Originally posted by Stealth MooseI simply was wondering who he was thinking of when he made the claim so i could avoid arguing against someone he wasnt talking about., he could have been referring to kasim, raskata amped with battle meditation, or possibly zannah. i just wanted to be sure. Anything other than that is simply imaginary on ur part.
I already pointed this out; your question implied without proof that Mace and Yoda were on a higher tier than anyone Bane had fought. Any time you make assertions, you bear the burden of proof. Any time you ask someone else to prove a case against a baseless assertion, you've basically admitted you don't have a case yourself.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Lol
How?
Kas'im easily rivals them as a swordsman and has an amazing Force Shield to boot, Raskta Lsu also rivals them as a swordsman even without the BM, Farfall was one of the more notable Jedi Masters of the time and was having his powers considerably increased via the BM, and Zannah has demonstrated some of the deadliest darkside abilities ever in combat and had incredible potential.
I would have added BM Sarro to the list as well but Bane never interacted with him.
How was I laughing?
Kas'm rivals them in terms of technical skill perhaps, but what has he done to suggest he rivals them as combatants, you know, like putting those skills in use during combat with a mixture of speed and force ability? If having an amazing force shield on a dark side nexus is the pinnacle of his force abilities, I don't see how he rivals Yoda.
As for the others, you haven't proved anything really.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
I would go in further detail, but both Yoda and Mace have such a long list of feats/accolades/accomplishments to their names, which I'm pretty sure most are aware of. And simply having deadly skills and powers, doesn't suggest they rival the likes of Yoda and Mace.
But that's the whole point - unless you're directly comparing instances of say, dueling ability, or relative power, or even force applied via TK, you can't compare them at all. Simply saying "Mace/Yoda have a ton of feats, and I don't want to list them, but their dominance is evident" isn't debating your case; it's basically asking your opponent to disprove an argument you haven't put any effort into, and dodging the burden of proof.
I'm not saying Mace/Yoda aren't potentially superior; they may be. But there's this native stance that "they are the best in the PT era; therefore, they must be innately better than anyone else in all other eras unless I receive some extraordinary proof which I may or may not interpret as valid".
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
How was I laughing?Kas'm rivals them in terms of technical skill perhaps, but what has he done to suggest he rivals them as combatants, you know, like putting those skills in use during combat with a mixture of speed and force ability? If having an amazing force shield on a dark side nexus is the pinnacle of his force abilities, I don't see how he rivals Yoda.
As for the others, you haven't proved anything really.
Technical skill is for one, very important. A technically superior swordsman can defeat a stronger force user in a lightsaber combat, and Kas'im should have a clear technical edge over Mace and Yoda.
Two, in his fight against Bane, he was so fast that he was said to wield his two sabers as if he had six of them, and his speed is only ever praised throughout the novel, as is his deadliness and effectiveness as a warrior.
Three, Bane's attack was also boosted by the nexus (probably moreso given it was an attack), and had also the added advantage of being charged up while they were talking, and PoD Bane easily rivals Yoda as a Force User (and is solidly above Mace). It's also reflective of Kas'im being a generally powerful Force User, which would indicate that he has more to offer than simply technical mastery in lightsaber combat.
Kas'im imo rivals Mace Windu as a Force User and is firmly beyond both Mace and Yoda as a swordsman.
Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Technical skill is for one, very important. A technically superior swordsman can defeat a stronger force user in a lightsaber combat, and Kas'im should have a clear technical edge over Mace and Yoda.Two, in his fight against Bane, he was so fast that he was said to wield his two sabers as if he had six of them, and his speed is only ever praised throughout the novel, as is his deadliness and effectiveness as a warrior.
Three, Bane's attack was also boosted by the nexus (probably moreso given it was an attack), and had also the added advantage of being charged up while they were talking, and PoD Bane easily rivals Yoda as a Force User (and is solidly above Mace). It's also reflective of Kas'im being a generally powerful Force User, which would indicate that he has more to offer than simply technical mastery in lightsaber combat.
Kas'im imo rivals Mace Windu as a Force User and is firmly beyond both Mace and Yoda as a swordsman.
What about the others you brought up?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But that's the whole point - unless you're directly comparing instances of say, dueling ability, or relative power, or even force applied via TK, you can't compare them at all. Simply saying "Mace/Yoda have a ton of feats, and I don't want to list them, but their dominance is evident" isn't debating your case; it's basically asking your opponent to disprove an argument you haven't put any effort into, and dodging the burden of proof.I'm not saying Mace/Yoda aren't potentially superior; they may be. But there's this native stance that "they are the best in the PT era; therefore, they must be innately better than anyone else in all other eras unless I receive some extraordinary proof which I may or may not interpret as valid".
👆
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Well I'm under the impression that most everyone knows of Mace's and Yoda's abilities and the context of how they apply they in combat. See, I've only really read the first Bane novel, and only a few excerpts from the others.
Arguments submitted without proof can be dismissed without proof. I'm not omitting Astor from proving up either. Both of you if you intend to debate should muscle up some evidence. Nothing is simply 'evident' unless you're debating Superman versus Stephen Hawkings or the Hulk versus a gerbil in a speed bag.