Can the Basilisk fang destroy the Ring ?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



quanchi112
The Basilisk fang from the Harry Potter films meets the Ring from The Lord of the Rings.

Supra
If lava can destroy it, so shall that.

Firefly218
It is clearly stated in LotR that only the lava of Mt. Doom can destroy the ring. This means that absolutely NOTHING else can destroy the ring.

Supra
Originally posted by Firefly218
It is clearly stated in LotR that only the lava of Mt. Doom can destroy the ring. This means that absolutely NOTHING else can destroy the ring.

No limits fallacy applies as always. If you think magical poison can't destroy that ring and only lava can, your smoking to much peace pipe.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Supra
No limits fallacy applies as always. If you think magical poison can't destroy that ring and only lava can, your smoking to much peace pipe.

I dont think you understood. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can destroy the ring, including normal fire and lava, except for the lava in Mt. Doom.

Why the phuck do you think Frodo spent 3 movies traveling to Mt. Doom?

Stealth Moose
They debated dragon's fire, and found it wanting. So yeah, there's something intrinsically special about Mt. Doom lava.

Supra
Originally posted by Firefly218
I dont think you understood. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can destroy the ring, including normal fire and lava, except for the lava in Mt. Doom.

Why the phuck do you think Frodo spent 3 movies traveling to Mt. Doom?

Because Gandalf is a retard thats why.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Supra
Because Gandalf is a retard thats why.

Are you being serious or trolling? I'm actually very curious.

Supra
Originally posted by Firefly218
Are you being serious or trolling? I'm actually very curious.

No I'm being serious, have you actually watched the movies, everyone tells Gandalf "NO, Your Crazy, Leave Me Alone, Stop, I don't want to."

The guardian council told him "Don't Go!!!!"

Does Gandalf listen? No.

Now look, Smaug is about to destroy Lake Village because he would not listen.

StealthRanger
Originally posted by Firefly218
Are you being serious or trolling? I'm actually very curious.

Supra has a history of dickriding quan and trolling so, yeah. He's trolling

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Supra has a history of dickriding quan and trolling so, yeah. He's trolling

You don't even know how to read and your not being stealth or a ranger.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Supra
You don't even know how to read and your not being stealth.

This makes no sense. He is clearly literate, and you are clearly mad bro.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Supra
No I'm being serious, have you actually watched the movies, everyone tells Gandalf "NO, Your Crazy, Leave Me Alone, Stop, I don't want to."

The guardian council told him "Don't Go!!!!"

Does Gandalf listen? No.



Are you kidding me? The council was in total agreement with Gandalf.
They even assembled a fellowship of middle earth's greatest warriors to accompany Frodo.

The council, along with Gandalf, realized that destroying the ring was important and it could only be done in Mt. Doom

Supra
Originally posted by Firefly218
Are you kidding me? The council was in total agreement with Gandalf.
They even assembled a fellowship of middle earth's greatest warriors to accompany Frodo.

The council, along with Gandalf, realized that destroying the ring was important and it could only be done in Mt. Doom

Im talking about in the Hobbit Part 2, the council said do no go..he did not listen.

The ring was fine with Froto and Bilbo as clearly Hobbits are the only ones how cannot handle it, Gandalf didn't even touch the ring and suddenly he's been hexed by Sauron into his bidding.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Supra
Im talking about in the Hobbit Part 2, the council said do no go..he did not listen.

The Ring isn't in Hobbit Part 2, so this comment is irrelevant.

StealthRanger
Originally posted by Supra
You don't even know how to read and your not being stealth or a ranger.

Hey now, there is no need to be upset

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Hey now, there is no need to be upset

You can't own up to the fact that Gandalf is a fool and gets everyone in deep shit for no reason.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Firefly218
It is clearly stated in LotR that only the lava of Mt. Doom can destroy the ring. This means that absolutely NOTHING else can destroy the ring.

At best, that just means that nothing else in the LotRverse can destroy the ring, it doesn't mean that other universes don't have objects/people that could destroy it.

That said, I'm not convinced that a Basilisk fang woud do it.

StealthRanger
Originally posted by Silent Master
At best, that just means that nothing else in the LotRverse can destroy the ring, it doesn't mean that other universes don't have objects/people that could destroy it.

Originally posted by Silent MasterThat said, I'm not convinced that a Basilisk fang woud do it.

And this too, seeing as the Basilisk Fand lacks the power neccesary

Supra
Stealth dodging quotes won't worth, your not that stealthy.

StealthRanger
Sorry it's won't *work

But hey it's not my fault you copy quan like a parrot and bring up the same irrelevant shit and he does

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Sorry it's won't *work

But hey it's not my fault you copy quan like a parrot and bring up the same irrelevant shit and he does

Considering I been here longer then Quan you have no clue what your talking about.

StealthRanger
How does that change the fact that in every single thread you're there with him, parroting what he says?

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
How does that change the fact that in every single thread you're there with him, parroting what he says?

Why are you so considered with my relationships with others? And you and your bandwagonners are allowed to gang up like you do. Hmm...what's that called?

StealthRanger
Why are you shifting the question instead of answering? :maybe

Anyways prove the Basilisk fang can destroy the Ring

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Why are you shifting the question instead of answering? :maybe

Anyways prove the Basilisk fang can destroy the Ring

Why are you so concerned with my relationships with others?

StealthRanger
Cocerned would be the wrong word. I'm just curious as to why you parrot a dipshit like Quan

Perhaps you're friends IRL?

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Cocerned would be the wrong word. I'm just curious as to why you parrot a dipshit like Quan

Perhaps you're friends IRL?

So now I called you out and you can't answer the question so you resort to name calling..Hmm..keyboard warrior.

StealthRanger
Hey, I was asking the guy's question earlier about if you were trolling. It's far from secret you an quan are KMC's resident butt buddies

Also lol @ the first part, the irony is delicious

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Hey, I was asking the guy's question earlier about if you were trolling. It's far from secret you an quan are KMC's resident butt buddies

Also lol @ the first part, the irony is delicious

You do realize this is the internet, or did you think this was real life looking through peoples windows at night? Weirdo's usually have trouble telling the difference.

StealthRanger
Originally posted by Supra
You do realize this is the internet, or did you think this was real life looking through peoples windows at night?

Yeah, I know this is interents. Are you frustrated, mongrel?

Supra
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Yeah, I know this is interents. Are you frustrated, mongrel?

Nah your just not the Dark Lord you claim to be as you have no real power. I'm disappointed in your character now, I tried to fight for him but sadly Obi-Wan cut him in half.

StealthRanger
Originally posted by Supra http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/crying-baby-802763.jpg


There is no need to cry, Supra-kun

Supra
More lies. When it comes down to it your a liar.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
It is clearly stated in LotR that only the lava of Mt. Doom can destroy the ring. This means that absolutely NOTHING else can destroy the ring. This logic only applies to Lotr not any other fictional universe.

smile

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by quanchi112
This logic only applies to Lotr not any other fictional universe.

smile

Burden of proof is yours. The table is empty.

Originally posted by Supra
More lies. When it comes down to it your a liar.

http://julieamarxhausen.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/soraya-m_2-e1272496175664.jpg

LOL. Your birthday has changed yet again. Now you're back to being 30 years old. When before you were like 31-32, and last week you were 20.

Supra
Just did some more digging, Ring can be destroyed by more then just Mt. Doom, but Gandalf decided to send them to the most dangerous place to destroy it and not help them.

Figures...

NemeBro
Originally posted by Supra
Just did some more digging, Ring can be destroyed by more then just Mt. Doom, but Gandalf decided to send them to the most dangerous place to destroy it and not help them.

Figures... That so?

Provide the evidence then. Show us where it says someplace us can destroy the Ring in Middle-earth.

StealthRanger
Originally posted by Supra
Just did some more digging, Ring can be destroyed by more then just Mt. Doom, but Gandalf decided to send them to the most dangerous place to destroy it and not help them.

Figures...

You will, of course, have no trouble showing us these "other means" of destroying it

Supra
Tossing into any lava will work. Who's gonna go get it? No one..

StealthRanger
Prove it or shut up

Firefly218
Originally posted by Supra
Tossing into any lava will work.

No. That's just wrong. Completely wrong.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by Supra
Tossing into any lava will work. Who's gonna go get it? No one..

That does not destroy the Ring though, which is the implicit goal.

