Instigator / Con
11
1760
rating
91
debates
76.92%
won
Topic
#2788
An entire starwars army could defeat Eve
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Tags
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Pro
9
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Description
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).
Round 1
Con
#1
Thank you, Wagyu for accepting this debate.
SETUP
Expanded resolution: A star wars army on one planet can destroy or defeat the EVE (s)
Pro wins by proving that the Star Wars army has the necessary capacity to take down and defeat the EVE(s). Con wins by disproving that claim. We are obviously speaking about a conventional military victory, no trolls are within the boundaries and setting provided by the resolution or the description. Hacking, for example, would not be allowed as it has nothing to do with the parties involved and also does not create an interesting discussion. Pro has the BoP, as he himself asked for a reversal of the resolution, which also means a reversal in BoP ownership. Although I technically do not have a BoP, I will still act like I have one in order to further strengthen my case.
Introduction
All of this information comes from the movie WALL-E, which is available at Disney+ and some other sites like youtube. The movie is set in the 28th century, with the earth fully abandoned due to environmental issues. The human race lives a luxurious life with technology far surpassing that of star wars, they live on the entirely self-sustained cruisers in space fully manned by robots. The droid EVE is the latest in cutting-edge technology and is sent to the earth to search for organic material. EVE is a sleek, shiny robot with an oval shape. She is humanoid but has only four parts: head, body, arms, and fingers, which gives her the ability to rapidly and precisely utilize mold herself into different tools. She is both sentient and computer -- like all other robots in that time. If you want to get an idea of how the robot looks then here she is.
EVE - BASIC CAPABILITIES
In this round, I will establish EVE as practically invisible not only to star wars but to any foe. I will do it by going through each trait that makes a warrior or battle machine great and summarize her respective abilities. Be aware that the list is not at all mentioning most of her accomplishments, there are many that go unnoticed due to lack of space.
Armour
EVE easily mocks any and all competition with regards to armor. She is fully enclosed in a white coating of unknown material. She can be exposed to brutal sand storms without protection, be in contact with water for extended periods of time, and even be scraped along a metal surface -- all of this without even getting a mark. The material is able to easily withstand the harshest of environments, but it can also protect her from other harms. Once we see that EVE is spinning incredibly fast and then the arm hits another robot. The force is large enough that the other robot flies up and nearly penetrates the thick steel roof. But the collision did not stop her spin or cause her to notice it, neither did it leave even a small bulk on her. This event alone is impressive, and if this was not enough, EVE takes no damage at all throughout the entire movie. She is exposed to electricity, strong magnetic fields, the vacuum of space, but she is literally never harmed. Most impressive though is the heat resistance. EVE is basically dancing above a giant spaceship thruster when it is active, but it does not pose even a minimal threat to her, or inflict any kind of burn or even marks. In conclusion, EVE is practically invincible to harm.
Weapon
EVE is armed with a gun in her right arm, and the weapon is phenomenal. Throughout the movie, EVE is seen utilizing the weapon in very different ways, which proves that the weapon is flexible enough to deal with any problems. The weapon is a super precise energy weapon, which gives the user full control of what the projectile will accomplish. Sometimes the projectile acts like a kinetic one would, other times it acts as an explosive, and thirdly it can even act as an electromagnetic weapon. The impact of each shot is often completely different and customizable. One time she uses it to crush a screen like a hammer would and another time it is seen to explode and blow a hole in the hull of AXION, the capital space ship. With every shot EVE puts in exactly the amount of energy needed, ranging from the power of a normal fist to a small nuke with its own mushroom cloud. Since she always uses the least amount of energy necessary, it is most likely that if faced with a greater challenge she will adjust and output EVEn more destructive force than ever shown in the movie. The most impressive accomplishment of the weapon was not breaking through futuristic steel or obliterating an entire container ship. With a single shot, lasting less than a second, she obliterated away a giant rock.
