Voldemort vs. Albus Dumbledore

Originally posted by juggerman
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. [/B]

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. [/B]

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. [/B]

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. [/B]

“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. [/B]

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!!!!!” [/B]

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. [/B]

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. [/B]

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. [/B]

“I’m bout to f*ck her in the ear. BLOW HER BRAINS OUT!” [/B]

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? [/B]

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. [/B]

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 [/B]

You have no proof of anything and hop from one theory to the next. One moment Albus is rusty but the next he is thinking about protecting the boy and Voldemort. I will only throw him something he can handle. It's ridiculous.

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. [/B]

It honestly doesn’t matter which one at this point since all of them rip apart your theories. [/B]

Negative [/B]

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. [/B]

The rest is another baseless theory without anything backing it up. Troll 101.

Originally posted by juggerman
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.[/B]

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?[/B]

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.[/B]

So another admission to trolling is it? Well who could blame you. Concession number 7 accepted. [/B]

Originally posted by juggerman
WTF was that botched shit at the end? You forget how to quote people? Is this whipping too much for you to handle and now you're having a break down? Get your shit together!

Originally posted by quanchi112
You conceded the point. I accepted. I have the courage of my convictions while you just yielded your butthole to me.

You conceded 7 points now. You have no courage.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He was at the top of his game. I don't 'see any other wizards counter what both of these guys countered with razor sharp reflexes. You tried to speculate he's rusty but that suggests ignoring what we see with our own two eyes during the actual duel and theorizing on what might have been.

You are speculating he was at his best because he looked impressive. “Impressive” and “best” are two different things.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I never said I read the books. Ever.

It was in the movie. Nice try at validating your ignorance. But again FAIL.

Originally posted by quanchi112
LOL at the guy who said Dumbledore never used fire 2 weeks after we broke down one 3 minute scene in a Potter movie to say oh shit, he did use fire. LOL.

He never summoned/casted it which is what you tried to imply. You lose again

Originally posted by quanchi112
Used meant he used fire to his advantage. When did I see he casted fire at Voldemort ? He clearly sent back the fire at Voldemort in an attempt to kill him. If someone throws fire in your direction it's safe to say it's to harm/kill you. Link does try to kill Ganondorf. He does. Acting like he doesn't is moronic since he kills him every time he faces him. LOL. Lily protected her son. That's completely different than Dumbledore channeling fire back in Voldemort's direction than someone jumping in the way to protect her son from Voldemort. Damn right she'd kill Voldemort to save her son. Are you stupid ?

“Used” he indicates he summoned/casted it. Now are you conceding to false implications? To be fair I won’t count this concession just yet. If someone swings a sword in your direction or shoots bullets in your direction, it’s safe to say it’s to try to harm/kill you too right? When did I say Link doesn’t try to kill Gannondorf? Geez this misrepresentation angle of yours keeps coming out. Oh and by the way he doesn’t kill Gannondorf. That’s why he comes back. He’s pretty much unkillable, Link usually just seals him up and he escapes over and over again. But anyway that wasn’t at all the point. The point was he reflects his attacks back at him. Does he “summon/cast/fire/use” the magic attacks himself? NO! And again I didn’t say she “wouldn’t kill him:” I said “she didn’t ‘use’ the magic that rebounded”

Originally posted by quanchi112
Quit referencing other fights and theorizing on what might have been.

Why? It’s completely relevant. Duels are duels. Tactics are tactics. It proves that sending a “potentially lethal” attack does not auto mean intent to kill which you are trying, and failing I might add, to suggest. And I figured it would be better if I gave actual examples of such things instead of just saying “It’s possible for a human being to do this or that while actually meaning to do this or that”.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am not saying it's impossible but that isn't the case here. When someone cuts off your air supply and hurls fire back in your direction we don't generally assume they weren't trying to hurt/kill the other. You have no proof either just theories which are all made up in your mind.

By your arguments it would seem like you do indeed think it’s impossible since you seem to believe there is only one possible conclusion. But since you are now saying that it’s possible we are making some headway.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Coulda woulds shoulda. Enough. Your posts are an affront to common sense and logic. You have no proof just random worthless theory after theory. You cite nothing within the battle itself to suggest you have anything which supports it. What's worse is you just keep throwing more theories out there. To me it's like catching someone in a lie which thereby brings in more lies in an attempt to cover it up.

Common sense and logic would tell you that there is more than one possibility. I cite plenty within the battle. I threw 3 theories out about the fire then I expanded on two of them. Can you not tell the difference between expanding a theory and coming up with completely new ones? Apparently not so I’ll help you out. The 3 theories were:
1. The attack blew back upon its defeat. I didn’t expand upon this cuz it’s pretty self explanatory.
2. He pushed it back simply in self defense. I expanded slightly upon this with the “victim pushes assailant” analogy. Also thought it was pretty self explanatory.
3. He pushed back the fire to use as a distraction. This is the one I expanded upon the most since it seems to be the one you contend to most. Your stance was “if he threw something that COULD kill then killing MUST HAVE been his intent”. So I gave several instances that completely destroy your stance.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Not relevant to this thread or these characters. Keep spouting off nonsense.

