DN Luke vs DE Sidious, Darth Malak and DN Kyp Durron

Originally posted by Lightsnake
And while I'm on Kun, did he have a Sith master physically tutoring him? The only guy who might have Kun obliterated before he started studying Sadow's texts

The difference between Kun and Luke is that Kun actually had, assumingly, several years of formal training, even if it was as a Jedi. We see him go a couple bouts, and take instruction from Vodo. And, he also had Nadd to help him understand the gaunlets in the first place.

Not that it matters how you get taught, as long as you learn and become powerful, which Luke did anyways.

Good post Nai, some people just don't bother opening the comics before downplaying a character.

Also I did have a thought. We see Kun's blasts twice I believe. One that increase 100,000 which destroyed a wall, and one that just pushed over Aleema. I wonder if Kun has to be exponentially angry for his amulet to have any effect on a powerful force user.

Originally posted by tdtd
Also I did have a thought. We see Kun's blasts twice I believe. One that increase 100,000 which destroyed a wall, and one that just pushed over Aleema.

The blasts look completely different, and most likely are different. One has a red glow IIRC, one has a blue glow.

I wonder if Kun has to be exponentially angry for his amulet to have any effect on a powerful force user.

Why would he need to be? The amulet is powered by "the dark rage that fills Kun's heart", and Kun, like any Sith, always has a dark rage inside of them.

Yea but we see his rage has to be quantified beyond belief to make the effects it did. And his blast on Aleema could be considered the same attack on a lesser scale. I don't know whether it's the author's mistake of changing colors, or a different attack. I find it hard to imagine the amulet has different kinds of attacks, unless he was using the other hand, which I don't think he was since he didn't find/develop a second amulet til DLOTS

tdtd, you critise IKC for downplaying Luke, however i don't think you deserve that right.

Because IKC favours Kun, you do whatever it takes to downplay him. Oh until Nai showed up and gave some excellent points, you didn't make much sense at all.

IF you read my posts, you'd see they aren't as descriptive as Nai's, but they say the same thing. I even said Nai is better at this than me but I get my point across regardless. And no, I don't try to downplay Kun, because if you notice in most threads my logic favors Kun, while IKC does whatever it takes to downplay Luke. If you think I'm "speculating", search various threads.

tdtd, i dont have the time to search a million threads where you are generally pwned.

Last time i saw you arguing, you were saying the At At blasts = Amulet Blasts

On most other occasions, when its just you arguing, IKC and Sama make far more convincing arguments. Nai however being a notable debator obviously is able to give the debate a shake.

I've got to agree with you on your second point. Going into a debate with IKC regarding Kun is a losing battle.

Originally posted by Deception
tdtd, i dont have the time to search a million threads where you are generally pwned.

Last time i saw you arguing, you were saying the At At blasts = Amulet Blasts

On most other occasions, when its just you arguing, IKC and Sama make far more convincing arguments. Nai however being a notable debator obviously is able to give the debate a shake.

Yea generally pwned.. Way to make an unfounded assumption, you're a master debater! Next, nowhere did I ever say AT-AT Blasts= AMulet blasts, nice making up shit. Next, I believe I obviously won this past debate with you know who, and if you read the whole thread you'd see that. If I want to argue with IKC I will, but I don't need you riding his nuts. And yes, Sama gave a good argument, and Nai provided an even better one for Luke because that's what he does. But telling me I haven't, ESPECIALLY in this thread, when I argue with people that dislike Luke, haven't read the comics, and ride other people's arguments, is just proposterous.. Thanks for your time.

How about no? Now im not the one saying im any good at arguing, because i'll admit im not.

Yet you cling onto your beliefs like a 5 year old child. Honestly in this thread IKC has generally made a much better and more thoroughly logic argument then you.

The only thing is, he might be wrong about Luke's potential thus wrong about the fact that Sidious > Luke.

You seriously need to understand the word potential, IKC was correct with the fact if it required the combined potential of Anakin, Luke and Leia then its quite obvious no matter how much Luke realises his potential it will not be sufficient to take down Sidious.

The only question is, did it actually require the force potential of all 3?

Oh you were the one who said Luke is going to block Kun's Amulet blasts based on the fact he can block At At blasts, by saying that your effectively saying the Amulet Blasts and At At blasts are the same thing, unless you are completely ignorant to what you imply.