This might not seem as impressive at first as even small TNT packages can remove a big rock. However, the rock was not blown away, crushed, or destroyed, it disappeared with no sign of it except a mushroom cloud. Let me put this into perspective: "The mantle is solid rock" [1]. Not only is the shot impressive with regards to speed (melting rock in milliseconds), but it becomes nearly impossible when you consider that it was EVAPORATED, which means not only did it melt but it was also turned into a gas. This kind of heat conduction would require a concentrated energy output far beyond what the sun could ever offer. This YouTuber needed to use a 2500 degrees hot fire to melt former magma, which is more than a third of the sun's surface temperature [2]. Additionally, it still required a lot of time for it to melt -- not even speak of boiling it. On the contrary, when EVE shot a single shot at the rock, and it simply disappeared in a matter of milliseconds. This means that the gun would need to create energy far greater than the sun, which is confirmed [2] possible with nuclear weapons. To meet such a rock a nuke is needed. The mushroom cloud of EVE proves the theory that EVE has a gun able to shoot nuke-level projectiles and still precisely control exactly how the impact will look like. I conclude that EVE's gun is a small but much more efficient and precise death star.
Movement
EVE is not the strongest of robots, but she is still quite strong and can easily lift or slow down things many times her weight. Her movement however is incredible. She can move her arms in such a fast and precise way that she literally repairs WALL-E from total destruction to good as new -- within seconds or minutes. She is able to perform almost any task with her fingers and arms that can be controlled individually because they are not connected but controlled individually by energy. She can turn and shoot in less than a second, and her aim is always locked on the target, even if both she and the target is moving at high speed. Since she is not limited by feet she can turn or change direction nearly instantly, especially when compared to any other being. Her movement is also precise, she never crashes or even touches any surface while flying -- this is also true inside the crowded spaceship. She can fly anywhere and everywhere, and her movement speed has no known limit. There is one scene though that teaches us a bit about her capacity for movement. While flying near the ground she suddenly accelerates rapidly and within a second she breaks the sound barrier. Let us compare that to the fastest jet fighters today, which all fly at less than Mach three [3]. If EVE can accelerate into Mach 1 in less than a second she can surely outpace all of these, as supported by the field of aerodynamics. In conclusion, EVE is faster than jet fighters, has insane acceleration, is more precise than anything in movies or real life, and also never makes a mistake.
Cognitive abilities
EVE is sentient. EVE has an astonishingly high IQ, being able to fix a Rubix cube in less than 3 seconds the first time she sees one. She has a supercomputer inside of her, one that helps her predict the future and analyze the past - it also includes information about plants. She has a superb grasp of technology and electronics, easily repairing and handling it with ease and doing so better than most others and without making mistakes. She understands a new situation super quickly, EVE is a super-fast learner that can easily adapt after a short period of time. Her long-term planning is not perfect but the longer she experiences a situation the better her plans and strategies become. More importantly, she likes to play it safe and calculates the benefits of each action -- while never running away from her duty or objective. She can study anything super fast using her scanner, which gives her an advantage in situations that involve uncertainty. Her reflexes are beyond comprehension. From hearing a small sound to shooting the source takes her less than a second. When making short plans she is incredibly efficient at succeeding. Most importantly, EVE is creative, with all its benefits but without its downsides. In conclusion, EVE is always aware of her surrounding, she rapidly adapts to new situations, analyzes them, and creates a logically sound plan which she can successfully perform, and when things go wrong her creative mind can help her out.
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
CONCLUSION
There is literally no consistent way to take down or defeat EVE not based on blind luck or absurd circumstances - and those circumstances she would always avoid.
Thus, taking down multiple is impossible, even if their numbers are low and they are spread out substantially.
Back to you, Wagyu.
SOURCES - from real life
Pro
#2
Well that was all very interesting.
==
Thx for creating this debate. For this round, I will be posing simply my argument with no rebuttals. This way, both myself and my opponent can have equal chances at rebutting the other's argument. This is also because I am the one who has provided a case, while my opponent simply used his round to define EVE. After all, my opponent can’t prove EVE can defeat any starwar’s army without knowing which one I will pick.