Completely relevant. Just hurts your stance so you hope to invalidate it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I dunno where half your jackass theories came from. I wish I did so I could nuke that place off the earth.

I completely understand you not knowing where they come from since you live in “quanworld” where logic and reason are on an eternal vacation

Originally posted by quanchi112
By your logic it doesn't. By your logic he really wasn't trying to kill him. he only wanted him to think that way but knew deep down he'd be skilled enough to counter.

Nope

Originally posted by quanchi112
He used the fire. He could have gestured it to another direction or gestured it away like Voldemort did. He didn't. I wish you'd just think period.

You assume he could have done either. Voldemort summoned it so it would stand to reason he would have to be the one to stop it. Think Goku vs Frieza. Frieza uses the disks to kill Goku and Goku can’t stop them as he can his own attacks. He can only hope to force Frieza to stop them. Frieza doesn’t and is eventually hit by them. Voldemort on the other hand stops his attack before he is hit.

Iirc not once in HP is it shown that a wizard can completely “end” another wizard’s already casted and in full swing attack. They can block, knock away, or engage directly (as in when their spells connect like in the beginning of the duel) so your “he could have gestured it away” point is shit unless you have some proof such a thing is possible and that it. . None of that “stopping before an actual spell is casted” stuff and no “he stopped it by hitting him with something else” stuff.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You are a weird fellow.

Don’t pretend like you don’t know what that’s from!

Originally posted by quanchi112
You have no proof to your theories. You just theorize. That's it. That's what a troll does. They go from one baseless claim to the next.

You have no proof that he was trying to kill. NONE. I’ve been poking massive holes in your theory for day one. You’ve no leg to stand on. And I’m sure you know exactly what trolls do seeing as how you’re an admitted troll.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Hurling back a huge amount of fire which kills isn't the same thing as a punch. The fire summoned was the killing kind. You can pretend it's the same as a punch but then again you're just a troll.

Hurling a huge amount of fire which kills isn’t the same as pushing fire, which kills, away from you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You said fire is an example of something that would kill. Then when you realized he did use fire you rescinded your statement. It's still up. Want me to repost it ?

I know what I said I was there when I said it. I rescinded nothing. My point was completely different from what you are trying to spin it to be. Again with the misrepresentation.

You have no proof of anything and hop from one theory to the next. One moment Albus is rusty but the next he is thinking about protecting the boy and Voldemort. I will only throw him something he can handle. It's ridiculous.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He threw fire back at his body. He didn't just return cover fire he clearly repelled the fire at his person. It would have killed him had he not reacted. If Voldemort stood there he'd die. So you need to prove Dumbledore wanted him to counter or else concede.[quote]

He pushed fire back. Cover fire is at their person. It’s used to get a certain response and Dumbledore got the response he wanted. Yes it could have killed him but again it does not make it his intent. A sword swing could kill as well doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a set up.

[QUOTE=14180582]Originally posted by quanchi112
You can't prove any of them. This is a troll tactic.

I’m not trying to.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Wrong.

Negative

Originally posted by quanchi112
So now you're back to it was self defense. So now he wasn't thinking of Voldemort's safety. Which is it ? Self defense it was too quick to really do anything outside of a reaction or was it Dumbledore consciously thinking Voldemort can handle it ?

Again they are totally different possibilities. You are trying to invalidate them by combining them in hopes of pointing out inconsistancies caused by the mixture when that was never meant to be created in the first place. 3 different possibilities please try to keep up

Originally posted by quanchi112
The rest is another baseless theory without anything backing it up. Troll 101.

The class you teach?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Again, speculation. Show me Harry using fire to hit an opponent quicker than what Dumbledore did with the water in that scene. Go ahead and back up a claim of yours. The water was used due to it's speed and convenience. Dumbledore also doesn't use the killing curse. That's out of character for him.

I never claimed his used it in battle. Another misrepresentation. Dumbledore also doesn’t go for the kill. It’s out of character. So you agree he wouldn’t do things out of character but then in the same breath say he would have no problem killing in general (although it’s out of character) and then not only killing but doing so in such brutal ways. Burning to death is agonizing and drowning is torturous. So he wouldn’t use a curse that causes no pain in death cuz it’s out of character but he would however use such inhumane torturous methods with absolutely no quarrel? And this makes sense to you? Starting to sound like the killing curse is much more in his character by the minute. Also I said “or another curse” so your point is again shit.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Both tried to kill each other in this duel. I don't need to see anything outside of this duel to know these two tried to kill each other. Fire kills. Drowning someone will kill you as well. We both agree Dumbledore didn't release Voldemort out of the water bubble so you agree.

I believe we also agree that trying to drown “the most powerful dark wizard of all time” and the one who has “pushed the limits of magic farther than anyone” makes you an idiot especially when we have proof that wizards far below the caliber of Voldemort figured out water breathing. So like I’ve said before either he was fighting smart or he was going for the kill. Can’t be both.

Originally posted by quanchi112
These are mages. This isn't the same thing as fighting someone with your fists or in a wrestling match. Sending fire back at someone is a kill attempt.

