Darth Krayt and Darth Caedus vs Tulak Hord, Aloysius Kallig, Karness Muur

Started by carthage11 pages
Originally posted by ILS
Team 1 rapes.

What's Ant's basis for putting Hord over all the other Ancient Sith, again?

It's good for Revan wank.

Originally posted by Trocity
I'll take two of the greatest Sith Lords with established feats over the team that is primarily hype.

👆

Lol, team 2 e'rrytime

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
It's good for Revan wank.
How?

At best, you can make an argument for not believing Khem Val (which is stupid, because there are sources that back up his claims about Yn and Chabosh.)

The only source that should be up in the air is the Endar Spire feat, and even then, neither side can come up with shit.

Hord believers assume he did that because Khem Val said it, Hord non-believers believe he didn't because he was Khem Val's master, and he could be exaggerrating, however, neither side can actually say "That didn't happen".

It becomes a battle of assumptions that neither side can win, because neither side has proof.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
At best, you can make an argument for not believing Khem Val (which is stupid, because there are sources that back up his claims about Yn and Chabosh.)
There is:

>What Khem Val says
>What other sources say

They are not related. You can post them in this thread, side-by-side, for everyone including yourself to see, and they won't support each other.

The only source that should be up in the air is the Endar Spire feat, and even then, neither side can come up with shit.
Well on one hand, you want people to put their belief into something that doesn't have hard evidence. On the other hand, lots of people, in the absence of hard evidence, are choosing not to believe it. Guess which side is full of shit.
Hord believers assume he did that because Khem Val said it, Hord non-believers believe he didn't because he was Khem Val's master, and he could be exaggerrating, however, neither side can actually say "That didn't happen".
Hord "non-believers" make the case that there is no evidence to support it happening, not that it definitely didn't or couldn't happen.

If someone who survived the holocaust told you that Hitler was an alien lizard sent from Saturn to enslave and murder the human race, would you believe his eye-witness testimony simply because "you can't prove he's wrong, yo!"? No? Then why do you expect people to take Khem Val's word at face value?

Also, congratulations. You have stumbled upon a basic logical principle. Just like I can't prove Hord definitely didn't do everything Val said, you can't make a case for it happening to begin with. Sort of like how you can't prove cats aren't secretly running the world.

When you can prove cats aren't part of a shadowy elite pulling all of the strings from behind the scenes, you let me know.


It becomes a battle of assumptions that neither side can win, because neither side has proof.
The only side that needs proof is the one making the claim. Can you explain to me, in plain terms, why you think someone who hasn't made a claim has to provide evidence?

Originally posted by Jmanghan
At best, you can make an argument for not believing Khem Val (which is stupid, because there are sources that back up his claims about Yn and Chabosh.)

The only source that should be up in the air is the Endar Spire feat, and even then, neither side can come up with shit.

Hord believers assume he did that because Khem Val said it, Hord non-believers believe he didn't because he was Khem Val's master, and he could be exaggerrating, however, neither side can actually say "That didn't happen".

It becomes a battle of assumptions that neither side can win, because neither side has proof.


The Ant-Hord side wins, because YOU need to prove anything, lol.
That being said, the soloing of Jedi´s, likely with a army, isn´t necessarily better than what Raskta Lsu, Kyle Katan or Meetra Surik have done.

He didn't even do it solo. It's confirmed he had an army backing him.

Different battle.

So it is. Khem's word still shouldn't count for much.

They count for more than the opposition, which is nothing. An eye witness testimony is a better argument than "well maybe he didn't?" any day of the week.

Originally posted by ILS
There is:

>What Khem Val says
>What other sources say

They are not related. You can post them in this thread, side-by-side, for everyone including yourself to see, and they won't support each other.
Well on one hand, you want people to put their belief into something that doesn't have hard evidence. On the other hand, lots of people, in the absence of hard evidence, are choosing not to believe it. Guess which side is full of shit.
Hord "non-believers" make the case that there is no evidence to support it happening, not that it definitely didn't or couldn't happen.

If someone who survived the holocaust told you that Hitler was an alien lizard sent from Saturn to enslave and murder the human race, would you believe his eye-witness testimony simply because "you can't prove he's wrong, yo!"? No? Then why do you expect people to take Khem Val's word at face value?

Also, congratulations. You have stumbled upon a basic logical principle. Just like I can't prove Hord definitely didn't do everything Val said, you can't make a case for it happening to begin with. Sort of like how you can't prove cats aren't secretly running the world.

When you can prove cats aren't part of a shadowy elite pulling all of the strings from behind the scenes, you let me know.
The only side that needs proof is the one making the claim. Can you explain to me, in plain terms, why you think someone who hasn't made a claim has to provide evidence?

You're missing the point, which is, there ARE peoole saying that Hord should lose because there is no evidence to support him except eyewitness accounts.

