ROTS Anakin V.S. KOTOR Revan

Now the image of Revan with ignited Light Saber also gives an impression that a saber clash took place between him and Malak because there was no other valid reason for Revan to ignite his Light Saber.

No one ever denied anything like that, so thanks for again, typing up a response for things of which I wasn't arguing. This is my point, you're completely off point.

And this seems to be a strawman argument, anyways, which would be a logical fallacy, try again.

A Jedi always ignites his Light Saber when he is about to engage in a duel against his opponent. This is a matter of common sense.

No one ever denied anything like that, so thanks for again, typing up a response for things of which I wasn't arguing. This is my point, you're completely off point.

AIf you are refering to clash between Revan and Malak then I know that we can't tell with 100% accuracy that what actually happened during their fight but as indicated from a case mentioned above, it is to some extent clear that an epic duel did took place between Revan and Malak.

^
That's you.

Now, I think we get the point it was "epic", "super special awesome", "Grammy Award winning", but to get to the crux, nothing implies that it was a long lightsaber battle, I could even have the assumption that it was more of a samurai, two second clash, with the rest being a Force battle, and seeing as we cannot make any correct, or absolute assumption on the matter, aside from the fact that - at one point - it was more likely to have involved lightsabers. For how long, you can't answer, and neither can I. So, the point doesn't hold much water.

But then again the above cases do suggest that a Saber duel took place between Revan and Malak

They do not, however, suggests how long, or how much involvement sabers had during the battle. And, from a simple picture like that, there's absolutely zero indication of that, you cannot even deduce from any of the "evidence" you have.

and one case suggests that it was a "titanic duel" or an "Epic duel" and thus we have an indication of some sort.

See above; addressed, and for all we know, it was, like I said, a two second Samurai-esque clash, which could still be considered "epic", and "titantic", because the Force could've been involved, The mere words don't say anything about a saber battle, so stop while you're behind.

Over-smartness teads to fallacy.

There's no fallacy here, and you have no understanding of the term "fallacy", otherwise you'd realize how fallacious half of your arguments are.

You did not even understood what I said and you declared that it furthers your point.

Except I did understand (not "understood", you primitive buffoon) your point. It does help support my perspective due to the fact that you proclaimed he did have a battalion that would make him "invincible". Now, it helps my point, because when you refer to someone, even with using their name, and not their entire organization, you can still be including that organization, or basing your conclusion off such.

Look at when history books refer to Adolf Hitler as "unstoppable", just Google it. You'll see such terms like that, or similar phrases, even when only referring to Hitler, however, he's only "unstoppable", and the like because of his forces, and such. You honestly think the nations of the world couldn't take down one single Nazi? Rofl. Go ask your English teacher, and I guarantee he'll tell you that you're completely wrong.

The word "he" can be used for referring to "Malak" when we are talking about him.

You just don't know how to properly type out what's in your head. Let's take a look at what you said:

S_W_RejEct: But SW Databank also used word “he” when referring to Malak , when using the term “nearly unstoppable”.[/b]

Now, if you knew English, you'd realize that by you putting the pronoun in quotations, and noting that that's what the databank said, that you are saying that's what it says. Again, you just prove how idiotic you are.

And you think that only you have good grasp over English, which is a wrong assumption.

Why are you making things up? When have I ever stated that "only" I have a decent understanding of the language? Oh? What's that? I haven't? And you're just talking out of your ass? When compared to you, though, I will say that you look like a third grader.

What about the Malak's own preparations inside the Star Forge to make him nearly unstoppable?

"The Malak's"? Lol. I didn't realize this was a sitcom.

Now Star Forge was indeed churning out end-less supply of ships as well but that suggested the case of making "Malak's Forces nearly unstoppable" and not the Malak himself.

Again, if you could understand that in certain texts, the meaning of the subject doesn't always need to be identified precisely. Almost the entire passage is dedicated to talking about how the Republic was engaged in combat with Malak (see what I did there? It's still completely proper, yet I didn't say "Malak's forces"😉.

The ships were aiding Malak's Forces outside the Star Forge and they were obviously not helping Malak during his fight against Revan.

Except that isn't the point, nor is the duel itself so much as directly mentioned in the entire paragraph (although, it notes what he did).

So you supposition is only partly true and not fully true as I used the choice of words used in the SW Databank and some other missing details (from the Databank) to explain the whole sittuation to back my case.

I'd advise you to stop looking up words in the dictionary, as the fact that you can't spell properly when it comes to simple words, or sentence structure seems to me to be a case of quasi-intellectualism (I mean, you continually use the word 'supposition', the fact you just started uses it, and use it often allude to that).

Anyways, I've addressed this above. I also want to make note that you constantly repeat yourself when you could easily address a point, albeit incorrectly, without the lengthy, repetitive response. It's quite annoying. I know that you want your posts to look, and feel like they're superior, but they're really not. I admit my posts are long, outside of this, but I usually don't repeat myself unless need be (or it's a different post).

So much for your proficiency in English.

What's that supposed to mean? You didn't even prove anything, and you really can't beat me. So much for your "EXCEPTIONAL DEBATING SKILLZ!!1111!ONEELEVEN!!". Tool.

My above case solves the issue regarding Malak making himself nearly unstoppable.

No, it doesn't. I'm glad you like to believe that it does, but we don't live in a fantasy world where the biggest dumbass rules.

It seems that you obviously have not played KOTOR before coming out and out-rightly declaring your suppositions as fully true.

Take your own advice. I've played both games in the KotOR series, if you don't believe me, I'll scan the damn game (hell, I have both the PC version, and Xbox version of the sequel).

Do you need me to take a picture playing the game while in a thong before you realize that the assumptions you make are completely idiotic, and aren't even backed up?

Oh, and I'd take your statement into consideration for your own self, if I were you, seeing as it certainly doesn't apply to me.

My above case solves the issue regarding Malak making himself nearly unstoppable.

No, it doesn't. I'm glad you like to believe that it does, but we don't live in a fantasy world where the biggest dumbass rules.

I have proved your case to be weak already.

1. You're clearly lying; see above.

2. Don't even say anything like that again. You've yet to earn the rights to be able to claim something like that on here (not that you ever will, though).

3. You're an idiot.

Originally posted by Advent

Do you need me to take a picture playing the game while in a thong before you realize that the assumptions you make are completely idiotic, and aren't even backed up?

Yeah, I'll challange that. 😉

I don't think Advent could post a picture of her doing that while playing the game.

🙄

Originally posted by Advent
No one ever denied anything like that, so thanks for again, typing up a response for things of which I wasn't arguing. This is my point, you're completely off point.

And this seems to be a strawman argument, anyways, which would be a logical fallacy, try again.

You are just picking out my lines related to a single case and trying to pose smart by declaring them invalid or completely off. Clearly you don't seem mature enough to me now.

Originally posted by Advent
No one ever denied anything like that, so thanks for again, typing up a response for things of which I wasn't arguing. This is my point, you're completely off point.

