SS - Mock Debate - Valkorion (ILS) vs. Luke Skywalker (The Ellimist)

This is a mock debate to test vs. debating methodologies.

GL, taep

Ah, how wonderful. This is sure to be a riveting exchange of profound and original ideas. Please, please, tag me after every post.

That includes posts made by the audience.

Best of luck to both debaters.

I will be going to the shop to buy myself a bushel of bananas and some new oven mitts, which will take me approximately 26 minutes and 43 seconds. After which point I will respond to any pressing debate posts that need my attention.

Lmao. TAEP.

ILS wrote:Ah, how wonderful. This is sure to be a riveting exchange of profound and original ideas. Please, please, tag me after every post.

That includes posts made by the audience.

Best of luck to both debaters.

I will be going to the shop to buy myself a bushel of bananas and some new oven mitts, which will take me approximately 26 minutes and 43 seconds. After which point I will respond to any pressing debate posts that need my attention.

@HellfireUnit
@ILS
@NotAA3


OK here's a really rough outline, with a focus on a particular set of methodologies (transitive property, looking at potential + growth rates).


If you accept the contentions:


1. DE SIdious > Valkorion
2. Luke > DE Sidious


Then Luke is > Valkorion unless if there is some sort of rock-papers-scissors relationship here, but I'm not sure what that relationship would be. Do you think Valkorion has some sort of sorcery haxx that Sidious did not? What would that haxx be? Does Valkorion's battle style match up well against Luke? How so?


Anyway, you seem to agree with #1, so you'd likely contest #2 (but we can discuss #1 as well). Here the argument goes:


1. Luke has (much) more potential than Palpatine
2. Luke grows really, really fast, to the point where he's Vader tier by RotJ mainly from self-studying according to like 10 sources (after barely being able to lift a lightsaber at the start of ESB) and is just an untrained Leia's BM away from beating Sidious in sabers by DE. Then he has several times that length to go before his prime. You could claim that he plateaus, and the rate probably doesn't stay at ESB->RotJ level forever, but 1) he's constantly training, fighting and studying, 2) why would he plateau long-term if he's so far from his potential?, and 3) in and out of universe sources refer to his power growth as impressive, nobody thinks he's stagnating, so there's no reason to think it happened for no reason.


To argue that Luke never catches up to Sidious, you'd have to argue the following:


1. The Sidious-Vader gap is absolutely astronomical (which would also trivialize one of the primary pro-Valkorion arguments: his uber-domination of the protag and Vaylin)
2. The force:sabers ratio for DE Sidious is insanely high (while it's tilted towards Force, Sidious in RotS wasn't like super imbalanced, so it would be weird for Luke to win in sabers but then after 40 years in power growth he still loses in force)


Normally potential manifests in saber prowess before fine-Force manipulation, so Luke beating Sidious in sabers likely foreshadows him surpassing Sidious overall; it's probably not going to take more than 30 years past that though. Sidious was scared of Luke per the RotJ novel, which probably doesn't mean that he thinks Luke after 40 years wouldn't beat himself after like 6 (and we're talking about Valkorion, so there's a buffer in favor of Luke).


While it's true that potential actualization in Star Wars is uneven, in this case we have someone who is in his sixties, has lots of experience and training, and has a demonstrably massive growth rate, so I think it's fair to use it even if it would be less valid to compare for, say, two 20 year old combatants with very different training backgrounds. Over time, potential will be a better indicator, whereas at the start it'll be rather murky.


There are, of course, counters to this and other avenues to look at, but that's my 2 cents for now.

TAEP