{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/28/2009 8:23:47 PM
1036
Star Wars Vs. Halo Debate
I'm sure some of you saw this coming eventually.
It's another Star Wars Vs. Halo debate in the flood.
This will be more civilized though
Rules:
1. No Flaming
2. You must be willing to Learn
3. You must know what you're talking about to some extent.
4. Cite your sources if asked to or you just see it being necessary
5. No making up stuff
6. If you're clearly proven wrong, accept it and go on
And this will be more freeform.
You get to pick who's fighting who, where they are fighting, what they can use (please be careful with this), when it's taking place (ie the covenant at the beginning of the war, etc.).
Also make some sort of objective that isn't too ridiculous to make it more interesting. (ie the empire must take all of the enemy's sectors)
No cross universe friendships (ie rebels and UNSC working together)
The main fighting will be in a neutral space in between the star wars galaxies and the milky way. This will stop any confusion from happening like (oh yeah all the star wars people are in the milky way so we can use the halos). There may be planets placed there if you want to have land battles but they are not necessary. Vessels, species, people, etc. can go back to their respective galaxies and come back to the neutral space for any reason that makes sense.
Alright I think that's it. Hopefully this will go well. Who wants to start us out with who is fighting who, when, and where?
If you can't think of any here is an example
Galactic Empire vs. The Covenant
Each faction includes everything that ever belonged to them.
Ground Battle w/ space battle above
You get the idea.
-
Call my a hypocrite, this is my actual late post XD 1. I do not practice a religion or uphold a godly figure as our savior and creator, so please don't get me confused in all that jazz. On the flip side, I do not necessarily not believe in higher beings than us. That's my opinion, congratulations you have a different one. 2. I did debate, I debated quite a bit actually. Maybe not in the original confines of what this thread was about but it became kinda hard to keep using Star Wars and Halo to talk about logical analysis, factorial claims, assumptions, and reality. Sorry for messing around with your thread, but I didn't intend to use it as a... can we stop using nerdgasm, I mean really. Seeya later, though perhaps not. You two seem content to ignore everything I say and turn it around as an insult now. I'm blacklisted WOO I'M HYPOCRITICAL!!!!!
-
I think this thread is starting to get a bit out of hand.... and besides, for all the arguments spewing out of here, its just a comparrison of story lines, it is not a life or death situation
-
The modern scientific method is right up there with language and mathematics as one of the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind. In just a few short centuries of use, it has accomplished more to improve peoples lives than religion did in the previous few millennia.
-
So far what I've seen is that you misread this thread as some fan fiction writing thread. I corrected you and you seem to go on with complete nonsense. Seriously, it makes no sense to me. This is a debate. A serious debate (as serious as a debate about something fictional can get) not some "nerdgasm" thread. Real numbers are used because there is no other way to have a debate about this. "numbers dont mean anything" Hah. Barely. Can you imagine this thread if we didn't use any numbers or facts? It would be a mess of people just throwing around ideas that popped up in their head.
-
My air is icy-cool thank you very much But anyway, if you wanna go on with your logical debates be my guest. Well I guess you would be Teef's guest because this is his thread. It's been fun debating back and forth, though you still seem to not understand what I'm saying. I don't really care, just don't expect everyone to take to your logical debate like you want them to. And honestly, this really has been fun arguing back and forth between you, me, and Teef. No hard feelings, maybe some hard words, but no hard feelings. I might post on a later date, see what's up or down, what's going on. Seeyah, and please just enjoy the rainbows.
-
[quote]You act like every single person who posts on your thread is going to appreciate your meticulously thought out logical response backed with facts. [/quote] Free will has a value that you have yet to appreciate.
-
I don't believe in infallibility, but neither do I believe in fallibility by choice or determinism. If you choose to willfully contradict yourself then I cannot alter your opinion. The fact is that I have debated the results of a pitched battle and proven indefinitely (until disputed otherwise) that one combatant is capable of an overwhelming victory against another, fulfilling the requirements set for the thread on the very first page. So, do you intend to contribute to the thread? Or do you wish to continue blowing hot air? If you select the second option then I really have no wish to continue this discussion since it will inevitably lead to another bout of ad hominems thrown in my general direction. In which I don't intend to deal with your fantasies, to which you could kindly express elsewhere.
