Home
Gallery
FAQ
Search
Log in
Register
Nute_ChethrayModerator
Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 7:28 am
We all have different opinions, so answers will probably be different, but I personally think that certain things makes debating less enjoyable than it has to be. For example:
TPM Kenobi > Vader. I'm not the biggest debater on Vader, but I feel that every time Vader or any OT character is mentioned, they immideatedly get to this point.
Malak > Kun > everyone from TOTJ and before. Basically that no matter what arguments can be made for ancient sith, they immideatedly get argued to be fodder because they drown in scaling.
PT Supremacy. Probably the most likely opinion to get argued against, but I feel like PT supremacy takes away much of the pleasure of debating for or against characters from that era, since almost all such arguments are how close the PT character is to Sidious and how they therefore scale above previous sith/jedi.
And its not necessarily that I think ROTS Sidious shouldn't be considered > previous sith, or that Malak can't beat Kun, I just think that there is more enough material to make arguments without having to rely on things like these. And while some may say that using authorical intent and the likes to limit things is the best way to get correct rankings of characters, I think we all know that no matter how much logic we put into things we won't get the same results as any SW offical would give us
TPM Kenobi > Vader. I'm not the biggest debater on Vader, but I feel that every time Vader or any OT character is mentioned, they immideatedly get to this point.
Malak > Kun > everyone from TOTJ and before. Basically that no matter what arguments can be made for ancient sith, they immideatedly get argued to be fodder because they drown in scaling.
PT Supremacy. Probably the most likely opinion to get argued against, but I feel like PT supremacy takes away much of the pleasure of debating for or against characters from that era, since almost all such arguments are how close the PT character is to Sidious and how they therefore scale above previous sith/jedi.
And its not necessarily that I think ROTS Sidious shouldn't be considered > previous sith, or that Malak can't beat Kun, I just think that there is more enough material to make arguments without having to rely on things like these. And while some may say that using authorical intent and the likes to limit things is the best way to get correct rankings of characters, I think we all know that no matter how much logic we put into things we won't get the same results as any SW offical would give us
The Adventurous JediLevel Seven
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 7:47 am
PT Supremacy. Probably the most likely opinion to get argued against, but I feel like PT supremacy takes away much of the pleasure of debating for or against characters from that era, since almost all such arguments are how close the PT character is to Sidious and how they therefore scale above previous sith/jedi.
Throwing shade at my post outside the thread.
- Nute_ChethrayModerator
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 7:58 am
You barely used that point from what I've seen so far (didn't read all of it yet)NotAA3 wrote:PT Supremacy. Probably the most likely opinion to get argued against, but I feel like PT supremacy takes away much of the pleasure of debating for or against characters from that era, since almost all such arguments are how close the PT character is to Sidious and how they therefore scale above previous sith/jedi.
Throwing shade at my post outside the thread.
Latham2000Level Three
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 8:32 am
The idea that low showings define a character's capabilities.
- Nute_ChethrayModerator
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 8:34 am
Completely forgot thatLatham2000 wrote:The idea that low showings define a character's capabilities.
CuckedCurryLevel Four
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 9:23 am
Latham2000 wrote:The idea that low showings define a character's capabilities.
This unless it’s Darth Maul or Qui-Gon
The lord of hungerLevel Two
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 10:04 am
Latham2000 wrote:The idea that low showings define a character's capabilities.
SithSauceLevel One
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 10:59 am
Or BaneCuckedCurry wrote:Latham2000 wrote:The idea that low showings define a character's capabilities.
This unless it’s Darth Maul or Qui-Gon
- SithSauceLevel One
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 11:01 am
I don't know if it's just me but I'm just sick of the word "ragdolling" being used a lot. I just find these kinda terms rather cringey and childish.
- The Adventurous JediLevel Seven
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 11:09 am
- CuckedCurryLevel Four
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 11:49 am
SithSauce wrote:Or BaneCuckedCurry wrote:Latham2000 wrote:The idea that low showings define a character's capabilities.
This unless it’s Darth Maul or Qui-Gon
Marc Spector
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 1:12 pm
Chyeah nah bruh. No matter how much scans, logic, feats, or reasoning you bring to the debate they don't mean jack if mans got a quote saying otherwise. Even the most vague, obscure, and out of context quote immediately discounts your entire argument because quotes are supreme and everything else is just fan fiction, so stop trying bruh. Now sit back down in your designated spot and respect the authority. If you ever try to disrupt the system in place again, and spread new ideas regarding how to debate using other sources you will forever be branded a heretic and crucified.
Underachiever599
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 15th 2020, 7:43 pm
TPM Kenobi>Vader really grinds my gears. Honestly, a lot of the Lucas quotes, since he's a wildly inconsistent source who self-contradicts all the time, and who never really saw Legends as something tied too heavily into his vision of Star Wars.
