Ahsoka Tano (CW) vs. Ezra Bridger

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
First let's compare what both voice actors actually said, Ashley is claiming that Ahsoka is going to win because she now has two lightsabers while FPJ says that Ezra would win because he's tapping into more power than in season 2 (which is supported by a couple of official sources).

Both voice actors attributed their opinion on the victor of a fight to a quality their claimed victor has that impacts combative ability and said quality is backed by official sources.

Likewise, the same voice actor you are using said Ahsoka is one of the top 3 or 4 Jedi combatants of all time, which means even if we narrow it down to the Jedi we've seen, Ahsoka would have to be above two or three of these guys (Luke, Yoda, Windu, Anakin, or Obi-Wan) if you take that statement seriously, which given your frequent arguing against Ahsoka... correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt you actually put her above two or three of these guys or even one of them.

It seems to me that you're selectively pushing the validity of voice actor quotes depending on which ones support the position you're trying to push.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Secondly, the base of my argument consists of things we've seen in Rebels combined with official statements so not just the opinion of a voice actor.

Next time try to counter my entire argument instead of picking only a part of it.

You're trying to suggest that Ezra's superiority to the Seventh Sister (if it exists), proves Ezra's superiority to TCW Ahsoka if a lone inquisitor can legitimately contend with Ahsoka, however to try and prove inquisitors can contend with Ahsoka you bring up two instances, her duel with the Seventh Sister, and her duel with the Fifth brother. The former of which is basically worthless since firstly the Seventh sister never held out against a sustained barrage from Ahsoka for more than seven seconds, secondly Ahsoka martially stomped her without a lightsaber at the end of that fight and also ragdolled her, and thirdly Ahsoka was not taking that fight seriously at all (as evidenced by Ahsoka's demonstrated capacity to end the seventh sister whenever she wished... and by the fact that she straight up disarmed herself in the middle of that fight). The latter example with the Fifth brother might actually be valid if it weren't completely contradicted and marked a PIS driven outlier by every other indication of the gap between Ahsoka and the Fifth Brother.

So even if Season 2 Ezra were equal to the Seventh Sister, that wouldn't prove what you want it to prove. The example you're using to try and prove Season 2 Ezra's equity with the Inquisitors is a very brief duel which is further confounded by Ezra using his darker emotions (something he won't be doing in character in this fight), and the Seventh Sister having Maul to worry about (which means retreating and drawing Ezra further away from Maul would make more tactical sense than driving Ezra towards Maul). Not to mention that Ezra is specifically noted as noticeably weaker than Kanan to the extent where his weakness relative to Kanan's is a driving factor in how they paired off later on, with Kanan being matched by singular inquisitors multiple times in the episode and in previous episodes, and this is further reinforced by Ezra being quickly beaten by the eighth brother earlier that same episode.

If I wanted to play the same game you're playing here of selectively using evidence, I could point out Ahsoka does indeed undergo a shift in armament and fighting style in season 3 as per the official source of TCW (as Ashley points out in her quote), after which I could subsequently point out Ahsoka's duels after that point where she: drove Anakin back on Mortis and disarmed him before holding off Anakin and Obi-Wan, matched a more battlehardened Pre Vizsla than one who punched Obi-Wan a few feet into the air and knocked him on his ass while Obi-Wan was armed and Vizsla was unarmed, that she managed to drive Grievous back multiple steps with her offensive without the aid of a nexus (unlike Ventress), and say that even while disadvantaged by a lack of armament Ahsoka still managed to hold her own against and drive back Barriss with Barriss only winning against this disadvantaged Ahsoka by exploiting an environmental advantage (then pointing out that Barriss's combative abilities were sufficient enough to convince Ahsoka she was Ventress, and that Barriss was able to hold her own for a lengthy period of time against Anakin and even land blows on him), then assert all of that alongside Ashley's quote as proof that Ahsoka could best Ventress.

Would I do that? Of course not because that would be absolutely disingenuous. It would be me selectively using tidbits of information while ignoring the bigger picture.