==
Interpreting the resolution
Expanded resolution: A star wars army on one planet can destroy or defeat the EVE (s)
In order for myself to win, I must simply destroy EVE. As the resolution clearly states destroy or defeat, a suicide attack will satisfy my BoP of destroying EVE. Also take note of the word "can", placed in the resolution. To win, I must simply show that there is a possibility for EVE to be destroyed. The word "can" expresses the possibility of something occurring, that despite the odds, it can happen. With that out of the way, consider my arguments.
==
1.1: Destruction via droid army
In starwar's, the battle droid army is, if used correctly, one of the most powerful armies. Droids could carry heavy weaponry and shielding, move rapidly without tiring, analyze targeting and trajectory calculations instantly, and protect crucial systems by burying them deep inside the frame of the droid. Essentially, the droids had auto aim built into them, which calculated exactly where their enemy was. If you were to arm them with a DLT-19 heavy blaster rifle's, and position them around a planned position, EVE would be overwelmed by the sheer amount of droids aim locking at her.
On top of the battle droids, this army also consists of another two other troops. The super battle droid and the Droideka. The B2-HA super battle droid is armed with an integrated rocket launcher that could fire coming missiles, while the droideka is armed with two rapid fire blasters. Importantly, the Droidekas had a shield which were so strong and powerful that they could easily repel or deflect short-range, high-velocity attacks; rendering sidearms or blasters ineffective. The important factor here is not the armoury of each individual droid, but the sheer number of them. There is a saying, which goes "On it's own, an ant cannot kill a lion, but with alliance, it can". Essentially, the sheer amount of laser bullets firing at EVE would overwhelm her, giving her no chance to even respond to the onslaught.
This concept is also apparent in nature. It is shown that large amounts of ants, which on their own are useless, can defeat even a mighty spider.
1.2: Destruction via clone army
Similar to the droid army, the clone army would win because of the sheer amount of soldiers. The Grand Army, led my Supreme Chancellor Palpatine/ Darth Sidious, consists of three million soldiers wielding weapons such as Phoenix II plasma disruptor, Reverse-polarity pulse grenade and RPS-6 rocket launcher's.
As well as the swarm of troops wielding self-tracking missile launchers, the clone army also consists of heavy mobile artillery. Take the Republic Interceptor TX-130 Saber-class fighter tank as an example. Equipped with dual laser cannons, multiple concussion missiles and a beam cannon turret, this beast is essentially unstoppable.
To those who don't know, concussion missiles are winged rocket like projectiles featured with an Armor-piercing tip that penetrated a target's before igniting the missile's compact energy pack, causing more devastating results than single-shot turbolaser cannons.[5]
The impact would trigger the missile's warhead, which contained a small energy pack that triggered a concussion blast that damaged the surrounding area and disrupted instruments and equipment.[6] A concussion missile did not necessarily need to impact in order to detonate, however; some could be set to explode at a pre-set proximity to the target. In atmosphere, the missile created a deafening sonic boom and caused major damage to the surrounding area.
If you thought that was damaging, consider the twin laser cannons. Cannons on the famous X-Wing ranged from 1.26e+14 watts to 5e+14 watts. However, we are considering a much larger and heavier ground tank, which is not restricted by the need to quickly zip through the sky, so it is likely that this number is much higher.
Remember, this is a single tank. The Russians made use of 8,231 tanks in WW2. If we do the maths and assume that the clone army would use the same amount of tanks, the entire army could deal 6.7749361e+22 watts worth of electricity per shot. Remember, this is a rapid fire laser (laser means as fast as light. I don't think EVE can move at light speed) cannon with in built aim bot in the programming. Also note that I am only considering a single tank. There are dozens more which are utilized by the army in the movie.
Don't forget that whilst being fried by the tanks laser cannons, EVE is also be attacked by concussion missiles, beam cannon turrets and 3 million clone soldiers firing their laser rifles.
==
Conclusion
I have provided two armies from the star wars universe which are able to defeat EVE.
Round 2
Con
#3
Thank you, Wagyu.
FRAMEWORK
Remember, PRO has the BoP.
