An entire starwars army could defeat Eve
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The BoP is on PRO.
Definitions:
-- Defeat: Win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat. [oxford]
-- EVE: The second protagonist from the movie "Walle"
-- Army: Ground forces
-- Star Wars: The nine movies
Rules:
1. No prior knowledge about each other
2. Time and fuel is indefinite, but no side can get reinforcements
3. No use of any specifically anti-electronics weapon
4. No fortifications or stationary installations
5. No force users allowed
Full resolution: A star wars army on one planet can destroy or defeat the EVE (s).
- EVE is near invincible
- EVE can output concentrated energy far greater than the sun's (and control her fire to fit each situation)
- EVE is ultra-fast and ultra-precise
- EVE combines the best cognitive sides of man and computer (while discarding the downsides of both).
- EVE cannot be destroyed
- EVE can destroy anything
- EVE cannot be outrun in sub-lightspeed
- EVE cannot be taken by surprise or outsmarted
Droid units were often crippled with extremely sub-par artificial intelligence. The hideously poor A.I. The B1 battle droid rarely served any purpose other than as cannon fodder.[1]The DLT-19 heavy blaster rifle was used by stormtroopers of the Galactic Empire, 2] (thus, they were not available to the droid army)
The RPS-6 rocket launcher was used as a portable guided/unguided anti-vehicle weapon. [4]
They didn't hit targets by carefully aiming at them from a distance, they did it by pointing their formation in the general direction of said targets and spraying fire [...]
PRO makes a slightly semantical argument for how the word "can" should be interpreted.
In such a battle where one side or the other has a massive advantage, there is no "possibility" that the other side can win.
Either EVE can easily be taken down with no problems at all or it will be impossible to do.
The hideously poor A.I. The B1 battle droid rarely served any purpose other than as cannon fodder.[1]
The missiles could only hit grounded targets. EVE can fly, and quickly dodge if needed. Therefore, these missiles would never hit EVE.
While PRO's fandom site seems impressive, they are written by average fans with lore and continuity in mind, to fill in the holes the movies created.
If auto aim and good ai existed in the star wars universe then humans would not fly X-wings or control star destroyers, ai's would.
You don't get 3 million soldiers in the firing range of a single target, so PRO's assertion that EVE would be shot by an enormous army at once is simply pathetical.
Summary:
- EVE is near invincible
- EVE can output concentrated energy far greater than the sun's (and control her fire to fit each situation)
- EVE is ultra-fast and ultra-precise
- EVE combines the best cognitive sides of man and computer (while discarding the downsides of both).
AKA:
- EVE cannot be destroyed
- EVE can destroy anything
- EVE cannot be outrun in sub-lightspeed
- EVE cannot be taken by surprise or outsmarted
The colour white reflects all light [...], which means that adding more lasers or more powerful lasers will be futile and have no effect on her.
You are to assert that in no situation can a Star Wars army defeat EVE, even if EVE run's into a cliff and explodes
Some heat is still absorbed based on the nature of the object's material, but minimal additional heat is absorbed, making white the coolest possible colour. [sciencing/colors-heat]
- Overshooting due to aiming movements, a complex mathematical problem that has also been experimentally verified
- Both the tracking of the target and the orientation of the weapon needs to be perfectly accurate with a laser. The margin of error makes this information unreliable.
- The tracking of an accelerating target requires a constant process of aiming that never allows for a clear shot. EVE will exploit this.
Time and fuel is indefinite
While I agree that the burden is on Pro, this debate was actually massively Pro-slanted. The “can” in the full resolution (which does specifically say that the army itself must destroy or defeat EVE) indicates that Pro only has to provide some instance where EVE loses this fight. Considering the sheer amount of tech used in the Star Wars universe, even if I fully bought that EVE would dominate this fight almost every time, I would still be forced to vote for Pro because any instance is enough. Trouble is that Con really doesn’t do the work for me. He asserts several times that there are weapons that can do the job, but doesn’t do the work of examining EVE’s feats to establish that she would be injured or harmed in any way. The numbers look big, but it’s unclear that that kind of payload could be delivered all at once and achieve the associated level of damage if it did. Simply saying that they could be accurate is not enough, either, since accuracy isn’t the problem, but rather addressing a speed and rapid response time that may even exceed that of a Jedi (though no one makes that comparison). Even if I assume they’d hit, I’m not clear that damage would be done or, if it would, how much. Is it possible that the armies would win? Yes, insofar as I can conceive of that as a possible outcome and, given all the tools Pro presents, I could find a possible set of circumstances where EVE might be destroyed or disabled. Unfortunately, Pro doesn’t give me those circumstances, and it’s his burden to paint such a scenario convincingly. Make it absolutely optimal, tell me how EVE would respond, examine how she would fail. Without that, Pro fails in his burden, leading me to vote Con.
Also, conduct to Con for the forfeit.
Argument:
First and foremost - it must be said that the resolution is clear - Pro must prove that it is *possible* that the star wars army could destroy Eve. Con drops the fact that Pro's Star War army has weapons that can fire at light speed - the fact that they fire at the speed of light does not mean the actual harm of the laser is light-based as Pro points out - furthermore, they drop the fact that a *billion* soldiers could fit in one space where they could easily fire at EVE.
I simply buy that millions of soldiers have enough power to overwhelm EVE's defences - as Con has a feat of what? A combustion engine? That's nothing compared to raw energy - I actually used to be a feat debater - and let me tell ya - Pro easily wins - Con simply doesn't sell EVE's defences past the first round - where is your evidence that EVE could survive "6.7749361e+22 watts worth of electricity per shot" - Con doesn't even respond to this point.
