Originally posted by RobtardSo your stance has now changed to the Surfer or anyone like him can't ever rebel with the powers they are given against their master ? What does this have to do with what we are discussing.
Or he used powers his master didn't have to turn around and destroy his master.Considering there were how many wizards in LoTR, it's a niche power to have/want.
But hey, lets just pretend Sauron can break magical staves and therefore magical wands when it comes down to a magic stand-off. Going from the films. Gandalf was actively trying to scare off the Witch King with his light as he had done earlier to the lesser Nazgul, though he failed later cos the Witch King's magical resolve/power was stronger. I think we call can agree this is how that fight went down.
1) Is the staff-breaking power applicable at all time, like can he look at any magical staff and destroy it, say one lying on the floor that's not being used?
2) Would Snape use a like spell as Gandalf did/try and do a magical battle-of-wills against Sauron or would he just start teleporting and casting attack spells and not bother with a magic-dick-measuring-contest?
3)If Sauron and Snape did come down to a magical battle-of-wills like Gandalf and the Witch King, is Sauron magically more powerful than Snape? Cos Snape has a shitload of spells; he's one of the more powerful HP wizards.
Considering Gandalf and Saruman were pivotal characters in this epic saga from what we saw I'd say it comes in handy. There were also more wizards than just these two.
You need to prove the Witch King can only do so when Gandalf is using his staff you just asked me to prove a negative.
1)Since we see Gandalf also destroy a staff and also affect a nonmagical item while you have no proof it has to be magical common sense just bit--slapped you.
2)You haven't proven it was a battle of wills you keep making the claim that's it.
3)Sauron would most likely either destroy his wand or not. I won't use it as a tactic though I do believe he is capable of such a tactic due to the limited screen time he had and the fact he empowered the Witch King to begin with.
Originally posted by EvilAngel👆
Oh no no no, You need to prove it, using movie feats.Because, you know, I'd bet that it's never even mentioned Snape has lots of spells.
He teaches potions doesn't he? Any wand work involved in that class?
He applied for the defence against the dark arts like what? 5 times? And was rejected all the time.... mustn't have too much experience in that area despite your claims of uber spell lists.
And he's clearly not that good if he was trashed by a transfiguration teacher.
I'm just saying.....
You need to do what you're demanding of others, and prove it.
Originally posted by quanchi112
So your stance has now changed to the Surfer or anyone like him can't ever rebel with the powers they are given against their master ? What does this have to do with what we are discussing.Considering Gandalf and Saruman were pivotal characters in this epic saga from what we saw I'd say it comes in handy. There were also more wizards than just these two.
You need to prove the Witch King can only do so when Gandalf is using his staff you just asked me to prove a negative.
1)Since we see Gandalf also destroy a staff and also affect a nonmagical item while you have no proof it has to be magical common sense just bit--slapped you.
2)You haven't proven it was a battle of wills you keep making the claim that's it.
3)Sauron would most likely either destroy his wand or not. I won't use it as a tactic though I do believe he is capable of such a tactic due to the limited screen time he had and the fact he empowered the Witch King to begin with.
LoL, nice changing the argument to fit your need. Anyhow.
1) Incorrect, if you're referring to Sarumon it was also like a magical battle of wills.
2) By screen accounts it was, so I have that and you have "I need it to be this, cos."
3) So you have no proof other than #2 above.
Do tell me, if Sauron can do anything the Witch King can do because Sauron powers him (and not one of the 9 rings), why didn't Sauron use he penis-protection "no man can harm me" as the Witch King had? That would have been handy against mighty Isildur and his father's broken sword attack.
Originally posted by RobtardYour whole Surfer beating Galactus line of logic didn't contradict what I stated.
LoL, nice changing the argument to fit your need. Anyhow.1) Incorrect, if you're referring to Sarumon it was also like a magical battle of wills.
2) By screen accounts it was, so I have that and you have "I need it to be this, cos."
3) So you have no proof other than #2 above.
Do tell me, if Sauron can do anything the Witch King can do because Sauron powers him (and not one of the 9 rings), why didn't Sauron use he penis-protection "no man can harm me" as the Witch King had? That would have been handy against mighty Isildur and his father's broken sword attack.
1)Then prove it was a battle of wills. You made the claim the burden is on you.
2)Proof ?
3)I said it's based on a reasonable assumption just like you base Snape's knowledge of spells outside of movie feats. If you badger one character over common sense and the fact we've never sene the movie feat you can't be hypocritical and give Snape the benefit of the doubt. My debating honor however allows both as movie feats alone aren't what I deem possible for these characters.
Sauron poured everything into the ring so for all the benefits it brought him it also brought him the negative of being separated from it would destroy his physical body.
Originally posted by ares834
These strawmen grow tiring.
