Originally posted by IKC
They might be able to do that but what's to say that the combined might of the Sith can't break through the Wall of Light? I'm going to say that the Sith win because their powers are far more offense-oriented in nature.
Now THAT would be interesting.
The Jedi perform that Wall of Light trick while the Sith, led by Bane, perform the Wall of Destructive Lightning trick.
BOOM! Muahahahahahahahahahaha...
Just a quick question, if Rangos is the most powerful, why would they be led by Bane?
And thats EXACTLY how they would see it...I'm the best, I'm the leader...and they would self destruct. The Jedi are cohesive and work well together. But what about Luke's emerald lightning or whatever its called? Couldn't that take out a few hundred sith at a time? Or does it not work like that?
Originally posted by Xepeyon
No idea. there's been a lot of arguments about Luke's lightning working on other force users. hard to tell facts from fiction
There have been a lot of arguments. On one hand we can say that it was never shown to be used on a force user, which doesn't necessarily mean it can't. On the other hand, there had to be an enormous amount of energy for it to work on a being outside the force, so why wouldn't it be able to work on a force user, effectively or not?
Originally posted by ThoraxeRMG
Yes, 2 Revans and 2 Anakins.
And There will be a hard battle even if the ancient sith were in it.
Think about it.
Mass chaos.
Sneak attacks every where.
And Marka would just get beaten by Jaden all over again.
Really? Marka in his own body possessing his scepter and his prime abilites would wipe the floor with the strongest of the Jedi, adding Sadow and Kressh will be enough to smash the best of the Jedi.
Revan isn't so much a factor, Kun will easily curbstomp him. Face it in brute power and strength the Sith are superior.
Really how are the Jedi going to win? They're lose their the best of their Order in less than 5 seconds, remember how Kun curbstomped the best of jedi of his time? If the Jedi actually have the time to conjure up their wall of light, why can't Sadow confuse them all with illusions that would literally wipe out most of the padawans and knights.
And where are they going to find a black hole? There aren't any near Dantooine, also, if they tried to make a star go nova and become a black hole its likely Sadow will blow it up first.
Dont forget the Sith get their entire race including their beasts.
Which dark siders would that be? Why don't you just stop arguing and admit that you hate Luke, know nothing about his abilities, nor care. If you notice Luke can destroy everyone with a black hole MAYBE. You have no evidence of Ragnos force powers so that's a ridiculous statement. Nihilus can't eat everybody without getting killed.. At least we know Sadow can blow up a star....
Ah and it says that Kun created it where? And the amulet is shown to do what exactly? Thanks for proving your infallible arguments as usual IKC!
Logical fallacies:
Argumentum ad hominem - "To the man." Use of personal attacks and insults to discredit or weaken an opponent's argument.
Burden of Proof (Appeal to Ignorance) - Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
It is logical to assume that he created it because the one he got for his left hand (which he did not create) was kept and worn by the Massassi priest Zythmnr before Kun recovered it. If there was another amulet the Massassi would have kept it in similar conditions as the first, but they are not shown to have done so. Therefore, it is likely that Kun himself made it either from schematics he may have found or by simply copying the first one.
It is logical to assume it has identical properties to the first one until we have a logical premise to assume that it has different properties. We don't.
Originally posted by Faunus
Stow it already with the ''zOMg! ur a fanboy1'' IKC, unlike any of you, as actually provided proof for his stance. And so far, I haven't seen anyone successfully beat them down. So until you can do so, stfu.
Your logical fallacies, tdtd include:
Ad hominem
Begging the Question - Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true." (Important!)
Among others, of course.