Originally posted by DarthAnt66
The narrator didn't say he was definitely the most powerful either.Just possibly.
You know Ant, for all of your supposedly impressive debating skills, when one peels back the layers, we get someone who's developed pretty impressive rhetorical ability and the dedication to fill lots of respect threads. When it comes to making some elementary logical connections, you fall pretty hilariously flat.
I've made this basic argument like six times by now, and every time you delete it from your reply and resort to this useless, cookie cutter reply. I'm going to bold it for you, because maybe bolding it will jiggle your brain cells a little, as this does seem to correlate more with raw intellect than hard work, which may be why you are struggling:
The statement that there is a possibility IS USEFUL INFORMATION UNTO ITSELF, because it suggests that Anakin vs. Yoda is a debate. Revan vs. Yoda is NOT a debate because of how much weaker than Vitiate Revan is. Unless if you can demonstrate that Vitiate is somehow stronger than RotS Sidious despite Sidious's supremacy being one of the most affirmed accolades in the mythos, you lose, you do not pass go, and you do not collect 200 dollars.
Do you have an actual argument to make besides just repeating your desperate incredulity?
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
All the quotes brought forward were published before Vitiate was even a figment of imagination in the writer's minds.
The Plagueis quote came after that, not that it matters anyway. Authorial intent doesn't apply to sourcebooks, because the author and the narrator are not the same entities.
Also your standard is beyond idiotic. If "greatest of all time" statements required the author to out-of-universe know every single candidate/competitor that would be created, they would be meaningless. As the superior explanation is one that makes canon sources meaningfull, this interpretation can't be right. You can put into the SW canon that this person is the greatest Y ever, without needing to individually compare said person to every competitor for that position that might exist.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
The Plagueis quote came after that, not that it matters anyway. Authorial intent doesn't apply to sourcebooks, because the author and the narrator are not the same entities.Also your standard is beyond idiotic. If "greatest of all time" statements required the author to out-of-universe know every single candidate/competitor that would be created, they would be meaningless. As the superior explanation is one that makes canon sources meaningfull, this interpretation can't be right. You can put into the SW canon that this person is the greatest Y ever, without needing to individually compare said person to every competitor for that position that might exist.
This assumes that the statement will always be upheld and that character couldn't be created after it that invalidates it. I.E. that Vitiate is greater and the statement was contradicted by this.
I didn't think this had to actually be explained, but sure, I'll do it.
Everyone you will debate on these boards already have a pretty locked down opinion on how Star Wars goes and who beats who. You're not going to change Nephthys' opinion that the Hero of Tython isn't better than Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're not going to make FreshestSlice believe that Darth Vader is weaker than Darth Bane. No matter what argument you can bring forward, it won't work. And the reason isn't that they are simply ignorant and won't change their views. It's that the arguments you are bringing forward has already been brought to them before, dozens and dozens of times. We've all seen the quotes that puts Palpatine as the most powerful Sith Lord in history. We've all seen the statements declaring Skywalker as potentially the greatest Jedi of all time. We've seen it across countless debates and we've all formed a 101 reasons why it means nothing and its supporters have made 101 reasons why it should be perceived as law. You aren't bringing anything new to the table, just following in the footsteps of all those who came before you. Your arguments aren't special. They aren't unique. They've been used many times and honestly, in most instances, with far greater logic than what you're doing. It's the reason why as you go across the forums preaching why Luke Skywalker is so great, no one is really caring. We've all seen it before. We've all heard the praise and also the reasons why he stinks. It's the reason why this forum is dying: every debate that could have happened has already happened. You're late to the party and trying to argue stuff that everyone already has battled over for months and years. No one really cares anymore. Unless you actually bring something new to the table, no one's going to listen. And when you bring something old and then act as if you are the discoverer of this grand new idea, expect for members to laugh at you for it, like we all are here.
Revan wins. 👆
Taking these quotes as law is ridiculous. Since we include both canon and legends, Anakin didn't lose any of his potential in Mustafar, and Anakin is Yoda level yet Vader is above Anakin. You'd have to legitimately think Vader is above ROTS Sidious in Disney canon to actually make that argument, Eliminst. And if we take these statements at face value, composite Vader doesnt even make sense since TFU demonstrates how vastly superior Sidious is to Vader. Since Vader didn't lose any of his power/potential, and since Anakin is already Yoda tier, how did he fall behind so badly even though his power progression should logically be much faster?
