Star Wars vs Star Trek, Lord of the Rings and Battlestar Galactica

Originally posted by Robtard
He actually seems more intelligent (I know, than ain't saying much considering HWKA), so if it's HWKA he must be copy/pasting his arguments from somewhere/someone else, which wouldn't surprise me.

Or possibly, it's someone from Stardestroyer.net that HWKA went down on to come in here and rehash the same shit yet again.

1. I am not a sock; hewhoknowsall isn't the only one that thinks that Star Wars would defeat Star Trek (unless if the Q or other godlikes beings are involved)
2. You haven't actually contributed to this argument.
3. You're using ad hominems to cover up #2
4. Face it; Star Wars wins. They're both great shows/movies/books/etc., but Star Wars is SUPPOSED to be more powerful; it's set in a universe that's been spacefaring for tens of thousands of years, giving it an excuse to have technology that is basically magic. The writers of Star Trek had to make sure to keep it realistically within the few hundred years of spacefaring that the Federation had.
5. You guys seem to have little knowledge of science and mathematics; I've read over some of this thread, and Jaden101 claimed that there's a "gigawatts per second" measurement and a "gigawatts total" measurement.

So, Robtard, if you're going to post in this thread, why don't you actually explain why you think that my argument is "shit" using (gasp!) logic?

Originally posted by KMCmember
1. I am not a sock; hewhoknowsall isn't the only one that thinks that Star Wars would defeat Star Trek (unless if the Q or other godlikes beings are involved)
2. You haven't actually contributed to this argument.
3. You're using ad hominems to cover up #2
4. Face it; Star Wars wins. They're both great shows/movies/books/etc., but Star Wars is SUPPOSED to be more powerful; it's set in a universe that's been spacefaring for tens of thousands of years, giving it an excuse to have technology that is basically magic. The writers of Star Trek had to make sure to keep it realistically within the few hundred years of spacefaring that the Federation had.
5. You guys seem to have little knowledge of science and mathematics; I've read over some of this thread, and Jaden101 claimed that there's a "gigawatts per second" measurement and a "gigawatts total" measurement.

So, Robtard, if you're going to post in this thread, why don't you actually explain why you think that my argument is "shit" using (gasp!) logic?

1) Yet to be seen
2) I've posted pages and pages in here and on the subject.
3) It was an observation, see 1). You very well could be HWKA who came back copy/pasting to seem more intelligent
4) Since when is the Star Trek galaxy composed of just the Federation and the Federation is the height of it's power? This fail angle of debate was brought up by HWKA many a time. See 1) again
5) Yeah, sure you did.

When did I call your argument "shit"? Exactly. So "KMCmember", if you're going to post in this thread, why don't you read through the past arguments and tackle those with your logic?

Originally posted by KMCmember

Using your logic, I could claim that you and Robtard are the same person because you both support Star Trek.

Nah me and Rob aint the same person...We occassionaly have really hard manly gay sex but that's about it.

The reason I think that you and HWKA are the same person is that you have the same basic misunderstanding or arguments that he does...Someone makes a point and you take it as meaning something completely different.

You're using exactly the same arguments he did and when you read something which proves you wrong you simply ignore it and restate the same argument again as if it's valid...Which is exactly what he did.

Originally posted by jaden101
Nah me and Rob ain't the same person...We occasionally have really hard manly gay sex but that's about it.

Naww, it's almost romantic.

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
Naww, it's almost romantic.

That would imply emotion where none exists.

Vulcan butt-sex?

Originally posted by Robtard
Vulcan butt-sex?

It's called a "meld"

My cock to your ass...My cum to your mouth...

Originally posted by Robtard
1) Yet to be seen
2) I've posted pages and pages in here and on the subject.
3) It was an observation, see 1). You very well could be HWKA who came back copy/pasting to seem more intelligent
4) Since when is the Star Trek galaxy composed of just the Federation and the Federation is the height of it's power? This fail angle of debate was brought up by HWKA many a time. See 1) again
5) Yeah, sure you did.

