Exar Kun, Darth Bane, Darth Revan vs. ROTS Yoda, Mace and Anakin

Originally posted by Borbarad
I simply have to ask. Is that you on this picture? 😉

Wow that's a lot of bitching for someone in their mid 20s. May I ask you why you think escape has to prove Dooku CANT block Sidious' lightning? Why would you even bother asking him to prove a negative, especially since there's ZERO evidence showing Dooku has those capabilities. Windu had to use all of strength and vaapad just to hold the lightning back. Dooku doesn't have those same capabilities and until YOU can prove dooku can somehow magically block Sidious' lightning, you have no argument in that regard.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Wow that's a lot of bitching for someone in their mid 20s. May I ask you why you think escape has to prove Dooku CANT block Sidious' lightning? Why would you even bother asking him to prove a negative, especially since there's ZERO evidence showing Dooku has those capabilities. Windu had to use all of strength and vaapad just to hold the lightning back. Dooku doesn't have those same capabilities and until YOU can prove dooku can somehow magically block Sidious' lightning, you have no argument in that regard.

LOL. Thanks for totally blocking out my conclusion to this. 😄

I saved you the bandwidth abuse.

Originally posted by Borbarad
I simply have to ask. Is that you on this picture? 😉

Bump for Nai #2. Cue the hostile, defensive remarks filled with unnecessary flamebaits and the inevitable mocking that is to come.

Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
Sorry, I don't sit around in my mom's panties watching House and eating bonbons, trying to figure out how I can be as cool as him. I'm glad your camera works though.

And Escape, narcissism and egotism are totally cool. You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Faunus
Well, he was kidding (note the smilie).

And Escape, narcissism and egotism are totally cool. You don't know what you're talking about.

IT IS ALL ABOUT ME!

Nice thread bumping, Gideon. Mind you. I have said, that you could have a serious discussion via PM, but as I see now, you want it in the public – so you'll have it your way.

"I caught Nai in a major lie!"

There you go, Gideon. Let me first clear this issue up, before I turn unto something else. I might just once more, quote what I – according to you – should have stated, just to refresh your memory.

"LOLZ DOOKU IS SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL, BADASS, AND SMARTER THAN SIDIOUZ"

This is what I, according to you, should have said. In fact I stated the exact opposite of the first statement, and never said something that could even remotely be interpreted to fit your second statement. So. We have two attempts of a strawman from you here. Great work. Now it's suddenly all about "Oh noez, Nai. You didn't say 'might'. You said 'Dooku will beat Sidious'. Period." Note that this has precisely nothing to do with your original claims, but okay.

So this is what you call "a major lie" ? Either you're not able to read properly, have really disturbed moral concepts or you're desperately searching for something to attack me. And I know it's the latter. Why? Because you're once again attempting a strawman at me. Here is what I've written as an answer to your Nai-Fohl-Myths.

If you'd read the thread once more, the argument circled around Dooku being possible able to take Sidious in a lightsaber fight and an "all out match" (winning with his lightsaber abilities).

Do you, in that statement, see me stating that Dooku 'might' have won according to my oppinion back then? No. What you can find there is me recapping the issue of the thread. And since it was actually debated if Dooku could defeat Sidious using his lightsaber [regardless of what I said in the thread] the issue still was if Dooku could or couldn't possibly beat Sidious.

So. You actually, at three occasions pulled some statements out of you ass, which I never made, in order to be remotely able to attack me, because of – all the irony – wanting to attempt to catch me in a a "major lie". Nice work, dude. We can keep going on with discussing how embarresing for you and pitiful that failed plan of yours was, spending an ridiculous amount of words in analyzing how desperate you must have been to attempt it, or we can drop the point. Your choice, Newbie.

On the subject of Darth Sidious versus Count Dooku:

a)
You can't compare the incidents in which the force lightning is used by Dooku and Sidious, and so you can't compare the power of the lightning.

First: Dooku's applications of the ability are done with one hand only. Since the power is focused through the hands (which was the explanation why Vader can't use force lightning), it's quite natural that using both of your hands will allow you to channel more energy, meaning you are quaranteed to generate a greater effect in comparison to using only one hand.

Second: Unlike Sidious use of the ability, which always happens at close range, Dooku is using the ability over far greater distance, when he's attacking Anakin, Obi-Wan and Yoda with it. As the lightning does generate some kinetic force (as seen when Anakin is tossed backwards in AotC, when Yoda is slammed into the wall and Mace out of the window in RotS). Knowing that, this part of the force delivered by the force lightning, might actually decrease with the range the lightning is used on, making it easier to deal with the lightning the greater the range between the user and the target gets.

And now, despite of that, Dooku's lightning (used with one hand and over rather great distance) is still powerful enough to pick Anakin from the ground, reverse his movement (he was about to charge Dooku) and toss the Jedi across the entire hangar into a wall, knocking him out for several minutes. And, after being reflected twice (once by Yoda and once by Dooku himself) it still dealt visible damage to the duracrete ceiling of the hangar. Yet when Dooku, in the EU, is using the power at closer range, you can see him knocking out people like Sora Bulq and Asajj Ventress with apparent ease.

