It's not at all unreasonable at all. You're just holding on to anything that could net a win for Tom. Especially since it was just a reaction. We see in movies all the time when the hero has his gun aimed at the villian yet some kid or dumb person walks in and the hero tries to wave them away or tell them to leave and the villain then pulls his gun or run away. It's common in cinema. Why didn't the hero just blast the villian right away? Why did he NEED to shoo the person away since he had the villain dead to rights? It's a reaction. Your density knows no bounds.
Voldemort was held suspended in a ball of water against his will. And even if he was trying to use TK to get out of the bubble it wouldn't matter since his TK in inferior to Albus' by feats. All Voldemort was able to do via TK was slap a small piece of wood out of a child's hand to the ground. Dumbledore on the other hand was able to fling a human being several feet while distracted. Again we see Voldy being inferior here. Voldemort did a good job holding his own against a not going for the kill Albus but in the end he couldn't seal the deal. He's lucky Dumbledore wasn't trying to kill him.
Way to try to not make yourself as sad. Didn't work btw. Yeah Dumbledore was dying. He turned it into a positive that ended up beinging Voldemort down. Wasn't Voldemort the one who left the fight? Dumbledore stood up and Voldy pissed himself. No wonder Voldemort rewarded Snape so much. He killed the man that made Voldy have to sleep with a night light. Voldy no longer had to fear Dumbledore popping out from under the bed. The series went nuts because Voldemort was evil and extremely powerful. Dumbledore was good. Big difference. Why would people go nuts over Dumbledore's power when he wouldn't use it in that way. Bad guys get feared. It's how it goes.
Actually Dumbledore died because of a combination of events. His sister died due to his actions. Had this not occured then he would not have used the ring. Voldemort didn't even know the ring was the resurrection stone iirc so it was pure luck that's what it happened to be. And Dumbledore did beat Voldemort in planning. He won the game of chess without even being present. Voldemort fell to other's actions that were following Dubmledore design. Had he not told them what they needed to do, how they needed to do it, left clues to help them further along, enlisted help to aid them when needed, and visited Harry in "dead dream land" they would have failed horribily. Simple.
So now only horror movies see bad guys win? Do you really need a list of movies where the good guys end up losing? Your troll tactics fail as usual. In these fantasy movies the big baddie always has everyone afraid of them too and amasses a huge following and takes over shit mostly due to that fear and stupidity. You still wanna give Voldy all that credit yet want to keep credit from others cuz "that's what happens"? Call you say hypocritical troll?
Wrong! They found the diary due to Voldemort's stupidity in giving it to Lucius Malfoy without proper instruction. Dumbledore found the ring on his own. A goblin knew where the locket was and gave it to his master which ended up with Umbridge. Any other outright lies i need to debunk for you or are we done with this part? I thought better of you boy. I will not make that mistake again
When did Dumbledore say he told them to come? He just knew they were. He warned Tom and Tom didn't listen. Dumdass. Riddle was trapped and needed help to escape the clutches of Albus. Then he pushed Albus over and still got his attack transfigured. And Albus stood up perfectly fine. Tom ran. Coward.
You're acting as if he's so inexperienced in combat he'd allow Voldemort the chance to kill Harry by allowing him to escape. Albus knew he was escaping so he pushed Harry back. The hand swipe was shown in the same exact scene with tk powers. He obviously used it to destabilize the water bubble. It logically makes sense. You want to pretend Albus is stupid now all of a sudden. Either way you have it I win. If I went with your interpretation Albus is stupid and lost control due to inexperience and fear. If you look at it from my logical objective perspective at least Albus doesn't have to be some dumb jackass in combat. It's your bias which knows no bounds. Your newest claim is he lost his advantage due to fear and stupidity. LOL.
That isn't Voldemort's only feat of tk. We see him casually dismiss a giant out of his way on his march to Hogwarts. That's a superior feat. You're beaten by feats, by logic, and by your own stupidity. Now you say Dumbledore wasn't trying to kill him. Before you said he was trying to drown him. Which is it ? You seem to go back and forth. Make up your mind. You keep jumping from one weak argument to the next while mine stays the same.
Yes, he was dying due to being dumb. His initial plan wasn't to die but he knew there was no escaping his fate. He also then knew the others would be against Voldemort without his aid. Voldemort was annoyed he stood up. He wasn't scared and then he went after Harry while Dumbledore watched on helpless. Scared. Look at the fear in his eyes. Powerful guys are feared. The Ministry wasn't scared of Dumbledore because he was just some old man who liked to oversee the school. Voldemort was someone who ignited a force which ended up destroying the then current Ministry. No one gave a shit and Malfoy wasn't scared of Dumbledore. He went there and disarmed him. Haha. He was scared of Lord Voldemort. Everyone was including Albus.
I never said Voldemort planned to take his life in this manner it was Albus' own stupidity with Voldemort being directly responsible due to his past actions. The others collective help defeated Voldemort. Albus was dead. He aided but the others had to go out and do it. Neville took out the snake. Albus watched on where Voldemort couldn't hurt him.
Name me an epic fantasy move where the bad guy wins. Go ahead and do it. The protagonist wins in these sort of movies. It's how it goes. This isn't a Nightmare on Elm Street, kid. Your arguments are all devoid of logic and common sense. Give me an example.
The horcruxes at the end Harry saw in deathly hallows part 2. I never said all of them. When we see Voldemort killing and when he figures out what Harry is doing then Harry sees the horcruxes. This is in the final movie if you haven't seen it, kid.
False. I already debunked this earlier in my post but according to you Dumbledore is stupid and fearful so he made a crucial mistake. Haha. Your own post makes Dumbledore look worse than I do.
Help arrived. Voldemort left. Albus watched on in horror as he couldn't protect Harry from the kid he made a student at Hogwarts. Voldemort owned Albus through the years at his school. One step ahead of the old man. Riddle didn't have backup as Bellatrix left. Albus knew backup was coming. He knew he just needed to stay alive.
