Exar Kun & Count Dooku vs. Yoda - Lightsaber Duel

Originally posted by nmensfinest
Firstly Borbarad, don't think people can't see through your sneaky excuses, you can b1tch about not using the standard definition all you want, but it really means nothing when your own words prove you're full of sh1t:

So nice try, but your own words prove you're lying, considering you directly responded to the 'standard and limited' definition, and straight up confused it with an unsupported claim.

Ah. Let's see. Because your small brain, dear kid, is apparently not capable of grasping what I just typed down, I must be a liar and full of shit. My so called "sneaky excuse" is actually "education" or "reading comprehension" or "logic" - all things that 13 year old schoolboys (that would be you) seem to lack in comparison to 25 year old University students (that would be me).

Yes. I did respond to the limited definition because I tried to force something into the empty head of a person who was using said definition and nothing else. But let me just take you through it step-by-step.

1) Fact one: Styles posted an unsupported claim ("Jerec was powerful"😉
2) Conclusion one: Because Styles didn't feel the need to post something that supported said claim, he must have viewed his own claim as fact already.
3) Conclusion two: Because he didn't feel the need to post some supportive statements for his claim I can only conclude two possible reasons: Either he assumed that we would all accept it as truth anyways because it matches his personal belief (argumentum ad ignorantiam) or he assumed that this will simply remain as viable claim unless somebody proofs it wrong (Negative Proof Fallacy)
4) Fact two: Before (even it's just in the sentence before) he provided support for his claim he already asked Sexy to proof him wrong.
5) Conclusion three: Because of asking somebody to proof him wrong, before providing support for your claim, he - at least in the text, I can't look into his head - commited the Negative Proof Fallacy by assuming he's right before somebody was proving him wrong. If he had reasons to do so doesn't matter here because those reasons weren't part of the debate before he asked others to proof him wrong.

And once again. I simply tried to explain to you what other examples of a Negative Proof Fallacy exists because, as it seems, you are only able to recognize one if somebody types it down in form of the actual example. So in this case: "Because you can't proof that Jerec wasn't powerful, he was powerful".

I'd also like to point out that you're still mixing up your fallacies, this time Argument from Ignorance with Argument from Personal Belief. Argument from Ignorance basically mirrors the Negative Proof Fallacy as you yourself have acknowledged and seem to know, but what you're thinking of however, where you base one of your premises off of your own personal opinion, is the Argument from Personal Belief Fallacy.

I'd like to point out that you're still not knowing what you're talking about. Did you even read what I typed down before sharing your lack of logic with us ?

The "argument from personal belief" fallacy is a subcategory of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" because it works in a similar fashion "Because you can't proof my personal belief wrong, it must be right" or in this specific case "Because you can't proof my definition of powerful wrong, it must be correct." Absolutely stunning that a mental high flyer like yourself wasn't capable of figuring that one out.

I could also have written down that this was a Fallacy of Presumption, which would be the next higher category.

[/lecture]

I guess you meant [/lecter]. Because somebody did apparently eat your brain before you started posting and, considering your post following the one I quoted, he finished his work there.

Oh wow. This guy just loves his long posts now, doesn't he?

Ah. Let's see. Because your small brain, dear kid, is apparently not capable of grasping what I just typed down, I must be a liar and full of shit.

Firstly, why exactly did you leave this out of what you quoted:

N-Man: You yourself seem to know that it takes the form "A is true because there's no proof that A isn't true", yet you still don't seem able to spot the fallacy, so honestly, all I can suggest is paying more attention in your argumentation classes.

Borbarad: Urm. Which was exactly what Styles was trying to do here. Or did you see him presenting any proof for Jerec being powerful in the very same situation he was actually talking about (which he couldn't have done because Jerec was completely without force powers there) before he asked Sexy to proof that assumption wrong ? No ? Thanks.
[?]

It's quite unnecessary, and I can only assume you did it so that the fact that you're a contradictory dumbass that doesn't know the difference between the negative proof fallacy and an unsupported claim wasn't made any more obvious.

Secondly, you can b1tch about my brain being small until the cows come home, but you can't change what you wrote down, which is quite clear, as can be seen above, specifically what's put in bolds. You outright confused the negative proof fallacy with an unsupported claim, you really can't argue against this; it's there in black and white.

My so called "sneaky excuse" is actually "education" or "reading comprehension" or "logic" - all things that 13 year old schoolboys (that would be you) seem to lack in comparison to 25 year old University students (that would be me).