Also, scaling chains. I feel there's just so much they don't encompass, and most are just bunk. Just because Character A beat Character B, this does not mean Character A is better than B in every regard. Character A doesn't necessarily scale off of all of Character B's feats. A lot of times, Character A only wins due to environmental, circumstantial, or stylistic advantages that provide an edge.
Other scaling chains comparing feats and ragdolls are similarly flawed. If Character A Force pushes Character B, that doesn't necessarily mean that Character A is more powerful in the Force. Debating on this forum is rife with these kinds of scaling chains to try and prop characters way higher up than they should be. Using a single good showing of Character A against Character B as an excuse to piggyback off of all the good showings of Character B just feels stupid and disingenuous. It doesn't take into account the context involved in each and every such showing, and produces some seriously nonsensical scaling chains.
Also, scaling chains. I feel there's just so much they don't encompass, and most are just bunk. Just because Character A beat Character B, this does not mean Character A is better than B in every regard. Character A doesn't necessarily scale off of all of Character B's feats. A lot of times, Character A only wins due to environmental, circumstantial, or stylistic advantages that provide an edge.
Other scaling chains comparing feats and ragdolls are similarly flawed. If Character A Force pushes Character B, that doesn't necessarily mean that Character A is more powerful in the Force. Debating on this forum is rife with these kinds of scaling chains to try and prop characters way higher up than they should be. Using a single good showing of Character A against Character B as an excuse to piggyback off of all the good showings of Character B just feels stupid and disingenuous. It doesn't take into account the context involved in each and every such showing, and produces some seriously nonsensical scaling chains.
- SithSauceLevel One
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 17th 2020, 6:54 am
What's worse is lowballing a character just because you don't like them. There are plenty of SW characters I don't like that much. Like Mace Windu but I recognise how powerful he is and don't let my dislike for the character dictate my placement for him as a force user. That's what's happening recently for Vader I feel. Where some people are legit taking their time to desperately find quotes from random sourcebooks and tweets that are blatantly out of context i.e. Leland Chee's tweet just so they can tell everyone "hey Vader is shit because X and Y said so . And if you don't agree then you are sucking of Vader or a you're a Vader fanboy".
MPModerator | Champion of Darkness
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 17th 2020, 7:48 am
There's a difference between having a balanced overview of Vader's capabilities vs shitting on him intentionally.
- SithSauceLevel One
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 17th 2020, 12:38 pm
Yeah I agree with thatMeatpants wrote:There's a difference between having a balanced overview of Vader's capabilities vs shitting on him intentionally.
- Latham2000Level Three
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 17th 2020, 3:59 pm
Meatpants wrote:There's a difference between having a balanced overview of Vader's capabilities vs shitting on him intentionally.
I absolutely agree. Vader isn't superior to RotS Anakin as some used to believe. Nor is he sub-TPM Kenobi on the basis that Kenobi is a faster and more energetic version of the OT Jedi, given that Vader's fighting style has little emphasis and reliance on speed and flashy acrobatics.
- The Merchant
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 17th 2020, 4:32 pm
Statements in general for the most part are trash to be blunt. If TPM Kenobi>Vader for example then another statement that states C'baoth is as formidable as Vader would mean TPM Kenobi>C'baoth~Vader>Thrawn Trilogy Luke. Makes no sense tbh
O-Siri
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 17th 2020, 8:17 pm
The whole quotes game in general. Trying to build a cohesive narrative out a bunch of random quotes from anything ranging from simplified summaries on websites, interactive novels, trading card games, action figure boxes, and video game manuals more often than not related to video game mechanics, rather than sticking with the main sources just blows everything way out of proportion.
The Fallen WarriorLevel Four
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 17th 2020, 9:38 pm
I don't even care about Vader anymore. People who say the grand inquisitor is sub S1 Ventress can die
Ziggy
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 20th 2020, 11:11 am
> Korriban wrote:I don't even care about Vader anymore
This doesn't explain your meltdowns overtime I mention his sub tmp Kenobi ass.
- SithSauceLevel One
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 20th 2020, 12:39 pm
@Ziggy The Menace Phantom is a great movie 
- CuckedCurryLevel Four
Re: Logic/statements that hinder the enjoyment of debates?
April 20th 2020, 2:47 pm
O-Siri wrote:The whole quotes game in general. Trying to build a cohesive narrative out a bunch of random quotes from anything ranging from simplified summaries on websites, interactive novels, trading card games, action figure boxes, and video game manuals more often than not related to video game mechanics, rather than sticking with the main sources just blows everything way out of proportion.
This to a T
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|