Resolution rebuttal
PRO makes a slightly semantical argument for how the word "can" should be interpreted. Can is not about probability, but a possibility. In such a battle where one side or the other has a massive advantage, there is no "possibility" that the other side can win. The assertion that PRO might win simply by chance is indeed false. Either EVE can easily be taken down with no problems at all or it will be impossible to do. PRO must prove that star wars has the necessary capacity to defeat or destroy EVE. In other words, if PRO cannot show us which technology or by what tactic the star wars universe can take down EVE then he has lost.
Setting
PRO made no attempt at choosing a battlefield. Therefore, I will choose the most natural place, earth. Earth, in the WALL-E universe, is filled with trash skyscrapers and oil holes everywhere. There are broken buildings in every direction and the soil is weak, dry and easily cracks. There is also metal pieces lying around everywhere. It will be in this environment that PRO's army has to defeat EVE.
OBJECTIONS
PRO has presented some weapons and technologies with fancy names. Let us check what PRO's own source, Wookieepedia, says about these things.
1) Droid army
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)
These two factors alone: B1's being completely useless and good rifles not being available to them effectively destroys PRO's entire argument about the droid army.
2) Clone army
The RPS-6 rocket launcher was used as a portable guided/unguided anti-vehicle weapon. [4]
The missiles could only hit grounded targets. EVE can fly, and quickly dodge if needed. Therefore, these missiles would never hit EVE.
3) What about the so-called auto-aim?
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 [...]
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. They were not written by experts or scholars. I have Joseph Reinemann, Computer scientist and science fiction novelist as my source. He tells us that auto-aim simply wasn't used in such expendable armies. The computing power necessary for such an advanced auto-aim would be extremely expensive in the star wars universe. 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. Since humans did we know that good auto-aim was not implemented in star wars.
DEFENCE
Numbers advantage
I do not even need to mention the other EVE's to defeat this argument from PRO. A numbers advantage has no effect on such a high tech war. There is limited space which limits the size of the army surrounding EVE at any given time. 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. This means that if EVE can beat 1.000 soldiers, then there is no way that she cannot beat 3.000.000, as it will only be a matter of repetition. Therefore, if a small army from star wars cannot defeat EVE neither can a big army.
Aim
The so-called "auto-aim" in star wars is worse than a manual aim. This is evident as even starfighters like the Falcon use manual cannons instead of automatic ones. In fact, the clone troopers and even the imperial stormtroopers were better than the droids at aiming a gun. Therefore, none of PRO's weapons can aim better than human. The effects this fact has on the armies is devastating. Few humans can hit a moving target on the ground, and next to none would attempt and succeed at hitting a hovering one. EVE could move relatively slow and still, nobody would be able to hit her. She doesn't emit heat, so any guided missile would not be able to track her. If they could track her despite all logic and science, EVE would still be able to use her insane acceleration to dodge. Furthermore, EVE could also choose to simply fire at the missile, causing it to explode mid-air or better still, she could safely destroy its electronics and let the missile fall down on the senders. In conclusion, none of PRO's weapons can hit EVE.
Damage
Simply because PRO's weapons have cool names it doesn't mean that they are sufficient to take down EVE. Let us ignore that hitting EVE is impossible. The vast majority of those weapons are heat weapons, which would not bother her at all. Her armour makes her immune to any amount of intense heat. At most, those weapons might annoy her. PRO seems to be a firm believer in laser as a military weapon, but lasers are the least powerful weapon possible to use against EVE. Even if you hit EVE with a constant stream of laser beams it could not penetrate her heat resistant armour. Maybe you think that it is simply a matter of MORE lasers being needed, but actually, no amount of lasers could damage her. 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.
PRO's only chance whatsoever is missiles. As I covered above, the missiles that star wars use are ground-based and meant to hit slow-moving targets called VEHICLES. But when we ignore that, their impacts would not at all damage EVE. An explosion is actually nothing but heat damage and kinetic damage. Not even a high-velocity collision with strong impact could even make a scratch on the surface of EVE, as I proved in my first round. I also proved why no amount of heat could damage EVE. Even a direct shot from such a missile would not compromise the safety of EVE. The last effect, the "sonic boom", is simply that: a way to temporarily deafen EVE until the sound waves are gone.
