Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Alright, the setting is on the planet of Caluula.
The environment is a wide Field with short grass and a few trees here and there.

Darth Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith stands approx. ten feet away from three Yuuzhan Vong Slayers who stand approx. five feet away from each other.

The Slayers get the jump on Palpatine, running at him from different directions, Amphistaffs ready to kill.


In this fight, anything goes, Force, lightsaber, and Amphistaff are all used to their full.


The victor?

The Vong. They gave the New Jedi Order hell. So I think Sidious goes down.

Jaina Solo was able to beat seven, and Sidious is a much better swordsman than her.

Change your opinion?

Originally posted by Battlemaster
Jaina Solo was able to beat seven, and Sidious is a much better swordsman than her.

Change your opinion?

I can't do that. The Vong win. Jaina jobs a lot.

Jobs a lot?

Originally posted by Battlemaster
Jobs a lot?

Jaina does. I like Jaina, she'll make an excellent Jedi Master one day, but for now, she just simply jobs to people who she should beat.

Forgive me, but I don't understand what you mean, could you clarify?

"Jobs to people she should beat?"

I suppose you don't watch wrestling, then? It's someone who loses to the opponent in an effort to make them look better (in Lord Sidious' case, he's referring to that in terms of how the authors make Jaina lose).

Mostly just Tae Kwon Do and Gymnastics for me.

But Advent, I've seen you alot on these threads and you seem to be a really good debator.
Also the only other girl on here besides me.

What do you think of this fights outcome?

Jaina never beat seven Slayers.

Sidious should take this with some major difficulty.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Jaina never beat seven Slayers.

Sidious should take this with some major difficulty.

How? The slayers are force resistant, and I doubt ROTS Sidious is good enough to slash all 7 of them without dying, especially due to their regeneration armor.

Just because Sidious can't Force Push one of them doesn't mean that he couldn't kill them with objects like he attempted to do to Yoda in ROTS.

Yeah. as dumb as it would look, he could hop on a tree and fly around on it, throwing debris until he did enough damage that he could hop down and beat them in melee.

Originally posted by jollyjim311
Yeah. as dumb as it would look, he could hop on a tree and fly around on it, throwing debris until he did enough damage that he could hop down and beat them in melee.


LOL.

You do forget that Sidious is a Dark Lord of the Sith.

The the universe of Star Wars, Dark Lords are pretty much the most powerful warriors around, with a few exceptions from time to time.

I say Sidious would hack through the Slayers with his Force augmented strikes just like Luke and Jacen did.

And Even If he wasn't using his lightsaber for whatever reason, he could just pick up some of the trees and hurl them at the vong, like Jim said.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Jaina never beat seven Slayers.

Sidious should take this with some major difficulty.


By the way, your right. On both accounts.

Jaina only fought four Slayers, I forgot that it was seven that fought Luke and Jacen.

But, seeing as Jaina was able to take on and kill one more than Sidious in this challenge, I agree that Sidious takes this with some difficulty.

Sidious killed Agen, Seasse and Kit in seconds. I realize there are a lot more variables in this fight that go against Sidious (like their armor/skin, and the loss of precog), but it does say a lot for Sidious, I'll give it to him.

Also, there is the tree-throwing.

Originally posted by Battlemaster
You do forget that Sidious is a Dark Lord of the Sith.

The the universe of Star Wars, Dark Lords are pretty much the most powerful warriors around, with a few exceptions from time to time.

I say Sidious would hack through the Slayers with his Force augmented strikes just like Luke and Jacen did.

And Even If he wasn't using his lightsaber for whatever reason, he could just pick up some of the trees and hurl them at the vong, like Jim said.

Being a DLOTS isn't necessarily synonymous with uber powerful. Don't forget that in Bane's lineage, both were called DLOTS, no matter how powerful they were. Maul was a DLOTS and he couldn't stand up to people like Yoda or Mace. Not to mention nobody other than Luke and the NJO know how to fight the Vong.

Hmm... difficult to say, i think it could go either way. As darth sexy said, only the NJO know how to fight the Vong and SEVEN SLAYERS acrually IS a very tough one to win, but Sidious could use the Force to throw objects to them, since they're not affected directly.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Being a DLOTS isn't necessarily synonymous with uber powerful. Don't forget that in Bane's lineage, both were called DLOTS, no matter how powerful they were. Maul was a DLOTS and he couldn't stand up to people like Yoda or Mace. Not to mention nobody other than Luke and the NJO know how to fight the Vong.

True, but Bane wasn't an original type of Dark Lord, like Ragnos.
You know, trained since birth as a Sith by true Sith.

And Darth Maul was not a Dark Lord.
In the Rule of Two, one is a Dark Lord and the other a Sith Lord.

Maul was the Sith Lord and the apprentice.
His Master, Sidious was the Dark Lord.

And even If Luke and the other NJO people were properly prepared to fight the Vong, Sidious' enhanced speed and reflexes and considerable intelligence would give give him a window of opportunity to figure out a method of killing them.

No, both were actually Dark Lords.

Originally posted by allfg
No, both were actually Dark Lords.

No, that's retarded. One was the Dark Lord of the Sith and the other was a Sith Lord and his apprentice.

Here, I'll expand your mind.


Source for the knowledge that there is only one Dark Lord and then a Sith Lord to serve and learn under him.

Excerpts from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction
Page 240 .

