It's heavily implied and indicated however that he was on their level.
I ask for proof. Since this assertions begs for it.
I think it's made perfectly clear at one point that he was Exar Kun's most powerful fallen jedi.
I ask for proof. Since this assertions begs for it.
He was also Vodo's student, he can't have been too bad, I mean why would Vodo train Crado if he was so terrible, when he was already training Exar Kun and Sylvar?
By this logic all Jedi younglings must be good because they were taught by Yoda, who taught Dooku. Ridiculous point, it's a logical fallacy. So because character X produced characters Y and Z, character Q must be good?
Again, by your logic, every student Vodo ever produced must be good. Unless you can prove that, then I will treat this point as defeat.
There is also the fact that Vodo was a great teacher and it would be unlikely that he would produce such a poor student.
Logical fallacy, appeal to probability. Simply because we see Vodo produce two capable students, all his students are good? We can assume Lumiya was a good teacher because of Carnor Jax, however, her other apprentice (Flint) sucked.
There goes your logic.
However I will try to make a stronger argument by reading through some fo the comics again.
Good. I'd suggest you do that.
He admired Exar Kun for a reason.
Irrelevant. The fact that he doesn't have a strong will, or actually doubts his own talents tells me that he clearly isn't anything special, or the best of the rest (the other thousands).
I already made it perfectly clear that I have taken this into account.
As I said: Good. I'd suggest you do that.
I don't get what you mean here. Could you expand?
It's pretty irrelevant at this point. But if you are going to make a claim that I think you will, it will become relevant, ergo the need for me to elaborate upon. So you can just ignore this, I suppose.
Firstly, lightsnake is a great debater.
Secondly that analogy would have been valid if we had used the same style of argument, yet we didn't. Mine was in-universe dialogue while his is out-of-universe factual statements - very different.
And honestly, I wasn't so much as making an argument than voicing an opinion. Either way my original point still remains, and is actually strengthened if my opinion about Crado was wrong. But it doesn't matter, this thread has gone completely off-topic so let's drop this pointless discussion.
'By this logic all Jedi younglings must be good because they were taught by Yoda, who taught Dooku. Ridiculous point, it's a logical fallacy. So because character X produced characters Y and Z, character Q must be good?'
Hardly a logical fallacy. In fact if anyone's showing signs of illogical thinking in this instance, it's you, because that analogy is completely invalid. There is a big difference between teaching your apprentices and devoting much of your life into their training, and teaching a group in a classroom situation.
'Again, by your logic, every student Vodo ever produced must be good. Unless you can prove that, then I will treat this point as defeat.'
My point is not defeated. It's extremely unlikely that Vodo would train a third student when he was already training two student who are 100X more powerful than the third. I mean it would be completely foolish to do so, because when teaching in very small groups like that (and this applies to anything) it is almost completely needed that all the students are roughly on the same level otherwise for instance the weaker students would be holding the stronger ones back etc. My point is that Exar Kun (goes without saying) and Sylvar were both exceptional so it would make sense that Crado was too.
'Irrelevant. The fact that he doesn't have a strong will, or actually doubts his own talents tells me that he clearly isn't anything special, or the best of the rest (the other thousands).'
Only an idiot wouldn't doubt their abilities against Exar Kun.
Anyway I just want to make clear that this is just an opinion. And it's not like there are even qualities about Crado that would attract fanboys or fonboyish views. He's actually a pretty lame character, so believe me: when I say that he was imo one of the most promising knights, it's based on things which I picked up from the comic.
Anyway I consider this debate over.
Originally posted by GM Nebaris
And honestly, I wasn't so much as making an argument than voicing an opinion. Either way my original point still remains, and is actually strengthened if my opinion about Crado was wrong. But it doesn't matter, this thread has gone completely off-topic so let's drop this pointless discussion.
I have answered every one correctly. I have just failed to provide concrete evidence, and I would put more effort into doing so if this was firstly, an argument and not just an opinion which really holds no relevance to the current topic and secondly, one which I actually cared about. There was really no need for a debate to have risen, it seems that Mokoto just holds a grudge because I defeated her in the other debate.
This thread is riduculous. ROTS Sidious pwnd these 2 and Agen Kolar while fendinf off Mace Windu in nine seconds, and Kun (without the amulent) isn't to far behind ROTS Sidious so he should be able to pwn this duo in nine seconds easily, since he doesn't have to worry about Agen and Mace, too, like Sidious did. So nine seconds or less, I say he pwns them in 5.
