Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-6771148-20130408041122/@comment-4484220-20130410174915

The only reason nobody supported him the first time was because I wasn't here, and the discussion got closed before I saw the thread. Honestly, I the notion that this battle is unfair. I feel that pretty much all of Evil117's points are valid. Plasma bullets have shown to be deflected by lightsabers easily, making most Covenant weapons useless against pretty much anyone well-trained with a lightsaber. In addition, Mace has many force powers at his disposal that could eliminate the Arbiter from a distance before the elite really would have a chance to act. Force-choke him, force-push him, crush the Arbiter by sending a large object his way, etc. Another very good point Evil117 brought up in the previous thread was that Mace Windu is pretty much on par with Darth Vader as a force user, and the Arbiter is generally looked upon by Halo fans as not quite as deadly as Master Chief. If this is the case, then why on earth was Master Chief vs. Darth Vader deemed unfair and Mace Windu vs. the Arbiter not?

All in all, I agree that this battle is unfair. I would also like to point out that on original thread, nobody actually refuted any of Evil117's points. All they said to respond was, "Mace VS Arbiter is fair", "it's fair", and telling him his points were not valid without explaining how. Now I understand that this is condonable if no support has been given, but now that there is a supporter, a well-seasoned rebuttal is required to shoot down this unfair claim.