Originally posted by DE Luke
Wow,calm down Xavius.And you think your doing any better?You saying Traya will instakill him,end of story,is NOT an argument.And did I say he manipulted the Jedi?No.You said he 'had help' and I replied that he manipulated them into HELPING him.I didn't say that he manipulted the Jedi(though he did manipulate Anakin)And how was the Senate following orders?Dooku himself said that Sidious was MANIPULATING the Senate.And where is YOU proff to refute MY claim?All you said was "Traya will instakill him.",you call that proof?She killed three Master;s who knew NOTHING about how to counter an attack like that,the didn't study under the Sith,so how would they?Sidious IS a Sith,he's learned just about every secret there about them that there is.He KNOWS the Sith,the Jedi DON'T.The only person here that is full of bullshit is you.And my PROOF renders you unsupported assumptions useless.
Listen to me very carefully because I'm only going to say it one more time.
You CANNOT sit here and say that Traya's instakill won't work on Sidious and claim that's your proof against me saying it will work.
Your statement is an assumption just like mine. I can dig past your pseudo linguistics and see that all you still have is that f*cking statement.
How can you retort against a claim that has no proof, when you're using a claim that is proofless yourself?
You don't have proof. You have stupidity, but not proof.
This is RotS Sidious. By this time, he did not know how to utilize instakill or he would have done it to Agen, Kit, Sassee, Mace and Yoda. He didn't.
Traya HAD the power to utilize instakill. Saying that Sidious could block it while lacking proof is an assumption in itself. Technically, you're a hypocrite.
he would have used it on those guys? Yoda is hands down the strongest Jedi ever and he's learned to block just about anything...the 'if he knew it, he'd have used it' argument doesn't always work. Perhaps Sidious wanted to kill them in a more personal manner.
Though, like I said, Sidious by now has mastered more than a few of the Sith secrets
Originally posted by Lightsnake
he would have used it on those guys? Yoda is hands down the strongest Jedi ever and he's learned to block just about anything...the 'if he knew it, he'd have used it' argument doesn't always work. Perhaps Sidious wanted to kill them in a more personal manner.Though, like I said, Sidious by now has mastered more than a few of the Sith secrets
A personal matter? He didn't even know them! Sidious didn't know how to instakill by RotS. That's ridiculous now.
He's already managing to spar with Yoda and he's mastered most of the techniques of the ancients, he's already a supremely powerful Sith who was described as a 'black hole in the force' circa ROTS
To quote Sidious's thoughts, he'd been waiting to kill the Jedi period for a long time...it's just like why Kun never blasted Vodo with the amulet.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
He's already managing to spar with Yoda and he's mastered most of the techniques of the ancients, he's already a supremely powerful Sith who was described as a 'black hole in the force' circa ROTSTo quote Sidious's thoughts, he'd been waiting to kill the Jedi period for a long time...it's just like why Kun never blasted Vodo with the amulet.
Then he would have instakilled them. It's that simple. He never wanted to risk his life dueling Yoda or whatnot or anyone else. Why risk his life if he has to duel? Why not instakill? You don't have proof that he did. Find me some and then that'll be done. He learned alot yes, but it says nowhere that he could instakill.
Yoda would have blocked or countered whatever he could've done and for whatever reason, Sidious preferred to use his saber. Why didn't Traya use her instakill on Sion when they first met? Why didn't Kun use his amulet on Vodo? Why didn't Kun use his instakill on Ulic?
And force drain is something he started doing shortly thereafter with Byss, there's no reason to assume he learned it in between ROTS and a short interim. And this ability isn't a direct instakill, it's force drain.
Notice how Sion was under Traya later on in the game? Sion was another puppet to Traya. The Exile makes that clear. Why would she need to kill such a powerful entity when she could use him?
Sidious could not have had a powerful enough drain. He would have used that instead of Lightning at the beginning when Yoda walked into his office. He wouldn't have expected it. He knew the four Jedi were a risk to fight in his office as well . . . Why not instakill them? It's ridiculous to assume he could instakill during RotS. He would have been the Uber Lord.
At that point, given her time with the exile, her views could have radically changed considering she wanted to lure the Exile to Malachor.
And Sidious prefers lightning, so? Yoda didn't hurl his saber at Sidious, either. And this ability is Force Drain and it isn't an instakill, nor is ridiculous to assume Sidious knows it considering his power and ability. And possibly he didn't instakill the jedi in the office because lightsaber scarred bodies are easier to explain than bodies without marks or for whatever reason George wanted
Yeah, and she had Sion at Malachor with her. Views changing? I think not.