Originally posted by GM Nebaris
Hardly a logical fallacy.
Really? You're more dense than I thought then. But that's not the point: it's a fallacy. You saying "hardly" makes it seem as if you acknowledge it, but let us forget that because you want to make yourself look good.
In fact if anyone's showing signs of illogical thinking in this instance, it's you, because that analogy is completely invalid.
Lol. So because I argue against you (and am completely right in doing so) I'm devoid of logical thinking? Yes GM, that's very logical, despite me actually being the only one to make logical claims, and calling you out on fallacious thinking.
There is a big difference between teaching your apprentices and devoting much of your life into their training, and teaching a group in a classroom situation.
Again, an effort to make yourself look good. Regardless, it's a fallacy (and logically wrong anyways) whether you accept it or not. Simply because you don't want to accept it, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Which again, would be a logical fallacy if you continue to think it's right.
My point is not defeated.
Actually, it was defeated since the first time I replied to it, but we'll ignore that, and I'll continue to show you why it's wrong.
It's extremely unlikely that Vodo would train a third student when he was already training two student who are 100X more powerful than the third.
Appeal to probability again. Simply because his other students were "100x" more powerful than the third (and what is this, DBZ now?), doesn't mean that the third student has to be competent (or rather anymore competent than anyone else in the series).
As well, you keep on claiming Vodo is a good teacher, and he's produced one extremely skilled student (Kun), and a mediocre one at best (Sylvar), so the third character under his tutelage (Crado) must be good. Regardless of the fact that's fallacious, and there's nothing that actually supports that claim or any of his skills, other than his continuous failing; which doesn't speak well.
I mean it would be completely foolish to do so, because when teaching in very small groups like that (and this applies to anything) it is almost completely needed that all the students are roughly on the same level otherwise for instance the weaker students would be holding the stronger ones back etc.
Really? How exactly is Crado "roughly" on the same level when the omniscient narrator even says this:
"But Crado knows his own worth -- he is no match for the fighting skills of Exar Kun" - care to argue with the narration now?
My point is that Exar Kun (goes without saying) and Sylvar were both exceptional so it would make sense that Crado was too.
No. Exar Kun was exceptional, Sylvar - being leagues below Kun - is mediocre in the grand scale. Also you're still repeating the same fallacious argument - that because Sylvar and Exar Kun were good, that Crado must be as good or somewhat good.
Especially going under that false premise when you have no evidence to support that claim, and the fact it's a logical fallacy.
Only an idiot wouldn't doubt their abilities against Exar Kun.
Sylvar must be an idiot then. Though despite her being smart enough to sneak up on and knock down Oss Willum when he was controlling the beasts of Ambria proves otherwise.
This is a strike against Crado, he doesn't have the will to win. And no matter how you put - Crado sucks, he admits inferiority himself (which is not something for Crado to be proud of).
Anyway I just want to make clear that this is just an opinion.
Of course it is.
However, you keep bringing on fallacies, and I call you out on said fallacies - then you deny them, and continue to repeat them, despite my claims of them being fallacious being true.
And it's not like there are even qualities about Crado that would attract fanboys or fonboyish views.
This, I would consider, to be fanboyish. You have no actual proof when all your assertions beg for it (which ironically is a logical fallacy).
He's actually a pretty lame character, so believe me: when I say that he was imo one of the most promising knights, it's based on things which I picked up from the comic.
And believe me: when I reply to you saying that, and say you're wrong, it's based on what is shown in the comic. None of your assertions (other than Vodo being a good teacher) have been supported by the comic.
Anyway I consider this debate over.
This debate was over about three replies ago.
And honestly, I wasn't so much as making an argument than voicing an opinion. Either way my original point still remains, and is actually strengthened if my opinion about Crado was wrong.
If you weren't making an argument then why would you continuously post your interpretations after I shot them down?
ar·gu·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy-mnt)
n.
A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: “sheath'd their swords for lack of argument” (Shakespeare).
A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.
A topic; a subject: “You and love are still my argument” (Shakespeare).
By dictionary standpoints, this was an argument (for Crado).
And, what exactly was your original opinion exactly...?
I have answered every one correctly. I have just failed to provide concrete evidence, and I would put more effort into doing so if this was firstly, an argument and not just an opinion which really holds no relevance to the current topic and secondly, one which I actually cared about. There was really no need for a debate to have risen, it seems that Mokoto just holds a grudge because I defeated her in the other debate.
