So question, 0-2-1, doesn't seem like a good record, its a Texan against the Colt.
Well my first real debate here when I came back for real was against Advent, and I got crushed (I expected as well I would), but after that I improved A LOT! So, it's not that bad, besides Advent is one of the best, you can't expect me to have 6-0 against her or something.
And Advent took over for Escape (they're lovers, they'll do anything for each other) so I have to deal with her now.
Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
Well my first real debate here when I came back for real was against Advent, and I got crushed (I expected as well I would), but after that I improved A LOT! So, it's not that bad, besides Advent is one of the best, you can't expect me to have 6-0 against her or something.And Advent took over for Escape (they're lovers, they'll do anything for each other) so I have to deal with her now.
Advent=Girl? Damn. Stop debating against her cause...
1) NOTING can go through women
2) It's not gentlemeness..
Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
:FYI, I have debated with Advent before, three times to be exact, and I would say my track record is 0-2-1 (including this one, unless you want to call it a victory for yourself advent) (Win-Tie-Lose).
Since when did you tie me twice? If you are referring to the Mace Windu and Kyle Katarn vs. Darth Revan and Obi-Wan, you are gravely mistaken as that's the only real debate I've gotten in to you that would come to mind as something you'd consider a "tie". I don't consider saying "Malak used six Jedi", and "I feel bad for Kyle" is much of a tie, especially when I put those to rest.
If not that debate, where else?
Albeit, I would concede you've gotten better since you first entered KMC. Nearly everyone does, save for those of whom I don't want to mention, but will anyways - Numan, Blak Fox, etc. And me, I'm not as good as I used to be.
1.) Vodo is Good Debate
Winner: Advent
Loser: Quinlan_Vos
2.) ROTS Obi-Wan & Revan vs. Mace and Kyle
You can say whatever you like about that, the fact remains you can't say
you defeated me, and neither could I.
Tie: Quinlan_Vos & Advent
3.) Mace Windu vs. Darth Vader (Obi Versus Dooku)
You did give a huge post in the end, but you yourself said it was going to go in circles, so I stopped. And now we're just deciding on how long Kenobi can last.
Tie: Prodigal Knight & Advent
HOWEVER Advent, I am not saying I am as good as you. Nope, I know for sure you are better than me, so if you're thinking I am saying "PK is on par with Advent", that's not the case. I am only stating what the facts say, but I know common sense tells me Advent > myself.
Also, I really didn't get much better from KMC. I already said I am taking Argumentation, which is more or less debate except more formal, so yeah, that trains me up.
No, the fact doesn't remain. You did not tie me, plain and simple. This is your perception, not fact. I never realized opinions were now constituted as fact.
Likewise on me, however, you cannot say it was a tie as fact, as much is ridiculous considering I defeated the majority of your points (i.e. Malak using six Jedi, claiming Obi-Wan wasn't owned by Dooku with the Force, took Dooku 45 seconds to take out Obi-Wan, etc.).
What do you mean "defeated the majority of your points"
1.) You said it was going in circles in this thread, so I kept quiet, because it's going to go back and forth.
2.) Hardly. That thread nobody won. You can keep claiming you defeated "majority of my points", but if you don't like it as a tie, then I call it inconclusive
1. What are you talking about? I'm referring completely to the RotS Mace/Katarn vs. Revan/Obi-Wan thread. This thread would be semi-inconclusive (hardly, but whatever).
2. No. You consider that thread as a "tie", as no victor coming through. However, I did defeat several of your points, and had the majority of your argument on lock. I'm not claiming, I really did.
Don't believe it? Points defeated included:
- Malak using the full power, and all of the Jedi captives. Defeated. (This was the main argument).
- "Multiple" neccessarily means "several", and not just two. Defeated.
- That there's a reason to "feel bad" for Kyle Katarn against Obi-Wan. Defeated.
- Obi-Wan lasted 45 seconds against Count Dooku. Defeated.
- Obi-Wan would've gotten up after being tossed into the wall, had Dooku not brought down the platform. Defeated. (Kenobi was out cold before).
