Originally posted by Beniboybling
1. Provided and conceded to on pg. 2?
You’ve provided a theory, which even if it sounds somewhat logical, is nothing more then an assumption until there is actual conclusive evidence that’s backing that up rather then your opinion, so no, I don’t concede because you haven’t brought anything forward that supports your ‘theory’.
2. That's not the point, the point is she's not out to kill, Maul is.
Sure like ever Jedi/Like Side user yet she had the same mentality in Future of the Force so it doesn’t explain why she would’ve performed less in Twilight of the Apprentice and thus this isn’t a valid argument, let’s move on.
3. What we see on screen is two combatants who appear about to fight, and have every reason and intention of doing so, from which indeed we can extrapolate, in the absence of a plausible reason for not fighting, that fight is what they did.
We know they have been fighting sure, that’s what we see when the screen cuts back to them, the question remains for how long they’ve been fighting since we didn’t see them starting to fight. You claim they’ve been fighting for the full minute because “what else would they’ve been doing” while I present the evidence that hints towards the idea that they haven’t been fighting for long (not nearly as long as you claim), so in this case I bring forward a theory that’s backed up by evidence (no environmental restrictions + mobile fighters according to the on-screen fighting under the same circumstances and context by which we can accurately extrapolate how they would’ve fought during that minute gap → also see next answer) while you bring forward just a theory which is based on how you feel what’s the most logical thing to do in that certain situation. Let me even go further, I’ll provide you with an alternative based on actual evidence, Maul could’ve just as easily continued to (trash) talk to Ahsoka during that scene since that’s why he interrupts that same fight twice (evidence) while also doing the same thing in the Ahsoka novel during the Siege of Mandalore (evidence).
So not only have I brought forward a stronger case (considering it’s based on factual evidence), I also provided you with an another example (again based on factual evidence of two separate occasions) which could directly nullify your argument. At this point you have two options, you can bring forward (new) evidence that would strengthen your case or you can concede, the choice is yours.
On the other hand for the very same reason you've stipulated against this logic, that we do not see them fight, we cannot assume they did not move around as you've asserted, before simply returning to the same spot.
This answer will tie-in to my previous one, the reason we can safely assume that they wouldn’t have fought and returned to the almost exact same position is based on two arguments. First, the environment isn’t limiting their movement contrary to for example the argument DMB brought forward (in case you didn’t read it, he says that despite moving all over the place in TPM both Maul and Obi-Wan ended up in the roughly same spot) in which the environment was forcing them to fight in a limited area, making the return to a previous occupied spot more likely. Second, the moment we see Maul and Ahsoka fighting after the 1 minute break they instantly gravitate away from that spot and don’t even show the slightest intention to return to their previous position, considering that this part of the fight happened under the exact same circumstances and context then their fight during the 1 minute gap it can be accurately extrapolate that they wouldn’t have done it during that 1 minute break.
4. Yes because when you are going to have someone charged with a crime, you need definitive proof, and cannot keep them in proverbial limbo until that proof comes around.
In court they have to decide over the lives of people so their way of interpreting a debate and deciding if a certain argument is valid or not is a far more accurate way to evaluate an argumentation then just trusting you and your opinion on what seems more likely to you.
In this case no, you've predicated the belief that Maul > Ahsoka on the basis that Malachor is not a dark side nexus, however this cannot be ruled out as a possibility, and you've done nothing but appeal to a lack of definitive proof to the contrary to state otherwise, which yes is a fallacy.
Correction, I’ve predicated the belief that Maul is Ahsoka’s superior based on the quote provided to us by the episode guide of Twilight of the Apprentice combined with the idea that the magnitude (or influence) of the nexus isn’t big enough to noticeably influence a direct fight between both combatant (because nothing points at it being influential or even taken into consideration by the storygroup when creating battles) and because of Maul’s superior performance against the Inquisitors compared to Ahsoka since both fought them under almost the exact same circumstances and context which would make both occasions comparable enough to use in a simple equation.
Moreover you've failed to provide any alternative explanation to a) the ability of the Inquisitors to fly on Malachor b) Ahsoka's dipped performance against the Inquistors. Which leaves me to believe the presence of a nexus is indeed, the only explanation.