When did I call your argument "shit"? Exactly. So "KMCmember", if you're going to post in this thread, why don't you read through the past arguments and tackle those with your logic?

1. What, if I am a sock are you going to somehow find out? And if I'm not (which I'm not) you're not going to find out that I am.
2. I've checked a lot of this thread and I don't see anything from you an The Nuul other than spamming hypocritically about hewhoknowsall being a troll. Hewhoknowsall and Jaden101 were the only ones actually arguing logically.
3. If I were copying and pasting, why don't you refute my arguments? When somebody copies and pastes an argument without understanding it they generally suck at supporting it.
4. Even the borg had been spacefaring for about a thousand or two years. The Star Wars major races had been spacefaring for tens of thousands of years.
5. Notice how you completely ignore half of my statement?

Originally posted by jaden101
Nah me and Rob aint the same person...We occassionaly have really hard manly gay sex but that's about it.

The reason I think that you and HWKA are the same person is that you have the same basic misunderstanding or arguments that he does...Someone makes a point and you take it as meaning something completely different.

You're using exactly the same arguments he did and when you read something which proves you wrong you simply ignore it and restate the same argument again as if it's valid...Which is exactly what he did.

Woah woah woah...since when have you proven my arguments wrong? You haven't even responded to my mathematical calculation yet.

Also, upon examining your debate with hewhoknowsall (oh, and don't think that I'm a sock because of this), I've noticed that you keep on arguing in circles. You made a claim to the power generation of the Enterprise, but when he used it against you to prove you wrong, you backtrack and deny having done it.

Oh, and I doubt that you and Robtard are the same person, but Robtard and The Nuul might be socks since they both have both done nothing in this thread but whine and spam. At least you actually debate (when you feel like it).

I'm not a sock, and I enjoy rational debates on topics that I am interested in. Do either of you care for a debate? Or are you just going to ignore my arguments and go for ad hominem attacks?

Originally posted by jaden101
It's called a "meld"

My cock to your ass...My cum to your mouth...

Originally posted by KMCmember
1. What, if I am a sock are you going to somehow find out? And if I'm not (which I'm not) you're not going to find out that I am.
2. I've checked a lot of this thread and I don't see anything from you an The Nuul other than spamming hypocritically about hewhoknowsall being a troll. Hewhoknowsall and Jaden101 were the only ones actually arguing logically.
3. If I were copying and pasting, why don't you refute my arguments? When somebody copies and pastes an argument without understanding it they generally suck at supporting it.
4. Even the borg had been spacefaring for about a thousand or two years. The Star Wars major races had been spacefaring for tens of thousands of years.
5. Notice how you completely ignore half of my statement?

-It's becoming fairly evident that you are.

-Hahahahaha. Just not so.

-Because it's not new, it's already been covered. Your argument desperately depends on the Enterprise D being the height of Star Trek power. HWKA did this early on.

-And? The Borg could only have 50 years as a space farring species, what does that matter considering they can do what they can do. Saying "they're older, so they're better" is a shit argument. It's also something HWKA tried(but you already know this), so the sockery is more possible.

-No, how did I ignore half your statement?

As someone whose argued with HWKN I can safely say the guy isn't him. HWKN would be getting indignant and self righteous right about now and probably be talking about Luke assassinating the faction leaders of ST in his leet Stealth X while the battlemelded LOTF council curbstomps Q into oblivion (the game).

Originally posted by Robtard
-It's becoming fairly evident that you are.

-Hahahahaha. Just not so.

-Because it's not new, it's already been covered. Your argument desperately depends on the Enterprise D being the height of Star Trek power. HWKA did this early on.

-And? The Borg could only have 50 years as a space farring species, what does
that matter considering they can do what they can do. Saying "they're older, so
they're better" is a shit argument. It's also something HWKA tried(but you
already know this), so the sockery is more possible.