All that does is encase it in molten rock, rendering it impossible for Sauron's enemies to destroy him permanently. That, and he could easily summon a Balrog himself to fetch it for him, if he so wished.

Having said all that, I see no evidence that the Basilisk's fang can overcome the enchantment of the Ring. The venom never demonstrated dealing a deathblow to an enchant that strong before.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Firefly218
No. That's just wrong. Completely wrong.

We should give Supra a chance to back up his claim...I mean he wouldn't just lie, would he?

Robtard
Originally posted by quanchi112
The Basilisk fang from the Harry Potter films meets the Ring from The Lord of the Rings.


LoTR strictly states what is required to destroy the One Ring. So if you pose that something else might be able to do it, burden of proof is on you.

Prove your case, go on smile

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Silent Master
We should give Supra a chance to back up his claim...I mean he wouldn't just lie, would he?

http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jon-stewart-guffaw.gif

NemeBro
Originally posted by Supra
Tossing into any lava will work. Who's gonna go get it? No one.. Prove that statement.

BlackZero30x
Originally posted by Supra
No limits fallacy applies as always. If you think magical poison can't destroy that ring and only lava can, your smoking to much peace pipe.

I think you are thinking of it in the wrong terms. Take this example if you will....The juggernaut is invulnerable because of that pesky gem BUT if you are more powerful then Cyttorak then you can harm him. The magic protecting the ring isn't the same. There is no "over powering it". What is, just is. Nothing can harm the ring except the lava from MT Doom.

Anyways Gandalf may make mistakes but the man knows his stuff....I mean he's been around for 2,000 years.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jon-stewart-guffaw.gif

angel

quanchi112
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Burden of proof is yours. The table is empty.



http://julieamarxhausen.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/soraya-m_2-e1272496175664.jpg

LOL. Your birthday has changed yet again. Now you're back to being 30 years old. When before you were like 31-32, and last week you were 20. Not really hard to prove considering that the ring actually tanked on screen.

laughing

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
That does not destroy the Ring though, which is the implicit goal.

All that does is encase it in molten rock, rendering it impossible for Sauron's enemies to destroy him permanently. That, and he could easily summon a Balrog himself to fetch it for him, if he so wished.

Having said all that, I see no evidence that the Basilisk's fang can overcome the enchantment of the Ring. The venom never demonstrated dealing a deathblow to an enchant that strong before. What did the ring actually resist ?

NemeBro
Originally posted by quanchi112
What did the ring actually resist ? This is actually a valid question. thumb up

Just pointing this out before people look at the username saying it and immediately argue.

quanchi112
Originally posted by NemeBro
This is actually a valid question. thumb up

Just pointing this out before people look at the username saying it and immediately argue. I always make valid points. Always.

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112
What did the ring actually resist ?

Sauron put the fate of his existence and his evil plans in the ring. Do you really think he would do so if the ring could be conveniently destroyed by magic/poison? The ring is considered impervious to damage.

It is explained in the books that the ring is not susceptible to dragon fire, enchanted weaponry or magic. The movies expect the audience to believe in the rings invincibility without actual resistance feats. And it is a safe assumption that the ring is impervious, considering middle earth's most respected leaders and councilors all agreed to send a fellowship to Mt. Doom to destroy the ring.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
Sauron put the fate of his existence and his evil plans in the ring. Do you really think he would do so if the ring could be conveniently destroyed by magic/poison? The ring is considered impervious to damage.

It is explained in the books that the ring is not susceptible to dragon fire, enchanted weaponry or magic. The movies expect the audience to believe in the rings invincibility without actual resistance feats. And it is a safe assumption that the ring is impervious, considering middle earth's most respected leaders and councilors all agreed to send a fellowship to Mt. Doom to destroy the ring. You avoided the question entirely with rage. Resisting a dwarfs axe or whatever isn't that convincing, sport.


Basilisk fang decimates the weak ring.

StealthRanger
Originally posted by Firefly218
Sauron put the fate of his existence and his evil plans in the ring. Do you really think he would do so if the ring could be conveniently destroyed by magic/poison? The ring is considered impervious to damage.

It is explained in the books that the ring is not susceptible to dragon fire, enchanted weaponry or magic. The movies expect the audience to believe in the rings invincibility without actual resistance feats. And it is a safe assumption that the ring is impervious, considering middle earth's most respected leaders and councilors all agreed to send a fellowship to Mt. Doom to destroy the ring.

Now you've gone done it, inb4 quan or Supra parroting "baww no book feetz"

Though Sauron poured a majority of his power into teh ring, and he he exceeds the Basilisk in power by a large margain. Should be a case of needing to be more powerful than Sauron to destroy the Ring (at least my take on it)

NemeBro
The Ring clearly holds a considerable amount of power. When it was destroyed, so was Barad-dur and a huge chunk of Mordor.

Barad-dur is 1,500 meters tall in the movie. That's enormous.

quanchi112
Originally posted by StealthRanger
Now you've gone done it, inb4 quan or Supra parroting "baww no book feetz"

Though Sauron poured a majority of his power into teh ring, and he he exceeds the Basilisk in power by a large margain. Should be a case of needing to be more powerful than Sauron to destroy the Ring (at least my take on it) Movie forum and no book feats.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
What did the ring actually resist ?

One of Gimli's axes for a start. That got repulsed so violently it threw the guy and the pieces of his axe all over the council chambers.

And 2, it lasted several seconds against the lava of Mt Doom before finally succumbing. It lasted a hell of a lot longer than Gollum's body did.

It lasted 4,500 years on the riverbed, without tarnishing or rusting. Much more longevity than anything from HP.

Then it survived 500 years of being Gollum's cockring. *shudders*

NemeBro
And Gollum has a ****ing big cock.

Epicurus
The Fang can't destroy the Ring./thread

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112

Basilisk fang decimates the weak ring.

Why don't you actually offer a legitimate argument supporting this ^ claim?

BTW, if I was raging it wouldn't be pretty.

COG Veteran
Originally posted by Firefly218
Why don't you actually offer a legitimate argument supporting this ^ claim?

BTW, if I was raging it wouldn't be pretty.

Originally posted by Firefly218
tomcat

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
The Fang can't destroy the Ring./thread Is this based on anything other than your bias ?

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
Why don't you actually offer a legitimate argument supporting this ^ claim?

BTW, if I was raging it wouldn't be pretty. It has destroyed objects with greater resistance feats than dwarf axes.


laughing out loud

At your internet tough guy routine.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
One of Gimli's axes for a start. That got repulsed so violently it threw the guy and the pieces of his axe all over the council chambers.

And 2, it lasted several seconds against the lava of Mt Doom before finally succumbing. It lasted a hell of a lot longer than Gollum's body did.

It lasted 4,500 years on the riverbed, without tarnishing or rusting. Much more longevity than anything from HP.

Then it survived 500 years of being Gollum's cockring. *shudders* A axe wielded by a dwarf ? laughing out loud laughing out loud

Gollum lasted several seconds before Mount Doom killed him. Awful. Pathetic. Gollum is about as thin as weak as a body can become.


laughing out loud


Longevity........ laughing out loud


Horcruxes are the same save greater resistance feats than a dwarf axe. Doom lava which couldn't even kill Gollum immediately.

laughing out loud

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112
It has destroyed objects with greater resistance feats than dwarf axes.


Such as??? Besides, the resistance feats are implied in the movies, not shown. The sources by which these feats are implied are credible sources (council, ancient texts and Gandalf). The ring can withstand just about anything ~ the term "anything" covers way more than just dwarf weapons.



At least I'm not an internet dumbass

StealthRanger
Originally posted by quanchi112
It has destroyed objects with greater resistance feats than dwarf axes.


laughing out loud

At your internet tough guy routine.

And what has Tom Riddle's diary "resisted" hm?

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
Is this based on anything other than your bias ?
Based on the movies. The Fang is supposed to work on living things like humans and horcruxes. The Ring is neither. Only the lava from a specific volcano can destroy the Ring. I.e the Fang can't destroy the Ring.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
Such as??? Besides, the resistance feats are implied in the movies, not shown. The sources by which these feats are implied are credible sources (council, ancient texts and Gandalf). The ring can withstand just about anything ~ the term "anything" covers way more than just dwarf weapons.



At least I'm not an internet dumbass The only evidence is it surviving a dwarfs axe and the magic/power of the Lotr universe pales in comparison to the forces the wizards wield in Harry Potter.


