Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroYou made up feats. No, I based on facts and what's in character from thread to thread.
Making up... what? And yes, you rely on acts of plot to even begin to raise a point. Bias requires one to actively promote falsehoods, and rely on logical fallacy after fallacy to promote one character over another. YOU are the only one guilty of this.Consistently incorrect, biased and trollish is not something to be proud of.
What? Conceded what? You didn't even have an argument in this point... Fantacy concessions, enjoy your imagination land wanker.
You're upset and full of emotion. You admitted it thus disqualifying your opinion when I'm involved.
Yes, I did and you failed to retort. That means you concede. Should I use smaller words ?
Originally posted by quanchi112
You made up feats. No, I based on facts and what's in character from thread to thread.
Bullshit on both counts. You could not even explain why Yoda couldn't do the things I described without using his plot driven mindset, a mindset he does not have here.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You're upset and full of emotion. You admitted it thus disqualifying your opinion when I'm involved.
Hate has no bearing on anger clownshoes112. You not having an inkling as to what you are debating is glaringly obvious to all who see you.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, I did and you failed to retort. That means you concede. Should I use smaller words ?
I can't retort to imaginary or fallacy riddled points Quan. You can't even use the most basic English, never mind debating etiquette.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroHe did not do so. You can't create feats and ignore their portrayals out of bias. I deal with what did happen, fanboy.
Bullshit on both counts. You could not even explain why Yoda couldn't do the things I described without using his plot driven mindset, a mindset he does not have here.Hate has no bearing on anger clownshoes112. You not having an inkling as to what you are debating is glaringly obvious to all who see you.
I can't retort to imaginary or fallacy riddled points Quan. You can't even use the most basic English, never mind debating etiquette.
Yes, it does. Watch the Star Wars movies as they agree. Go
You concede. I accept.
Originally posted by quanchi112
He did not do so. You can't create feats and ignore their portrayals out of bias. I deal with what did happen, fanboy.
The how in the ever blue hell can you debate theoretically? these are vs matches between 2 different characters from 2 different franchises, set in a neutral area with all their powers intact and their minds aren't driven by acts of plot or limited by circumstance. This is not simply plucking characters out of situations and plopping them in with no inkling about what is going on.
You are quite clearly not capable of participating or conducting vs debates, because you absolutely butcher them at every turn.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, it does. Watch the Star Wars movies as they agree. Go
No Quan, you have to have evidence, and just pointing to the films or any medium and saying "go watch/play" is insufficient evidence to prove your case. You fail to meet the burden of evidence.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You concede. I accept.
I concede that you cannot debate? Yeah, I'll give you that.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroTo debate objectively is to debate based on facts not hey maybe this imaginary feat or that imaginary feat. That's you.
The how in the ever blue hell can you debate theoretically? these are vs matches between 2 different characters from 2 different franchises, set in a neutral area with all their powers intact and their minds aren't driven by acts of plot or limited by circumstance. This is not simply plucking characters out of situations and plopping them in with no inkling about what is going on.You are quite clearly not capable of participating or conducting vs debates, because you absolutely butcher them at every turn.
No Quan, you have to have evidence, and just pointing to the films or any medium and saying "go watch/play" is insufficient evidence to prove your case. You fail to meet the burden of evidence.
I concede that you cannot debate? Yeah, I'll give you that.
I have supplied evidence you just ignore. That is why you will never battlezone me, coward.
You took your sweet ass time getting back to this one, didn't ya champ? Maybe I should do one of your "Concession Accepted" rallys.
Originally posted by quanchi112
To debate objectively is to debate based on facts not hey maybe this imaginary feat or that imaginary feat. That's you.
Logical conclusion based on what a power is and how it is used. One is not subject to simply repeating feats that may or may not work in a particular situation that occurs in a vs debate theorem.
No matter how you want to slice this Quan, in every vs debate, the characters involved HAVE to interact with each other, and since they are from different universes and franchises, written by different authors, there is going to be some measure of theoretics involved. Yoda isn't simply going to repeat the exact same steps in the exact same sequence as he did vs Dooku or Sideous. He is obviously going to fight Khan differently than either of those opponents because Khan is an out of context opponent for him, and the vice versa is also true for Khan.