Well yes actually if that’s the way you want to put it. Albus has shown that when it comes to memories of his dead sister he doesn’t exactly act logically. He put on a ring he knew might be cursed so he could see his sister once again. He throws caution and logic to the wind. He was in exactly the same situation as before. He was in a duel with an innocent child nearby. Inexperience has nothing to do with it. He made a bonehead move based on his tortured past just as he would do later with the ring. You can call Albus stupid all you want but it actually make Voldy look worse. He couldn’t best an idiot. He was eventually taken down my a moron’s plan. Weak!
When did i say Albus was TRYING to drown Voldemort? I said he would have drown or most likely passed out since Albus isn't the type to kill. Way to try to twist my words to your benefit but it just made you look as stupid and weak as i know you be.. Your fanboyism is showing. I did forget about the giant thing tho. Good catch. So yes it would seem Voldy’s TK feats are superior. Too bad his didn’t use it in the bubble. As you said earlier your viewpoint is just YOUR interpretation. Prove he used TK. Prove he wasn’t just getting tossed around like we clearly see. Prove the water was being destabilized. All you've given me so far is "well his hand moved." Or "he used it earlier so he used it then too". So now every hand movement from him is TK? Idiot. My stance has not changed. You just jump from one lack luster stance to the next. I’ll even give you examples.
First you say Voldemort left the battle cuz the Aurors were coming and he didn’t want to be discovered and/or jumped right? Then after being proved wrong by me you flipped to “oh he was just annoyed so he went after Harry”. Another one was you trying to use ABC logic to prove Voldemort’s superiority with you whole “Snape killed Dumbledore and Voldy killed Snape” stance. When I pointed out Dumbledore allowed Snape to kill him you were surprised. Yet you’ve seen the movie right? The next one was “Dumbledore didn’t help anyone with anything. He just died”. Again proved wrong and changed to “well he help a little but Harry found the Horcruxes due to his connection alone”. Shot down once again it became “well I meant only these 3 particular ones! Not the majority Dumbledore himself figured out!” Then it was “villains lose so he lost”. When called out on the cop out it was “oh well villains outside of horror movies lose”. When called out yet again it became “well uh what I meant was uh…. only epic fantasy movies are allowed”. Ever the troll. Once your point is shattered you change it up and claim it was you stance the whole time. Just admit defeat. You and your arguments are pathetic.
I believe I’ve addressed your pathetic points. It is your thread which makes this whipping you’re getting even more embarrassing! You’ve lost.
"I'M THE JUGGERMAN B!TCH"
Last edited by juggerman on Jan 30th, 2013 at 03:14 PM
You're wrong. Voldemort used tk and Dumbledore knew to push Harry back because he was freeing himself. It all makes sense while your case is built on speculation and fanboyism. According to you he's an idiot I think he knew exactly what he was doing.
Weak and stupid, eh ? Quit projecting it's obvious. Now listen Dumbledore would kill Voldmort if given the chance. He isn't going to let a psychopath destroy the wizarding world. You forget a great many things. Voldemort moved his arm and tk'd out of the bubble. I know deep down you know I am right and are just being stubborn. Be a man and admit you were wrong. I would but lucky for me I am rarely if ever wrong. Man up, smallfry. I could say prove Dumbledore let him break free from tking Harry back. The thing is unless the director describes the scene and what it meant it's viewpoint vs. viewpoint. Logical(Me) vs. Illogical (you). The evidence supports me while you just dance all over the map here.
Voldemort still left due to the Auroras showing up. He changed tactics prior to that occurring so once again my opinion remains consistent while yours remains insane and full of emotions. The whole killing Snape jazz was me getting under your skin. At no point did I seriously ever think him killing Snape has a single thing to do with how he matches up with Albus the old. The majority weren't destroyed by Dumbledore. Everyone helped. Dumbledore died and the rest had to defeat Voldemort. They all worked together.
Give me an example of a fantasy movie where the villain stands triumphant at the end. If you cannot do so you concede.
I won like 5 pages ago. I simply love torturing you further. Voldemort wins. Albus loses. Quan stands tall.
Your case is built on absolutely nothing but your Voldy love. As you’ve said yourself there is nothing showing anything you are trying to say. Hence your argument being “weak and stupid”. You cannot prove he used TK. You cannot prove the water was weakening. You cannot prove he was escaping at all. You’ve lost. You continue to lose. I don’t need to prove someone didn’t do something we didn’t see them do. Is this your first day? YOU made the claim that he TK’d the bubble now YOU need to prove it or admit defeat. My stance has been from the beginning that Dumbledore pushing Harry is what allowed Voldy to escape. The reason behind it is just pure speculation which I admitted to before even giving said reasons. Way to try to misrepresent my argument to try to prove your point and still end up looking horrible.
Uh yes stupid and also weak. Why would you ever think Albus would kill Tom? Lemme guess, cuz “reasons” right? Looks like I need to destroy yet another pointless point of yours. Where to start? Oh yes how about the fact that Albus didn’t use the killing curse once? Or that the water bubble looked more like a restraint then something to actually cause harm. Or that he stood up and didn’t just attack. He seemed to be waiting for Voldy to move first. Yeah these are the actions for a person going for the kill
And going even deeper we see Albus is the owner of the Elder Wand yet the previous owner is still alive. That in itself isn’t much proof I’ll admit but let’s dive deeper into it. The previous owner was Gellert Grindelwald. Name mean anything to you? No? Figures. He was the MOST POWERFUL DARK WIZARD OF HIS TIME! Same title given to Voldemort yet Albus didn’t kill him. Still not convinced? Of course not. What if we add into it the fact that Gellert was the wizard Albus was dueling when his sister was killed? So we have an extremely powerful dark wizard that threatens everyone, wielding the most powerful in existence, and is partially responsible for the death of his sister resulting in Albus’ tortured memories. If he would kill anybody it would this clown. He didn’t yet you automatically ASSUME he’d kill Voldy? Troll!!!!!!! Excuse me while I laugh at you
Your first stance was that he stopped dueling due to the Aurrors’ arrival. Proven false. So you admit to being a troll? Finally man! Feel good to get off your chest at last? Well good for you bro. The majority were discovered and brought to the attention of others by Dumbledore which was exactly my point which you tried to dodge.