Considering the pro-argument for Sauron has been but not limited to:
-Sauron is powerful and he was turning the tide of war so he's powerful.
-Sauron can do anything another Maiar can even though Gandalf is as different from The Balrog as Sauron is from Gandalf.
-Sauron can do anything the Witch King can cos he empowers the Witch King even though it's likely a ring of power that gave the Witch King powers.
No, it's not really much of a strawman. It's a bit of an exaggeration I used at best, maybe.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Your whole Surfer beating Galactus line of logic didn't contradict what I stated.1)Then prove it was a battle of wills. You made the claim the burden is on you.
2)Proof ?
3)I said it's based on a reasonable assumption just like you base Snape's knowledge of spells outside of movie feats. If you badger one character over common sense and the fact we've never sene the movie feat you can't be hypocritical and give Snape the benefit of the doubt. My debating honor however allows both as movie feats alone aren't what I deem possible for these characters.
Sauron poured everything into the ring so for all the benefits it brought him it also brought him the negative of being separated from it would destroy his physical body.
Considering you claimed anyone who gives someone powers thereby automatically has those same powers, it kind of did.
1) Already done with reason. Gandalf tried to cast away WK with his staff as he had previously done to another Nazgul prior. This time the WK proved to be more powerful. Maybe watch the scene?
2) Similar to above. Watch the scene.
3) Except you have yet to prove that Sauron gives the WK his powers and not one of the nine rings of men, which appears to be the more plausible so far.
And what does that have to do with you giving powers he didn't use and were never implied he possessed? While Snape being able to cast a wide variety of spells is supported by the movies. He's a powerful wizard, he was a gifted apprentice, he's a teacher, students(which he was) of Hogwarts go through all manners of training while they learn their wizardly nonsense and we see students casting spells mentioned in here. One side is clearly more supported than the other.
If I had said Snape can do anything a Dementor can, this would be a similar stance to what's being done for Sauron in here. Which is nonsense.
Originally posted by RobtardIf someone does empower someone from their inherent powers alone they do have the same abilities it kinda makes sense.
Considering you claimed anyone who gives someone powers thereby automatically has those same powers, it kind of did.1) Already done with reason. Gandalf tried to cast away WK with his staff as he had previously done to another Nazgul prior. This time the WK proved to be more powerful. Maybe watch the scene?
2) Similar to above. Watch the scene.
3) Except you have yet to prove that Sauron gives the WK his powers and not one of the nine rings of men, which appears to be the more plausible so far.
1)The Wk succeeded because he was more powerful. Just like if the WK tried to destroy the infinity gauntlet he couldn't do it it being far more powerful than he is. He can't do so even if the ig wearer has crappy willpower. LOL.
2)You never really prove anything you just demand someone disproves your theories.
3)So the WK became an undead servant to Sauron because of his own ring ? LOL.
Originally posted by Robtard
-Sauron can do anything another Maiar can even though Gandalf is as different from The Balrog as Sauron is from Gandalf.
If we are so intent on "durhur movie only" then I would point out that Saruman, Gandalf, and Sauron are simply powerful wizards with no hint of difference aside from power between them.
Therefore, Snape Sauron being a wizard of a higher power should be able to cast the spells his inferiors are capable of.
Originally posted by quanchi112
If someone does empower someone from their inherent powers alone they do have the same abilities it kinda makes sense.1)The Wk succeeded because he was more powerful. Just like if the WK tried to destroy the infinity gauntlet he couldn't do it it being far more powerful than he is. He can't do so even if the ig wearer has crappy willpower. LOL.
2)You never really prove anything you just demand someone disproves your theories.
3)So the WK became an undead servant to Sauron because of his own ring ? LOL.
LoL, nice reversal. You make claims about Sauron that have absolutely no screen-proof and then demand they be disproved or it's true.
Maybe you should watch the intro to LoTR, Galadriel explains it. Or read the books, that would help you too. The nine rings empowered them; made them immortal and invisible, two things they are in the films. Sauron used the one ring to dominate them.
Originally posted by ares834
If we are so intent on "durhur movie only" then I would point out that Saruman, Gandalf, and Sauron are simply powerful wizards with no hint of difference aside from power between them.Therefore,
SnapeSauron being a wizard of a higher power should be able to cast the spells his inferiors are capable of.
Where was it ever implied that Sauron was a wizard?
It's still going?
It's pretty pathetic really. From the books it's pretty much a given fact Sauron wins. Yet people are hiding behind the 'Zomgash, movie feats only' to try to alter this so Snape wins for reasons beyond my ability to discern.
So let me make this simple.
