Holy shit, I've never seen so much irrelevant and ridiculous bullshit in my entire life. You completely disregarded everything I said. Seriously, you're intelligence must be less than that of a caveman.
Even worse, you act like you know jack about fallacies or logic. I laughed my ass off reading those parts.
Originally posted by kamhal
What, all that post was too me? You are right, i actually didn't read half of it.
I'd suspect it's because you can't read. Or else you would've addressed my points as they were, and not type up some random bullshit that's already been disproved.
Hadn't ullic fight against Mandalore with a sword?
No, your memory [like your logic] fails you. A Mandalorian axe, which is a weapon foreign to Ulic doesn't equate to a lightsaber. Even a sword would be different due to the weight.
Isn't this melee fight?
Isn't what a melee fight? Learn to speak English or die.
Also, you still have to proof that the new lightsaber style from Exar Kun was better then his previous one.
"[Exar Kun] slew his master with a personal style of combat not seen before, an improvement [...]" (Jedi Academy Sourcebook, Ch. 4, pg. 48).
You were saying?
Also, he had what, 6 months to develop it? Hmm.
Six months? Proof? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Simply because we don't see Kun creating the style or lightsaber before he even departs from the Jedi Order doesn't mean he wasn't. For all we know, he had already started during his Jedi days.
Albeit, it's irrelevant, because it's been stated to be "an improvement" upon his former form. Ergo it doesn't matter.
Anyway, just to light your thoughts, what Canderous said was, among several things
Appeal to authority and logical fallacy (because Canderous said it, it must be true?).
"We had never met one like you before, and never since"
What the hell does that even mean? He's never met a "warrior" like Revan before or "since"? If so, please see above, see below, and see previous posts, as everything I said still applies.
and
And it amounts to exactly squat what he says, as I've already explained countless times throughout this discussion.
"We lost to the GREATEST SINGLE WARRIOR the galaxy had ever known" Notice the words GREATEST SINGLE WARRIOR? Hmm...
Originally posted by Advent
True, he did say that, but has Canderous seen every "warrior" the galaxy has?Short answer: No, ergo he's full of shit.
Long answer: Of course not, ergo it's hyperbole at best. Furthermore, Canderous is a fallible character, and much like the majority of characters in KotOR, he kisses Revan's ass. It's completely illogical to assume that because Canderous Ordo (of all people) said it, it must be true.
You have no point, QED.
To assert that because A says B is the best and A has seen C fight, ergo B > C (as fact) is fallacious.
For one, even if Canderous did see Ulic fighting, it means jack shit. He only uses a lightsaber to destroy the then Mandalore's mount, afterwards they fight with weapons foreign to Qel-Droma. So there'd be absolutely no way to say that Revan is better in terms of the lightsaber based on that.
And besides, the fact of the matter is that the quote itself holds no value.
Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even make Revan greater than Ulic, even if we were to operate under the assumption that Canderous has seen Ulic fight against Mandalore.
More importantly, Canderous' words are of a fallible nature and are subject to bias, exaggerations, etc. It's completely idiotic to blindly assume an opinion is correct (when it isn't backed up by anything).
Originally posted by Advent
You do realize that "greatest" is ambiguous, right? Insomuch as it doesn't put him over anyone else in terms of power. One can interpret his words as Revan's the overall greatest (with achievements, and strategic adeptness in mind). It hardly means that Revan is stronger than Ulic.
Ok, why am I using Canderous?
Why is irrelevant.
Obviously i want to use someone who met both of them, and so, Canderous is the obvious choice.
Originally posted by Advent
True, he did say that, but has Canderous seen every "warrior" the galaxy has?Short answer: No, ergo he's full of shit.
Long answer: Of course not, ergo it's hyperbole at best. Furthermore, Canderous is a fallible character, and much like the majority of characters in KotOR, he kisses Revan's ass. It's completely illogical to assume that because Canderous Ordo (of all people) said it, it must be true.
You have no point, QED.
To assert that because A says B is the best and A has seen C fight, ergo B > C (as fact) is fallacious.
For one, even if Canderous did see Ulic fighting, it means jack shit. He only uses a lightsaber to destroy the then Mandalore's mount, afterwards they fight with weapons foreign to Qel-Droma. So there'd be absolutely no way to say that Revan is better in terms of the lightsaber based on that.
And besides, the fact of the matter is that the quote itself holds no value.
Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even make Revan greater than Ulic, even if we were to operate under the assumption that Canderous has seen Ulic fight against Mandalore.