So no. To me there is no visible evidence that Sidious lightning is stronger than Dooku's use of the same ability, although that is – most likely- the case, which doesn't have much influence on the scenario presented.

Why? Because:

b) We do already know that Mace Windu was able to deflect a full barrage of Sidious lightning in close range combat by putting his lightsaber in the way. Now. Why shouldn't Dooku be able to do the same?

First: Some people have mentioned Vaapad here as the key that Mace was able to do that. Apparently some people here have forgotten, that Vaapad is just a mindset. It's not an uber ability which enables you to be especially good fighting against Dark Siders. Nope. It's nothing but going to the edge of the Dark Side, utilizing the darker feelings, without descending down the path of the Sith. And doing so, you actually archieve the "Dark Side boost" without going Dark Side, which does make you stronger. Now guess what: Dooku is a Sith Lord. They are always using their darkness, granted, not as weapon for the light but to archieve their personal goals. Thus he pretty much operating under the same circumstances Mace is using while utilizing his Vaapad.

Second: Looking at most of the quotes around in the SW universe, it actually seems like Dooku is quite more powerful than Mace Windu. Yoda himself claimed that Dooku is the Jedi temples "greatest student", defining that greatness with the words "most learned in the ways of the force". We have several sources claiming that Dooku was "one of the most powerful Jedi" to ever leave the temple "and an even greater Sith Lord". This aside from the fact that he, unlike Windu, has gone through more than a decade of studying the Dark Side (actually he has started studying it as a young man) and he is one of the very few individuals able to deflect force lightning.

Third: Now one might say that Windu was only able to stop the lightning because of his physical strength. A nice idea. However. It was said that Dooku's physical condition was that of a man half his age. Adding to that we can see that he's apparently able to boost his natural strength to an extend where he can not only block overhead swings from Obi-Wan and Anakin, who still has the artificial hand, simultaneously. Nope. He's also able to engage both Yoda and Anakin in a saber-lock. We all know that Yoda can boost his physical strength into literally superhuman levels, while Anakin's artificial arm is strong enough, to allow him to hold the weight of himself, Kenobi and Sidious during their escape from the Invisible Hand. Yet Dooku was able to keep up with that.

So. Can he deflect Sidious lightning, either with his hand or at least with his lightsaber? Yes. I think he's very well able to do the job.

Which brings us back to the lightsaber duelling. Notice: Mace Windu is capable of defeating Sidious in a lightsaber duel. We do know that Dooku was better than Mace in that department in TPM times and he, very much like Mace, did even get better from that time on. Now Dooku is still using a form that is designed for lightsaber-vs-lightsaber confrontation and apparently is more powerful than Windu (better force aided combat). Now. According to Lucas, Mace overpowered Sidious in lightsaber combat. Now you could come with the novel and attribute Mace's victory there to his shatterpoint ability. Granted. The point is that even in the novel he's matching Sidious with his lightsaber skills only. Thus somebody who's using a lightsaber style possibly better for lightsaber-vs-lightsaber confrontation and apparently an individual possessing a greater force mastery than Mace (force aided speed and reflexes), could very well be able to defeat Sidious in lightsaber combat.

Now some people might recognize all the "could", "might" and "probable" above: That is just present because I don't want Gideon to run around here with a tear-soaked pillow. The point is that, under the circumstances of a versus fight [removing all relations between the characters, their thoughts and doubts and the actual storyline from the equation; just comparing actual abilities and showings in combat] Dooku, imho, posesses a greater chance to defeat RotS (!) Sidious than the other way around. Which is speculative and not saying that Sidious inside the continuum [in which above listed aspects are present] is not going to kill Dooku in 10 out of 10 fights.

On the subject of Darth Sidious versus the Ancient Sith

You have still not gotten the point, Gideon. You have no factual evidence that states that Sidious is the greatest in anything that would matter in a versus fight. Period. Hence you can't prove people wrong that claim Sidious will be defeated by an ancient Sith. I can put that into a single sentence that you're familiar with since the day you're arguing here: Absence of proof is no proof of absence.

For people who do enjoy reading far more than thinking, this entire Sidious thing is a clear cut, because the EU is litered with quotes regarding his character and power. But this here is a SW VS Forum and not the LFL HQ. We are dealing with speculative issues here and as the word 'speculative' does already suggest, this allows us to use speculations about characters that the official continuum doesn't take into consideration, because they would spawn so many variables and plot-holes that they will never be able to cover it all up. The point is: We're here to generate those ideas and discuss them and not for destroying them by estimating that we've found the only truth regarding speculative issues dealing with a realm of fiction. At least I am here for that kind of fun.

Because if I just wanted to read the source material under the presupposition "X must be more powerful than Y" I could just do that myself and after that "argue" by tossing 231 quotes I found by doing that into this forum. Where is the personal accomplishment there? A trained monkey could do the job. Which doesn't make you look too great now, Gideon, since that is pretty much all you did since you joined the board, eh?