- Obi-Wan didn't get tooled by the Force. Defeated.
- At the time Obi-Wan was fighting, he was using Ataru. Defeated. (He was using Ataru, but this was before any Force attacks were displayed).
- Since Revan is canonically a Lightsaber, he knows all Lightside moves from the game. Defeated.
^
Believe it.
Among various other things. The main argument was how many Jedi captives used when combating Revan. I proved there is no way you can say as fact that he used more than two, as we didn't know. Afterwards, you also kept using appeal to probability, which is a logical fallacy.
I'd say it's not as "inconclusive" as you'd like to think. So, while you can consider it "inconclusive", a "tie", whatever - I, and the rest of the world, wouldn't title it as such.
I don't see how this particular argument of yours is worth anything, Prodigal. You've debated much better than this, before. Advent has taken everything I've said, and then added some more to it. Logic dictates that Obi-Wan isn't, really, anything close to Count Dooku. Yes, he could tie Dooku up in a lightsaber fight for a little while (though I'm pretty damn sure he could crush him eventually), but in a Force fight? No. In fact, hell no. Obi-Wan's not even close. In an all out fight? No.
Um, Advent, when did you so call "defeat" all my points. In case you were wondering, we both stop arguing after a certain point. You didn't fight back and I just watched Nai and Sexy snap at each others throats. Your last real argumentative post in that thread was fighting back against my previous statements. There was no conclusive evidence that showed you "defeating" my points.
But I am not a person who lives to dwell in the past. You can consider it victory for yourself and I can consider it as a tie, it doesn't mattter, it's not going to affect the future anyway.
@ Escape
First of all, thank you for the compliment. Next, I have my reasons for why Kenobi can last for about 1 minute against Dooku. And I know that Dooku is greater than Obi-Wan, but I do not like it how based on one single move that everyone considers Dooku >>> Obi-Wan. HE's NOT!!! That Kick-Choke-Throw could have been done the same towards Anakin. But that doesn't matter. The point is Escape, I am not going to give up because I know it's unfair to Kenobi to say he's going to lose in twenty seconds because if you analyze the duel, that CANNOT HAPPEN.
I am going to retire from this thread, but what my basic point is that Dooku kills Obi-Wan in 65 seconds.
Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
Um, Advent, when did you so call "defeat" all my points.
In the thread, genius. Where else?
The main argument was that Malak must have used more than two. Initially, it was he used all six. I defeated this as we don't know, whereas you kept using appeal to probability. A point would be defeated if, in fact, no viable argument can be made. No viable argument could be made on your behalf, ergo "defeated". Simple as that.
"Malak had six Jedi, he must've used them all/majority of. The probability is high, likely. Why not use all/majority of?"
Appeal to probability, logical fallacy (in that, your argument is already defeated). We don't know, ergo it's not fact. Basically, all I was arguing was that we don't know. Your argument was he must've used more than two. Which one is right? Oh, yeah. Mine.
In case you were wondering, we both stop arguing after a certain point. You didn't fight back and I just watched Nai and Sexy snap at each others throats. Your last real argumentative post in that thread was fighting back against my previous statements. There was no conclusive evidence that showed you "defeating" my points.
Are you serious?
I provided viable arguments and evidence as to why you cannot claim as fact that Malak used all six Jedi, like you kept implying. This is a conclusion that anyone who actually reads the thread can come to. And of all those points that were listed, I defeated them. If you don't believe it, I can copy and paste each one. Would you like me to? Or will you realize that, in fact, your arguments against - for the majority - were incorrect, and severely flawed?
Like really, no "conclusive evidence"? Uh-huh. The only thing that wasn't completely conclusive was how many Jedi captives Malak used. However, that didn't have to be conclusive inasmuch as I defeated your numerous theories on why he must've used more than two. The number would more than likely never be known, but that wasn't the point. It was you ridiculousing assuming he used "6 or 7".
Likewise, there were numerous other points that I already listed. Again, I will copy/paste them and PM them to you, if you'd like a little refreshing, son.
But I am not a person who lives to dwell in the past. You can consider it victory for yourself and I can consider it as a tie, it doesn't mattter, it's not going to affect the future anyway.