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I didn't think this had to actually be explained, but sure, I'll do it.Everyone you will debate on these boards already have a pretty locked down opinion on how Star Wars goes and who beats who. You're not going to change Nephthys' opinion that the Hero of Tython isn't better than Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're not going to make FreshestSlice believe that Darth Vader is weaker than Darth Bane. No matter what argument you can bring forward, it won't work. And the reason isn't that they are simply ignorant and won't change their views. It's that the arguments you are bringing forward has already been brought to them before, dozens and dozens of times. We've all seen the quotes that puts Palpatine as the most powerful Sith Lord in history. We've all seen the statements declaring Skywalker as potentially the greatest Jedi of all time. We've seen it across countless debates and we've all formed a 101 reasons why it means nothing and its supporters have made 101 reasons why it should be perceived as law. You aren't bringing anything new to the table, just following in the footsteps of all those who came before you. Your arguments aren't special. They aren't unique. They've been used many times and honestly, in most instances, with far greater logic than what you're doing. It's the reason why as you go across the forums preaching why Luke Skywalker is so great, no one is really caring. We've all seen it before. We've all heard the praise and also the reasons why he stinks. It's the reason why this forum is dying: every debate that could have happened has already happened. You're late to the party and trying to argue stuff that everyone already has battled over for months and years. No one really cares anymore. Unless you actually bring something new to the table, no one's going to listen. And when you bring something old and then act as if you are the discoverer of this grand new idea, expect for members to laugh at you for it, like we all are here.
Revan wins. 👆
Yeah, pretty much.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I didn't think this had to actually be explained, but sure, I'll do it.
Lesson 1: there is nothing you, Ant, can understand, that I wouldn't have figured out already. 👆
Everyone you will debate on these boards already have a pretty locked down opinion on how Star Wars goes and who beats who. You're not going to change Nephthys' opinion that the Hero of Tython isn't better than Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're not going to make FreshestSlice believe that Darth Vader is weaker than Darth Bane. No matter what argument you can bring forward, it won't work. And the reason isn't that they are simply ignorant and won't change their views. It's that the arguments you are bringing forward has already been brought to them before, dozens and dozens of times. We've all seen the quotes that puts Palpatine as the most powerful Sith Lord in history. We've all seen the statements declaring Skywalker as potentially the greatest Jedi of all time. We've seen it across countless debates and we've all formed a 101 reasons why it means nothing and its supporters have made 101 reasons why it should be perceived as law. You aren't bringing anything new to the table, just following in the footsteps of all those who came before you. Your arguments aren't special. They aren't unique. They've been used many times and honestly, in most instances, with far greater logic than what you're doing. It's the reason why as you go across the forums preaching why Luke Skywalker is so great, no one is really caring. We've all seen it before. We've all heard the praise and also the reasons why he stinks. It's the reason why this forum is dying: every debate that could have happened has already happened. You're late to the party and trying to argue stuff that everyone already has battled over for months and years. No one really cares anymore. Unless you actually bring something new to the table, no one's going to listen. And when you bring something old and then act as if you are the discoverer of this grand new idea, expect for members to laugh at you for it, like we all are here.
So I know that you're really awful at constructing actual arguments rather than making rhetorical farts, but literally nothing that your pretentious, delusions of grandeur addled high school brain just typed out has any relevance to the validity of my arguments or evidence. You just posted a bunch of vague ad hominems, appeals to popularity, and...it's such a bad mismatch of horrible argumentation that I don't know what the names of all of the fallacies are, or if some of your errors are so bad, they didn't even bother to come up with names, because they figured that anyone who would make such mistakes wouldn't be capable of reading English anyway.
People have debated God's existence long enough that virtually no philosophical argument for or against it is "new". That doesn't affect their validity. People have debated whether proton decay happens for quite some time; that doesn't magically invalidate older evidence or arguments. Your bizarre attempt to tie the rigor of my logic with whether it's "original" or convincing to brilliant minds like Neph just shows how little you know, despite you obviously thinking you're hot shit.
So no, you did not just say anything profound; you just farted out an elaborate ad hominem. But keep trying. 👆
I really look forward to seeing if you get humbled a little more in college, since you actually think you're particularly intelligent, rather than just being smarter than average in your high school class, lawl.