to be clear, the kill count wasn't to quantify contributions, it was to showcase the fact that Luke committed far more war crimes than Kylo lol
not to mention him stealing babies across the galaxy and whatnot.
I wanted to say more for the second rebuttal but ran out of time again. Basically, I wanted to cite the very nature of quantum mechanics and how it's based on probability and chance, so yes, there is a real possibility that all of this was made by random chance. And, there is also non-linear dynamic systems with chaotic behavior, which are indeed deterministic but completely unpredictable, which mirrors randomness. Neither of these mean a person of "intelligent mind" designed these things. It's kinda the beauty of existence within itself. I chose Spinoza's approach because his philosophy deals with the very essence of existence and how things can "be". I wish I could've expanded more on his school of thought, but this was a fun discussion nonetheless.
And, yeah, no one should include any of what I just said here in the official debate, but I wanted to at least share my thoughts on it in some capacity. I'm sorry I ran out of time. Dealing with some personal stuff and way overestimated my ability to get a lengthy response in on time.
Note: Con makes a mention of the profitability of Ben's return to Disney, but in my preamble, I requested that we keep the debate to narrative reasons only, not fiscal.
“Well, compared to Vader and Anakin, Ren is an obvious downgrade.”
That is the point of his character. He tries to emulate what Vader was, but fails, because at his core, he is not the same. In his heart he knows this, and instead “performs” the Dark Side by lashing out and demonstrating violent spurts of aggression rather than wholly embracing it. He’s playing pretend. A child in a mask, as Snoke aptly pointed out.
“Possibly the only non-dominant Sith in the entire series.”
Kylo is not a Sith.
“However, up until episode 7 all bad guys had 1. Plan 2. Motive 3. Consistency 4. Some stability in speech and battles, 5. Sense of respect in battles and speech 6. Cool lines.”
1. Kylo’s plan was to finish what Vader started. This is stated in the first film of the trilogy.
2. As verbalized: to move the galaxy towards a new order that doesn’t believe in esoteric notions of Dark versus Light, Sith versus Jedi. This is stated in the second film. To be precise, The First Order acted as an inquisition to impose itself as the singular and final rule of law in the galaxy.
As implied: to get revenge on those he trusted and abandoned him as a child, inadvertently casting him away and towards the dark side, Han and Luke being being major players in that. This was also clarified in the second film. His motives eventually incorporate having Rey at his side to achieve the above, as clarified in the third film.
3. The conflict residing in Kylo was evident since the first movie and stayed true to the moment of his turn in the final film. This conflict made him volatile and angry, interspersed with flashes of vulnerability. This is consistent with the above motives in addition to his being a metaphoric child in a mask.
4. I’m not entirely sure what is meant by this, but any instability observed in Kylo can be attributed to the aforementioned symptoms of a character who is volatile and in constant battle with himself. Snoke, again, aptly described Kylo as unbalanced for this reason.
5. Kylo Ren was corrupted, dogged, and a bit arrogant in his pursuits to achieve what he wanted. There’s no reason such a character would demonstrate respect towards his foes. I’m unsure what is meant by “respect in speech”.
6. “Your son is gone. He was weak and foolish like his father, so I destroyed him.”
“Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.”
Rey: “You are a monster.”
Kylo: “Yes, I am.”
This isn’t even to speak of his sarcastic one-liner retorts.
“Anakin was a bit emo, yes, but he was mostly reasonable in it.”
Was he? He choked his pregnant wife to death under the unfounded pretense of her cheating on/betraying him and proceeded to plunge the galaxy into endless turmoil and suffering for decades to come. His “I hate sand” attitude in general categorizes him as more of an emo considering Kylo didn’t even speak or lament his frustrations with the world by much in comparison.
“At least you knew what they think.”
It’s true that Kylo Ben may not be as chatty as Anakin, but he didn’t need to be. We saw who he was and how he felt through his actions: From smashing his helmet in a fit of incalculable rage; to staring, quiet and forlorn, into the abyss after executing his own father; to making the silent decision to spare his mother’s life.
I understand Kylo Ren/Ben Solo is part of a trilogy some people simply don’t enjoy, but that doesn’t mean the fundamentals and nuance of his character, which are indeed laid out in the films, need to be ignored.
you haven’t posted a vote
to be clear, the kill count wasn't to quantify contributions, it was to showcase the fact that Luke committed far more war crimes than Kylo lol
not to mention him stealing babies across the galaxy and whatnot.