ROFL! Clearly someone can't get over the whole age thing, and clearly someone doesn't quite understand how ages (specifically) on an internet forum doesn't mean jack. Now are you done boasting about being a 25 year old University student that spends a bit too much time discussing fictional Star Wars characters on an internet board, or not? Now really, the fact that the best thing you can attack is my age, and not actually my post says a lot about how weak your argument is.

Also, I'd suggest making sense the next time you start bringing ages into this, as it's pretty clear that by 'sneaky excuse', I'm referring to something that was stated (by yourself), which 'reading comprehension' wouldn't exactly come under, as reading comprehension is defined as the understanding of what's being said, not what's being said itself, so you labelling that as such is testament to the fact that age means little, and that you're a dumbass.

Yes. I did respond to the limited definition because I tried to force something into the empty head of a person who was using said definition and nothing else.

Unconvincing excuses aside (as they're irrelevant), you still contradicted yourself, so all I can say to you my friend is: unlucky, but you're still dumb, sorry. ❌

1) Fact one: Styles posted an unsupported claim ("Jerec was powerful"😉
2) Conclusion one: Because Styles didn't feel the need to post something that supported said claim, he must have viewed his own claim as fact already.
3) Conclusion two: Because he didn't feel the need to post some supportive statements for his claim I can only conclude two possible reasons: [1]Either he assumed that we would all accept it as truth anyways because it matches his personal belief (argumentum ad ignorantiam)[/1] or he assumed that this will simply remain as viable claim unless somebody proofs it wrong (Negative Proof Fallacy)
4) Fact two: Before (even it's just in the sentence before) he provided support for his claim he already asked Sexy to proof him wrong.
5) Conclusion three: Because of asking somebody to proof him wrong, before providing support for your claim, he - at least in the text, I can't look into his head - [2]commited the Negative Proof Fallacy by assuming he's right before somebody was proving him wrong.[/2] If he had reasons to do so doesn't matter here because those reasons weren't part of the debate before he asked others to proof him wrong.

Borbarad, I honestly don't see why you waste your time with these long responses, because in case you didn't know, when it comes to your posts, the longer they are, the more flaws they contain.

[1] Again, you're mixing up your fallacies. I feel no need to fully repeat myself, but any experienced debater would know that what you're describing as the argument from ignorance fallacy isn't the actual fallacy, and seeing as we both know that you're just going to constantly disagree and reply post after post i really don't see the why I should continue this with you.

[2] Again, wrong. The negative proof fallacy works by assuming you're right because nobody can prove you're wrong. Assuming you're right simply before being proven wrong is not the negative proof fallacy.

So yet again, you've blabbered on and on and have still failed to prove your point.

And once again. I simply tried to explain to you what other examples of a Negative Proof Fallacy exists because, as it seems, you are only able to recognize one if somebody types it down in form of the actual example. So in this case: "Because you can't proof that Jerec wasn't powerful, he was powerful".

Already dismantled.

I'd like to point out that you're still not knowing what you're talking about. Did you even read what I typed down before sharing your lack of logic with us ?

Firstly, if anything was possibly lacking in that post, it would be a lack of knowledge, and not a lack of logic. It truly amazes me how these simply concepts never cease to confuse you.

The "argument from personal belief" fallacy is a subcategory of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" because it works in a similar fashion "Because you can't proof my personal belief wrong, it must be right" or in this specific case "Because you can't proof my definition of powerful wrong, it must be correct." Absolutely stunning that a mental high flyer like yourself wasn't capable of figuring that one out.

Still wrong my college friend, they're completely different fallacies, that belong to the same family of fallacies. Neither fallacy is a subcategory of the other.

I could also have written down that this was a Fallacy of Presumption, which would be the next higher category.

That's great.

I guess you meant [/lecter]. Because somebody did apparently eat your brain before you started posting and, considering your post following the one I quoted, he finished his work there.

Wow, that was just hilarious, although too bad it made about zero sense given that your little joke would have made me the victim of Lecter and not Lecter himself. I'd suggest obtaining the lost diadem of Ravenclaw before coming up with any more of these 'witty' remarks.

Do you enjoy provoking and being wtfpwned by Nai?

Originally posted by nmensfinest
Firstly, why exactly did you leave this out of what you quoted:

N-Man: You yourself seem to know that it takes the form "A is true because there's no proof that A isn't true", yet you still don't seem able to spot the fallacy, so honestly, all I can suggest is paying more attention in your argumentation classes.

Borbarad: Urm. Which was exactly what Styles was trying to do here. Or did you see him presenting any proof for Jerec being powerful in the very same situation he was actually talking about (which he couldn't have done because Jerec was completely without force powers there) before he asked Sexy to proof that assumption wrong ? No ? Thanks.
[?]

