Originally posted by Fishy
Oh Ragnos is an idiot now? Sadow? Kressh? Have you seen what those guys created, build supported ruled? Doubtable that they even knew about lightsabers... You know the guy who'se name is in the title of this topic... Tulak Hord.. He knew how to use a lightsaber. You know why this entire debate started? Because he lived in a time when there were lightsaber wielders and Sith Sword users...Its not doubtable the Sith knew about lightsabers, its a proven and established fact and they still prefered swords.
Reread what I said. It is debatable whether the sith knew how to CONSRUCT a lightsaber. Tulak's saber could have simply been passed down frm the last dark lord.
Originally posted by Numan
Reread what I said. It is debatable whether the sith knew how to CONSRUCT a lightsaber. Tulak's saber could have simply been passed down frm the last dark lord.
Fine, just start answering questions from now on and start debating...
Ajunta Pall knew how to use a lightsaber he used to be a Jedi, Jedi knew lightsabers. He knew how to create them yet he prefered a Sith Sword.
Tulak Hord became the best lightsaber wielder in that era, and lightsaber users could make lightsaber users of later era's look like children playing with toys. Thats more then one... Also are you honestly saying that a civilization that could create star ships that could travel through all of space would be stupid enough not to be able to analyze one lightsaber (that they would have had other information about) and then re-create it. If you want to argue that Tulak did not want to give the knowledge away it still wouldn't explain why they didn't use lightsabers after his dead...
Originally posted by Fishy
Because you can put more weight in the attack, more weight equals more pressure and a harder blast. Its harder to block an attack like that. Now answer the questions instead of just saying i'm not.
So basically for the power that it can produce. It is power that is vital. In this case the weight produces the power. Now think about the beam of the lightsaber. It is completely weightless but yet provides the vital thing needed. Power. You are going nowhere with this argument about what weighs more.
Sometimes it is just a matter of preferance. He was clearly interested in Sith Alchemy and excelled at it. That does not mean it was better.
"Tulak Hord became the best lightsaber wielder in that era, and lightsaber users could make lightsaber users of later era's look like children playing with toys. Thats more then one... "
More than one what?
Originally posted by Numan
So basically for the power that it can produce. It is power that is vital. In this case the weight produces the power. Now think about the beam of the lightsaber. It is completely weightless but yet provides the vital thing needed. Power. You are going nowhere with this argument about what weighs more.
Are you honestly saying that hitting somebody thats blocking your attack with a lightsaber is going to hurt as much as when you do it with a sith sword?
Imagine Dooku old and physically weak. He could stand up at least for a small time against some of the greatest ligthsaber users ever. Now imagine that lightsaber user being an equally great fighter only with a Sith Sword. Dooku would be pulverized into the ground because he wouldn't have the strength to keep blocking the attacks.
Originally posted by Numan
I wasn't complimenting you or taking the piss out of you. My point isn't really moot. I'm sure if the material of the table was completely replaced by a lightsaber beam constructed in the same shape and the same size, the sword would shatter. It doesn't disprove my point at all. that picture just shows that lightsabers are stronger than sith swords. It is unlikely that the table was made out of a material that a lightsaber couldn't cut through.
No, it DOESN'T show that lightsabers are stronger than sith swords, since the other picture CLEARLY shows that a strong overhand chop from a lightsaber using BOTH hands didn't cleave the Sith/massassi's blade. Now, the only idea that makes any sense with Ludo is that either he A ) was wearing a ceremonial sword at the time which is weaker and not meant for battle, or B ) the table was strong as shit. And considering that Sith blades shown in KOTOR and elsewhere are also noted for being lightsaber resistant, your point falls apart.
You still nedd to think? Why does a heavy weapon make it so powerful? Answer the question and I will explain the rest to you.
WTF? Are you not with it or something? If I have a large heavy sword, like this one:
It's going to straight up **** you up. I don't know where you get the idea that a weightless lightsaber blade is better than a heavy, mean ass sith blade.
Originally posted by Fishy
Are you honestly saying that hitting somebody thats blocking your attack with a lightsaber is going to hurt as much as when you do it with a sith sword?Imagine Dooku old and physically weak. He could stand up at least for a small time against some of the greatest ligthsaber users ever. Now imagine that lightsaber user being an equally great fighter only with a Sith Sword. Dooku would be pulverized into the ground because he wouldn't have the strength to keep blocking the attacks.
That is completely wrong. I have numerously proved that sabers are more powerful, therefor they would be harder to block.