^
That's you.

Just picking up lines related to a certain case and stating that no one denied that is going to help you? I don't think so because you are now trying to destroy the momentum of this debate by showing silly pics and posing to be smart. Once again a sign of immaturity.

Originally posted by Advent
Now, I think we get the point it was "epic", "super special awesome", "Grammy Award winning", but to get to the crux, nothing implies that it was a long lightsaber battle, I could even have the assumption that it was more of a samurai, two second clash, with the rest being a Force battle, and seeing as we cannot make any correct, or absolute assumption on the matter, aside from the fact that - at one point - it was more likely to have involved lightsabers. For how long, you can't answer, and neither can I. So, the point doesn't hold much water.

You say that it was most of the time a Force contest between Revan and Malak and then only in the end it leads to a small Saber duel. Tell me what credibilty does your supposition holds in this case? Zero.

Originally posted by Advent
They do not, however, suggests how long, or how much involvement sabers had during the battle. And, from a simple picture like that, there's absolutely zero indication of that, you cannot even deduce from any of the "evidence" you have.

It suggested that Revan had a Saber clash with Malak and Malak was defeated in a Saber clash by Revan and he fell before Revan's feet. You have zero credibility once again in this comment.

Originally posted by Advent
See above; addressed, and for all we know, it was, like I said, a two second Samurai-esque clash, which could still be considered "epic", and "titantic", because the Force could've been involved, The mere words don't say anything about a saber battle, so stop while you're behind.

Those mere words do not directly indicate about a Saber clash but that vision does suggests that a Saber clash took place between them in which Malak was finally defeated and fell while Revan's saber was still ignited.

Originally posted by Advent
There's no fallacy here, and you have no understanding of the term "fallacy", otherwise you'd realize how fallacious half of your arguments are.

Originally posted by Advent
Except I did understand (not "understood", you primitive buffoon) your point. It does help support my perspective due to the fact that you proclaimed he did have a battalion that would make him "invincible". Now, it helps my point, because when you refer to someone, even with using their name, and not their entire organization, you can still be including that organization, or basing your conclusion off such.

They were talking about Malak and ended the details with a bigger picture in the end by stating that Republic emerged victorious. Many details are missing in the lines stated in Malak's profile.

Now this line can have multiple perspectives and I did not declared your perspective to be false and did called it partly true.

The line "Malak was nearly unstoppable" can indicate multiple perspectives and some of them are:

A) That Malak was nearly unstoppable due to his able leadership and his powerful military forces. This is one perspective.

B) Malak himself was nearly unstoppable because he controlled the Star Forge itself and because of the advantages it gave him and prepared well for his possible clash with his ultimate enemy (namely Revan) and being confident that he along with the help of Star Forge will stop Revan. This is a second perspective.

You cannot declare the second perspective false just because you share a different perspective. People have different perceptions about the samething.

Originally posted by Advent
Look at when history books refer to Adolf Hitler as "unstoppable", just Google it. You'll see such terms like that, or similar phrases, even when only referring to Hitler, however, he's only "unstoppable", and the like because of his forces, and such. You honestly think the nations of the world couldn't take down one single Nazi? Rofl. Go ask your English teacher, and I guarantee he'll tell you that you're completely wrong.

Do me a favour and stop arguing further because you are making no progress in this debate apart from some assumptions that you are making and thinking that only your assumptions are true.

Originally posted by Advent
You just don't know how to properly type out what's in your head. Let's take a look at what you said:

S_W_RejEct: But SW Databank also used word “he” when referring to Malak , when using the term “nearly unstoppable”.[/b]

Now, if you knew English, you'd realize that by you putting the pronoun in quotations, and noting that that's what the databank said, that you are saying that's what it says. Again, you just prove how idiotic you are.

Originally posted by Advent
Why are you making things up? When have I ever stated that "only" I have a decent understanding of the language? Oh? What's that? I haven't? And you're just talking out of your ass? When compared to you, though, I will say that you look like a third grader.

Originally posted by Advent
"The Malak's"? Lol. I didn't realize this was a sitcom.

Originally posted by Advent
Again, if you could understand that in certain texts, the meaning of the subject doesn't always need to be identified precisely. Almost the entire passage is dedicated to talking about how the Republic was engaged in combat with Malak (see what I did there? It's still completely proper, yet I didn't say "Malak's forces"😉.

Compare these two terms now:

- Malak was unstoppable. (This term can have multiple meanings because of a usage of a single noun that refers to a single entity or character and the comment is not precise in nature.)

- But Republic emerged victorious. (Now this term has precise meaning as it is pointing towards an entity called "Republic" as a whole and it is not the name of a single character.)

The second term clearly hints on Republic Forces that were engaged with Sith Forces as a whole and not Malak alone. The first term does not clearly hints on Malak's Forces but focuses on Malak himself. Now I have a strong case backing up that Malak himself also prepared for an in-evitable clash with Revan to such an extent with help of Star Forge that he was also nearly unstoppable. And I have described this case before in detail.

Originally posted by Advent
Except that isn't the point, nor is the duel itself so much as directly mentioned in the entire paragraph (although, it notes what he did).

Originally posted by Advent
I'd advise you to stop looking up words in the dictionary, as the fact that you can't spell properly when it comes to simple words, or sentence structure seems to me to be a case of quasi-intellectualism (I mean, you continually use the word 'supposition', the fact you just started uses it, and use it often allude to that).

Originally posted by Advent
Anyways, I've addressed this above. I also want to make note that you constantly repeat yourself when you could easily address a point, albeit incorrectly, without the lengthy, repetitive response. It's quite annoying. I know that you want your posts to look, and feel like they're superior, but they're really not. I admit my posts are long, outside of this, but I usually don't repeat myself unless need be (or it's a different post).

Originally posted by Advent
What's that supposed to mean? You didn't even prove anything, and you really can't beat me. So much for your "EXCEPTIONAL DEBATING SKILLZ!!1111!ONEELEVEN!!". Tool.

Those 3 cases are the only hints available regarding the Revan vs Malak case and each of them give a little different perspective about the same fight but one case does indicate that a saber clash did took place between them.

Originally posted by Advent
No, it doesn't. I'm glad you like to believe that it does, but we don't live in a fantasy world where the biggest dumbass rules.

Originally posted by Advent
Take your own advice. I've played both games in the KotOR series, if you don't believe me, I'll scan the damn game (hell, I have both the PC version, and Xbox version of the sequel).

Do you need me to take a picture playing the game while in a thong before you realize that the assumptions you make are completely idiotic, and aren't even backed up?

Oh, and I'd take your own statement into considering for yourself, if I were you, seeing as it certainly doesn't apply to me.

Originally posted by Advent
No, it doesn't. I'm glad you like to believe that it does, but we don't live in a fantasy world where the biggest dumbass rules.

1. You're clearly lying; see above.

2. Don't even say anything like that again. You've yet to earn the rights to be able to claim something like that on here (not that you ever will, though).