More importantly, Canderous' words are of a fallible nature and are subject to bias, exaggerations, etc. It's completely idiotic to blindly assume an opinion is correct (when it isn't backed up by anything).
Originally posted by Advent
You do realize that "greatest" is ambiguous, right? Insomuch as it doesn't put him over anyone else in terms of power. One can interpret his words as Revan's the overall greatest (with achievements, and strategic adeptness in mind). It hardly means that Revan is stronger than Ulic.
I'm not going to stop posting it until you properly refute it. Either that or drop the point.
Other obvious choice is Jolle Bindo, but since it was never asked a opinion from who he thought it was the most powerful one, we can't have his opinion. The only thing you can hear from him is that
If we "can't have his opinion" on the relevant situation, who gives a shit what he has to say?
Revan- " Who is this Exar Kun?"
Jolle- "Ah. Exar was a jedi who was... corrupted... by gosts of the old sith..."
Revan- "Sort of like Revan. I mean, me. I assume he was killed ?"Yhen the conversation goes on. Also, Jolee never denie that Exar Kun wasn't "like Revan".
I'm tempted to say that this is a red herring (another fallacy), but I'm not even sure you know what you're talking about.
What in the blue hell does this have to do with anything? Revan was stating that, similar to Kun, he was corrupted by the ancient Sith (or "sort of", as he says).
This is totally off the point.
Also, the other reference we have to compare Exar Kun's time and Revan's time is Duron Quel-Droma's vision.
No comparison is made during Qel-Droma's psychic experience, so WTF are you talking about?
Let's not forget that this happens 3 years after the GSW, and in this comic you can see that 1- Vrook knew Ullic Quel-Droma, by his comments
His words only indicate that he knows about Ulic, as should every single Jedi of the Old Republic. This hardly means that he personally knew and met him. I suppose Yoda and Mace Windu must've personally known General Grievous (prior to LOE/CW cartoons) because they mention him and know of him.
2- Duron have a vision from Malak, Bastila, and a possible face for what can be Revan, and i would like to point what that Duron says "Another vision...Worse this time...Worlds dying...SITH SO POWERFUL"
Which means very little. I'd argue that the Sith were stronger (as a whole) during the KotOR era, given their numbers were monumental in comparison to the Sith of Kun and Ulic's time (which included only Kun and Ulic).
Furthermore, he wasn't saying that the Sith in his vision were "more powerful", he's stating that the vision is "worse [than last time]".
We don't know if he is talking about Malak or Revan but even if he is talking about Malak it's common knowledge that Revan>Malak.
We don't even know if he's talking about a singular Sith. And even then, all he said was that the Sith were "so powerful", which means... absolutely nothing. He doesn't say "The future Sith are so much more powerful than the previous", so the point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
To finish, i would like to point out that in this same comic Vrook seems to show that he knew Ullic Quel-Droma
Already addressed, see above.
yet, let's not forget that Master Vrook Lamar said to Revan: "The force flows through you like no STUDENT we had ever seen".
Prove Vrook or any of the then Jedi Council knew Ulic. You'd be hard-pressed to do such, as there's absolutely no evidence to suggest they have.
And even operating under the [flawed] assumption that they did, how does this put Revan above Ulic in terms of lightsaber abilities? Oh? What's that? It doesn't? All it would mean is that the Force was stronger in Revan than Ulic.
But that's irrelevant, because you've yet to prove up.
Anyway, i would like you to noitce that Vrook and Canderous were 2 of most unlikely people to make a compliment to anyone
I've already established that Canderous' quote is an aggrandizement, so it doesn't matter if he's "unlikely" to make such references to people.
And Vrook? What the hell does he know? Nothing indicates he personally gauged Ulic's abilities, much less Kun's.
so say that any of them is exagerating is comical to say the least.
Originally posted by Advent
True, he did say that, but has Canderous seen every "warrior" the galaxy has?Short answer: No, ergo he's full of shit.
Long answer: Of course not, ergo it's hyperbole at best. Furthermore, Canderous is a fallible character, and much like the majority of characters in KotOR, he kisses Revan's ass. It's completely illogical to assume that because Canderous Ordo (of all people) said it, it must be true.
And no, it's not "comical" in the least bit, because you are essentially implying that Canderous has witnessed personally every Jedi, Sith, and fighter in the universe up until that point in combat. That accounts for thousands upon thousands of years. Years Canderous wasn't even so much as a fetus, much less alive.