It's quite unnecessary, and I can only assume you did it so that the fact that you're a contradictory dumbass that doesn't know the difference between the negative proof fallacy and an unsupported claim wasn't made any more obvious.

Dude. You really start annoying me with your lack of comprehension. I'll type it down in short here:

Styles: "Jerec is powerful"
Sexy: "No. He isn't !"
Styles: "Proof ?!?!?"

Now just because he didn't explicitly state that "Jerec is powerful because there is no proof that he isn't powerful" you seem to be unable to grasp the actual fallacy. What he did still is absolutely commiting a negative proof fallacy because he asked for proof that Jerec isn't powerful which implies exactly that he was assuming that Jerec was powerful because there wasn't proof for the contrary.

And once again. Styles tried to shift the burden of proof (original on his side) over to Sexy's side of the argument. This is a reversed burden of proof which is defined as "Negative Proof Fallacy" or in some cases as "Shift the Burden of Proof fallacy".
Initially Styles came up with an Ipsedixitism ("He said so, so it must be correct" = unsupported assertion) but in the very instance he asked Sexy to proof his assertion wrong, he turned it into a Negative Proof fallacy - just because of his question.

Secondly, you can b1tch about my brain being small until the cows come home, but you can't change what you wrote down, which is quite clear, as can be seen above, specifically what's put in bolds. You outright confused the negative proof fallacy with an unsupported claim, you really can't argue against this; it's there in black and white.

It's nice that I can't argue against this. Especialy since this is what I just did - sucessfully. Because you don't know what you're talking about.

ROFL! Clearly someone can't get over the whole age thing, and clearly someone doesn't quite understand how ages (specifically) on an internet forum doesn't mean jack. Now are you done boasting about being a 25 year old University student that spends a bit too much time discussing fictional Star Wars characters on an internet board, or not? Now really, the fact that the best thing you can attack is my age, and not actually my post says a lot about how weak your argument is.

Also, I'd suggest making sense the next time you start bringing ages into this, as it's pretty clear that by 'sneaky excuse', I'm referring to something that was stated (by yourself), which 'reading comprehension' wouldn't exactly come under, as reading comprehension is defined as the understanding of what's being said, not what's being said itself, so you labelling that as such is testament to the fact that age means little, and that you're a dumbass.

Oh boy. Yes. Someone can't get over the age thing. Considering you have written two paragraphs about this I guess this someone is you, correct ? But thanks for proving my assertion right that you lack reading comprehension. I didn't attack your age but your lack of knowledge, education and reading comprehension which might be caused by the fact that you are pretty young. Of course I could also say that you a wannabe intellectual, who doesn't know what he's talking about and enjoys trolling because of being the pathetic noob he is, if you don't like me to blame it on the age. I'd chose the "I'm too young to make sense" explanation if I were you but this might be a matter of personal taste. Some people would rather be idiots than...erm young.

Unconvincing excuses aside (as they're irrelevant), you still contradicted yourself, so all I can say to you my friend is: unlucky, but you're still dumb, sorry. ❌

Oh yes. I contradict myself. Hmm. Where exactly did that happen ? You might not be aware of this but a contradiction happens if I make a comment / assertion that states the contrary of a point I previously made. Shall we do a little reality check ? I told you this is a negative proof fallacy and after this I explained to you why it is a negative proof fallacy. Care to show me where the contradiction happened ? And if you're already at it you can also tell me where the "excuse" happened.

Borbarad, I honestly don't see why you waste your time

Because I don't want you to stay as uninformed as you obviously are. You consider that a waste of time ? Fine with me. One stupid moron more or less doesn't make much difference.

[1] Again, you're mixing up your fallacies. I feel no need to fully repeat myself, but any experienced debater would know that what you're describing as the argument from ignorance fallacy isn't the actual fallacy, and seeing as we both know that you're just going to constantly disagree and reply post after post i really don't see the why I should continue this with you.

Woohoo. An "experienced" debater ? Can you find one for me ? Or let me put it in other words: Can you try to find me an "experienced debater" who has not a single clue on how the classifaction of logical fallacies works, in other words: A being fitting that category of yours able to share your personal oppinion on the matter ?

[2] Again, wrong. The negative proof fallacy works by assuming you're right because nobody can prove you're wrong. Assuming you're right simply before being proven wrong is not the negative proof fallacy.

The point is that Styles did ask for proof that his assertion was wrong. Got that now ? With that question he crossed the line between the unsupported claim and the negative proof fallacy because before asking for proof to the contrary he must have had the idea that he's perfectly right because there was no proof to the contrary. Otherwise his question doesn't make any sense.