I couldn’t help but notice you completely ignored some of my points but that’s understandable since you lost and are now just trying to hold on to some dignity. Sad.
Continuing the troll tactics I see. You’ve moved the goal post on this twice now. “Villains lose” became “Villains lose except for some horror movies” and then became “You can only use this!” I laugh as you jump around proving me right. Every time you are proven wrong you jump to some other silly point.
You lost as soon as you opened this thread. I’ve beaten you at every turn. You’ve admitted you have zero proof to your claims. You’ve even admitted your trollish ways. But please continue. Go ahead and change your points again and claim it was your stance all along. I enjoy laughing at your attempts.
Wrong. It's built on common sense, the scene in question, and the same abilities he displayed less than 2 minutes ago in the same film. You can't prove the bubble broke due to him pushing Harry back either. We've been over this so quit repeating yourself in an attempt for this to be an endless loop. No, you lost because logic and reason dictate Dumbledore was pushing Harry back because of what Voldemort just did with his tk. You claimed he all of a sudden became stupid in battle. If you watch the battle you'll realize he isn't stupid while in combat. He's far too polished to make stupid errors in which you are accrediting him with. You're very upset. Calm down. Just admit I beat you and move on with your life.
Last time I checked being trapped in water kills you it doesn't power you up. Albus clearly was attempting to kill/defeat Voldemort with the water bubble otherwise he'd just release him of his own accord. You acknowledged he didn't so if someone is trapped and can't breathe while inside a bod of water they die. You're really not forming logical arguments. Take the weekend off and come back next week with something stronger because I am carving you up.
Are you done sobbing at your pc ? I will give you a few minutes before I finish this post in which you can pull yourself together. Ok, it's been five minutes. Dumbledore himself admits Voldemort has stretched the boundaries of magic further than anyone. Who does that include, Grin. Still not convinced. Oh you're still crying. We also have the fact that Grin lost while wielding the elder wand. That's an amp in his favor while the shoe is on the other foot in this matchup. Voldemort didn't lose either despite Dumbledore wielding the most powerful wand ever. Voldemort also made himself virtually immortal. Did Grin ? Nah. Again what does water do to a human being when they are trapped in it for a significant amount of time ? It kills it doesn't tickle, son. Voldemort was the greatest threat the wizarding world had come to know. Dumbledore was trying to kill him with the bubble because that's what water does. You already acknowledged he didn't let Voldemort out so you agree with me.
He left due to the Aurors showing up. He changed tactics prior to. My stance has always been the same. Yours changes from post to post. You;re wrong and too afraid to admit it.
What points did I completely ignore ? Speak up boy.
I explained myself. Villains don't win in these kinds of epic fantasy films. It isn't what happens. My answer while originally a generalized statement needed to be further expanded on.
You just lash out. You are very worked up. You lost. You're a failure. Learn from your mistakes. Build yourself into a stronger man because of me. You will thank me later.
Ok so I had this nice response all written up Thursday but then I begun to realize that we’re not really getting anywhere like this. So I took the weekend off and decided to try to go about this differently if you don’t mind.
Firstly it seems like we have reached an impasse here. You think Voldemort did something here you admittedly cannot prove. I do not believe he did and, without such proof, am unwilling to agree it happened. My counter to your claim was that Dumbledore either lost control of the water due to pushing Harry or Voldemort broke out by taking advantage of the distraction. I also admit I cannot absolutely prove my claim leaving us both to try to build cases based on other evidence and speculation. I suggest we leave this point alone for the moment. It doesn’t seem like either of us will change our minds any time soon. If you disagree we can continue going back and forth.
What exactly do you mean by polished? His last duel that we know of was in 1945. That was about 50 years before his duel with Voldemort (going by the dates given in the books. Not sure if the movies are supposed to be dated in the 90’s like the books tho or if the first movie is supposed to take place in 2001). We never see him train. I don’t think it’s even hinted at. Plus he’s over 100 years old. If anything he’s probably rusty so him making a mistake or becoming “stupid in battle” is far more likely.
And I assume you’d say Voldemort was more skilled than Dumbledore? More polished? Yet he made several mistakes in combat against Harry and Dumbledore himself. So why is it that Dumbledore is not granted the same ability of error that a superior duelist is? Plus we see and hear of several mistakes Dumbledore has made in his life. Why would his dueling ability be totally immune?
Are you familiar with MMA? I’m honestly asking. We see people getting choked out in MMA all the time. Now a human being cannot live without air (or blood flow to the brain) for very long yet choking someone out will not necessarily kill them. Same concept goes here. Dumbledore using water doesn’t automatically mean he was trying to kill Voldemort. Just because it ended before he intended it to also doesn’t mean he was going for broke. I’ll touch more on this in a min since you mention it again later on.
This whole part is pretty irrelevant imo. This is you basically trying to give reasons as to why Dumbledore would try to kill Voldemort right? Well honestly none of that really matters. He had more than enough motive to kill Grin. He definitely had the means. The opportunity was also there. Yet he did not. From everything we know about Albus it is very unlikely he would willingly kill anyone. You’re trying to give him this killer mindset for some reason even tho it goes completely against everything we’re shown about him. Following this mindset we’re to believe that for 115 years he never wanted to kill anybody, then for about 13 seconds he suddenly developed this hunger for murder, then immediately it dispelled never to be hinted at again? Add into the fact that drowning someone is torturous. So not only did he develop this need to kill but he also developed a sadistic side? And again dispelled it a moment later never to be seen again? Highly unlikely to say the least.
Now if Dumbledore were really going for the kill why use water? I meant this is the most powerful dark wizard in history and possibly the most powerful wizard period. Why kill him in such a slow manner? Wouldn’t Dumbledore want it over as soon as possible? Human beings can take several minutes to die of lack of Oxygen. As a professor surely he knows this. It honestly doesn’t make any sense. Why not use fire instead to kill him quicker? Or maybe since we see Albus transfigures things with ease why not turn the water to ice while he was inside and maybe crush him? It would at least help ensure he wouldn’t escape. Or maybe turn the water to shards of ice before it hit him and impale him. Also a quick death.
