Marka Ragnos, DN Luke and Exar Kun Run the Guantlet

Yet, you have ignored the facts, that Kun is not comparable to DN Luke for 2 reasons:

1) Sources are highly in Luke's favour
2) Kun is a villian, Luke is a hero, obviously, you cannot have a villain winning it all, that goes against the general cliche in book/comic writing, and you're right Luke has defeated villians in HIS time, and merely proving feats that someone double his age, and double his experience, and double the time he had to learn various skills, really puts him above Kun, like i said Kun is relatively only comparable to DE Luke, in which case Kun pwns him

Kun at full potential would defeat any incarnation of Luke ( Speculation ) however its a logical one.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Okay, and Nomi was able to completely strip a powerful Jedi/Sith from the force. I think that beats instant-killing a non-force user.

Your point?

Do you honestly think Nomi would beat Exar in a fight?

How does half those feats you listed help Luke at all?

Does controlling a black hole help him? No. He sure won't be controlling a black hole while fighting off Exar Kun.

Does "controlling a planet" help him (the closest I came up with this feat is cloaking a planet, not controlling it and the sentient life aboard)? No. It's a versus match anyway.

Does being able to shoot emerald lightning help him? Unspecified, because Kun is a force user with access to more offensive force powers. Will he be able to instantkill Kun? I highly doubt that, as he isn't exactly shown using that against a force user, or using it in another context when it would have saved his ass.

Does "swinging his lightsaber like it's 20 blades" help him? Establish and quantify how effective that was. Again, you have Jaina's hyperbolic words with no context.

In short, you've proven nothing except list feats. Refer to IKC's "Feat Wars" sig if you need any more proof on how ridiculous that is.

This about nails it.

Originally posted by w00t2112
Yet, you have ignored the facts, that Kun is not comparable to DN Luke for 2 reasons:

1) Sources are highly in Luke's favour
2) Kun is a villian, Luke is a hero, obviously, you cannot have a villain winning it all, that goes against the general cliche in book/comic writing, and you're right Luke has defeated villians in HIS time, and merely proving feats that someone double his age, and double his experience, and double the time he had to learn various skills, really puts him above Kun, like i said Kun is relatively only comparable to DE Luke, in which case Kun pwns him

Kun at full potential would defeat any incarnation of Luke ( Speculation ) however its a logical one.

Yep, an illogical speculation is all it is. Also by Logic #1, we can't compare Nadd to Kun because sources are in Kun's favor? We can't compare Sadow to Tulak Hord because there are more sources describing Sadow's power? You've called me a fanboy but your logic you're obviously showing favoritism over Kun. Nobody knows Kun's potential so with that DN Luke>Kun

Originally posted by tdtd
Yep, an illogical speculation is all it is. Also by Logic #1, we can't compare Nadd to Kun because sources are in Kun's favor? We can't compare Sadow to Tulak Hord because there are more sources describing Sadow's power? You've called me a fanboy but your logic you're obviously showing favoritism over Kun. Nobody knows Kun's potential so with that DN Luke>Kun

Also yes illustrious thank you for pointing out my feats and that they dont prove anything. So now point out how Kun would take down Luke. You seem to be the only logical source on here, without showing bias anywhere.

Originally posted by tdtd
Yep, an illogical speculation is all it is. Also by Logic #1, we can't compare Nadd to Kun because sources are in Kun's favor? We can't compare Sadow to Tulak Hord because there are more sources describing Sadow's power? You've called me a fanboy but your logic you're obviously showing favoritism over Kun. Nobody knows Kun's potential so with that DN Luke>Kun

Indeed we cant compare Nadd to Kun, nor Sadow to Tulak, whenever you see a thread about Nadd vs Kun, there is not real winner, unless of course IKC comes up with something, Like i said, DE and JA Luke is the best comparison for Kun, in both cases it shows Kun to be superior to Luke, how am i showing favouritism? I'm merely stating the unfairness of the comparison, you can list up to 100 feats for Luke and KUn can have at most 10, obviously the sheer amount of what someone does it would certainly look more impressive. Hell Obi Wan's feats were more impressive than Tulak's does that mean Obi > Tulak? No.

