Originally posted by quanchi112
Well he didn't do so to Luke, Yoda, or Vader so it isn't in character. Khan will close on him and kill him. Think, man.
You,should take your own advice.
Luke. Sidious preferred to shock him, and by having him at his mercy eh could have ragdolled him if chose to.
Yoda was an equal/near equal force user so he really couldn't just ragdoll Yoda.
Vader. Vader isn't a weak force user. According to GL Vader is 80% of palpatine in terms of force power. Then Sidious was focusing on Luke not on Vader, and still took Vader down with him.
Originally posted by playa1258
They do drastically wank speed.
No they don't. At least not in the way I understand what "wank" is supposed to mean. In other words if someone is "wanking" Superman I take it to mean they are exaggerating his power levels.
They didn't actually give speed to those who didn't have it, all they did was make it so characters actually utilized all their powers.
So for instance you aren't wanking Superman if you say he will use the speed that he has been shown to have. That's not wanking, that is telling the truth and having a debate as opposed to telling a story. Now saying Superman can survive universe destroying blasts or some shit...that is wanking him.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Debating within character and accepting all evidence is the most objective way to look at any fictional debate.
Yeah no, not with comic characters. Just by their very nature that is a lousy way to debate things. I mean you just said accepting ALL EVIDENCE from comics is the best way to debate.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Just another option but the evidence matters not the popularity.
If the evidence is the only thing that matters why do you need another option? Especially one you will just ignore?
The notion you had to ask me something this teenager girlie tells me a lot about you.
What does this even mean? The question was girly because I asked you why you bother including something you're just going to ignore?
Why not cut the BS and admit the only reason you did it is on the off chance Khan got more votes. Then you'd certainly use that to your advantage.
I always cite the evidence as the ultimate indicator in a debate. Do you feel differently ?
You cite what you *think* is evidence. You cite things that happen, but you reach baffling conclusions from the evidence.
I also wasn't saying you would use poll results as the sole reason to show why Khan wins. I was merely saying that you surely wouldn't be dismissing the poll if it was going more in your favor.
I can tell I'm really getting to you since your responses just get more and more incoherent.
You talk about citing evidence but you literally just ignored evidence presented to you from the Clone Wars show. You even tried to imply Palpatine shouldn't get the feats of Sidious. Which is about as asinine as saying Clark Kent doesn't get the feats of Superman.
In fact it makes NO logical sense for you to even imply Palpatine shouldn't get the feats of Sidious. The only reason to do so is because you are aware that Sidious has feats that show he'd win. There is literally no reason to bring that up if you truly felt he lacked the power to beat Khan.
You were called out on that as far back as page 5 and yet you have yet to comment on that.
Originally posted by EmperorSidious2Speculation. We just have the facts. Again more speculation.
You,should take your own advice.Luke. Sidious preferred to shock him, and by having him at his mercy eh could have ragdolled him if chose to.
Yoda was an equal/near equal force user so he really couldn't just ragdoll Yoda.
Vader. Vader isn't a weak force user. According to GL Vader is 80% of palpatine in terms of force power. Then Sidious was focusing on Luke not on Vader, and still took Vader down with him.
Again more subjective opinion while ignoring the facts.
Originally posted by SurturFalsr, when you select what counts and what doesn't that's the way of bias.
No they don't. At least not in the way I understand what "wank" is supposed to mean. In other words if someone is "wanking" Superman I take it to mean they are exaggerating his power levels.They didn't actually give speed to those who didn't have it, all they did was make it so characters actually utilized all their powers.
So for instance you aren't wanking Superman if you say he will use the speed that he has been shown to have. That's not wanking, that is telling the truth and having a debate as opposed to telling a story. Now saying Superman can survive universe destroying blasts or some shit...that is wanking him.
Yeah no, not with comic characters. Just by their very nature that is a lousy way to debate things. I mean you just said accepting ALL EVIDENCE from comics is the best way to debate.
Originally posted by Surtur
If the evidence is the only thing that matters why do you need another option? Especially one you will just ignore?What does this even mean? The question was girly because I asked you why you bother including something you're just going to ignore?
Why not cut the BS and admit the only reason you did it is on the off chance Khan got more votes. Then you'd certainly use that to your advantage.
You cite what you *think* is evidence. You cite things that happen, but you reach baffling conclusions from the evidence.
I also wasn't saying you would use poll results as the sole reason to show why Khan wins. I was merely saying that you surely wouldn't be dismissing the poll if it was going more in your favor.
I can tell I'm really getting to you since your responses just get more and more incoherent.
You talk about citing evidence but you literally just ignored evidence presented to you from the Clone Wars show. You even tried to imply Palpatine shouldn't get the feats of Sidious. Which is about as asinine as saying Clark Kent doesn't get the feats of Superman.
Curiosity is all.
Opinion does not matter so it is irrelevant.
I said he doesn't get feats he does in a vision. It's the same reason we don't give dream sequence feats. It didn't occur.
Originally posted by SurturHe doesn't get vision feats. What don't you get ?
In fact it makes NO logical sense for you to even imply Palpatine shouldn't get the feats of Sidious. The only reason to do so is because you are aware that Sidious has feats that show he'd win. There is literally no reason to bring that up if you truly felt he lacked the power to beat Khan.You were called out on that as far back as page 5 and yet you have yet to comment on that.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Speculation. We just have the facts. Again more speculation.Again more subjective opinion while ignoring the facts.
Calling something speculation doesn't actually prove it's speculation just so you know. I gave you much needed information that really just took down your points. Have a nice day.
Originally posted by EmperorSidious2You surmising what might happen as absolute fact is bullshit. You scripted the fight and it's old.
Calling something speculation doesn't actually prove it's speculation just so you know. I gave you much needed information that really just took down your points. Have a nice day.