And the quotes about Sidious are accepted? Sure. But your interpretations are not. And quotes, unless they discripe action happening, are narrative or characters oppinions which are always subject to interpretation, hyperbole or falsification. That's it. And for the nice amount of sources listing Sidious as "the most powerful Sith", we can simply listen to Leland Chee. This can be found on page 81 of the Holocron-Thread over as SW.com, answering a question of our beloved Noobaris on the issue:

"There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate. Is the power being measured referring to his mastery over the dark side of the Force, the governmental powers he wields as Emperor, or some combination of both?"

See, Gideon. I really don't want to burst your bubble: But all the quotes you can pull out of your ass regarding Sidious are still subject to interpretation and there is nothing saying that Sidious is, in regards to lightsaber combat and offensive / defensive force abilities, the best there ever was. He can have mastered as many force powers as he wants and exploited the Dark Side back and forth again. This doesn't change the fact that any Ancient Sith can be able to annihilate him with an amulett blast or some random-instakill from the realm of the Dark Side that Sidious hasn't ever heared about or plain and simply cut him into little pieces. Period.

The mere fact, that Leland Chee tells us that there will always be room for debate should actually be enough for you to realize that you can't proof anything beyond doubt here. No matter how hard you try.

That's obvious, Nai. As I said, the battles we debate are totally speculative, but that doesn't stop any of us from saying "Character X would totally crush Character Y", unless you button all of your entries here with the "any given Sunday" rule. You don't. So, again, don't be obtuse by trying to whip it out here to save face.

Yes, Gideon. The very point is that – because all of the battles are speculative in nature – you can't prove somebodies opinion wrong. You can prove his arguments wrong, yes. His opinion? Nope. Not until the day when you have the speculative fight turning into a match that does happen in a SW source. And even then it most certainly won't happen under the same conditions that we assume to be true in a versus fight. Just as example: We have seen Anakin losing against Obi-Wan Kenobi in RotS when anything present in the source material actually leads to the conclusion, that Anakin should have won that fight – one might even claim by far. Inside the continuum it will never happen because of feelings, character relations or the plain and simple fact that somewhere in the storyline, Anakin had to turn into the half-human half-cyborg being we all recognize as Darth Vader. Outside of the continuum I can argue that Kenobi wins 10 out of 10, that Anakin wins 10 out of 10 or that each of them reaches a 50/50 win/lose ration. Speculation.

And because of those reasons, I can also think that Ragnos can curbstomp Sidious all day long, and the only thing you could do is to say: "Based on what we know about Sidious, I think this is unlikely". That is about as far as you can go.

If you want to slide in there that the quotes were taken from three years ago and you've changed your minds, then be like House and have the balls to admit that you were wrong.

Gosh. How can I be wrong on a completely speculative issue, Gideon? Please tell me. Present me the factual evidence of Sidious defeating Dooku under circumstances of a versus fight here. Or Sidious defeating Ragnos. You can't. Because there is no factual evidence you could use to do the job. Plain and simple.

Aside of that I told you already (multiple times) that I'm not debating my personal opinions here, Gideon. My personal opinions – regarding completely speculative issues – aren't up for debate. You could as well ask me if I do believe in god and then attempt to prove my believes (or the lack of them) wrong. Does that make sense to you? Nope? Then you're on the right way. I'm not interested in the opinions people have. I'm interested in the way they reached their personal conclusions. Hence I'm antagonizing them or asking them for arguments. Otherwise each thread in this forum could look like that:

Ragnos VS Sidious:
Posting #1: "I think Ragnos wins."
Posting #2: "I think Sidious wins."
Posting #3: "I agree with Posting #1"
Posting #4: "My fanboy bible told me that Sidious and Ragnos are too powerful to put them in a VS setup, without having the planet [and probably the entire universe] been blown apart."

That sounds like a lot of fun, eh?

On the issue of your profile

Gosh, Gideon.
Do you really think I care about the reasons you put stuff in your profile? Do you really believe that people like IKC, Janus or myself where taking something here serious? For the record: I don't give a crap for your reasons to put stuff in your profile, nor do I care about your opinion regarding myself. The mere fact that you waste your time with producing stuff that nobody, and that "nobody" is meant literally, cares about, is funny enough. That you were really coming in here attempting to justify that profile...god damn it, Newbie. How dumb can you be?

Egotism anybody?

Don't lecture me on egotism, Nai. This is the sort of thing that makes appearances in my profile, for the record. The same thing I did to IKC. I'm sure House makes egotism and narcissism look cool, but it's not.

Oh stop it, Supergirl.
I can be as egomanic and narcistic as I want. If you can't live with that – hey. That's your problem and not mine. That aside from the fact that it is not me, who runs around here, claiming his words are "god given fact", which happens to be your job. And I'm also not the teenager who dares to lecture adults on anything – that would also be your job, kiddo. Not to mention that you're the guy who's attempting to judge other by their posts in a meaningless online forum. But good god. Isn't it nice that I am the egomanic and narcistic person here. Because if I weren't you would also have to do that job, since you have all the qualifications needed. Yet, we both know that, like it's always with you, you would just be the poor immitation of the original (which is myself), as you're – at the moment – the poor immitation of Lightsnake, who does at least possess some abilities beyond stupid "Quote Wars". Which is pretty much all that you've done so far, Newbie.