Lightsaber scarred bodies are easier to explain than markless bodies? Erm . . . Sure. I'm sure that's exactly what Lucas thought. If Sidious had instakill, he would have used it at least once. Lucas already said that the death of those Jedi displayed Sidious' power. If Sidious knew that by then, Lucas would have displayed it as a showcase for his power.
He didn't know it yet.
Originally posted by Xavius
Listen to me very carefully because I'm only going to say it one more time.You [B]CANNOT
sit here and say that Traya's instakill won't work on Sidious and claim that's your proof against me saying it will work.Your statement is an assumption just like mine. I can dig past your pseudo linguistics and see that all you still have is that f*cking statement.
How can you retort against a claim that has no proof, when you're using a claim that is proofless yourself?
You don't have proof. You have stupidity, but not proof.
This is RotS Sidious. By this time, he did not know how to utilize instakill or he would have done it to Agen, Kit, Sassee, Mace and Yoda. He didn't.
Traya HAD the power to utilize instakill. Saying that Sidious could block it while lacking proof is an assumption in itself. Technically, you're a hypocrite. [/B]
No... your wrong.
Saying 'Trayas instakill will work on Sidious' is a positive statement. Saying that it wont work is a negative, the natural position of skepticism. If you cant prove up that Trayas instakill would indeed work on Sidious, than he is right by default.
Absence of Proof isn't proof of Absence, GV.
He isn't correct by default. Each side lacks proof. What If my side happened to be right and you defaulted him as correct? That's a contradiction right there and a flaw within the laws of debating.
Niether of us are correct until proof is shown. Bottom line. What you just said is complete and utter Logical Fallacy.
I doubt either of us is going to find proof of this, so I say we drop it.
Originally posted by Xavius
Absence of Proof isn't proof of Absence, GV.He isn't correct by default. Each side lacks proof. What If my side happened to be right and you defaulted him as correct? That's a contradiction right there and a flaw within the laws of debating.
Niether of us are correct until proof is shown. Bottom line. What you just said is complete and utter Logical Fallacy.
I doubt either of us is going to find proof of this, so I say we drop it.
*sigh*
No absence of proof isnt proof of absence, but until you have proof then you have no material to debate with.
An example:
You say...'reindeers can fly.'
I say...'No reindeers cant fly you dumbass.'
I cant really prove that your wrong per se, but until you come with legitimate proof of your claim, I am right by default. Its a fundamental rule of debate...skepticism is always the correct position unless proven otherwise.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
*sigh*No absence of proof isnt proof of absence, but until you have proof then you have no material to debate with.
An example:
You say...'reindeers can fly.'
I say...'No reindeers cant fly you dumbass.'
I cant really prove that your wrong per se, but until you come with legitimate proof of your claim, I am right by default. Its a fundamental rule of debate...skepticism is always the correct position unless proven otherwise.
Your analogy is virtually false, seeing as it does not fit into the perimeters of this argument and skepticism is not always the correct position within the Laws of debating. Because in itself, if you found the other side to be wrong, the skeptical side would basically be a flaw within itself to be correct without proper evidence. So, the skeptical side cannot be correct all the time or Skepticism would not be used.
We are disagreeing here. It's that simple.
Skepticism has a vista of boundaries and guidelines and they all refer to some fallible opinions.
Especially concerning this issue. Either side has proof so both sides stick to their opinions. That's rationally correct. Saying that the negatory side automatically throws over because of lack of proof is basically complete fallacy. Besides, you cannot challenge a position to proof if you do not contain proof within your own garrison. If you were to, it would be . . . Logical Fallacy!
Originally posted by Xavius
Your analogy is virtually false, seeing as it does not fit into the perimeters of this argument and skepticism is not always the correct position within the Laws of debating. Because in itself, if you found the other side to be wrong, the skeptical side would basically be a flaw within itself to be correct without proper evidence. So, the skeptical side cannot be correct all the time or Skepticism would not be used.We are disagreeing here. It's that simple.
Skepticism has a vista of boundaries and guidelines and they all refer to some fallible opinions.
Especially concerning this issue. Either side has proof so both sides stick to their opinions. That's rationally correct. Saying that the negatory side automatically throws over because of lack of proof is basically complete fallacy. Besides, you cannot challenge a position to proof if you do not contain proof within your own garrison. If you were to, it would be . . . Logical Fallacy!
Xavius = IKC