No rebuttal, yet again, other than "I refuse to accept logic!"So basic you can't supply one thing from canon to support it.
Deep sure seems to care. Granite's continued posting in the thread. As has Tsu, a mod, who has the job of looking out for exactly the sort of thing you claim I'm doing. Even Dusk, who's somewhat on your side, has not claimed we haven't provided evidence. And I'm sure there's a few more people that have kept reading.....I can't speak for others so I don't know. It could be because they no longer care.
So, in short, your claim is total bullshit and you're just throwing up a wall of ignorance to desperately avoid admitting you've been bested in a debate (oh, the horror!).
Oh, and just to further prove you wrong, I'm hereby inviting anyone else viewing or participating in this thread to read back through my posts and find any point at all that I have not provided evidence or reasoning for holding.
Dumbass, do you seriously not realise that everything you've listed either has a naval analogue or is utterly irrelevant? No, of course you don't, so I'll break it down for you.Ok I will do it again. Naval cannons are not at all similar to phasers . While the guns of naval ships get larger with larger ship there is no indication that phasers can be simply scaled up in this way. Which goes back to the proof I'm asking for. Naval ships move on a 2d plane, while starships do not, starships can also bank. The difference in moverment would allow combat manuvers that ar not possible for naval ships. Naval ships rely on armor, while starships have shields. Shields provide protection from all angels, while the armor on naval vessiles do not.
Anti-ship missiles don't necessarily get bigger as they get more powerful either. There's your analogue for phasers.Naval cannons are not at all similar to phasers . While the guns of naval ships get larger with larger ship there is no indication that phasers can be simply scaled up in this way.
Oh, quite right. After all, no navy on the planet has ever had something that can move in three dimensions.Naval ships move on a 2d plane, while starships do not, starships can also bank.
After all, it's not like humanity has access to such mystical and advanced technologies as, say, submarines, attack helicopters or carrier-based aircraft.
So they're more maneouverable. Prove how this invalidates our point.The difference in moverment would allow combat manuvers that ar not possible for naval ships.
Dumbass, armour is an exact analogue for shields. Sure, they're not perfectly alike, but they're good enough for the purpose of our analogy.Naval ships rely on armor, while starships have shields. Shields provide protection from all angels, while the armor on naval vessiles do not.
A bigger ship will have thicker armour.
A bigger spacecraft will have stronger shields.
We don't know exactly what the Sov is. At the very least it has a couple of science labs on it that we've seen.I never said you brought up the Sov. I did because it is a dedicated warship as is the Defiant, and goes against your point that larger ships will have more weapons monted in each arc.
Oh, and Starfleet's poor design choices do not invalidate my points.
Moron, the logic is what supports it. Refute that logic or concede the fucking point. Standing there saying "well we don't know for sure" is not a goddamn rebuttal. By your logic there must be no toilets on board the E-E, because their existance is not supported by canon. Sure, logicaly they exist, but where's the canon evidence? Jesus you are dumb.Just because something is logical does not mean it is true. That lagical assumption simply does not have any evidance to support it.
And also for starships.True for naval ships.
So you have no proof? Thank you for admitting that.I cannot, nor can you prove they don't. So your premise as is mine is speculation.
Now, since my point that a larger reactor will allow more power to be used is supported by logic, it stands. If you don't like it, TFB.
Excuse me? Where did you bring size into the equation there? You specified one modded GCS vs another modded GCS.Wait, so bigger is better is not 100% of the time correct?
Oh, and no shit it's not 100% correct. Nothing is. And one carrier vs a dedicated anti-ship vessel that's just 50 metres shorter is obviously going to result in the smaller ship triumphing.
But before you start crowing about how you were right all along, let me point out yet again that that is not the point of this debate.
Our point was that a battleship would triumph over smaller classes of ships, such as cruisers, battlecruisers and destroyers. You've yet to disprove that, and your semantics game of "well this ship was a couple of metres shorter and it won so I'm right!!!" is getting you nowhere.
Again, you're somehow assuming that the opposing ship will magicaly be able to fire all of its weapons on the battleship......and that would be good against much smaller and weaker targets. That does not mean this would spell a garainteed victory against an opponent smaller, not not small enough not to handle the weapons in that arc.
Let me know when you can keep to the subject of the debate instead of trying to derail the thread along yet another tangent.Good for you, let me know when you can follow allow with what are examples.
Prove that smaller ships, such as the Defiant class, are capable of powering the Type XII phaser to full capacity.I understand that a large reactor would let you have more power. What I'm asking you to provide is evidance that weapons like phasers don't have a maximum amount of power that can be fired from any single array.
Dumbass, just what the fuck do you think determines the strenght of the shield if not the generators?Or that shields generator size is determines the streights of the shields and just not the size of shield that can be generated.