ATTACK
This goes without saying. EVE would decimate any army. From start to end any single battle will be won by EVE after a few seconds of rapid-fire by her nuke-level weapon.
CONCLUSION
PRO has not presented any weapon or tactic from the star wars universe able to defeat or destroy EVE. PRO's sources debunk PRO's claims that star wars can beat EVE.
If I can present a tactic EVE can use that ensures that the star wars universe can never beat her, then I win. For now, I do not even need a strategy since PRO has not proven that his army can defeat EVE at all even if she doesn't shoot back. I just want to point out that PRO doesn't win simply by disproving my BoP, remember that he has the major BoP.
I gladly await PRO's response.
Pro
#4
Well that was all very interesting.
==
I have been extremely busy so I will resort with a short rebuttal, which reaffirm my case.
Defending the resolution / Argument from a kritik
PRO makes a slightly semantical argument for how the word "can" should be interpreted.
To back up my kritik, I shall refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Can :
Clearly, there is a possibility that any star wars army can win. There is, regardless of probability, a possibility that
In such a battle where one side or the other has a massive advantage, there is no "possibility" that the other side can win.
This is an assumption my opponent has made without any reasoning to back up. Why is there a massive advantage? A massive advantage is not needed to win a fight. Sometimes, luck can play an even bigger role than skill.
Recall: Wagyu's BoP. A star wars army on one planet can destroy or defeat the EVE (s). It is therefore reasonable to assume that my opponent's BoP is
Benjamin's BoP. A star wars army on one planet can not destroy or defeat the EVE (s).
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 into a billion bits of metal, the Star Wars army will somehow still blunder and lose.
Either EVE can easily be taken down with no problems at all or it will be impossible to do.
This is a false dichotomy if there ever was one. It is odious to assert that either EVE will get completely destroyed or completely destroy. This is a "real life" fight situation we are considering, where twists and turns can occur.
==
Rebuttals
1) Droid Army
The only objection my opponent has to the droid army defeating EVE is the weapon choice. No matters, I can just give the droids an E-5 blaster rifle, the standard weapon used. The point of my argument was not reliant on the rifle, it is simply reliant on the sheer firepower of 3 million droids.
They then allude to the fact that droids are "dumb", which is supported by the following quote.
The hideously poor A.I. The B1 battle droid rarely served any purpose other than as cannon fodder.[1]
Hideously bad A.I. Good thing I'm not asking them to strike a conversation, I'm simply asking them to be cannon fodders. All they need to do is look and shoot, something supported by their auto aim.
2) Clone army
The missiles could only hit grounded targets. EVE can fly, and quickly dodge if needed. Therefore, these missiles would never hit EVE.
Then the army can simply resort to their 6.7749361e+22 watts of electricity.
3) Auto Aim
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.
This whole debate is about Star Wars, not neuroparasitology, resorting to wookiepedia is fine. In fact, fan's of star wars are perhaps the best people to ask regarding star wars. My opponent then brings out Joseph Reinemann, a so called computer scientists. This is plainly an appeal to authority. Computer science is the study of algorithmic processes, computational machines and computation itself. Being a computer scientists does not make you a professional in the make belief realm of star wars. In fact, judging from Joe's posts, he seems to be quite a star wars fan himself.
Nevertheless, I'd appreciate if you could point out where he made his claim, as I am not prepared to go though his 12 thousand Quora answers.
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.
Mean's over motive. It is not your position to doubt if Darth Sidious made the right decision in implementing auto aim in droids but not ships. The point is that it was used in droids.
4) Observation
To recall, my opponents first objection regarding the droid army is that auto aim is not practical, and they go as far as stating that "in fact, the clone troopers and even the imperial stormtroopers were better than the droids at aiming a gun". They then express that the clone army cannot beat EVE because of their missile launcher. Clearly then, the clone army is capable of killing EVE, as they do not face the "auto aim" issue. This is just a thought and not an admission that auto aim is not feasible.
==
Defence
Numbers advantage rebuttal
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.