That's not even funny, it's down right idiotic and illogical. For one, Canderous has never even seen Exar Kun, as far as we know. He definitely hasn't seen the ancient Sith, ancient Dark Jedi, and ancient Jedi.
So, if you're to suggest that he has, you'd better get proving up. Now, I know to ask that is ludicrous, because you can't. Which means that it is a hyperbolic description.
Also,
Originally posted by Advent
You do realize that "greatest" is ambiguous, right? Insomuch as it doesn't put him over anyone else in terms of power. One can interpret his words as Revan's the overall greatest (with achievements, and strategic adeptness in mind). It hardly means that Revan is stronger than Ulic.
QED.
Ok, with ALL this
"ALL" what? You haven't provided anything convincing and you still refuse to accept the fact you're wrong.
tell me, why should i accept your opinions when all the links i can use to join the KOTOR time with the GST time shows always the same?
Please go find a translator for yourself who speaks Basic Moron and can translate it English for me, as I cannot understand what you're saying.
Since it's a little late for that, I'll do my best. What I'm saying is more reasonable and sound than anything you're saying. So I see no reason not to accept what I'm typing out.
Furthermore, you don't even respond to my points. You just blow them off, and write some miscellaneous filler bullshit.
Now, like I said, I can't speak any form of Moron, so I'm going to attempt to relay what I just said in your native tongue:
"U R WRONG! I M RITE! KTHXBAI!".
Now I hope you get the point.
This is not a fallacy if we are using a credible authority.
It doesn't matter if he's credible or not, kamhal, because he's still fallible. Ergo it's an appeal to authority to conclude that what he says is right.
If i appeal to the authority from a George Lucas about Star Wars
That's a ridiculously flawed comparison. You cannot assert that what George Lucas says isn't true, because Lucas is infallible when it comes to Star Wars.
His word is "gospel", as it's been stated. The same doesn't apply for Canderous, as he is subject to being wrong.
or a doctor about medicine
It most certainly is fallacious to assume that what a doctor says, even regarding medicine, is correct simply because he says it. Even though it's likely that it's the case, it isn't a certainty.
I'll give you a similar example that'll show you: a) why you're an idiot and b) why your examples are wrong.
A child psychiatrist diagnoses a child with ADHD, does this mean the child must have it? Hell no.
Therefore you have no point.
or a coach like Mourinho about football
First of all, I don't even know who "Mourinho" is (perhaps one of your butt buddies?), but I don't care.
While the coach may be an expert on football, does it mean everything he says is the truth regarding football? Absolutely not, because one can be wrong - even in their own line of work. Otherwise, no professional would ever make a mistake or be capable of being incorrect.
i am not even close to use a fallacy.
Please don't try to explain what is or what isn't a logical fallacy. As demonstrated in my post (and your's), you clearly haven't the slightest idea about what you're talking about.
According to your reasoning, everything a priest says about God must be true (and if that's the case, then God exists). Do you see what's wrong in that statement? You're supposing that simply because said someone is an expert on said something, everything they say is the truth.
That is why every example you've posted, save for the one about Lucas (this doesn't mean you're right, it means the comparison between Canderous and Lucas is faulty), and why Canderous' words cannot be used as singular proof. QED.
Do you understand yet? Or do I have to pull your head out of your ass and hammer it into your skull?
By the way, what Canderous said, as far as it's not showed false, IS canon.
Argument from ignorance, logical fallacy (because it hasn't been proven false, it must be true?)
The only thing that's canonical is his opinion on Revan, what's not canon is that "Revan is the single greatest warrior the galaxy has ever seen".
He states something which the logical reality of the time shows as true
No it doesn't. During KotOR perhaps, but before? Most certainly not.
and nothing shows the countrary
It's a statement made from a character who was obviously stretching his actual talent. And really, kamhal, everything I've provided shows that it's inadmissible. Ergo it doesn't matter.
so, you have no way to show he is lying.
There's a difference between lying and exaggerating. And I do have three ways to prove my case.
First,
Originally posted by Advent
Appeal to authority and logical fallacy (so because Canderous says it, it must be true?).
Next,
Originally posted by Advent
True, he did say that, but has Canderous seen every "warrior" the galaxy has?Short answer: No, ergo he's full of shit.
Long answer: Of course not, ergo it's hyperbole at best. Furthermore, Canderous is a fallible character, and much like the majority of characters in KotOR, he kisses Revan's ass. It's completely illogical to assume that because Canderous Ordo (of all people) said it, it must be true.