3. You're an idiot.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
No one ever denied? that comment of mine cannot be denied as it suggests that a saber clash did took place between Revan and Malak though for how long, it is questionable.

You don't even make sense, Legend. In all honestly the above sentence(s?) are really confusing. Now, don't take that as "lol advent u r teh stoopid cuz u dunt undstand!", you should note that I'm saying it, because it's completely void of sense.

I said that no one ever denied they saber dueled, so why do you continuously bring it up? I even mentioned that it indicates they battled with blades, but again, not for how long, or what happened with them. This is why I say you're off the point.

Your declaration regarding this comment being a fallacy is not going to help.

Actually, it only furthers the fact that you like to twist arguments around, and defeat nonexistent ones, such as the one that I was responding to.

You are just picking out my lines related to a single case and trying to pose smart by declaring them invalid or completely off.

Legend, you're the only pseudo intellectual here, that much is apparent. If you honestly believe I'm "trying to pose smart", then you're even denser than I thought. Take a look at my debating history, you troll.

The reason that I would pass them off as invalid is explained, so you can stop while you're behind, and no lines you write later do anything to change that they (as its own statement) are wrong, regardless.

Clearly you don't seem mature enough to me now.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

And showing stupid pictures is going to help you in debate? It seems amusing and entertaining to some but not me. I can post some pics like these two.

I was posting a picture relevant to the discussion. You constantly repeat yourself, when you could really address the points (or attempt to, rather) on a singular level without all the lengthy, repetitive responses, which are made in an effort to make them seem "superior" to mine, or others, when they really aren't.

Just picking up lines related to a certain case and stating that no one denied that is going to help you?

Right, because that's all I've done. Please don't lecture me on how to debate, or how to respond.

The fact of the matter is, there's absolutely no reason for you to state things that I'm not arguing, and the fact that you continue to do such, is indicative of a strawman argument, which as pointed out, is fallacious. When something is "fallacious", that usually means that there should be no continuance of said something, yet you do it. Over, and over again.

These "single & certain cases" you refer to don't add to the discussion whatsoever.

It was an epic clash

Originally posted by Advent

^
That's you.

and what happened in it is not fully confirmed yet. What you are posting is also an assumption just like mine and your case does not gets any better here.

You see, the entire purpose of me making an assumption like that wasn't to necessarily say that it's absolute, or correct. Originally, it was to demonstrate the fact that we don't know what went on, and was for Nebaris' comment regarding the duel, then you later tried to respond to my argument on that, and made it seem as if you wholeheartedly agree that it was a straight lightsaber duel, or at least, the majority of it. You, as usual (see: Kavar/Drallig), took my post entirely out of context.

Seeing as you, yourself, have said that "we don't know what happened" (paraphrased), it means that my initial claims were correct. If you'll note, I say things like "specifically a saber duel", or ask "just a saber duel, as Nebaris' initial post implied?". If that doesn't tell you that I wasn't questioning the fact there were lightsabers involved, then you're an idiot.

You say that it was most of the time a Force contest between Revan and Malak and then only in the end it leads to a small Saber duel. Tell me what credibilty does your supposition holds in this case? Zero.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The perfect example of why I consider you pathetic, and why I continually say that you take things out of context, and twist them around, so as it seems you defeat my argument (otherwise known as a "strawman argument", which renders this portion void, so unlucky).

Review my rebuttal carefully, I'll highlight in bold what I'm referring to, so as you don't continue to do this:

Originally posted by Advent
Thanks for, again, proving nothing. For all we know, they had a huge Force battle initially, and ended it off in a short, two second samurai saber duel, or similar circumstances. We don't know what happened.

I use words like "for all we know", which means that we really don't know what happened (as stated at the end), yet to say that they dueled for x amount of time, or that it was a straightforward lightsaber battle (as both Nebaris', and your post implied) is ridiculous, at best. I never claimed that the examples I've given of what could've happened were right, it wasn't even the point I was trying to make.

I seriously do hope that you can understand this, as you constantly are doing the aforementioned actions, and not listening to a damn word I'm saying.

I will soon get an indication from Drew. Until then I won't argue more in this case. That PIC (which was actually a part of vision of a Jedi) showed Revan holding an ignited Saber in his hand and that was for what reason? for amusement or enjoyment purposes?

Oh my frickin' days, are you seriously that dense?

Originally posted by Advent
No one ever denied anything like that, so thanks for again, typing up a response for things of which I wasn't arguing. This is my point, you're completely off point.

And this seems to be a strawman argument, anyways, which would be a logical fallacy, try again.

It suggested that Revan had a Saber clash with Malak and Malak was defeated in a Saber clash by Revan and he fell before Revan's feet. You have zero credibility once again in this comment.

How do I have "zero credibility" when I just proved what a complete fool you are above? I've stated, exactly, that they did battle using lightsabers. FFS, look, you blind bat, on every occasions you've mentioned this, I've taken the time to note that they did fight using sabers, so why do you act as if I haven't? I'm merely stating we don't know how long, nor do we know if it was a full fledged lightsaber duel, which was the entire point.

You seriously need to take some lessons in comprehension, language, and debating. And again, look at your post, you repeated yourself twice in the same point, and both times there was no reason to even mention that. You have zero credibility whatsoever, nearly everyone here considers you to be sub par, at best. Some would claim that you're not even a debater at all. So, for you to even think to mention my points as being unconceivable is ludicrous.

See what? your stupid logics and declarations above?

Quit using the thesaurus, it's really a nuisance, especially when anyone can tell a quasi-intellectual from an actual intellectual. And look (below, in your post), you continually say the same damn thing every sentence. "It was a saber clash, yay!". If you really cannot see the repetition, then I'm not even going to bother responding.

Your display of immaturity above and also your own assumptions that also have not better credibility the mine also solidify your case of being a failure.

Thanks for responding directly to the point. Not.

You've committed a fallacy, so acknowledge it. And you persistently do so, ergo you're at the losing end. As well, see above, yet again, because I've explained why I'm not trying to say what you are, yet again, making it seem I am saying.

Did the SW Databank mentioned about Malak's Battalion or something in that profile when making a term "Malak was unstoppable"? No.

That's not a term, Einstein. Malak was termed as "nearly unstoppable", though. Anyways, they alluded to it by the entire paragraph being dedicated to the Republic forces against Malak's own. You seemed to be entirely convinced that simply because it say "Malak", and not otherwise, that you are completely correct. When will you see that you're wrong (that it isn't completely correct)?

Now this line can have multiple perspectives and I did not declared your perspective to be false and did called it partly true.

Funny, I said the same thing before you even so much as hinted at that:

Originally posted by Advent
Even if you don't want to believe such, the quote is up for interpretation, ergo you cannot say that "Ooh! Malak himself is nearly unstoppable", and act as if it matters much, because it can be said both ways, and you can't prove yours as being absolutely correct (neither can I, but that's not what I'm trying to do anyways).

