What I was getting at is your argument was going pretty good before you said that. I'm not arguing the facts you brought up or anything like that, just how you were wording it. But you're acknowledging that there is a chance for unpredictability in a clash like that.... That's really all I was trying to get you to see(or say). I didn't think other people who weren't involved would get butthurt.
What's wrong with saying that Yoda would "almost assuredly" defeat Freedon Nadd and consider it a fact? George Lucas said that you need to be 'Mace Windu or Yoda to compete with Palpatine', does that mean that no other Force user at the time could not overcome the Sith Lord in certain circumstances? Not really. Ergo, it would be absolutely foolish to say that Yoda would beat Nadd in every encounter, or vice versa, or saying that for anyone.
fact (fakt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom:
in (point of) fact
In reality or in truth; actually.
Hey jackass, it's a FACT that Yoda is superior to Nadd. It is a fact that Yoda would beat Nadd. However, there's something known as "any given sunday".
So me agreeing with someone, whose post and assumptions was based on CANON sources and not overall stupidity and ignorance(Aka your posts), qualifies me as 'feminine'? You do realize that your above post makes you look like a retarded little child with an Internet connection(Not that your other posts haven't already proved that, mind you), right?
Ladies and gentlemen, I now present to you, the new GM N00baris!
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
I'm still curious under what valid arguments did you personally come at this conclusion, DS? I've heard LS' arguments (And noted them) but I'm curious as to what you have to say on Nadd versus Yoda. Please do me the favor of making actual structured argument instead of one to two sentence premises which are based on proof by assertion, your own opinion, or something you think LS said using sources only he has.
Please try that for me. Here, I'll make an example to help you along...
P1. Yoda is green.
P2. Everyone knows green is associated with St. Paddy's Day.
Cl. Yoda is Irish and probably drinks like a fish.
Now, that's not a perfect example, but hopefully you get the point. Instead of badgering people and riding on the coattails of more thorough and well-read debaters here, DS, I want you to prove up to me using logical structure in argument.
Yoda is a 900+ year old Jedi master, the grand master of the order. His mastery of the force was only rivaled by Sidious. He stalemated Sidious, who is at the best, the most powerful sith lord of this time, and at the worst, the greatest sith master to ever use sith evil, which puts him above Nadd. If I have to make an argument on why I think Sidious is above Nadd, then I will do so, although I doubt it is necessary. Nadd was definitely powerful, but to compare him to the likes of Yoda or Sidious would beg some serious proof on the part of Nadd. Yoda was a lightaber prodigy who happened to know 6 out of 7 forms of lightaber combat. You can sit here and tell me there are better debaters or well read debaters, but they would make the same argument.
FUrthermore, don't ridicule me by talking down to me and giving me examples of premises and conclusions, because I think I've proven that I know how to logically debate, even without the use or need of a class.
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
Since it's quite apparent that you do need a class, let me demonstrate your argument in logical form.
Premise: Yoda is very old, and is the virtual head of the Jedi Order during a time when fighting Sith is unheard of.
Premise: The only person who seems to put up a strong challenge to Yoda is Sidious and Dooku, both of whom he fought and both of whom he was unable to overcome. Since he fought no other Sith Lords, we can only match him against these two.
Premise: Yoda was able to finally overcome Sidious, the most powerful Sith Lord of the era, using the Force, but was eventually defeated because he put too much of his energy into countering his Sith Lightning and was unable to take the initiative despite being clearly superior to his opponent overall. Likewise, this same Sidious is only considered to be the most evil and powerful of the Sith by later historians nearly a generation later, when he has had more time to mature his Dark Side abilities and plenty of time to loot Jedi and Sith knowledge.
Premise: Yoda is shown to be familiar with the six major forms of lightsaber combat, as was General Grievous, and somehow this makes him able to contend with any Sith Lord in the world, including those shown only to utilize one style.
Conclusion: Yoda beats Nadd because he was able to put up a good fight against someone who twenty years later went on to become a real bonafide Sith Lord and not some weak little senator with a lightsaber up his sleeve and he knows a lot because he's old and knows the saber forms like any Jedi Master would, and he's never shown actually defeating a Sith Lord on neutral or otherwise situations.
No, the point here is that you are blatantly attacking others for sharing contrary beliefs and yet you lack the argument to support your own side, instead having to play "little dog" to all the big dogs who can actually debate their way out of a paper bag. You've proven my point by making this statement, DS. Your arguments = unproven, unsubstantiated opinion slinging.