Exact same concept of a sword fight. Sending blows that can kill at your opponent. Exact same concept of a shoot out. Firing bullets that can kill your opponent/s

Originally posted by quanchi112
Prove one of your theories. You don't debate by saying maybe this or maybe that. Actually back up a theory.

I don’t need to

Originally posted by quanchi112
I was mocking you because I find you to be of lower intelligence. You also don't debate with proof. You don't deserve respect.

I already know you were trolling. You’ve already conceded and it’s been accepted.

You have not given one shred of proof. Your entire stance is “it’s this way cuz it looked like it”. Then when shown other possibilities and given ample evidence to support them you start with “well nu uh! It could kill so that’s all he could have wanted!” Then when given examples about “killing attacks” not being used to “kill” you started crying “stop using examples that hurt my case! Also only use what’s in this particular duel itself while pretending we know nothing of Dumbledore’s character or morality. Also um… pretend Albus couldn’t possibly think of any strategy outside of ‘kill, kill, kill’. That’s the only way my stance works!” It’s sad really. So sad.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Character count too long. So I copy and pasted it. Deal with it, weakling.

You were trembling too much. Your fear has betrayed you, child

Originally posted by juggerman
You conceded 7 points now. You have no courage.

You are speculating he was at his best because he looked impressive. “Impressive” and “best” are two different things.

It was in the movie. Nice try at validating your ignorance. But again FAIL.[/B]

He never summoned/casted it which is what you tried to imply. You lose again[/B]

“Used” he indicates he summoned/casted it. Now are you conceding to false implications? To be fair I won’t count this concession just yet. If someone swings a sword in your direction or shoots bullets in your direction, it’s safe to say it’s to try to harm/kill you too right? When did I say Link doesn’t try to kill Gannondorf? Geez this misrepresentation angle of yours keeps coming out. Oh and by the way he doesn’t kill Gannondorf. That’s why he comes back. He’s pretty much unkillable, Link usually just seals him up and he escapes over and over again. But anyway that wasn’t at all the point. The point was he reflects his attacks back at him. Does he “summon/cast/fire/use” the magic attacks himself? NO! And again I didn’t say she “wouldn’t kill him:” I said “she didn’t ‘use’ the magic that rebounded”[/B]

Why? It’s completely relevant. Duels are duels. Tactics are tactics. It proves that sending a “potentially lethal” attack does not auto mean intent to kill which you are trying, and failing I might add, to suggest. And I figured it would be better if I gave actual examples of such things instead of just saying “It’s possible for a human being to do this or that while actually meaning to do this or that”. [/B]

By your arguments it would seem like you do indeed think it’s impossible since you seem to believe there is only one possible conclusion. But since you are now saying that it’s possible we are making some headway.[/B]

Common sense and logic would tell you that there is more than one possibility. I cite plenty within the battle. I threw 3 theories out about the fire then I expanded on two of them. Can you not tell the difference between expanding a theory and coming up with completely new ones? Apparently not so I’ll help you out. The 3 theories were:
1. The attack blew back upon its defeat. I didn’t expand upon this cuz it’s pretty self explanatory.
2. He pushed it back simply in self defense. I expanded slightly upon this with the “victim pushes assailant” analogy. Also thought it was pretty self explanatory.
3. He pushed back the fire to use as a distraction. This is the one I expanded upon the most since it seems to be the one you contend to most. Your stance was “if he threw something that COULD kill then killing MUST HAVE been his intent”. So I gave several instances that completely destroy your stance. [/B]

This is another theory. Stick to one. Do you feel he only reacted therefore not taking into account Voldemort's life ?

Yet another theory. Your theories contradict each other and are all without proof. They also suggest to deny what we see and just pretend what we want about the scene.

Completely relevant. Just hurts your stance so you hope to invalidate it. [/B]

I completely understand you not knowing where they come from since you live in “quanworld” where logic and reason are on an eternal vacation

Nope[/B]

You assume he could have done either. Voldemort summoned it so it would stand to reason he would have to be the one to stop it. Think Goku vs Frieza. Frieza uses the disks to kill Goku and Goku can’t stop them as he can his own attacks. He can only hope to force Frieza to stop them. Frieza doesn’t and is eventually hit by them. Voldemort on the other hand stops his attack before he is hit. [/B]

Iirc not once in HP is it shown that a wizard can completely “end” another wizard’s already casted and in full swing attack. They can block, knock away, or engage directly (as in when their spells connect like in the beginning of the duel) so your “he could have gestured it away” point is shit unless you have some proof such a thing is possible and that it. . None of that “stopping before an actual spell is casted” stuff and no “he stopped it by hitting him with something else” stuff.[/B]

Don’t pretend like you don’t know what that’s from![/B]

You have no proof that he was trying to kill. NONE. I’ve been poking massive holes in your theory for day one. You’ve no leg to stand on. And I’m sure you know exactly what trolls do seeing as how you’re an admitted troll.[/B]

Hurling a huge amount of fire which kills isn’t the same as pushing fire, which kills, away from you.[/B]

I know what I said I was there when I said it. I rescinded nothing. My point was completely different from what you are trying to spin it to be. Again with the misrepresentation.[/B]

You have no proof of anything and hop from one theory to the next. One moment Albus is rusty but the next he is thinking about protecting the boy and Voldemort. I will only throw him something he can handle. It's ridiculous.