If you decide, as you have been this whole time Robtard, to strictly use movie feats only, then this is a very boring fight. It will consist of Snape and his arsenal of 5 spells (best Hogwarts teacher ever, especially as one of them is an illegal forbidden curse, That holds a special place in my heart), only one of which would hold any combat use at all. Since even a disarmed Sauron would utterly crush Snape through physical means. And it is entire dependent on the avada kedavra spell, since it can miss and Wizards have been shown to have varying levels of accuracy. If Sauron is able to make it inside Hogwarts, he’ll win easily due to it being close quarters. Otherwise his physical form gets slain.
If you actually are curious as to who would win this fight, the only legal feats of Sauron are book derived. I admit that itself confuses me why exactly they aren’t useable as, as I recall the movies credit it with ‘Based on the books by J.R.R Tolkien’. For example we know Sauron actually could make a man/elf burst into flames, as he does that in the book so a wand would really be incredibly easy. In this Snape has no chance at victory. There is no argument about it.
However due to the sheer lack of intellect behind it, I must point out that the same argument that allows Snape to win would be the same argument that Liam Neeson can’t throw lightning bolts in Clash of the Titans as Zeus. Regardless of who that character is and what other sources tell us he is capable of, he lacks the movie feats (I assume he didn’t throw lightning, I was asleep for the latter part of that movie). I think that rule defies logic when used incorrectly. If it’s perceived as it seems to have been intended ‘contradict’ for instance the Hulks strength in the movies contradicts his strength in the comics (or so I gather) as he is much weaker. Then strictly adhering to movie feats makes sense. To use it to restrict a character with limited showings because they did not do something or possibly, didn’t get any chance/opportunity to do something, is simply put a seriously flawed way of thinking and will in all likelihood bring forth an unfair conclusion to the characters involved.
Originally posted by ares834
Wrong. In the books the Wraiths are not empowered by their rings. In fact, during LotR the don't even wear them.
Please do a moment of research before you rant.
Here's one of many LoTR sites: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Rings_of_Power#The_Power_Of_The_Rings
Originally posted by EvilAngel
It's still going?It's pretty pathetic really. From the books it's pretty much a given fact Sauron wins. Yet people are hiding behind the 'Zomgash, movie feats only' to try to alter this so Snape wins for reasons beyond my ability to discern.
So let me make this simple.
If you decide, as you have been this whole time Robtard, to strictly use movie feats only, then this is a very boring fight. It will consist of Snape and his arsenal of 5 spells (best Hogwarts teacher ever, especially as one of them is an illegal forbidden curse, That holds a special place in my heart), only one of which would hold any combat use at all. Since even a disarmed Sauron would utterly crush Snape through physical means. And it is entire dependent on the avada kedavra spell, since it can miss and Wizards have been shown to have varying levels of accuracy. If Sauron is able to make it inside Hogwarts, he’ll win easily due to it being close quarters. Otherwise his physical form gets slain.
If you actually are curious as to who would win this fight, the only legal feats of Sauron are book derived. I admit that itself confuses me why exactly they aren’t useable as, as I recall the movies credit it with ‘Based on the books by J.R.R Tolkien’. For example we know Sauron actually could make a man/elf burst into flames, as he does that in the book so a wand would really be incredibly easy. In this Snape has no chance at victory. There is no argument about it.
However due to the sheer lack of intellect behind it, I must point out that the same argument that allows Snape to win would be the same argument that Liam Neeson can’t throw lightning bolts in Clash of the Titans as Zeus. Regardless of who that character is and what other sources tell us he is capable of, he lacks the movie feats (I assume he didn’t throw lightning, I was asleep for the latter part of that movie). I think that rule defies logic when used incorrectly. If it’s perceived as it seems to have been intended ‘contradict’ for instance the Hulks strength in the movies contradicts his strength in the comics (or so I gather) as he is much weaker. Then strictly adhering to movie feats makes sense. To use it to restrict a character with limited showings because they did not do something or possibly, didn’t get any chance/opportunity to do something, is simply put a seriously flawed way of thinking and will in all likelihood bring froth unfair conclusion to the characters involved.
I stopped reading after "strictly use movie feats only", because it's already been covered for Snape over and over, even on this very page again. Snape having an arsenal of spells is supported in the film.
Maybe try to actually make a case for Sauron and what he can do other than falling back on basically "he's really powerful". There are plenty of really powerful foes a stupid HP wizard like Snape could beat. Make your case.
Originally posted by Robtard
I stopped reading after "strictly use movie feats only", because it's already been covered for Snape over and over, even on this very page again. Snape having an arsenal of spells is supported in the film.Maybe try to actually make a case for Sauron and what he can do other than falling back on basically "he's really powerful". There are plenty of really powerful foes a stupid HP wizard like Snape could beat. Make your case.
It's no more supported than the powers of Sauron which you deny over and over again for no better reason than what the reversed argument against Snape is.
Maybe you should actually read my post. 'I stopped reading after' sums up your arguments in this thread thus far quite excellently.