Yoda versus Dumbledore (the Force versus Hogwarts magic)

Well hey now, you are using sentences and that's always an improvement however small

They are powerful but if you go by the movies only his powers are standard at best with a few advanced showings

Y.. you do realise that this is the case with pretty much any fictional universe right? (unless you're the Suggsverse but still)

However knowing yoda like I do

el oh ****ing el

However you have all criticized me for referring to sources outside the movies and TCW

Yeah, because movie vs, only movie feats

As for CW, well pretty much alot of people used CW feats so bleh

That and, those are the only things that are Disney Canon, well that and a few other things like Rebels (?)

This is proved by the the scene in Harry Potter and the Half Blood prince where he sets Tom riddle wardrobe on fire without even looking at it at all I think but that can be questioned

Still has to think to use it, and fire's kinda pithy compared to Jedi energy outputs

So how can yoda since of precog, his speed of telekenisis help him with this.

Because Yoda's much faster and has better telekinesis, duh

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
This might be better suited to you. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Dumbledore sets an entire wardrobe on fire without a wand saying a word or even looking at the object at a all. So why is yoda different.

Ah. Now I remember that one.

Fire was an illusion. As once the wardrobe closed, it was completely unmarked. And it was heatless as Riddle didn't even feel the heat.

Yoda's force push to the face for the KO, that's not an illusion and Dumbledore's gonna hella feel it.

https://youtu.be/_K2d-eNyJMg?t=110

Still has to think to use it, though so, yeah

Originally posted by StealthRanger
Well hey now, you are using sentences and that's always an improvement however small

Thanks. You know this is actually the 1st or second compliment you have given me. I'm starting to think you have a soft side.

Y.. you do realise that this is the case with pretty much any fictional universe right? (unless you're the Suggsverse but still)

Yes both are fictional so wouldn't that work more towards Dumbledore as he is more diverse with his abilities than yoda?

el oh ****ing el
Hey I may not be the biggest Star Wars fan but I have seen all the movies and, many if not all of the TCW episodes. So I have a good grasp of what yoda is capable of.

Yeah, because movie vs, only movie feats

So with that yoda is not as powerful as we think as his biggest feat that would come into play for this battle is his force pushing palpatine and catching the senate pod. Force pushing a cocky, no force wall palpatine not a great feat. Then when you look at the distance at which he flew, that feat is not so glorious. Catching the senate pod. Dumbledore could, turn it into sand, or blow it up, or many other things. So feat wise if that the case Dumbledore crushes yoda.

As for CW, well pretty much alot of people used CW feats so bleh

That and, those are the only things that are Disney Canon, well that and a few other things like Rebels (?)

Understandable but still Dumbledore has the way better variety.

Still has to think to use it, and fire's kinda pithy compared to Jedi energy outputs

Ok I can give you the exact explanation for that scene. Ok Dumbledore walked in and unless he saw the dresser out the corner of his eye the he had to have sensed it was in their or just stink common sense would say this guy has a wardrobe. The only reason it took him long like that was because he wanted to find something to impress Tom that was not circumstantial. And that scene proves my point that wizards don't need wands to do dangerous magic. Tom says that he can hurt people without touching them. He says this before he knows about hogwarts meaning he has no wand. So he can kill people without a wand. Imagine what a full grown wizard can do.

Because Yoda's much faster and has better telekinesis, duh

Yes this is true but that means nothing when yoda ha steen set on fire. And he has to cover 500 meters Dumbledore could still have that firestorm up or just set yoda on fire either way distance wise yodas done.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ah. Now I remember that one.

Fire was an illusion. As once the wardrobe closed, it was completely unmarked. And it was heatless as Riddle didn't even feel the heat.

Yoda's force push to the face for the KO, that's not an illusion and Dumbledore's gonna hella feel it.

For a guy who has gandalf as their picture you sure no nothing about magic. That is what Dumbledore was trying to show. He was trying to show riddle that he was like him. He was trying to burn his stuff just showing an example. So look if Dumbledore wanted the wardrobe to be ash, he would have made it ash. So that fire was real Dumbledore just lowered the intensity.

Originally posted by StealthRanger
https://youtu.be/_K2d-eNyJMg?t=110

Still has to think to use it, though so, yeah

As a side note like the new pic.

Yes both are fictional so wouldn't that work more towards Dumbledore as he is more diverse with his abilities than yoda?

