Janus Marius
Plo Koon Rulez!
Since it's quite apparent that you do need a class, let me demonstrate your argument in logical form.
Yoda is a 900+ year old Jedi master, the grand master of the order.
Premise: Yoda is very old, and is the virtual head of the Jedi Order during a time when fighting Sith is unheard of.
His mastery of the force was only rivaled by Sidious.
Premise: The only person who seems to put up a strong challenge to Yoda is Sidious and Dooku, both of whom he fought and both of whom he was unable to overcome. Since he fought no other Sith Lords, we can only match him against these two.
He stalemated Sidious, who is at the best, the most powerful sith lord of this time, and at the worst, the greatest sith master to ever use sith evil, which puts him above Nadd.
Premise: Yoda was able to finally overcome Sidious, the most powerful Sith Lord of the era, using the Force, but was eventually defeated because he put too much of his energy into countering his Sith Lightning and was unable to take the initiative despite being clearly superior to his opponent overall. Likewise, this same Sidious is only considered to be the most evil and powerful of the Sith by later historians nearly a generation later, when he has had more time to mature his Dark Side abilities and plenty of time to loot Jedi and Sith knowledge.
Yoda was a lightaber prodigy who happened to know 6 out of 7 forms of lightaber combat.
Premise: Yoda is shown to be familiar with the six major forms of lightsaber combat, as was General Grievous, and somehow this makes him able to contend with any Sith Lord in the world, including those shown only to utilize one style.
Conclusion: Yoda beats Nadd because he was able to put up a good fight against someone who twenty years later went on to become a real bonafide Sith Lord and not some weak little senator with a lightsaber up his sleeve and he knows a lot because he's old and knows the saber forms like any Jedi Master would, and he's never shown actually defeating a Sith Lord on neutral or otherwise situations.
You can sit here and tell me there are better debaters or well read debaters, but they would make the same argument.
No, the point here is that you are blatantly attacking others for sharing contrary beliefs and yet you lack the argument to support your own side, instead having to play "little dog" to all the big dogs who can actually debate their way out of a paper bag. You've proven my point by making this statement, DS. Your arguments = unproven, unsubstantiated opinion slinging.
FUrthermore, don't ridicule me by talking down to me and giving me examples of premises and conclusions, because I think I've proven that I know how to logically debate, even without the use or need of a class.
You've never proved that you have logical thinking skills on par with anyone else here you attempt to bash, and certainly your lack of formal knowledge puts you at a recognizable and immediate disadvantage with people who have had a formal education on the topic of logic and reasoning. I've corrected you many, many times on terms you've abused, fallacies you've committed, and blatant bullshit you've perpetuated and yet you still claim you can hang with the big dogs when you haven't even taken a high school level logic class or read a book on proper argument structure. I bet you haven't even had a decent school debate on a topic with definate facts, have you?
When you enter into a field of something that you are admittedly not the expert in and then sling around stuff like you know what you're doing, it's ridiculous that anyone would take you seriously. You have no formal logic training, and you apparently lack the capacity to learn from your mistakes or at least properly fake it and Wiki the damn terms or faults in reasoning. I've had two years of formal and informal logic classes, including identifying fallacies, valid or sound argument structure, and I even have more experience in this subject matter and more sources than you do.
Me >>>>>> You in every single debate by virtue of my knowledge in the fields we're actually going over, and my training in the art of debate and arguing which you've apparently only ever studied here. This isn't saying I'm 100% right; it's simply saying that any time you make a claim and I make a claim, by virtue my claim is likely to be the more researched and logical one because I know what the hell I'm talking about, and you just spout off random shit you heard LS say or that you read on a KMC thread some time back.
So yeah, I think I'm entitled to lecture you just this once on your incredibly shitty debating skills which you've claimed time and again you're working to build up. If you were really interested in fair and progressive debating, you'd know how the basics work, for one. Two, you'd learn from those with classic training (myself, Nai, Illustrious, Faunus, Advent, etc.) and more experience. Three, you'd recognize when you've gone from making your point to just plain trolling and being an *******.
You've never demonstrated any of those three virtues, so yeah... No point in anyone listening to you. Unless you actually make an attempt to learn from your shallow-minded approach and make a change in your approach to debate, we should all just collectively ignore your inane posts.