Darth Plagueis/Palpatine's Meditation War Never Created Anakin Skywalker

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
@Ellimist: No, I've rejected the notion that there's a >100% chance that Plagueis and Sidious' meditation caused Anakin.

That's the entire point of this discussion.

Of course there isn't a >100% chance, that's impossible by definition.

That isn't what the thread title says (it suggests ~0% chance), nor is it what your OP says. But I'm guessing you've backtracked into this position, that it's not an absolute fact, just like how it isn't an absolute fact that Revan could beat TPM Obi Wan, or that the sun won't explode tomorrow. ...congrats?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I advise you both to look at the thread title, then read the OP.

"Never" as in it can "never" be used for debates.

🙄

Originally posted by SunRazer
So Palpatine didn't cause the imbalance, even though Anakin destroyed the imbalance by destroying Palpatine?

😂

Ant's officially conceded this debate, as well as all past, present and future debates on all topics and thoughts in existence.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That isn't what the thread title says (it suggests ~0% chance), nor is it what your OP says. But I'm guessing you've backtracked into this position, that it's not an absolute fact, just like how it isn't an absolute fact that Revan could beat TPM Obi Wan, or that the sun won't explode tomorrow. ...congrats?

By there being numerous factors in the reason for his birth, the argument that Plagueis and Sidious alone necessitated his birth is speculation at best. That is his point.

Originally posted by AncientPower
By their being numerous factors in the reason for his birth, the argument that Plagueis and Sidious alone necessitated his birth is speculation at best. That is his point.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I interpreted your argument as Palpatine alone could have caused the imbalance.

Caused? Not necessarily - or, should I say, not entirely.

But eventually, he became the sole personification of that imbalance, indeed. Which is why balance is restored to the Force with Palpatine's death, and nothing else.

Allow me to clarify my title and OP then.

"Never" as in it can "never" be used for debates.

Sure it can. Almost everything used in debates involves some degree of speculation; technically it's speculation that Dooku is stronger in the Force than Obi-Wan, for example. Lots of evidence points in that direction, but nothing outright states it to my knowledge.

Lol @ the idea that you can't use problem solving skills in a debate, though.

By point is that there's so many degrees of speculation here that it can't be used in debates.

There's a fundamental difference between assuming who's better than who and then assuming which event happened.

The former is rooted in discussion and comparison - the latter is arbitrary.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=635850&pagenumber=17#post16001832

None of those, save perhaps the first, suggest, let alone prove, that the balance of the Force was shifted.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Allow me to clarify my title and OP then.

"Never" as in it can "never" be used for debates.

🙄

😑

So let me get this straight:

The justice system doesn't need a 100% certainty to put someone in jail for murder.
The FDA doesn't need a 100% certainty to approve medication that will be used by millions of patients.
The military doesn't need a 100% certainty to initiate actions that could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Scientists don't need a 100% certainty for their theories to become part of the textbooks we teach in school.
Engineers don't need a 100% certainty to sign off on whose stability the lives of hundreds or thousands depends on.
People don't need a 100% certainty to trust that the McDonalds they enter isn't an Alien Spaceship sitting in plain sight, ready to abduct them.

But if you want to employ an argument in speculative vs. debates between hypothetical, fictional characters, you need 100% certainty to even dare mentioning it.

Holy sh*t this is just comical. I thought that your Tenebrae holocron worshipping was hilarious enough, but it looks like you've shed even your own limitations here.

A new ground reality has arrived.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
😑

So let me get this straight:

The justice system doesn't need a 100% certainty to put someone in jail for murder.
The FDA doesn't need a 100% certainty to approve medication that will be used by millions of patients.
The military doesn't need a 100% certainty to initiate actions that could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Scientists don't need a 100% certainty for their theories to become part of the textbooks we teach in school.
Engineers don't need a 100% certainty to sign off on whose stability the lives of hundreds or thousands depends on.
People don't need a 100% certainty to trust that the McDonalds they enter isn't an Alien Spaceship sitting in plain sight, ready to abduct them.

But if you want to employ an argument in speculative vs. debates between hypothetical, fictional characters, you need 100% certainty to even dare mentioning it.

Holy sh*t this is just comical.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
By point is that there's so many degrees of speculation here that it can't be used in debates.

There's a fundamental difference between assuming who's better than who and then assuming which event happened.

The former is rooted in discussion and comparison - the latter is arbitrary.

Yes, but by there being numerous factors necessitating his birth, thus not the sole one, using him as a means of wank justification for Plagueis and Sidious is a massive stretch and thus not usable in debates. Them not being the sole reason negates the argument in and of itself.

Ant's officially conceded this debate, as well as all past, present and future debates on all topics and thoughts in existence.

I really don't think that my argument is that outrageous.

I'll concede that some of the things I said in the last 8 pages, in which I was forced to form rebuttals against four members at the same time at an impossible rate, might have been retarded.

But the fundamental argument, as established here:

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
By point is that there's so many degrees of speculation here that it can't be used in debates.

There's a fundamental difference between assuming who's better than who and then assuming which event happened.

The former is rooted in discussion and comparison - the latter is arbitrary.

Or AP's further clarification of it:

Originally posted by AncientPower
Yes, but by there being numerous factors necessitating his birth, thus not the sole one, using him as a means of wank justification for Plagueis and Sidious is a massive stretch and thus not usable in debates. Them not being the sole reason negates the argument in and of itself.

Is pretty clear cut and easy to understand.

Can't tell if NewGuy is terrible bored or tired of Ant's shit mmm

Both.

Originally posted by AncientPower
Yes, but by there being numerous factors necessitating his birth,

There aren't, though. He was born to kill Sidious; GL told us outright that this was the meaning of the prophecy. He needed to kill Sidious to restore the balance of the Force. The Force was imbalanced because, you guessed it, Palpatine and Plagueis subjugated it. This isn't a complicated or difficult idea; the thread really comes across as strikingly less "it can't be used in debates" and more "I don't like it being used in debates."

Originally posted by NewGuy01
There aren't, though. He was born to kill Sidious; GL told us outright that this was the meaning of the prophecy. He needed to kill Sidious to restore the balance of the Force. The Force was imbalanced because, you guessed it, Palpatine and Plagueis subjugated it.

- A thousand years of sowing chaos
- DTM's hole ripping
- Palpatine's ascension
- TCW
- ROTEC
- Palpatine's mere presence

😬

Frankly, I could just as easily say the galaxy was imbalanced because there were Sith in it.

Since Palpatine died, there was no more evil, and thus balance was restored.

"Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe." GL

Palpatine's presence in of itself didn't become a significant imbalance until the end of TPM, really. That's why it's used for him in debates.

Also, stuff like the hole ripping wasn't stated to be an imbalance at all. Just a hole that allowed the Jedi to perceive said imbalance. As Ares said, almost everything you posted in that link wasn't imbalancing.