Finally,
Originally posted by Advent
You do realize that "greatest" is ambiguous, right? Insomuch as it doesn't put him over anyone else in terms of power. One can interpret his words as Revan's the overall greatest (with achievements, and strategic adeptness in mind). It hardly means that Revan is stronger than Ulic.
You have no way of countering them. QED.
Also, i hope you know most of argumentation is built with informal logic, which uses incorrect yet strong args.
How can you use "incorrect yet strong arguments" and have them be correct? You basically collapsed your own point (or "imploded", in this case). If the argument is incorrect, then it doesn't matter if the logic is sturdy.
That sentence doesn't even make sense. In fact, none of this even makes sense regarding what I said because nothing you've said is supported or "strong"!
Example: i dig most of my terrain and i didn't find gold, in this region it was never found gold and this terrain lacks the correct geological characteristcs to have gold. So, this land has not gold. This is formally wrong and it's a fallacy, yet, informaly it's a strong arg.
No, that's rather incorrect to say. It's disguised as a strong argument, there's a difference. For an argument to be sound or strong, it shouldn't carry fallacies in it, as that suggests either the premise or the conclusion is flawed in some manner.
It doesn't matter if it's "strong" or not. And in this case, your argument is as weak as a quadriplegic.
You are really a retard.
It's hilarity at best when you accuse me of ad hominem (even when it wasn't the case), yet you're touting off with a personal attack.
Also one should note that if I'm a "retard", then everyone else in this forum must be brain dead, seeing as the majority name me as one of the best, if not the best debater.
And by the way, calling me a "retard" really doesn't help your cause or even make sense, especially considering I've been proving you wrong on basically every point.
Of course no one has 100% sure about their fight
No shit, Sherlock. Did you finally get the memo taped to your forehead?
The fact is that you attempted to demonstrate the supposed "stupidity" inNai's argument because he said it's unknown how Revan killed Malak. Which it is unknown. Doesn't this show you how stupid people (you) can be?
but in this case this is the most logical conclusion
Firstly,
Originally posted by Advent
You're right, only a fool would assume that, because there's several other viable options such as Revan killing Malak via the Force and only dueling for a single pass of blades.And before anyone says "ZOMG, HE HAD HIS LIGHTSABER OUT THIS MEANS HE KILLED HIM WITH IT! U R WRONG ADDVENT", I'd direct you to this scan:
Count Dooku has his lightsaber still drawn when he blasts Sora Bulq with Force lightning, so simply because a lightsaber is active and in hand doesn't mean it was used extensively or that the opposition was struck down by it.
The point is that the circumstances are unknown, and like Borbarad said, it's a point in which you can't argue against.
Secondly, no it isn't.
so, why would i use the most illogical thoughts, like Revan throwing a grenade to a sith lord when all we have seems to point out in this direction?
...Who said anything about using a grenade? And it most certainly is possible for him to have used such; when has Star Wars (of all fiction) ever been completely logical? It seems completely stupid to think that a tired Obi-Wan Kenobi could've jumped out of a melting pit and sliced a man who's reaction skills were off the charts, but it happened.
How f'in ridiculous is it that a nine year old, untrained Anakin saved the day in TPM? He wasn't even using a machine he had seen before, much less piloted. And against a "hardened" foe no less. The point is it doesn't have to be likely to be correct.
More importantly, what don't you get about Duron's vision not meaning jack shit? All it alludes to is that Revan used a lightsaber at some point (and I could even make that questionable if I wanted to), it doesn't necessarily support the theory that: a) Revan killed Malak with a lightsaber or b) a saber duel ensued for longer than a single pass of blades.
By the way, i realy don't a give shit to write 100% correct grammar because
1) When it comes down to you not making any sense, you should give a shit. How else would your American penpal know that you love him?
2) Sure. A typical excuse, "IM NO SPEAKIN' ENGLISH!", when in fact, you were probably born and raised in the slums of Detroit.
But, let me se, can you speak french? Or portuguese? Spanish perhaps?
Uh. Can you speak Japanese? Can you write in all forms of Japanese? Does it matter if you speak Japanese? Does it matter if you can write in all forms of Japanese? Does it matter if I can speak French? Does it matter if I can speak Portuguese? Does it matter if I can speak Spanish (which I can loosely)?
We're on an English forum, debating in English. Not any of the aforementioned languages. And what does this have to do with anything?