And your response consisted of "I [believe] I made your case weak. Wah, wah, wah! Mine is right". Hell, the last sentence in parentheses makes it clear that isn't what I'm trying to do.

Legend, you're really pathetic. I know that you love to make comments like "Ooh, you r an immature", and claim you even have any idea of what I'm about, but you really don't. Even then, you barely address my points, and substitute that for them.

You cannot declare the second perspective false just because you share a different perspective. People have different perceptions about the samething.

I didn't say it was entirely "false", just read the quote that I said before you even wrote this. And, double standards do apply, you were repeatedly saying that "my case is weak", and implied that your point of view was right; whereas I at least acknowledged the possibilities. You fail.

I don't have to look at history books as I know my stuff to some extent. Hitler's case might be similar to Malak but we know that Hitler himself was not as powerful as Malak and had no rival like Revan to come and face him in a single combat. His case differs a bit and in Hitler's case you can use only a single perspective to determine his case of being unstoppable and that is because of his forces.

Even in the political sense, Hitler most certainly did have an opposition. And to go along with that, it's not merely because of his "forces" (in this context, army) as you would put it, but also his political recognition, and influence.

The point I was intending to illustrate was that just because it states the subject in a singular sense, doesn't mean it isn't referring to his supplies, and the like. Whereas you seemed concrete in saying "No, it says Malak, so it is him, not his forces".

As a matter of fact, all of your posts thus far (save for this one) have an attitude that it is only talking about Malak himself, and as that being the only legitimate answer. So, save your sermon for someone else, boy.

Since you have played the game, you failed to notice that how much more difficult was for us to defeat Malak on Star Forge

False assumption, false statement, and false in general. Where did I give indication that it didn't power up Malak? I didn't, nor does anything I wrote suggest that. Once again, twisting shit like a twizzler, and making things appear that weren't previously there.

And Hitler did not had Star Forge at his disposal to boost his personal power and abilities.

He doesn't need to. Malak's boosting up, or gaining difficulty only says that he gained some power in the game, not how much out of the game, nor does it say enough that it'd make him "nearly unstoppable".

Do me a favour and stop arguing further because you are making no progress in this debate apart from some assumptions that you are making and thinking that only your assumptions are true.

I gave acknowledgment to your side as well, see above.

And the fact that I frequently express agreement when it comes down to Revan using a lightsaber (not for how long, or what went on) disagrees with your statement. So, you're lying, as much is apparent.

And really, you do sound like a broken record, I'll show you what I mean:

First point...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
it suggests that a saber clash did took place between Revan and Malak

Next point...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
That PIC (which was actually a part of vision of a Jedi) showed Revan holding an ignited Saber in his hand and that was for what reason? for amusement or enjoyment purposes?

Following point...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
but that vision does suggests that a Saber clash took place between them in which Malak was finally defeated and fell while Revan's saber was still ignited.

That's progress? Rofl.

And you think that by refering to my past errors is going to help your case?

Dude, at the time, it was a current error, and a seemingly blatant lie. Not only that, but it was something you tried to play off as if you didn't say it at all, or rather, said something entirely different. You didn't say "I made a mistake", you tried to argue against it without acknowledging the supposed "grammatical error" you made (yeah, right). There's a difference.

I think that you don't have enough sense to even think that it can be grammatical error from a person which would not be intended by the debator. I typed he in a hurry and then realized after some time that I could not edit my post due to very short editing time.

Sure, you did, champ. 👆

You are immature in my eyes now.

That's great. 👆 No one really cares about your opinion.

Others might hold high opinions regarding you because of your knowledge but I have got to see a little different picture of your mentality.

And I've shown your various little tricks. Right now, in fact, you're just trying to make it seem as if I'm in the wrong here, when in reality, you are. But, that's okay. I really could care less. So, 👆.

Your pride and openly verbal appreciation of yourself is what led me to make this comment. You over-pride yourself.

How do you figure? I rarely ever make notions about the level the person I'm debating is on. I've only done it in a few, rare cases, and it only happens when someone tries to act as you do (that you're right, or disproved me). Hell, even when I put down the Ox's arguments, I never mentioned what I actually thought about his skill, or how I perceive him on the grand scale (aside from a complete dolt [at the time]); even though it seemed as if I hated him.

Stop being an immature.

Stop being a senile old man (as Nebaris would say), and quit repeating yourself.

We are not discussing grammatical mistakes here.

According to whom? I didn't realize you were the dictator of the forum. Sieg Heil! Anyways, I can discuss, point out, or make fun of your horrible grammar any time I want to, so shut the hell up already.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Dictionary is an important tool in understanding the meanings of words.

No, I meant that as you look up words in the dictionary in a [failed] effort to sound like you: a) know what you're talking about, and b) are smart. I've also noticed that you take what I say to you, and flip it around, even when it doesn't apply.

A same sentence (unless precise in its meaning) regarding an event can have multiple meanings, especially if other missing details related to it are present and reinforce/address its nature and meaning.

Originally posted by Advent
Again, if you could understand that in certain texts, the meaning of the subject doesn't always need to be identified precisely.

Stop being a dolt

You are such a poser, Legend. I called you (and use it almost every day) this in our debate, now you're using it (when you have never used it before)? Again, you prove what a copycat you are. One, I might add, that can't even formulate sentences or words without consulting either: someone else's post, or a thesaurus.

Both in an attempt, albeit failed, to sound smart.

and try to understand the perceptions of others regarding same things that can differ from yours. You are not the only smart one in this world who is all-knowing.

So, you're calling me "all-knowing" (again, a word I just used; which furthers the point that you copy, and paste shit)? Good to know.

If you knew how to properly structure your sentences, you wouldn't sound so feeble minded. As you can see, you just called me "all-knowing", and there is no way around that from the way you worded your sentence.

I find it hilarious at best that one individual could type up such elaborate words, correctly, every time; yet when it comes to things like tenses, and making sentences grammatically correct, or spelling, you fail horribly (and quite often). Your kind is a dime a dozen, though, so don't feel left out.

Try to me more mature next time and read and understand what a specific line stated here is related to what case.

Try to comprehend my basic sentences, try not to misinterpret, and then misrepresent my perspectives on matters in an effort to make up for the intelligence that you lack.

Also, quit saying the same lines. You just look more, and more foolish each time I point it out. Do you think it's going to go away, or something?

I am not lying

But, you really are, because you said that you "proved my case to be weak". Any reader can see that's not the case; the opposite, however, is true.

As a final statement that I'm going to make, from now on, every time you repeat yourself, I'm going to continue to post that picture. If I would've done it in this specific response, it would've been done at least twenty times. I'm going to have to repeat myself though, I'd like everyone to realize that the reason he constantly says the same things is to make his posts look longer (and thus, feel "superior), but they really aren't.

Anyways, I know all of your tactics, so I'd advise that you knock them off, and stick to debating, and jokes. Calling me "immature", or saying that "my points are weakened" is stupid, for lack of a better word, because it's not true in the least bit, and only used so it seems that it is true.

and you are being immature here

Originally posted by Advent

^
That's you.