-
One last time. Only said what I said (well, besides all the Q arguments cause that's what I do) because of the bumps in the road this thread has gone through. You act like every single person who posts on your thread is going to appreciate your meticulously thought out logical response backed with facts. Notice, besides Roan, no one else really has stuck around for the completely logical argument your seeking. I'm not arguing with you (I'm expecting a rebuttal to that), I'm simply stating. If you act how you are you may not have the active thread you want for as long as you want it. Or I could be wrong. Who knows. Just saying. I enjoyed reading this thread. I just wanna see it in the future with even better stuffs.
-
Why are you criticizing us for treating this like a debate? The title gives it away. I would enjoy seeing the lights and action but it's unlikely that'll ever be seen. That's not how it works out? You're saying that Teratons are not better than megatons? Listen, it's common sense. A more powerful armada with more ships is obviously going to vaporize any weaker and smaller opposition. That is what this is about. Someone insulting a thought out, logical answer is simply ignorant. They aren't thinking and aren't even believing basic science.
-
BTW: I'm a living, breathing human. I live on contradiction.
-
Once again, your assuming. I don't really care if Master Chief smashes the adorable Ewok's face in nor if the Galactic Empire eats everything the Covenant throws at them. I am not favorable to one side or another in the long run. I'd much rather enjoy the pretty lights. But you're missing the point completely. You're expecting way too much of a response to everything you post. Your cold demeanor is off-putting and you act like I'm flinging mud like a politician. I'm not. Listen, everything I post is not a whiny insult. Everything you post has logic covered in logic sauce. I can be a logical person, to a degree. But when you put off a battle when the numbers show one is the winner over another doesn't mean that's how it works out. Numbers don't equal results. And just because someone insults your answer to the battle doesn't mean it's illogical if the numbers say who the winner is. Please don't take this as HALO SHOLD WIN EVRY FIGHTS!!1!!1 I'm not blaming you peeps for the undoing of this thread. There were many an unruly person posting obnoxious comments in this thread, I get that. I just think your acting in a way that only provokes them more. You have logic, now show your people skills.
-
[quote] See, that right thare could be taken as an insult. Or it could be taken as someone not understanding someone else opinions. First off, I like the idea that if the Federation were to get trashed by the Galactic Empire (if it were to happen) it might piss Q off. I'm, dare I say, assuming Q is favorable to his own science fiction series and would thus promptly lay some whoop-down on the Empire. Be him omniscient or not, there would be many a dead storm trooper. [/quote] You pretty much stated everything I've been trying to communicate to you with one telling point in your post: "I like the idea". I'm not here to discuss your fantasy, I'm here to discuss from a debating standpoint. Neither one go hand in hand but you have blurred the line quite frequently. [quote]Also, all that assuming you did on your part. I actually forget, excuse my short term memory at 3:30 in the morning, what you said about me exactly but it seemed you were assuming I was void of logical output and that I was only basing just about every word out of my fingers on assumptions and fantasies? [/quote] It would seem that you have, since you haven't presented anything even corresponding with an actual debate (which is welcome here). If you feel that this is an issue, go to bed and return here once your mental faculties are restored. [quote] Sorry bub, but I'm fair more taught then that. But don't worry, there is a beautiful realm of fun and happiness where fantasy and logic work hand in hand. Don't take that as me superior, I would want no such thing. I'm just saying, your using logic in a debate based between two fictional galaxies in a thread posted in a forum of a video game companies website plagued with adolescences. I'm sorry to say, but you may find some illogical statements when you post a debate thread.[/quote] Then why do you intend to correspond with only the negative faculties presented by others? Surely if you are aware of this then you would be clearly aware of the fact that I will not condone in your fantasy? What a contradiction.
