Originally posted by Stealth MooseYoda will be too busy dealing with the lasers being shot in his direction. If it does hit Khan his cell regeneration should recover no problem since it failed to ko a geriatric in Palpatine.
You ignore context when it hurts your argument. Let's go over this again:[b]Explain how Khan can defend against Yoda's TK.
^ When you can address that, you might actually stand a chance of making sense. [/B]
I use the movies to justify my opinions unlike TK SOLOS.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Yoda will be too busy dealing with the lasers being shot in his direction. If it does hit Khan his cell regeneration should recover no problem since it failed to ko a geriatric in Palpatine.I use the movies to justify my opinions unlike TK SOLOS.
The depths if your fanboyism is astounding, and I have years of experience at dealing with internet forums. There is no ounce of reason within you.
Originally posted by Stealth MooseI just responded to your question with movie evidence and a clear explanation. Your lack of a response demonstrates your inability to debate.
The depths if your fanboyism is astounding, and I have years of experience at dealing with internet forums. There is no ounce of reason within you.
Originally posted by quanchi112
There are a lot of unknown variables. You can't prove your argument just like the castle tanking argument from Zelda. You need to get over it.
Let's try this again. Okay, so what part of this argument you're making now doesn't apply to your own position? For the sake of demonstration, reductio ad absurdum and all that. Remember, this is just your argument as applied to your own position.
We never actually see Khan shoot anyone. Whenever anyone got hit, Khan wasn't onscreen at the time. By your argument here, it is unknown if Khan hit anyone.
Then Kirk. He's a fallible character, and it's entirely possible he said something else offscreen. He never says that Khan shot anyone, and he could have meant something else by "took out." As per your current argument, it's unknown if Kirk saw Khan hit anyone, and his words can't be trusted. It could have been hyperbole.
You can't say Khan wins because there are too many unknown variables. You can't prove your case, either. Want to call it a draw?
Originally posted by The ScenarioWe see him on screen fire and hit the targets. Kirk also states it plainly. There goes your argument.
Let's try this again. Okay, so what part of this argument you're making now doesn't apply to your own position? For the sake of demonstration, reductio ad absurdum and all that. Remember, this is just your argument as applied to your own position.We never actually see Khan shoot anyone. Whenever anyone got hit, Khan wasn't onscreen at the time. By your argument here, it is unknown if Khan hit anyone.
Then Kirk. He's a fallible character, and it's entirely possible he said something else offscreen. He never says that Khan shot anyone, and he could have meant something else by "took out." As per your current argument, it's unknown if Kirk saw Khan hit anyone, and his words can't be trusted. It could have been hyperbole.
You can't say Khan wins because there are too many unknown variables. You can't prove your case, either. Want to call it a draw?
Originally posted by quanchi112
Stating something supported by what we see isn't hyperbole.
He stated something we didn't see. Can't prove it either way.
He gunned them down.
Can't prove it either way.
These are the trollish lengths in which you are willing to travel.
I learned from the best. (The best is you.)
(You are the best troll)