Lets see. In every argument that has gone between you and IKC, its always someone else that bails you out, you are never to able to actually out debate IKC with logic.

tdtd, honestly i don't care what you think, im only trying to make you see sense, you have not won this debate, this debate was generally in IKC and Sama's favour until Nai came in and actually gave us logical points.

Finally, i do not dislike Luke, nor do i downplay his abilites, in all honesty i rarely argue because im not as competent as those who make arguments for the characters i generally support.

Originally posted by Deception
How about no? Now im not the one saying im any good at arguing, because i'll admit im not.

Yet you cling onto your beliefs like a 5 year old child. Honestly in this thread IKC has generally made a much better and more thoroughly logic argument then you.

The only thing is, he might be wrong about Luke's potential thus wrong about the fact that Sidious > Luke.

You seriously need to understand the word potential, IKC was correct with the fact if it required the combined potential of Anakin, Luke and Leia then its quite obvious no matter how much Luke realises his potential it will not be sufficient to take down Sidious.

The only question is, did it actually require the force potential of all 3?

Oh you were the one who said Luke is going to block Kun's Amulet blasts based on the fact he can block At At blasts, by saying that your effectively saying the Amulet Blasts and At At blasts are the same thing, unless you are completely ignorant to what you imply.

Lets see. In every argument that has gone between you and IKC, its always someone else that bails you out, you are never to able to actually out debate IKC with logic.

tdtd, honestly i don't care what you think, im only trying to make you see sense, you have not won this debate, this debate was generally in IKC and Sama's favour until Nai came in and actually gave us logical points.

Finally, i do not dislike Luke, nor do i downplay his abilites, in all honesty i rarely argue because im not as competent as those who make arguments for the characters i generally support.

Ok so in other words you didn't read this thread at all, and you would rather make shit up than say "tdtd has actually won a debate". Makes perfect sense how it's everybody ELSE BUT me who has provided good points. Now i'm not saying Sama and Nai haven't, because they give better descriptions than myself and more power to them, but my debate has been short and concise, and correct. I'm not looking for kudos because the people on this forum would rather lie to themselves than admit the truth, but your inability to read the entire thread is evident in this post. Now I'm not going to bash IKC because that's childish, but if you read the thread you'd notice how he latched on to someone's ridiculous made up bullshit about "Potential", and the mere fact that it was MADE up because neither he nor the other person read the comics, and just wanted to create an argument that would downplay Luke as a character.. I don't know why I'm explaining to you the whole thread, maybe you should just take 5-10 minutes and read it, instead of bringing up irrelevance like "you don't understand potential". For one I do, secondly, it has nothing to do with anything, you're just trying to ineffectively discredit me. But whatever, to each his own it doesn't bother me either way. Then agian, I like how you call invalid and false arguments logic.

Originally posted by Motoko Sama
The difference between Kun and Luke is that Kun actually had, assumingly, several years of formal training, even if it was as a Jedi. We see him go a couple bouts, and take instruction from Vodo. And, he also had Nadd to help him understand the gaunlets in the first place.

Yes. I'm pretty sure that Kun did receive more formal training.

On the other hand Luke was trained personally by the Grandmaster of the PT Jedi Order, who ruled said order unquestioned for more than 800 years. Then he had more training under Obi-Wan's spirit and using Obi-Wan's journal between ESB and ROTJ and by ROTJ Yoda clearly says that he's ready to confront Vader now - something that clearly can't be said about all the PT Jedi Padawans / Knights and Masters that Vader killed during the Purge.

And he's advancing pretty fast. In ANH you can see him developing the ability to block that training droid with his eyes covered in some minutes of "training" under Obi-Wan. In ESB he develops from somebody who can hardly pull his lightsaber out of the snow on Hoth into somebody able to escape Vader - in the matter of weeks. And another 6 months later he's able to keep up with Vader in a lightsaber fight (at least).

After ROTJ he still had some force spirits (Yoda, Obi-Wan, Anakin) as well as a variety of other force users / force using groups to gain knowledge from and - in contrary to Kun - he had 30 years of time to gain more power, force control and lightsaber skill from ESB to the DN trilogy.

Not to mention that ROTJ luke supposedly blocked Sidious' initial lightning blast, which is pretty damn impressive for a nobody.