-
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard this argument: "The Empire may be more powerful than the UNSC, but they've been exploring space for tens of thousands of years. The UNSC has only been exploring for a few hundred years, so it's not a fair fight. Give the UNSC tens of thousands of years, and then we'll talk." This argument basically claims that because the Empire has numerous built-in advantages over the UNSC, it's not a fair fight. But this is a pretty strange definition of "fair fight." If we decide that a fight is only fair when the two contestants are evenly matched, then all fair fights will end in a draw. Does this make sense? I don't know about everyone else, but my definition of a fair fight is one in which the two contestants have to play by the same rules. The two contestants don't have to be evenly matched. If Lennox Lewis fights Pee Wee Herman, I consider it a fair fight as long as both fighters wear the same gloves and obey the same rules. It would be an incredible mismatch, but it would still be a fair fight. Stop trying to take a fair fight and turn it into an unfair fight. Instead of taking the Empire and the Covenant and simply pitting them against one another as they are, people want to give the Covenant tens of thousands of years to prepare. This is ridiculous. If I asked whether the 21st century American armed forces could crush Julius Caesar's Roman army, would you answer that the Americans have an unfair advantage? If you do, you would be evading the question. Of course they have an advantage; that's why they would win! Ultimately, the proposal is purely up to you, but you're not going to see my crying "it's not fair" if you pitted Master Chief against an Ewok. It may be incredibly mismatched, but it's not unfair.
-
The point of this thread was to level the playing field by making different encounters. It is proven by reading this thread that halo does win in some encounters. The point was to make more people happy and make it more interesting. Ever since the trolls came in though and degraded this thread, its more of an argument about canon, numbers, facts, etc. Before I did throw out some facts but not as much as I have to now. If we didn't use these numbers, then we couldn't have a real debate. It would be filled with people making up fan fiction stories of an encounter and people flaming eachother so much. It would make for a stupid thread.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Roan Fel On a side note, the actual mechanics of a Rainbow is far more beautiful and objectively more inspiring than any folk tale or legend, as is the mystery of the universe itself. I'm sorry that it pains you so when logic shatters your pre-conceived and incorrect perception of the world, but you cannot or should not hide from the truth.[/quote] See, that right thare could be taken as an insult. Or it could be taken as someone not understanding someone elses opinions. First off, I like the idea that if the Federation were to get trashed by the Galactic Empire (if it were to happen) it might piss Q off. I'm, dare I say, assuming Q is favorable to his own science fiction series and would thus promptly lay some whoop-down on the Empire. Be him omniscient or not, there would be many a dead storm trooper. Also, all that assuming that you did on your part. I actually forget, excuse my short term memory at 3:30 in the morning, what you said about me exactly but it seemed you were assuming I was void of logical output and that I was only basing just about every word out of my fingers on assumptions and fantasies? Sorry bub, but I'm fair more taught then that. But don't worry, there is a beautiful realm of fun and happiness where fantasy and logic work hand in hand. Don't take that as me being superior, I would want no such thing. I'm just saying, your using logic in a debate based between two fictional galaxies in a thread posted in a forum of a video game companies website plagued with adolescences. I'm sorry to say, but you may find some illogical statements when you post a debate thread. Plus I just realized what you remind me of XD You green blooded Vulcans [Edited on 07.31.2009 12:43 AM PDT]
-
This thread has been open to any and all suggestions from the start, ranging from the sensible to the downright ludicrously unbalanced, but the choice remains still. If you want to pit a Covenant Elite against an Ewok, you are welcome to do so. As long as your reasons for selecting one combatant are justified, you are welcome to your opinion. It just so happens that several pages ago someone suggested a "Covenant Cruiser Vs. Star Destroyer" match, which we just happened to have the data to prove without a doubt that a Star Destroyer would steamroll a covenant Cruiser within seconds.
-
That wasn't an insult, that was me trying to explain to you why so many people have left annoying/insulting comments and replies on this thread. Plus if this were a truly logical thread in which you wanted a debate, try leveling the playing field eh? It's pretty obvious to anyone that Star Wars would win 99/100 fights against the Halo universe based on the facts that Star Wars has a longer time to develop as a series and over all has a more power struggle mind set. Halo's theme has been survival, survival against a religious crazy alien race and a hungry zombie infestation. Star Wars has been a power struggle between good and evil. It's obvious one is going to develop more powerful weapons and ships than the other. But to truly enjoy a debate, maybe propose a subject in which each side of selected factions could find an even fighting battlefield. In this way we could argue on a 50/50 ratio of how Halo or Star Wars could win. I feel many people would find this satisfactory to "hey how about generic Halo guy vs generic Star Wars guy" "yeah that's cool but these numbers show generic Star Wars guy > generic Halo guy in just about every aspect" Also, I happen to do this to. Try to read text without putting tone into it. Sometimes I assume someone is trying to insult or hurt me when really it was a jest or an analogy because I put a negative tone to what I'm reading. And if you truly cannot stand my presence and input I will leave peacefully and go back to my normal approach to threads of reading and enjoying instead of partaking.