EDIT : How is it a illogical speculation?

I don't remember anymore. I'm enjoying DE right now, this is quite interesting.

Originally posted by w00t2112
Indeed we cant compare Nadd to Kun, nor Sadow to Tulak, whenever you see a thread about Nadd vs Kun, there is not real winner, unless of course IKC comes up with something, Like i said, DE and JA Luke is the best comparison for Kun, in both cases it shows Kun to be superior to Luke, how am i showing favouritism? I'm merely stating the unfairness of the comparison, you can list up to 100 feats for Luke and KUn can have at most 10, obviously the sheer amount of what someone does it would certainly look more impressive. Hell Obi Wan's feats were more impressive than Tulak's does that mean Obi > Tulak? No.

EDIT : How is it a illogical speculation?

Yes, "unless of course I come up with something." Sure.

Originally posted by IKC
Kun is above Nadd. Check out TOTJ: Knights of the Old Republic. He never fought an army of Jedi as the ridiculous KOTOR game suggests, and Onderon is described as a remote backwater that was just discovering space travel four hundred years after Nadd's death. This places his feat of conquering Onderon, while still impressive, into new context: Nadd could merely have strafed the place in his ship to conquer it, for example.

Combine this with the fact that Kun was able to perform feats as a spirit that were similar to Nadd's own, and that Kun's were performed 4000 years after his own death, and it's probably safe to say that he's above Nadd.

There's "something."

Illustrious pretty much summed up the debate, really:

Okay, and Nomi was able to completely strip a powerful Jedi/Sith from the force. I think that beats instant-killing a non-force user.

Your point?

Do you honestly think Nomi would beat Exar in a fight?

How does half those feats you listed help Luke at all?

Does controlling a black hole help him? No. He sure won't be controlling a black hole while fighting off Exar Kun.

Does "controlling a planet" help him (the closest I came up with this feat is cloaking a planet, not controlling it and the sentient life aboard)? No. It's a versus match anyway.

Does being able to shoot emerald lightning help him? Unspecified, because Kun is a force user with access to more offensive force powers. Will he be able to instantkill Kun? I highly doubt that, as he isn't exactly shown using that against a force user, or using it in another context when it would have saved his ass.

Does "swinging his lightsaber like it's 20 blades" help him? Establish and quantify how effective that was. Again, you have Jaina's hyperbolic words with no context.

In short, you've proven nothing except list feats. Refer to IKC's "Feat Wars" sig if you need any more proof on how ridiculous that is.

IKC just because 1 person agrees with you out of many doesn't mean he summed up the fight. And hell he even said there's no way to tell that either would beat the other. But in terms of sheer force power Luke is superior to Kun. Sure you can cry and make excuses that Kun died young but that's his problem. I can't wait til the crap you'll make up for LOTF.

I'd love to see you make a comprehensive and worthwhile argument in favor of your bias, tdtd.

Bias? Lol. There is no "comprehensive and worthwhile" argument I can make. Hell none of you can make it for any characters in star wars because it's purely speculative. If you're going to tell me i've shown bias towards Luke, then i'm going to turn around and tell you you have OBVIOUSLY and conclusively shown bias towards Kun. We don't know his saber capabilities compared to Luke's. There are some vs. threads that shouldn't be made because they are purely speculation and all the fanboys will come out crying. Since we CANT make any definitive argument towards either character, we should look at their force abilities. Yes Kun died young blah blah whatever other biased excuse you can make but the fact remains that DN Luke has shown far greater force powers than Kun. Now i'm not saying they will help him in a fight, but DN Luke seems a lot more powerful than Kun. I would put Kun on par with NJO Luke(Sorry IKC).

So basically what you've told me is that there's no way we can come up with logical assumptions, therefore your opinion is thus and it is so, eh?

Correct, as is yours, IKC's and everybody on this forum that doesn't realize that these are all just imaginary situations.

