No, Ant, I'm serious. You've made a couple of mistakes that will get you eaten alive if you want to do argumentation in any serious way.
First off, you've kind of forgotten what you're trying to prove. This is a debate about Malak and Koon, not Revan. Points about Revan may strengthen or detract from your case, but at the heart you've got to prove things about Malak and Koon. So the point comparing Koon to Revan is really badly aimed.
Notably, Malak is inferior to Revan. If Plo Koon is also inferior to Revan then we are at a loss as to the relation between Malak and Koon. This is a deductive dead end. Inductively you might hope to quantify the degree to which Revan eclipses each one, but this method also has problems.
In particular, one of the yardsticks for Revan's power is his performance against Malak. If you want to judge Malak in light of his performance against Revan and you judge Revan based on his performance against Malak then there is a circularity in your argument that cannot be avoided. This is mitigated by the info from the TOR franchise, but not to your benefit. (Revan is kind of a pussy in the new materials.)
Now, if you can't judge Malak by Revan, because part of Revan's rating arises from Malak himself, what must you do? It seems clear that the focus of your argument should be Malak instead. On this front the composition of your work is more promising; if the evidence you presented were all true and unambiguous then the conclusion that Malak is a notable combatant would follow.
Again, I'm going to disagree. Not because your argument is weak but because it is not true. You have a quote about the caliber of near-human Sith Lords that would call Malak a peer:
"Many of the most powerful, terrifying, and notorious Sith Lords through history have been Human or near-Human, including Exar Kun, Darth Malak, Darth Bane, Darth Sidious, Darth Vader, and Darth Krayt."
Next you bring up a quote about Malak's conduct on the battlefield:
"While many credited the Revanchist's military strategies for the campaign success, others were quick to point to Alex's fierce courage and relentless fury on the forefront of every battle as the key part to Republic victory."
Lastly, I'd like to look at this particular point that you make:
This is not even yet mentioning his performance against Darth Revan which was described as a "their desperate final battle." Revan by this time has already been confirmed to be the most powerful Jedi in the entire KotOR era. This hype alone is *much* superior then being called "among the greatest in the Order's history", when you consider:
1. KotOR is the confirmed prime of the Jedi.
2. There at least "thousands" of Jedi on Malachor V alone. And that is only the Revanchist faction.
Ultimately, and realistically, there would be tens of thousands of Jedi in the Order. And if I recall correctly, some member here even said there was in the "Why I think Vitiate may be the most powerful Sith ever" thread.
Valid arguments are those which hold, assuming that every supporting reason is true. "If I am a gambler then I will lose money. I am a gambler. Therefore I will lose money" is a valid argument, because the truth of the first two parts guarantees the truth of the last part.
Sound arguments are valid arguments where the supporting parts are actually true. The example I gave is not a sound argument because some gamblers do not lose money. Thus, the premise is not true and the conclusion may be true or false.
I'm not trying to be condescending (but it happened anyway i guess). The point is that this last argument would totally work, if its components were all actually true. To wit:
[list][*]There is a quote floating around that identifies the prequel trilogy as the prime of the Jedi (or maybe the "golden age"?)[*]In terms of numbers, it is much more likely that the prequel era Jedi are more numerous than the KotOR Jedi.[*]Even if it were not, many accolades about Koon are likely to take into account the history of the Jedi Order, which includes Revan himself. That is to say, equivalent quotes calling Revan and Koon, respectively, high-ranked amongst the history of the entire order will still benefit Koon more than Revan (since history is longer and more impressive the later you go in time).[/list]
Spoiler:
Plo Freezes a creek and ends this. How is it even a question??
First off, you've kind of forgotten what you're trying to prove. This is a debate about Malak and Koon, not Revan. Points about Revan may strengthen or detract from your case, but at the heart you've got to prove things about Malak and Koon. So the point comparing Koon to Revan is really badly aimed.In particular, one of the yardsticks for Revan's power is his performance against Malak. If you want to judge Malak in light of his performance against Revan and you judge Revan based on his performance against Malak then there is a circularity in your argument that cannot be avoided. This is mitigated by the info from the TOR franchise, but not to your benefit. (Revan is kind of a pussy in the new materials.)
Now, if you can't judge Malak by Revan, because part of Revan's rating arises from Malak himself, what must you do? It seems clear that the focus of your argument should be Malak instead. On this front the composition of your work is more promising; if the evidence you presented were all true and unambiguous then the conclusion that Malak is a notable combatant would follow.
Notably, Malak is inferior to Revan. If Plo Koon is also inferior to Revan then we are at a loss as to the relation between Malak and Koon. This is a deductive dead end. Inductively you might hope to quantify the degree to which Revan eclipses each one, but this method also has problems.
It is a well-worn debate on the boards what is the proper interpretation of "powerful." A powerful politician may not be much of a fighter, and a powerful Sith Lord may not ever use a lightsaber to defend their life. So that doesn't guarantee Malak's survival against a Jedi Master. Ability to induce terror and notoriety are similarly unable to guarantee the survival of your champion in a fight to the death. While this quote demonstrates that Malak was a historically notable Force user, it doesn't tell us about his combat abilities. [N.B. Malak could be said to be terrifying and notorious following his bombardment of Taris, and Powerful after the politically-powerful act of razing the Jedi enclave on Dantooine to the ground. These weren't accomplished by using his lightsaber to attack his enemies.]
"His stratagems were painfully obvious, intending to crush all resistance everywhere. There was little thought beyond the complete destruction of anything that opposed him." --GOTO
According to GOTO and supported by HK and Vandar in separate conversations, Malak's attack on Dantooine was honestly just to kill his enemies. Politics and tactics are not Malak's specialty at all.
This is more promising, but still fails to identify a particular skill of Malak's. For example, the character Scout from Yoda: Dark Rendezvous is courageous, but not a skilled combatant. As for "relentless fury" it could charitably be assumed that Malak is a user of some sort of battle rage technique. This doesn't specify his skill with the tactic or its applicability to individual duels.
Setting aside the problems of measuring Revan as described above, this is a good paragraph! You bring up an observation (that Revan is put at the uppermost echelons of power among active Jedi in the Old Republic) and then provide reasons why this is an important accolade. This kind of argument structure is very effective and more likely to make your arguments both valid and sound.Valid arguments are those which hold, assuming that every supporting reason is true. "If I am a gambler then I will lose money. I am a gambler. Therefore I will lose money" is a valid argument, because the truth of the first two parts guarantees the truth of the last part.
Sound arguments are valid arguments where the supporting parts are actually true. The example I gave is not a sound argument because some gamblers do not lose money. Thus, the premise is not true and the conclusion may be true or false.
There is a quote floating around that identifies the prequel trilogy as the prime of the Jedi (or maybe the "golden age"?)
In terms of numbers, it is much more likely that the prequel era Jedi are more numerous than the KotOR Jedi.
Even if it were not, many accolades about Koon are likely to take into account the history of the Jedi Order, which includes Revan himself. That is to say, equivalent quotes calling Revan and Koon, respectively, high-ranked amongst the history of the entire order will still benefit Koon more than Revan (since history is longer and more impressive the later you go in time).
Though I will note that it was never my intention to engage it a full-hearted debate. I am currently working on a "Darth Malak's Power Overview" thread that I will link which would have been my logic. However, it's not compete yet.