Nuff said.

quanchi112
Originally posted by StealthRanger
And what has Tom Riddle's diary "resisted" hm? We see other Horcruxes resist other powerful magic and like you said the implication is there. So greater resistance feats and a greater comparison considering what the Potter universe is capable of than the Lotr.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
Based on the movies. The Fang is supposed to work on living things like humans and horcruxes. The Ring is neither. Only the lava from a specific volcano can destroy the Ring. I.e the Fang can't destroy the Ring. The ring is living in the same manner as a Horcrux. Both have pieces of a soul linked to its creator inside them. laughing out loud


The ring is essentially a Horcrux in theory and is linked to its creator in the same manner as Voldemort's Horcruxes.


The Basilisk fang doesn't exist in that universe so it doesn't hold true to your theory. Based on your ridiculous biased theory nothing else in any fictional universe can destroy the ring. laughing out loud


The lava couldn't even kill Gollum right away. Weak just like you.

smile

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
The ring is living in the same manner as a Horcrux. Both have pieces of a soul linked to its creator inside them. laughing out loud


The ring is essentially a Horcrux in theory and is linked to its creator in the same manner as Voldemort's Horcruxes.


The Basilisk fang doesn't exist in that universe so it doesn't hold true to your theory. Based on your ridiculous biased theory nothing else in any fictional universe can destroy the ring. laughing out loud


The lava couldn't even kill Gollum right away. Weak just like you.

smile
The Ring has power. The horcruxes literally have a portion of Voldy's life in them.

Speculation. Prove that it is a horcrux. There is nothing shown in the LoTR movies which indicates such to be the case.

Lolwut? So the Gollum resisted the lava iyo? That's awful and a lie, since we see gollum getting killed once he fell in along with the ring.

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112
The only evidence is it surviving a dwarfs axe and the magic/power of the Lotr universe pales in comparison to the forces the wizards wield in Harry Potter.


Nuff said.

Do you even understand what I'm saying? Although the feats are not clearly shown, it is CLEARLY stated that nothing in the LotR universe can harm the ring except Mt. Doom.I also explained that the implication (that the ring is impervious) is credible considering it comes from credible sources.

And the ring is destroyed by the enchantment of Mt. Doom's lava, not the lava heat itself. So don't commit to that stupid ass argument where Mt. Doom's lava barely killed golem.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
The Ring has power. The horcruxes literally have a portion of Voldy's life in them.

Speculation. Prove that it is a horcrux. There is nothing shown in the LoTR movies which indicates such to be the case.

Lolwut? So the Gollum resisted the lava iyo? That's awful and a lie, since we see gollum getting killed once he fell in along with the ring. The Horcruxes have power as well. The ring has the last portion of life in Sauron as well. With both destroyed neither can return to the physical world.


I already discussed the similarities in the previous post. Just because the name is different the application is generally the same, sport.

We see it take a portion of time to kill him just like it took time to destroy the ring. If it can't kill Gollum immediately it is pathetic.

laughing laughing out loud Happy Dance

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
Do you even understand what I'm saying? Although the feats are not clearly shown, it is CLEARLY stated that nothing in the LotR universe can harm the ring except Mt. Doom.I also explained that the implication (that the ring is impervious) is credible considering it comes from credible sources.

And the ring is destroyed by the enchantment of Mt. Doom's lava, not the lava heat itself. So don't commit to that stupid ass argument where Mt. Doom's lava barely killed golem. The Lotr universe is pathetic in terms of power to the Hp universe.


The heat itself actually destroys the ring. Just like the heat of the lava destroyed Gollum. Painfully slow and pathetic.

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112
The Lotr universe is pathetic in terms of power to the Hp universe.


The heat itself actually destroys the ring. Just like the heat of the lava destroyed Gollum. Painfully slow and pathetic.

If it is the heat destroying the ring, then how come normal lava doesn't destroy the ring? Why would the fellowship spend 3 movies going to Mt. Doom's lava if they could just melt the ring with extreme heat? It is the magic behind the lava of Mt. Doom which destroys the ring, Not the lava heat itself.

You haven't given any proof to your claims.
You haven't given a direct response to any of my arguments thus far.
Concession accepted.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
If it is the heat destroying the ring, then how come normal lava doesn't destroy the ring? Why would the fellowship spend 3 movies going to Mt. Doom's lava if they could just melt the ring with extreme heat? It is the magic behind the lava of Mt. Doom which destroys the ring, Not the lava heat itself.

You haven't given any proof to your claims.
You haven't given a direct response to any of my arguments thus far.
Concession accepted. What other lava pits are in Middle Earth ? Same thing. Magical lava which can't kill Gollum immediately aka weak ass lava.

Yes, I have.


You concede when you walk away. Resisting a dwarf axe isn't impressive.

The Scenario
Can someone remind me what Horcruxes have tanked, since I don't quite recall?

I do recall Fiendfyre, the Sword of Griffindor, and Avada Kedavra among other things being enough to destroy them, though.

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
Can someone remind me what Horcruxes have tanked, since I don't quite recall?

I do recall Fiendfyre, the Sword of Griffindor, and Avada Kedavra among other things being enough to destroy them, though. When did Fiendfyre destroy one ?


Avada Kedavra is an exception due to the circumstances.

siriuswriter
"Avada Kedavra" never actually destroyed a Horcrux. There was Basilisk venom, Fiendfyre, Gryffindor's Sword... and the twin cores of Voldemort's and Harry's wands fighting each other.

The ring was made with the lava in Mount Doom. Therefore it would make sense that only the lava in Mount Doom could unmake it. Also, the scene where Gollum dives in after the ring is in slow motion, it doesn't really take THAT LONG for Gollum to sink. Neither did it take long for the Ring - it goes in, tries to fight the lava and then the Ring sinks.

Are there basilisks in LotR? Not in the movies.
Basilisk fang does not equal doom for the Ring.

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112
What other lava pits are in Middle Earth ? Same thing. Magical lava which can't kill Gollum immediately aka weak ass lava.

Yes, I have.


You concede when you walk away. Resisting a dwarf axe isn't impressive.

Are you saying there are no sources of extreme heat as hot as Mt. Doom's lava on middle earth? If you are saying that, you're wrong. If the ring could be destroyed using heat, there would be no need to journey to Mt. Doom. And why the hell would Sauron entrust such vast power in a ring if it could be destroyed that easily?

Once again, the heat of the lava in Mt. Doom is irrelevant. As aforementioned, the ring was destroyed in Mt. Doom because of its magic, NOT heat.

And no, you have completely ignored my previous argument. Probably because you can't think of a response?

Firefly218
Originally posted by siriuswriter
"Avada Kedavra" never actually destroyed a Horcrux. There was Basilisk venom, Fiendfyre, Gryffindor's Sword... and the twin cores of Voldemort's and Harry's wands fighting each other.

The ring was made with the lava in Mount Doom. Therefore it would make sense that only the lava in Mount Doom could unmake it. Also, the scene where Gollum dives in after the ring is in slow motion, it doesn't really take THAT LONG for Gollum to sink. Neither did it take long for the Ring - it goes in, tries to fight the lava and then the Ring sinks.

Are there basilisks in LotR? Not in the movies.
Basilisk fang does not equal doom for the Ring.

thumb up

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
When did Fiendfyre destroy one ?


Avada Kedavra is an exception due to the circumstances.

When Crabbe killed himself with it, IIRC. The Ravenclaw artifact that was turned into a Horcrux, I think. Did that happen in the movies?

I know it did in the books, at least.

siriuswriter
Yup. When they went into the Room of Requirement, and saw Draco hanging out there with his minions. Crabbe cast it to be a big, bad Death Eater but was unfortunately too stupid to realize that Fiendfyre kills.

siriuswriter
1) " The POINT of the LotR trilogy is that it is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to destroy the One Ring. Please, don't think that just because it took up "only" three movies that destroying the ring was easy. It took a combination of all the right people to make sure that not only would the ring be destroyed, but that the world would be ready to pick itself back up again AFTER the ring was destroyed.

Sauron also made sure that all the OTHER rings he made would fall to him by a) making sure that the groups he would give it to had flaws and b) NOT making them in Mount Doom, which means that all the other rings were LESSER. All of them falling just gave him more power.
And because Mordor was SO easy to get to, fighting all the evil not just physically but fighting the very way the ring made you feel. Had it not been for Sam and, in the end, Gollum, the ring wouldn't even have been destroyed.