"If all are equal, then none is strong..." Translation: There cannot be more than one Dark Lord at a time, there must be one to hold the title of true Sith Master, and the other(A regular Sith Lord)to crave it.

"If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle." I.E. The mantle of Dark Lord .

"...In the end however, there could only be one true Sith Master(Dark Lord). And to serve this Master, there could only be one true apprentice. "(Of conventional Sith Lord status).



And now, the final and most compelling source for reason there is only ONE Dark Lord.
From the pages of Darth Bane: Path of Destruction .
Page 236

"There is also the reason there can be only one Dark Lord .
The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the Dark side.
If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle . The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be ."


Revelation?
That was the Rule of Two.

If POD was good for anything, It was to help cement that concept, so there could be no misunderstanding or denying the fact that has been presented before you.

Who mentioned Bane? Looks like someone is jumping to conclusions. Sidious pretty much destroyed most of the sith tradition and built it around himself. Yes, the rule of two was still intact, and yes, there was one master and one apprentice, however by Sidious' rule, both were known as Dark Lords. Why? Maybe Sidious was stroking Maul's ego, who cares? I would provide a source and quite, but I can't be arsed, and it doesn't mean that much to me, just go and ask anyone.

Originally posted by allfg
Who mentioned Bane? Looks like someone is jumping to conclusions. Sidious pretty much destroyed most of the sith tradition and built it around himself. Yes, the rule of two was still intact, and yes, there was one master and one apprentice, however by Sidious' rule, both were known as Dark Lords. Why? Maybe Sidious was stroking Maul's ego, who cares? I would provide a source and quite, but I can't be arsed, and it doesn't mean that much to me, just go and ask anyone.


You can't deny the canonical source I just provided.

Sidious was following the Rule of Two laid down by Darth Bane himself faithfully.

This latest set of evidence is canonical proof there is only one Dark Lord at a time.

Maul was a Sith Lord.
Not a Dark Lord.

And I don't care if you can't be bothered to argue with it.
Your the one who's wrong.

Maul was not a Dark Lord.
Sidious was.
Go ahead, argue with canon.

Look, go and ask Darth Sexy here. He like holds some sort of online vendetta against me lol, so you know if he backs me up it's because it's true.

Canon is canon.

No one can back your argument up.

Battlemaster, in Bane's lineage both the master and apprentice were considered DLOTS. Obviously this means little because it waters down the title of DLOTS, but that's how it goes.

Here, I'll show you it again...


Source for the knowledge that there is only one Dark Lord and then a Sith Lord to serve and learn under him.

Excerpts from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction
Page 240 .

"If all are equal, then none is strong..." Translation: There cannot be more than one Dark Lord at a time, there must be one to hold the title of true Sith Master, and the other(A regular Sith Lord)to crave it.

"If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle." I.E. The mantle of Dark Lord .

"...In the end however, there could only be one true Sith Master (Dark Lord). And to serve this Master, there could only be one true apprentice. " (Of conventional Sith Lord status).



And now, the final and most compelling source for reason there is only ONE Dark Lord.
From the pages of Darth Bane: Path of Destruction .
Page 236

"There is also the reason there can be only one Dark Lord .
The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the Dark side.
If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle . The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be ."


Revelation?
That was the Rule of Two.

If POD was good for anything, It was to help cement that concept, so there could be no misunderstanding or denying the fact that has been presented before you.

The final articles are lay out the facts.

There is only one Dark Lord at a time.

This is the most recent work describing these facts as well, and they are of course, completely canonical.

From The Dark Side Sourcebook, page 86:

'Anger and hatred welled up in Maul, and he
drew renewed strength from the dark side. Hurling
himself at Darth Sidious, he nearly bested his
master with a flurry of deadly lightsaber blows.
Sidious barely deflected them all. Eventually Maul
spent his fury, and Darth Sidious still stood. Maul
prepared himself for death-but Sidious only laughed.
By giving in to his rage and hatred to kill his own
master-by wanting to kill his own master-Maul had
in fact passed the final test. Now he was a Sith
Lord - Darth Maul, Dark Lord of the Sith.'

From the pages of Darth Bane: Path of Destruction .
Page 236

"There is also the reason there can be only one Dark Lord .
The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the Dark side.
If the leader grows weak, another must rise to seize the mantle . The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be ."

Darth Sidious was the only Dark Lord during Maul's time.
I guess whoever wrote that Maul was a Dark Lord defied common canon because he didn't know what a Dark Lord was.

This latest work set all that straight.

Besides, If Maul had been a real Dark Lord, he would have batted Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan aside without even breaking a sweat.

But, he was not a Dark Lord, his Master was.
He was just a Sith Lord.

I have to leave for Tae Kwon Do practice now.

If you need to look more closely at what I've shown you, read POD, then think long and hard about it.

Bye.

Battlemaster you're wrong. Maybe that was the original intention of Bane and his order, but by the time of Plagueis, and maybe even before him, there was a master and an apprentice and both were considered DLOTS..

Woo, i think i am going to have a heart attack, Darth Sexy and allfg agreeing on something, pinch me, i must be dreaming.

Both Nebaris and Darth Sexy are correct; after Bane, both Sith Lords are referred to as "Dark Lords of the Sith". The only titular difference between Sidious and Maul, Sidious and Dooku, and Sidious and Vader is "Sith master" and "Sith apprentice". But both are, indeed, Dark Lords of the Sith and Sith Lords.

