Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader, & Yoda Vs. Saruman, Sauron, & Witch King

Originally posted by Nephthys
Lightning shorted him out because Vader is on life-support and walks around with a fvckton of cybernetic parts. Force Lightning is seriously damaging for him. A fireball will do nothing but singe his cape.

Especially given that his armor is made from the same materials as starships.

Originally posted by Pwned
Yeah, I see where your coming from there. They really should have gone a bit more by the book for their respective power level things, its way off kilter. But I still have to say that, despite Gandalf being powerful in both, Gandalf>WK, and all that stuff, team SW still wins. The force just changes this around to much, and team LOTR just cant keep up with their magic. Sauron will get maybe 1 swing on Yoda, and Yoda can either
A) Lift him with the force or
B) Jump around like a guy on steroids with ADHD and kill Sauron with his lightsaber. That would be sufficient to take down Saruman as well, and Yoda has shown better TK feats by lifting the X-Wing, same with Vader, duelling AND using TK (ESB, Bespin) and crushing that whole room in ROTS.

Yoda can jump and flip all he wants in the end Sauron will still swing it in his general direction so he will die. Yoda's most impressive feats are focusing entirely on lifting inanimate objects. It doesn't translate into anything more than force pushing Palpatine when he got the drop on him.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Wrong. Force lightning had less impact on Luke and for a much longer time than on Vader's suit. It's laughable you're claiming Vader's suit is uber when it seems weaker than Luke's skin.

You idiot. Vader is primarily composed of machines and has a fvcking life-support pack strapped to his chest. Palpatines lightning shortcircuited his electronic parts. Also Palpatine was obviously torturing Luke with a low-level blast of lightning. When Vader lifts him up Palpatines lightning is intense enough to silouette his skeleton through the suit, which was not seen when he was using it on Luke, as obviously Palpatine took off the kiddie-gloves and went for the kill.

YouTube video

If you seriously think Vaders metal fvcking body is weaker than Lukes skin then you are truly a drooling retard and I won't bother to reply to you.

Furthermore in ESB Luke fullon hits Vader with his lightsaber and all it does is produce some sparks:

YouTube video

4.50. The same Lightsabers that easily melt through blast-doors.

I win. I will be claiming my victory fellatio shortly.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You idiot. Vader is primarily composed of machines and has a fvcking life-support pack strapped to his chest. Palpatines lightning shortcircuited his electronic parts. Also Palpatine was obviously torturing Luke with a low-level blast of lightning. When Vader lifts him up Palpatines lightning is intense enough to silouette his skeleton through the suit, which was not seen when he was using it on Luke, as obviously Palpatine took off the kiddie-gloves and went for the kill.

YouTube video

If you seriously think Vaders metal fvcking body is weaker than Lukes skin then you are truly a drooling retard and I won't bother to reply to you.

Furthermore in ESB Luke fullon hits Vader with his lightsaber and all it does is produce some sparks:

YouTube video

4.50. The same Lightsabers that easily melt through blast-doors.

I win. I will be claiming my victory fellatio shortly.

Vader's suit is obviously more durable but a fireball would also fry his circuits just like the lightning did which really only hit him indirectly. Luke took much more punishment than Vader so yes Vader's suit failed him and was easily short circuited.

Yes, lightsabers are hot but unlike torches they don't set things on fire which was my entire point. At least understand my points before declaring a victory you will never have.

GG Quan. Troll harder next time.

yoda1

Originally posted by Nephthys

GG Quan. Troll harder next time.

Quan, you are literally the worst debator I've ever met.

You are an utter joke.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Your theory is flawed. It's this simple he can destroy an object with magic or nothing backing it up that his magic is superior to. Trying to say it has to be magical without any proof is reaching. Just because he didn't do so doesn't mean he couldn't. We see Gandalf heat Aragorn's sword up which was non magical so I fail to see your point. You are wrong and just because Gandalf didn't heat anyone else's sword up that doesn't mean he couldn't. Do you understand how movies work ?

Again, not a theory.

To re-type your argument in a more readable form:

1. It's this simple: he can destroy any object with magic (of similar size to Gandalf's staff lest we commit a no-limits fallacy)

or

2. He can only destroy magical objects that also have magic backing them up in a battle of wills. The staff blowing up was only a show of Gandalf being overpowered in a battle of wills.

You assert 1.

I assert #2 because:

1. The MVF Golden Rule. You must stick to what is seen on screen.
2. The Witch King could have easily saved himself if he could apply that same power to similarly sized objects. He didn't, therefore, he can't.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Trying to say it has to be magical without any proof is reaching.

Since it was seen onscreen, you cannot debate it. It is not up for debate. You cannot contradict it. It happened. That's the MVF Golden Rule.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Just because he didn't do so doesn't mean he couldn't.

And just because he didn't, doesn't mean he could. You didn't think about that counterargument when you typed that out, did you? 😄

Originally posted by quanchi112
We see Gandalf heat Aragorn's sword up which was non magical so I fail to see your point.

That was Gandalf, not the Witch King. In order for your point to be valid:

The Witch King would have had to magically act on Aragorn's un-magical sword in the same way he acted on Gandalf's staff.

That did not occur.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You are wrong and just because Gandalf didn't heat anyone else's sword up that doesn't mean he couldn't.

On the contrary, I have not presented anything that contradicts what is seen on screen but you are. You are the one that is wrong based upon the MVF Golden Rule.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Do you understand how movies work ?

Yes, but do you understand how the fundementals of argument work?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Quan, you are literally the worst debator I've ever met.

You are an utter joke.