-
On a side note, the actual mechanics of a Rainbow is far more beautiful and objectively more inspiring than any folk tale or legend, as is the mystery of the universe itself. I'm sorry that it pains you so when logic shatters your pre-conceived and incorrect perception of the world, but you cannot or should not hide from the truth.
-
Essentially, all I got from that is "you're mean". Despite the fact that it was you who made a facetious claim in the first place and called upon the idea that said claim could be validated, you blame me for destroying your illusion? The Red Herring fallacy you adopted is an evasion tactic. Its most common form is the much-reviled no limits fallacy. In the first Star Wars example, Q is a red herring. The Empire's strategic and tactical superiority is not affected by the presence of Q. Of course, if we make the point that Q is a red herring, our opponent will swiftly switch into red-herring justification mode. He will try to claim that Q is actually beholden to the Federation somehow and so he will ride to the rescue. But this is merely the second part of the red herring fallacy: first you introduce the red herring, and then you use it to distract people from the original debate. In the second Star Wars example, the power of the Death Star is established by a simple thermodynamic "state comparison". The energy state of Alderaan after the blast is compared to its state before the blast, and we simply take the difference. It is irrelevant how the Death Star accomplishes this feat, just as nuclear fusion was irrelevant when scientists first began to quantify the Sun's radiation output; even though they didn't know how it worked, they could still figure out how much power it made. Q could probably blow up an Imperial vessel if he wanted to, but he's an enigma. His motives are a mystery, and there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that he'll come riding to the Federation's rescue. He's occasionally shown a hint of sympathy for humanity (when he wasn't threatening to exterminate us, which is no small caveat), but he has never demonstrated any interest in the system of government known as the Federation. Why would he care whether humanity is ruled by the fascist Empire or by the communist Federation? You could ask the same questions about any of the other "omnipotent" beings of Star Trek. In other words, you've tried creating a false paradigm where you've taken "technologically advanced" and claimed that since there is no viewed upper limit from OUR perspective, it must be infinite. This is primitive and childish thinking, but if you want to go back to believing that Rainbows are Gods farts then I can't stop you.
-
This is a debate about who would win in battle. We are using real world figures to keep this civilized and prevent it from being 'OMG DA SW PEOPLE WIN BECAUSE DEY LUK AWSUM AND I THINK THEY ARE BETR BECUZ I THINK SO" among other reasons. The only way to have a true, somewhat organized debate is to use real world facts that we all understand. Why are you trying to insult us? Especially with that rainbow statement. I mean what did we ever do to you? You're the one who misread the purpose of this thread. We are doing nothing wrong. [Edited on 07.31.2009 12:23 AM PDT]
-
You're one of those people that walks up to little kids enjoying a rainbow and say "you know, that's really just light reflecting through water droplets" aren't you? There is a limit to reason and logic and what I've been trying to say is your abundance of logical reasoning is making this thread really stale. My mouth is literally drying out from the pure logic of your statements. Plus isn't omniscience, a word defined and used by mortals, just that. In a sense, we are omniscience to "prehistoric savages" as anything beyond what our current capabilities that we could evolve into would still fall into the range of confusion to the savages. So when you get to the state of being in which you can "manipulate matter on a molecular level or live for an undetermined period of time" then to me you will be what it means to be omniscient. Also, Q did bring Picard back to life in that episode where Picard and Q traveled back to Picard's academy days and he got stabbed. Pardon my Star Trek, I don't remember the exact episode's name is. Also, Q is also Q continuum and one Q can remove another Q's powers. Yet no one else seems able to. As I will say now, I don't deal with up-tight reality biters [Edited on 07.31.2009 12:22 AM PDT]
-