I thought about what to say to this, but to be honest, I guess there isn't much to say.

I feel bad that some of the people I debate with don't seem to know everything about their subject.

And I think Its sad that you refuse to see the truth. Even when a Canon source shows it.

There is only one Dark Lord at a time. If anyone else said Maul was a Dark Lord, it was obviously a comic book writer that didn't know what a Dark Lord really was and thought it would be cool to call Maul one.

Dark Lord is as much a title of power and skill as it is of actual rank.
All true Dark Lords(Not knockoffs) have had the ability to kill at least a handful of averagely skilled Jedi Masters.
No Dark Lord would ever be beaten by a Padawan, regardless of how much natural talent he possessed or how lucky he got.
A Sith Lord would though.

Also, If both Sith were Dark Lords then there would be no mantle for Maul, Vader or Dooku to seek to claim, since they already possessed it.

Simply put, there is only one Dark Lord.
I've known this for years, even before Path of Destruction came out.
Since it has though, It finally created a Canon source for this factual knowledge.

If you still haven't come to grips with this knowledge yet, don't worry, you eventually will.

I normally know things that 99% of other SW fans won't know about or figure out until at least a few years later.

A good example is how Form I Shii-Cho was taught to all Initiates first, and how Makashi users use it to defend against blaster-bolts since Makashi can't.

There was initially argument and disbelief and confusion and people said I was wrong. Then a few years pass and they find out I was right all along.

You guys will see the truth soon, don't worry.

Lol. Battlemaster's funny.

Funny, I was always under the impression that the Sith Master was the Dark Lord of the Sith and all the other Sith below them were simply referred to as Sith Lord's...Oh well, I'm not really concerned with it all that much.

Battlemaster, though I agree with you (but not with all the points your making). Self praise doesn't make you seem cool, just to let you know. It kinda makes you seem like you are just dumb as opposed to actually knowing what your talking about. Anyways, just saying.

Actually, Battlemaster, you're quite wrong. You have a single canon source dictating that there is "only one Dark Lord", but let's put things into perspective: that single source is Path of Destruction, and the passage you cited makes reference to Darth Bane's plans and intent for the Rule of Two. It doesn't have any bearing on what Sidious or Maul called themselves, as Bane was long dead before either of them were born.

On the other hand, Darth Sexy and Nebaris have also given you canon sources dictating that even the Sith apprentices were called "Dark Lord of the Sith". In fact, if you'd like to get technical, the dozens of novels that span the OT area always refer to Darth Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith" by the omniscient narrator - and yet Vader was still the Emperor's apprentice at the time.

So, we have dozens of sources and a sourcebook dictating that both the apprentice and master were called "Dark Lords" as opposed to your single source.

The evidence is vastly in our favor, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.

Originally posted by Gideon
Actually, Battlemaster, you're quite wrong. You have a single canon source dictating that there is "only one Dark Lord", but let's put things into perspective: that single source is Path of Destruction, and the passage you cited makes reference to Darth Bane's plans and intent for the Rule of Two. It doesn't have any bearing on what Sidious or Maul called themselves, as Bane was long dead before either of them were born.

On the other hand, Darth Sexy and Nebaris have also given you canon sources dictating that even the Sith apprentices were called "Dark Lord of the Sith". In fact, if you'd like to get technical, the dozens of novels that span the OT area always refer to Darth Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith" by the omniscient narrator - and yet Vader was still the Emperor's apprentice at the time.

So, we have dozens of sources and a sourcebook dictating that both the apprentice and master were called "Dark Lords" as opposed to your single source.

The evidence is vastly in our favor, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.

Its funny, now that I think about it your right I can recall a few times with the Sith apprentice being called a DLOTS but I never took it as the same. Even around here when we refer to the DLOTS we usually mean it to refer to the DLOTS, meaning the top guy. Normally though most Sith are just referred to in passing as "Sith Lord's" so its really hard to compile anything. Personally I only ever use the term "DLOTS" to refer to the Dark Lord, and all other Sith I just call Sith Lords. But it is true Vader is often called a DLOTS.

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Its funny, now that I think about it your right I can recall a few times with the Sith apprentice being called a DLOTS but I never took it as the same. Even around here when we refer to the DLOTS we usually mean it to refer to the DLOTS, meaning the top guy. Normally though most Sith are just referred to in passing as "Sith Lord's" so its really hard to compile anything. Personally I only ever use the term "DLOTS" to refer to the Dark Lord, and all other Sith I just call Sith Lords.

I think the expression was popularized of entitling both Sith Lords as "Dark Lord of the Sith" when Palpatine was active; but Maul, Dooku, and Vader have all, often, been referred to as the "Dark Lord of the Sith". Sidious is obviously more powerful than all three of them, and the Sith Master, but they share the "Sith Lord" and DLotS titles.

Originally posted by Gideon
I think the expression was popularized of entitling both Sith Lords as "Dark Lord of the Sith" when Palpatine was active; but Maul, Dooku, and Vader have all, often, been referred to as the "Dark Lord of the Sith". Sidious is obviously more powerful than all three of them, and the Sith Master, but they share the "Sith Lord" and DLotS titles.

True enough. I never really put much thought into it though and I dont really ever intend too. lol

Originally posted by Gideon
Actually, Battlemaster, you're quite wrong. You have a single canon source dictating that there is "only one Dark Lord", but let's put things into perspective: that single source is Path of Destruction, and the passage you cited makes reference to Darth Bane's plans and intent for the Rule of Two. It doesn't have any bearing on what Sidious or Maul called themselves, as Bane was long dead before either of them were born.