A human eye can see an aero plan 374 km's away without the aid of any technology. The entire world's population can fit into L.A, which is 1295 square kilometers. If we divide this number by 4 (to get the distance which the human eye can see) and then divide the other side of the equation (7.5 billion) by 4, we can conclude that approximately 1.875 billion people can fit into a space of 400 square kilometres. The implications of this is that at least a billion troops can be taking shots at EVE without trouble.
Conduct
There is no need for me to state that this debate is stacked against me. From the beginning, force users are banned on the grounds that they are an "insta win". Funnily enough, my opponent makes the following argument.
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
Having a being which cannot be destroyed, can destroy anything, cannot be out ran and cannot be outsmarted sounds a tad bit more unfair than having a guy who can move things with his mind. It seems that, though my opponent bans the force for what seems to be for the spirit of the debate, they are eager to scrape in an easy win.
This is also apparent in my opponents rebuttal against laser weapons. The whole rebuttal is based on uncheckable facts (EVE is completely immune to heat..?) and uses poor sources. Consider the following, which I found greatly amusing.
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.
Does this mean that storm troopers who also wear white are immune to lasers? Does this mean me wearing a white tee make me immune to intense laser? Come on.
Round 3
Con
#5
First of all, a fact to remember while reading the argument: Technology in the WALL-E universe has far superseded technology from star wars. They have their own hyperdrive, coloured holograms, advanced computer systems and AI, all kind of useful robots, zero-point energy, etc. All of this is clearly visible in the movie.
ACCUSATION DEFENCE:
"poor sources"
This is a completely unfounded claim. My source regarding science is totally dedicated to writing professional and scholarly articles about science and math. Here is the description of the purpose of the site: The Sciencing reader is looking for specific scientific information]. The specific article I sited was titled "What Colors Absorb More Heat", and it gives us a clear and concise conclusion: "As a result of absorbing all light wavelengths, black is the hottest possible colour. White is the opposite. All visible light hitting the object's surface and reflecting back." My source is held to the most rigorous scientific standards. The article I quoted was written and/or fact-checked by people like Sylvie Tremblay who hold a Masters degree of Science in multiple fields. Sciencing is reliable, specific and written and by experts and fact-checked. This is my kind of source.
PRO on the other hand relies on fandom sites. In fact, his best source so far has been Quora. Specifically: Valentin Ghincolov, an "Amateur astronomer with passion in Physics". By comparison, my "worst" source is Joseph-Reinemann. He has a PhD in computer science, is an author of science fiction and is a nerdy StarWars fan. If anyone is an authority on StarWars technology it is my source. Essentially, my worst source is at least on par with PRO's best. How PRO dares call my sources "poor" is beyond my comprehension.
"Having a being which cannot be destroyed, can destroy anything, cannot be outrun and cannot be outsmarted sounds a tad bit more unfair than a [force user]"
These are simply arguments of mine. I have not presented them as axioms or written them in the description. I have backed them up with incredible amounts of evidence, and it falls upon PRO to debunk my claims with the proper counter-arguments. My arguments seeming invincible doesn't make the debate unfair, and it certainly doesn't mean that the debate rules are biased towards my side.
"They are eager to scrape in an easy win"
I take this as a compliment to my debating skills. The rules are fair. I let an entire star wars army be deployed at the same time on one planet, with infinite fuel and clear intentions of killing EVE. I only disallowed the force. Not that the force users would make any difference, as even a few simple droids were able to kill countless Jedi on Geonosis. The reason for banning the force is to avoid pointless discussion about magic in a sci-fi debate. Is it an unfair battle just because PRO is not allowed to utilize what basically counts as magic?
FRAMEWORK
Resolution
I find it strange that at the same time PRO complains about my victory being an easy win, he himself has dared to utter these words:
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
At best, PRO is showing why HE has an easy win. But this statement is simply not true. EVE must be taken down directly by the star wars army. That is the entire premise of this debate. Let's review the voting policy:"Failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default."
This debate is not called "EVE can defeat star wars armies", but the other way around - PRO has the BoP. - this change was PRO's idea, so I can't be blamed for this.