And once again, since your OP listed yoda as practically bloodlusted and since theoretical debates are not limited by situation in-universe circumstance, and since Yoda has a power set involving elements that are very nebulous in application, then we are not restricted to the application of this variable power to strictly what is seen on screen.
Are you saying Yoda cannot chop off his own arm because we have not seen it? Because that is precisely the argument you are making here.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I have supplied evidence you just ignore. That is why you will never battlezone me, coward.
Your evidence requires breaking forum rules, it requires going against your own OP, and it requires disbelief turned to maximum instead of the opposite. That is not evidence that is admissible. What it all means is that you are an extreme absolutionist, and one that does not even tolerate others viewpoints. You want to know the source of the rage against you? Not just from me, but from EVERYONE who debates anywhere near you? this would be it. Even when you are right and you have people agreeing with you, you drive them away with your snobbish ******* attitude. You don't want to debate, you only seem interested in stroking your ego.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroHe isn't going to fight in the same sequence of attacks but you can't create new attacks and new feats to draw from. He can use his powers and apply them in combat just like he did in the films. Bottom line. We throw in the in character aspect and Thats objectivity.
You took your sweet ass time getting back to this one, didn't ya champ? Maybe I should do one of your "Concession Accepted" rallys.Logical conclusion based on what a power is and how it is used. One is not subject to simply repeating feats that may or may not work in a particular situation that occurs in a vs debate theorem.
No matter how you want to slice this Quan, in every vs debate, the characters involved HAVE to interact with each other, and since they are from different universes and franchises, written by different authors, there is going to be some measure of theoretics involved. Yoda isn't simply going to repeat the exact same steps in the exact same sequence as he did vs Dooku or Sideous. He is obviously going to fight Khan differently than either of those opponents because Khan is an out of context opponent for him, and the vice versa is also true for Khan.
And once again, since your OP listed yoda as practically bloodlusted and since theoretical debates are not limited by situation in-universe circumstance, and since Yoda has a power set involving elements that are very nebulous in application, then we are not restricted to the application of this variable power to strictly what is seen on screen.
Are you saying Yoda cannot chop off his own arm because we have not seen it? Because that is precisely the argument you are making here.
Your evidence requires breaking forum rules, it requires going against your own OP, and it requires disbelief turned to maximum instead of the opposite. That is not evidence that is admissible. What it all means is that you are an extreme absolutionist, and one that does not even tolerate others viewpoints. You want to know the source of the rage against you? Not just from me, but from EVERYONE who debates anywhere near you? this would be it. Even when you are right and you have people agreeing with you, you drive them away with your snobbish ******* attitude. You don't want to debate, you only seem interested in stroking your ego.
Quit crying and raging. I'm consistent you aren't.
I could care less what emotional women think of me. I'm right you aren't. Get over it. Learn from me.
Originally posted by quanchi112
He isn't going to fight in the same sequence of attacks but you can't create new attacks and new feats to draw from. He can use his powers and apply them in combat just like he did in the films. Bottom line. We throw in the in character aspect and Thats objectivity.
They aren't brand spanking new attacks if they are used via the same power set, aka in this case The Force. It' not like I'm suddenly giving Shao Kahn the ability to suddenly do Scorpion's Spear. My point is it's different applications of the same technique. That's not creating a new power or feat, that's using the same power a different way.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Quit crying and raging. I'm consistent you aren't.
Concession accepted, you did not answer one thing in this post. And in this case, I am entirely valid in accepting your concession.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I could care less what emotional women think of me. I'm right you aren't. Get over it. Learn from me.
If you didn't care about what others thought, you would not post at all. This is a discussion and debate forum, not your blow up doll.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroWe can only use the attacks we've seen within reason. You cannot make up new ones. You're making up effects we clearly don't see in the movies. 😂
They aren't brand spanking new attacks if they are used via the same power set, aka in this case The Force. It' not like I'm suddenly giving Shao Kahn the ability to suddenly do Scorpion's Spear. My point is it's different applications of the same technique. That's not creating a new power or feat, that's using the same power a different way.Concession accepted, you did not answer one thing in this post. And in this case, I am entirely valid in accepting your concession.