Point is fictional feats are erratic and higher end feats only happen a few times throughout the series, rest of the time we don't assume they're going slower/using less power for no reason

vs debating is about taking the best feats (ignoring the presence of outliers ala Spiderman vs Firelord and Thanos vs policemen, though that can be a fairly subjective matter) and assuming it to be indicative of the characters ability and utilization of powerscaling to fill in the gaps from thereon out

So with that yoda is not as powerful as we think as his biggest feat that would come into play for this battle is his force pushing palpatine and catching the senate pod

His tutaminis also able to hold back Sidious' lightning for a while too, let's not just ignore that too

Is much more powerful than Darth Maul who was able to move 20m ships, more powerful than Ashoka and some youngling schmucks who were able to destroy a cliffface or some shit, to name a few at the top of my head

Then when you look at the distance at which he flew, that feat is not so glorious

By your own logic Harry Potter characters didn't fly much, or most of the time, at all when they were hit with spells

Not every showing has to have flashy collateral damage to be impressive you know, unless according to you DBZ characters aren't planet busters because most of their blasts only have collateral damage of 125mm or something

Dumbledore could, turn it into sand, or blow it up, or many other things

Prove he could stop it or blow it up please

Then again, you seem to think wingardium leviosa (sp?) can stop a railgun shell in motion so, what can I expect

Ok I can give you the exact explanation for that scene. Ok Dumbledore walked in and unless he saw the dresser out the corner of his eye the he had to have sensed it was in their or just stink common sense would say this guy has a wardrobe. The only reason it took him long like that was because he wanted to find something to impress Tom that was not circumstantial. And that scene proves my point that wizards don't need wands to do dangerous magic. Tom says that he can hurt people without touching them. He says this before he knows about hogwarts meaning he has no wand. So he can kill people without a wand. Imagine what a full grown wizard can do.

All I see here is just a bunch of sperging

Unless setting things in fire is some kind of automatic power that just happens without him needing to think it, then he needs to think it for it to happen, and given the speed disparity, I think you can see where I'm going

Yes this is true but that means nothing when yoda ha steen set on fire. And he has to cover 500 meters Dumbledore could still have that firestorm up or just set yoda on fire either way distance wise yodas done.

"If I repeat the same things over and over again it'll eventually become true"

Yeah, this is going nowhere

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
For a guy who has gandalf as their picture you sure no nothing about magic. That is what Dumbledore was trying to show. He was trying to show riddle that he was like him. He was trying to burn his stuff just showing an example. So look if Dumbledore wanted the wardrobe to be ash, he would have made it ash. So that fire was real Dumbledore just lowered the intensity.

And you don't seem to understand how debating works. But as you admittedly mentioned that you are new, here is one important tidbit:

You can only use abilities shown on film based on how they were portrayed on film. Meaning you cannot expound on it beyond what has been shown on screen (fire that does not burn ppl as shown on screen cannot be made to burn ppl in a debate) unless there has been some specific on screen mention on how such an ability works and we base its limitations on the "rules" that has been defined. And no, yelling "magic doez everythang!" doesn't count. Ignoring such a logical path is a type of no-limits fallacy where we can hust add-on whatever we feel we want in an ability or character and make debates turn to poop.

Meaning the gestureless firespells that do not burn that are cast within 10 feet can only be cast within 10 feet and not burn.

Hope that clears things up for future debating reference. 🙂

But, if you wanna go the "knowledge of how magic works in fiction", you DO know that amongst the vast majority of fictional magic out there, illusion is, by fa,r the easiest and least resource costing path/school out there and it makes sense for an illusory fire spell to not require a wand or any complex gestures?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ah. Now I remember that one.

Fire was an illusion. As once the wardrobe closed, it was completely unmarked. And it was heatless as Riddle didn't even feel the heat.

Yoda's force push to the face for the KO, that's not an illusion and Dumbledore's gonna hella feel it.

Your the funniest one here let me ask you this.

If dumbledores firestorm was that powerful under seconds of concentration. What do you think it could have been under minutes of concentration? Possibly enough to engulf the entire area right?

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
Your the funniest one here let me ask you this.

If dumbledores firestorm was that powerful under seconds of concentration. What do you think it could have been under minutes of concentration? Possibly enough to engulf the entire area right?

You mean the firestorm he cast with gestures and a wand?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And you don't seem to understand how debating works. But as you admittedly mentioned that you are new, here is one important tidbit:

You can only use abilities shown on film based on how they were portrayed on film. Meaning you cannot expound on it beyond what has been shown on screen (fire that does not burn ppl as shown on screen cannot be made to burn ppl in a debate) unless there has been some specific on screen mention on how such an ability works and we base its limitations on the "rules" that has been defined. And no, yelling "magic doez everythang!" doesn't count. Ignoring such a logical path is a type of no-limits fallacy where we can hust add-on whatever we feel we want in an ability or character and make debates turn to poop.