PRO's words about "in no situation" are simply deceptive: He implies that the theoretical existence of an absurd battlefield that is hostile to robots somehow proves the resolution. To use an analogy, what if person X was claiming that a single Iraqi terrorist would have a POSSIBILITY of defeating the US army in a suicide mission. His argument was that IF the battle takes place on the ocean floor, then everyone would die, fulfilling his BoP. This is the kind of argument that PRO is alluding to. What PRO doesn't realise is that any change in the environment will always benefit EVE. She is built to thrive over a long time in any dangerous environment, while the army is built to fight and die.
So far, PRO has only shown that the star wars army is impressive, and I did the same for EVE.
PRO must show how and why the star wars army defeats EVE. I, on the other side, must show why PRO's argument doesn't prove the resolution. Yes, he can appeal to a giant black hole swallowing EVE, or maybe EVE simply has a nervous breakdown. But that doesn't mean that PRO won. PRO must show us exactly HOW and WHY the star wars army beats EVE. So far, I have debunked his weapons, aim and strategy to NOT be capable of doing so. Therefore, unless the status QUO is changed, I win.
REBUTTALS
"This whole debate is about Star Wars, not neuroparasitology"
OBJECTION: We are comparing different universes. Nonsensical beliefs about star wars technology are NOT to be used as a source. PRO must back up his claim about auto-aim by logical explanation because I have contested it. I have an expert on both technology AND star wars as a source, so Wookiepedia doesn't enjoy any special treatment.
"It is not your position to doubt Darth Sidious"
Darth Sidious never mentions auto-aim, and experts like Joseph have provided both scientific and lore-related evidence to disprove PRO's claim that star wars armies employed auto-aim. Essentially, PRO wants us to take his word for it that Star Wars armies used auto-aim, despite the overwhelming evidence showing that they didn't.
There exists today a real auto-aim, it is a handheld laser capable of targeting and eliminating mosquitoes with laser technology. IF auto-aim existed in the star wars galaxy THEN we would see a few droid soldiers wipe the floor with human soldiers by utilizing precise shots. But PRO already conceded
"Does this mean that stormtroopers who also wear white are immune to lasers?"
I have yet to even see an actual laser weapon in Star Wars and would appreciate it if PRO proves that there is.
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]
The shape of EVE's armour reflects light in different directions, the material is totally shiny which means that the light-reflection is nearly 100% [researchgate.net].
The clone troopers are wearing literally plastic armour. EVE on the other hand is made of a futuristic material that reflects all light. And if some heat is absorbed, still her heat resistance is way too strong for the lasers to damage her.
DEFENSE
Hitting EVE
PRO conceded that Star Wars missiles cannot hit EVE. He then asserts that a laser will do the trick instead. At a larger distance it becomes impossible to hit the target due to three problems:
- 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.
All of these problems are interconnected. By adding distance to the target, each problem increases exponentially while at the same time they all strengthen the effects of the other. In our scenario, it becomes impossible for PRO's army to overcome these issues. As a result, there is no conceivable way for the star wars army to hit EVE with any of their weaponry. Since a constant bombardment of EVE is necessary to even get a chance of hurting her, this fact basically destroys PRO's entire case.
"The point of my argument was not reliant on the rifle, it is simply reliant on the sheer firepower of 3 million droids"
Information presented comes from Britannica.
The fallacy of PRO's argument is to assume that each new round will add new heat until EVE finally gets "too" hot and melts. This violates The laws of thermodynamics: "when two objects are brought into thermal contact, heat will flow between them until they come into equilibrium with each other". This is the process by which heat is transferred into EVE from the blaster bolt. But heat flows out of EVE as well. The same thing happens when a human is hit with a blaster. The difference between EVE and a human is that EVE is capable of surviving concentrated temperatures. Even a constant bombardment cannot overcome this issue from science.
"EVE is completely immune to heat..?"
I already proved this during R1. However, this time I will just try to explain it scientifically.
In a lab, you can create billions, trillions of degrees. As the heat of EVE increases, the faster heat flows out of her and the slower heat flows into her [ibid].
It all comes down to EVE being resilient to any ACHIEVABLE heat.