No, but it will piss me off. As minuscule as it may be, whether it's over the internet or in real life - you did not tie me. Do not mark that as a "tie" for yourself, and claim you actually did anything of importance.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm being aggressive, or whatever over something as ridiculous as this, however, I strongly disagree with it being a "tie" (mainly because it wasn't).
I'd agree to not bringing this up anymore, as this topic is way off topic at this point (not that there's anything to discuss about it anymore anyways), but final statement: No. You did not tie me, do not wildly claim you did, because *hint* you didn't.
In the thread, genius. Where else?
Except, my little kitten, you did not defeat me.
The main argument was that Malak must have used more than two. Initially, it was he used all six. I defeated this as we don't know, whereas you kept using appeal to probability. A point would be defeated if, in fact, no viable argument can be made. No viable argument could be made on your behalf, ergo "defeated". Simple as that."Malak had six Jedi, he must've used them all/majority of. The probability is high, likely. Why not use all/majority of?"
Appeal to probability, logical fallacy (in that, your argument is already defeated). We don't know, ergo it's not fact. Basically, all I was arguing was that we don't know. Your argument was he must've used more than two. Which one is right? Oh, yeah. Mine.
WRONG!!!
Please read the dictionary if you want.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
sev¡Per¡Pal (svr-l, svrl) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away.
Single; distinct: "Pshaw! said I, with an air of carelessness, three several times" (Laurence Sterne).
Respectively different; various: They parted and went their several ways. See Synonyms at distinct.
Law Relating separately to each party of a bond or note.
PRONOUN:
(used with a pl. verb)
An indefinite but small number; some or a few: Several of the workers went home sick.
From Dictionary.Com:
sev¡Eer¡Eal  /ˈsɛvərəl, ˈsɛvrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sev-er-uhl, sev-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
¡Vadjective 1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.
2. respective; individual: They went their several ways.
3. separate; different: several occasions.
4. single; particular.
5. Law. binding two or more persons who may be sued separately on a common obligation.
¡Vnoun 6. several persons or things; a few; some.
From Miriam Webster Dictionary:
b : more than two but fewer than many
As you can see my little kitten, you were wrong and I was right. I even talked about the wording of several versus couple. If you want to argue this, then you are going against the Basic (SW meaning English) Language.
Now about Probability . As you can, even though I proved Malak has used more than two Jedi, probability still works.
Example: If I said Kit Fisto vs. LOTF Luke on Geonosis. There is always 1/100 chance that Luke trips on a rock and the Kit come over and stabs him to death. Or a chance that while Luke jumps a small meteorite comes over like a projectile and kills him. No probability works, because that won't at all happen.
From Wikipedia, the first line if I may mention,
The appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies.
Again you are wrong my little kitten.
No, but it will piss me off. As minuscule as it may be, whether it's over the internet or in real life - you did not tie me. Do not mark that as a "tie" for yourself, and claim you actually did anything of importance.I'm sorry if you feel I'm being aggressive, or whatever over something as ridiculous as this, however, I strongly disagree with it being a "tie" (mainly because it wasn't).
I'd agree to not bringing this up anymore, as this topic is way off topic at this point (not that there's anything to discuss about it anymore anyways), but final statement: No. You did not tie me, do not wildly claim you did, because *hint* you didn't.
1.) I see you ego gets in your way of thought. However, I do UNDERSTAND. Dont think I do not. I may not have tied you Advent, but I DID NOT LOSE.
2.) You are being aggresive. However you intimidation is not affecting me.
3.) Hahaha, very funny. If I didn't bring this up, you could go on thinking you won the debate right? Wrong, I don't give up...
Lies! All Lies!
Prodigal, I am officially about to LMFAO at your response.
The reason is simple: you made that shit up! This whole time I was under the assumption that the databank actually said "multiple". Guess what? It didn't.
See, I just rechecked that thread. Here's the page where you blatantly made that up in an attempt to save your sorry ass:
Prodigal? Ahem, I don't think so.