On the other hand, Darth Sexy and Nebaris have also given you canon sources dictating that even the Sith apprentices were called "Dark Lord of the Sith". In fact, if you'd like to get technical, the dozens of novels that span the OT area always refer to Darth Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith" by the omniscient narrator - and yet Vader was still the Emperor's apprentice at the time.

So, we have dozens of sources and a sourcebook dictating that both the apprentice and master were called "Dark Lords" as opposed to your single source.

The evidence is vastly in our favor, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Period.

Guess you don't.
In the OT movies the word "Dark Lord" was never mentioned.
Many people assumed it was just the regular title of the Sith and not a singular leadership position.
And just to refresh your memory, Bane's interpretation of the Rule of Two (Which he completely agreed with and practiced to its every nuance) was the same method that Sidious utilised in his reign.

Gideon, you seriously need to re-learn your knowledge of the Sith.

And no, Sith Master was a title cooked up by the Brotherhood, and Bane saw how retarded they were, since they decided to make all the Sith Dark Lords.

It would be like making everyone in the Senate a President.

But then again, I guess that's alright, isn't it?

Originally posted by Gideon
but they share the "Sith Lord" and DLotS titles.

Sith don't share anything.

Especially power.

Also, remember that in the rule of two, the apprentice will have to usurp the Mantle of their master.

The Mantle of Dark Lord.

Remember there are many people out there that don't know the difference between a Dark Lord and a Sith Lord.
I'd bet hundreds of dollars alot of the Comic Book writers and especially the early novel writers didn't.

They probally never thought about it either.
But thats what helped to create this retarded inconsistancy, which Path of Destruction helped to destroy.

Originally posted by Battlemaster



Or, thinking about it more closely, It would be like making a prince a King just like his father and having two Kings ruling the same Kingdom.

Royalty of that kind works on total power and control.

The Sith work in the very same way. They don't share any kind of power.

Use the edit button please.

What would you like me to edit?

You seem so confident and sure of yourself, and yet this very simple logic is apparently beyond your capacity to understand, so let me try to "enlighten" you one final time. Then, someone else - like Nebaris or Darth Sexy - can take up the reigns and argue. They won't be nearly as patient as I will be.

a.) Bane's plans for the Rule of Two do not necessarily apply. Why? Because Bane himself was dead before Sidious or Maul were ever conceived; thus, his quotes do not apply, as simply because Bane said that "this is the way the Sith shall be" doesn't mean that Palpatine actually executed it, verbatim.



I never claimed that the movies mentioned them, now did I? I said that the "novels that span the OT" always referred to Darth Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith". If you think I'm bluffing or lying, pick up a book like Shadows of the Empire or The Mandalorian Armor which describe Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith".



Yeah, it's obvious you have no idea in regards to what the hell you're talking about. Sith "master" and Sith "apprentice" are titles that have been used to describe the relationship between the two Sith Lords in the entire SW continuity. I don't recall Vader asking Sidious: "what is thy bidding, boss man?".

Sidious is the Sith "Master". Vader is the Sith "Apprentice". Both are Sith Lords. Both are Dark Lords of the Sith.

Quit arguing, 'cuz you're very, very wrong.

Edit: He means that if you have something to add or post five minutes after you've completed another post, simply edit the previous post and add it in. You've made five posts in a row.

Originally posted by Battlemaster
What would you like me to edit?


Nothing now, but it would be good if you instead of making 3 other posts just edited and put it in your first, so it doesn't take to much space. Not saying this to be mean, and not saying it because I care about who does what in a forum, but because you could get a warning from the mods, which could be easily avoided.

Originally posted by Gideon
You seem so confident and sure of yourself, and yet this very simple logic is apparently beyond your capacity to understand, so let me try to "enlighten" you one final time. Then, someone else - like Nebaris or Darth Sexy - can take up the reigns and argue. They won't be nearly as patient as I will be.

Yeah, Im confident because Im right.
And your going to "enlighten" me? You can't do that If your wrong.
Great, Nebaris? I've heard good things about him...
Darth Sexy is a great debator and I'd be honored to take him on, but I don't feel the same way about you.

a.) Bane's plans for the Rule of Two do not necessarily apply. Why? Because Bane himself was dead before Sidious or Maul were ever conceived; thus, his quotes do not apply, as simply because Bane said that "this is the way the Sith shall be" doesn't mean that Palpatine actually executed it, verbatim.

Duh Bane was dead before Sdious was around. That generally happens with old age.
And Bane agreed with Revan's rule of two and taught it to Zannah who taught it down the line until it ended with Sidious.
Thus being two Sith.

I never claimed that the movies mentioned them, now did I? I said that the "novels that span the OT" always referred to Darth Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith". If you think I'm bluffing or lying, pick up a book like Shadows of the Empire or The Mandalorian Armor which describe Vader as "the Dark Lord of the Sith".

I know your not bluffing. Im pretty sure I've read more SW book than you ever have.
My point was that the people who wrote those books probally didn't really think about what a Dark Lord actually was, they just thought it made Vader sound powerful and cool.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have gotten to this ridiculous inconsistency.