You claim Dumbledore was trying to kill Tom and he wasn’t dumb. I think according to what you’ve been saying he couldn’t be going for the kill AND being smart at the same time. It had to be one or the other. Here’s why:
In Goblet of Fire we seen 4 students survive being underwater for an hour iirc. None drown. Now before you start saying “Gillyweed”, only Harry is known to have used an item to aid him. It was stated early on that Harry was at a disadvantage due to the others having been in school longer and learning more magic. Harry was the only one that HAD to use something other than his own magic. Is it possible that the others used something? Sure. But since it’s not shown or stated we can’t really say one way or the other. But even if we knew for a fact that all four of them had look for outside sources to aid them would it really mean Voldemort would need to? They all need a wand while Voldemort consistently uses magic wandlessly. They need brooms to fly while Voldemort can do so on his own. He seemed to create a fire snake with his free hand and breath. Hell he even disarms Harry in OotP with a hand wave (btw shouldn’t that make Harry’s wand his?). I’m sure for the wizard that has “stretched the boundaries of magic further than anyone” a little water breathing shouldn’t be too much of an issue.
Now since Albus was at the Triwizard Tournament he would know there are a few different ways a wizard can survive being underwater. He would also be aware that children far far inferior to Lord Voldemort were able to achieve this. Do you really believe he would consider this an actual way to kill off Voldemort? Slowly drown him giving him a few minutes to try to figure out a plan? Time to mount an offensive? I mean you believe Voldemort was using his power to break out right? So why would he use a tactic as slow as drowning which could allow Voldemort opportunity to even try? Surely he would have known it was at least a possibility.
I realize that in like my second post in this thread I said Voldemort would pass out in the bubble but honestly after thinking about it I don’t see how. Unless he really was an idiot I can’t see it happening. If you would like to argue that Voldemort was in serious danger of drowning had the bubble not broken (for whatever reason) feel free to do so. I just don’t see it. Now you may ask “then why did he do it at all?” Well this would be a speculation of course but maybe it was just a way to try to wear Voldy down a bit. Or maybe he was just stalling til the Aurrors arrived.
Now my point to all this was either Dumbeldore was trying to kill Voldemort with a tactic he had every reason to believe would never work and thus was being an idiot in battle(which of course opens up possibility for other in battle mistakes), or he was not in fact attempting to take Voldemort’s life with said bubble. Don’t really see how it could be both according to all the evidence.
It really doesn’t matter at this point but if you really want to know just go back and look at my post
Fair enough. Where exactly is it written that villains can’t win these types of movies? Because it didn’t happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t. Movies break boundaries all the time. Unwritten rules are constantly being overlooked. I think this kind of rationalization is a cop out. You disagree. We should end it there.
"I'M THE JUGGERMAN B!TCH"
Last edited by juggerman on Feb 4th, 2013 at 08:56 PM
Concession accepted. Finally. It took you long enough.
If you think he's rusty after watching his duel with Voldemort I suggest watching it again. It's quite clear he's not a dope with a wand. Look at how clear and focused he was while weakened in Half Blood Prince in saving Harry. Nuff said.
Voldemort countered everything thrown his way. He looked to be the superior of the two in this duel. Dumbledore escaped with his life despite handicapping Voldemort by using the most powerful wand in existence against him. No one claimed these two were flawless but it's clear these two are the best. Voldemort is the gold medalist while Dumbledore is the solid silver medalist.
So you;re saying he might have just wanted to ko him by drowning him. You can think whatever you want but it's highly unlikely. Koing someone with a rear naked choke and drowning someone are two completely different things.
I am just basing this off of the water bubble. Drowning someone to me seems like a pretty good reason to say he attempted murder. I am using their fight and the circumstances of who Voldemort is and what he was trying to accomplish. It seems fairly reasonable to assume he tried killing Voldemort since drowning causes death.
Dumbledore used what means he had at the time of the attack. Dumbledore already threw fire at him. Fiendfyre was thrown Voldemort's way so you just destroyed your own argument. He did use fire it failed. Fire kills you as does drowning. That's two examples. Thanks for the assist.
All negated by the example of him using fire to kill Voldemort in the very same duel.
Again all negated in the very same duel with the fire. You're funny.
The rest have already been disproven by the fire but with regards to the fantasy movies it hasn't happen. It can but hasn't occurred yet. It would piss off the audience if Voldemort won and murdered Harry. Any rational person knows Voldemort is going to die since he's the main baddie. That's how these movies end.
Right after I accepted yours. Glad we’re moving right along.
Being a dope=/= being rusty. You argued he was “too polished” to make such a mistake. He clearly was not having not been in a duel for at least 50 years. And of course being focused=/=not being rusty. Besides HBP was a whole year later. He may have gotten his game up. Plus he wasn’t in a duel nor was he casing a spell against a highly trained wizard. Not a very good example.
Ok 1st off he didn’t counter everything. He was caught in the water. The same water we’ve been discussing for pages now. 2nd the bold part makes no sense. He escaped “despite”? I think you mean he escaped “because” right? 3rd your claim that Dumbledore was “too polished” indicates that he didn’t make a mistake. Now you’re saying he did? Good concession accepted. And of course they were the best but that doesn’t mean they were AT their best.
No. He may have wanted to ko him by depriving him of Oxygen. He didn’t have to let him drown. And it’s much more likely than Dumbledore developing this murderous and sadistic streak all of a sudden after over a hundred years only to have it disappear seconds later never to be hinted upon again. And the principles are similar which is why I used it. They both stop the opponent from breathing.
You’re using the action but completely disregarding the character himself. Also disregarding the fact that Dumbledore would have every reason to believe drowning Tom was an unreasonable tactic. So either a smart duelist or going for the kill. Can’t be both.
Except he didn’t.
It seems like you’re trying very hard to prove your “going for the kill” theory but it’s not making any sense and ignores much of the “character” we know him to be. Now you’re completely fabricating events. He never used fire. He has never shown any of the murderous or sadistic traits that you’re trying to attribute him with. He had every reason to know killing via water was an ass idea. It’s not looking good for your case. Again was he a “smart duelist” or was he “going for the kill”? Can’t be both.