"No, it DOESN'T show that lightsabers are stronger than sith swords, since the other picture CLEARLY shows that a strong overhand chop from a lightsaber using BOTH hands didn't cleave the Sith/massassi's blade. Now, the only idea that makes any sense with Ludo is that either he A ) was wearing a ceremonial sword at the time which is weaker and not meant for battle, or B ) the table was strong as shit. And considering that Sith blades shown in KOTOR and elsewhere are also noted for being lightsaber resistant, your point falls apart. "
That is completely wrong. The picture goes to show that sith swords are lightsaber resistant but does not show that they are more powerful, and the picture of ludo smashing his sword against the table shows that they can't be as strong as sabers as sabers can cut through pretty much every material, and for the ones it can't, it doesn't mean it would crumble on impact.
"WTF? Are you not with it or something? If I have a large heavy sword, like this one:
It's going to straight up **** you up. I don't know where you get the idea that a weightless lightsaber blade is better than a heavy, mean ass sith blade. "
You keep on assuming that weight is the only source of power. Think back to why the heavy blade would xxxx me up. It is to do with how powerful it is. The lightsaber is clearly more powerful so your point on it being weightless is moot. You just can't handle being wrong.
Originally posted by Numan
That is completely wrong. I have numerously proved that sabers are more powerful, therefor they would be harder to block.
No you haven't, you only made statements no proof. I haven't seen one single piece of evidence. PROVE UP.
When you asked me if I could show you all the points you didn't expand on I gave you an entire page, all your posts on that page to expand, all those posts on that page had no meaning to the debate they were just useless statements.
What you are doing here is saying lightsabers are more powreful, and then you ask us to prove that Sith Swords can be more powerful. When we do you say we haven't proven anything yet and that your evidence is superior, when you haven't shown any.
Originally posted by Fishy
No you haven't, you only made statements no proof. I haven't seen one single piece of evidence. PROVE UP.When you asked me if I could show you all the points you didn't expand on I gave you an entire page, all your posts on that page to expand, all those posts on that page had no meaning to the debate they were just useless statements.
What you are doing here is saying lightsabers are more powreful, and then you ask us to prove that Sith Swords can be more powerful. When we do you say we haven't proven anything yet and that your evidence is superior, when you haven't shown any.
I have given more and more logical info than you or aristokrat have. You need to prove up because hardly anything you have said has made sense and been valid. You dn't prove that sith swords are more powerful. You try to and then I prove how what you say is wrong.
Originally posted by Numan
I have given more and more logical info than you or aristokrat have. You need to prove up because hardly anything you have said has made sense and been valid. You dn't prove that sith swords are more powerful. You try to and then I prove how what you say is wrong.
If you have then go through the thread again... Just go through it, read the post where I posted all the shit you still have to answer and then answer it.
After that make a list of every piece of evidence you have given... I promise you the second part of your post will be nihil.
Okay, that's enough.
Here's a real life demonstration: Get Mr. Universe Arnold Schwarzenegger and give him a freaking claymore (read: greatsword. About as tall as he is and reasonably wide)
Then, get a midget with a rapier. Have Arnold swing the claymore at the midget with the rapier and watch as the rapier breaks like a twig (at worst) or falls into the midget (at best) along with the greatsword. Midget is promptly cleaved in two, Arnold wins.
Mass matters.
Originally posted by IKC
Okay, that's enough.Here's a real life demonstration: Get Mr. Universe Arnold Schwarzenegger and give him a freaking claymore (read: greatsword. About as tall as he is and reasonably wide)
Then, get a midget with a rapier. Have Arnold swing the claymore at the midget with the rapier and watch as the rapier breaks like a twig (at worst) or falls into the midget (at best) along with the greatsword. Midget is promptly cleaved in two, Arnold wins.
Mass matters.
I've already said that a dozen times, prepare to be ignored.
Originally posted by Illustrious
No shit. I already said that if you took the same guy and put him in a marathon of just swinging a weapon, the lightsaber would win. In combat, it's not true.But unless your arguing that Ragnos would have difficulty swinging a sword, your point is moot.
And guess what? You didn't address any of my points, you just went back to going "no I'm right, you're wrong."
What a hypocrite.
It's not wrong. Rotational mechanics. The torque is greater with the mass centered further from the axis of rotation. More torque = more force, more force means it takes more force to STOP. Got it? It's not up to me to break it down into laymen's terms so you can understand.
You know about as much physics as my dog. Don't bother arguing with that point.
That use of Science simple doesn't work in this case because the lightsaber completely goes against science. There is no material on Earth that is similar to the beam of the lightsaber. You need to think deeper into the subject Illustrious. Why is the torque greater when the mass is further away from the pivot? It is all to do with power. The lightsaber may be lacking weight and the centre of mass might be in the hilt, but the power of the lightsaber is all stored up in the blade. The lightsaber is basically the perfect weapon. The centre of mass is close to the pivot, enabling faster swings and yet the power is focused in the blade. The reason that the reasoning you used works for the sith sword is because the power in the sword comes from the blade and so it is logical that if the centre of mass is further away from the pivot, the greater the torque is but in a lightsaber, the power comes from the energy beam which weighs nothing so though the centre of mass is