Originally posted by TheNuisanceBird
You did when you talked about Ventress luring her into the cell.

Originally posted by TheNuisanceBird
Why do you think Ventress wasn't holding back?

Originally posted by TheNuisanceBird
In the TCW movie Ventress dismantled Ahsoka within seconds on the Teth landing platform.

Originally posted by TheNuisanceBird
I don't think Ahsoka improved that much.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Me saying Ventress is a lot better than Ahsoka is me implying Ahsoka is better than Ventress?

Nothing indicates she wasn't, and I don't have to prove a negative.

Indeed, so Ahsoka's performance on the Tranquility is a testament to her learning curve. She's been stated to have a considerable early ability in lightsaber combat and have impressive lightsaber abilities early on in her training, so couple that with training from one of the greatest combatants in the Jedi Order and add in her natural ability, it isn't unrealistic.

What?

Good to get that out of the way.

If Ahsoka improved then there's no reason why Ventress didn't.

Actually Emperordmb said it better.

Originally posted by TheNuisanceBird
What?

Good to get that out of the way.

If Ahsoka improved then there's no reason why Ventress didn't.

I never claimed Ventress didn't improve, but there's more evidence and reason to conclude Ahsoka improved at a greater rate than Ventress did between TCW movie and S1, enough to hold her own for a noticeably longer period of time.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Quote me implying Ahsoka is better than Ventress.

"And if Ventress felt as if she could pull off trapping Ahsoka, that may be because she's, like, a lot better than her?"

^ On the previous page.

Jesus Christ...

Make sure he knows what you actually mean, lmao.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Jesus Christ...

I can't do much from my phone.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Make sure he knows what you actually mean, lmao.

True, I can't really fault you on this. You literally said what you meant earlier on, lol.

Originally posted by TheNuisanceBird
Actually Emperordmb said it better.

Your claim that Ventress was toying with Ahsoka in Cloak of Darkness is based on several erroneous claims that I'll list out (along with some weird attempt to conflate Joker's position with suggesting Ahsoka's superiority to Ventress which I'm not even going to bother addressing):

1. Ventress bladelocked Ahsoka at one point without pinning one of her blades in place and using the other to strike her.

2. Ventress turned her back to Ahsoka while running to Gunray's cell

3. Ventress disarmed Obi-Wan

4. Ventress quickly dominated Ahsoka on the Teth platform, and they both had the same amount of time to improve since then.

As per your first point, Joker has correctly pointed out Ventress's several other instances of meeting people in bladelocks with both blades at once, people she would certainly be taking seriously (in fact this is a very common thing among Jar'kai practitioners), as well as the futility of relying too much on duel coreography... we're not the Forcecast afterall. Though Ventress's move absolutely makes sense in that fight, since bladelocks are contests of strength and are thus better approached with pressure and leverage from both arms (which means both weapons if you practice Jar'kai), since Ventress already had the arm she struck second with wound up and in motion for that strike (so suddenly changing what she was going to do with it would've been a physically awkward and slower move, and undoubtedly one Ahsoka would've seen coming), and because whereas a successful bladelock would force Ahsoka into an awkward position, swinging at Ahsoka with the other blade would've lead to Ahsoka moving evasively backwards into a position she's actually comfortable fighting from.

As per your second point, Ventress did not turn her back to Ahsoka while engaged in a barrage of lightsaber combat, she did so while disengaged in lightsaber combat and while running away from Ahsoka to free Gunray... the objective of her mission.

I would like to note that as per your first two points... Ahsoka does both of these things at the same time against Vader, and unlike with Ventress Ahsoka was actively engaged in lightsaber combat with Vader when her back was turned. So if Ventress was toying with Ahsoka, then by your logic Ahsoka must've not been taking her fight with Vader that seriously at all.