Now, if you look at my response. I copy and pasted verbatim what the Star Wars databank says. Neither multiple nor several were to be found.
Basically, you posted the dictionary and that ridiculous rebuttal for no reason because you lied! Lawlz.
In addition, because I just proved you lied, and plainly pulled that "several" shit straight from your ass - you are thus wrong, and appeal to probability still works. If you would instead actually take a logic course or two, or read up on an actual book instead of using Cliff Notes, you'd realize appeal to probability is still applicable. Just because it's likely Malak used more than two, it doesn't mean it is so. It works in this case because there is no definitive proof he used any more than two, hence you fail yet again.
So, please excuse me while I LMFAO! Next time you try and step up to me, you better come well equipped, son. That KMC schoolyard bullshit will not fly.
QED.
Now, for the rest of that...
1. My ego rarely has an effect on my process of thinking. Rather, I should say, when I debate. The only time my ego seems to be inflated is during times of which sheer idiocy is displayed during something not inclusive of an actual versus debate (in that, I mean during a versus debate). You may not have think you have lost, but plainly you did.
2. What would my "intimidation" have to do with you? I don't try and intimidate people into thinking I'm better, or that I'm right. I do this by plain virtue of fact. I display logic, evidence, and the like.
3. I really don't consider what I said to be comedic, but if you want to think that - it's on you. I will go on knowing I won, not thinking. Hell, you brought the dictionary in this post for no reason, and look what happened? I just proved that you lied in the RotS Windu/Katarn thread!
Oh, and here's what I wrote concerning that "multiple" bullshit:
Originally posted by Advent
Alright. If I may, I'd like to introduce People's Exhibit 22, a written excerpt from the Star Wars databank:"This confrontation erupted into a massive battle as Republic fleet forces arrived to attack the Star Forge. Endless streams of ships poured forth from the Star Forge, striking against the amassed warships of the Republic. The Sith Lord had grotesquely adapted the Rakatan device to draw energy directly from chained Jedi captives. He replenished his life force from the captives by draining theirs. Malak was nearly unstoppable, but the Republic emerged from that epic conflict victorious, as the Star Forge was eventually destroyed."
-- SW Databank, Darth Malak.
Now, Mr. Vos - if you'd please tell the forum: where's "multiple" again? Ah, [b]nowhere
to be found. It never says "multiple", never says "several", ergo you don't know. I'll go with "You're making shit up in an attempt to save your argument" for $400.It says exactly "from the captives", which is plural, which could mean two. Which means you don't know, which turns into me telling you to quit pulling numbers out of your ass and substituting bullshit for fact.
Nothing further.[/B]
Just in case you are too lazy, or try to claim you didn't make shit up. Furthermore, your response to my post didn't deny that you lied. Like I said in my response, "captives" is plural. Plural meaning more than one, which leads me into now telling you that you are a liar. Sucks when KMC actually keeps a written record of all that has been said, huh?
[Nebaris] So unlucky. [/Nebaris]
WTF ARE YOU SMOKING??? I COULD SUE YOUR ASS FOR LIBEL HERE!!!
I wrote this:
If it was only two, then they would have said a couple. By multiple, it would be several, probably at least three. Plus Malak uses many Force abilities, so he'll be replenishing himself more than twice
DID I EVER SAY IT SAID MULTIPLE IN THE DATABANK??? NO, I DID NOT!!! SO STFU AND STOP MAKING UP SHIT THAT I DID!!!
Obviously, you don't know how to read so you stupidly reply
Now, Mr. Vos - if you'd please tell the forum: where's "multiple" again? Ah, nowhere to be found. It never says "multiple", never says "several", ergo you don't know. I'll go with "You're making shit up in an attempt to save your argument" for $400.
when I NEVER SAID IT DID SAY MULTIPLE IN THE DATABANK. I said if it was two, they would have couple. Why would they have six Jedi and Malak only uses two? Doesn't work out...
And here's the definition of plural:
Relating to or composed of more than one member, set , or kind: the plural meanings of a text; a plural society.