Again, it's not the subject of this debate. So instead of dragging us off on a tangent, let's try addressing it.Again it is an example of a Larger ship sharing the same armermant with a samller ship. Now instead of crying about it, lets try responding to it.
One battleship Vs one destroyer/cruiser/battlecruiser/corvette/whatever.
Who will win?
It isn't an assumption, child, it's based on the inteligence you've demonstrated in this thread....I just asked you to explain it. It should not be to hard for your since you are under the assumption that your are so much more intelligent then I am.
And I see no point in explaining basic facets of reality to you, seeing as how you'll just ignore it all anyway. Use your brain for once and look it up for yourself.
Whatever you say, child.More trouble finding support for your assumption?
Which is not the fucking point of this thread. Jesus, do you have ADD or something? Why is it so hard for you to keep foccused on one simply matter?Gee, someone can't handle examples unless they are dead simple. Trying reading it again and you may get the fact that I was showing that it is also important how a ship is made, not just that it is bigger with more guns.
It seems in M52's world, logic isn't acceptable unless it's directly mentioned in an episode.A threat how nice. All you have provided is assumptions. Not evidance. You know evidance were you referance a trek episode or other piece of canon.
It is no assumption, it is fact based upon reality and logic. You've yet to adress that in any way other than screeching "but it's not stated in any episode!"You keep saying that but have yet to proved any canon evidance to support the assumptions it is built apon.
Again, based on that mystical dimension known as reality.Again based on your assumptions.
Translation:Really, how so?
"'Tis but a scratch!"
Missiles have reduced the issue of weapons size, as a small ship can now mount the same anti-ship systems as a carrier can. Again, try learning about the subject at hand before trying to debate about it....and one of the reasons for that is because larger naval ships mount weapons that do more damage. In federation ships this is not always the case.
So unless it's stated in an episode, it's not admissable at all, regardless of how logical it is?Again, just because it is logical does not mean it is correct, that is why proof is needed.
Guess there aren't any toiletes on the E-E then, eh?
And it shows that it can be done. Why the UFP doesn't use them is beyond me, but it's canon fact that torpedoes can track targets.Or perhaps the torpedoes can't normally track that well. We have seen a torpedo only one time in trek make a large sweepng turn, and it was modified.
Hello? We're talking about battleships. We always have been. Do try to keep up.Yes, a perfectly, or as near perfect as you could get, designed large ship will be able to beat a perfectly design small ship. This is a cry from bigger is better as long as tech and role are the same.
I love how he proves my statement so nicely there.
Again, based on logic.
Again, you've yet to do anything about it other than whinge "I refuse to accept your answer!"Then please by all means provide some evidance.
Maybe when you grow up and learn to debate you can be.Yes as far at the naval vessels. Boy I wish I could be cool like you!
And yet the Scimitar won in the end, despite being outnumbered by smaller and far more maneouverable ships that could decide where to hit.It goes back to the point I was making that a smaller ship would be able to control were its enemies hit it. Had the E-E not been as manuverable as it was the fight would have been much shorter.
I'd imagine it's for the exact same reason they've yet to supply their ground troops with heavy weapons.So why haven't they?
Because the GCS wasn't a pure warship.Why wasn't the Sov design larger then even the Galaxy?
What the hell are you even trying to say here?I guess designing more powerful phaser are just than simple, like childs play almost.
Yes.It's pacifism that prevented it from designing dedicated warships?
No, dumbass, equal tech base I said. Learn to read.Well that would be equal tech right?
Fine, I misremembered the incident. But my point remains the same. Larger Dominion warships have fallen victim to smaller Federation vessels.We see there battleships falling, please point out were?
Translation:Yup, so dumb that you can't provide evidance to back up your argument.
"Your arm's off!"
"No it isn't."
Yup, because they're a good analogy, regardless of your irelevant screeching about them not being 100% analogous.Again with the naval ships?
Translation:I have not changed the subject. I have been providing examples from IU. Perhaps you should start that thread and let other see if I have been doing the things you claim. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide evidance/proof that weapons like phaser act in the manor you assume.
"Come back! I'll bite your ankles off!"
Translation:I'm trying to show that your starting premis of Bigger=better with your additions may not always be correct. You are dealing in an absolute based on a few assumption you have made.
"Alright then, we'll call it a draw!"
Fool, go back and read the start of this debate. This debate was initialy about a battleship being superior to a battlecruiser/cruiser/frigate/whatever due to its size. You've dragged it off point innumerable times now, and have yet to make any valid rebuttal to it.
And with that, I'm done with this pointless waste of time. I see no point in trying to beat some sense into a child hiding behind a wall of ignorance. Feel free to respond to this post if you want (after all, I'm sure you're eager to claim that I'm running away from your undefeatable arguments), but I'm not going to bother replying to it.
That said, I am starting that thread in the mod forum, as I have no less than three mods who have seen your idiocy firsthand.