So yet again, you've blabbered on and on and have still failed to prove your point.

Like to do another reality check with me ? My original point was that asking to proof his unsupported assertion wrong was fallacious. You tried to dispute that. Coming back to the original point, you seem to agree with me and now you just want to discuss what fallacy he commited and not that he commited a fallacy. And this, my friend, actually means that I was perfectly right from the start on and that you either agreed with me from the start on or that I conviced you I was right with my basic assertion. But somehow I failed ? I'd really like to see your definition of "failure" in this case. Hint: It's not a synonym for "success".

Already dismantled.

Oh yes. You "dismantled" that. How did you do that ? By ignoring the point or by coming up with red herrings about me not having an argument because I attack your age ? Impressive.

Firstly, if anything was possibly lacking in that post, it would be a lack of knowledge, and not a lack of logic. It truly amazes me how these simply concepts never cease to confuse you.

Nope. It was a lack of logic. Because you are an idiot and because you're posting here you did draw the false conclusion that all people posting here must be idiots like you. See. A clear lack of logic. Had I written "lack of knowledge" I would have suggested that you're knowledge is just a little bit incomplete. And I didn't want to do that. Because imho your "knowledge" is completely non-existant - at least when it comes to this topic.

Still wrong my college friend, they're completely different fallacies, that belong to the same family of fallacies. Neither fallacy is a subcategory of the other.

Erm. Wrong. Most fallacies are difined as special cases of other fallacies. The "argument from personal belief" is a special case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" which is in turn a special case for the "Negative Proof fallacy" which is in turn a special case of the "Burden of Proof fallacy". You don't believe me ?

"A" is true because there is no proof that "A" isn't true

Here your definition of the "Negative Proof fallacy". Now some other definitions.

[1] "A" is true because it hasn't been proven that "A" isn't true.
[2] "A" is true because it hasn't been proven otherwise.
[3] "A" is true because I say so

[1] = Argument ad ignorantiam
[2] = Shifting the Burden of Proof
[3] = Ipsedixitism

And not the most precious thing. Your suggestion "argument from personal belief":

[b]"A" is true because I can't belief that "A" isnt't true.

And now let's review this nice "discussion" we just had: While I said that Styles was simply assuming he was right because there was no proof to the contrary, based on the fact that he asked Sexy to proof him wrong, you, on the other handside, simply assume that Styles would in no way able to belief that Jerec wasn't powerful ? This is great. So while I go by what was posted here, you developed the ability to look into Styles' head to figure out what he was thinking and hence are able to state that he was commiting the fallacy to argue out of his personal, unchangeable belief. Nice try, dude.

So um...Yoda dies? Hard?
I love how people basically ignore AOTC with Dooku's and Yoda's duel in favor of Dark Rendezvous.

Dooku and Kun

Originally posted by Pyron_Knight
So um...Yoda dies? Hard?
I love how people basically ignore AOTC with Dooku's and Yoda's duel in favor of Dark Rendezvous.

Nothing has been ignored, Pyron. Intent plays a primary role in determining how much effort a combatant is putting into a duel, and even if one is willing to ignore the obvious affection and -- indeed -- gentility which Yoda handled Count Dooku in their confrontation on Geonosis (during the 'Force fight', Yoda only made one attack that could be construed as an offensive maneuver, which was the final deflection of the Count's Sith lightning, which convinced the Sith Lord to promptly end the contest), one cannot ignore Yoda's own statement: "Captured, Dooku must be!" -- the Jedi Master was clearly unwilling to slay his beloved, former pupil. That he would later journey to Vjun, willingly entering a trap of which he had prior knowledge on a planet that functioned as a Confederacy stronghold, a planet steeped in the dark side of the Force, where Dooku's power would be at its apex, is testimony to how far he would be willing to go and to sacrifice for the merest possibility of converting the Count back to the light side. On both occasions, he opted for any reason or excuse to not kill Dooku (even going to so far as to save Kenobi and Skywalker from the falling column, despite the fact that Yoda was skeptical regarding Skywalker's status as the Chosen One, and that he told Obi-Wan that, despite how close [Yoda] was to him, he would sacrifice him without a second's hesitation if the war would end 'a day sooner'😉.

With all due respect, my friend, it's not up for debate.

I'm not debating Dooku is above Yoda even on Yoda's level. What I'm debating is that they're in the same ballpark as demonstrated in AOTC. But try and say that and people will shout "but Dark Rendezvous!!! Yoda beat Dooku while Yoda was weakened and distracted and while Dooku was pumped up!!"
They make this molehill into a mountain and say that Dooku is almost nothing to Yoda in any department.