The melting point of the metals of today is hundreds and thousands of degrees. In order to heat up metals, one needs to apply heat to them over an extended period of time. In star wars, we see a similar pattern. In a scene from the phantom menace, a lightsaber takes a long time to melt through a metal door. Remember that the lightsaber is the icon of star wars, and supposedly the strongest or among the strongest weapons, the universe has to offer. Then consider EVE, who could obliterate a huge rock within a single second. Her weapon is surely stronger than those in the disposition of PRO's army. But even that kind of force could not do much against the security robots on Axiom. Since EVE is the toughest robot in the WALL-E universe, we can be quite sure that her heat-resistance is able to withstand a direct shot by her own weapon (which is able to melt rock in less than a second.)
How is this possible?
Experiments have shown electronics to keep working in temperatures up to 500 degrees celsius for hundreds or even thousands of hours [extremetemperatureelectronics]. Keep in mind, this field of technology is quite new. Materials with strange physical abilities are constantly being discovered. Humans are learning how they can rearrange atoms to create materials with seemingly impossible properties. This type of manipulating atomical structures makes it possible to create the perfect materials for any purpose [sciencedaily]. Ceramic heat resistance of 3.623 degrees F is actually on the lower end of future materials.
EVE, being 700 years into the future is able to withstand any achievable temperature. This is confirmed by my proof in R1.
SUMMARY
EVE has better technology than any star wars army ever had. This means that her sensors are better, allowing her to target accurately at a larger distance than star wars troops. Due to the rapid speed at which she can shoot basically "small nukes", this advantage makes it impossible to hit her before she hits you. Under a giant offensive, a small portion of PRO's army might survive the "suicide mission" and start firing at EVE. The inherent problems with aiming make it statistically impossible that they will ever hit her. EVE, actually having an aimbot, will definitely decimate them. EVE is plated in futuristic armour that protects her from any harm. If despite of this EVE is still scared, she can always move around in random directions, this will ensure she is impossible to hit.
All of this is backed up by studying the movie (R1) as well as using rigorous scientific evidence.
CONCLUSION:
PRO still hasn't provided any weapon or strategy star wars can use to defeat EVE. Unless he does, I win automatically.
Round 4
Con
#7
To summarize, the technological difference is way too large. Not only does EVE have a much better armour that cannot be penetrated or melted, she also doesn't have any problem avoiding and dodging every single shot from PRO's army. Her weapon is above anything ever seen, and can easily melt a giant rock or obliterate any army.
It is impossible for the Star Wars army to defeat EVE without comparable technology.
Recall the rules:
Time and fuel is indefinite
Thus, the StarWars army will get recked by EVE. Hitting her while she is moving is like hitting a mosquito with a gun, except the StarWars shots will not damage EVE.
EVE is the definitive victor of this hypothetical battle.
Pro
#8
Well that was all very interesting
==
I have honestly lost interest in this debate. Nevertheless, I shall plough on, dropping all irrelevant arguments and maintaining my strongest point, regarding the framework.
My opponent stated EVE must be taken down directly by the star wars army. That is the entire premise of this debate. Let's review the voting policy:"Failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default."
To recall, the resolution is as follows: An entire star wars army could defeat Eve
Logically, my job therefore is to demonstrate that Eve could be defeated by a Star wars army as this is what is stated in the resolution. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, can (being the regular tensed version of could) one of the definitions is as follows
Indicate a possibility. This is the definition of could. Logically, it follows that the fully defined Resolution should be as follows “An entire star wars army could /have the possibility to defeat Eve”
Therefore, when my opponent states that “EVE must be taken down directly by the star wars army”, this simply is not part of the resolution and is untrue. The word “could”, which indicates possibility already makes your assertion void.
My opponent stated : PRO’s words about “in no situation” are simply deceptive: He implies that the theoretical existence of an absurd battlefield that is hostile to robots somehow proves the resolution.
Untrue. I am simply asserting that there is a possibility that EVE can be destroyed by a Star Wars army. As I have stated, there is a possibility of EVE malfunctioning, commiting suicide and forfeiting. Regardless of chance, there is a possibility of these three things occurring.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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