I’m not trying to.

Negative [/B]

I win err Voldemort wins. We both win.

Originally posted by juggerman
Again they are totally different possibilities. You are trying to invalidate them by combining them in hopes of pointing out inconsistancies caused by the mixture when that was never meant to be created in the first place. 3 different possibilities please try to keep up

The class you teach?[/B]

I never claimed his used it in battle. Another misrepresentation. Dumbledore also doesn’t go for the kill. It’s out of character. So you agree he wouldn’t do things out of character but then in the same breath say he would have no problem killing in general (although it’s out of character) and then not only killing but doing so in such brutal ways. Burning to death is agonizing and drowning is torturous. So he wouldn’t use a curse that causes no pain in death cuz it’s out of character but he would however use such inhumane torturous methods with absolutely no quarrel? And this makes sense to you? Starting to sound like the killing curse is much more in his character by the minute. Also I said “or another curse” so your point is again shit.[/B]

I believe we also agree that trying to drown “the most powerful dark wizard of all time” and the one who has “pushed the limits of magic farther than anyone” makes you an idiot especially when we have proof that wizards far below the caliber of Voldemort figured out water breathing. So like I’ve said before either he was fighting smart or he was going for the kill. Can’t be both.[/B]

Exact same concept of a sword fight. Sending blows that can kill at your opponent. Exact same concept of a shoot out. Firing bullets that can kill your opponent/s
[/B]

I don’t need to[/B]

I already know you were trolling. You’ve already conceded and it’s been accepted.

You have not given one shred of proof. Your entire stance is “it’s this way cuz it looked like it”. Then when shown other possibilities and given ample evidence to support them you start with “well nu uh! It could kill so that’s all he could have wanted!” Then when given examples about “killing attacks” not being used to “kill” you started crying “stop using examples that hurt my case! Also only use what’s in this particular duel itself while pretending we know nothing of Dumbledore’s character or morality. Also um… pretend Albus couldn’t possibly think of any strategy outside of ‘kill, kill, kill’. That’s the only way my stance works!” It’s sad really. So sad. [/B]

If someone sends an attack that kills a person if you don't believe death is the intention it falls on you to disprove what we see. We've seen Albus kill before through fire for Harry's well being. It's in character the gay man to kill for Harry's well being. Now concede or continue to be annihilated.

Originally posted by juggerman
You were trembling too much. Your fear has betrayed you, child

Originally posted by quanchi112
I conceded no such thing. You have and I accepted. It's the best I saw Dumbledore on screen. Tell me a time when he was better than ?

You conceded 7 such things. You’re just making yourself look worse now. Move on child.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I never said it wasn't. I said I overlooked that minor scene. It wasn't a pivotal moment at all.

Concession already accepted. No need to beg for forgiveness.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He casted the fire right back at Voldemort. he tried to kill him. He could have thrown it safely away in another direction.

Like to the side allowing Voldemort a chance to strike at Harry directly?

Originally posted by quanchi112
He casted it away/towards the dark lord. That's completely different. Dumbledore chose due to his powers where the fire went. he didn't just ricochet something off a sword. Uhm, there are alternate timelines in Zelda. Dear lord. Dorf dies in every one. Play Zelda two. When Link dies Ganon is rezzed. LOL.

Ganondorf doesn’t die. That’s why he continues to come back in multiple games. He’s usually thought to be dead but returns. It’s made pretty clear in OoT when he says he’ll return and punish Link’s descendents. At the end of most games they go “oh he’s dead” then another game pops up and goes “oh he really didn’t die he was sealed up but he has escaped again”.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If you can't provide proof as to suggest otherwise we don't assume anything. You need to prove he didn't intend to kill him since that's what would have happened had Voldemort not reacted with lightning quick reflexes.

And a sword strike would kill if not deflected yet can be used as nothing more than a set up for something else.

Originally posted by quanchi112
My logic and opinion is supported by their actions. You just theorize.

Your logic is shit.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It only blew back when Dumbledore gestured in that direction which implied control as to where the fire went.

This is another theory. Stick to one. Do you feel he only reacted therefore not taking into account Voldemort's life ?

Yet another theory. Your theories contradict each other and are all without proof. They also suggest to deny what we see and just pretend what we want about the scene.

Possibly.

I don’t need to stick to one as all call your claims into question.

Again they aren’t intended to be used to support one another. Are you really that slow?

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, it isn't. None of your stances are relevant or logical.

Yes it is.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This coming from the guy whose own theories attack his own theories. Make up your mind you woman.

Only when using strawman tactics.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You need to prove it then. You just theorize. If you can't back a claim you have to rescind it otherwise you're a troll.

I don’t tho.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If they can block it why not block it ? Dumbledore sent it back after Voldemort in a manner to kill him.