You didn't answer every one correctly actually (more incorrectly, hence me pointing out fallacies, etc.). And "failing to provide concrete evidence" means you have lost your case. Simple as that. And I would urge you to provide evidence if, in fact, it existed; however, it doesn't.
And the reason for the debate to actually be risen is simple: it's my job to point out false claims, and actually correct said claims. So whatever you think my reasonings behind this were, are incorrect; of course that's the par of what I expect from you.
You really didn't defeat me. Because "defeating me" would've included actually proving your point, and you (singular) *think* (not fact) you proved it.
A lie repeated often enough does not become the truth.
What you just said in that paragraph is you accusing me of a grudge, because I proved you wrong. You having an elitist attitude, of course, won't allow someone to prove you wrong, but whatever...
Originally posted by darthsith19
This thread is riduculous. ROTS Sidious pwnd these 2 and Agen Kolar while fendinf off Mace Windu in nine seconds, and Kun (without the amulent) isn't to far behind ROTS Sidious so he should be able to pwn this duo in nine seconds easily, since he doesn't have to worry about Agen and Mace, too, like Sidious did. So nine seconds or less, I say he pwns them in 5.
The hell? Since when do we grade Kun without the amulet exactly? Unless you're referring to Kun as a padawan being close to ROTS Sidious, it makes no sense. Kun at his peak is superior to ROTS at LEAST in saber combat. And how are you measuring the time fram exactly? Very interesting how you came up with all of this.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
Really? You're more dense than I thought then. But that's not the point: it's a fallacy. You saying "hardly" makes it seem as if you acknowledge it, but let us forget that because you want to make yourself look good.Lol. So because I argue against you (and am completely right in doing so) I'm devoid of logical thinking? Yes GM, that's very logical, despite me actually being the only one to make logical claims, and calling you out on fallacious thinking.
Again, an effort to make yourself look good. Regardless, it's a fallacy (and logically wrong anyways) whether you accept it or not. Simply because you don't want to accept it, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Which again, would be a logical fallacy if you continue to think it's right.
Actually, it was defeated since the first time I replied to it, but we'll ignore that, and I'll continue to show you why it's wrong.
Appeal to probability again. Simply because his other students were "100x" more powerful than the third (and what is this, DBZ now?), doesn't mean that the third student has to be competent (or rather anymore competent than anyone else in the series).
No matter how many times you call it a fallacy, that doesn't make it so. If it were to have been a fallacy, I would have had to say that Crado was definitely exceptional because Sylvar and Exar were, however I said probably and reminded you that it was my opinion that you are completely blowing out of proportion. You were the one that displayed illogical thinking with your completely invalid analogy - devoting your whole life to your students training, teaching them everything you know and working with them closely is completely different from teaching in a classroom situation - you failed to grasp that and thus your analogy was invalid.
However it is not like my opinion is totally unsupported, it would make sense that Crado was at least not too far behind Sylvar and that he was still exceptional (in comparison to his era) as why exactly would Vodo teach three students when one was so far behind the others? It would completely disrupt his training and hold his other students back. I'd like to remind you that Exar as a padawan while being Vodo's best ever student wasn't leagues above Sylvar, she was able to hold her own against him in a sparring match and get the better of him.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
As well, you keep on claiming Vodo is a good teacher, and he's produced one extremely skilled student (Kun), and a mediocre one at best (Sylvar), so the third character under his tutelage (Crado) must be good. Regardless of the fact that's fallacious, and there's nothing that actually supports that claim or any of his skills, other than his continuous failing; which [b]doesn't speak well. [/B]
Vodo is a great teacher. He trained Kun who was extremely great even as a jedi. His Tedryn Holocron was considered one of the most valuable pieces of jedi history by the disciple in KOTOR2, and it is heavily implied throughout the comic. Vodo is definitely a great teacher. I already proved that Sylvar was far from mediocre and an exceptional jedi knight in a dabate which you stopped posting in and lost.