As per your third point, Joker is correct in pointing out that Obi-Wan wasn't taking his fight with Ventress very seriously, he was openly mocking her, the novel notes he was ****ing around, and when she disarmed him he only seemed to be sarcastically impressed before going on to physically handle her while unarmed. The entire focus of his duel with Ventress wasn't to best her, it was to keep her preoccupied and focused on him. If he actually demonstrated his superiority to her in a completely domineering way, she could've disengaged from that fight and redoubled her efforts on finding the Hutt. This is further reinforced by the fact that immediately after they both sense Anakin's departure from the planet, Obi-Wan lands a strike on Ventress's weapon, disarms her of one of her blades, and forces her to retreat, whereas before he was obviously leading her around.

As for your fourth point... what the ****. By this logic, no character could ever bridge the gap between themselves and another character... which quite blatantly isn't true. There are numerous factors that impact a difference in growth curves from potential, to circumstances around improvement, and coincidentally enough, both of these fall in Ahsoka's favor. As per potential, assuming Ventress is near the age of either of her lover (Vos), one-time mate (Savage) or guy she has weird romantic banter with (Obi-Wan), she and Ahsoka were roughly the same age at their respective peaks, however Ventress displays an inability to contend with Dooku level opponents whereas Ahsoka displays the ability to contend with Vader level opponents, and Ahsoka would've had less developmental training considering she only had a formal master for a few years in the earlier stages of her development and fell out of practice for a decent period of time in the imperial period, whereas Ventress pretty much trained her whole life and had training from a master aiding her at the peak of her abilities. To sum that up, Ahsoka at her peak is beyond Ventress at her peak, despite them both being at the same age and Ventress having spent more time honing her abilities with a better quality of training, so Ahsoka most likely has the greater potential. On top of this, Ahsoka growing more in combative ability than Ventress makes sense considering Ahsoka around this time was plunged from initiate training into training from one of the greatest swordsman and Force users in the Jedi order and into battlefield experience, whereas Ventress's training was pretty consistent in this time. So not only do confounding variables make it impossible for you to prove their growth curves would've been equal, these variables are all in favor of Ahsoka growing more than Ventress did.

On top of this, Ventress has every motivation against toying with Ahsoka since she's trying to remove one of the top separatists from the clutches of the republic as an order from Dooku and the guy above him, Ahsoka's in her way, and there's a better Jedi also on board that Ventress could be forced into dealing with if she doesn't handle Ahsoka and free Gunray quickly enough.

So Joker is correct in asserting the burden of proof is not on him to prove a negative, it's on you to prove the claim that Ventress was doing something that goes against her mission and motivations, and thus far the evidence you've provided for your assertion hasn't been sufficient.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And Ahsoka now having two lightsabers isn't supported by official sources? LOL Of course it is because she can clearly be seen with two lightsabers from Season three and on in TCW.

Both voice actors attributed their opinion on the victor of a fight to a quality their claimed victor has that impacts combative ability and said quality is backed by official sources.

Likewise, the same voice actor you are using said Ahsoka is one of the top 3 or 4 Jedi combatants of all time, which means even if we narrow it down to the Jedi we've seen, Ahsoka would have to be above two or three of these guys (Luke, Yoda, Windu, Anakin, or Obi-Wan) if you take that statement seriously, which given your frequent arguing against Ahsoka... correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt you actually put her above two or three of these guys or even one of them.

It seems to me that you're selectively pushing the validity of voice actor quotes depending on which ones support the position you're trying to push.

Here's the thing though, I didn't really care about your entire argument, because even if you argued Ezra's superiority to the Seventh Sister I still don't believe that proves the point you want it to, and I responded merely with the intent of addressing your selective use of voice actor quotes..

I was of course aiming at the fact that Ahsoka having two lightsabes isn't a reason she should suddenly defeat Ventress, something which isn't backed up by soures (the idea that her heaving two lightsabers would actually make her better) and even blantly contradicted when we look at her fight with Grievous in Season 5 contrary to FPJ's statement which is supported by sources, what we see onscreen and isn't contradicted anywhere.