2) It doesn't matter about "other lava." Where something is made, it must be unmade. That happens to be a rule in Harry Potter too, when Voldy cursed Harry, it backfired, and so Voldy wants to kill Harry so it will UN-backfire.

Mount Doom is the ONLY PLACE that the Ring can be destroyed

Nephthys
The fang wasn't even sharp enough to pierce all the way through a ****ing book, how is it going to get through a Ring that shattered an axehead?

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
Are you saying there are no sources of extreme heat as hot as Mt. Doom's lava on middle earth? If you are saying that, you're wrong. If the ring could be destroyed using heat, there would be no need to journey to Mt. Doom. And why the hell would Sauron entrust such vast power in a ring if it could be destroyed that easily?

Once again, the heat of the lava in Mt. Doom is irrelevant. As aforementioned, the ring was destroyed in Mt. Doom because of its magic, NOT heat.

And no, you have completely ignored my previous argument. Probably because you can't think of a response? Heat plus magic which considering the length of time it took to kill Gollum isn't that impressive.

I didn't say it could be destroyed easily in the Lotr universe but comparing it to the potter universe it just doesn't stack up.

What have I ignored ?

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
When Crabbe killed himself with it, IIRC. The Ravenclaw artifact that was turned into a Horcrux, I think. Did that happen in the movies?

I know it did in the books, at least. It was destroyed prior to the Fiendfyre touching it. The Fiendfyre comes in contact with the soul escaping the. Horcrux.

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
It was destroyed prior to the Fiendfyre touching it. The Fiendfyre comes in contact with the soul escaping the. Horcrux.

What destroyed the Horcrux in the movie?

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
What destroyed the Horcrux in the movie? Basilisk fang.

The Scenario
Alrighty, I'll try this your way. Just for fun.

So here's what I've gathered from this thread: Horcruxes have been destroyed by fangs, swords, and fire.

The One Ring has resisted axes and fire, and was destroyed by lava.

Swords roughly = axes and lava > fire. So it seems the One Ring is the superior artifact since it has resisted things that destroy Horcruxes.

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
Alrighty, I'll try this your way. Just for fun.

So here's what I've gathered from this thread: Horcruxes have been destroyed by fangs, swords, and fire.

The One Ring has resisted axes and fire, and was destroyed by lava.

Swords roughly = axes and lava > fire. So it seems the One Ring is the superior artifact since it has resisted things that destroy Horcruxes. Horcruxes were never destroyed by fire.


Ring resisted axe and fire.


Fire never destroyed the Horcrux. I just corrected your ignorance.


The same magical lava which destroyed the ring couldn't even instantly kill an anorexic hobbit.

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
Horcruxes were never destroyed by fire.


Ring resisted axe and fire.


Fire never destroyed the Horcrux. I just corrected your ignorance.


The same magical lava which destroyed the ring couldn't even instantly kill an anorexic hobbit.

The soul is part of the Horcrux, and the books make it clear that Fiendfyre destroys them perfectly well.

So we're left with Horcruxes being destroyed by swords, while the One Ring resists axes. That's the better feat, so I'll say the Ring can take the fangg much better than a Horcrux could.

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
The soul is part of the Horcrux, and the books make it clear that Fiendfyre destroys them perfectly well.

So we're left with Horcruxes being destroyed by swords, while the One Ring resists axes. That's the better feat, so I'll say the Ring can take the fangg much better than a Horcrux could. The movie is entirely different and the fire didn't destroy it. The fang did. This is the movie forum not the book forum.

The magical sword destroyed it whereas the regular axe resisted.

Magic matters, sport.

Funny how it doesn't matter when Dorf isn't in the thread.

smile

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
Magic matters, sport.

Funny how it doesn't matter when Dorf isn't in the thread.

smile

I did say I was doing this your way.

How strong is the sword of Gryffindor, then?

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
I did say I was doing this your way.

How strong is the sword of Gryffindor, then? Very powerful indeed.

This isn't my way. I ignore no context.

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
Very powerful indeed.

This isn't my way. I ignore no context.

I dunno, you didn't seem to think magic mattered when it came to Ganondorf, so...

So what has it destroyed besides a few snakes?

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
I dunno, you didn't seem to think magic mattered when it came to Ganondorf, so...

So what has it destroyed besides a few snakes? When did I say magic didn't matter there.


It destroyed Horcruxes. The same Horcrux known as Nagini resisted fire as well.

smile

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
The Horcruxes have power as well. The ring has the last portion of life in Sauron as well. With both destroyed neither can return to the physical world.


I already discussed the similarities in the previous post. Just because the name is different the application is generally the same, sport.

We see it take a portion of time to kill him just like it took time to destroy the ring. If it can't kill Gollum immediately it is pathetic.

laughing laughing out loud Happy Dance
What power? Harry resisted the diary's influence. Ginny resisted it as well. Ron overcame the slytherin heirloom's effects.

No, you didn't. These objects have separate functions. The Horcruxes are meant to act as Voldemort's conduits to immortality, while the Ring is supposed to help Sauron in his domination of Middle Earth.

No, we don't. The gollum drowned and got killed. On-screen:
zUTt9MYMc

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
What power? Harry resisted the diary's influence. Ginny resisted it as well. Ron overcame the slytherin heirloom's effects.

No, you didn't. These objects have separate functions. The Horcruxes are meant to act as Voldemort's conduits to immortality, while the Ring is supposed to help Sauron in his domination of Middle Earth.

No, we don't. The gollum drowned and got killed. On-screen:
zUTt9MYMc And Bilbo resisted it to give it away to Gandalf's scare tactics. Sam never fell for it either.

Both act as conduits for immortality. The ring though whenever separated from Sauron killed him. laughing out loud it also held dominion over middle earth but ultimately was the same thing as a Horcrux.


Yes, the Gollum eventually died just like the ring was eventually destroyed. Awful showing since it can't instantly kill anorexic individuals.

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
And Bilbo resisted it to give it away to Gandalf's scare tactics. Sam never fell for it either.

Both act as conduits for immortality. The ring though whenever separated from Sauron killed him. laughing out loud it also held dominion over middle earth but ultimately was the same thing as a Horcrux.


Yes, the Gollum eventually died just like the ring was eventually destroyed. Awful showing since it can't instantly kill anorexic individuals.
Bilbo used it. That's far from "resisting" its influence. We're talking movies, so when did Bilbo give it to Gandalf's "scare tactics"? The Horcruxes on the other hand were resisted by a prepubescent boy and girl. Awful.

Nah, the Ring is supposed to be more of a tool of power while the Horcurxes are supposed to actually extend a wizard's lifespan indefinitely. Prove that it was the same thing as a horcrux. You're making a lot of baseless claims and providing no proof to back up your statements.

It killed him. My video clip shows it. That's not the same as him resisting it. You're as much of a horrible liar as you are a terrible debater in general.thumb down

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
When did I say magic didn't matter there.

You repeatedly argued that Ganondorf was hurt by "swords." When it was pointed out to you that both swords were magical, that one hit him before he got his power, and that one is his weakness, you ignored this and continued claiming that Ganondorf was hurt by "swords."

Notice any similarities to what I'm doing here? Horcruxes were destroyed by a sword and the Ring resisted an axe, after all.



What's impressive about destroying Horcruxes and what impressive resistance feats do they have?

Firefly218
Debating with quan is like debating with a wall

XanatosForever
quan, you do understand what lava is, don't you? It's molten rock. Superheated portions of earth in a semisolid state. Gollum landing in Mt. Doom is terrifyingly accurate to what happens when you base jump a volcano, sans convection. If you were to throw yourself in lava, you wouldn't sink. Even molten, it's still rock, which is denser than the average humanoid frame. What would happen is that your body would immediately start to melt away, which can give the impression of sinking, I'm sure, but you'll never really make it past the first layer. Gollum was dead the moment he hit rock bottom, if you'll excuse the pun.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
Bilbo used it. That's far from "resisting" its influence. We're talking movies, so when did Bilbo give it to Gandalf's "scare tactics"? The Horcruxes on the other hand were resisted by a prepubescent boy and girl. Awful.

Nah, the Ring is supposed to be more of a tool of power while the Horcurxes are supposed to actually extend a wizard's lifespan indefinitely. Prove that it was the same thing as a horcrux. You're making a lot of baseless claims and providing no proof to back up your statements.

