DE Sidious vs Ulic Qel Droma and Yoda

LOL! And that has to do with battle meditation? Oh wait, you stopped posting about that right? Glad to see you posting something other than what I just mention. First I get told not to use "proof of absence" as an excuse, then you go right ahead and do the same thing in that debate.. Consistency is your friend IKC.. But since that's another debate, I'd like you to answer my question that I asked Janus, with a real response, not your typical "I'm going to ignore the question and repeat everything I say".

Before you add a smart ass rebuttal with your 'strawman' crap, let me explain to you why I can bring into question your lack of consistency. This might be beyond your mind that's only able to apply logic as far as a star wars debate goes, but here goes. Have you ever seen the Rainmaker? If not let me explain to you my point. Let's say youre a defense lawyer and you present evidence to the court. The prosecutor objects that the evidence was stolen and therefore inadmissable, and the judge has to agree. What do you do? You find a case, any case, in which the court considered stolen evidence as admissable, and the judge has no choice but to overrule the prosecutor's objection? Understand? You can't use 1 belief for 1 situation, and a totally different belief for another situation in which your favorite character isn't being questioned in regards to his power.

Originally posted by tdtd
LOL! And that has to do with battle meditation? Oh wait, you stopped posting about that right? Glad to see you posting something other than what I just mention. First I get told not to use "proof of absence" as an excuse, then you go right ahead and do the same thing in that debate.. Consistency is your friend IKC.. But since that's another debate, I'd like you to answer my question that I asked Janus, with a real response, not your typical "I'm going to ignore the question and repeat everything I say".

No, you were trying to make a conclusion based solely on absence of proof. IKC was attempting to, however convoluted, establish a syllogism that did not require concrete evidence.

Different circumstances, I don't see any inconsistency there.

I wasn't trying to establish a conclusion solely based on the absence of proof when Janus asked me to prove a negative. But for argument's sake, how would you prove that Kun could beat Vodo with 1 saber, since all the evidence(absence of proof)points to the fact that he can't?

tdtd, where does it say or show that the second edge of the blade definately gave Kun the edge over Vodo? Especially since he uses the exact same hammer blow as he does on the previous page:

See that top upper left panel? Same situation: Vodo holding his staff horizontally, blocking a hammer blow from Kun. Difference? After the Vodo declared he would not join Kun, suddenly that same hammer blow (Which does NOT take advantage of a double blade) cuts RIGHT through Vodo's staff. Absolutely nowhere does it say "Kun's second blade gives him power over momentum!". So yeah, QED.

You're right, it doesn't say that, so that's how YOU interpret it. Again, he was never able to do anything to Vodo until he lit up that second blade correct? And he was never able to best Vodo as a Padawan with 1 saber was he? My argument that the absence of proof suggests that Kun MOST LIKELY was never able to best Vodo with 1 saber. Your proof is a way to convince yourself AND me, that the double blade had nothing to do with it.

So in conclusion, when it all comes down to it, Kun never could beat him with 1 blade, but only won when he either had dual sabers or a double blade.

Kun most likely would have eventually beat him with his one blade, but I do agree that the saber staff made it easier for him.

Originally posted by tdtd
You're right, it doesn't say that, so that's how YOU interpret it. Again, he was never able to do anything to Vodo until he lit up that second blade correct? And he was never able to best Vodo as a Padawan with 1 saber was he? My argument that the absence of proof suggests that Kun MOST LIKELY was never able to best Vodo with 1 saber. Your proof is a way to convince yourself AND me, that the double blade had nothing to do with it.

So in conclusion, when it all comes down to it, Kun never could beat him with 1 blade, but only won when he either had dual sabers or a double blade.

He said to make it more interesting. He still only attacked Vodo with one blade. He still only overpowered Vodo with one blade. Earlier, he used two lightsabers to do it, this time, he did it with one.

Tell me how you can possibly interpret that he needed the other end of the saber?

Thank you... Now why do you agree?

Originally posted by Illustrious
He said to make it more interesting. He still only attacked Vodo with one blade. He still only overpowered Vodo with one blade. Earlier, he used two lightsabers to do it, this time, he did it with one.

Tell me how you can possibly interpret that he needed the other end of the saber?

The fact that he could never down him while he was fighting with a single blade Illustrious. I repeat, he was never able to win with 1 blade. Now if YOU want to all of a sudden argue semantics, such as "he was using one blade" blah blah blah, that's fine, but the fact remains that Kun has needed multiple blades to defeat Vodo both times...

Originally posted by tdtd
Thank you... Now why do you agree?

I don't agree with the fact that he needed his saber staff, but I agree that the saber staff gave Kun a slight edge.

Originally posted by tdtd
You're right, it doesn't say that, so that's how YOU interpret it. Again, he was never able to do anything to Vodo until he lit up that second blade correct? And he was never able to best Vodo as a Padawan with 1 saber was he? My argument that the absence of proof suggests that Kun MOST LIKELY was never able to best Vodo with 1 saber. Your proof is a way to convince yourself AND me, that the double blade had nothing to do with it.