Originally posted by tdtd
Correct, as is yours, IKC's and everybody on this forum that doesn't realize that these are all just imaginary situations.

Yup, because it's a fictional comparison, we can't assume anything. We can never make a case that Ragnos would be Jar Jar Binks, because they're fictional characters.

We can't make a case for the panzer division beating the Phalanx, because that battle never happened, and it's an imaginary situation. Right?

I can't tell whether that's sarcasm or not. If it is you need to work on it. My point is in a lot of these fictional SW characters you cannot tell. Obviously something as stupid as Ragnos and Jar Jar Binks is self explanatory. But when you have two people who are possibly of equal power that lived in different times, it's hard to say who would win in a battle, despite the fanboyism.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Yup, because it's a fictional comparison, we can't assume anything. We can never make a case that Ragnos would be Jar Jar Binks, because they're fictional characters.

We can't make a case for the panzer division beating the Phalanx, because that battle never happened, and it's an imaginary situation. Right?

Originally posted by PurpleSaber
When you are deebating who would win between 2 characters, you cannot include luck or chance. If someone made a thread about who would win between a batallion of Storm Troopers with AT-ST's, or 50 Ewoks, I would undoubtedly say that the Ewoks would get crushed. Howevere in ROTJ, it was the opposite way because of LUCK. Once you rule out luck or chance, you can have a pretty reasonable assumption for who would in in any fight based on their skills alone. Jar Jar sucks at fighting, Marka Ragnos is at the completely opposite end of the spectrum, thus Marka Ragnos would win.

Thanks for proving my point. Both of you.

You can clearly apply basic logic and deduction to a versus fight, even with fictional characters.

I love how tdtd can shoot himself in the foot and not even feel it.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Thanks for proving my point. Both of you.

You can clearly apply basic logic and deduction to a versus fight, even with fictional characters.

I love how tdtd can shoot himself in the foot and not even feel it.

Except what I meant to say is you can't in most cases, as you have clearly proven in Kun vs. Luke. I love how lying to yourself diminishes your logic every second you type.

Originally posted by tdtd
Except what I meant to say is you can't in most cases, as you have clearly proven in Kun vs. Luke. I love how lying to yourself diminishes your logic every second you type.

So there's automatically a pile of instances where you "can't" and then some where you "can," right?

Because everything is perfectly black and white in your world. You trying to insult me isn't doing you much good. I can just as easily make a case for Luke as I can Kun, but it wouldn't matter, because if I make a case for Kun, regardless of how eloquent or well formed, I'm only "verbally fellating" Kun and "in denial."

✅, Nobel prize, here you come!

Originally posted by Illustrious
So there's automatically a pile of instances where you "can't" and then some where you "can," right?

Because everything is perfectly black and white in your world. You trying to insult me isn't doing you much good. I can just as easily make a case for Luke as I can Kun, but it wouldn't matter, because if I make a case for Kun, regardless of how eloquent or well formed, I'm only "verbally fellating" Kun and "in denial."

✅, Nobel prize, here you come!

Yes, my world consists of black and white, which is why I've added to my previous statement, in which you can and you can't.. Way to read champ. I call what you're doing, verbally fellating Kun with the same logic of you calling me a Luke fanboy, or hinting at it.

Originally posted by tdtd
Yes, my world consists of black and white, which is why I've added to my previous statement, in which you can and you can't.. Way to read champ. I call what you're doing, verbally fellating Kun with the same logic of you calling me a Luke fanboy, or hinting at it.

No, you fail to understand that applicability is a continuum. The only case you can say is that Jar Jar vs. Ragnos is more apparent than Luke vs. Kun. Black and white would be saying Luke vs. Kun is "you can't apply logic" while Jar Jar vs. Ragnos is "you can."

Oh wait, you did say that. Basic syllogism is that you look at things in black and white.

You can still apply logic to Luke vs. Kun. Got it? I could extrapolate things 50 times over and apply logic for Ajunta vs. Tulak, but it doesn't guarantee accuracy.

Good job, parrotting the same insults over and over when you're clueless though.