Given this - Pro proves that it is possible for the army to defeat EVE
Conduct: Pro forfeited
I must say I am very disappointed by your vote. First and foremost you ignore every single argument that I made to show why it would be impossible to even hit EVE. Even if I were wrong, PRO did not rebut, and so you completely ignoring this crucial argument disproving PRO's case makes your vote utterly biased. Secondly, your very own experience as a "feat debater" is your only way to even claim that PRO won the argument point. I literally used scientific sources to show how future materials will have properties today considered impossible. This leads to my third objection, and that is that you do not give the sources argument. I literally proved my sources to be more reliable than PRO's, while also using scientific sources to prove that future materials could have properties today considered impossible. Coupled with my analysis of the actual source material in the movies, my sources actually back up my claims that EVE has impossibly resistant armour.
I disproved the effectiveness of every weapon by PRO individually, and he never rebutted. How dare you then as a voter to disregard what happened in the actual debate and instead bring up your own experience? Even if you bought the semantical argument that "anything is possible" you still can't deny that the overwhelming majority of arguments were won by me and that all battles between sources were won by me. I also raise the question of where PRO proved anything. Apart from giving us a number of watts, PRO never proved at all that the star wars army could harm EVE. That's like saying that my rifle has a calibre of x and then claiming that I could penetrate a tank. Without comparing the strength of each part no conclusion can be made. Meanwhile, I actually compared the armour of EVE to the weaponry of the star wars army and showed why EVE would go unharmed. Yet again, even if I were wrong, PRO didn't rebut.
Your vote simply ignores every point I made, and every rebuttal I made. Your vote then is utterly unfair.
Did you simply not read the argument, or did you leave out most points made in the debate specifically for me to lose?
Thank you for voting
I've given this time, but I still can't imagine Eve murdering all those people.
Thank you for the vote
I will vote, but cannot today - I don't think.
If any of you want to vote I will highly appreciate it.
Time is running out with no votes yet.
The vote doesn't need to be long.
Vote bump
Seeing your comment about voting on this debate, and knowing that time is running out, I add a friendly reminder. Do you still want to vote?
Thanks! I haven't even bought in the sith army :)
Impressive first round.
Force telepathy = Instawin
EMP weapons = Instawin
Continuous reinforcements for infinity = Instawin
As you can see, the rules set in place have only eliminated your instawins, not your means of actually fighting EVE.
But you made the change from "EVE could defeat star wars" to "Star Wars could defeat EVE", which severely skews the debate in your favor.
I am sorry, but the comics and the animated series contain way too much surprise and OP beings. So no.
However, you will make many decisions I will also have to follow. For example these two: location and your army. Adittionally, I only disallowed using the force to control EVE, lightsabers are still allowed.
In my argument, am I allowed to use a being from the clone wars or comics, as it is in star wars? I know you said "from the movies", but you've already eliminated the force, anti electric weapons and reinforcements, which severely skews the debate in your favour
Thank you for your understanding.
No problem, take your time.
I lost the last debate we had due to the voter "scratching his head" not understanding the ideas clashing or logic involved in the debate.
I will not let that happen again, therefore I will explain the technical details at the beginning of the debate.
I will explain why it is superior in every way to star wars technology. That will take a lot of space.
You made me change the resolution from "eve can defeat star wars" to "star wars could defeat eve". That is a super impactful change. Not only do I have to show why EVE is superior, but also why star wars cannot defeat it. It is for that reason that I cannot also let you get the first word. I also wrote in the description that we talk about eveS, so as to not grant you the victory on mere chance.
Regardless, you have nothing to worry about. You won the last debate we had, even if the victory was a bit suspicious to say the least.
You've already defined EVE as the second protagonist from the movie Walle. Not much room to kritik. At least not on this front.
You had already promised to accept the debate, and given the terms:
"Change it to "An entire starwars army could defeat Eve" and then change your position to Con and you've got yourself a debate."
I realized that unless I explained what EVE is, I will have an inherent disadvantage since most people intuitively know what star wars is.
But I will not make any argument in the first round.
You stated that you would waive the round before I accepted. You stated you would waive 2 days ago, and I accepted less than 1 day ago.
You were ready to accept the debate before I said that I would waive.
I am sorry, but I cannot.
Waive the round.
What’s wrong with that kritik
ok.
Also, could you change the argument time to at least a week?
As a voter, I will not look favorably on the Kritik that they might accidently give her a plant causing her to retreat.
I still think the resolution would be better if focusing on some degree of likelihood, instead of mere possibility.
I will waive first round.
Change it to "An entire starwars army could defeat Eve" and then change your position to Con and you've got yourself a debate.
If you could provide a better definition/examples for conventional weapons, I may accept.
Well, a tribe of stone-age muppets pulled it off so.....yeah. Bounty hunters routinely storm fortresses and prisons and kill everybody inside in twenty minutes so....yeah. You can trick their capital ships into crashing into one another by simply flying in between them sometimes. They're so bad that Jar Jar Binks is a general in their world. Their best guy is a clinically depressed quadruple amputee with a terrible rash. My Little Pony could defeat a Star Wars army. A steady breeze could defeat a Star Wars army.
"No force users allowed"
Alright, I am starting a topic called "Iron man can defeat the entire US army and Chinese army combined" and put "Chinese and US army cannot use any weapons" in the description. How absurd is this.
EMP grenades were a "conventional weapon" and I would argue that ion cannons were as well, but you do specify that it is against any ground army.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse_grenade
So could John McClane.
Could is a very open ended word, with no regard for likelihood.
Obviously one cannot have a battle if one side can simply control the movements of the other side or if star wars win because "the force wants it so".
No force allowed? Well obviously Star Wars is heavily weakened