Now definition of set:
a group of persons associated by common interests (they were a set for the benefit of Malak)
Definition of group:
an assemblage of related organisms
a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship
As you can see, it's seems more than likely that Malak used more than two Jedi.
Okay, I must apologize Advent. Obviously, I can understand if you think I am being way too arrogant or stupid or something along those lines. I just want to defend myself to a degree. I can understand if you strongly agree that you won the debate. I for one just feel I deserve credit. I battled you with the best of ability back then and I strongly feel that I didn't lose that argument. I know how it's like losing to you before, so yeah I'm sorry if you feel frusterated and mad at me.
I say say "the males walked out of the stage with menacing looks", it does not mean there are any more than two. Your problem is that you think a dictionary can solve your case. Hint: It can't. Captives doesn't imply more than two, sorry.
In universe example, "The Jedi are approaching" (referring to Anakin and Obi-Wan). Jedi, in this context is plural, yet there are only two.
Now, to address yet another foolish response: "If it was only two, then they would have said a couple. By multiple, it would be several, probably at least three."
Now, this statement implies (key) that the databank actually says "multiple". Your dialogue of "then they would have..." is indicative of such. You further go on by saying "By multiple...", which again implies that this is what the databank says. And just because Malak has six Jedi, doesn't mean he needed/did use them all. I'd submit that Revan would've overwhelmed Malak to the point where it'd be hard enough to summon Force powers, let alone drain Jedi. Similar to that of the RotS duel with Anakin and Count Dooku. It was described as "epic", implying close.
Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
I said if it was two, they would have couple
Who would've said it was a "couple"? You fail to realize that you didn't supply the "who", but only the what. Like I said, your post implied to what I responded to, because I believe you are referring to the databank (as that's the obvious choice). On top of that, captives is plural. Meaning more than one, ergo they don't need to specify "couple" for us to just dismiss it like you did.
But, hey, nice going, you actually managed to double post! Oh, and by the way. Here's the definition of "plural" from the definition website, dictionary.com:
plural
–adjective 1. consisting of, containing, or pertaining to more than one.
2. pertaining to or involving a plurality of persons or things.
3. being one of such a plurality.
4. Grammar. noting or pertaining to a member of the category of number, found in many languages, indicating that a word has more than one referent, as in English men, or more than two referents, as in Old English ge, meaning “you.”
-- Dictionary.com entry for "plural".
Oh? What's that? Plural means "more than one"? I do say, isn't two more than one?
Now that's done and over with, I'll continue with my final statement: It may seem more than likely, but again - irrelevant. We didn't know (and still don't), ergo your argument held no water.
EDIT:
I should probably apologize, too. But, I'm not going to because I'm 1337. Go home, noob. Your apology is rejected.
Kidding... 😛
No, but really I do apologize as my posts currently in this thread seem to reminiscent of Sorgo's own, lawlz. I get angered at the smallest things sometimes (and there's a reason about now, has to do with being a female), plus I do sort of have an e-ego at times, but I'm a girl - what do you expect? But really, I am sorry, and let's try to handle any more debates we get into civily.
Now, this statement implies (key) that the databank actually says "multiple". Your dialogue of "then they would have..." is indicative of such. You further go on by saying "By multiple...", which again implies that this is what the databank says. And just because Malak has six Jedi, doesn't mean he needed/did use them all. I'd submit that Revan would've overwhelmed Malak to the point where it'd be hard enough to summon Force powers, let alone drain Jedi. Similar to that of the RotS duel with Anakin and Count Dooku. It was described as "epic", implying close.
Whatever, I was just trying to protect myself from when you were saying I made up "lies". I did not actually. I said "if there were...", which doesn't mean that I said Databank said multiple. You speculated that, and you were very off.
Hmmm, about plural. Yes, you could say that indeed. I relied on probability for that. Can you name the source where is says Appeal to Probability is an illogical fallancy? Wikipedia says otherwise, so I was a bit confused.
BTW, can you please concede that argument as a tie, it'll improve my track record, and yours I bet is already 100-0-0 . However, if you REALLY feel you won it, then I don't care then. I told you before, I don't like to deal with the past.