It killed him. My video clip shows it. That's not the same as him resisting it. You're as much of a horrible liar as you are a terrible debater in general.thumb down He is being a greed monger until Gandalf scares the shit out of him.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKaw5SjeHx0

The moment the Horcruxes were off the resistance left. We see Bilbo clearly resist it as well. These kids had more experience than this hobbit who went through only one adventure.

They both provide the ability to live minus a body or return to the physical realm while these objects remain intact. Sauron dies when he is separated from his ring. His body does making it far easier to kill him by just separating his ring from his body.

A Horcrux and the ring both had a piece of the soul of their maker as well.

I never said he avoided death I said he delayed death. This isn't that impressive at all. Sorry.


Fang has greater feats of destruction of magical artifacts than the Ring has of resistance feats.

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
You repeatedly argued that Ganondorf was hurt by "swords." When it was pointed out to you that both swords were magical, that one hit him before he got his power, and that one is his weakness, you ignored this and continued claiming that Ganondorf was hurt by "swords."

Notice any similarities to what I'm doing here? Horcruxes were destroyed by a sword and the Ring resisted an axe, after all.



What's impressive about destroying Horcruxes and what impressive resistance feats do they have? Ganondorf has no resistance feats against any swords of any kind. The Master Sword's function dispels magic. It was sharp enough to cut into him and it did its function by preventing Dorfs magic from resisting the piercing attack.

A sword with magical properties against an axe without any other properties. The sword was extremely powerful compared to regular swords.


The master sword could be blocked by other swords but once it pierced its opponent it dispels that characters magic. It isn't a sword which cuts through other swords in TP. That was why the emphasis was placed on skill level.


smile

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
Debating with quan is like debating with a wall And you are like a harmless hairball that lays on the floor and looks dumb.

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112
And you are like a harmless hairball that lays on the floor and looks dumb.

That has to be the lamest insult I've ever gotten laughing

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
That has to be the lamest insult I've ever gotten laughing Whatever you say, furball.

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112
Whatever you say, furball.

It's scary to think people like you are allowed to vote

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
Ganondorf has no resistance feats against any swords of any kind. The Master Sword's function dispels magic. It was sharp enough to cut into him and it did its function by preventing Dorfs magic from resisting the piercing attack.

A sword with magical properties against an axe without any other properties. The sword was extremely powerful compared to regular swords.


The master sword could be blocked by other swords but once it pierced its opponent it dispels that characters magic. It isn't a sword which cuts through other swords in TP. That was why the emphasis was placed on skill level.


smile

Yeah, nah, I'm not going into Twilight Princess again. You argue the same thing every time and it gets boring. Nice try with the off-topic red herring, though.


Prove that the sword of Gryffindor is powerful, please. Also, could you please prove that, say, Nagini, has any resistance to something like an axe?

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
It's scary to think people like you are allowed to vote Says the ball of hair.

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
Yeah, nah, I'm not going into Twilight Princess again. You argue the same thing every time and it gets boring. Nice try with the off-topic red herring, though.


Prove that the sword of Gryffindor is powerful, please. Also, could you please prove that, say, Nagini, has any resistance to something like an axe? Well I explained the difference and you brought it up initially.


This was covered the movies with the what can destroy Horcruxes. Not looking all this up for you.

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
Well I explained the difference and you brought it up initially.


Originally posted by quanchi112
The movie is entirely different and the fire didn't destroy it. The fang did. This is the movie forum not the book forum.

The magical sword destroyed it whereas the regular axe resisted.

Magic matters, sport.

Funny how it doesn't matter when Dorf isn't in the thread.

smile




So the sword is powerful because it can destroy horcruxes, fine. Do you have anything that proves horcruxes are resilient?

siriuswriter
All known methods of Horcrux destruction are as deadly as the murder needed for its creation. For example, the earliest known method is administering basilisk venom to the Horcrux, the only cure for which is phoenix tears, an extremely rare substance. Other known methods are Fiendfyre (as evidenced by its destruction of Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem), which requires extreme skill to control and the Killing Curse which seems to be capable of destroying a Horcrux if it is animate, given that part of Voldemort's soul contained in Harry Potter was destroyed when he was struck with the Killing Curse in 1998. However, Harry Potter was never an intentional Horcrux and so it may not work on a proper, animate Horcrux (like Nagini), probably having unforeseen side effects.

Harry Potter was not destroyed as a Horcrux in the Chamber of Secrets because Fawkes' tears saved him and hence the "receptacle" (Harry) was not then destroyed beyond repair.

Albus Dumbledore, Ron Weasley, and Neville Longbottom used Godric Gryffindor's Sword to destroy Marvolo Gaunt's Ring, Salazar Slytherin's Locket, and Nagini respectively. This was only achievable as the sword is a Goblin-made artefact, which can absorb qualities that strengthen it. When Harry Potter slew the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, the sword was imbued with Basilisk venom and became capable of destroying Horcruxes, as Basilisk venom by itself is destructive enough a substance to destroy a Horcrux.

Harry Potter and Hermione Granger used Basilisk fangs from the Chamber of Secrets to destroy Tom Riddle's Diary and Helga Hufflepuff's Cup, respectively.


http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Horcrux]


So, the only reason that the Sword could destroy a Horcrux was because it was dipped in Basilisk venom. Oh, and Fiendfyre DID destroy the diadem Horcrux.

It helps to get the actual facts.

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
So the sword is powerful because it can destroy horcruxes, fine. Do you have anything that proves horcruxes are resilient? Yes, this is covered in the Deathly Hallows part one. I'm not running around clip hunting though.

quanchi112
Originally posted by siriuswriter
All known methods of Horcrux destruction are as deadly as the murder needed for its creation. For example, the earliest known method is administering basilisk venom to the Horcrux, the only cure for which is phoenix tears, an extremely rare substance. Other known methods are Fiendfyre (as evidenced by its destruction of Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem), which requires extreme skill to control and the Killing Curse which seems to be capable of destroying a Horcrux if it is animate, given that part of Voldemort's soul contained in Harry Potter was destroyed when he was struck with the Killing Curse in 1998. However, Harry Potter was never an intentional Horcrux and so it may not work on a proper, animate Horcrux (like Nagini), probably having unforeseen side effects.

Harry Potter was not destroyed as a Horcrux in the Chamber of Secrets because Fawkes' tears saved him and hence the "receptacle" (Harry) was not then destroyed beyond repair.

Albus Dumbledore, Ron Weasley, and Neville Longbottom used Godric Gryffindor's Sword to destroy Marvolo Gaunt's Ring, Salazar Slytherin's Locket, and Nagini respectively. This was only achievable as the sword is a Goblin-made artefact, which can absorb qualities that strengthen it. When Harry Potter slew the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, the sword was imbued with Basilisk venom and became capable of destroying Horcruxes, as Basilisk venom by itself is destructive enough a substance to destroy a Horcrux.

Harry Potter and Hermione Granger used Basilisk fangs from the Chamber of Secrets to destroy Tom Riddle's Diary and Helga Hufflepuff's Cup, respectively.


http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Horcrux]


So, the only reason that the Sword could destroy a Horcrux was because it was dipped in Basilisk venom. Oh, and Fiendfyre DID destroy the diadem Horcrux.

It helps to get the actual facts. Fiendfyre did not destroy that Horcrux in the film. The fang did. Clearly you're not capable of understanding a simple scene. Your rants are comedic as well.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
Fiendfyre did not destroy that Horcrux in the film. The fang did. Clearly you're not capable of understanding a simple scene. Your rants are comedic as well.

Considering there is one poster in all these threads who refuses to back his own claims, this debate is worthless, as is every other argument and counterargument he has ever made.

Can you guess who that is? It is YOU Quan.

Sirius here made quite a few things apparent, and you simply ignored most of what he said. That has literally shot what little credibility you had left straight into the crap pipes.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Considering there is one poster in all these threads who refuses to back his own claims, this debate is worthless, as is every other argument and counterargument he has ever made.

Can you guess who that is? It is YOU Quan.

Sirius here made quite a few things apparent, and you simply ignored most of what he said. That has literally shot what little credibility you had left straight into the crap pipes. Sirius is a woman you Neanderthal.

5:15 in.


Fang destroys Horcrux. Soul is released which comes into contact with the Fiendfyre. Eat it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OGtMGiqJRYw

Don't call girls guys. K.



smile smile


Dancing all over your weak soul.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
Sirius is a woman you Neanderthal.