But wait: Do you know what the most funny part of this entire "debate" is: You've still not contributed a single argument to the discussion of this thread here. Of course, I just asked three times for your – I'm sure – great arguments on how Revan or Exar Kun (let's ignore Bane) will defeated in a lightsaber fight with "laughable ease". You keep dodging the point. Why? Because you don't have any arguments? Because your such a bad, bad egoist, that you can simply debate what you want to talk about – regardless of the thread topic? Or because you're afraid to get owned once more? Really. Quite funny this great showing of your self-proclaimed debating skills, newbie. I will, by the way, not stop calling you out on that issue.

And on a side-note: House is cool? Yup. A guy with no real life that only lives for his "job", punishes his only friend whenever possible, is inable to form any social relationship and, on top of that all, can't even walk without a cane, simply must be the definition of adorable coolness. Another great display of your flawed skills in terms of interpretation. Nice job.

I'm not going to participate in the flame fest any longer, Nai, and would prefer to address the point directly. You will understand, then, if I don't respond to your jabs and deal with the meat of the issue.

Originally posted by Nai
You have still not gotten the point, Gideon. You have no factual evidence that states that Sidious is the greatest in anything that would matter in a versus fight. Period. Hence you can't prove people wrong that claim Sidious will be defeated by an ancient Sith. I can put that into a single sentence that you're familiar with since the day you're arguing here: Absence of proof is no proof of absence.

Nonsense. I have numerous statements that confirm the Emperor's mastery of the Force and combat prowess. My interpretations are correct based on the context in which they are provided; Palpatine isn't mentioned to be "the most powerful Sith ever" in the context of a political debate or authority derived from governmental powers. The statements I bring up are always within reference to the dark side of the Force or a combat scenario. If you wish to imply that they are referencing his intellect, political savvy, or political strata, it is your burden to prove. Period.

Moreover, you're being completely hypocritical. You and the rest of the Anteduvilians relied completely on statements from other characters and narrators (i.e. "[Ragnos was] the most powerful of the most powerful."), since Ragnos had zero combat feats to speak of. Otherwise, you couldn't collectively prove that Ragnos is a match for a stormtrooper, much less the most powerful dark side magus in history.

See, Gideon. I really don't want to burst your bubble: But all the quotes you can pull out of your ass regarding Sidious are still subject to interpretation and there is nothing saying that Sidious is, in regards to lightsaber combat and offensive / defensive force abilities, the best there ever was. He can have mastered as many force powers as he wants and exploited the Dark Side back and forth again. This doesn't change the fact that any Ancient Sith can be able to annihilate him with an amulett blast or some random-instakill from the realm of the Dark Side that Sidious hasn't ever heared about or plain and simply cut him into little pieces. Period.

As stated before, I can, since the statements I bring to the table are all relevant in a combat situation or reference to his mastery of the dark side. What can you bring to the table, Nai? Moreover, even if we neglect the quotes -- Ragnos has no feats to speak of. The Ancient Sith relied on Sith arcana and Force enhancing technologies to aid in their power. Nothing suggests that in natural potency that they are even close to rivaling the Galactic Emperor's. Palpatine's knowledge has been demonstrably proven to surpass that of any individuals. I would suggest, my friend, in reading up on current sources. There is absolutely no evidence, which is what we must use in a speculative match, that supports the idea that any Ancient Sith Lord could rival or defeat the Emperor in combat. If I may borrow your term, period.

Yes, Gideon. The very point is that – because all of the battles are speculative in nature – you can't prove somebodies opinion wrong. You can prove his arguments wrong, yes. His opinion? Nope. Not until the day when you have the speculative fight turning into a match that does happen in a SW source. And even then it most certainly won't happen under the same conditions that we assume to be true in a versus fight. Just as example: We have seen Anakin losing against Obi-Wan Kenobi in RotS when anything present in the source material actually leads to the conclusion, that Anakin should have won that fight – one might even claim by far. Inside the continuum it will never happen because of feelings, character relations or the plain and simple fact that somewhere in the storyline, Anakin had to turn into the half-human half-cyborg being we all recognize as Darth Vader. Outside of the continuum I can argue that Kenobi wins 10 out of 10, that Anakin wins 10 out of 10 or that each of them reaches a 50/50 win/lose ration. Speculation.

And because of those reasons, I can also think that Ragnos can curbstomp Sidious all day long, and the only thing you could do is to say: "Based on what we know about Sidious, I think this is unlikely". That is about as far as you can go.