Yeah, it's obvious you have no idea in regards to what the hell you're talking about. Sith "master" and Sith "apprentice" are titles that have been used to describe the relationship between the two Sith Lords in the entire SW continuity. I don't recall Vader asking Sidious: "what is thy bidding, boss man?".

The term "Sith Master" itself is never officially applied in SW(Amongst true Sith).
And Duh, Vader says, "What is thy bidding my Master?"
Instead of,
"What is thy bidding my Sith Master?"

Sidious is the Sith "Master". Vader is the Sith "Apprentice". Both are Sith Lords. Both are Dark Lords of the Sith.

Sidious is the Master and leader of the Sith.
Vader is the student and follower.


Both are not Dark Lords.

Sith don't share power.


Quit arguing, 'cuz you're very, very wrong.

Your as wrong as your grammar.

Edit: He means that if you have something to add or post five minutes after you've completed another post, simply edit the previous post and add it in. You've made five posts in a row.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm confident because I'm right.
And your going to "enlighten" me? You can't do that If your wrong.
Great, Nebaris? I've heard good things about him...
Darth Sexy is a great debater and I'd be honored to take him on, but I don't feel the same way about you.


Duh Bane was dead before Sidious was around. That generally happens with old age.
And Bane agreed with Revan's rule of two and taught it to Zannah who taught it down the line until it ended with Sidious.
Thus being two Sith.


I know your not bluffing. I'm pretty sure I've read more SW book than you ever have.
My point was that the people who wrote those books probably didn't really think about what a Dark Lord actually was, they just thought it made Vader sound powerful and cool.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have gotten to this ridiculous inconsistency.


The term "Sith Master" itself is never officially applied in SW(Amongst true Sith).
And Duh, Vader says, "What is thy bidding my Master?"
Instead of,
"What is thy bidding my Sith Master?"


Sidious is the Master and leader of the Sith.
Vader is the student and follower.


Both are not Dark Lords.

Sith don't share power.


Your as wrong as your grammar.


Thank you.

I thought I should do it that way so you don't get confused.

Try "deluded".



Then, I suppose it's fortunate that I'm not.



Annoying at times, yes, but capable of creating a persistent argument.



Yes, he's very underrated as a debater.



I'm sorry, did I seem like I genuinely cared about your opinion? Furthermore, there is only one person and one person alone who impresses me as a debater, so it isn't you, and thus I can say to you that the feeling is mutual.



Actually, that genuinely happens when you're a.) human and b.) likely assassinated or killed by a Jedi.



You are a sentient library of Star Wars knowledge. Thank you for telling me something that... well, is common knowledge.



Skilled mathematician, aren't you?



Clairvoyant as well, it seems. Good to know that you're aware of just how many Star Wars books I've read in comparison with the total that you've read.



Ah, well, here's the kicker(s):

a.) You can't interpret what an author was thinking. So, to say that "well, they probably just thought it made Vader sound powerful and cool" means crap. It's not your place to decide the intent of an author, so quit pretending like your opinion actually means something.

b.) The title "Dark Lord of the Sith" was still attributed to Vader on numerous occasions, and in numerous books. That is concrete, and you can't refute it.



It isn't an inconsistency.



I'm sorry, are you learning disabled? "Master" and "apprentice" are two titles given to the Sith. I said that Sidious was the Sith Master because (and pay attention, this might confuse you) he is a Sith and he is a Master.

I probably just rocked your world.



Well, thanks Lieutenant Obvious. Working on your way to captain, I see.



Both are, I'm afraid.



They share titles, or is "Sith Lord" exclusive to masters only, too?



Right.

I think you mean "you're as wrong as your grammar". 'You're' is a contraction for "you are".



You're (notice the spelling) welcome.

I believe the Vong win. The Vong gave NJO Luke and Jacen Solo hell, so I don't think that I would believe Sidious would win.

You'd know all about that.



Yes it is.



He's a retard. Everyone knows it.



He'd kick your butt any day of the week.



I love you too.



Duh? lol


Your welcome



More skilled than you.



I know because you sound dumb.




True that, but the fact I've presented means more than your mongoloid opinion.


Yeah, and I was making a point of how most of the people, most likely didn't know exactly what it was.


What Path of Destruction says is completely consistant with the rest of the SW Universe?
Wow, news to me.


No, but I can see you are, amongst other things.

You claimed Sith Master was a title, not just Master. Genius.


Heh, you could never rock my world, pal.



Yup, and I already salute to you, General. tank


You are afraid. Afraid Im right.


Dark Lord is the central title of leadership for the Sith.

Sith do not share leadership. Bane saw that.

Sith Lord by the way, is the common high ranking for a Sith, like Jedi Master for Jedi.

Exactly.


Thank you, General Obvious, Sir! w00t


Thank you. Hehe

Go back and quote me each time. I don't want to have to correspond your rebuttles with my own.

If your a good enough debater, you'll manage with what I've given you.

But If you can't handle it...go on, run away.

Originally posted by Battlemaster
If your a good enough debater, you'll manage with what I've given you.

But If you can't handle it...go on, run away.

Pointless.

a.) It's 'you're' not 'your'. 'You're' is a contraction for 'you are'. So, this way, it says "if you are a good enough debater, you'll manage with what I've given you." Your version, 'your' is possessive. It makes no sense and isn't fluid.

Really, didn't you insult my grammar?



b.) It makes your rebuttle more organized if you quote the parts my argument that you are responding to. Just making a list of replies makes things lack organization and they don't correspond. I might address the wrong statement.

