Exar Kun vs Dooku (Lightsaber Only! No Crazy Uber Force Powers)

I apologise if i have misread your sentence, but simply implying that Mace is superior to Dooku is logical fallacy.

How is implying Mace being superior to Dooku a logical fallacy? You do understand what a logical fallacy is right?

Originally posted by tdtd
How is implying Mace being superior to Dooku a logical fallacy? You do understand what a logical fallacy is right?

It's called "begging the question" if you have no premise on which to base the assumption and you just assume it to be true for its own sake.

ahhhh.. IKC did you take a debate class because I'm getting more out of debating on this star wars forum than I ever did in Intro to Logic last semester.

What's so bad about "begging the question". If something is heavily implied, why can it not be used in a debate? Some things are just too damn obvious and don't require direct concrete proof.

I didn't take a class. I have the Internet.

And I watched Illustrious point out about 11 logical fallacies in just one Lightsnake paragraph.

Do you go to college TDTD?

Originally posted by thetruepower
What's so bad about "begging the question". If something is heavily implied, why can it not be used in a debate? Some things are just too damn obvious and don't require direct concrete proof.

Nobody cares what's obvious to your subjective, ten-year-old mind.

Begging the Question: "A statement that presumes that the question being argued has already been proved."

How is implying that Mace is better then Dooku begging the question?

Originally posted by IKC
I didn't take a class. I have the Internet.

And I watched Illustrious point out about 11 logical fallacies in just one Lightsnake paragraph.

Wasn't Lightsnake a really good debater?

Originally posted by thetruepower
How is implying that Mace is better then Dooku begging the question?

Because you have no premise (which requires evidence and logical reasoning) on which to base such an assumption.

Wasn't Lightsnake a really good debater?

If by "really good debater" you mean "Sidious fanboy who got pwned in practically every way possible (whether in evidence, logic, etc) and was caught literally making things up," then yes.

But you just said that "Begging the Question: "A statement that presumes that the question being argued has already been proved." Implying that Mace is better then Dooku is not making a statement that presumes that the question being argued has already been proven.

Originally posted by thetruepower
But you just said that "Begging the Question: "A statement that presumes that the question being argued has already been proved." Implying that Mace is better then Dooku is not making a statement that presumes that the question being argued has already been proven.

Yes it is, because you have no premise on which to base the statement. I don't care what you call it, whether implication or statement, it is still "begging the question" and it is still a logical fallacy.

Well you didn't properly state what the definition is.

No, the definition stated was fine. You have not yet developed proper capacity for logic, which is part of the reason you need to get your ass banned again.

The definiton that you gave me was "Begging the Question: 'A statement that presumes that the question being argued has already been proved.'" Implying that someone is better then somebody else is not begging the question according to your definition.

I know you're not going to understand this, but I'll write it anyway.

The question: Who is better, Mace or Dooku?

The statement (implication is a statement, I don't care how you want to disguise it): Mace is better than Dooku.

The fallacy: There is no premise on which to base this assumption, you're simply assuming it to be true based on your subjective opinion.

Firstly it is still not "Begging the Question: A statement that presumes that the question being argued has already been proved."
And secondly you have completely misread the context. I did not imply that he was better but stated that the comics heavily imply the said statement.

I wasn't posting that for you, as evidenced by the first line in my post. Come back in something like seven or more years when you've developed the capacity for logic.

Until then, get banned again.

It was directed against TDTD who had just replied to Woot and they were both talking about what I had said. So whether you were posting to me or not, you still completely misread the context that it was used in.