Revan strengths

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
N. is a valid example like anyone else. The point that TJ was arguing and that you would apparently not understand is what I just told you, that a technique is only as powerful as it's master. But I get your point, although if I really wanted to get picky (and include gameplay like some people here love to) then I could say that those insignificant Dark Jedi who attacked my Revan and Exile were also able to use Force Drain, with less lethal consequences.

I've always said Revan was powerful, because of how Kreia and the other masters spoke of him (and I am sure TJ and the others won't call Revan average either). We just don't have the feats to substantiate this and you have said multiple times that Revan does have the feats to back this up, which he doesn't.

In the post I quoted from you, you said: "there a list of feats for Revan, and I am not going to list them the hundredth time. You want to say how did Revan accomplish those feats, it does matter he did."

It doesn't matter that he did, we need something to back these feats up. They are like I said, hollow. Hence why Revan is an unknown.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

What has Bane shown other than leveling a 30,000 year old temple or using Revan's force storm?

Bane has actually shown quite a bit of feats. Not to sound like Nebaris, but he could fill an entire room with lightning just an hour after learning it. As of PoD, when he wasn't as powerful as he was in RoT, Bane was already probably the most powerful Force user that was currently alive in the galaxy. Kaan himself admitted that he was no match for him, which is quite a feat given that sith lords tend to be pretty arrogant. He toyed with Sirak, someone that people believed to be the Sithari. And bringing down a temple is still impressive.

So is ripping out a language out of a species while giving them basic.

Bane did collapse the 30,000 year old temple, I believe his lightning was said to contain millions of volts in RoT, no i can't guarantee that Revan's didn't, but it isn't stated anywhere that he did.

He defeated 4 Jedi Masters and one Jedi loser, killing 3 Jedi Masters himself. Let's say, the fight was sufficiently impressive enough to impress me more than anything Revan did, since everything he did was spectacularly vague.

See, Revan followed the Sith to the unknown region: Think of it this way: Revan left for the unkown regions only ONE YEAR after defeating malak. Did he spend his entire time for that year studying force-knowledge? And even if he did, how much could he possibly learn in a single year?

Originally posted by truejedi
Bane did collapse the 30,000 year old temple, I believe his lightning was said to contain millions of volts in RoT, no i can't guarantee that Revan's didn't, but it isn't stated anywhere that he did.

He defeated 4 Jedi Masters and one Jedi loser, killing 3 Jedi Masters himself. Let's say, the fight was sufficiently impressive enough to impress me more than anything Revan did, since everything he did was spectacularly vague.

See, Revan followed the Sith to the unknown region: Think of it this way: Revan left for the unkown regions only ONE YEAR after defeating malak. Did he spend his entire time for that year studying force-knowledge? And even if he did, how much could he possibly learn in a single year? [/B]

Originally posted by Gideon
REX will want to punish some of you for rulebreaking...

Pieces of data X, Y, and Z could be used to attain the probability of conclusion A being correct.

X, Y, and Z could all be factually stated in the premises, and could all reach a certain probability of A being correct. However, if X, as it is individually stated, has no real meaning to A, and the manner in which it impacts A can only be observed through the indirect connection, then the premise would be better labelled as a probability of something that has a clear and direct connection.

Note: The probability remains the same; only the wording changes between the different forms.

No. You've essentially said here 'since the data might not have any effect on our conclusion it doesn't matter how accurate it is.' You have one chance to recant. One. That is how many times you will have to recant. Only the one chance, not two.

Because, I mean, everything you said was absolutely batshit insane.

He could be Obama!

Shut the goddamn hell up matt.

OK this time the gloves come off (I'm talking about big exclamation marks here).

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Shut the hell up.

[b]No. You've essentially said here 'since the data might not have any effect on our conclusion it doesn't matter how accurate it is.' You have one chance to recant. One. That is how many times you will have to recant. Only the one chance, not two.

Because, I mean, everything you said was absolutely batshit insane. [/B]

Dude!

"However, if X, as it is individually stated, has no real meaning to A, and the manner in which it impacts A can only be observed through the indirect connection, then the premise would be better labelled as a probability of something that has a clear and direct connection."

I quite clearly stated that, as it is read, if there is no real relevance to the conclusion, that the indirect connection would be better reflected if phrased as a probability of something that has more meaning.

Hence!

You should spend more times reading my postings.

As another example,

Dooku versus Revan in a lightsaber duel, no Force powers allowed

A single point might read "Dooku would likely win as he is 70 years old".

This could also be phrased "Dooku is likely more experienced than Revan with a lightsaber given his age, and as such is more likely to win".

They both utilise the same data and suggest the same likelihood but the second clearly retains more meaning as a premise, and that is because it is stated as a probability of something that more directly relates to the conclusion.

I will give you approximately two hours to concede.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
How would Bane be above him? What he learned, he learned from Revan, Nadd's holocron and Darzu's holocron, whereas Revan had the fresh tombs of Korriban and the underground cities of Malachor. The force knowledge doesn't compare. The same goes with Caedus. He knows more esoteric techniques than anyone else but his dark side techniques end with what, a force choke?

Yea, no. The KOTOR characters spent more time fighting than anyone during the PT era. There were 4-5 wars during the KOTOR era.

No. It is directly stated by the omniscient narrator that "soon, all of Revan's knowledge in the Force and the ways of the darkside would be his". This is definitely coming from the omniscient narrator as Bane would be in absolutely no position to state that Revan would have put all of his knowledge into the holocron or that it would soon all be his, and as such it would make absolutely no sense to even think of such an idea, rendering the possibility of free indirect discourse void.