“If they can apparate at will why don’t they do it all the time?”
“If they can fly and cast spells at the same time why don’t they just fly and spam spells instead of standing and dueling?”
“If wands can be broken why don’t they attempt to break wands in combat?”
“If Dumbledore knows Unforgivable Curses why doesn’t he just use them?”

I can do these “if and why” questions too but it wouldn’t change a thing.

Originally posted by quanchi112
By your own words he can block it and no one gets hurt but since you said that's possible it reinforces he tried to kill Voldemort theory since he had a choice.

Strawman. I gave you a list of ways wizards have been seen to protect themselves and others from magic and never did I even remotely hint that all defenses can be uses for all curses/spells/magic. Fail.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You're a lost man.

“Negative, I am a meat popsicle”

Originally posted by quanchi112
If Voldemort stands there he dies. That's a kill attempt.

Negative. Already refuted.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Dumbledore didn't release him from drowning of his own accord so that's a kill attempt. There's no proof he would just ko him. That's just another stupid theory of yours you already have destroyed with your other theories.

Negative. UFC fighter “A” uses a triangle choke on UFC fighter “B”. “B” breaks the hold by picking up and slamming “A”. Quan logic dictates that it was a kill attempt since he didn’t break the hold of his own accord and we have no proof “A” didn’t suddenly snap, become murderous, and intend to apply the hold until “B” was dead.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You said earlier he can block the fire.

I did not. Again “Strawman. I gave you a list of ways wizards have been seen to protect themselves and others from magic and never did I even remotely hint that all defenses can be uses for all curses/spells/magic.” Again fail.

Originally posted by quanchi112
he did no such thing he sent it back which would have killed Voldemort. Pretty easy to see.

Your idiocy is also easy to see.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You said had fire been used only to realize holy shit fire was used in the scene prior to. You are an idiot.
You're wrong and by your own posts have been decimated and annihilated.

“Used by Dumbledore” not “pushed back by him”

Originally posted by quanchi112
I win err Voldemort wins. We both win.

You lose. He loses. You both lose.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You need to back up your theories not just speculate as to random possibilities. If you have no proof and just a theory it carries no weight.

I don’t "need to"

Originally posted by quanchi112
I own your soul.

Negative

Originally posted by quanchi112
I never said he wouldn't kill. He killed in Half Blood Prince. I said he doesn't use the unforgivable curses to do so. We see him try to kill Voldemort. It's a curse and one in which only a dark wizard uses. He used fire to kill in Half Blood Prince. LOL. Actually watch these movies because it's so easy to destroy your shitty theories. You squirm from post to post just making up random shit with no proof to back it up.

Whom did he kill in HBP? Please don’t say “Inferi” cuz it would only farther prove your ignorance. Inferi are not alive. They are bewitched CORPSES. Do you know what a “corpse” is? I’ll give you a clue…. It’s a dead body. Dead. As in not alive. Hence Dumbledore destroying them is not Dumbledore killing them. What an idiot you are.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If he can water breathe in that scene why was he holding his breath ? Dear lord.

Well aren’t you of the mind that he was trying to break out? Because he didn’t try breathing immediately (and in your opinion opted to try to get out asap) doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable. Do you really want to argue the “most powerful dark wizard of all time” and the wizard who “stretched the boundaries of magic farther than anyone” and the dude who’s dick you’ve been riding this entire time couldn’t do something all four students figured out for the tournament and no one was surprised about showing it’s indeed somewhat common knowledge. Please tell me this is indeed your stance. LOL

Originally posted by quanchi112
The spell was to drown him but since you now claim Voldemort can breathe underwater there goes your ko theory. Your theories destroy each other. Awesome.

You’re speculating that was its intended purpose. And I’ve already addressed this.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Except here he can control where the fire goes. He chose to send it towards Voldemort.

More speculation

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, you do.

Negative

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have proof and common sense in my corner. You just have trollish theories which destroy each other in the end. It's been a treat to watch.

Yes I see. The sudden onset of a lust for blood in addition to a sudden sadistic streak along with a bout of dull wittedness all rolled up into about 30 seconds only to immediately disappear without a trace never to be seen again. That’s quanman sense if I’ve ever heard it. LOL

Originally posted by quanchi112
If someone sends an attack that kills a person if you don't believe death is the intention it falls on you to disprove what we see. We've seen Albus kill before through fire for Harry's well being. It's in character the gay man to kill for Harry's well being. Now concede or continue to be annihilated.

“Whom did he kill in HBP? Please don’t say “Inferi” cuz it would only farther prove your ignorance. Inferi are not alive. They are bewitched CORPSES. Do you know what a “corpse” is? I’ll give you a clue…. It’s a dead body. Dead. As in not alive. Hence Dumbledore destroying them is not Dumbledore killing them. What an idiot you are.”

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, I am responding to you and multiple other threads. You respond once and flee in fear. You lick your wounds only to return a day later before you run from me.

Well some of us have actual lives and responsibilities and can’t be on here every waking hour like you. I respond to your pathetic posts when I have some free time at work. Sorry buddy but you are not a priority to me. And my one post a day has you shook so bad that you can’t even work your mouse and keyboard correctly! LOL

Originally posted by juggerman
You conceded 7 such things. You’re just making yourself look worse now. Move on child.