You have never applied this reasoning to any scenario but Sidious versus the Ancient Sith. Only then do you use the Any Given Sunday clause, which is understood, Nai. But we base our matches upon evidence, and unless there is some specific trait or attribute that would make us think twice, we (and you as well) tend to go with the stronger opponent. Sidious is proven to be stronger than the Ancient Sith.

Gosh, Gideon.
Do you really think I care about the reasons you put stuff in your profile?

Enough to devote an entire paragraph to it.

Originally posted by Borbarad
[B]On the subject of Darth Sidious versus the Ancient Sith

You have still not gotten the point, Gideon. You have no factual evidence that states that Sidious is the greatest in anything that would matter in a versus fight.

Period. Hence you can't prove people wrong that claim Sidious will be defeated by an ancient Sith. I can put that into a single sentence that you're familiar with since the day you're arguing here: Absence of proof is no proof of absence.

For people who do enjoy reading far more than thinking, this entire Sidious thing is a clear cut, because the EU is litered with quotes regarding his character and power. But this here is a SW VS Forum and not the LFL HQ. We are dealing with speculative issues here and as the word 'speculative' does already suggest, this allows us to use speculations about characters that the official continuum doesn't take into consideration, because they would spawn so many variables and plot-holes that they will never be able to cover it all up. The point is: We're here to generate those ideas and discuss them and not for destroying them by estimating that we've found the only truth regarding speculative issues dealing with a realm of fiction. At least I am here for that kind of fun.

Because if I just wanted to read the source material under the presupposition "X must be more powerful than Y" I could just do that myself and after that "argue" by tossing 231 quotes I found by doing that into this forum. Where is the personal accomplishment there? A trained monkey could do the job. Which doesn't make you look too great now, Gideon, since that is pretty much all you did since you joined the board, eh?

And the quotes about Sidious are accepted? Sure. But your interpretations are not. And quotes, unless they discripe action happening, are narrative or characters oppinions which are always subject to interpretation, hyperbole or falsification. That's it. And for the nice amount of sources listing Sidious as "the most powerful Sith", we can simply listen to Leland Chee. This can be found on page 81 of the Holocron-Thread over as SW.com, answering a question of our beloved Noobaris on the issue:

"There's always going to be room for interpretation and debate. Is the power being measured referring to his mastery over the dark side of the Force, the governmental powers he wields as Emperor, or some combination of both?"

See, Gideon. I really don't want to burst your bubble: But all the quotes you can pull out of your ass regarding Sidious are still subject to interpretation and there is nothing saying that Sidious is, in regards to lightsaber combat and offensive / defensive force abilities, the best there ever was. He can have mastered as many force powers as he wants and exploited the Dark Side back and forth again. This doesn't change the fact that any Ancient Sith can be able to annihilate him with an amulett blast or some random-instakill from the realm of the Dark Side that Sidious hasn't ever heared about or plain and simply cut him into little pieces. Period.

The mere fact, that Leland Chee tells us that there will always be room for debate should actually be enough for you to realize that you can't proof anything beyond doubt here. No matter how hard you try.

And because of those reasons, I can also think that Ragnos can curbstomp Sidious all day long, and the only thing you could do is to say: "Based on what we know about Sidious, I think this is unlikely". That is about as far as you can go.

Gosh. How can I be wrong on a completely speculative issue, Gideon? Please tell me. Present me the factual evidence of Sidious defeating Dooku under circumstances of a versus fight here. Or Sidious defeating Ragnos. You can't. Because there is no factual evidence you could use to do the job. Plain and simple.

Aside of that I told you already (multiple times) that I'm not debating my personal opinions here, Gideon. My personal opinions – regarding completely speculative issues – aren't up for debate. You could as well ask me if I do believe in god and then attempt to prove my believes (or the lack of them) wrong. Does that make sense to you? Nope? Then you're on the right way. I'm not interested in the opinions people have. I'm interested in the way they reached their personal conclusions. Hence I'm antagonizing them or asking them for arguments.

That sounds like a lot of fun, eh?

On the issue of your profile

Gosh, Gideon.
Do you really think I care about the reasons you put stuff in your profile? Do you really believe that people like IKC, Janus or myself where taking something here serious?

Sidenote: Vitriol aside, how goes, Nai?

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Err....force power? knowledge of numerous force techniques? Those seem like pretty decent qualifiers.

It's difficult to argue a definite when one side has extremely limited to no showings whatsoever. It does leave one with a nice conclusion, however.
For instance, Darth Bane has demonstrated substantial skill, power and knowledge that, frankly, if the Sith'Ari prophecy is to be believed, places him heads and shoulders above the Ancient Sith. There is nothing the Ancient Sith have demonstrated that would be conducive to a versus fight against him. Who do we side with? The one with backing or without it?

We can dozens, if not hundreds of versus matches for that to be taken to account. This is, after all arguing facts from Star Wars canon and nobody has ever been particularly shy about arguing straight from quotes from either sources or omniscient narrators.

I'm going to say the words 'He was the most powerful of the most powerful' and leave it there. There seemed little skill when it was argued for backing of Marka.