Again “Movies break boundaries all the time. Unwritten rules are constantly being overlooked. I think this kind of rationalization is a cop out.” And to get even more technical this guy began as a book character. There are quite a few “epic fantasy” books out there that the villain wins. But he didn’t. He lost in the movie because he lost in the book(where he had a better chance of winning since such a stigma isn’t as present in books).
The confused emoji perfectly describes you. Well done, Draco. Well done.
You conceded. I accepted. Move on already.
He survived the duel. He was fine. You acting like he was some idiotic out of practice mage is another desperate attempt to downplay Voldemort. Now, you're suggesting despite not having seen it on screen him practicing in the year since. You are flip flopping right out of this thread. It's that bad. Dumbledore didn't seem out of practice at all in the duel. To suggest he was is just you trying to take away from Lord Voldemort in an attempt to downplay him.
He countered the water by escaping. That's a counter. Did you forget you conceded this point to me in your last post ? Dumbledore didn't make a mistake Voldemort just countered is all. That's been my story from day one. You have Dumbledore doing the eye of the tiger thing the day after his fight with Voldemort. You're a bad person.
Dumbledore tried killing him less than two priors prior to this. Let's take the movie Falling Down with Douglas for instance. Your logic that prior to he did nothing of the sort doesn't gloss over the fact what we as the audience witnessing him doing. The same goes for Dumbledore.
He was a smart duelist who went for the kill. He failed in killing Voldemort. It's right on screen, dude.
We see him hurl back the fire from the basilisk right back into Voldemort. You're lying now and saying this never happened. Awesome.
We see him try to kill Voldemort twice. 1. Fire from basilisk 2. Water bubble
You deny the first one even happened because well you're so biased it's appalling. The second one you pretend he just wanted a brief ko. I am going to shove water down your throat and violently toss you around in a bubble just to make you painfully pass out. LOL. He hurled the fire back at Voldemort. That's attempted murder. Voldemort just gestured it away because he's boss.
You can't give one example because the precedent has never been set in such a way. If you can't give me an example of a movie villain prevailing in this kind of movie then you have no choice other than to concede.
Can’t help but be confused by some of your baseless claims….
And I accepted yours. It’s over.
I’m acting like no such thing. You said he was “too polished”. I simply countered with accurate information about Dumbledore’s last duel. No reason to think he couldn’t be “rusty” or “out of practice” having not done something in 50 years. You decided he’s was at his top game and unable to be less than 100% perfect is just you trying to make Voldemort more impressive. Looking good while doing something doesn’t mean you’re at your full capabilities. Look art Muhammad Ali for example. He didn’t box for a few years yet came back looking very impressive. Same with Tyson. Also we never see what Albus looked like in a duel 50 years prior. He could have been a thousand times more impressive. And my point of him not being in a duel at all but just using his power against “zombies” stands. Of course he looked impressive against beings that couldn’t really defend or fight back.
I conceded no such thing. And again he either was trying to kill him or he was fighting smart. Can’t be both. As far as Dumbledore getting better goes: He battled Voldemort less than a year ago which could have easily gotten his declining skills up. Then we don’t fully know what he encountered recovering the ring pretty soon after his duel (duel was at the end of the school year and he got the ring before the next one so within 3 months). Not unreasonable for him to have gotten at least a little better. But whether he did or didn’t is irrevelent since again he looked impressive destroying beings that really couldn’t do shit about it.
So now Dumbledore went insane like in that movie? He just snapped? It’s very possible don’t get me wrong but highly unlikely that he snapped and tried to kill in a sadistic way then literally seconds later snapped back to his old self again. And your logic dictates we forget everything we know about the character before AND after the event and also ignore key points in the duel itself.
He was not a smart duelist if he tried killing Voldemort in a way he had every reason to believe Voldemort could easily survive.
Just rewatched the scene and the only reaction I can give is
This conclusion you came to requires us to only focus on the action itself and disregard just about everything involving “context. Dumbledore didn’t “use” fiendfyre as you first stated. He defended against it which shows it was not his intent to use it at all
1. We don’t know for sure he actually “pushed” it back toward Voldemort. It could have easily just backfired upon its destruction.
2. Saying that he did “push” it doesn’t automatically mean his intent was death. He could have easily just been pushing it away from himself and Harry(since all he really seemed to do was defend himself and Harry the entire time this is very likely)
3. Again saying he did “push” it watch what happens immediately afterwards. Voldemort easily blocks it and Dumbledore catches him with the water. One could easily argue he used the fire as a distraction to catch him off guard. It would explain how he was easily taken in the water and didn’t even seem like he tried to stop/avoid it
Every one of those is a likely explanation and also fits more into his character.
Based on your flawed, narrow logic. Take “Watchmen” for example. In the beginning we see Comedian throw a cup at Ozy. By your logic his intent would be to hit him. Yet we later learn Ozy was fast enough to catch/dodge a bullet. Having full knowledge of this he still threw the cup. Could the cup have injured/killed Ozy? Possibly. Was that his intent. Logic points to “no”
Same principal here. Albus, knowing Voldemort’s power, would never intent to kill him in such easily avoidable/counterable ways. But….. if he did then he would have been fighting stupidly…..
He didn’t “shove” water. He encased him. Not very violent. Like getting hit by a wave at the beach. Or maybe like a water ride as you’ve mentioned earlier.
Being a “book villain” I can. He lost in the movie cuz he lost in the book.
I never conceded but over the weekend you decided to throw in the towel. I caught it with my teeth and ate it. You lack willpower and determination.
We see by his actions he isn't rusty. You keep speculating but by the duel itself we see both are pretty impressive. I didn't decide he's at the top of his game I saw it with my own two hazel eyes. The guy survived against the darkest most badass wizard in the universe. Thank heavens the aurors showed up when they did. Your speculation is just that. I use the movies and my own eyes along with my honest opinion. You aren't being honest.