If you didn't care about what others thought, you would not post at all. This is a discussion and debate forum, not your blow up doll.
Yes, I did. I destroyed your post.
I care about debating you are irrelevant. You are merely in my way, hate boy.
Originally posted by quanchi112
We can only use the attacks we've seen within reason. You cannot make up new ones. You're making up effects we clearly don't see in the movies. 😂
Clearly you are not listening to a word that is being said, the very definition of a closed mind. What exactly have I made up Quan? The force being able to move/immobilise objects? You clearly also are not aware of the forces applications.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, I did. I destroyed your post.
You assumed to destroy a point I never even made. You fail. You never addressed a damn thing I said.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I care about debating you are irrelevant. You are merely in my way, hate boy.
No, you care about making speeches, and making up your own iterations of what people say without actually addressing what they say. You may as well have been a politician rather than go into theoretical debates and start spouting nonsensical bullshit the way you do.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Based on ?
Things you say when checked against reality.
Your every post is a bitter lashing out everyone whom has spanked you and sent you on your way.
It why everything you say is repeated from something someone has rightly said to you before. Only when you mindlessy repeat it at people it doesn't apply to you look dumb. Like you do here everytime you childishly lash out at DSZ whom has pwned you on every post, as we all have.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroYes, I have been. You're ignoring my words while making up feats.
Clearly you are not listening to a word that is being said, the very definition of a closed mind. What exactly have I made up Quan? The force being able to move/immobilise objects? You clearly also are not aware of the forces applications.You assumed to destroy a point I never even made. You fail. You never addressed a damn thing I said.
No, you care about making speeches, and making up your own iterations of what people say without actually addressing what they say. You may as well have been a politician rather than go into theoretical debates and start spouting nonsensical bullshit the way you do.
The force destroying the human body in the manner in which you describe when we have not seen this done so.
Yes, I did. Denial suits you.
You will never face me in a battlezone. You're all talk. Gutless.
Originally posted by Sadako of GirthQuit ranting and try to stay on topic.
Things you say when checked against reality.Your every post is a bitter lashing out everyone whom has spanked you and sent you on your way.
It why everything you say is repeated from something someone has rightly said to you before. Only when you mindlessy repeat it at people it doesn't apply to you look dumb. Like you do here everytime you childishly lash out at DSZ whom has pwned you on every post, as we all have.
Khan wins. Prove me wrong. It's what people are supposed to do here, debate.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, I have been. You're ignoring my words while making up feats.
No, you don't, as I will demonstrate below.
Originally posted by quanchi112
The force destroying the human body in the manner in which you describe when we have not seen this done so.
Where the ever bloody hell did I say Yoda uses the force to destroy Khan?! There is a gigantic difference between imobilise and rend apart! This line of yours conclusively proves you fail to actually read, and are simply making up other peoples arguments in your own head!
Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, I did. Denial suits you.
No, as I just demonstrated, you are tragically retarded and chasing shadows. You never addressed any of my actual points and ended up shitting all over the place.... again.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You will never face me in a battlezone. You're all talk. Gutless.
Says the raging lunatic who can't see the forest for the trees. I don't have to BZ you to own your pathetic rants, and only a fool would engage in a stacked deck with a looney tune like yourself.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroYou will continue to try.
No, you don't, as I will demonstrate below.Where the ever bloody hell did I say Yoda uses the force to [b]destroy
Khan?! There is a gigantic difference between imobilise and rend apart! This line of yours conclusively proves you fail to actually read, and are simply making up other peoples arguments in your own head!No, as I just demonstrated, you are tragically retarded and chasing shadows. You never addressed any of my actual points and ended up shitting all over the place.... again.
Says the raging lunatic who can't see the forest for the trees. I don't have to BZ you to own your pathetic rants, and only a fool would engage in a stacked deck with a looney tune like yourself. [/B]
Quit with the insults. You are clearly taking this too personally. It's rather humorous but try to stay on point. Yoda can force push him but it did not ko Palpatine whose body is nowhere near as strong or resilient as Khan's.
Continue to whimper away while crying. Only hurts you.