So, Bane factually knows everything Revan knows, and has also had ten years to apply his genius learning rate to Naga Sadow's entire knowledge base.

That, along with his vastly superior demonstrations of power and precision, the orbalisks, his superior demonstrations of lightsaber technique, his superior demonstrations of fighting smarts and his on paper superior physical body, and Bane >>>>> Revan.

Red Nemesis
Shut the hell up.

No.

Let's get one thing clear: I told you that you will not interact with socks (especially ones who are currently kicking your ass).

You don't have a choice. You don't get the option to ignore that directive.

You will do as you're told.

Originally posted by Gideon
No.

Let's get one thing clear: I told you that you will not interact with socks (especially ones who are currently kicking your ass).

You don't have a choice. You don't get the option to ignore that directive.

You will do as you're told.

I missed a memo here? You are pmsing again? Sorry.

The thing we talked about remains in effect:
Deal with it.

Neb
So we have established that inductive reasoning is used to draw conclusions about fights. The question at issue is how important the strength or validity of the evidence submitted is, no?

Unless I am gravely mistaken, you wish to argue that the steps taken to reach the conclusion are speculative and therefore qualify as a precedent for the admission of speculation as evidence. (Evidence: Dooku is 70 years old.
Evidence:He probably gained experience in that time.
Conclusion: His experience is > Revan's)
The highlighted portion would qualify as probability based evidence, and therefore speculation?

I think the problem is our definition of evidence. I cannot, and have not disputed the nature of our debates. Induction is used. What I have contested is the idea that speculation can be used as evidence. By evidence I have always meant the starting facts one draws conclusions from. Dooku being 70 years old is one such fact. Where we diverge is at the next step, when conclusions are drawn. From the evidence given (his age) we infer an expansion of experience and skill. This is induction.

You want to call the conclusion drawn evidence. I do not. I would call it part of the argument- a conclusion drawn from the evidence that supports the thesis (in your example, the idea that Dooku > Revan). While Dooku's age is unassailable, as it is canon, that his age won him experience is an argument that can be attacked. Did he have chances to acrue experience? More or less than in a time of war? Etc. I would not be willing to call it evidence. It is not an axiom. It should not be treated as such.

Another example is the Revan Problem. There is simply not enough evidence to draw any sort of conclusion about his powers, let alone one that can contribute to a coherent argument. Under your definition of 'evidence,' however, conclusions drawn from the vague corona of Revan's history do count as evidence. These cannot be correct; the canon evidence, the facts that we have are not sufficient to draw the conclusions about Revan that some [the fanbois] would like to. Your definition of evidence is rather looser than mine.

Why? It is because such a loose definition, conclusions based on fact qualifying as evidence rather than arguments that may be questioned, allows far too great an opening for bias to intrude into these deliberations. Look at Legend: he decided that Revan was "kool" and then created arguments that support his decision. Although there is no canon that supports his assertions directly, his conclusions, based at least as much on his preference for Revan as on the FACTS, would qualify as evidence under your system.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

What has Bane shown other than leveling a 30,000 year old temple or using Revan's force storm?

And kotor3, respond to my post.

yeah lets not forget that very important detail its not as if he just made the structure blow or something.

and why do people say "30000 years" like that makes the feat more impressive? all that means is that the building spent 30 thousand years getting its ass kicked by gravity before he took it down. it would have been much stronger when it was younger.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which is irrelevant unless there was a record of voltage for every known user of forced lightning.

Substantiate the power of those Jedi...Then remind yourself that he had orbalisks and that Raskta was owning him in terms of hits to the body.

Depends on the learning. He had at LEAST 1 year to study before being betrayed by Malak and G-d knows how long after he left.

well, here is the deal, Bane actually did these things, and it can be substantiated. Next to none of the things that Revan did, can. So if you are talking about proof, then Bane has more than Revan, of PROVEN feats.

If you are talking about opinions, and it is your opinion that Revan is stronger than bane, that is fine, and perfectly acceptable to me.
I just happen to think Bane was stronger.

Not to say that Revan didn't know more force techniques. I admit, i've never even given that particular thing an iota of thought, since everything Revan was opinionated, and i don't dwell on that too long.

Originally posted by Wolverine2179
You mean leveling the foundations of a 30000 year old temple?

And kotor3, respond to my post.

i caught him in a bald-face inescapable lie earlier. he probably won't come back till he thinks we have forgotten, and his lie has disappeared a few more pages back, then he will start making all the same claims he made before, hoping no one will catch him this time.

Nebaris is an idiot and Rex isn't doing his job.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
yeah lets not forget that very important detail its not as if he just made the structure blow or something.

and why do people say "30000 years" like that makes the feat more impressive? all that means is that the building spent 30 thousand years getting its ass kicked by gravity before he took it down. it would have been much stronger when it was younger.

The novel did state there were no visible cracks on the temple, but that doesn't mean the temple didn't have any weakness in its structure considering the temple is soooooo old.

Oh and btw, i just found out that vader can completely deflect powerful force attacks 😄 Just when kento marek unleashes a force wave powerful enough to kill two storm troopers by vaders side instantly while vader simply lifts his hand, throws up a force shield and blocks the attack completely.

considering Revan couldn't even get into the temple without jumping through Rakata hoops, i'd say it was pretty impressive.

That makes no sense. Bane destroyed the temple BECAUSE there were no hoops to jump through. Three thousand years earlier, the temple was fully operable with the star forge.