Originally posted by hord06
Janus I more or less agree with you and Illustrious, but why do you think that the second blade didn't make any difference?
Well, looking at the two pages of Sith Wars #3 that I posted, it's pretty evident that the second blade didn't have any effect in the battle that was noted or evident. Hence, it didn't do anything, or if it didn, not much.
Hmmm I forgot about that Janus, whether he was using the 2nd blade or not, he was using his new form which was foreign to Vodo.. Maybe he got better or maybe Vodo had no defense for his form, neither one is conclusive though..
And GV, don't be mad because you were embarassed on multiple threads yesterday, and left crying. And it isn't Logic, it's logic pertaining to Star Wars, and i'm afraid I lack a lot of it based on my lack of extensive knowledge that IKC, Janus, and Illustrious have on this particular subject.
Originally posted by tdtd
Hmmm I forgot about that Janus, whether he was using the 2nd blade or not, he was using his new form which was foreign to Vodo.. Maybe he got better or maybe Vodo had no defense for his form, neither one is conclusive though..
Yes, cuz I'm sure Vodo using a staff and training countless jedi would be totally duped if Exar Kun's lightsaber suddenly became... a staff weapon.
And GV, don't be mad because you were embarassed on multiple threads yesterday, and left crying. And it isn't Logic, it's logic pertaining to Star Wars, and i'm afraid I lack a lot of it based on my lack of extensive knowledge that IKC, Janus, and Illustrious have on this particular subject.
What a cop out, tdtd. Logic is UNIVERSAL. It's a universal tool of examining arguments. Just because you fail at logic AND you have incomplete or lacking knowledge of the subject doesn't mean you get to whine and play like "Oh, I know logic... just not Star Wars logic." lol... Seriously... "Logic pertaining to Star Wars"... You can't be for real.
You're right Janus, because I lack the extensive knowledge of star wars, and as a result, have less logic involved in it than you, means I lack knowledge in every aspect.. Right..
And GV, if you want you can restart it but I put you on your ass and Deception and Purplesaber pretty much said what I said, but if you'd like, go for it.
Originally posted by tdtd
You're right Janus, because I lack the extensive knowledge of star wars, and as a result, have less logic involved in it than you, means I lack knowledge in every aspect.. Right..
Apparently you didn't understand his point, which was that logic is universal. There is no such thing as "Star Wars logic" or "baking logic" or "taking a shit logic." Logic applies to all.
Originally posted by tdtd
You're right Janus, because I lack the extensive knowledge of star wars, and as a result, have less logic involved in it than you, means I lack knowledge in every aspect.. Right..
Wow, you can't comprehend my simple points, can you? You DON'T use logic properly. It's not just that you lack knowledge; it's that your logical form is fubar. If you can't realize that by now, you're helpless.
Am taking 1 now, taking the LSATS in 3 months, taking an LSAT course in a month.. What evidence? I'll be the first to admit that I skim through the posts/novels on this forum and that I'm here because this is a different aspect of debating, and I love Star Wars, not because I necessarily know nearly as much as most of you, but what I do know I can debate with ease.
Right. You skim through the material and then you argue from ignorance? Does that term even ring a bell? Perhaps you should try debating once you've gotten a handle on it. Simply arguing and having an uninformed opinion doesn't constitute a "debate". Especially when, as you do, you argue strictly from opinion, don't provide logical arguments and proof, and you won't budge at all. If I walked into a Catholic church and started telling a priest that the Bible is crap and that the flood was really a metaphor and devolved into personal insults and variants of the same unsupported assertions, that would NOT be a debate. Same thing here.
Let me present the argument so you can hopefully understand it:
Claim- Exar Kun cannot defeat Vodo without two lightsabers as of The Sith Wars #3.
Proof- Exar Kun broke Vodo's staff with two lightsabers beforehand as a padawan. Later, he broke Vodo's staff and killed him and he had two blades on his lightsaber.
Problem- First example was in the past; Kun has grown since then. Second example is shown explicitly that the act of activating the second blade was purely cosmetic and didn't factor into the striking and hitting, nor did it contribute to weight to help Kun break the staff with the same strikes he used one-bladed.
Conclusion- your assertion sucks. Stop arguing out of your ass and pay attention in your logics class, because you're getting it wrong.
No, surprisingly I understand what you and Illustrious are saying all the time, I'm just stubborn remember? And btw I didn't actually know that he didn't use the second blade because I haven't read the comic yet, because that would be reading out of order. From googling stuff I just assumed once he got his new form/saber, he was able to kill Vodo, which is partially true of the form.
Originally posted by tdtd
No, surprisingly I understand what you and Illustrious are saying all the time, I'm just stubborn remember?
So is a mule.
And btw I didn't actually know that he didn't use the second blade because I haven't read the comic yet, because that would be reading out of order. From googling stuff I just assumed once he got his new form/saber, he was able to kill Vodo, which is partially true of the form.
I posted the two pages where he uses the double blade HERE. There's no excuse. Also, if you intend to make a claim on a certain event, research the event. I don't make wild claims about genetics without researching things, because that would be assinine.
You need to admit that you tried to argue without all the facts and using poor logical form and move on. Maybe this will be the wake-up call you need to pay attention in the course and strive to be a better debator, because otherwise you just come off as an uneducated, uninformed troll.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
You need to admit that you tried to argue without all the facts and using poor logical form and move on. Maybe this will be the wake-up call you need to pay attention in the course and strive to be a better debator, because otherwise you just come off as an uneducated, uninformed troll.
That's about right.. Imagine me as as a courtroom lawyer now🙂 Of course I argue with less facts than are acceptable to form a logical argument... Oh well, that's what the summer's for.