You've never proved that you have logical thinking skills on par with anyone else here you attempt to bash, and certainly your lack of formal knowledge puts you at a recognizable and immediate disadvantage with people who have had a formal education on the topic of logic and reasoning. I've corrected you many, many times on terms you've abused, fallacies you've committed, and blatant bullshit you've perpetuated and yet you still claim you can hang with the big dogs when you haven't even taken a high school level logic class or read a book on proper argument structure. I bet you haven't even had a decent school debate on a topic with definate facts, have you?
When you enter into a field of something that you are admittedly not the expert in and then sling around stuff like you know what you're doing, it's ridiculous that anyone would take you seriously. You have no formal logic training, and you apparently lack the capacity to learn from your mistakes or at least properly fake it and Wiki the damn terms or faults in reasoning. I've had two years of formal and informal logic classes, including identifying fallacies, valid or sound argument structure, and I even have more experience in this subject matter and more sources than you do.
Me >>>>>> You in every single debate by virtue of my knowledge in the fields we're actually going over, and my training in the art of debate and arguing which you've apparently only ever studied here. This isn't saying I'm 100% right; it's simply saying that any time you make a claim and I make a claim, by virtue my claim is likely to be the more researched and logical one because I know what the hell I'm talking about, and you just spout off random shit you heard LS say or that you read on a KMC thread some time back.
So yeah, I think I'm entitled to lecture you just this once on your incredibly shitty debating skills which you've claimed time and again you're working to build up. If you were really interested in fair and progressive debating, you'd know how the basics work, for one. Two, you'd learn from those with classic training (myself, Nai, Illustrious, Faunus, Advent, etc.) and more experience. Three, you'd recognize when you've gone from making your point to just plain trolling and being an *******.
You've never demonstrated any of those three virtues, so yeah... No point in anyone listening to you. Unless you actually make an attempt to learn from your shallow-minded approach and make a change in your approach to debate, we should all just collectively ignore your inane posts.
It's funny how you mention this when you were the main proponent of the "ancient sith pwn all". All of a sudden you critisize others for the mistakes you are allowed to make. Since Yoda fought only 2 sith lords we can only match him against those 2? In that case, there is absolutely no purpose in having a versus forum then, since by your logic, we can only pit characters that have fought each other.
I don't think Grievous was a force user..
You know what's ironic? You haven't even made a case for Nadd. You sit there spitting out your "unknown" nonsense, but when the ancient sith are mentioned, suddenly they are chucking stars and wtfpwning all.
I love your ridiculous generalizing.
1. Blatantly means on a daily basis, please show me where I am CONSTANTLY do this. Until then shut the hell up. If you can't be civil, don't type.
2. Debate out of a paper bag huh? I guess that implies you can ignore sources in favor of your bias. Furthermore, calling my arguments (insert childish insult here), doesn't make it so. Because I have shown to make GREAT arguments, and not so great arguments. But due to your psuedointellecual, "I own internet text" mind, you seem to focus on the negative. I don't think you know the definition of constructive criticism.
Except I HAVE proven to be better than others, and worse than others, based on all the arguments. You can sit there and ***** and claim I haven't made a single logical argument, nor have defeated anyone in debates, and that would make you look ridiculous, unless you can show some proof. Furthermore, you are not exactly a credible debater in terms of objectivity, so I suggest you keep your snoody comments to yourself unless you can address me in a civil manner. Oh no Janus, I wasn't on the debate team, that MUST mean you are better than me, and you will get ahead of me in life (not likely).
Yet I can enter a debate objectively, while you have yet to do so.
That makes a lot of sense. When I make an argument, i'm somehow copying someone else. When you make an argument, it's your own because youre Janus. That's beautiful logic from a self proclaimed debating genius.
Being an internet douchebag because you have to overcompensate for real life doesn't give you the temerity to lecture me. If you were a 100% logical and objective debater, you can spout of your pseudologic/words of wisdom. You should be lucky I even try to learn from the better debaters on this forum instead of sitting online with a chip on my shoulder because I'm not satisfied with my life. If you can lecture me in a civil manner, go ahead and do so. Until then shut the hell up, because you're not impressing anyone with any of your abilities other than shooting off text in the form of a douchebag.
Except I have, and you acknowledge it once already in my argument with Glentract on your forum. If I didn't "cover the points well", I wouldn't have demonstrated these virtues. So instead of being an ignorant jackass who deals and absolutes, try to focus on the positives, and give constructive criticism on the negatives..
What I don't understand is, why I have to sit there and defend Yoda in a fight against Nadd. You don't see anyone having to logically debate R2 vs. a Jedi? Certain things are obvious if you opened your eyes and started viewing these topics objectively. Here you have Nadd who did... Oh right, conquer a backwater planet and.. Oh that's about it. I guess that somehow puts him on the level of the most powerful Jedi up to Luke.
