SUPER FIGHT II - Darth Vader (The Ellimist) vs Revan (DarthAnt66)

Originally posted by Emperordmb
So you're saying you can't resist raping women when you see them on the street?

Originally posted by Stigma
🙂 I know, I know. But this pic is just to perfect. I polished it a bit 😉

Originally posted by Emperordmb
So you're saying Hitler did nothing wrong and that we should organize our societies along the line of the lobsters?

I'm a clinical memetologist, Cathy. The multi-varied analyses have been done. Lobsters are in. SJWs are out.

^ 👆 x 1000

Originally posted by Stigma
No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that lobsters should organize their society along the line of humans. Research has been done.

That was a serious dressing down of Vader.

OK, to articulate the "canon" policy DarthAnt66 and I seem to have agreed on privately:

For this debate the events and characters in Legends are treated as though they are real, and the events and characters in Canon are treated as an alternative universe. Canon events do not count as "real" unless if they also happen in Legends (but the Canon version is still not applicable). How we resolve different Legends sources is up for debate.

Barring DarthAnt66 disagreeing before my next post, this stands (not relevant to my next post, that deadline is just to prevent either of us from suddenly arguing for a different policy at the end or something).

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
- Each debater will have two full weeks to respond to the last debate post.

The deadline for the rebuttal is tomorrow, 2/21/2018, at 9:53 PM ET.

Aw, I was hoping he wouldn't notice. 🙂

Clarification after discussion with DarthAnt66:

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
- The final post made cannot introduce wholly original or new arguments.

Since Ant posts second, in my final post I still get to respond to Ant's third post. Ant, however, cannot produce new rebuttals to arguments I made in my third post in his final post, as he has an opportunity to do this in his third post.

The standard for "new argument" is either a new source or some concrete line of logical reasoning about a previous point that hadn't appeared earlier in the debate. Compositions or high-level framings of the discussion are OK (e.g. "I have multiple lines of scaling for this...Vader won on these points given..."😉, but anything that is not a product of organization or too low-level is not (e.g. "Vader is more powerful because this source suggests <new idea>"😉.

"I was not aware of such failure discussion."

For now, worry about meeting the deadline. We'll discuss the end later.

We discussed the third post - fourth post dynamics in hangouts and your reply to my clarification was "obviously.". The clarification re: definition of a new argument seems pretty self-evident to me and mirrors what is done in competitive debate and other avenues.

Regardless, if you have concerns, reach out to me in private.

So if Ant finds a new source that directly contradicts you, or thinks up a "concrete line of reasoning" that proves you wrong he can't post it in his final post?

I assume because you wouldn't be able to respond to it.

Originally posted by Nephthys

I assume because you wouldn't be able to respond to it.

👆

I'm down for changes to this rule if we can close this loophole.

Why not let the judges decide if its ok? If it actually disproved your argument it seems silly not to allow it. Otherwise you could make any ridiculous claim and he wouldn't be able to respond.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Otherwise you could make any ridiculous claim and he wouldn't be able to respond.

I'm confused. He is able to respond, just not originating from the final post.

You mean outside of the thread? I guess.

Good effort from both contributors so far but DarthAnt66's rebuttal impressed me more. Credit where due.

When an argument begins with the caption "Can Revan even hurt Vader?" - it is expected to be grounded in logical extremes. Ill-advised strategy, IMO.

A bunch of posts coming, please refrain from posting until I've clearly finished.