5:15 in.


Fang destroys Horcrux. Soul is released which comes into contact with the Fiendfyre. Eat it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OGtMGiqJRYw

Don't call girls guys. K.



smile smile


Dancing all over your weak soul.

The only response to any and all of this is "So F**king what?"

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The only response to any and all of this is "So F**king what?" I couldn't care less half the time. Most of you people are so ignorant I'd rather keep you in the dark. It amuses me to look down on you.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
I couldn't care less half the time. Most of you people are so ignorant I'd rather keep you in the dark. It amuses me to look down on you.

laughing

Translation: "I can't prove shit, so I'll pretend I'm right I try to fool everyone that there is some big dark conspiracies that only I am in the know about."

You do realise that you are supposed to be over 3 decades old, not 3 years old? Seriously, your lines are some of the most immature and ill thought out posts I have ever seen.

laughing

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
laughing

Translation: "I can't prove shit, so I'll pretend I'm right I try to fool everyone that there is some big dark conspiracies that only I am in the know about."

You do realise that you are supposed to be over 3 decades old, not 3 years old? Seriously, your lines are some of the most immature and ill thought out posts I have ever seen.

laughing I just proved what I said as I rubbed your face in internet poop. Your response was so what. You are a cheerleader. Nothing more. Grab your pom poms and stay on the sideline.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
I just proved what I said as I rubbed your face in internet poop. Your response was so what. You are a cheerleader. Nothing more. Grab your pom poms and stay on the sideline.

What you proved didn't address anything I said, so you simply went to your usual circular Quan logic again. I asked "So what" because it literally is meaningless.

Sirius literally proved that for the sword of Gryffindor to work on Horcrux's, it needed to be seeped in Basilisk venom, thus proving that the sword can't do it on it's own, which means your spiel about it being more powerful than any other sword you've debated against (Narsil, Master Sword, ect) due to it being capable of undoing the Horcrux's is a load of horseshit.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
What you proved didn't address anything I said, so you simply went to your usual circular Quan logic again. I asked "So what" because it literally is meaningless.

Sirius literally proved that for the sword of Gryffindor to work on Horcrux's, it needed to be seeped in Basilisk venom, thus proving that the sword can't do it on it's own, which means your spiel about it being more powerful than any other sword you've debated against (Narsil, Master Sword, ect) due to it being capable of undoing the Horcrux's is a load of horseshit. You are ignoring the properties of the sword itself.

This caused the sword to be imbued with basilisk venom (since goblin-made items only imbibe what makes them stronger).


If you ignore the properties of the magical weapons you're debating you're basically putting your hands into your ears and saying nuh uh.


Narsil was stomped in half by a bootheel. Leave the Zelda stuff for the Zelda brigade, cheerleader.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
You are ignoring the properties of the sword itself.

Which is exactly what you did with the weapons you debated against. Let me guess, it only applies to what you're debating against, not for, right? Hypocritical double standards again.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This caused the sword to be imbued with basilisk venom (since goblin-made items only imbibe what makes them stronger).

Which doesn't do much of anything on it's own. Anyone can lay a coat of poison on a blade.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If you ignore the properties of the magical weapons you're debating you're basically putting your hands into your ears and saying nuh uh.

See point 1. You've been doing that for months, if not years.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Narsil was stomped in half by a bootheel. Leave the Zelda stuff for the Zelda brigade, cheerleader.

The bootheel of a 10 foot tall Maiar known for his corrupting capabilities, but, ya know, context, the thing you lack and all...

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Which is exactly what you did with the weapons you debated against. Let me guess, it only applies to what you're debating against, not for, right? Hypocritical double standards again.



Which doesn't do much of anything on it's own. Anyone can lay a coat of poison on a blade.



See point 1. You've been doing that for months, if not years.



The bootheel of a 10 foot tall Maiar known for his corrupting capabilities, but, ya know, context, the thing you lack and all... I have never done such a thing. Speak in plain English and cite examples. You embarrass yourself daily.

The blade takes that into itself and is stronger from there on out. The point it always escapes you, cheerleader.


When has the term Maiar ever been references in the movies ?


This is just going from bad to worse for you.

smile

Epicurus
Originally posted by siriuswriter
All known methods of Horcrux destruction are as deadly as the murder needed for its creation. For example, the earliest known method is administering basilisk venom to the Horcrux, the only cure for which is phoenix tears, an extremely rare substance. Other known methods are Fiendfyre (as evidenced by its destruction of Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem), which requires extreme skill to control and the Killing Curse which seems to be capable of destroying a Horcrux if it is animate, given that part of Voldemort's soul contained in Harry Potter was destroyed when he was struck with the Killing Curse in 1998. However, Harry Potter was never an intentional Horcrux and so it may not work on a proper, animate Horcrux (like Nagini), probably having unforeseen side effects.

Harry Potter was not destroyed as a Horcrux in the Chamber of Secrets because Fawkes' tears saved him and hence the "receptacle" (Harry) was not then destroyed beyond repair.

Albus Dumbledore, Ron Weasley, and Neville Longbottom used Godric Gryffindor's Sword to destroy Marvolo Gaunt's Ring, Salazar Slytherin's Locket, and Nagini respectively. This was only achievable as the sword is a Goblin-made artefact, which can absorb qualities that strengthen it. When Harry Potter slew the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, the sword was imbued with Basilisk venom and became capable of destroying Horcruxes, as Basilisk venom by itself is destructive enough a substance to destroy a Horcrux.

Harry Potter and Hermione Granger used Basilisk fangs from the Chamber of Secrets to destroy Tom Riddle's Diary and Helga Hufflepuff's Cup, respectively.


http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Horcrux]


So, the only reason that the Sword could destroy a Horcrux was because it was dipped in Basilisk venom. Oh, and Fiendfyre DID destroy the diadem Horcrux.

It helps to get the actual facts.
Fiendfyre didn't completely destroy the Ravenclaw horcrux in the movies.

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
He is being a greed monger until Gandalf scares the shit out of him.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKaw5SjeHx0

The moment the Horcruxes were off the resistance left. We see Bilbo clearly resist it as well. These kids had more experience than this hobbit who went through only one adventure.

They both provide the ability to live minus a body or return to the physical realm while these objects remain intact. Sauron dies when he is separated from his ring. His body does making it far easier to kill him by just separating his ring from his body.

A Horcrux and the ring both had a piece of the soul of their maker as well.

I never said he avoided death I said he delayed death. This isn't that impressive at all. Sorry.


Fang has greater feats of destruction of magical artifacts than the Ring has of resistance feats.
The point is that he used it, and you can't say whether he won't do so again in the next movie.

Lol, he used it against Smaug, long after that scene with Gandy.

Nope, we don't. He used it against Smaug, despite Gandalf's warning. Your lies are pathetic as usual.

They both have different functions. The Ring is an artifact of power primarily while the Horcrux is an artifact of immortality. One is not the same as the other.

Prove that Sauron's power is his soul. You're making an awful lot of assumptions without any proof to back it up.

You said he resisted it. My video clip clearly shows that he died:
zUTt9MYMc

You lied and made up stuff as usual. Admit it and I may pardon thee.

What greater destruction feats? It couldn't even kill Harry Potter for crying out loud. Awful showing. The tears of a dodo like Fawkes can negate its affects. At least with the lava you can't be saved once in it as we saw with the Gollum.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
I have never done such a thing. Speak in plain English and cite examples. You embarrass yourself daily.

Bullshit, it's the ONLY thing you ever consistently do.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The blade takes that into itself and is stronger from there on out. The point it always escapes you, cheerleader.

Bullshit. According to your logic, any blade coated with the venom would do the job.

Originally posted by quanchi112
When has the term Maiar ever been references in the movies ?

When has it ever mattered. Surely even you are not stupid enough to claim Sauron is an ordinary human being... Oh wait, I forget whom I speak to... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is just going from bad to worse for you.

smile

http://agfbrakpan.co.za/ClientFiles/Events/Matthew7-Do-not-judge/Pot-calling-kettle-black.png

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
Fiendfyre didn't completely destroy the Ravenclaw horcrux in the movies. Quit riding my coattails.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
The point is that he used it, and you can't say whether he won't do so again in the next movie.

Lol, he used it against Smaug, long after that scene with Gandy.

Nope, we don't. He used it against Smaug, despite Gandalf's warning. Your lies are pathetic as usual.