Point A is already answered by admitting Malachor is a nexus even though Gilroy said that Filoni’s the better source and how “he would say that Malachor being home to the Sith had something to do with it” (I listened to the recording of Gilory’s interview during DragonCon and quoted what he said) which in general isn’t the most conclusive evidence but I’m willing to concede on that part for the sake of the discussion. Regarding point B, you haven’t provided evidence that the nexus (negatively) influenced Ahsoka (your opinion on what’s most likely according to you isn’t an official source or conclusive evidence) but if you so desperately want an alternative then I’ll give you the one which says that the Inquisitors improved over the course of the second half of season 2 (we like to see our protagonists improve so why not or villains also).
5. That doesn't preclude Filoni making a general statement regarding the period at all. You've just decided that.
Indeed I'd suggest clinging to the non-binding nature of his statement as opposed to attempting to force a false reading. 👆
I actually read the article again and he never says that a period of time implies the entire OT era, only well a period of time which can imply anything. He even adds that’s why we didn’t see her as much which obviously implies season 2 since she’s barely been in season 1. Again, the context is clear, Maul wasn’t a part of season 2 until the very end when Ahsoka also actually appeared so no it’s not a general quote, that’s what you make of it.
I take an actual official quote and feats above the presumed (and personal preference) interpretation of a quote which isn’t even canon (and thus shouldn’t matter anyway). You again have to options, bring up actual evidence to support your case or concede, if you choose the former then I’m more then happy to respond and continue the debate while the latter option speaks for itself.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Dude, just think it out. How would Maul's fighting style not be more advantageous than Ahsoka's? It's pretty much the exact same reason why Dooku would last a shorter amount of time against Sidous than he would against Yoda. It's a similar reason why Maul stomps Savage, yet his peer in Kenobi didn't -- or why Ventress does much better against Anakin than against Dooku. Different fighters stack up differently against one another, it's just a simple fact, not something that should have to be spoon-fed.
Sure, they influence fights but again you forget to include evidence which would support that the magnitude of this influence is enough to noticeably influence the fight not to mention that all your examples don’t necessarily prove that the difference between those cases are caused by different fighting styles, e.g. Dooku could easily perform better against Ventress because he actually trained her (as witnessed by Luminara in season 1) or how Kenobi performed worse against Savage because he never was in the same circumstances when fighting him contrary to Maul (e.g. Obi-Wan confronted Savage when he was with his brother so his attention is logically split and thus his inferior performance could possibly be explained). All the evidence you brought up, which I applaud since it’s more then Beni brought forward, are discussions on itself meaning they aren’t conclusive evidence.
She wasn't being as aggressive as Maul (which is what you were claiming) because she chose not to keep any sustained offensive going, which is the point -- and it also is one of the explanations why Ahsoka's fight was longer in FotF.
Yeah but then again Maul didn’t continue his assault either when first facing against the inquisitors (he stopped to let the others join) and to be honest, she stopped once to talk to the 7th Sister, for the rest she was just fighting them without pausing so your point is not valid. Drop it and move on since this isn’t going to go your way.
You'd have a point about Ahsoka's mindset when facing the Inquisitors, but unfortunately unlike other Jedi who choose not to kill their opponents because of Jedi ideals, if Ahsoka chose to kill one of the Inquisitors there would be serious repercussions, such as even more Inquisitors entering the picture. That's something she'd logically want to avoid at all costs. And as mentioned before, even when the Fifth Brother was disarmed at her hands she didn't attempt a killing blow, also Ahsoka (and I doubt even Kanan) were ever in any truly life-threatening circumstances with the Inquisitors.
Sure, agreed but what does that change? Like I said to Beni, her mentality between Future of the Force and Twilight of the Apprentice hasn’t changed yet her performance did so that her approach was a factor that influenced her fighting prowess excluded.
It is your problem, because it makes your theory completely and utterly illogical. To accept your 'evidence' would mean having to accept the insane premise that Maul and Ahsoka abstained from fighting during the course of well over a minute. That makes your argument very hard to believe, especially when compared to the pretty easy to accept idea that Maul and Ahsoka were evenly matched during that first minute and a half, hence the relative lack advancement or retreat from Ahsoka or Maul.