LOL, is that all you can rebuttal against for now?

Originally posted by Battlemaster
LOL, is that all you can rebuttal against for now?

You are an amazing example of human ignorance. Perhaps you should volunteer yourself to scientific study, so that we might discover the true limits of stupidity. I'm certain that they might even compensate you for your time.

So, I'll get to responding. In the meantime, don't try to correct my grammar. You've looked incredibly stupid (twice) trying to.

Lol, Its not only your grammar I have to correct...

I don't think I can possibly look any stupider than you! wink3

Kay' I'll wait...

From an observational standpoint, yes, watching you try to debate has made me absolutely familiar with the level of ignorance a human can exhibit.



Wow, so you're agreeing that I'm right, and it is fortunate that I am? Thanks...



He can act retarded. But, is he all the time? No. He doesn't live or function as a retard (acting and functioning are two different things). You seem to do both, though.



Not that it matters, and I'm sure he's pleased that you highlight his debating skills, but has - and would still likely be - the first one to disagree with you there.



You didn't understand me, did you? I suppose I'll have to learn to speak Stupid. Don't suppose you could tutor me?



Glad that we agree.



My dear, if you're going to correct or insult someone's grammar, be sure that you are naturally skilled with the English language.

"You're welcome". You're = contraction for 'you are'. 'Your' is possessive and makes no sense.

This is the third time I've corrected you.



Right.



Again, not that it matters, but everyone else on this thread - including Darth Sexy - has agreed with me. "Sounding dumb" isn't something that I do.



You actually have presented nothing but an unsupported opinion. My opinion is reinforced by facts from multiple sources. You have one source and it doesn't even apply.



You failed to make that point, and your opinion is irrelevent. The idea of the Sith was around when those authors wrote the novels in question; they knew what a "Dark Lord of the Sith" was.



No, the sources I have cited aren't an inconsistency. The Path of Destruction book is an inconsistency, because it contradicts dozens of previous sources, and it doesn't apply, because Bane was not present during Sidious's rise to power. Thus, if he decided to give Maul the title of "Dark Lord of the Sith", it isn't dependant on Bane.



I live in the real world. In the real world (this one), people are agreeing with me, not you. I've corrected you three times. Reading comprehension isn't something you excell in.



"Sith Master" = Sidious is a Sith and he is a Master. Thus, he is a Sith Master.



If you say so.



The prize for "Biggest Nonsensical Statement" is clearly in your favor, with this...



...and this statement, too.



No. In Sidious's case, it is the title of both Sith Lords.



What Bane saw is irrelevent.



Gee, thanks for this update.



Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.



Sweetheart, I corrected you, when you made an insult. This doesn't warrant a "General Obvious" comment when I proved you wrong. Witty retorts aren't your thing, I see.



Right...

Again, you don't understand. You insulted my grammar; you did not correct it. I corrected your grammar three times, and that means you're nothing special (nor are you superior to me) when it comes to grammar.



Well, what a "stupid" person thinks isn't much, now is it? You're proving that to us every second.

Battlemaster, I'm not responding to that at all until you learn to use the quote function properly. You've slapped in your rebuttles with my remarks, and expect me to sort them out? Hardly. Take the time to go back and quote.

Once I get back - if you've performed properly - I'll respond. Until then, this discussion is over.

Edit: And if you continue to act ridiculously illogical and not actually respond to my statements other than with a "LOL", don't espect a response.

Originally posted by Gideon


Now I've corrected yours...Professor! LOL!!!



Or, is it that your proving it every second?

By the way, bravo for spelling second properly. clapping

I see your taking a while to shake off your embarrassment.

I'll come back tomorrow to check on you and feed you more of your own silly words.

Actually, I understood perfectly. I simply made a wittier retort.



For future reference, this is the Internet. Emotion can be extremely difficult to trace, considering how we're not in person, thus, I cannot interpret inflections in your voice or attitude via vague text on a screen.



How witty. Please, we both know that I am far from being retarded.



No, I can all but guarentee it.



You call Nebaris a retard? Even he could come up with much funnier and wittier retorts than this.



I have already addressed "sarcasm" and detecting it.



To be fair, you insulted my grammar first. I simply corrected you.



I would give a sarcastic "how witty", but, frankly, but it's getting repetitive.



Perhaps you should just stick to the argument instead of trying to deliver witty remarks.

"You think you're correcting me", by the way.



Yeah, I think you should stick to the argument.



What an earthshaking response.



You're not George Lucas. You do not determine "what is correct" and "what is not correct". I have a multitude of sources as opposed to your singular source. A source that is the intent of a long-dead Sith Lord which doesn't mean that Sidious actually executed it, verbatim.



Why? Because you say so? Very convincing.



I didn't claim to be an "English master", LOL!



Yes, it does matter, actually. The sources that span Sidious's rise to power and Sith reign say that his apprentices were entitled "Dark Lord of the Sith". Thus, they apply more than Bane's intent.



Nice edit. Earlier, you had: "it's excel not excel".



No. I claimed that he was the Sith Master (because he is a Sith and a Master).



That made no sense. From this point on, if you want to debate, stick to the argument.



Actually, earlier, you said I was a professor of the Stupid language. Now I am a professor of English? Interesting.



First, you say I deserve it, and then you give a sarcastic "yay" when I attribute it to you? Once again, stick to the argument...



The PoD is, quite simply, wrong.