Yeah I don't take very voice actor's opinion seriously but just pretending that it's black and white in this case is nonesenses, in your thinking process you can either accept or neglect a voice actors opinion. In this case I'm using FPJ's comments because it aligns with what we've seen in Rebels and he's talking about characters he's closely worked with, which is the exact same reason FPJ's top 3/4 comment should be neglected since he's using characters with who he has never worked wiand have nothing to do with the character he's voicing.

You're trying to suggest that Ezra's superiority to the Seventh Sister (if it exists), proves Ezra's superiority to TCW Ahsoka if a lone inquisitor can legitimately contend with Ahsoka, however to try and prove inquisitors can contend with Ahsoka you bring up two instances, her duel with the Seventh Sister, and her duel with the Fifth brother. The former of which is basically worthless since firstly the Seventh sister never held out against a sustained barrage from Ahsoka for more than seven seconds, secondly Ahsoka martially stomped her without a lightsaber at the end of that fight and also ragdolled her, and thirdly Ahsoka was not taking that fight seriously at all (as evidenced by Ahsoka's demonstrated capacity to end the seventh sister whenever she wished... and by the fact that she straight up disarmed herself in the middle of that fight). The latter example with the Fifth brother might actually be valid if it weren't completely contradicted and marked a PIS driven outlier by every other indication of the gap between Ahsoka and the Fifth Brother.

So even if Season 2 Ezra were equal to the Seventh Sister, that wouldn't prove what you want it to prove. The example you're using to try and prove Season 2 Ezra's equity with the Inquisitors is a very brief duel which is further confounded by Ezra using his darker emotions (something he won't be doing in character in this fight), and the Seventh Sister having Maul to worry about (which means retreating and drawing Ezra further away from Maul would make more tactical sense than driving Ezra towards Maul). Not to mention that Ezra is specifically noted as noticeably weaker than Kanan to the extent where his weakness relative to Kanan's is a driving factor in how they paired off later on, with Kanan being matched by singular inquisitors multiple times in the episode and in previous episodes, and this is further reinforced by Ezra being quickly beaten by the eighth brother earlier that same episode.

If I wanted to play the same game you're playing here of selectively using evidence, I could point out Ahsoka does indeed undergo a shift in armament and fighting style in season 3 as per the official source of TCW (as Ashley points out in her quote), after which I could subsequently point out Ahsoka's duels after that point where she: drove Anakin back on Mortis and disarmed him before holding off Anakin and Obi-Wan, matched a more battlehardened Pre Vizsla than one who punched Obi-Wan a few feet into the air and knocked him on his ass while Obi-Wan was armed and Vizsla was unarmed, that she managed to drive Grievous back multiple steps with her offensive without the aid of a nexus (unlike Ventress), and say that even while disadvantaged by a lack of armament Ahsoka still managed to hold her own against and drive back Barriss with Barriss only winning against this disadvantaged Ahsoka by exploiting an environmental advantage (then pointing out that Barriss's combative abilities were sufficient enough to convince Ahsoka she was Ventress, and that Barriss was able to hold her own for a lengthy period of time against Anakin and even land blows on him), then assert all of that alongside Ashley's quote as proof that Ahsoka could best Ventress.

Would I do that? Of course not because that would be absolutely disingenuous. It would be me selectively using tidbits of information while ignoring the bigger picture.

Like I said, I'll keep most of it for my debate with Joker so you shouldn't have troubled to put out this comment buddy. What is funny however is that your suddenly claiming that of entire 50 seconds fight only the length when they were continously clashing blades counts (your 7 seconds) while completely ignoring the rest of the fight because "she wasn't taking it seriously", well let me ask you this question: If Ahsoka could absolutely stomp the 7th Sister whenever she wants than why didn't she do it in the beginning of the fight or even in TotA?

Hilarious, Filoni's opinion doesn't matter (except when it wanks Kanan) and FPJ's only matters when it aligns with my opinion? Control your bias pls.

Aimed at me?

Do you see any other retarded Ezra fanboys on this thread?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Do you see any other retarded Ezra fanboys on this thread?