That's like saying that dookus Lightning does not have the potential to kill, when in actuality it does but we never see it in the movie, that's like saying sidious Lightning can't kill because we never see it in the movies yet we know for a fact it actually can. No windu did not die due to lightning he died due to falling hundreds of feat from an office window after being shocked with lightning and there is a theory that he actually survived. So the if we don't see it in your manner of speaking is a little to constricting. Fire has the capability to burn people correct? So why would that fire be any different when all Dumbledore has to do is make it to where he burns yoda.
Meaning the gestureless firespells that do not burn that are cast within 10 feet can only be cast within 10 feet and not burn.

What if they have the capability to do but we don't see them do it?

Hope that clears things up for future debating reference. 🙂
Thank you. You are the first person to ever stop and help me for that I am thankful. I hope to continue to debate with u on this forum and future forums.

But, if you wanna go the "knowledge of how magic works in fiction", you DO know that amongst the vast majority of fictional magic out there, illusion is, by fa,r the easiest and least resource costing path/school out there and it makes sense for an illusory fire spell to not require a wand or any complex gestures?

well in HP6 Dumbledore split his fire spell with only words no hand gestures or anything else and that seemed like a complex spell of you ask me. Also there is no real proof that the spell used was an illusion that is just a fallacy.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You mean the firestorm he cast with gestures and a wand?

Yes and your point? If yoda is 500 meters away, how big and powerful do you think it can become? I don't think anything yoda can do can stop that firestorm.

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
Yes and your point? If yoda is 500 meters away, how big and powerful do you think it can become? I don't think anything yoda can do can stop that firestorm.

Oh, it'll be big and powerful all right.

The added tinder of old man beard and long wizard robe when Yoda force pulls him in would make it all the more powerful.

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
well in HP6 Dumbledore split his fire spell with only words no hand gestures or anything else and that seemed like a complex spell of you ask me. Also there is no real proof that the spell used was an illusion that is just a fallacy.

Would be nice if you start posting clips before making arguments here.

The "real proof" is that it was a fire that did not burn. While real fires burn. Call it an illusion or a pseudo flame or whatever you want to call it. What we know about this fire is that it didn't burn. As it didn't burn anything and Riddle wasn't at all bothered by the heat.

Originally posted by StealthRanger
Point is fictional feats are erratic and higher end feats only happen a few times throughout the series, rest of the time we don't assume they're going slower/using less power for no reason

Ok don't follo what you are saying but ok

vs debating is about taking the best feats (ignoring the presence of outliers ala Spiderman vs Firelord and Thanos vs policemen, though that can be a fairly subjective matter) and assuming it to be indicative of the characters ability and utilization of powerscaling to fill in the gaps from thereon out

Thank you.

His tutaminis also able to hold back Sidious' lightning for a while too, let's not just ignore that too

Well yes but like I said it won't come into play as all the fire spells I've said won't come to him head on except the mcgonagall spell, all other will light him up directly or it will be to many for him to counter with two hands.

Is much more powerful than Darth Maul who was able to move 20m ships, more powerful than Ashoka and some youngling schmucks who were able to destroy a cliffface or some shit, to name a few at the top of my head

Ashoka was not incredibly skilled in the force, and mauls must have been done in SOD.

By your own logic Harry Potter characters didn't fly much, or most of the time, at all when they were hit with spells

Last battle of hogwarts. Those death eater flew so much all I saw was pitch black. And we see what happens when someone is hit by a spell when in mid flight, they fall over.

Not every showing has to have flashy collateral damage to be impressive you know, unless according to you DBZ characters aren't planet busters because most of their blasts only have collateral damage of 125mm or something

There colossal power actually is shown on a planet scale as we see there blast blow up entire planets. Cause beings to evaporise, lose limbs, and cause massive light shows and explosions. That is why the DBZ universe is exceedingly powerful. So yes I get your point but the more flashy to more interesting they are to people. Like yodas feat to catch a pod that was actually if you rematch that scene you notice something. On normal throws, he just threw his hand down and let the pod just go, however on the last throw if you watch sidious carefully he picks it up and glides it to yoda. So with that why wouldn't wingardium leviosa, depulso, reducto, spell used to turn glass into sand( debatable as glass is made from sand) or could just apparate out of the way behind yoda or sidious and shoot them with a spell.

Prove he could stop it or blow it up please

Reasons for it are listed in paragraph above

Then again, you seem to think wingardium leviosa (sp?) can stop a railgun shell in motion so, what can I expect

Well tbh I beleive the spell can stop the object itself not form blowing it up. I mean he could use the spell to stop the object in mid throw but it can still blow up unless he somehow defused it.