Not exactly, your case is based on what seems the most likely for you while mine involves factual evidence (no environmental restrictions + mobile fighters according to the on-screen fighting under the same circumstances and context by which we can accurately extrapolate how they would’ve fought during that minute gap) and like I told Beni, I can even give you the example about Maul talking for a decent sized amount of time (evidence = doing it two times during his fight with Ahsoka and during the Siege of Mandalore in the Ahsoka novel) which on it’s own would contradict your sole reason. Again, your case is solely based on what seems most likely to you since we didn’t see them star to fight (and you aren’t a canon source) while mine involves the examination of their fighting styles (or how a fight between them would go based on what we see them do afterwards under the exact same circumstances and context as during the one minute gap).
We only see one strike from Ahsoka when the screen cuts back and they start jumping all over the place when Ahsoka actually starts to push Maul back.
That’s good I guess.
It's evidence that Maul was more powerful than standard since he's on a dark side nexus, which would've given him an advantage, no matter how you slice it.
Sure, the advantage could be there since Gilroy never literally said that it strengthens Dark Side users (which is something you make of it) while also adding that “he would say Malachor being home to the Sith is connected to the Inquisitor’s ability to fly” so that isn’t actually conclusive but anyway even if you want take it like that, it’s never proven that the magnitude of the nexus is enough to influence a fight between Maul & Ahsoka or that the storygroup would’ve taken it into consideration (looking at Filoni’s history of neglecting nexuses while creating fights → Grievous vs Ventress). Let me give you an example, you have E1 (Maul), E2 (Ahsoka) and E3 (Malachor) while E1 + E2 + E3 = Etot. Is E3 going to be an important factor in this equation? Depends on how big it is compared to E1 and E2 (take both 1000) while E3 = 1, the result is that E3 barely has any effect on the total equation (or fight in this case). Yes E3 and by extent the nexus can be big enough to make a noticeable impact but when we don’t have evidence that claims as much then it, until proven otherwise, doesn’t impact at all.
I really doubt the Inquisitors were pushing her to her absolute max that she had to pull out all the stops, and seriously? You don't think she could have killed the Fifth Brother after she just did this?: She had him dead to rights and could have killed him easily -- it's undeniable evidence that she was refraining from killing the Inquisitors.
Sure, again she refrained from killing them but, like I said in the beginning of my argument, her mentality didn’t change between FotF and TotA while her performance did so her approach begin a (or the) reason for it is most certainly excluded.
You conceded that 'time period' meant 'general era', and the quote says We all felt that Ahsoka, the only person that could really match her in this time period, blow for blow, would be Vader or the Emperor -- so Filoni is saying Ahsoka's only true superiors in this general era are Vader and the Emperor.
By reading the interview again I changed my mind, Filoni never clarifies what he means with ‘time period’, it could be a general era or it could mean just season 2(definition ‘time period’ = Space of seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or years with an established beginning date and ending date. It's a unit of measurement used to categorize a length of time. Also called time frame).
And yeah, Maul is stronger than Ahsoka against the Inquisitors, which is the enemy Ezra was vulnerable against. 🙂
That’s what you make of it and you aren’t an official source, sorry.
Your entire argument involves what for you seems a logical explanation or option (fighting style being more effective, Ahsoka’s approach to a fight with the Inquisitors, what ‘time period’ means, how big the influence of Malachor is, both fighting for the full minute gap) while mine is based on things we actually see (Maul performing better against the Inquisitors, him being all but named the strongest of the group, extrapolating their fighting based on what we’ve seen them do after the one minute gap, no environmental limitations). I enjoy our little conversation, truly, but unless you bring forward (new) factual evidence which supports your case then I’m not going to spend more time repeating myself over and over again. People can now see what we brought forward, think about it and form their own opinion which is in the end what my intention was in the first place.
@D-Tard. 🙂
1. Juyo being the most aggressive and unpredictable of the seven forms is a fact, not theoretical.
2. That's not the point, the point is she's not out to kill, Maul is.
Not sure what's so difficult to grasp here, seems like your being wilfully retarded.
3. A load of blather, tbh, but it appears I'm going to have to pick it apart regardless.
We know they have been fighting sure, that's what we see when the screen cuts back to them, the question remains for how long they've been fighting since we didn't see them starting to fight.Quite, in which case the most logical answer is the whole time, because there is no logical reason for them to do otherwise.