Ok Mokoto, you're just being ignorant so I'll give you a real life analogy. Let's say that you're being privately taught Mathematics by a school tutor with your two best friends. Now let's say that you and one of your friends are incredibly smart, while the other is a dumbass. Let's also say that this tuition is extremely important as-well. Do you understand how impossible that would work out to be? Your tutor would constantly have to explain things to the lesser of her students, thus holding you and your smart friend back and jeopardizing your personal tuition which is extremely important. I'm kind of tired and I don't know if it was the best analogy to offer, however it's perfectly valid and supports my point.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
Really? How exactly is Crado "roughly" on the same level when the omniscient narrator even says this:"But Crado knows his own worth -- [b]he is no match for the fighting skills of Exar Kun
" - care to argue with the narration now?The thing is, Crado probably only lost so badly because he was intimidated/in awe of Exar Kun and knew that he could not win and thus was fighting even worse than he would usually. Exar would have been able to do the same to others such as Oss. This however does not mean that Crado was not exceptional, it just shows that Exar Kun was a lot more exceptional and thus was able able to tool him, granted he was at an advantage in regards to morale.
[QUOTE=6958479]Originally posted by Motoko Sama
Sylvar must be an idiot then. Though despite her being smart enough to sneak up on and knock down Oss Willum when he was controlling the beasts of Ambria proves otherwise.This is a strike against Crado, he doesn't have the will to win. And no matter how you put - Crado sucks, he admits inferiority himself (which is not something for Crado to be proud of).
Sylvar clearly did doubt her abilities, why else would she have lashed out in anger? While she tried to put on a brave face and tried to act as if she was ready and confident, she clearly wasn't. And when I used the word 'idiot', I meant foolish and not unintelligent.
And I suppose that Crado was incredibly weak willed (turning to the dak side so easily for instance), however losing to Exar Kun doesn't mean that you suck.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
This, I would consider, to be fanboyish. You have no actual proof when all your assertions [b]beg for it (which ironically is a logical fallacy)And believe me: when I reply to you saying that, and say you're wrong, it's based on what is shown in the comic. None of your assertions (other than Vodo being a good teacher) have been supported by the comic. [/B]
The thing is, I know that my assumptions are not concrete enough to win a debate, and that is why I have said many time that I don't wish to continue this but you keep on replying to earlier points which are quite frankly just wrong. The thing is, whether my opinion is right or wrong, it has no relevance to the topic at hand. I mean I thought we were supposed to be discussing Tinn and Fisto vs. Kun?
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
If you weren't making an argument then why would you continuously post your interpretations after I shot them down?ar·gu·ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy-mnt)
n.[b]A discussion in which disagreement is expressed;
a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: “sheath'd their swords for lack of argument” (Shakespeare).A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.
A topic; a subject: “You and love are still my argument” (Shakespeare).By dictionary standpoints, this was an argument (for Crado).
And, what exactly was your original opinion exactly...?[/B]
Erm no Mokoto, I was saying tha my original point was me just voicing an opinion and not so much making an argument. However you blew it out of proportion and turned it into an argument. And check back to my first post if you want to see my original opinion.
Originally posted by Motoko Sama
You didn't answer every one correctly actually (more [b]incorrectly, hence me pointing out fallacies, etc.). And "failing to provide concrete evidence" means you have lost your case. Simple as that. And I would urge you to provide evidence if, in fact, it existed; however, it doesn't.And the reason for the debate to actually be risen is simple: it's my job to point out false claims, and actually correct said claims. So whatever you think my reasonings behind this were, are incorrect; of course that's the par of what I expect from you.
You really didn't defeat me. Because "defeating me" would've included actually proving your point, and you (singular) *think* (not fact) you proved it.
A lie repeated often enough does not become the truth.
What you just said in that paragraph is you accusing me of a grudge, because I proved you wrong. You having an elitist attitude, of course, won't allow someone to prove you wrong, but whatever... [/B]
Listen Mokoto, you're not IKC so enough with this talk about fallacies, especially considering you have been wrong in pointing them out each time. I have already admitted that I do not have enough concrete evidence on Crado to prove my claims, it's just my opinion however I see no problem whatsoever with voicing my opinion (whether incorrect, unsupported etc.) when it really has no basis in the topic onhand, and the fact that you blew it completely out of proportion shows that you hold a grudge. This was obvious when I defeated you in the other debate. Instead of continuing, you knew you had lost and decided to challenge me to another debate as you clearly had something to prove. I declined your offer, and you clearly have been looking for any excuse to get in a debate with since. And the reason I continued posting was because a few of your rebuttals were quite frankly wrong and fallacious themselves and I was just pointing that out to you.