-No, how did I ignore half your statement?

I understand that the Enterprise isn't a combat vessel, but it still proves that Star Wars is more powerful (except for species like the Q). It isn't the fact that a star destroyer is more powerful, it's the degree to which it is. If it were by a factor of a thousand, you might have a point, but by a billion?

A starfighter from Star Wars is powerful enough to be important in a space battle. There are examples of starfighters with the proper weapons and coordination taking out star destroyers with proton torpedos and such.

Replace them with the larger Enterprise, and they wouldn't be able to scratch a shielded star destroyer.

Basically, Star Wars starfighters are actually more powerful than the much larger Enterprise from Star Trek.

Woah woah woah...since when have you proven my arguments wrong? You haven't even responded to my mathematical calculation yet.

Actually I have...using quoted amounts of matter/antimatter from ST and using a scientifically accurate yield calculator of anti matter explosions and their yields in "-tons" from Edward Muller's homepage.

http://www.edwardmuller.com/right17.htm

Also, upon examining your debate with hewhoknowsall (oh, and don't think that I'm a sock because of this), I've noticed that you keep on arguing in circles. You made a claim to the power generation of the Enterprise, but when he used it against you to prove you wrong, you backtrack and deny having done it.

It's a bit difficult not to debate in circles with someone who ignores your points and keeps repeating theirs despite having them proven wrong over and over again. Which is something you and HWKA have in common and leads everyone to believe that you're the same person.

Oh, and I doubt that you and Robtard are the same person, but Robtard and The Nuul might be socks since they both have both done nothing in this thread but whine and spam. At least you actually debate (when you feel like it).

Yes it would be quite difficult for me and Robtard to be the same person. It would be amusing though because it would mean my split personality would have been enough have travelled to America then made a copy of some films and then posted them back to myself. That would be a whole new level of crazy which I'm not quite at yet.

Basically, Star Wars starfighters are actually more powerful than the much larger Enterprise from Star Trek.

😆

I do remember HWKA trying the exact same argument and then floundering when I pointed out that a Star Fighters blasters were only enough to destroy a droid and knock it about 20 feet across a room from point blank range to which he replied that "the blasters weren't at full power" or some other such nonsense and unproven argument.

By all means continue to use stardestroyer.nets outdated and incorrect figures from an ST tech manual published some 16 years ago which isn't (by your own argument) considered canon in ST anyway...I'll use the on screen, canon evidence instead even if the weapons are sometimes not quantified.

How can hewhoknowsall be the one arguing in circles?

He makes a claim
You refute it
He refutes your claim and then presents his original claim again
You refute it using the same evidence you used before

You're acussing him of the 3rd action, but he's stating his argument again and is right to do it because you failed to prove it wrong.

If instead of stating the same rebuttal you refuted his rebuttal to your rebuttal, then you may have a point.

An analogy:

Bob: 911 was not planned by the gov't; there's no conclusive proof!
Joe: yes it was; how could steel melt at that temperature?
Bob: it wouldn't have to melt, but merely break and collapse. Therefore, 911 was not planned by the gov't because there's no conclusive proof!
Joe: but steel can't melt at that temperature!
Bob: as I stated, steel merely had to break, not melt

See? In this analogy Joe did not refute the counter refute and instead repeated the rebuttal. Joe should have refuted the rebuttal claiming that the steel didn't have to melt.

Then, Joe accuses Bob of trolling when in reality Joe in this analogy is at fault.

Again, I'm not a sock.

Originally posted by KMCmember
How can hewhoknowsall be the one arguing in circles?

He makes a claim
You refute it
He refutes your claim and then presents his original claim again
You refute it using the same evidence you used before

You're acussing him of the 3rd action, but he's stating his argument again and is right to do it because you failed to prove it wrong.

If instead of stating the same rebuttal you refuted his rebuttal to your rebuttal, then you may have a point.