Guess what, i have knowledge from several languages and this isn't even my area of study
Aren't you special? Am I suppose to, y'know, care? No matter what the language, your logic still sucks.
(since i am a science man)
I'd advise sticking to "science" then. I'm sure by shoving toy rockets and acidic fluids up your ass you would have more fun and be more competant in that.
yet my use of english is good enough to blast you to hell with my argumentation.
This doesn't even merit a response. You've yet to prove me wrong, and you're still wrong.
It seems you have to refuge and rely on this kind of Ad Hominem fallacy since you have no args to use against me... [/B]
Do you even know what an ad hominem argument is?
It would be if I had insulted you, instead of responding to your argument. Then claiming that you are wrong based on that [the personal attack; hence "argument to the person"].
Now, I've not only addressed nigh every single point you've made, but I've completely "blasted them to Hell" as well. The rude remarks are just added after or before the point is made. Dumbass.
QED.
Advent, i have to say 3 thing about you:
- you don't want to listen and your justifications are pathetic. You ask me for proper answers, yet yours are simply pathetic
- you continue to refuge on english in order to not show your lake of content
- your knowledge about logic is quite low. And i am not talking for talking, from informal argumentation you catch ziro. Also, you are fanny, you say you never use ad hominem fallacies when you have called quite a few names, you say i use an ignorence fallacy when you, guess what, say that exar>revan because revan's skill's are unkown so exar kun wins by default, which is the very much example of a use of ignorance fallacy, you don't know what use of authority means and uses false analogies using a priest as example for an area based on faith and not in conceptual or experimental knowledge, i mean, you talk a lot but you really know shit about argumentation. Do you want to discuss logic with me? I had 2 entire schoolar years to study philosophy and learn how to arg properly, so i am quite confortable with argumentation, and after all, only a guy who knows it correctlyhas 19 (out of 20) in philosophy...
By the way, in all the bullshit you wrote i just have to say
2) Sure. A typical excuse, "IM NO SPEAKIN' ENGLISH!", when in fact, you were probably born and raised in the slums of Detroit.
Detroit? Fdx, sou português e tenho orgulho de nunca ter tido o mínimo contacto com gente como a tua arrogância. Se todos os americanos forem como tu, não admira que toda a gente os odeie. Já agora, duvidas que sou português? Então traduz isto: és uma puta de merda que gosta de mamar caralhos.
Sábado eu venho cá e respondo-te como deve ser, amanhã tenho teste de matemática e tenho que estudar. Vai esperando.
The stench of bullshit is so tangible, it's billowing through the damn speakers. Bottom line, Kamhal, Advent asked you to prove her wrong. You haven't; you've dodged most of her argument and would prefer to ***** about her attitude.
Once again, Revan fanboys need a massive increase in reasoning abilities. Because this just isn't cutting it.
Gideon hit the nail on the head. Delusive comments from a Detroit native that can't refute my posts really don't phase me.
Also, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about regarding any of the mentioned fallacies (and in general, you're wrong), as I already explained what they are and why they apply.
By the way,
Originally posted by kamhal
Advent, i have to say 3 thing about you:- you don't want to listen and your justifications are pathetic. You ask me for proper answers, yet yours are simply pathetic
- you continue to refuge on english in order to not show your lake of content
- your knowledge about logic is quite low. And i am not talking for talking, from informal argumentation you catch ziro. Also, you are fanny, you say you never use ad hominem fallacies when you have called quite a few names, you say i use an ignorence fallacy when you, guess what, say that exar>revan because revan's skill's are unkown so exar kun wins by default, which is the very much example of a use of ignorance fallacy, you don't know what use of authority means and uses false analogies using a priest as example for an area based on faith and not in conceptual or experimental knowledge, i mean, you talk a lot but you really know shit about argumentation. Do you want to discuss logic with me? I had 2 entire schoolar years to study philosophy and learn how to arg properly, so i am quite confortable with argumentation, and after all, only a guy who knows it correctlyhas 19 (out of 20) in philosophy...By the way, in all the bullshit you wrote i just have to say
Detroit? Fdx, sou português e tenho orgulho de nunca ter tido o mínimo contacto com gente como a tua arrogância. Se todos os americanos forem como tu, não admira que toda a gente os odeie. Já agora, duvidas que sou português? Então traduz isto: és uma puta de merda que gosta de mamar caralhos.
Sábado eu venho cá e respondo-te como deve ser, amanhã tenho teste de matemática e tenho que estudar. Vai esperando.
