoughts on the matter (Which is ironic, considering he has taken a hands-off approach to EU in general.)

Also, I'd like to point out that in Star Wars, the average fighting speed is so ridiculously slow (barring Anakin versus Obi-Wan) that I could contend with the average character. And there's more saberlocks in Star Wars than in say, Master and Commander or The Count of Monte Cristo, both movies in which depict more realistic and historic arts of swordplay.

And before you start going on about how lightsabers are "teh uber" I suggest you watch the ending of Rob Roy again.

I know plenty about swordfighting, thanks, which is exactly what I base my comments on.

The Fencer would win by a long shot. Sorry, but he would and they did. Like I say- there is a reason people switched to light weapons. That was, the heavy ones were crap. People using them died.

And GL and Nick Gillaird's thoughts on this matter are very clear- that the Jedi we see in the films are master swordsmen. The idea that they were all better in the olden days is void.

TOTJ has no real decent claim to continuity any more. Their idea of what the Sith is has been contradicted by GL. if you are going to predicate the entire argument with the opinion that all Ancient Sith are superior to modern Jedi, then you are simply biasing yourself out of any form of rational argument.

Not to mention that your claim that a rapier would have a reach advantage over a claymore is laughably ridiculous.

Originally posted by Wesker
Also, I'd like to point out that in Star Wars, the average fighting speed is so ridiculously slow (barring Anakin versus Obi-Wan) that I could contend with the average character. And there's more saberlocks in Star Wars than in say, Master and Commander or The Count of Monte Cristo, both movies in which depict more realistic and historic arts of swordplay.

And before you start going on about how lightsabers are "teh uber" I suggest you watch the ending of Rob Roy again.

I suggest that film is a very good one indeed for demonstrating the idiocy in thinking that you would get light-weapon killing clashes every time a block was made. You simply don't.