Why can't Dumbledore fight smart and try to kill him at the same time ? You keep saying it's impossible but nuh uh isn't really evidence. Explain why that was impossible and not an option. The rest is you speculating again. Fact is Dumbledore lost someone years back and didn't this time around yet you say his skills have declined. LOL.
No, that was just an example of someone who in their previous history to our knowledge being completely out of character for his actions in the film. Dumbledore wasn't on a murdering spree but he did try twice to kill Voldemort. We see two kill attempts. You weren't even aware of the first. You need to watch the scene before you look so foolish from now on. You have been debating this for weeks. Is 2 and a half minutes that much to ask of you ? Really ?
He didn't think he'd easily survive. Voldemort countered. Dumbledore countered. By your logic Voldemort didn't really want Dumbledore dead because he knew he'd counter the kill attempts. Your logic is garbage.
Your pants are down and there's no lube. Sorry, you did this to yourself.
Dumbledore sent back the fire at Dumbledore. That's an attempt on his life. If the fire from this spell hits you like this it's going to kill you. We see his arms force or direct it towards Voldemort. You're wrong. You know it but I'd much rather you be stubborn and drill you over it rather than you admit you forgot about it.
You said he didn't use fire. Now that he sent fire at Voldemort you again change your statement and pretend it wasn't death. You're right he wanted him to live as a burn victim for years. That Dumbledore sure is special. We see Voldemort gesture it away. We see Dumbledore direct it at him. So now we know that the fire could have been gestured away but Dumbledore instead directed it at Voldemort.
They were going back and forth. Dumbledore tried to kill him and when it failed he had the opening to try again with the water bubble. Two kill attempts in a row. You are claiming both were just in good fun and deep down Dumbledore knew the entire time this will easily be blocked so I can sleep easy tonight. It's such jackassery I don't know how you can look in the mirror and respect yourself.
You claimed fire would be a kill attempt but since it was water it wasn't. Now that you realize fire was used you rescind your statement and go into jackass mode. The same logic can be applied to Voldemort. He wasn't really trying and knew Dumbledore would counter. That's how stupid it is. These guys are also peers so there isn't one huge jump in senses when comparing one to the other. In your example one guy was so beyond the other it wasn't even close.
Both countered each others kill attempts. It's what great mages do. Both were trying while the other countered. Dear lord do you hear how retarded you've become ?
The water was violently shoving him around like a ragdoll. To say it was an enjoyable experience is being stupid. Voldemort broke it and then countered. It's what mages do.
So a post ago they can change the ending because it's based on a book but now he had to lose because he did in the book. You still can't name an example because movies don't end this way. The outrage families would express had they differed from the ending so radically that Voldemort slaughtered Harry and won would have been epic. Use some common sense.
You conceded long before this weekend buddy. You conceded you didn’t have any proof which is what I said. You lost get over it.
Again your point makes zero sense. Someone “rusty” cannot look “impressive”? What a crock! Looking good is not the same as being at your best. The sooner you realize this the better things will be for you. You don’t know what the top of his game was! His duel 50 years ago was never shown. Nice try tho.
Do you even know what we’re talking about here? His duel with Grin 50 years prior was not when his sister died. Jesus Christ you don’t even know that much?????? I cannot even tell you how disappointed I am in you.
There wasn’t a “first”. He may have push it away from himself yet still wouldn’t prove intent to kill. Just intent to protect himself and Harry. You lost here as well.
How do you know what he “thought”? History PROVES he has more than enough knowledge to know Voldemort wouldn’t drown. Children didn’t. He countered the fire snake so he had KNOWLEDGE that Voldemort could do the same. And no to trying to twist it up since 1.Voldemort used the killing curse 2. He used the fire before realizing Albus could counter. Again Albus countered and then “allegedly” sent it back AFTER seeing it could be stopped. Plus it was Voldemort’s spell so of course he could stop it. Your “logic fails you once again
The way I favor entering you….
There was nothing to forget. He “allegedly” pushed it away in defense of his own life. Not an attempt at a life at all. If someone was being attacked and pushed their assailant backwards in defense would you consider that an “attack”? You probably would. What if the assailant fell back into oncoming traffic? Or maybe the assailant fell back and hit their head causing brain damage. Would you then accuse the “victim” of attempted murder? Honestly your stances are ridiculously stupid.
He didn’t “use” it. He pushed it back…. “allegedly” that is. Simple self defense if I’ve ever heard it.
You are claiming both were just in good fun and deep down Dumbledore knew the entire time this will easily be blocked so I can sleep easy tonight. It's such jackassery I don't know how you can look in the mirror and respect yourself.[/b][/quote]
Not just in good fun. Again with the fail twist. Fire was at best a distraction and at worst a simple push away in self defense. Water was most likely a stall tactic. Maybe even a way to get Voldemort to expend some energy trying to escape.
No. Pushing fire away from himself is not him using it. He didn’t summon it. He probably couldn’t “end” it himself since it was Vold’s fire. I meant why use water to surround him killing him slowly? Why not surround him with fire instead? Even arguing that “he tried and it didn’t work” doesn’t cut it. He had ample time to summon fire of his own and use it in just the way he used the water. Or again turn the water into ice. And since when does “he tried it” stop someone from trying again? Voldemort tried killing Harry in the same exact way with the same exact spell like 57 times!
Wrong and a misrepresentation of what I said. Voldemort STATED Dumbledore’s death was his goal. Kills your point right there. The fire is all I’m saying he knew Voldemort could counter straight out. I believe he intended to keep Voldemort in the bubble much longer but I do not believe he thought he could or would actually KILL him in this manner. Kids figured out water breathing. Voldemort would have mastered it. The bubble was for containment not for killing.
My example was he used something as a distraction while he worked another angle. Same thing happened here. Distraction then catch off guard. Worked for Albus. Not so much for Eddie.
Both countered each other’s spells. Both countered each other’s attempts at victory. Only one was trying to kill.
I guess you were being stupid when you suggested it then huh? And I believe this counts for your third concession. Happily received. And yes it was tossing him around like a ragdoll. Concession number 4 accepted. Still doesn’t show killing was the goal. Water breathing is something kids figured out. He was being tossed around like that to try to stop him from escaping. Harder to mount an offensive that way.