Really, I'm amazed with the level of intelligence you're always able to put up Beni. It isn't necessary to every time comment how great DMB/Joker's arguments are and to then call me 'retarded' and 'biased', I was merely pointing out why I took FPJ's comment about Ezra seriously.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Like I said, I'll keep most of it for my debate with Joker so you shouldn't have troubled to put out this comment buddy.

You then decided to call me out and imply some bitchey disingenuous subversive nature on my part for not replying to your argument in it's entirety and told me to actually address your argument in it's entirety so... guess what? You got what you demanded from me and I addressed your argument in its entirety.

Don't call me out for not responding to your argument in its entirety and ask me to respond to your argument in its entirety when you have no intention of responding to my response in its entirety, because not only does it come across as hypocritical, it's also you completely wasting my time.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
I was of course aiming at the fact that Ahsoka having two lightsabes isn't a reason she should suddenly defeat Ventress, something which isn't backed up by soures (the idea that her heaving two lightsabers would actually make her better) and even blantly contradicted when we look at her fight with Grievous in Season 5 contrary to FPJ's statement which is supported by sources, what we see onscreen and isn't contradicted anywhere.

And your arguing her Grievous fight disproves the possibility of Ahsoka being above Ventress when one could easily call Ventress's fight with Grievous circumstantial and point to Grievous's superior performances against individuals superior to Ventress as indicative of that fact.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Yeah I don't take very voice actor's opinion seriously but just pretending that it's black and white in this case is nonesenses, in your thinking process you can either accept or neglect a voice actors opinion. In this case I'm using FPJ's comments because it aligns with what we've seen in Rebels and he's talking about characters he's closely worked with, which is the exact same reason FPJ's top 3/4 comment should be neglected since he's using characters with who he has never worked wiand have nothing to do with the character he's voicing.

And as far as alignment goes, people have different interpretations of what happened within Rebels and what the implications of those events are, so it aligns specifically with your interpretation of Rebels.

Your statement that you generally don't take voice actor statements seriously, and that they're validated when they're proven correct pretty much invalidates them as selective evidence, since you already admit they're rather unreliable, and that the point has to be proven independent of the quote to validate it.

What you're trying to do is suggest that because you introduced an interpretation that aligns with his statement, that validates a statement that would otherwise carry no weight and allows you to use it to suggest that your interpretation is less contentious than you want it to be.

However since you blatantly stated such quotes are pretty untrustworthy and are only valid when proven, if someone can refute the validity of your interpretation on it's own (ie. without assuming the FPJ quote is valid), then that quote becomes invalid. All one has to do is disprove the notion that your interpretation can stand without the validity of that quote, and the quote becomes invalid.

Essentially, your argument has to stand on it's own two feet without that quote to prove that quote's validity, however if your argument stands on its own two feet without the quote then the addition of the quote does nothing because the point has already been proven, and if your argument doesn't stand on its own two feet then the quote also does nothing because it would in that case be invalid.

Basically, based on the nature of voice actor quotes and how sketchy they are, the FPJ quote adds nothing to your argument because it's only as valid or invalid as your argument is without the quote, and you asserting that quote as actual evidence is a disingenuous way of suggesting your argument is less challengeable than it actually is.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
What is funny however is that your suddenly claiming that of entire 50 seconds fight only the length when they were continously clashing blades counts (your 7 seconds) while completely ignoring the rest of the fight because "she wasn't taking it seriously", well let me ask you this question: If Ahsoka could absolutely stomp the 7th Sister whenever she wants than why didn't she do it in the beginning of the fight or even in TotA?

What is funny however is that you still think I have to prove Ahsoka can stomp the Seventh Sister... when she pretty blatantly and explicitly did so onscreen after purposefully disarming herself, and that you still think I have to prove Ahsoka wasn't taking that fight seriously... when she literally disarmed herself in the middle of martial combat. If a fight ends with one combatant literally disarming themselves and then immediately stomping their armed opponent while unarmed... it's very clear that the combatant can stomp their opponent and that they weren't taking their opponent very seriously.