They both have different functions. The Ring is an artifact of power primarily while the Horcrux is an artifact of immortality. One is not the same as the other.

Prove that Sauron's power is his soul. You're making an awful lot of assumptions without any proof to back it up.

You said he resisted it. My video clip clearly shows that he died:
zUTt9MYMc

You lied and made up stuff as usual. Admit it and I may pardon thee.

What greater destruction feats? It couldn't even kill Harry Potter for crying out loud. Awful showing. The tears of a dodo like Fawkes can negate its affects. At least with the lava you can't be saved once in it as we saw with the Gollum. That has nothing to do with my point. My point wasn't that he never used it. Try and keep up here, dork. My point was Gandalf used scare tactics which knocked the greed over the ring right out of him. Fact. For all its bluster fear takes the oomph right out of the ring. smile

Both are objects of power. They aren't exactly the same in every regard but have enough similarities to draw comparisons.

I never said his power was his soul. I said he put a portion of his soul into the ring. Once it is destroyed he loses any chances to return to his body.

You don't even understand what I said and started posting clips showing an extreme lack of intelligence on your end. Laughable. Gollum lasted about as long as the ring. laughing out loud

Yes, the tears or another magical plot device can negate it. Scare tactics can take the power the ring exerts over an individual. laughing out loud

Destroying the Horcruxes. Are you this dense ?

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Bullshit, it's the ONLY thing you ever consistently do.



Bullshit. According to your logic, any blade coated with the venom would do the job.



When has it ever mattered. Surely even you are not stupid enough to claim Sauron is an ordinary human being... Oh wait, I forget whom I speak to... roll eyes (sarcastic)



http://agfbrakpan.co.za/ClientFiles/Events/Matthew7-Do-not-judge/Pot-calling-kettle-black.png Complete and utter lie.

Incorrect. This sword permanently upgrades itself. These are the properties of the sword. The sword took into itself the power of the basilisk fang to make it stronger.


This is the movie versus forum where only movie feats apply. Just don't come back to this thread. You ignore the rules and just cite hyperbole unusable in this forum to assist your incompetence demonstrated throughout this thread.

Darkstorm Zero
Originally posted by quanchi112
Complete and utter lie.

See if anyone honestly agrees with you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Incorrect. This sword permanently upgrades itself. These are the properties of the sword. The sword took into itself the power of the basilisk fang to make it stronger.

That still does not dissuade from the original claim now does it? The question is, why do you think any ordinary blade dipped in the venom couldn't do the job? Because apparently the venom is all that is required to destroy a Horcrux, not the sword itself.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is the movie versus forum where only movie feats apply. Just don't come back to this thread. You ignore the rules and just cite hyperbole unusable in this forum to assist your incompetence demonstrated throughout this thread.

Says the man who said he only posts here because he can get away with horrendously huge amounts of trolling bullshit.

My question still stands, do you consider Sauron an ordinary human man?

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
That has nothing to do with my point. My point wasn't that he never used it. Try and keep up here, dork. My point was Gandalf used scare tactics which knocked the greed over the ring right out of him. Fact. For all its bluster fear takes the oomph right out of the ring. smile

Both are objects of power. They aren't exactly the same in every regard but have enough similarities to draw comparisons.

I never said his power was his soul. I said he put a portion of his soul into the ring. Once it is destroyed he loses any chances to return to his body.

You don't even understand what I said and started posting clips showing an extreme lack of intelligence on your end. Laughable. Gollum lasted about as long as the ring. laughing out loud

Yes, the tears or another magical plot device can negate it. Scare tactics can take the power the ring exerts over an individual. laughing out loud

Destroying the Horcruxes. Are you this dense ?
Your point was that he resisted it due to Gandalf's alleged scare tactics(which are part of your opinion only), which is directly contradicted by later scenes of him giving into the temptation of using it against Smaug. You were proven wrong, troll. Move on.

Both serve different functions. One is meant to be the means to power and domination of the LoTR world while the other is meant to protect its maker from death. Prove that they are similar. You also said that they are basically the same thing here:Originally posted by quanchi112
but ultimately was the same thing as a Horcrux. and here:Originally posted by quanchi112
The ring is essentially a Horcrux in theory You flip-flop worse than an actual flip-flop.

You absolutely implied that here:
Originally posted by quanchi112
Both have pieces of a soul linked to its creator inside them. Which basically means that Sauron's power is his soul. Care to back up this ridiculous assertion?

I posted evidence refuting your laughable claims that he resisted the lava. Lava killed him while Harry survived the fang which destroyed a horcrux. Awful showing.

Scare tactics failed to prevent Bilbo from using the Ring, as evidenced against Smaug. You're lying again, not that it is a surprise since that is all you do; lie and make sh1t up.

Which is a feat exactly how? Unless the horcruxes have some uber durability feats which I(your superior when it comes to Harry Potter lore) missed? Fang fails to destroy the ring based on all the evidence posted.

siriuswriter
Goblin-made things among wizards are very rare, because the goblins believe that once the intended recipient is dead, the things should go back to the goblins, because in the end goblins made it, goblins own it.

That is why the goblin in "The Deathly Hallows" betrayed the trio, taking the sword once they had the cup. It only reappeared later, when Neville Longbottom pulled it out of the Sorting Hat right before he killed Nagini with it.

So, very few goblin-made items. The thing about goblins is that they make things very intricately, and they also build things that are meant to last for ever. While the objects in themselves are not powerful, they have the potential to become very powerful, because, to put it simply, "What doesn't kill it, makes it stronger." Which is the case with the basilisk venom. After Chamber of Secrets, the sword is officially basilikified because Harry runs it through the head of the basilisk, directly going through the mouth, where ready venom is kept Which is why ONLY the sword of gryffindor worked. Other blades would have just dissolved in the basilisk venom.

And by the way quan, thanks for never answering me directly. I don't mind if someone accidentally misses the gender thing, most of the posters on this site ARE male. Stop belaboring little, nonsensical points, stop calling people names, START thinking before you post. Right now you're just too easy to disprove.

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
Quit riding my coattails.
Speak when you're spoken to, troll.

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, this is covered in the Deathly Hallows part one. I'm not running around clip hunting though.

That's a shame, since it's the only thing that can prove your case.

All you really need to do is prove that Nagini can resist an axe or something.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
See if anyone honestly agrees with you.



That still does not dissuade from the original claim now does it? The question is, why do you think any ordinary blade dipped in the venom couldn't do the job? Because apparently the venom is all that is required to destroy a Horcrux, not the sword itself.



Says the man who said he only posts here because he can get away with horrendously huge amounts of trolling bullshit.

My question still stands, do you consider Sauron an ordinary human man? You are honestly pathetic to beg for other people's opinions in a popularity contest.


A normal blade can't withstand the power of the basilisk venom nor do normal blades take in that which makes them stronger. That is why this blade is so special, simpleton.

The power of the fangs themselves or the venom is quite powerful which is the point,


That isn't the point. The term Maiar is just a title which implies no power in and of itself. It's also funnier that they don't even use the term in the movies. smile

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
Your point was that he resisted it due to Gandalf's alleged scare tactics(which are part of your opinion only), which is directly contradicted by later scenes of him giving into the temptation of using it against Smaug. You were proven wrong, troll. Move on.

Both serve different functions. One is meant to be the means to power and domination of the LoTR world while the other is meant to protect its maker from death. Prove that they are similar. You also said that they are basically the same thing here: and here: You flip-flop worse than an actual flip-flop.

You absolutely implied that here:
Which basically means that Sauron's power is his soul. Care to back up this ridiculous assertion?

I posted evidence refuting your laughable claims that he resisted the lava. Lava killed him while Harry survived the fang which destroyed a horcrux. Awful showing.

Scare tactics failed to prevent Bilbo from using the Ring, as evidenced against Smaug. You're lying again, not that it is a surprise since that is all you do; lie and make sh1t up.

Which is a feat exactly how? Unless the horcruxes have some uber durability feats which I(your superior when it comes to Harry Potter lore) missed? Fang fails to destroy the ring based on all the evidence posted. Gandalf told him to give him the ring whereas Bilbo used the ring to avoid Smaug. It is comparing apples to oranges. Gandalf scared the lust for the ring right out of him and he gave it away. Weak sauce.


I didn't say both had the exact same effect I said both had many different similarities. The ring contained a part of Sauron whereas the Horcruxes contain certain parts of Voldemort's soul.