'Any?' Oh, come now, that's just flagrant baiting. There is, however, substantial evidence that Palpatine is an incredible duelist-including G-canon statements- and that he not only has access to just about everything the Ancient Sith know, but has invented techniques of his own and has recovered a substantial trove of what was previously lost.
And seriously, open to interpretation or not, some are pretty airtight. In fact, more than 'some' are pretty airtight. If 'everything' is subject to interpretation, let's argue for Johun 'I move faster than the eye can see' Othone taking down Nomi Sunrider in a saber fight.
Some things are rather clear cut. Are we going to argue Yoda is somehow not the most powerful Jedi in the order?

What path does this follow? 'There's always room for interpretation' means proof is impossible to come by? I'm sure I could find some absolutes you are in complete agreement, Nai.

Actually, he can present more facts and evidence than you can. And demonstrate why he is more likely correct. A refusal to change stance when the point becomes that hard to defend leaves you at a rather poor turn in the road

If it's not onscreen, it won't happen? Well, here's a bit of logic by the subject: Lucas has said clearly that you need to be Yoda or Mace to compete with Palpatine. Is Dooku Yoda or Mace? Given that Bane is incredible likely to be the Sith'Ari, he who will 'destroy the Sith' and 'make them stronger than ever before...' if that holds true, it would indeed set Palpatine above a good deal of forebears. A fairer question may be where's the evidence of ragnos to put him above Palpatine or Bane?

If that's the case, however, why should anyone get into the debate? It seems clear you're meaning for them to swing to your side, but you're essentially saying your opinion won't change

There's a LOT more we could argue than just Palpatine vs. Ragnos. How about Bane vs. Exar Kun? How about Mace Windu vs. Kas'im? Caedus vs. Naga Sadow? There's a LOT that's up for fun debate

Actually, I have the feeling IKC took himself very, very seriously.

Sidenote: Vitriol aside, how goes, Nai?

Old for Force New for Lightsaber assuming im on the right thread

Are you actually trying to get yourself banned again?

We can only hope

So, DarkSerpent. Your new hobby is to post "Why iz this post so long lolz" after basically every single post in a debate.

Ingenius, really. You have found a new- and creative!- way to annoy us.

No... The old Sith own this(force wise) outa superior knowledge in terms of the force

PT jedi take the sabers...Anakin gets killed.

Outa superior knowledge? That has...what to do with it, exactly?

I think he means they'd tear apart Anakin and Mace in the Force battle.

Sorry for my absence. Had some nice pile of work to do...

Originally posted by Gideon
I'm not going to participate in the flame fest any longer, Nai, and would prefer to address the point directly. You will understand, then, if I don't respond to your jabs and deal with the meat of the issue.

Oh? You want to address the point directly? Then why do you keep talking around it? And thanks for just picking the "meat" you wanted to address...

Nonsense. I have numerous statements that confirm the Emperor's mastery of the Force and combat prowess.

And you have no statement that confirms the Emperor's superiority to any of the Ancient Sith Lords directly. The fact that you can toss in numerous quotes about Sidious here doesn't change that fact, since verbosity doesn't count as "proof".

My interpretations are correct based on the context in which they are provided; Palpatine isn't mentioned to be "the most powerful Sith ever" in the context of a political debate or authority derived from governmental powers. The statements I bring up are always within reference to the dark side of the Force or a combat scenario. If you wish to imply that they are referencing his intellect, political savvy, or political strata, it is your burden to prove. Period.

First: Your interpretations aren't correct because you say so – I'm afraid. Ipsedixitism doesn't work.

Second: Where in the blue hell have you been when the other students in your school bumped into the art of literature interpretation? "Context" does not naturally refer to the action happening around a certain piece of text, but to character relations, general characteristics or the view of certain persons.

Now what do we have in that particular scene in the RotS novel. We have Yoda realizing that he can't defeat Sidious because he's the most powerful Sith Lord in history. Do you really believe Yoda can't do the job because of Sidious mastery with the lightsaber or his force powers? Obviously not! First: You've acknowledged yourself that those two are – at least – equals. Second: Lucas went one step further and claimed Mace and Yoda are both able to defeat the Emperor. Third: Mace did already manage to do it.

Yet you want to tell me, that this quote, which is part of the reasoning for Yoda not being able to defeat Sidious, is related to the Sith Lords lightsaber skills and force powers? So you want to argue against Lucas and – whoopie – against your own opinion? Especially when, following Yoda's realization, his personal reason for not having the ability to defeat Sidious is that you can't win a war against an enemy that utilized said war itself as a weapon against you? So obviously, the "power" of Sidious comes from a mixture of his Sith skills and his political manouvering and military planning because he managed to get himself into a position where his plans couldn't have been stopped any longer.

And notice how I didn't take the easy way here, which would be me saying "Hyperbole!" and down goes your beloved quote. Oh wait. No. There are no hyperboles in the quotes you're using, correct? So where was it exactly, when Sidious "blotted out the stars themselves" and "spread his rule to other Galaxies" as the Dark Side Sourcebook claims, eh?