George F. Will, the ever-eloquent back page columnist for Newsweek magazine, once said: [i]"Intellectual rigor annoys people because it interferes with the pleasure they derive from allowing their wishes to be the fathers of their thoughts."[/i] I don't understand people who resent a methodical approach. Look, it may just be science fiction, but as long as we're going through the motions of pretending that it's real, then we might as well do it right. Right?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] LarryK32 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TheEndIsNear NL [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] IMAFIRINMALAZAH Anyways.. Spartan II vs. Jedi[/quote]Force. Lightsabers. [/quote] But then whos to say that the SPARTAN II wouldn't be able to use the force. And if they could they would be better than a normal beginner because of they are able to process thoughts faster than a normal person.[/quote] The idea that Spartans would be able to use the force is a huge assumption, considering they most likely have a low metachlorian count! <(^-^)>
-
[quote]Actually there is something that states Q is omnipotent, Q himself (herself? Itself?)[/quote] That's far from a valid source. [quote]Plus, the things Q has done quite clearly show his power, which is pretty close to omnipotence (at least by what we can define omnipotence as with our limited brains) But anyway, isn't that the fun part? When you put limits on Gods and Immortals and higher beings it just kinda goes... blah[/quote] Besides, how do you know he's omnipotent? I find it fascinating that because Q does things which seem like magic, most people assume he must be omnipotent. That does not follow; we do things which would seem like magic to prehistoric savages, but we're not omnipotent. Why do we assume he's omnipotent? Has he ever destroyed a galaxy, for example? Has he ever created a sentient species? Has he ever reversed death? If he's omnipotent, then how could his powers be taken away from him, as they were in "Deja Q"? Why could Q continuum weapons be handled by humans, as we saw in Voyager? Q may be able to manipulate matter on a molecular level, live for an undetermined period of time, present himself in arbitrary forms, create convincing illusions and telepathic dream-states, and perform interesting feats such as adjusting lunar orbits, suppressing warp core breaches, time travel, or inducing a supernova, but that hardly amounts to omnipotence. All of those things could be accomplished by a combination of the technologies and telepathic abilities demonstrated by various "mere" mortals in Star Wars and Star Trek. As I said, I don't deal with fallacies.
-
[quote]It's a debate. Not a fantasy thread. Debates use actual facts if possible. We are debating who would win in a battle. Not how cool it would look if they were fighting.[/quote] Just to clarify what Teef just mentioned: This discussion employs real science wherever possible, along with the scientific method. Of course, there is no such thing as warp drive, or hyperdrive, or Death Stars. But the site is based on suspension of disbelief, which presumes that the canon events seen in the films and shows actually happened. Suppose we saw a Death Star in real life, and suppose we watched it blow Mars apart the way it blew Alderaan apart? We would not have the option of saying that it didn't happen, because we saw it. We would not have the option of saying that it's impossible, because it happened. Therefore, we would have to accept that it is possible, and try to rationalize it with our existing knowledge of science. We would not discard all of science because of this strange observation, nor would we ignore the observation because it doesn't fit our theories. That is what suspension of disbelief means, and that is how it applies to science. Excepting the fanfic of course, this debate does not employ pure speculation. Why should we apply real science at all? It is the only basis for rational and objective discussion! What is the alternative? Pseudoscience? Then we'd be no better than creationists. Pure subjectivism? At least it would be consistent, but I have yet to see a "subjectivist" who completely refrains from applying real science, they just do it selectively, thus making them hypocrites. Besides, aesthetic tastes vary from person to person anyway, thus eliminating the possibility of meaningful debate. One could only state opinions without any method of debating their validity. Besides, I don't see why a purely subjective comparison of the Empire and the Covenant would favour the Covenant anyway. When it comes to "look and feel", I don't see how someone could look at the appearance of a Star Destroyer (think: M1 Abrams tank) compared to the appearance of a typical Covenant starship (think: Mazda Miata), and think that the cute shiny one is the tough guy.
-
Actually there is something that states Q is omnipotent, Q himself (herself? Itself?) Of course, you can believe that if you want to or not. Plus, the things Q has done quite clearly show his power, which is pretty close to omnipotence (at least by what we can define omnipotence as with our limited brains) But anyway, isn't that the fun part? When you put limits on Gods and Immortals and higher beings it just kinda goes... blah Plus I am probably biased. I would take a good TNG episode over a Star Wars movie any day... okay it would be a close tie if it were the original Star Wars Trilogy
