Originally posted by chingchangwalla
Since this isn't DD Vos, Obi-Wan wins. He has already defeated/contended with combatants of far greater power and skill than this trio (Maul and Savage on Florrum comes to mind)
This is not my debate and I won't get into a debate but how can people that aren't part of the Maul lowballers squad treat Kenobi vs Savage and Maul as legitimate?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Likely because it was legit, unsubstantiated excuses aside?
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
So Kenobi fending off the brothers and slicing off Savage's arm in a cave specifically noted to be small and obnoxious for the brothers to be fighting in, while only surviving through PIS and Maul's lack of killing intent, is legit? It's not any more legit than Ventress hanging with Anakin and Obi-Wan {and Force choking both}
simultaneously, bro. mmm
Just pointing out that Maul wanted to kill Kenobi (given he said your death will be beyond excruciating in Season 4 and I will crush the life out of you in Sith Hunters, not to mention you will not stand in my way earlier in the episode). He didn't want to kill him as of Mandalore, but he wanted to before.
Aside from that, 👆. Also, the amp Kbro failed to debunk.
Originally posted by thesithmaster
Just pointing out that Maul wanted to kill Kenobi (given he said your death will be beyond excruciating in Season 4 and I will crush the life out of you in Sith Hunters, not to mention you will not stand in my way earlier in the episode). He didn't want to kill him as of Mandalore, but he wanted to before.Aside from that, 👆. Also, the amp Kbro failed to debunk.
Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
So Kenobi fending off the brothers and slicing off Savage's arm in a cave specifically noted to be small and obnoxious for the brothers to be fighting in, while only surviving through PIS and Maul's lack of killing intent, is legit? It's not any more legit than Ventress hanging with Anakin and Obi-Wan {and Force choking both}
simultaneously, bro. mmm
A. Maul offers Kenobi an ultimatum so to surrender or die, one Kenobi rejects
B. Maul straight up swings to kill Kenobi when he thinks he's down
2. In the actual episode, which takes precedent over a novel based on incomplete scripts for said episode....
A. The was plenty of space
B. The brothers never got in each other's way
C. Each brother was perfectly capable of fitting in the space that was provided and utilized far more linear styles than Kenobi's ataru which Kenobi was able to perfectly exploit despite said style being terrible in crowded spaces.
3. PIS? So Kenobi was holistically intended to be capable of taking on both of the brothers? Noted 👆
4. Also, if you want to use contradictory parts of shadow conspiracy, a couple of things you should note:
A. In it's description of the 1 v 1 between Kenobi and Maul, it shows Kenobi edging Maul. This doesn't actually blatantly contradict the episode and shows that Kenobi, without even using empty mediation and fighting at his fullest is superior to Maul as a swordsman.
B. Kenobi, before using empty meditation(how he focuses himself) is able to simultaneously tk both maul and oppress
C. Maul attempts to, and fails to cheapshot-kill Kenobi
D. Maul blasting Kenobi is explicitly shown to be from a loss of control of his emotions where his eyes "boil with hate" and he's noted to have tapped into "animalistic rage" from the desperation of needing to save his brother.
E. Kenobi's offense is too fierce for the brothers to handle despite Kenobi being primarily a soresu user(note, it's explicitly stated he's less effective with Ataru)
F. Kenobi not being able to win with fighting defensively vs the brothers is solely attributed to not having sufficient stamina to deal with both simultaneously.
Whichever version of events you want to use, Kenobi comes out better.
The only circumstances here favoring Kenobi is access to a second blade which helped him against the duo, however this can't be used to excuse Maul individually who was clearly getting outfought despite help from his brother, and Kenobi being forced to use a secondary style.
Maul admittedly had hindered agility with his legs however this means little unless you're can prove that the difference in agility from the legs he gets from Visla makes up for his showcased inferiority+Kenobi's growth over almost a year which included the outer rim sieges up until ROTS.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Maul was fully intending to kill Kenobi here. Him wanting to do it slowly before is because he was in a position where he could make that choice. Kinda how Sidious chooses to kill Luke slowly in ROTJ. On Mandalore, the context of his statement, as well as the fact that taking said statement literally would be a contradiction of what he's twice said before, makes clear he meant, "I never wanted to kill you, when I lured you to Mandalore". I "never wanted to kill you" is a simpler way of saying that. That Maul is willing to kill Kenobi in their fights is made obvious by multiple things:A. Maul offers Kenobi an ultimatum so to surrender or die, one Kenobi rejects
B. Maul straight up swings to kill Kenobi when he thinks he's down
2. In the actual episode, which takes precedent over a novel based on incomplete scripts for said episode....
A. The was plenty of space
B. The brothers never got in each other's way
C. Each brother was perfectly capable of fitting in the space that was provided and utilized far more linear styles than Kenobi's ataru which Kenobi was able to perfectly exploit despite said style being terrible in crowded spaces.