I wanted to say more for the second rebuttal but ran out of time again. Basically, I wanted to cite the very nature of quantum mechanics and how it's based on probability and chance, so yes, there is a real possibility that all of this was made by random chance. And, there is also non-linear dynamic systems with chaotic behavior, which are indeed deterministic but completely unpredictable, which mirrors randomness. Neither of these mean a person of "intelligent mind" designed these things. It's kinda the beauty of existence within itself. I chose Spinoza's approach because his philosophy deals with the very essence of existence and how things can "be". I wish I could've expanded more on his school of thought, but this was a fun discussion nonetheless.
And, yeah, no one should include any of what I just said here in the official debate, but I wanted to at least share my thoughts on it in some capacity. I'm sorry I ran out of time. Dealing with some personal stuff and way overestimated my ability to get a lengthy response in on time.
Sincere apologies, I had an unexpected errand come up, and I’m not going to get all my arguments in by the deadline.
Shall I include my rebuttals and summary in the closing round?
Ok thx :) I look forward to it ~
Thx for clarifying ~ on a personal level, I’m agnostic, but whether I argue from an atheist or agnostic perspective will depend on the debate
um...
+1 to what Barney said. If you could pls define what you mean by existence in your opening arguments, that'd be dope, thx
Note: Con makes a mention of the profitability of Ben's return to Disney, but in my preamble, I requested that we keep the debate to narrative reasons only, not fiscal.
oh shit i didn't realize anyone accepted this
In love and correct 😌
“Well, compared to Vader and Anakin, Ren is an obvious downgrade.”
That is the point of his character. He tries to emulate what Vader was, but fails, because at his core, he is not the same. In his heart he knows this, and instead “performs” the Dark Side by lashing out and demonstrating violent spurts of aggression rather than wholly embracing it. He’s playing pretend. A child in a mask, as Snoke aptly pointed out.
“Possibly the only non-dominant Sith in the entire series.”
Kylo is not a Sith.
“However, up until episode 7 all bad guys had 1. Plan 2. Motive 3. Consistency 4. Some stability in speech and battles, 5. Sense of respect in battles and speech 6. Cool lines.”
1. Kylo’s plan was to finish what Vader started. This is stated in the first film of the trilogy.
2. As verbalized: to move the galaxy towards a new order that doesn’t believe in esoteric notions of Dark versus Light, Sith versus Jedi. This is stated in the second film. To be precise, The First Order acted as an inquisition to impose itself as the singular and final rule of law in the galaxy.
As implied: to get revenge on those he trusted and abandoned him as a child, inadvertently casting him away and towards the dark side, Han and Luke being being major players in that. This was also clarified in the second film. His motives eventually incorporate having Rey at his side to achieve the above, as clarified in the third film.
3. The conflict residing in Kylo was evident since the first movie and stayed true to the moment of his turn in the final film. This conflict made him volatile and angry, interspersed with flashes of vulnerability. This is consistent with the above motives in addition to his being a metaphoric child in a mask.
4. I’m not entirely sure what is meant by this, but any instability observed in Kylo can be attributed to the aforementioned symptoms of a character who is volatile and in constant battle with himself. Snoke, again, aptly described Kylo as unbalanced for this reason.
5. Kylo Ren was corrupted, dogged, and a bit arrogant in his pursuits to achieve what he wanted. There’s no reason such a character would demonstrate respect towards his foes. I’m unsure what is meant by “respect in speech”.
6. “Your son is gone. He was weak and foolish like his father, so I destroyed him.”
“Let the past die. Kill it if you have to.”
Rey: “You are a monster.”
Kylo: “Yes, I am.”
This isn’t even to speak of his sarcastic one-liner retorts.
“Anakin was a bit emo, yes, but he was mostly reasonable in it.”
Was he? He choked his pregnant wife to death under the unfounded pretense of her cheating on/betraying him and proceeded to plunge the galaxy into endless turmoil and suffering for decades to come. His “I hate sand” attitude in general categorizes him as more of an emo considering Kylo didn’t even speak or lament his frustrations with the world by much in comparison.
“At least you knew what they think.”
It’s true that Kylo Ben may not be as chatty as Anakin, but he didn’t need to be. We saw who he was and how he felt through his actions: From smashing his helmet in a fit of incalculable rage; to staring, quiet and forlorn, into the abyss after executing his own father; to making the silent decision to spare his mother’s life.
I understand Kylo Ren/Ben Solo is part of a trilogy some people simply don’t enjoy, but that doesn’t mean the fundamentals and nuance of his character, which are indeed laid out in the films, need to be ignored.