You claim they've been fighting for the full minute because "what else would they've been doing" while I present the evidence that hints towards the idea that they haven't been fighting for long (not nearly as long as you claim)Interpretable evidence, in which case given your interpretation fails to resolve the aforementioned problem, it is bunk.
so in this case I bring forward a theory that's backed up by evidence (no environmental restrictions + mobile fighters according to the on-screen fighting under the same circumstances and context by which we can accurately extrapolate how they would've fought during that minute gap also see next answer) while you bring forward just a theory which is based on how you feel what's the most logical thing to do in that certain situation.Or in fewer words my reading makes logical sense, whereas yours does not.
Let me even go further, I'll provide you with an alternative based on actual evidence, Maul could've just as easily continued to (trash) talk to Ahsoka during that scene since that's why he interrupts that same fight twice (evidence) while also doing the same thing in the Ahsoka novel during the Siege of Mandalore (evidence).As opposed to the non-evidence that is Maul and Ahsoka poised to attack? Lmao.
Regardless during the Siege of Mandalore Ahsoka employed Dun Moch to lure Maul into a trap, which in part involved moving away from him and yet here she had no intention of doing so and by your logic did not move an inch.
In fact its in Ahsoka's best interests to eliminate Maul so she can help Ezra, which its later revealed her intentions to be.
And the fact that Maul trashed talked her for 5 seconds in separate occasions is no basis for him doing so for a minute and a half, or anything close. Yeah, the strained nature of these claims only reflects the inadequacy of your reading.
On the other hand I'm seeing no response to perfectly adequate explanation that they simply returned to the same spot after a bout of fighting.
So not only have I brought forward a stronger case (considering it's based on factual evidence), I also provided you with an another example (again based on factual evidence of two separate occasions) which could directly nullify your argument. At this point you have two options, you can bring forward (new) evidence that would strengthen your case or you can concede, the choice is yours.You brought forward a good laugh yeah, but now it's just getting tiresome. But points for effort regardless.
4. Whereas we are not, which is why the same logic does not apply, glad we cleared that one up.
Moving on.
Correction, I've predicated the belief that Maul is Ahsoka's superior based on the quote provided to us by the episode guide of Twilight of the ApprenticeWhich relies on the conditions being neutral for both parties yes.
combined with the idea that the magnitude (or influence) of the nexus isn't big enough to noticeably influence a direct fight between both combatantOr rather the unproven assumption I was talking about.
(because nothing points at it being influential or even taken into consideration by the storygroup when creating battles)Which doesn't preclude it being a factor here at all, or rather you're appealing to an absence of evidence, a fallacy, yeah.
and because of Maul's superior performance against the Inquisitors compared to Ahsoka since both fought them under almost the exact same circumstances and context which would make both occasions comparable enough to use in a simple equation.See above.
So what are you correcting here again?
5. Well time period can refer to a lot of things yes but given Rebels is set in the OT era, I think that narrows it down a bit don't you think? And of course when someone does not specify contexts you do not assume they are being specific. Christ.
On the other hand "those who are available to fight Ahsoka during season 2" is not synonymous with the "time period" by any stretch of the imagination, lmao. So again you're constructing false contexts.
Point A is already answered by admitting Malachor is a nexus even though Gilroy said that Filoni's the better source and how "he would say that Malachor being home to the Sith had something to do with it" (I listened to the recording of Gilory's interview during DragonCon and quoted what he said) which in general isn't the most conclusive evidence but I'm willing to concede on that part for the sake of the discussion.A good start.
Regarding point B, you haven't provided evidence that the nexus (negatively) influenced Ahsoka (your opinion on what's most likely according to you isn't an official source or conclusive evidence) but if you so desperately want an alternative then I'll give you the one which says that the Inquisitors improved over the course of the second half of season 2 (we like to see our protagonists improve so why not or villains also).Point B is the evidence darling, in which case no, I do not buy the Fifth Brother going from being one shotted by Ahsoka physically and in the Force to staggering her with his strength and lasting against her in 1-v-1 combat for over a minute. Let's hear something better pls.
I take an actual official quote and feats above the presumed (and personal preference) interpretation of a quote which isn't even canon (and thus shouldn't matter anyway). You again have to options, bring up actual evidence to support your case or concede, if you choose the former then I'm more then happy to respond and continue the debate while the latter option speaks for itself.I lol'ed.