So we should put him down because no one can PROVE he did those things? He should be weak and "featless" because a credible source (despite Khem Val being an eyewitness) hasn't come forward? No. Screw that.

Hitler being an Alien Wizard would be more probable in the SW Universe. You're comparing potatoes with carrots.

Our world isn't the world of SW.

In the argument against exaggeration, he's saying he saw it, whereas awhile back you quoted Anakin, who merely believes that Obi-Wan is that good. Khem Val claims to have seen it with his own two eyes.

But even without the eyewitness accounts, he has tons of accolades, and the defeat of Aloysius Kallig in single combat, who ragdolled Nox while he was way past his prime as a Sith Spirit.

Thats already crazy power right there, because he already had a few ghosts supporting him.

Anyway, the whole point of my argument is that people can't claim Hord isn't a powerhouse, or that he's weak just because they choose not to believe the hype and act like their word is law.

Meanwhile, you can still prove Hord is a powerhouse without Khem Val even thrown into the mix. #1 is beating Aloysius Kallig. #2 is Kreia and Avellone's quotes, among tons of other quotes claiming he's a legendary duelist. So now we have not 1, but 2 sources, one in-game and one that has position of authority irl in terms of SW.

Whether or not it was for the next game is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Nephthys
They count for more than the opposition, which is nothing. An eye witness testimony is a better argument than "well maybe he didn't?" any day of the week.

I witnessed a potato grow legs and walk. BELIEVE ME!

Originally posted by MythLord
I witnessed a potato grow legs and walk. BELIEVE ME!
Khem Val isn't listing some unbelievable thing like that though.

He has listed something that is certainly plausible in the world of Star Wars.

You saying that you watched a potato growing legs isn't in the realm of realism in our world.

Nor is ILS' with his whole holocaust analogy.

You're missing the point, which is, there ARE peoole saying that Hord should lose because there is no evidence to support him except eyewitness accounts.
"Should lose" is synonymous with "doesn't have enough evidence to win" in these kinds of debates. If you want to be super technical, you could say that we don't have enough data to make a decision.

It's the Hord camp which insists he does have the data, even though he doesn't.

So we should put him down because no one can PROVE he did those things? He should be weak and "featless" because a credible source (despite Khem Val being an eyewitness) hasn't come forward? No. Screw that.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Hitler being an Alien Wizard would be more probable in the SW Universe. You're comparing potatoes with carrots.

Our world isn't the world of SW.

Kind of missing the point. I'm challenging your logical premise by using it an example. If we can believe Khem Val on his word alone, we can believe just about anyone who is an eye-witness on their word alone. And you won't have to go very far on google to find plenty of "eye-witnesses" who make claims even Tulak Hord fans find outlandish.
In the argument against exaggeration, he's saying he saw it, whereas awhile back you quoted Anakin, who merely believes that Obi-Wan is that good. Khem Val claims to have seen it with his own two eyes.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
But even without the eyewitness accounts, he has tons of accolades, and the defeat of Aloysius Kallig in single combat, who ragdolled Nox while he was way past his prime as a Sith Spirit.
Which is nice, it really is, but it doesn't add any validity to Val's statement.
Meanwhile, you can still prove Hord is a powerhouse without Khem Val even thrown into the mix. #1 is beating Aloysius Kallig. #2 is Kreia and Avellone's quotes, among tons of other quotes claiming he's a legendary duelist. So now we have not 1, but 2 sources, one in-game and one that has position of authority irl in terms of SW.
I don't really care for the Kallig thing at the moment. As for Kreia/Avellone - Avellone has authority over Kreia, since he created her, but not characters outside of that realm. Did Avellone create Tulak?

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Khem Val isn't listing some unbelievable thing like that though.

He has listed something that is certainly plausible in the world of Star Wars.

You saying that you watched a potato growing legs isn't in the realm of realism in our world.

Nor is ILS' with his whole holocaust analogy.

Regardless of how believable you find something - and your personal feelings are irrelevant - it's still using exactly the same logic as you. And by not taking every single eye-witness on their word, you're being a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Khem Val isn't listing some unbelievable thing like that though.

He has listed something that is certainly plausible in the world of Star Wars.

You saying that you watched a potato growing legs isn't in the realm of realism in our world.

Nor is ILS' with his whole holocaust analogy.

What you consider believable is irrelevant. And maybe my religion entitles me to believe a potato can walk? What now? Will you believe me?

I grew up on a farm that was targeted for chemical and scientific experiments for the government. They tested some sh!t and one of the potatos just got up and walked out of there... I saw it. My eye-witness account holds as much weight as Khem Val's.

Potatos walk, and Hord slaughters thousands of Jedi. #trufactz

That's a ridiculous false equivalency. Absurdities can be dismissed easily and proven wrong, Khem's account cannot. Eye-witness testimony is good enough for court for deciding lives, it's good enough in an online debating forum.

Don't be a prat.