Concession already accepted. No need to beg for forgiveness. [/B]

Like to the side allowing Voldemort a chance to strike at Harry directly? [/B]

Ganondorf doesn’t die. That’s why he continues to come back in multiple games. He’s usually thought to be dead but returns. It’s made pretty clear in OoT when he says he’ll return and punish Link’s descendents. At the end of most games they go “oh he’s dead” then another game pops up and goes “oh he really didn’t die he was sealed up but he has escaped again”.[/B]

And a sword strike would kill if not deflected yet can be used as nothing more than a set up for something else.[/B]

Your logic is shit.[/B]

Possibly.

I don’t need to stick to one as all call your claims into question.

Again they aren’t intended to be used to support one another. Are you really that slow?
[/B]

Yes it is.

Only when using strawman tactics.

I don’t tho.[/B]

“If they can apparate at will why don’t they do it all the time?”
“If they can fly and cast spells at the same time why don’t they just fly and spam spells instead of standing and dueling?”
“If wands can be broken why don’t they attempt to break wands in combat?”
“If Dumbledore knows Unforgivable Curses why doesn’t he just use them?”

I can do these “if and why” questions too but it wouldn’t change a thing. [/B]

Strawman. I gave you a list of ways wizards have been seen to protect themselves and others from magic and never did I even remotely hint that all defenses can be uses for all curses/spells/magic. Fail.

“Negative, I am a meat popsicle”[/B]

Negative. Already refuted.

Negative. UFC fighter “A” uses a triangle choke on UFC fighter “B”. “B” breaks the hold by picking up and slamming “A”. Quan logic dictates that it was a kill attempt since he didn’t break the hold of his own accord and we have no proof “A” didn’t suddenly snap, become murderous, and intend to apply the hold until “B” was dead. [/B]

This isn't the ufc. There are no rules. These two were trying to kill each other so your comparison to a sport with rules is hilarious and stupid. At this point I am convinced someone else ties your shoes. You can deny drowning and fire kill people all you want. Go ahead and shut your eyes to the truth, trollerman.

I did not. Again “Strawman. I gave you a list of ways wizards have been seen to protect themselves and others from magic and never did I even remotely hint that all defenses can be uses for all curses/spells/magic.” Again fail.

Your idiocy is also easy to see.

“Used by Dumbledore” not “pushed back by him”[/B]

Your attempts to bash to take my off the beaten path of destroying you won't work.

The fire was used by Dumbledore right back at Voldemort. You can argue over the semantics over it but the point is he used the fire against Voldemort. Game. Set. Match.

You lose. He loses. You both lose.

I don’t "need to"

Negative[/B]

Yes, you do.

Wrong.

Whom did he kill in HBP? Please don’t say “Inferi” cuz it would only farther prove your ignorance. Inferi are not alive. They are bewitched CORPSES. Do you know what a “corpse” is? I’ll give you a clue…. It’s a dead body. Dead. As in not alive. Hence Dumbledore destroying them is not Dumbledore killing them. What an idiot you are.[/B]

Well aren’t you of the mind that he was trying to break out? Because he didn’t try breathing immediately (and in your opinion opted to try to get out asap) doesn’t mean he wasn’t capable. Do you really want to argue the “most powerful dark wizard of all time” and the wizard who “stretched the boundaries of magic farther than anyone” and the dude who’s dick you’ve been riding this entire time couldn’t do something all four students figured out for the tournament and no one was surprised about showing it’s indeed somewhat common knowledge. Please tell me this is indeed your stance. LOL[/B]

You’re speculating that was its intended purpose. And I’ve already addressed this.

More speculation

Negative[/B]

If you see him send the fire back you see it's under his control. You choosing to say that's speculation is asinine. Go ahead and be crazy.

Yes I see. The sudden onset of a lust for blood in addition to a sudden sadistic streak along with a bout of dull wittedness all rolled up into about 30 seconds only to immediately disappear without a trace never to be seen again. That’s quanman sense if I’ve ever heard it. LOL [/B]

This Juggsatheory nonsense of yours is pathetic even for you.

Originally posted by juggerman
“Whom did he kill in HBP? Please don’t say “Inferi” cuz it would only farther prove your ignorance. Inferi are not alive. They are bewitched [B]CORPSES. Do you know what a “corpse” is? I’ll give you a clue…. It’s a dead body. Dead. As in not alive. Hence Dumbledore destroying them is not Dumbledore killing them. What an idiot you are.”

Well some of us have actual lives and responsibilities and can’t be on here every waking hour like you. I respond to your pathetic posts when I have some free time at work. Sorry buddy but you are not a priority to me. And my one post a day has you shook so bad that you can’t even work your mouse and keyboard correctly! LOL [/B]

It's right on screen. Do you think a sudden gust of wind entered the chamber at that exact time ?

I don't post on here every waking hour. It's good to know you post while you're at work. Good to know you're earning your paycheck. I will add slacker to the list of qualities you already possess.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You took a weekend. You talked to loved ones, family members, your pastor and came back here and rightfully conceded. That was wise. Then you ignored their advice and started lashing out. It was a sickening display. You already conceded so sorry it's too late.