Right. Like I said, what Bane "intended" for the Sith to doesn't mean that Sidious actually followed the instructions verbatim. In fact, the current "Sith Lord", Krayt, replaced Bane's Rule of Two with the Rule of One, thus proving that it is simply a tradition that any Sith can cast aside at any time.



Good, you've used the proper word.



Stick to the argument, please.



Again, that makes no sense. Stick to the argument, please.



I've already discussed sarcasm. Stick to the argument.

There you are, then. We've both made mistakes, and yet you called me out first.



No, that would be you're. It is a contraction for "you are".



Sweetheart, I think we've just proven that you're no better than me when it comes to spelling. Might wanna lay off that joke.

Originally posted by Battlemaster
Guess you don't.
In the OT movies the word "Dark Lord" was never mentioned.
Many people assumed it was just the regular title of the Sith and not a singular leadership position.
And just to refresh your memory, Bane's interpretation of the Rule of Two (Which he completely agreed with and practiced to its every nuance) was the same method that Sidious utilised in his reign.

Gideon, you seriously need to re-learn your knowledge of the Sith.

And no, Sith Master was a title cooked up by the Brotherhood, and Bane saw how retarded they were, since they decided to make all the Sith Dark Lords.

It would be like making everyone in the Senate a President.
Who cares if Dark Lord wasn't mentioned in the novel, it was mentioned in the book. Nobody knows when both the master and apprentice became dark lords of the sith, but we know Maul was one, and we know Vader was one, while Sidious was the other one, so your point is defeated.
Originally posted by Battlemaster
Or, thinking about it more closely, It would be like making a prince a King just like his father and having two Kings ruling the same Kingdom.

Royalty of that kind works on total power and control.

The Sith work in the very same way. They don't share any kind of power.
Um... No

Originally posted by Battlemaster
What Path of Destruction says is completely consistant with the rest of the SW Universe?
Wow, news to me.
This is probably the only quote worth posting in that gigantic heap of shit. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. And btw, Escape is a better SW debater than I am, and you're getting pwned so far.


Where's the shared leadership between a master and an apprentice? Wtf are you babbling about?

You better hope that you are a somewhat decent looking girl at the very least because you don't have much going for you in the way of logic or intelligence, and I either argue with smart people, or attractive people.

What about myself and Advent, who meet both qualifications, and whom you're madly in love with?

Eh um... Too young and too old? That's if I acknowledge being in love with Advent and you... Ew....

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Eh um... Too young and too old? That's if I acknowledge being in love with Advent and you... Ew....

Some things are better left unspoken.

Lmao.

Edit: I'm not so arrogant as to speak for myself (though at my high school, girls say I'm good looking), but Advent's a hottie.

I'm sure she is. Tell you what, I'll stick with COLLEGE...GIRLS.... Sweet.

I thin that, if the YV can flank sidious it would quickly be over. but if Sidious can work his lightning, he might be able to smoke 'em. I'll give the fight to the YV I think.

Even he? Oh, it's on!

Oh and BattleMaster, your the retrad.

By the way, let's hope you're not somewhat decent looking, otherwise Darth Sexy will hunt you down and do you doggy style.

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m239/charlebs/OJFJ5LPAPF3SLIXUFHR23G2SO3WHRB4M.jpg

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud
Even he? Oh, it's on!

Oh and BattleMaster, your the retrad.

By the way, let's hope you're not somewhat decent looking, otherwise Darth Sexy will hunt you down and do you doggy style.

You know what I meant.

Originally posted by Gideon


And deservedly so.



Oooo, Now your actually spelling something correctly! clap



Heh, same to you.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy



Right, a Dark Lord was defeated by a Padawan.



Yes, I forgot how the Sith share everything they get.
They aren't greedy or power hungry.

Thanks for reminding me!

Originally posted by Apollo Cloud



Remind me to be scared sometime.



Really? What's a retrad?
Boy, you sure sound like a retard right now.



I'm a brown-belt in Tae Kwon Do, I'd love to see him try.

Battlemaster, under normal circumstances, insulting my intelligence isn't something that irks me. Several people have done it, several times. Yet, even Darth Sexy - whom you apparently seem to "idolize" - has made the comments that your insults and remarks are out of place, as you have made a fair share of goofs yourself. So, should you continue to make these comments that not only are pathetic (due to the fact that you made the first goof) and the fact that you can't insult very well at all, I will be forced to contact a Moderator, and risk a punishment even directed at me.

However, were you to take some lessons from Nebaris or Darth Sexy on how to properly - and masterfully - insult someone, I'd let it slide. Some insults are funny (those are the kind I enjoy) and others merely betray one's own lack of skills.

So, stick to the argument at hand.

Next, we're not at an impasse. I have a multitude of novels functioning as sources, as well as a sourcebook. You have a single source dictating the intent of the Rule of Two, which doesn't apply. It would be the same thing as Sidious saying "everything is proceeding as I have forseen" when the actual reality of the situation is: it didn't. What Bane had in mind for the Rule of Two does not counter what Sidious actually executed, and if you don't believe me, perhaps you should consider that Nebaris, The Anomaly, and Darth Sexy have all sided with me on this and not you - veritable vault of knowledge that you may be.

And if that isn't enough, we can get Ush or Rex here (who can interpret what is canon and what isn't better than most) to decide just who is correct.

We already know what is Canon and what isn't.

We have reached an impasse.