__________________ Greed is Good.
Last edited by Dr McBeefington on Sep 17th, 2007 at 03:45 AM
Yes. The absolute same as many of those in the KOTOR order-the timeframes are exactly the same.
Neither Yoda nor Vodo's orders had fought Sith in a millenium, rather exactly-though we know they have indeed fought Sith here and there, without knowledge-though Yoda himself knows of the Rule of Two, implying confrontations at points.
There are two people in Vodo's Order who have battled Sith: Odan and Thon.
Yoda is unquestionably strongest and better than Dooku-both battles ended with Dooku fleeing.
And considering the power and ability of both those Sith Lords, Yoda's rivaling them is a feather in his cap
He's also considered the most powerful Sith at the point he defeated Yoda, recall.
Generally mastering many forms is indication of a very skilled duelist-Grievous certainly was, evidenced by the many Jedi he killed and defeating Durge and Ventress simultaneously (Clone Wars Adventures Vol. 3)
Dooku running away with his tail between his legs-along with, I quote "Realizing he is not the strongest after all"- isn't a victory?
And a 'weak little Senator?' Really, Janus, this Palpatine bias has got to end. That 'weak little senator:
A. Killed three Jedi Council members at once
B. Was said by Lucas that only Mace and Yoda could compete with him. Not Depa, not Dooku, Not Anakin, Not Obi-wan, Not A'Sharad or T'ra Saa, or Kit Fisto, or Plo Koon, or Asajj Ventress, or Durge, or General Grievous or Zett Jukasa.
C. That weak little senator is described as having lightsaber skills that left MAUL-you know, the guy who made one of the finest swordsmen in the Jedi Order realize he couldn't win within seconds, the Maul whose saber skills saw an army of the galaxy's deadly assassins devastated completely- totally dazzled and outmatched? The same weak little senator who was able to wield his saber faster than Maul could even see and felt with a TWITCH in deviation, Maul would be in pieces
D. Same weak little senator able to compete with Yoda, described as the most powerful force of light the galaxy had ever seen and most powerful foe the Darkness had ever known?
E. Let's not neglect by ROTS, he's described as having already clandestinely visited numerous Dark Side worlds that increased his powers with what he's learned, under the guise of restoration of art has tracked down incalculable amounts of Sith knowledge and artifacts, and is able to summon the spirits of the Ancient Sith and bind them to his will for purposes of rituals and extracting their forgotten knowledge (Ultimate Visual Guide thankfully brought 'Sithisis' into continuity, and chalk him up as having mastered Sith lightning)
So, really...say you've noted it, but the irritating bias needs to end
Palpatine is many times the Sith Lord Nadd was, as evidenced by the fact he wasn't a spoiled little brat whose fall to the Dark Side equates to a hissy fit on his masters when they feel he's too immature and headstrong to become a Master and...petty dictatorship of a backwater planet without even the benefit of space travel, unable to beat a guerilla rebellion of non-Force Users (Quote from NEC: "Forming a band of light upon Onderon that even Nadd's dark powers couldn't crush."
IF you're saying that to piss DS off? Fine. If that's really a premise you hold? Color me a bit annoyed since I've quite politely challenged it a few times in the past month without even a response. I understand and respect you haven't had time to respond to them, but honestly...
I realize the entire purpose of that was to chastise DS and I don't disagree with that. Chalk it up to me being a little tired, but I did sort of snap on that, and if you take it as me being a bit too vicious, I apologize in advance
Gosh lightsnake, I'm glad you don't disagree with me being chastized. You are truly a great wingman. However, instead of verbally fellating people to avoid conflict, I suggest you make your views more known and voice your displeasure in a serious manner.
Only teenagers and grown men who still live with their parents call people n00b. All you're doing is insulting at this point, and doing a bad job of it. I have no interest in engaging in a flame-fest with a 40 year old virgin. I'd rather not have mods breathing down my neck.
Really? And I suppose you consider yourself the best source for this information? And you haven't been doing that since posting in this thread? Wow, not only are you stupid n00b, but a hypocrite aswell. I only praise LS assessment(Because it's a hell of a lot more intelligent than your sorry excuses of insults), and then you start calling me names, and claim I was the one insulting you at this point. Doing a bad job of it? Please. Don't get my insults confused with your shoddy, sorry excuses of insults. Atleast I actually have the balls to back mine up. Tell me, were you just born stupid, or are you good at acting like it? I'm guessing the earlier, since judging by the majority of your posts in this thread, you seem to take a like to making a complete ass out of yourself.
Sep 16th, 2007 03:52 PM