Not lashing at all just pointing out all of your concessions. 7 so far. Your weakness haunts you.

[QUOTE=14184383]Originally posted by quanchi112
[B]See above. Giggles with your family members.

See your 7 concessions.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So it's back to abandoning self defense and you're asserting he did so for Harry ? Your new tactics of throw as much shit as you can and hopefully something sticks isn't working. The wall is clean and your gun barrel is empty.

Not abandoning anything. Again there are several possible explanations besides yours. You’d know this if you weren’t so busy trying to strawman in hopes of making your argument less shit.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He is resurrected like as in part 2. The rest are different timelines. We see him completely ignorant when he runs into Link also. Do you think his memory is that of a goldfish ? My Lord make some sense, man. He also dies at the end of TP you goon.

Negative. There are only two different timelines and that was created in OoT with the whole 7 years thing. His reaction was before the whole “can’t be killed” thing was established with the Triforce of Power smart guy, everything was retconed after that. And him “dying” in TP is exactly what I said happens. He seems to die then he comes back and it’s changed to “oh he didn’t actually die” in the next game. I know it’s hard for you but try thinking from time to time.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This wasn't a sword swipe this was a fire attack meant to kill. Had it hit him it would kill him. You need to prove Dumbledore's intentions weren't to kill since that is the result had Voldemort not countered.

Your stance is “he was trying to kill cuz he did something that could have killed”. In duels you commonly use tactics that “could” kill without “killing” being your intent. You were given several examples of this yet choose to remain ignorant.

Originally posted by quanchi112
My logic is common sense. Yours is ass.

You’re quanman sense doesn’t cut it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The name of the game is proof. You can theorize all you want but without any evidence they don't hold any weight.

You have no proof. You have an action that you choose to view one way but is contradicted by everything about the character himself. There are other possibilities yet you refuse to acknowledge them cuz they don’t fit into your “oh he tried to kill him” theory. Your entire theory is based upon him having a “Falling Down” moment then snapping out of it seconds later. Horrible.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No,no, and nope.

Yeah yup and yerp

Originally posted by quanchi112
Because we only have what they do on screen. The rest is just speculation. I am debating what did happen. You aren't.

You’re debating what happened within a certain time frame and disregarding everything else. I’m bringing up his past, character traits, his other actions in the duel, and even the way he is after the duel. You just continue to pick and choose what counts in your head cuz that’s the only way your stance works. Once shown the whole picture you and your stance crumble.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You said spells can be blocked. Now you are saying they cannot. Which is it ? Your logic is worse than a poopsicle.

Classic quan starwman. Can every sword thrust be block by the same motion? Can every punch be blocked by the same hand/arm position? Your idiocy knows no limits.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, it hasn't. Voldemort can't just walk through fire like that. You have no choice but to concede this point.

Of course it has. Can kill =/= intended to kill and that has already been proven. You have no choice but to concede this point.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This isn't the ufc. There are no rules. These two were trying to kill each other so your comparison to a sport with rules is hilarious and stupid. At this point I am convinced someone else ties your shoes. You can deny drowning and fire kill people all you want. Go ahead and shut your eyes to the truth, trollerman.

Of course it isn’t the UFC yet your logic would allow nothing else. “If something CAN kill and is not released willingly then we have no choice but to assume it was meant to kill. Nothing else makes any sense ever!!!!” One was trying to kill. The other not so much. You can pretend “can kill= meant to kill” all you want but it doesn’t make it so.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Quit changing your theories. There were other avenues here Dumbledore chose to try and kill him with the fire.

Prove there were other avenues.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Your attempts to bash to take my off the beaten path of destroying you won't work.

Just calling it like it is.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The fire was used by Dumbledore right back at Voldemort. You can argue over the semantics over it but the point is he used the fire against Voldemort. Game. Set. Match.

And Spartacus used a sword against Varro/Crixus. Your point is still shit.

Originally posted by quanchi112
We both one pages ago.

Must have been in some thread I haven’t seen yet since all you seem to do is get destroyed here no matter who you’re up against.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, you do.

Negative. You made the claim. You said he was trying to kill so you need to prove something not I. And apparently all you can come u with is “ well it could kill so it had to be his intent” and “ well they are powerful and skilled so of course they are trying to kill”. Both horrible excuses for “proof” and both easily countered when simple in battle tactics are applied. If you have nothing else I’ll accept that concession.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Wrong.

Negative

Originally posted by quanchi112
Being dead means you are inactive. You no longer have the use of a physical body. So they weren't dead since they moved around. I guess you think dead people can walk around. You are a moron that would make Forrest Gump feel like a scholar. That is multiple deaths with fire for harry. Next Game. Next Match. Next Set. How many times do I have to beat you before you decide to listen to your family and hide in the basement.

Geez you’re stupid. They weren’t moving on their own. They were bewitched. Brooms are also inactive. They don’t just get up and sweep on their own but I’ll bet you’ll tell me the brooms in Fantasia were alive too. Wow you’re slow. It’s called magic genius. They were controlled by magic. Not alive

Originally posted by quanchi112
You can tell he is holding his breath and not comfortably breathing underwater.