Do you need me to take a picture playing the game while in a thong before you realize that the assumptions you make are completely idiotic, and aren't even backed up?

Um...yes...

Anyways, the paragraph in question says this:

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.

Its silly to pick and choose which one explanation you want to go with on either side: that it was all about Malak's own personal power or that it was about his endless fleet of warships. As you can see the sections I bolded are clearly talking about both his personal and military power, since both are mentioned with the next phrase following being: "nearly unstoppable" its logical to assume that you both would be correct.

Originally posted by Advent
Obviously you've misinterpreted "bullshit", as something false, when all I meant was that it was: a) irrelevant, and b) doesn't prove a damn thing. For example,

I only portrayed a better picture of him here so that some people won't under-estimate him. And my most points regarding Kavar are also relevant and were meant to up-lift his image. I will once again mention the reasons below and more clearly now than before. So read all texts below before making a final judgment about him.

Originally posted by Advent
Do you realize how ****ing stupid that sounds? For one, if you're going to make a claim about a person, at least prove up on it. Where does it state Kavar knows Force lightning, as no source I've seen indicates such? Then, I'd like you to tell me who gives a shit if he instructed the Exile, because Drallig instructed several students, as he was the head lightsaber instructor. And guess what? Two of his students just happen to be considered the greatest Jedi team ever to grace the galaxy, Anakin Skywalker, and Obi-Wan Kenobi (source: Casualty Report: Order 66). So, your point really holds no water.

Here is a description of Force Form: Force forms were meditative battle stances that served as alternatives to the various forms of lightsaber combat. While all Jedi were taught to connect with the Force, and while most lightsaber styles relied on this connection to at least some degree, the Force forms enhanced a Jedi's power to feel and control the Force, allowing one to reach beyond what most could in the midst of combat, at the expense of physical ability. They were popular among Jedi Consulars and others who relied more on the Force than on lightsabers, even in battle.

The notable Force Forms are: Force Channel, Force Potency, Force Affinity and Force Mastery.

Kriea said this about Force Forms: "...preferred of the Jedi Consulars, and effective in combats where you must fight only through the Force."

This clearly gives us a clue about level of understanding of Force of Kavar and it was exceptional.

And who told you that Kavar only instructed Exile in his life? He was a Jedi Master and the battle-master of the OLD Republic (like Cin in his age) and would have trained several other Jedi. Sometimes we need to use common sense to judge a few things.

And since Kavar did trained Jedi Exile, you forgot to note that she also proved to be a hero and became one of the most successful Jedi in her age? My points do hold some water indeed.

Also at some point Obi-Wan was indeed trained by Cin but Obi-Wan's greatest Jed Master and instructor was Qui Gon Jinn. Even in the case of Anakin, his greatest Jedi Master was Obi-Wan himself and not Dralling. And I can also say that Exile’s greatest instructor was Master Kriea. So Kavar and Cin should not get so much credibility.

Originally posted by Advent
Cin is also said to be fully trained in all forms of bladed combat, save for Vaapad ("although well versed in nearly all styles of the lightsaber, except for Form VII..."; Visual Dictionary, p. 33), and on top of that, he's noted as being "one of the Order's top swordsmen", yet Anakin took him out in a few swings, even with using the other hand to manually choke the padawan.

Anakin had proven himself in combat while Dralling is an unknown in this case as we have not seen much from him and it is questionable that he even participated in great battles and wars like Anakin and Obi-Wan did. As far as I know from some sources, Cin mostly stayed at the Jedi Temple and devoted most of his life to training people, so he was only moderately experienced due to lack of exposures to very dangerous situations and fights in which his life would be at stake. Real experience always comes from exposure to extremely dangerous situations that only arise in battles/conflicts and not from just tutoring. Anakin and Obi-Wan often got exposed to life and death situations and became battle-hardened and highly experienced, so they had an edge over Drallig.

Originally posted by Advent
It's even noted that "Drallig's skills marked him as a priority target for elimination by Lord Vader". Now, I don't even know where you got the impression I was arguing that Cin > Kavar, but it looks like your case for proving the opposite sucks. You have no real evidence suggesting Kavar was better, nor "much higher" in the rankings. Try again, chump change.

And Kaver also mastered Juyo (which Cin never mastered) apart from mastering several others Saber Forms. Thus kavar seems to be a more skilled swordsman then Cin. Additionally Kavar also had participated in wars/conflicts, which added immensely to his experience. Cin is not known to have participated in any war and thus he does not have enough experience. And when Cin was exposed to a real dangerous situation by Vader and his troops, he lost and lost badly.
Thus my point regarding Kavar being greater then Cin holds some water. Look further below for even more precise details.

Originally posted by Advent
The entire reason I even mentioned Cin was to show just how dominate Anakin is in lightsaber combat, even against a man considered to be one of the best, knows multiple forms, and said to be able to take down Grievous. You took my post out of context, and argued against something non-existent.

Originally posted by Advent
Except, again, they prove literally nothing.

Originally posted by Advent
I own KotOR 2, but that's irrelevant, I don't have to have it in my possession, or even play it. It's your job to provide strong evidence to back up your assertions, and the like. Not mine to replay a sub par game.

Originally posted by Advent
That's wonderful, we've seen intelligent Jedi masters who haven't seen much combat at all, your point? How does being a strategist on the battle field account for jack shit when comparing him with another being? Again, nothing.

In reality, just because someone was mentioned as "intelligent" doesn't really mean too much; Darth Vader (OT) was intelligent, but would be decimated by the top dogs of the PT in a saber battle.

Originally posted by Advent
Oh my Buddha, what does that prove? It only shows that he's more well experienced, but as we know, experience hasn't had too much of an impact on the outcome of duels (see: Vodo/Kun, Odan/Kun, Anakin/Dooku, etc.), nor does it prove he's powerful. Tott "Small fry" Doneeta fought in the Great Sith War, too, is he more powerful than Drallig, FFS?

Originally posted by Advent
Thanks for repeating yourself. 👆 I think I disregarded it the first time for a reason. Drallig skill was so great that he was said to be able to take down General Grievous, a man who's killed more Jedi than Kavar has digits.

Originally posted by Advent
Thanks for repeating yourself. 👆 I think I covered this above, but for kicks, I'll tell you that Cin was also the Battle master of the "Golden Age of the Jedi", an expert in almost all forms (except Vaapad), and has taught said forms to thousands of students. All this is evident from actual source material.

And despite all this tutoring, Drallig was not as impressive when it came down to a real fight. So much for Drallig’s appreciation. And Dralling is not known to have practiced Juyo.

Originally posted by Advent
Wow, he defeated some guards! "OMFGKAVAR=GOD".

Originally posted by Advent
You haven't even shown any evidence that Kavar's better, except for opinions, and beliefs (not factual), miscellaneous shit like "he taught Exile!" (big ****ing deal), and that he mastered some forms. Now, compare this to narration telling us how good Cin is, reputable masters commenting on his skill, and other things. Even if he's not that much greater (though, he intuitively is), it's apparent that he, at the very least, rivals him. Not that any of that was the point, though.