An analogy:

Bob: 911 was not planned by the gov't; there's no conclusive proof!
Joe: yes it was; how could steel melt at that temperature?
Bob: it wouldn't have to melt, but merely break and collapse. Therefore, 911 was not planned by the gov't because there's no conclusive proof!
Joe: but steel can't melt at that temperature!
Bob: as I stated, steel merely had to break, not melt

See? In this analogy Joe did not refute the counter refute and instead repeated the rebuttal. Joe should have refuted the rebuttal claiming that the steel didn't have to melt.

Then, Joe accuses Bob of trolling when in reality Joe in this analogy is at fault.

Again, I'm not a sock.

Spoony said it best.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
YouTube video

Originally posted by KMCmember
I understand that the Enterprise isn't a combat vessel, but it still proves that Star Wars is more powerful (except for species like the Q). It isn't the fact that a star destroyer is more powerful, it's the degree to which it is. If it were by a factor of a thousand, you might have a point, but by a billion?

A starfighter from Star Wars is powerful enough to be important in a space battle. There are examples of starfighters with the proper weapons and coordination taking out star destroyers with proton torpedos and such.

Replace them with the larger Enterprise, and they wouldn't be able to scratch a shielded star destroyer.

Basically, Star Wars starfighters are actually more powerful than the much larger Enterprise from Star Trek.

No, it doesn't, as the Enterprise D isn't the standard of power in Star Trek. I understand you need it to be for your argument to work, but it just isn't so.

Would like you to explain how you imply that Star Wars tech is more powerful since it's been around longer (from a species point of view), yet they've yet to grasp tech that is common in Star Trek, ie transporters, replicators, tricorders, travel between dimensions, time-travel. See how just saying "they're older" isn't a smart idea.

You're also completely wrong about Star Wars having much older civilizations, the Elder Race (ST:TNG) where implied to be millions of years old and they seeded the Alpha Quadrant with life. There's other examples I am sure, I'd have to wrack my ST memory though.

I take that back, you're not smarter than HWKA, you're basically just rehashing his failed points. Though I've yet to decide if you're just HWKA returned, as I foretold in page 36.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it doesn't, as the Enterprise D isn't the standard of power in Star Trek. I understand you need it to be for your argument to work, but it just isn't so.

Would like you to explain how you imply that Star Wars tech is more powerful since it's been around longer (from a species point of view), yet they've yet to grasp tech that is common in Star Trek, ie transporters, replicators, tricorders, travel between dimensions, time-travel. See how just saying "they're older" isn't a smart idea.

You're also completely wrong about Star Wars having much older civilizations, the Elder Race (ST:TNG) where implied to be millions of years old and they seeded the Alpha Quadrant with life. There's other examples I am sure, I'd have to wrack my ST memory though.

I take that back, you're not smarter than HWKA, you're basically just rehashing his failed points. Though I've yet to decide if you're just HWKA returned, as I foretold in page 36.

Are you seriously this dense?

The pointisn't that a star destroyer is more powerful than the Enterprise, it's that a star destroyer is billions of times more powerful than the Enterprise. If their technology level was equal, one would expect for the star destroyer to be more powerful by about a factor of 10 to 1000, but 1000000000? A car with a gun on it is not weaker than a tank by a factor of 1000000000.

Besides, even a galaxy class starship (a high level by Star Trek standards) would need to fire hundreds of millions of times to get past a star destroyer.

I see, so you'll ignore that your numbers are skewed beyond belief (as is the ways of Stardestroyer.net) and just restate your failed points over and over and over. Yup, HWKA returned or the equivalent.

P.S. Kremin Time-Weapon still eradicates all from SW existance, given enough time. That's just one ship. Have fun.

Why don't you provide me with another weapon yield then?

Originally posted by Robtard
Has it been seven years already?

Vulcan's can still feel emotion - at times 😕 . Though it's hard to list another emotionless species from any other sci-fi franchise without thinking of Terminator, which would just be messy and would probably result in death or extreme mangling.