Similarities.

1. Contain portion of makers soul
2. Provide immortality or the able to return to a physical body
3. Extremely durable
4. Leads Wielder into more negative emotions throughout time

Sauron placed an enchantment on the ring in by the other people accepting the other rings give him dominion over them by their acceptance.


No, that doesn't mean that at all. That means both contain portions of the soul and give the maker the ability to return to their body. Sauron's power comes through the acceptance of the people of a middle Earth over the other rings. His ring was made in secret and held dominion over the other rings. That's where his power lies. His soul also lies in the ring just like a Horcrux. Unlike certain Horcruxes the ring can't actively try to protect itself.

quanchi112
Originally posted by siriuswriter
Goblin-made things among wizards are very rare, because the goblins believe that once the intended recipient is dead, the things should go back to the goblins, because in the end goblins made it, goblins own it.

That is why the goblin in "The Deathly Hallows" betrayed the trio, taking the sword once they had the cup. It only reappeared later, when Neville Longbottom pulled it out of the Sorting Hat right before he killed Nagini with it.

So, very few goblin-made items. The thing about goblins is that they make things very intricately, and they also build things that are meant to last for ever. While the objects in themselves are not powerful, they have the potential to become very powerful, because, to put it simply, "What doesn't kill it, makes it stronger." Which is the case with the basilisk venom. After Chamber of Secrets, the sword is officially basilikified because Harry runs it through the head of the basilisk, directly going through the mouth, where ready venom is kept Which is why ONLY the sword of gryffindor worked. Other blades would have just dissolved in the basilisk venom.

And by the way quan, thanks for never answering me directly. I don't mind if someone accidentally misses the gender thing, most of the posters on this site ARE male. Stop belaboring little, nonsensical points, stop calling people names, START thinking before you post. Right now you're just too easy to disprove. You said Fiendfyre destroyed a Horcrux which is wildly inaccurate in the films. I could care less for your opinion or feelings tbh.

Originally posted by The Scenario
That's a shame, since it's the only thing that can prove your case.

All you really need to do is prove that Nagini can resist an axe or something. I would rather keep you in the dark since you believe otherwise. To even raise such an awful defense it is clear you aren't familiar with the Horcruxes if at all.

Firefly218
Originally posted by quanchi112


Do you ever find it odd that no one agrees with you?

quanchi112
Originally posted by Firefly218
Do you ever find it odd that no one agrees with you? I base my opinion off evidence and critical thinking. The others do not. They frequently try to pull illegal tactics by posting book info out of bias.

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
I would rather keep you in the dark since you believe otherwise. To even raise such an awful defense it is clear you aren't familiar with the Horcruxes if at all.

Why do you refuse to debate me?

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
Why do you refuse to debate me? I do not refuse to debate you but I do expect you to be somewhat knowledgable about the topics you post in.

Epicurus
Originally posted by quanchi112
Gandalf told him to give him the ring whereas Bilbo used the ring to avoid Smaug. It is comparing apples to oranges. Gandalf scared the lust for the ring right out of him and he gave it away. Weak sauce.


I didn't say both had the exact same effect I said both had many different similarities. The ring contained a part of Sauron whereas the Horcruxes contain certain parts of Voldemort's soul.


Similarities.

1. Contain portion of makers soul
2. Provide immortality or the able to return to a physical body
3. Extremely durable
4. Leads Wielder into more negative emotions throughout time

Sauron placed an enchantment on the ring in by the other people accepting the other rings give him dominion over them by their acceptance.


No, that doesn't mean that at all. That means both contain portions of the soul and give the maker the ability to return to their body. Sauron's power comes through the acceptance of the people of a middle Earth over the other rings. His ring was made in secret and held dominion over the other rings. That's where his power lies. His soul also lies in the ring just like a Horcrux. Unlike certain Horcruxes the ring can't actively try to protect itself.
Yep, which validates my point and disproves yours. He still used it despite Gandalf's warning. No, it's not comparing apples to oranges. What it is is that you're blatantly wrong, and you being you simply can't be man enough to admit it. smile

Same effect? Are you illiterate? I accused you of proclaiming both as being the same thing, not that they have the same effect. Which is what you did, and then flip-flopped like zopzop. You can't even stick to a claim that you make. Awful. thumb down

1.Prove that the Ring contains his soul. Provide a screencap of where it's mentioned. Unless you do, this is an assumption on your part.
2.Irrelevant. The Ring serves a higher function than just protection from death.
3.The Ring can only be destroyed by the lava from a particular volcano, while horcruxes can be damaged by fiendfyre, destroyed by basilisk venom, and by the AK(as we saw with the horcrux sealed in Harry's soul).
4.Irrelevant, not to mention that the RIng's influence is stronger than a horcrux's since everyone who's work the Ring has given into the temptation while Ron, Ginny and Harry have resisted it.

Yes, which means that he intended the Ring to be a weapon to be wielded by others. Which is directly dissimilar to Voldemort going to great lengths to protect his horcruxes. You make useless point after useless point and don't feel the slightest bit of shame about it.laughing out loud

The Ring and the Horcrux serve different functions, as evidenced by the movies. One is forged to be a weapon for the domination of Middle Earth while the other is a safeguard against death created by Riddle. Again, prove that his power is his soul, since it's power which is sealed within the Ring. Unlike certain horcruxes, the Ring doesn't need to actively protect itself since there is only one foolproof way of destroying it and doing so is a suicide mission as we saw with Sam and Frodo who were nearly killed in the volcano themselves were it not for Gandalf's giant eagles. thumb up

quanchi112
Originally posted by Epicurus
Yep, which validates my point and disproves yours. He still used it despite Gandalf's warning. No, it's not comparing apples to oranges. What it is is that you're blatantly wrong, and you being you simply can't be man enough to admit it. smile

Same effect? Are you illiterate? I accused you of proclaiming both as being the same thing, not that they have the same effect. Which is what you did, and then flip-flopped like zopzop. You can't even stick to a claim that you make. Awful. thumb down

1.Prove that the Ring contains his soul. Provide a screencap of where it's mentioned. Unless you do, this is an assumption on your part.
2.Irrelevant. The Ring serves a higher function than just protection from death.
3.The Ring can only be destroyed by the lava from a particular volcano, while horcruxes can be damaged by fiendfyre, destroyed by basilisk venom, and by the AK(as we saw with the horcrux sealed in Harry's soul).
4.Irrelevant, not to mention that the RIng's influence is stronger than a horcrux's since everyone who's work the Ring has given into the temptation while Ron, Ginny and Harry have resisted it.

Yes, which means that he intended the Ring to be a weapon to be wielded by others. Which is directly dissimilar to Voldemort going to great lengths to protect his horcruxes. You make useless point after useless point and don't feel the slightest bit of shame about it.laughing out loud

The Ring and the Horcrux serve different functions, as evidenced by the movies. One is forged to be a weapon for the domination of Middle Earth while the other is a safeguard against death created by Riddle. Again, prove that his power is his soul, since it's power which is sealed within the Ring. Unlike certain horcruxes, the Ring doesn't need to actively protect itself since there is only one foolproof way of destroying it and doing so is a suicide mission as we saw with Sam and Frodo who were nearly killed in the volcano themselves were it not for Gandalf's giant eagles. thumb up Gandalf didn't know he had it. When he found out he scared it out of the hobbit. Scared the greed out of him. Undeniable. Gave it away willingly.

You're the one flip flopping around. I listed the similarities. smile

When the ring is destroyed Sauron dies. It contained his will aka soul.

There is a different enchantment on it which I already explained to you since you didn't understand it yourself.

A Horcrux was never destroyed by Fiendfyre. The fang did so. One left in flesh isn't as durable as one left in an intimate object. Obviously, dummy.

False. No one ever wore a Horcrux for as long as those who wore the ring. Bilbo wore it for years and gave it away after Gandalf basically scared him. Weak. Like you. Two birds of a feather stick together.

Their main purpose is different but they both provide a means to return to a body until that object is destroyed. Similar, kiddo.

Fang wrecks the ring which in the end only resisted a strike from a dwarf with an axe.

The Scenario
Originally posted by quanchi112
I do not refuse to debate you but I do expect you to be somewhat knowledgable about the topics you post in.

And I expect you to provide evidence.

quanchi112
Originally posted by The Scenario
And I expect you to provide evidence. Sometimes I like keeping the ignorant in the dark.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>