I always judge the capabilities of a Jedi considering all factors including opinions, accomplishments, experience and display of power. Cin is more of an opinion tiger it seems.

Originally posted by Advent
See above; you're lying, and/or uninformed.

Originally posted by Advent
And this is indicative that Drallig is lower than Kavar in dueling prowess? No, it's not. We can deduce that Drallig is wise, otherwise he wouldn't be instructing students whatsoever.

Originally posted by Advent
No, it is safe to say you're a biased KotOR fanboy, and that you have no idea what you're talking about. You've haven't provided a decent quantity (or even any) amount of viable evidence, and the things you've written don't put Kavar on a higher level than Cin, anyways.

Originally posted by Advent
I don't try, son. As much is apparent through my days here. If I was "trying to be smart", then I'd been using someone else's vocabulary; which is something I've noticed you to be doing lately.

Originally posted by Advent
duel, n.

A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor.

I don't know how you automatically think "it was a lightsaber duel!", simply because the last part of the word is in there. For example,

"The two entered into a spectacular duel -- a contest between the most powerful practitioners of the Force's light and dark sides." (Yoda, Star Wars databank).

Now, as we know, Yoda and Sidious' battle in RotS was not purely a lightsaber duel, nor was the majority of it involving lightsabers. Despite this, it's still noted as a "duel", ergo you're entire premise is faulty.

A duel by definition, even Star Wars definition, isn't 3/4 lightsaber combat, or a full on bladed battle, it's just two people trying to kill each other. If we believed what you say to be true, Yoda and Palpatine must've not battled using the Force. I mean, you do realize back in olden times, a duel was settled with guns? Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr ring a bell?

Originally posted by Advent
Well, then you need to check again, because you've been "examination" was disproved; see above, chump change.

Originally posted by Advent
And you don't need to continuously tell me things that aren't really relevant, or have already been addressed (i.e. "epic", etc.). You sound like a broken record.

Originally posted by Advent
But, that's not what I asked, so try again, chump change. If you need some refreshing, I asked: how does getting a description ("titantic", "epic", etc.) indicate anything about a lightsaber duel, as you said 'all these cases'? Oh? What's that? They don't?

Originally posted by Advent
Indeed, mere description imply absolutely zilch in regards to what type of combat took place, which was my point, and the point that completely flew over your head like Superman.

Originally posted by Advent
So, then, why did you respond to when I asked Nebaris if it was a straight lightsaber duel, as his post insuiated?

Originally posted by Advent
If you seriously say that one more time, I'm going to reach through my monitor, and kick your ass. What relevance does this have, at all? The only thing it seemingly means is that it wasn't a squash match, which says that Revan didn't win easily; so, it's rather irrelevant to bring up. My original point regarding by what margin did Revan defeat him was more or less to say that we can't say it was the aforementioned (a slaughter). [/B]

And I will respond to your further posts later on.

Originally posted by xxXAcStylesXxx
Um...yes...

Anyways, the paragraph in question says this:

This confrontation erupted into a massive battle as Republic fleet forces arrived to attack the Star Forge.[B] 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.

Its silly to pick and choose which one explanation you want to go with on either side: that it was all about Malak's own personal power or that it was about his endless fleet of warships. As you can see the sections I bolded are clearly talking about both his personal and military power, since both are mentioned with the next phrase following being: "nearly unstoppable" its logical to assume that you both would be correct. [/B]

You solved a problem regarding Malak himself also making nearly unstoppable.

I made a huge explanation regarding this and also stated that both assumptions can be considered and she still did not get it.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I made a huge explanation regarding this and also stated that both assumptions can be considered and she still did not get it.

Originally posted by Advent
Even if you don't want to believe such, the quote is up for interpretation, ergo you cannot say that "Ooh! Malak himself is nearly unstoppable", and act as if it matters much, because it can be said both ways, and you can't prove yours as being absolutely correct (neither can I, but that's not what I'm trying to do anyways).

You were saying? Seriously. Now, not only did I say what you said, except in a shorter form, but I said it before you even made the remark. I'm not even going to be bothered with the repetition, and continuous strawman arguments, as even without reading through, I can already see what you're doing.

Edit:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And I am not lying about Kavar as proven above.

Again, further proof that you misconstrue nearly every single point I make. Let's take a look at what I was responding to:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Contrary to all this I have not seen much from Cin Drallig. He was known to have mastered Form I and Form VI and thats it.

Now, you clearly were lying, and/or misinformed, because I provided viable evidence which proves he's had complete training in all forms (again, except for Vaapad). I never said that you were making false statements regarding Kavar. Just goes to show how incompetent one can be.

Look at that, I skimmed through your argument, and can find two examples right away. This is why I cannot be bothered with you, and why I hold you on the level that I do. Need I continue?

Moreover, you don't want to listen to me when I tell you that "I get the point [but, it doesn't matter]", and that you commit the strawman fallacy left, and right. That's why I sent you the PM that I did, as you can see, I was clearly right about you.

Originally posted by Advent
You were saying? Seriously. Now, not only did I say what you said, except in a shorter form, but I said it before you even made the remark. I'm not even going to be bothered with the repetition, and continuous strawman arguments, as even without reading through, I can already see what you're doing.

Here is what I said before:

Now this line can have multiple perspectives and I did not declared your perspective to be false and did called it partly true.

The line "Malak was nearly unstoppable" can indicate multiple perspectives and some of them are:

A) That Malak was nearly unstoppable due to his able leadership and his powerful military forces. This is one perspective.

B) Malak himself was nearly unstoppable because he controlled the Star Forge itself and because of the advantages it gave him and prepared well for his possible clash with his ultimate enemy (namely Revan) and being confident that he along with the help of Star Forge will stop Revan. This is a second perspective.

You cannot declare the second perspective false just because you share a different perspective. People have different perceptions about the samething.

Did you even paid attention to what I said here? I don't think so.

I meant that your perspective and my perspective can both be true and can fit according to that line.

Now as evident from SW Databank, both our perspectives were mentioned in shorter words.

Originally posted by Advent
Edit:

Again, further proof that you misconstrue nearly every single point I make. Let's take a look at what I was responding to:

Originally posted by Advent
Now, you clearly were lying, and/or misinformed, because I provided viable evidence which proves he's had complete training in all forms (again, except for Vaapad). I never said that you were making false statements regarding Kavar. Just goes to show how incompetent one can be.

Originally posted by Advent
Look at that, I skimmed through your argument, and can find two examples right away. This is why I cannot be bothered with you, and why I hold you on the level that I do. Need I continue?

Originally posted by Advent
Moreover, you don't want to listen to me when I tell you that "I get the point [but, it doesn't matter]", and that you commit the strawman fallacy left, and right. That's why I sent you the PM that I did, as you can see, I was clearly right about you.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You failed to grasp about what I said regarding Malak also making himself nearly unstoppable. And you constantly argued against it and suggested that only your assertion was true.