[/b][/quote]So a post ago they can change the ending because it's based on a book but now he had to lose because he did in the book. You still can't name an example because movies don't end this way. The outrage families would express had they differed from the ending so radically that Voldemort slaughtered Harry and won would have been epic. Use some common sense. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well technically yes movies based on books have had endings changed in the past. And he lost in the movie due to them keeping it line with the book he also lost in. And do you really believe perceived “family outrage” would stop it? Honestly people would have seen the movies no matter what. People potentially getting pissed off didn’t stop the all the changes in Twilight. Didn’t stop Superman from having a bastard child. Didn’t stop Batman from killing Joker. Didn’t stop Nolan Batman from shooting the shit outta Talia which killed her breaking his “no guns no killing” rule. Didn’t stop Vader from yelling “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” every 15 seconds. You assuming that was the cause is silly since there are too many times huge things are changed in movies all the time.
No, I never surrendered. You did. I accepted your terms. You are now my slave.
When was he rusty ? Was it when he defeated the fire basilisk ? Was it when he turned the shards into sand ? What is this rust you speak of ? Your arguments consist of speculation and no real tangible evidence.
I never read the books and this isn't really something I cared about in the movies. I told you I didn't read the books. You weren't even sure of the fire being sent back in the same scene we have been arguing over for weeks. That's unforgivable.
He could have directed it anywhere. He chose to send it at Voldemort. He could have sent it away from everyone but he didn't. If Voldemort didn't counter he;d be dead but you say he didn't try to kill him. Laughable.
What the hell ? You continue to just make things up. Your entire argument is maybe this or maybe that. In a quick duel of this magnitude he isn't thinking oh yeah I will only do something Voldemort can counter. Are you stupid ? He was fighting for his life and would take Voldemort's if he had the opportunity. Are you saying children couldn't do anything to Fiendfyre ?
1. When did Voldemort say avada kedavra ? He shot a green continuous stream he never once said the words. 2. They both used the fire but it only counts as a legit kill attempt when Voldemort does so. You have lost your mind.
You say Albus is rusty but now you have him fighting and analyzing what Voldemort can counter at the same time. You literally assault your own argument in the same post.
With the knowledge you have demonstrated you'd try to put it in an earlobe or something.
So now he just did so to defend his own life while at the same time being rusty and thinking I have to do something Voldemort can counter because I can't kill him. It's so laughably ludicrous. Hurling fire at someone is a kill attempt. Fire kills. You can't prove he did so only because he thought he could counter. That's speculation. What we do know is hurling fire at someone kills them. We see him do so. That's a fact. Your speculation is just you coming up with random theory after theory.
He pushed back the fire towards Voldemort. You can pretend he didn't. I could care less. Your own argument has torched itself. Ironic.
Rusty. Only did so because Voldemort could counter. Now it's just that it was self defense so he had no choice. Which is it ?
He can hurl the fire anywhere. He chose Voldemort. That's called attempted murder. Voldemort got out and floored Dumbledore with his energy. You simply say one dumb thing after the next.
More speculation. Maybe this or maybe that. He can choose what direction and he didn't choose open space. He chose Voldemort. Water was in their environment so he chose to use that. For one it's quicker than creating something out of nothing. Secondly, he just used fire and Voldemort gestured it away.
I know Voldemort wanted to kill him. By your logic who knows. Maybe by dead he meant ko'd. Maybe he didn't want to kill him and knew deep down he'd counter his spells because he did. Mages counter each other it's just a skill thing whether or not they can do so. These two are the best. Against a peer you aren't going to hold back or toy with them because you can't. Both reacted in the heat of battle and tried killing the other. It's what the scene clearly portrays.
You said it was self defense implying no thinking just doing. Then you say he only did so because he knew Voldy wouldn't die meaning not instinct but a clear decision on what to do. You can't have it both ways. You are trying to have it anyway you can. All your theories run from common sense.
I was being sarcastic and mocking you. Only you can't tell the difference which explains a lot about your thought process. My argument has stayed the same. Yours hasn't even in the same post.
So a post ago they can change the ending because it's based on a book but now he had to lose because he did in the book. You still can't name an example because movies don't end this way. The outrage families would express had they differed from the ending so radically that Voldemort slaughtered Harry and won would have been epic. Use some common sense. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well technically yes movies based on books have had endings changed in the past. And he lost in the movie due to them keeping it line with the book he also lost in. And do you really believe perceived “family outrage” would stop it? Honestly people would have seen the movies no matter what. People potentially getting pissed off didn’t stop the all the changes in Twilight. Didn’t stop Superman from having a bastard child. Didn’t stop Batman from killing Joker. Didn’t stop Nolan Batman from shooting the shit outta Talia which killed her breaking his “no guns no killing” rule. Didn’t stop Vader from yelling “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” every 15 seconds. You assuming that was the cause is silly since there are too many times huge things are changed in movies all the time. [/B][/QUOTE] You would alienate your core audience with something so radically different than the books. You'd also piss off the writer. It doesn't happen. The bad guys don't win at the end of epic fantasies such as this. You can't think of someone example. There are many pivotal moments in movies which catch the audience by surprise but the villain winning at the end of this sort of movie just hasn't occurred yet.
I said you cannot prove it. You said you cannot prove it. Now if you would like to believe you didn’t concede feel free but I know better. So do you. The concessions keep rolling in from you. I’m up to 5 now since I forgot you conceded to trolling a while back. I have a strange feeling more are coming…
You speculate he was at his absolute best and couldn’t possibly have made an error with no evidence except “uh he looked good”. Horrible. Later you back peddled as you should have and your concession was accepted.
Boy you can’t give these concessions fast enough can you? So now you admit you were talking out of your ass just to try to make your argument look better without any knowledge of what you were talking about. Well your concession is accepted making a grand total of 6 so far. Your ignorance in noted.
