- 11,099
- 4,323
- Thread starter
- #321
If you agree it's not relevant, then you haven't provided any proof that Papatine grew stronger at all. Other Force users growing stronger doesn't mean he necessarily grew stronger.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, this doesn't matter. We rank stats as accuarate as possible, if they can't scale to this super big feat but they still scale above the next best thing then that's how things are.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:They don't even have feats back then. When did Palpatine and Yoda and Windu have actual quantifiable feats?
I didn't show any proof but idk what you mean by the the there. It's the most likely thing to claim when ranking stats in a timeline as such saying that he was always as powerful is what needs proof.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:If you agree it's not relevant, then you haven't provided any proof that Papatine grew stronger at all. Other Force users growing stronger doesn't mean he necessarily grew stronger.
He's not posting them because for some reason he thinks he doesn't need to prove it.Hellbeast1 said:So you have proof but you're not posting it?
Remind me why this discussion is still going
You know I was wondering what the other people who disagree with me on this think of all the replies everyone give me on the matter; do they think they are reasonable? Because most of the replies I got have a super clear "you need to say this to point out how it's wrong" in it. This one here is an exaggeration of that.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:You're the one saying he grew stronger you should prove it.
According to your logic we should make separate keys for Palpatine every day of the series because there's no prove he didn't grow stronger every day.
There we go, and no.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:Because they are correct. If you want to make a claim that he wasn't as strong before you need evidence, either by actual statements or at least actual contradicting feats.
This is how I see that fallacy here.Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:Burden of proof Fallacy. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, aka claiming that he was stronger in this case.
Let's go back to the past, good old Clone Wars, Sidious is there; because you guys says so he's as powerful as a feat he would make years in the future. That's the positive claim that needs proof. Years later, Sidious does his feat, I'm not saying he got stronger as much as I'm saying that he wasn't able to do the same before, I'm not messing with the status quo, you guys are by ranking the Sidious now to the Sidious before. "I'm not saying" is poetic, if that needed to be said (as always I mean that no, it doesn't need to be said).Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:Burden of proof Fallacy. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, aka claiming that he was always as strong in this case.
That would be me proving a negative for no reason, nothing puts him at that level before but you and that doesn't need to go away via proof, that should have been added via proof. If there was as much of a big timeframe as it is here then yes, you wouldn't a scale prior character to a feat made by another years in the future when the latter could have made itself more powerful, what will be the next false equivalence? There was no need for neither of them, you do know that your "we should make separate keys for Palpatine every day of the series" does the same, no?Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:We don't need to prove Sidious didn't grow stronger, our argument is that if you can't prove he did grow stronger we assume he didn't. Using this logic, if a character performs a certain feat, it doesn't scale to the character before he performed that feat because he never performed feats on that level ever.
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:Ok. So things to conclude in this thread:
I knew I was missing someone.LephyrTheRevanchist said:>Spino doesn't count your vote
The betrayal... I will change my name to LephyrLordOfBetrayal. ovo