I disagree. Even in the context of KMC, you have him beat, hands down. 😉

Originally posted by Nephthys
Quan, you are literally the worst debator I've ever met.

You are an utter joke.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If you're going to insult me at least spell debater properly it irks me. It's a frequently misspelled word which I can no longer tolerate.

Oh and you forgot to put a semicolon between 'it' and 'irks'. That irks I.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, not a theory.

To re-type your argument in a more readable form:

1. It's this simple: he can destroy any object with magic (of similar size to Gandalf's staff lest we commit a no-limits fallacy)

or

2. He can only destroy magical objects that also have magic backing them up in a battle of wills. The staff blowing up was only a show of Gandalf being overpowered in a battle of wills.

You assert 1.

I assert #2 because:

1. The MVF Golden Rule. You must stick to what is seen on screen.
2. The Witch King could have easily saved himself if he could apply that same power to similarly sized objects. He didn't, therefore, he can't.

Since it was seen onscreen, you cannot debate it. It is not up for debate. You cannot contradict it. It happened. That's the MVF Golden Rule.

And just because he didn't, doesn't mean he could. You didn't think about that counterargument when you typed that out, did you? 😄

That was Gandalf, not the Witch King. In order for your point to be valid:

The Witch King would have had to magically act on Aragorn's un-magical sword in the same way he acted on Gandalf's staff.

That did not occur.

On the contrary, I have not presented anything that contradicts what is seen on screen but you are. You are the one that is wrong based upon the MVF Golden Rule.

Yes, but do you understand how the fundementals of argument work?

I disagree. Even in the context of KMC, you have him beat, hands down. 😉

1.Yes, we see an object destroyed that was magical in nature and thus more powerful than a regular staff. We also see Gandalf affect a nonmagical weapon. Common sense begins to creep in here at some point.

2.It's like Gandalf with his Saruman feat. Why didn't he do so against Saruman the first time ? Just because someone doesn't use the same tactic every time they fight doesn't mean they lack the ability to do so.

Gandalf affected a nonmagical item with magic. If you cannot connect the dots then it's your problem. I disagree with you and this won't change.

We see another mage do so against a nonmagical item why can't the Witch King ?

We see Gandalf also destroy a staff so logically we conclude magically based characters can affect magical items and nonmagical items because Gandalf did so. How is this so hard ? Really ?

I do understand the fundamentals of debating but if you are going to ignore common sense and the fact Gandalf showed off magic can affect magical and nonmagical items all the same. To assume it couldn't anyways is simply asinine.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Woah. You've really gotta sort out some priorities.

Oh and you forgot to put a semicolon between 'it' and 'irks'. That irks I.

Fixing...

Originally posted by quanchi112
I'd like to get back to the task at hand.

nerd

Originally posted by quanchi112
I choose option 1 with the added bonus you have to be more powerful than Gandalf's magic as well. The Witch King was case in point.

1.Yes, we see an object destroyed that was magical in nature and thus more powerful than a regular staff. We also see Gandalf affect a nonmagical weapon. Common sense begins to creep in here at some point.

More powerful than a regular staff? Sure. Explodable like a regular staff? Possibly so or possibly not. A regular staff would not experience a "battle of magical wills" because magic would not be channeled through it to exert that battle of wills. So we could assume that a regular staff would not be exploded because it could not be used in a battle of wills.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Just because someone doesn't use the same tactic every time they fight doesn't mean they lack the ability to do so.

Just because someone doesn't use a certain ability during a fight, doesn't mean they possess the ability to do so.

Since it wasn't seen onscreen, they really can't do it. That's the golden rule. His staff exploding power is limited to only exploding magical staffs when two powerful magical beings are exerting their wills against each other. In the context of the movie and in ability, that is the most correct interpretation.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Gandalf affected a nonmagical item with magic. If you cannot connect the dots then it's your problem. I disagree with you and this won't change.

That's a feat for Gandalf, not the Witch King. You are breaking the MVF golden rule if you want to give that ability to the Witch King.

It's not like the Jedi Academy where all Jedi are required to obtain a certain level of ability before obtaining an apprenticeship. What does that mean? It means you cannot give all maiar the same exact powerset because they all didn't go to the same "academy". In fact, we know from the books that they had their own valor and those Valor taught them in their own ways. The Witch King is an off-shoot of Sauron. Sauron is an offshoot of Melkor. Melkor and Nienna (and partially Manwë) are two different Ainu and had different abilities and persuits. To equate Gandalf's "magic" to Sauron's (via the Witch King) shows a fundemental lack of understanding on your part, concerning the Tolkien universe.

Originally posted by quanchi112
We see another mage do so against a nonmagical item why can't the Witch King ?

1. Not a mage, a wizard.
2. See the above explanation for why it is ridiculous to give them the same powers.
3. The golden rule: you can't give powers and abilities to characters they are not seen or implied to use.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I do understand the fundamentals of debating but if you are going to ignore common sense and the fact Gandalf showed off magic can affect magical and nonmagical items all the same. To assume it couldn't anyways is simply asinine.

I've already countered this line of reasoning multiple times.

To assume the Witch King can do something he did not do is what is actually asinine. Not only is that illogical, it's against the MVF rules.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Fixing...

There. The iconic end piece to many a KotOR conversation.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+hand

Bigger nerder.

Some of us were born with ugly mugs...

So not all of us can balance our nerdiness with our "good" looks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. Even in the context of KMC, you have him beat, hands down. 😉

Dick a eat go.

RJ has obviously high-jacked your account: the use of an internet meme coupled with a genital, sex, or poop insult.