All I see here is just a bunch of sperging

What you see here is fact.

Unless setting things in fire is some kind of automatic power that just happens without him needing to think it, then he needs to think it for it to happen, and given the speed disparity, I think you can see where I'm going

Whether he needs to think or not yoda can't cover 500 meters that quickly to where he can't think and if you saw his battle e
With voldemrot he shot spells out instantly showing that either he thinks incredibly fast or something but it doesn't take him a long time to think.

"If I repeat the same things over and over again it'll eventually become true"
Yeah, this is going nowhere

Or you could be dragging this out

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Would be nice if you start posting clips before making arguments here.

The "real proof" is that it was a fire that did not burn. While real fires burn. Call it an illusion or a pseudo flame or whatever you want to call it. What we know about this fire is that it didn't burn. As it didn't burn anything and Riddle wasn't at all bothered by the heat.

You want me to post a clip of him splitting the fire spell because I can do that.

If you mean the fire in the cave was not real,There is a clip for that too to show it was real. Now you are trying to say everything Dumbledore has is an illusion when they aren't. With your illusion logic, he can produce illusions powerful enough to actually hurt beings I can send you a clip of all of this.

Because Dumbledore was trying to show riddle that he was like him. If he wanted to burn the wardrobe he could have. You can't honestly believe that that was an illusion. He made it to where it wouldn't hurt anything so that means he lowered the temperature of the flame.

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
You want me to post a clip of him splitting the fire spell because I can do that.

If you mean the fire in the cave was not real,There is a clip for that too to show it was real. Now you are trying to say everything Dumbledore has is an illusion when they aren't. With your illusion logic, he can produce illusions powerful enough to actually hurt beings I can send you a clip of all of this.

Because Dumbledore was trying to show riddle that he was like him. If he wanted to burn the wardrobe he could have. You can't honestly believe that that was an illusion. He made it to where it wouldn't hurt anything so that means he lowered the temperature of the flame.

Whaaaat? Of course the fire in the cave was real, it was burning stuff. Fires burn stuff, thus it is real.

The wardrobe fire specifically was not "real" in the sense that it didn't behave as fires do as it didn't burn anything. What you call the fire is just pure semantics. Fire didn't burn thus it is not real. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

His purpose for creating the fake fire is irrelevant as it didn't burn anyone (or didn't even generate heat from how Riddle reacted to it).

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Oh, it'll be big and powerful all right.

The added tinder of old man beard and long wizard robe when Yoda force pulls him in would make it all the more powerful.

Well that would be very hard while yoda is getting overwhelmed by all the fire attackers coming at him. Even if he did couldn't Dumbledore just apparate out of the way. Also if we go by movie characters, yoda doesn't concentrate on two things at once. As seen throughout the movies he needs time to gather his energy and concentrate. Since he wouldn't concentrate on two things at once he would concentrate on the firestorm as its constantly swirling around him and would either overwhelm him and burn him to a crisp or Dumbledore would use that as massive distraction and attack from another angle.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Whaaaat? Of course the fire in the cave was real, it was burning stuff. Fires burn stuff, thus it is real.

The wardrobe fire specifically was not "real" in the sense that it didn't behave as fires do as it didn't burn anything. What it is called is pure semantics. Fire didn't burn thus it is not real. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

What is so hard for you to believe that Dumbledore controls and does what Dumbledore needs to control. If he needs something burnt it will get burnt as seen in the cave. If he needs an example he uses what he used in the flashback. However he can tune up or down either to his situation. What is so hard to understand about that.

His purpose for creating the fake fire is irrelevant as it didn't burn anyone (or didn't even generate heat from how Riddle reacted to it).

His purpose is relevant as it explains why nothing was harmed and it only throws off your logic by saying that because it's magic is not a good answer when it's by dumbledores magic that he can change the effect of his fire whenever it's needed. Please reevaluate yourself.

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
His purpose is relevant as it explains why nothing was harmed and it only throws off your logic by saying that because it's magic is not a good answer when it's by dumbledores magic that he can change the effect of his fire whenever it's needed. Please reevaluate yourself.

It gives you a reason on why he might have created a heatless pseudo fire.

But IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT HE CAN CREATE A FIRE WITHOUT GESTURES OR A WAND. You need to show him creating real fire without a wand/gestures to do that. Seriously, basic logic stuff.

Having a reason not to hurt someone when punching them in the face does not prove you can KO someone by punching them in the face when the only time you punched him in the face, you didn't hurt him.