Do I hear an echo?

Originally posted by Advent
I didn't say it was entirely "false", just read the quote that I said before you even wrote this. And, double standards do apply, you were repeatedly saying that "my case is weak", and implied that your point of view was right; whereas I at least acknowledged the possibilities. You fail.

Aside from the fact you like mimicking me, I said, exactly, that "it can be said both ways", which implies that, indeed, both assumptions can be true, but you cannot continually act as if what you said was absolutely right, which I labeled as the point.

Look at the last line in parentheses of the aforementioned quote (the previous post I made), I even noted "neither can I", which meant that I wasn't trying to claim mine as undeniable fact, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make anyways.

Furthermore, I even outright acknowledged that I wasn't trying to say your point of view was completely wrong ("I didn't say it was entirely 'false'..."😉. Now, do you need me to further clarify this? Or will you accept that you misinterpreted my side, or the more likely case, misrepresented it, because as of now, you're not doing a good job of providing acceptable reasoning behind your posts.

So, try again.

Did you even paid attention to what I said here? I don't think so.

See above; did you? No, not at all.

You fail to grasp what I say and continue to chant baseless slogans regarding my comments. This shows your lack of concentration.

"Lack of concentration"? No, it only shows that you cannot comprehend basic English. I perfectly understand everything you say (unless it's constructed in the way that you've made it seem like your lacking in evolution).

My above lastest posts rectify all the issues about explaining Kavar. Read them and you will know. Now my points are as pure as possible.

Goodness gracious, that wasn't the point I was making. You responded to the point where I called you out on "lying, and/or being misinformed", and said that you didn't lie about Kavar. Why? I wasn't talking about Kavar at all, I was merely telling you that Cin mastered more forms than you named (and you said 'that's it', indicating you were either lying, and/or misinformed).

This isn't about Kavar, at all. So, I don't know why you keep on saying that I "fail to grasp" this, and that, when it's not me, but you in reality.

Plus, you didn't acknowledge that Cin mastered more forms in your previous posts, so you can't wiggle your way out of this one, worm.

You just skimm and thats it.

Really? So you're in the closet nearest my computer, and watching my every movements? Can you read minds, as well?

I said that I skimmed through your previous post, not all of them. And, I read all the relevant things concerning what I'm about to address, before I address them. If I didn't, I'd be considered someone like you, but that's not how it is.

The rest of your post (or whatever the hell it is) just consists of you turning what you do, and applying it to me, when I don't do any of it, and just more ridiculousness.

And, more assorted comments:

And since Kavar did trained Jedi Exile, you forgot to note that she also proved to be a hero and became one of the most successful Jedi in her age? My points do hold some water indeed.

And Arca Jeth, who would be considered as an average Jedi master on the grand scale, trained Ulic Qel-Droma. The same Ulic Qel-Droma that became the second most powerful being of his era (and one of the most powerful in known history), and who was considered the largest threat before Exar Kun revealed himself.

Training one doesn't account for much. As you've noted, Kreia was more or less the Exile's mentor than anyone. Likewise, with Cin, and Obi-Wan and Anakin, but the reason I said you point doesn't hold any value is because Cin trained Anakin Skywalker, "the most powerful Jedi Knight ever" in the history of the Order, and defeated one of the most powerful beings in the entire mythos, Count Dooku. The point your trying to make gets negated, because Anakin is better than the Exile, so why did you need to bring it up? Plus, training a student isn't indicative of much, anyways.

Thus kavar seems to be a more skilled swordsman then Cin.

Wait, so because Kavar mastered Juyo, or various other forms, he's "a more skilled swordsman"? That's fallacious logic in itself, I should point out that - as far as you yourself have indicated - Kavar only mastered five lightsaber forms, compared to Drallig's six.

Once again, a point in the direction that you don't really make sense.

is expert in multiple Saber Forms, even more so then Cin

You have absolutely no proof behind that. I already know what you're going to say, too. "Advent ur immature, but Kavar has Juyo under his belt, so he's better! Although, I left out the part where it says that Cin mastered six forms, which is one more than Kavar, but forget that! KAVAR IS AWESOME!".

Legend, my question for you is, why are you still here? You have been thorougly pwned in this debate, and yet you keep coming back with your repetitious and inconsequential nonsense.

Kavar did instantly stun about 15 soldiers surrounding him, which is pretty impressive, and sword fighting was his forte/, so it can be assumed that he was pretty skilled.

Agreed, but, let's keep it at "Pretty skilled."

Originally posted by Advent
Do I hear an echo?

Originally posted by Advent
Aside from the fact you like mimicking me, I said, exactly, that "it can be said both ways", which implies that, indeed, both assumptions can be true, but you cannot continually act as if what you said was absolutely right, which I labeled as the point.

Look at the last line in parentheses of the aforementioned quote (the previous post I made), I even noted "neither can I", which meant that I wasn't trying to claim mine as undeniable fact, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make anyways.

Furthermore, I even outright acknowledged that I wasn't trying to say your point of view was completely wrong ("I didn't say it was entirely 'false'..."😉. Now, do you need me to further clarify this? Or will you accept that you misinterpreted my side, or the more likely case, misrepresented it, because as of now, you're not doing a good job of providing acceptable reasoning behind your posts.

So, try again.

Originally posted by Advent
See above; did you? No, not at all.

Originally posted by Advent
"Lack of concentration"? No, it only shows that you cannot comprehend basic English. I perfectly understand everything you say (unless it's constructed in the way that you've made it seem like your lacking in evolution).

Originally posted by Advent
Goodness gracious, that wasn't the point I was making. You responded to the point where I called you out on "lying, and/or being misinformed", and said that you didn't lie about Kavar. Why? I wasn't talking about Kavar at all, I was merely telling you that Cin mastered more forms than you named (and you said 'that's it', indicating you were either lying, and/or misinformed).

This isn't about Kavar, at all. So, I don't know why you keep on saying that I "fail to grasp" this, and that, when it's not me, but you in reality.

Originally posted by Advent
Plus, you didn't acknowledge that Cin mastered more forms in your previous posts, so you can't wiggle your way out of this one, worm.

Originally posted by Advent
Really? So you're in the closet nearest my computer, and watching my every movements? Can you read minds, as well?

Originally posted by Advent
I said that I skimmed through your previous post, not all of them. And, I read all the relevant things concerning what I'm about to address, before I address them. If I didn't, I'd be considered someone like you, but that's not how it is.

Originally posted by Advent
The rest of your post (or whatever the hell it is) just consists of you turning what you do, and applying it to me, when I don't do any of it, and just more ridiculousness.

Originally posted by Advent
And, more assorted comments:

And Arca Jeth, who would be considered as an average Jedi master on the grand scale, trained Ulic Qel-Droma. The same Ulic Qel-Droma that became the second most powerful being of his era (and one of the most powerful in known history), and who was considered the largest threat before Exar Kun revealed himself.