That aside, Gideon: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).You might get away with shifting the burden of proof when debating one of the regular newbies around here. Doesn't work with me. If you want to use that or any other statement as a testament to Sidious force abilities and lightsaber skills it is your burden to prove that there is no hyperbole involved and that the statement you want to use refers to nothing but Sidious force abilities, general combat skill, [add your desired power here] and not mine to prove your interpretation wrong.

Moreover, you're being completely hypocritical. You and the rest of the Anteduvilians relied completely on statements from other characters and narrators (i.e. "[Ragnos was] the most powerful of the most powerful."), since Ragnos had zero combat feats to speak of. Otherwise, you couldn't collectively prove that Ragnos is a match for a stormtrooper, much less the most powerful dark side magus in history.

Sure thing, kid.

As far as I remember, I [and the Antedeluvians] have literally literred this place here with thoughts regarding Ragnos and the Ancient Sith. Sure thing: We also did use quotes, yes, but I bet you've never seen me dropping the "most powerful of the most powerful" line in here, following with a conclusion for a certain topic. Did you? Nope. And because that is the case and you know that this is the case, the only hypocrite running around here is sitting right in front of your PC.

And Ragnos has no feats to speak of? I get to that gre-he-he-eat point later...

As stated before, I can, since the statements I bring to the table are all relevant in a combat situation or reference to his mastery of the dark side.

According to your personal interpretation which, as demonstrated above, holds pretty much no water.

What can you bring to the table, Nai?

Debating for newbies.

Lection #1: I don't have to bring anything to the table, Gideon. It is you who has to defend his opinion here, which I am currently attacking. I don't have to make a case for Ragnos or anybody else to deny your opinion that Sidious has the greatest knowledge, is the best when it comes to combat and has the coolest force powers up his sleeve. You have to prove all of that points (and good luck with that) to defend your opinion, regardless of what I'm thinking.

Lection #2: You're not arguing "Sidious vs XYZ" here, Gideon. You're stating Sidious > all other Sith Lords, no matter in which discipline related to the natural Jedi and Sith abilities. And see. That's the problem here:

a) You can't deny that most of the Ancient Sith appear to be physically on top of Sidious, which might be a deciding factor in terms of direct combat

b) You can't deny that his knowledge is based upon stuff the Ancient Sith left behind, when we know that most of that stuff was actually lost.

c) You're assuming that his Dark Side mastery and knowledge exceed that of individuals who had, literally, centuries to study the Dark Side and gain knowledge.

d) You can't argue around the fact that some of the force related stuff the Ancient Sith did produce, be it force enhancing technology, Sith Alchemy, Sith Arcana and offensive force powers seems to be pretty much beyond Sidious.

Moreover, even if we neglect the quotes -- Ragnos has no feats to speak of.

Wow. What a revelation, Gideon.

So somebody, clearly not Ragnos, must have beheaded Simus in a duel or probably the latter did decide to do the job himself, I suppose. Then said unknown Sith Lord established a rule over a conglomerat of Sith Lords [including people like Kressh and Sadow] that lasted for more than a century. In other words: Said person did manage, by whatever means, to keep a bunch of probably powerful individuals under his command, which all desired his own position, and that for more than a century. While doing so, said unknown Sith Lord must at least have done something impressive, as people drop immediatly on their knees when even his spirit pops up somewhere, while Kressh assumes that he could annihilate Sadow easily – even in that "powerless" spirit shape. Said Sith Lord also popped up a millenium later, burning marks into Exar Kuns and Ulic Qel-Dromas foreheads with his bare hands, making them both ripple with Dark Side energy. And we're talking about the same Sith Lord that had a sceptre in his possession which was able to drain the force energy out of places, to store that energy and unleash them to either equip none force-sensitive with powers on Jedi Knight level, unleash blasts of that energy apparently able to easily floor people like Kyle Katarn [after most of the energy stored was already used] or call back the spirit of his former owner back from the netherworld of the force. An action after which said former owner was able to simply take over the weak [in comparison to his own] body of some Dark Side adept and confront one of Luke's most promissing students in a duel while wielding a pretty much huuuuuge metal sword around fast enough to pose a threat to said Jedi handling a weightless lightsaber.

But I'm astonished by the revelation that all of this couldn't have been Ragnos, since that dude I'm talking about actually has feats to speak of, where Ragnos, according to you, does not.

The Ancient Sith relied on Sith arcana and Force enhancing technologies to aid in their power. Nothing suggests that in natural potency that they are even close to rivaling the Galactic Emperor's.

Hilarious. Do you really think that you can get anywhere in this debate, coming up with stupid premises like that you've just presented here?

How in the blue hell can somebody attempt to talk people down, which did come up with all that Force enhancing technologies or Sith Arcana? See...that stuff didn't pop up out of nowhere. It was either invented or actively used by said Ancient Sith, which doesn't matter too much because there is no basis to measure the power of the Ancients without said stuff, as they were always using their Sith Arcana or carrying around their force enhancing gimmics. And even if we would remove those from the equation [which is one-sided arguing as worse as it can be] you still won't end up with them being, beyond doubt, less powerful than Sidious. Because, as you may have noticed by now, there is also nothing to suggest that Sidious potential rivals that of the Ancient Sith either and much less to suggest that his natural potential is enough to compete with them if they, as always, are using their gimmics.