3. PIS? So Kenobi was holistically intended to be capable of taking on both of the brothers? Noted 👆
4. Also, if you want to use contradictory parts of shadow conspiracy, a couple of things you should note:
A. In it's description of the 1 v 1 between Kenobi and Maul, it shows Kenobi edging Maul. This doesn't actually blatantly contradict the episode and shows that Kenobi, without even using empty mediation and fighting at his fullest is superior to Maul as a swordsman.
B. Kenobi, before using empty meditation(how he focuses himself) is able to simultaneously tk both maul and oppress
C. Maul attempts to, and fails to cheapshot-kill Kenobi
D. Maul blasting Kenobi is explicitly shown to be from a loss of control of his emotions where his eyes "boil with hate" and he's noted to have tapped into "animalistic rage" from the desperation of needing to save his brother.
E. Kenobi's offense is too fierce for the brothers to handle despite Kenobi being primarily a soresu user(note, it's explicitly stated he's less effective with Ataru)
F. Kenobi not being able to win with fighting defensively vs the brothers is solely attributed to not having sufficient stamina to deal with both simultaneously.
Whichever version of events you want to use, Kenobi comes out better.
The only circumstances here favoring Kenobi is access to a second blade which helped him against the duo, however this can't be used to excuse Maul individually who was clearly getting outfought despite help from his brother, and Kenobi being forced to use a secondary style.
Maul admittedly had hindered agility with his legs however this means little unless you're can prove that the difference in agility from the legs he gets from Visla makes up for his showcased inferiority+Kenobi's growth over almost a year which included the outer rim sieges up until ROTS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvej02mP1NM&t=1m17s
>Maul: ''I never planned on killing you, but I will make you share my pain, Kenobi''.
>Never
>Never
>Never
adverb
1.
not ever; at no time:
Such an idea never occurred to me.
2.
not at all; absolutely not:
never mind; This will never do.
3.
to no extent or degree:
He was never the wiser for his experience.
adverb
1.
not ever; at no time:
Such an idea never occurred to me.
2.
not at all; absolutely not:
never mind; This will never do.
3.
to no extent or degree:
He was never the wiser for his experience.
Never doesn't mean ''well, at one point I did, but not anymore'', broski. It clearly means at no point ever.
Originally posted by ChocolateMueslihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvej02mP1NM&t=1m17s
>Maul: ''I never planned on killing you, but I will make you share my pain, Kenobi''.
>Never
>Never
>Never
Never doesn't mean ''well, at one point I did, but not anymore'', broski. It clearly means at no point ever.
And on Flrorrum he tried to kill Kenobi tried to cut him in half after tking him.
And if we cherrypick contradictory parts of the novel as you are, Maul explicitly tries to cheap shot-kill him.
For the sake of this thread though, let's not go any further
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Do you not understand conversation? No, "I never wanted to kill you' can refer to a certain time period in conversation.
adverb
1.
not ever; at no time:
Such an idea never occurred to me.
2.
not at all; absolutely not:
never mind; This will never do.
3.
to no extent or degree:
He was never the wiser for his experience.
If I say "I always loved you", does that necessarily mean I literally always loved you, as in there was never a point of time in your existence when I didn't love you?
And generally speaking, when you can only respond to a sentence of what another person is saying, it's likely because you don't have a response for the entirety of their post.
And unsurprisingly you can only avoid responding to me pointing out Maul trying to kill him directly in a fight, Maul offering Kenobi an ultimatum between surrender or death, or Maul explicitly stating he wants Kenobi dead.
Your inability to grasp that normal conversation takes liberties with the use of words and that people often use words in a way that deviate from their dictionary definitions is amusing though.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If I say "I always loved you", does that necessarily mean I literally always loved you, as in there was never a point of time in your existence when I didn't love you?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And generally speaking, when you can only respond to a sentence of what another person is saying, it's likely because you don't have a response for the entirety of their post.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
For the sake of this thread though, let's not go any further
mmm
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And unsurprisingly you can only avoid responding to me pointing out Maul trying to kill him directly in a fight, Maul offering Kenobi an ultimatum between surrender or death, or Maul explicitly stating he wants Kenobi dead.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Your inability to grasp that normal conversation takes liberties with the use of words and that people often use words in a way that deviate from their dictionary definitions is amusing though.
Maul's pointed out three times at least that he wanted Kenobi to die a slow, painful death. That he then tells Kenobi that he never intended to kill him but wanted him to share his pain, which he (to an extent) does by killing Satine, seals the deal. Anything else is denying the evidence, brotha.
Originally posted by twotter
"I never planned on killing you, but I will make you share my pain, Kenobi''.- implies that he never planned on killing him after his 10 yr languish (the "pain" mentioned here)
Kbro, you're just the gift that keeps on giving.