Jedi Exile also became one of the most powerful Jedi we have seen but her recognition level is low. I understand your point that even if a Jedi Master trains a great Jedi, that does not makes him better but same applies to Cin. He did trained Anakin and Obi-Wan but they proved to be better than him. But again I am not relying on Kavar's training of Jedi Exile to make him look good. I have pointed out many other points that make him look good.

Originally posted by Advent
Training one doesn't account for much. As you've noted, Kreia was more or less the Exile's mentor than anyone. Likewise, with Cin, and Obi-Wan and Anakin, but the reason I said you point doesn't hold any value is because Cin trained Anakin Skywalker, "the most powerful Jedi Knight ever" in the history of the Order, and defeated one of the most powerful beings in the entire mythos, Count Dooku. The point your trying to make gets negated, because Anakin is better than the Exile, so why did you need to bring it up? Plus, training a student isn't indicative of much, anyways.

Originally posted by Advent
Wait, so because Kavar mastered Juyo, or various other forms, he's "a more skilled swordsman"? That's fallacious logic in itself, I should point out that - as far as you yourself have indicated - Kavar only mastered five lightsaber forms, compared to Drallig's six.

Originally posted by Advent
Once again, a point in the direction that you don't really make sense.

Originally posted by Advent
You have absolutely no proof behind that. I already know what you're going to say, too. "Advent ur immature, but Kavar has Juyo under his belt, so he's better! Although, I left out the part where it says that Cin mastered six forms, which is one more than Kavar, but forget that! KAVAR IS AWESOME!".

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Legend, my question for you is, why are you still here? You have been thorougly pwned in this debate, and yet you keep coming back with your repetitious and inconsequential nonsense.

Your debating skills are not even close to that of Advent and I am trying to understand what Advent is saying. Check my above post for indications.

If you have something better to say than do so or keep quiet. I am not here to defeat any one in the debate and want to learn more about Star Wars and I think that I can get some help from advent in this case.

Thanks for nothing.

Since you've conceded on half of those points, there's no need to respond. So, onto the other half.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I got it but I wanted to tell that Kavar seems better because of obvious reasons I have posted before.

Obviously you've yet to get it. I'm not talking about Kavar here in this specific part of the discussion, he has nothing to do with it all.

If you're talking about a different part of our arguments, then I'd tell you that I don't really care, right here, due to the fact I'm not arguing against it, at the moment. Nor was it what I was saying.

Anyways, you need to focus more on what you actually write, of course, because as shown, you can cause mass amounts of confusion, and end up making yourself look foolish (I'm not insulting you here, merely pointing it out). Even through a simple mistake such as substituting "and" for the proper meaning.

Arca Jeth was average but I was talking about Kavar who was among the top Jedi Masters of his age and had some exceptional skills that I mentioned now.

But, that doesn't change the fact that being a mentor to a student is rather insignificant, which was the point that I was emphasizing by using Arca Jeth.

but same applies to Cin.

I think I know as much, you need not mention it. Double standards aren't my expertise, and I don't ever plan on them being one of my specialties.

I was talking about quality and not quantity.

But merely mastering Juyo isn't indicative of being more skilled, as that's completely faulty logic if you really want to follow that. Darth Maul was a master of Juyo, yet someone like Count Dooku, for example, would defeat him in a pure saber battle.

Juyo Form is called "Ferosity" Form and it makes a Jedi reckless and un-predictable in combat.

And, Soresu, the form Kavar is lacking, is called the Resilience form, which indicates that the form is made for defense, and quick recovery, as we obviously know.

As Juyo was the most challenging and demanding of all forms, it required intense focus, a high degree of skill, and mastery of other forms.

I know what Star Wars Insider, Issue 62 says, as I have it in plethora of assorted books, magazines, and comics.

"Form III maximizes defensive protection in a style characterized by tight, efficient movements that expose minimal target area compared to the relatively open style of some of the other forms.

True Form III masters are considered invicible." (Star Wars Insider, Issue 62, p. 30-31).

As apparent, Obi-Wan only switched to Soresu for one reason, and that was because he deemed Ataru to be "insufficient" against Darth Maul's attacks, and those attacks were composed of Juyo, with elements of Teräs Käsi. I would say that this could suggest (albeit, it has an extremely low plausibility rate) that Juyo isn't necessarily going to be able to overcome Soresu, but not really, in all honesty, it only shows that Form III is the ultimate form for protection. And as it's noted, masters are said to be 'invincible'; which is an exaggeration, of course, but it demonstrates the effectiveness of the form itself.

Furthermore, Juyo is a form that practices open movements, which to me, would say that it is possible for a Soresu practitioner to defend against attacks, and strike when the time is right (as that's likely the common tactic). Also, it's also noted that the trait of unpredictability makes for a "much more difficult execution".

I'm not saying that Soresu is greater than Juyo at all when in combat, but I'm not going to say Juyo is the superior form, either. If it were Vaapad, the extension, then I'd agree, but as it is now, it's apparently no better.

Kavar was so adept in it that he said that Juyo was a complete and effective Form and he preferred it.

Form VII wasn't complete, though, it was still under development during his time.

Now I know that you know about Juyo but still don't you think that a Juyo adept who also has experience in combat will do better than Dralling?

In what situation? Drallig can adapt to almost any circumstances better than Kavar could, but if you're talking about a duel between the two, I would say no, Juyo wouldn't necessarily prove to be any better.

And experience, as we know, isn't the end all, be all; and we've seen cases where those without any real background in war, or fighting outside of sparring with fellow padawans have beaten those who possess it (Exar Kun defeating Odan is a prime example, as is Exar besting Vodo as a padawan).

Following with Soresu, and Juyo, if Juyo possessed any extreme advantage over Soresu, then General Grievous would've used it against Obi-Wan (for all we know, he did, but I'm not going to get into that). But, as we saw, skill prevailed over style.

Given that we haven't seen much to accurately judge that Kavar is better in lightsaber prowess than Cin, I could only say that it'd be a stalemate, at best. I'm not trying to prove that Cin is better than Kavar, only that Kavar isn't better than Drallig as far as we know. So, try not to take my post here, and think I'm saying "Drallig FTW!", because I'm not.

And these types of lines spoil the momentum. I made my case more clear above.

I don't know how you can say that I "spoiled" anything, because there's a huge flaw in saying something like "because X mastered form A, he's more skilled than Y". Even if Juyo were the better form, it doesn't necessarily mean he's "more skilled", because he was able to achieve mastery in it. Now, if Cin were said to be unable to excel in Form VII, then you'd have a point. But, he isn't, and it's more than likely that's not the case.

Edit:

Oh, and a request I ask, you can type up a response, but don't post it for awhile, because I'm trying to watch some movies on my computer, and I have some disorder where I need to reply to anything anyone says to me in a challenging manner when I'm on the computer. I know, strange, but that's the way I work. You don't have to do it, though, just asking.