Palpatine's knowledge has been demonstrably proven to surpass that of any individuals.

Oh? It has? Where, Gideon? Where?

May I remind you, that Bane's Sith Order started with the basic abilities that Bane learned during his training [which were coming from one stolen Sith holocron], adding the Ancient Sith knowledge which Revan stored in his holocron – only to the extend that Bane could extract from said holocron in the timespan of some days - that was taken away from a training facility for Dark Side starters? This while most of the knowledge the Ancient Sith once had was, logically, over a time-span of multiple millenia. Let me just point it out:

1) During and after Sadow's actions, most of the knowledge within the Sith Empire was obviously destroyed (either by the deaths of the Sith Lords or by the later invasion of the Republic / Jedi into the Sith Empire)

2) Sadow's own knowledge was destroyed partitially by Nadd (who killed Sadow before finishing his training under the Dark Lord), and later when Kun was defeated.

3) Malachor V, a storehouse of Ancient Sith knowledge (but only a training facility) was completely destroyed, making Revan (and his holocron) one of the few original sources of Ancient Sith knowledge.
Even within the new found Sith Order, knowledge was obviously lost, as none Dark Lord did ever teach his apprentice all he knew. This is, for example, obvious from Sidious who murdered Plagueis before having learned everything from his master (e.g. the assumed ability to manipulate the midi-chlorians themselves, generating new life)

Yet you are, effectively, assuming that somebody who did hunt knowledge from a certain time period is capable of exceeding the people that lived in that certain time period in terms of knowledge. This while knowing that most of the knowledge present went to hell over the time-span of 5,000 years. To me, that looks pretty much illogical because you could as well assume that a historian has more knowledge about, let's say, Ancient Egypt, than a Pharao who lived back in that time.

Of course, said historian might have other knowledge that exceeds that of the Pharao. Sidious might have knowledge about the ways of the force that the Ancient Sith didn't have. Yet to assume that he could have as much or more knowledge than them regarding Ancient Sith techniques is ridiculous.

I would suggest, my friend, in reading up on current sources. There is absolutely no evidence, which is what we must use in a speculative match, that supports the idea that any Ancient Sith Lord could rival or defeat the Emperor in combat. If I may borrow your term, period.

I would suggest, my friend, that you stop with the writing before you're done with the thinking.

"Evidence" is everything that can be used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. As your assertion is that Sidious is more powerful than any Ancient Sith and could defeat any Ancient Sith in combat, the "evidence" you would need to determine, demonstrate or prove your point is a direct comparison in whatever sense between Sidious and any Ancient Sith in terms of force powers, force abilities and combat skills. Since such evidence doesn't exist in the source material, I may happily welcome you in the realm of speculation. In fact the idea that let's say Ragnos can defeat Sidious in combat is as plausible as Sidious defeating Ragnos in combat, if you want to base it on "evidence" and not "verbosity".

And this is already ignoring that I find your personaly idea of limiting "evidence" to "stuff that can be read in the sources" rather absurd. So, going by this idea, your estimating that Herodot is right with everything he wrote down reagarding the Battle at Thermopylae, because there is no other source from the corresponding time on the issue, telling us what happened? I wonder why historians are actually questioning Herodot. Could it be that, using logical reasoning, you may reach other conclusions that an author that writes down a piece of fiction? Gosh!

You have never applied this reasoning to any scenario but Sidious versus the Ancient Sith. Only then do you use the Any Given Sunday clause, which is understood, Nai. But we base our matches upon evidence, and unless there is some specific trait or attribute that would make us think twice, we (and you as well) tend to go with the stronger opponent. Sidious is proven to be stronger than the Ancient Sith.

And I also have never applied this reasoning to the Sidious versus the Ancient Sith scenario, Gideon. Stop attempting to use those straw man arguments against me. To apply an "every given sunday" scenario, I would, logically, have to accept the idea that Sidious is more powerful than the Ancient Sith first. As I don't do that, I can't apply said kind of reasoning on such a debate. So please. Take that straw man, put a picture of me on it, light it on fire and get the kids from the neighbourhood to whack it with sticks if that makes you feel better. Doesn't change the fact that it is not proven that Sidious is stronger than the Ancient Sith, unless you carry said proof around with you in your pocket, touching it every day before you enter this forum to ensure yourself that the time you spent here actually was good for anything.

And you've still not offered any argument which barely touches the issue of this debate, nor did you spent a single word explaining how Exar Kun and Revan will be defeated by any of the three Jedi involved with 'laughable ease' ! But please try to dodge the issue once more – it's quite entertaining watching your attempts to do the job. Even more entertaining than watching you arguing in circles that Sidious is the most powerful Sith Lord eeeeeveeeer.