And just to be clear you said “he USED fire” not “he sent back fire” at first so I had to look back to see if I indeed forgot/missed something. “Used” indicated to me that he summoned/casted it not push it away. After watching it again I deduced that you were trying to use the event falsely. Lily Potter protected Harry with her love causing Voldemort’s attack to rebound and hit him. Now did Lily, or Harry for that matter, “USE” the curse that hit him? Just about every time Link faces Gannondorf he hits Gannon’s attacks back at him. Does he “USE” those attacks? You described it in such a way that indicated something completely different that what happened. Another fail attempt.
Ok clearly um….. you’re an idiot. Have you seen the t.v. series Spartacus on Starz? If you haven’t you are missing out buddy. Anyway, in episode 9 of season 1, Spartacus is forced to face off against his best friend Varro. Now in the fight every single sword swing/thrust is potentially fatal if not countered/blocked. Does that now mean every single swing/thrust was used with the intention to kill? It’s called “strategy”. Sometimes you throw a harmful/deadly attack with full intention of it being no more than a set-up for something else. Could it have killed? Of course. But it does not mean it was the intent. And it’s clearly shown killing wasn’t the intent cuz at the end of the duel Spartacus is told to kill Varro yet pretty much refuses until Varro forces him to.
“Well it’s still different cuz reasons” you say? Maybe because both of them were trying to avoid killing? Well later in the season Spartacus is set to fight his rival Crixus to the death. During the fight Spartacus is trying to convince Crixus to join his rebellion while Crixus is actually trying to kill Spartacus. Spartacus still uses “potentially lethal” strikes even tho death is not his intent.
Another example is in “The Princess Bride” when Wesley is fight Indigo. Indigo is trying to kill him while Wesley, using attacks that could kill if not countered/blocked, simply wishes to win and move on. He doesn’t kill him when he has the chance to. Also when he fights Fezzik he uses a choke hold, which cuts off oxygen and blood flow to the brain. As we know stopping someone form breathing “doesn’t power them up” and can ONLY be explained as an attempt to end life. “Oh he must want to kill the giant!!!!!”
So your whole “well it could have killed so killing was the goal” point is shit. It was a duel. I’m sure if Voldemort didn’t block his own fire and died Dumbledore would have been fine with it but again it does not mean he intended that outcome. You’re entire stance is focusing on one thing and then trying to say only one specific could have been intended. FAIL.
Dunno where this came from.
1. Doesn’t matter if it was actually that curse or not(tho logic would tell us it was) since Voldy made it clear right at the start he was trying to kill Dumbledore.
2. He didn’t “use” it guy. He pushed it back. Next you’ll be telling me that Magneto pushing the bullet away from himself was an attempt on Xavier’s life. Think before you post.
Rusty battling does not mean rusty thinking. Everyone knows about feints, distractions, and misdirection being used as strategy. Except maybe you.
“I’m bout to f*ck her in the ear. BLOW HER BRAINS OUT!”
Misrepresentation has become your crutch. It’s all that keeps you have left. I thought you better than this. Those were all different examples of what could have been going on. You seem to believe that there is only one possible conclusion. I gave you several other options. Not my fault you can’t keep up. So now a rusty person can’t use any strategy at any time or else they aren’t rusty? The stupidity is flowing freely from you. Shall I give examples of people who were rusty yet still looked impressive?
By this logic throwing a rock at someone is a kill attempt. Or…you know any and every sword swing. Hell a stick swing could kill. A punch could kill. FAIL.
You can’t prove killing was his intent. As proven earlier not every potentially fatal attack is intended to be a killing blow. You said these are two extremely good duelists yet seem to buckle under the logic that an extremely good duelist could possibly use misdirection or distractions. Or that he couldn’t possibly use a harmful/deadly attack for said distraction/misdirection. So they are very smart, very talented duelist but can’t think outside of “every attack must hit”? Shit my four year old tries to create misdirection when we wrestle. LOL
And people in shoot outs do things like “cover fire”. Do you know what this is? It’s when you fire “potentially deadly/fatal” bullet at the enemy in an attempt to get them to duck for cover enabling someone to take advantage of them not shooting at you for a short time. Can these bullets kill? Duh. Is that the intent at the moment? Bigger DUH.
It honestly doesn’t matter which one at this point since all of them rip apart your theories.
How do you know he could have hurled it anywhere? Perhaps it was his only option at the moment. Or maybe, given the fact that he didn’t have all day to plot out the pros and cons of sending it in each possible direction, he simply decided to get it away from himself and Harry. Harry was behind him more or less so sending it off to the side could have enabled Voldemort to strike at Harry by going completely around Dumbledore but pushing it back farther protects the kid.
You’re speculating he had a number of options. In the amount of time it took him to get the water and hit Voldemort he could have tossed a killing curse 7 times. Or any other curse to kill his enemy. Hell Harry, a child, has created things like fire in no time at all so saying it would have taken too much time is foolish since we see otherwise multiple times in the series. You failed.
He said it and acted upon it. Everything we know about him tells us he would try to kill. He’s killed multiple times before with no remorse. No farther proof is needed. This is not really debatable. Now Dumbledore killing on the other hand is. It’s not in accordance with his character at all. He has never intentionally killed a person. He has never shown the desire to kill. He never said he was going to kill anyone. And all his actions in the duel, ALL HIS ACTIONS, point to not trying to kill. You can try to twist and mold and lie all you want but you will always fail trying to prove he’s was trying to kill. Your theory only works if we only look at things one specific way and ignore everything else. Once it’s questioned in any way it falls completely apart.
Like peers in a sword fight? And I’m not saying he was “holding back” in any way. Just because you aren’t trying to kill doesn’t have to mean you aren’t trying your best. Boxers try their best without trying to kill the other guy. Wrestlers do too. Not WWE style of course. MMA fighters ect. Hell two people can get into a knock down drag out in the street somewhere and not hold back. Does it mean they are automatically trying to kill one another? See how your stance crumbles?
Those were different examples. Is it that hard to comprehend? He could have pushed it back in self defense without intending anything more than to get it away from himself OR (not and) he could have used it as a distraction. The only person trying to make it both ways is you in a feeble attempt to discredit valid points that shazz all over your theory.
So another admission to trolling is it? Well who could blame you. Concession number 7 accepted.