So in conclusion, when it all comes down to it, Kun never could beat him with 1 blade, but only won when he either had dual sabers or a double blade.

No, don't try to be an empirical relativist on me now, tdtd. You are claiming that because Kun didn't simply kill Vodo with one blade that he couldn't possibly ever, period, fact. Well, the problem with that is it's ridiculous. That would be like me saying that because Yoda didn't kill Dooku in AOTC with a saber duel that lasted maybe a minute, Yoda can never ever ever kill Dooku with his lightsaber. Do you see the silliness in that stance?

Now, how the **** are you reaching that conclusion? I already SHOWED you that the second blade NEVER came into play! Hell, he doesn't even USE it! It has all the physical presence of when Bruce Lee does that crazy hand movement in Enter the Dragon- none. And he's holding the lightsaber in the middle. Unless you want to argue that a weightless second blade on the end makes the same hammer swing exponentially stronger, you have no case. You're arguing out of your ass. LOOK at the scans, tdtd. It's there. Your point is DONE. Now, practice what you preach and stfu.

Seriously... you have to be the most stubborn person in this forum, arguing in the face of evidence.

Originally posted by tdtd
The fact that he could never down him while he was fighting with a single blade Illustrious. I repeat, he was never able to win with 1 blade. Now if YOU want to all of a sudden argue semantics, such as "he was using one blade" blah blah blah, that's fine, but the fact remains that Kun has needed multiple blades to defeat Vodo both times...

Yes, a second blade that he never once uses.

Does Yoda need to give Sidious a menacing glare when he turns the lightning back at Sidious? Does Sidious need to widen his eyes and open his mouth each time he blasts lightning? I think you would agree that those points are ridiculous.

So why would it be that Kun "needed" the second blade even though he never used it once on-panel?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
No, don't try to be an empirical relativist on me now, tdtd. You are claiming that because Kun didn't simply kill Vodo with one blade that he couldn't possibly ever, period, fact. Well, the problem with that is it's ridiculous. That would be like me saying that because Yoda didn't kill Dooku in AOTC with a saber duel that lasted maybe a minute, Yoda can never ever ever kill Dooku with his lightsaber. Do you see the silliness in that stance?

Now, how the **** are you reaching that conclusion? I already SHOWED you that the second blade NEVER came into play! Hell, he doesn't even USE it! It has all the physical presence of when Bruce Lee does that crazy hand movement in Enter the Dragon- none. And he's holding the lightsaber in the middle. Unless you want to argue that a weightless second blade on the end makes the same hammer swing exponentially stronger, you have no case. You're arguing out of your ass. LOOK at the scans, tdtd. It's there. Your point is DONE. Now, practice what you preach and stfu.

Seriously... you have to be the most stubborn person in this forum, arguing in the face of evidence.

When did I say that he couldn't ever defeat Vodo? I said Kun couldn't ever defeat Vodo using a single blade Janus, and I said it over and over again. Read that part before you put words into my mouth. And since we're on topic, explain to me why Kun would need a second blade at all if he can kill Vodo with 1?

tdtd, you're saying that Kun can't beat Vodo with just one blade based on... the fact that he killed him with one blade with another sticking out at the same time? Talk about ignorance.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
tdtd, you're saying that Kun can't beat Vodo with just one blade based on... the fact that he killed him with one blade with another sticking out at the same time? Talk about ignorance.

Answer my question, if he could easily kill Vodo with 1 blade, why does he need 2? And yes that's what I was saying while you were conveniently trying to put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by tdtd
Answer my question, if he could easily kill Vodo with 1 blade, why does he need 2? And yes that's what I was saying while you were conveniently trying to put words in my mouth.

Where does it say he needed two? He didn't USE the second blade to beat Vodo. It was the same situation as with one blade, only this time, he is sure that Vodo will not join him.

I fail to see how having another blade sticking out the end of the lightsaber means, conclusively, that he needed it.

Like I asked, does Sidious need to widen his eyes and open his mouth each time he uses lightning?

That doesn't answer my question. If Sidious could easily own anybody with the force, why would he need a lightsaber? If Kun could easily own anybody with 1 blade, why would he need 2?

...

It's pretty clear and evident he doesn't NEED two blades since he doesn't even APPLY it. I could go ahead and speculate but then I would be committing the "TOTJ according to Janus" ideal. Maybe he wanted to impress Vodo with his ingenuity. Maybe he liked the psychological effect behind popping a second blade out of nowhere.

Or maybe he did it because he's certifiablly insane. Really, it doesn't matter. He didn't need it, and he didn't use it. QED.

Originally posted by tdtd
That doesn't answer my question. If Sidious could easily own anybody with the force, why would he need a lightsaber? If Kun could easily own anybody with 1 blade, why would he need 2?

The fact of the matter is that he didn't use it.

Why do we drive $60000 cars when one that's half as expensive can accomplish the same thing?

Simply because he did show a second blade does not mean he needed it to win. Again, does Sidious need to widen his eyes and open his mouth to cast force lightning? He does it practically every time.