You can't legitimately prove Drew Karpyshyn's novel is wrong, so you can't prove the writings and facts he presented in his book as wrong either.


Heh, as hilarious as I find it that you can't handle debating with a single person without getting a bunch of dirty people to fight your battles for you, If you can get a statement from Drew Karpyshyn that he made a mistake about the Rule of Two then you win.

If you can't however, and furthermore cannot stand the way I've made you eat all of your own silly words, then I accept your defeat.

So, cough up that statement pal.

Damn straight? People do not want to go to war with me, I am a major badass.



To quote one of the wisest and apparently fierce chicks ever - "Sarcasm? hehe."



Well I don't know about that, Darth Sexy's a 500 pound doughnut eating trained sumo wrestler, so I'd watch out, lol.

I'm waiting. wink3

(Unless you want to create excuses, then I win.)

You're not comprehending what I'm saying, Battlemaster, and if you continue to act in such a thoroughly difficult and stupid way, you can argue this with somebody else. I'm not insulting you, and I'm trying to make you see reason, which is why I've told you before - and I am telling you for the final time (next time, I will get a Moderator here) - to stick to the argument and keep the remarks to yourself.

We have not reached an impasse; I don't have to prove that PoD is "wrong" or "non-canon". I'm saying that what Bane intended has no bearing on what Sidious actually did. What Sidious actually did. I have a multitude of novels that give Vader the title of "Dark Lord of the Sith" and a sourcebook that labels Maul as such. In Sidious's case, he named all of his subsequent apprentices "Dark Lord of the Sith". This is unquestionable, and it is what I am trying to tell you.

Sidious, Maul, Dooku, and Vader were all "Sith Lords" and "Dark Lords of the Sith". PoD contradicting this simply makes it wrong in this case, because Bane's intent for the Rule of Two and what he wanted his successors to follow does not mean that Sidious actually executed the Rule of Two and the entire plan verbatim.

Edit: Some people have lives, Battlemaster. I am debating on two other threads, and I am wording my arguments proficiently. This takes time. If you do this one more time, we can get a Mod here. I'm tired of dealing with you.

Originally posted by Battlemaster
We already know what is Canon and what isn't.

We have reached an impasse.

You can't legitimately prove Drew Karpyshyn's novel is wrong, so you can't prove the writings and facts he presented in his book as wrong either.


Heh, as hilarious as I find it that you can't handle debating with a single person without getting a bunch of dirty people to fight your battles for you, If you can get a statement from Drew Karpyshyn that he made a mistake about the Rule of Two then you win.

If you can't however, and furthermore cannot stand the way I've made you eat all of your own silly words, then I accept your defeat.

So, cough up that statement pal.

Ok, I think we need to end this. We're discussing whether Maul was officially a Dark lord of the Sith, yes?

1. We have official sources that clearly state that Maul was a Dark Lord of the Sith, and that under Sidious' rule, both the Master and Apprentice were known as being Dark Lords of the Sith.

2. Your only counter is the preliminary thoughts of Darth Bane, before he even implemented them. What you need to understand is that Bane's original thoughts are subject to change, so your evidence is not as concrete as our's.

3. There's also the fact that while Sidious generally followed what Darth Bane had set down, he did change a lot of things too (Lightsnake, the expert on Sidious listed all of these things before), and basically destroyed most of sith tradition and built it around himself. So even if Bane's order had worked under Bane's original intentions, it's certainly possible that Sidious made a few minor changes. Perhaps he felt having both master and Apprentice named as such would make the apprentice feel more special and significant to the order, and lessen the chances of betrayal.

Now those three points should end the discussion one and for all, you can't possibly argue against them, so don't bother, and just concede. Personally, I agree that having both named as Dark lords of Sith is pretty lame, but that's how it goes (under Sidious' rule at least) so you'll have to accept it. But really, why does it matter? It doesn't change anything in these versus forums, it's pretty much irrelevant actually.

Thanks, Nebaris. This woman drives me to the point of frustration quicker than you ever did, lmao.

I'll erm, take that as a compliment, lol. BTW, why do people at EoD rate Alpha Centauri as some sort of Grade A debater? He's really not very good, and would get stomped by the best SW debaters. Did I maybe just see him on a bad day, or is that really him at his usual ability?

Edit - And really, it's not like Bane's rules really changed. There was still just one Master, and the second was an Apprentice, so Bane's reasoning still applied, just one minor insignificant change (the official title, which means squat in the big picture).

Battlemaster you are wrong. People like Vader and Maul were both apprentices who had the title of the Dark Lord of the Sith yet they never would haver their own apprentices.

Go to the star wars databank and read the very first sentence on Vader's profile.

Battlemaster, you are extremely lucky that a new Scrubs episode comes on within 2 minutes of me writing this..

Originally posted by Battlemaster
Are you blatantly telling me not to show you any respect?

Fine.
Ok since there is a commercial I've decided to add my two cents. Judging by your posts, you seem to be devoid of logic and common sense.. Nobody is claiming POD is wrong but what Bane intended to do has no effect on what future Sith Lords did, understand? Therefore there is no contradiction, and you are flat out wrong.





I don't think anybody can catch on what you are "Trying" to debate.





I would sure as hell hope you were very attractive, because as I've said, I prefer either very attractive with some intelligence, or a very smart girl with some attraction. IN fact I would prefer very smart and very attractive(which I already have), but humor me..