I never disputed this. Look at you tryna get wins where there are none to be had.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Voldemort did break out because Dumbledore was trying to drown him. You went from an attempted ko to him wasting his time since you claimed Voldemort can now easily breathe underwater. LOL.

Are you claiming Voldemort would be unable to do something four students achieved so easily?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't argue on coulda woulda shouldas I argue honestly on what I see. You don't.

“He coulda pushed the fire in another direction”. “He woulda held him in the bubble until he died.” “He shoulda been going for the kill since Voldemort is more of a threat” Seems like “coulda woulda shouldas” is all you do

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you didn't. You just throw more theories out there which attacked your earlier theories. This isn't a court of law where you just have to raise reasonable doubt this is where you have to prove your case.

Of course I did. I can repost me doing exactly that if you wish. You made the claim it is yours to prove. So far you’ve done a horrible job. All you’ve been spouting is “Can kill= tried to kill” and let’s not forget “He’s super smart and talented yet he could never have been using any kind of strategy. Killing was the only thing on his mind” Oh and my personal favorite “He is like Michael Douglas from Falling Down. He doesn’t need a reason. Things like this just happen.” Face it you have no proof.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If you see him send the fire back you see it's under his control. You choosing to say that's speculation is asinine. Go ahead and be crazy.

So now pushing something away = it’s under your control? Jesus you just keep getting dumber and dumber. So if you push someone away from you they are now under your control? Pathetic.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He was defending his own life and the life of a boy. If you kill defending your own life and an innocent I don't think that's sadistic it's common sense you hillbilly.

Purposely drowning somebody is sadistic no matter which way you slice it. More quanman sense for ya.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This [B]Juggsatheory nonsense of yours is pathetic even for you. [/B]

Yet it’s destroying your quanman sense at every turn.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The dead don't get up and attack you therefore they aren't dead. Go down to the local morgue and ask the coroner how often the corpses try to kill him. Now after your stint in the psychiatric unit you can rethink your jackassery.

Wow! And here I thought you couldn’t get any dumber. They were controlled by magic. How often are the corpses at the morgue controlled by dark magic? Shit they were even explained in the damn movie as dead bodies. Guess this is another part you “didn’t find important enough to pay attention to” but decided you wanted to argue it anyway huh? You must really try to put the stupidest thing you can possibly think of on here.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It's right on screen. Do you think a sudden gust of wind entered the chamber at that exact time ?

A sudden gust of wind for what? WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't post on here every waking hour.

Of course you do. You have no life. You said you met me yet we’ve only spoken online. That kinda shows you sit in front of your computer all day long and the only way you "meet" someone new is on the interweb. Pathetic doesn’t even begin to describe you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It's good to know you post while you're at work. Good to know you're earning your paycheck. I will add slacker to the list of qualities you already possess.

They must not give you breaks over at the…. wait what am I saying? Your entire day is a break. Well except when your mom makes you take out the trash but then again how else is she supposed to get you to exercise?

Originally posted by juggerman
See your 7 concessions.

Not abandoning anything. Again there are several possible explanations besides yours. You’d know this if you weren’t so busy trying to strawman in hopes of making your argument less shit.[/B]

Negative. There are only two different timelines and that was created in OoT with the whole 7 years thing. His reaction was before the whole “can’t be killed” thing was established with the Triforce of Power smart guy, everything was retconed after that. And him “dying” in TP is exactly what I said happens. He seems to die then he comes back and it’s changed to “oh he didn’t actually die” in the next game. I know it’s hard for you but try thinking from time to time.[/B]

Your stance is “he was trying to kill cuz he did something that could have killed”. In duels you commonly use tactics that “could” kill without “killing” being your intent. You were given several examples of this yet choose to remain ignorant. [/B]

You’re quanman sense doesn’t cut it.

You have no proof. You have an action that you choose to view one way but is contradicted by everything about the character himself. There are other possibilities yet you refuse to acknowledge them cuz they don’t fit into your “oh he tried to kill him” theory. Your entire theory is based upon him having a “Falling Down” moment then snapping out of it seconds later. Horrible.[/B]

I have an action supported by what we see in the sixth film. Albus kills for Harry by means of fire. You also claimed he tried to ko Voldemort only to then say Voldemort might be able to breathe underwater. Watch the scene and tell me honestly if you think Voldemort was breathing underwater ? The funny thing is one theory destroys the other. You're a mess.

Yeah yup and yerp

You’re debating what happened within a certain time frame and disregarding everything else. I’m bringing up his past, character traits, his other actions in the duel, and even the way he is after the duel. You just continue to pick and choose what counts in your head cuz that’s the only way your stance works. Once shown the whole picture you and your stance crumble.[/B]

If someone doesn't kill anyone and then fires a gun into a person and narrowly misses their heart because they moved I don't say hey that isn't a killshot. You want to know why: because they never tried to kill anyone previous to that. I go by what I see. I don't think Dumbledore is a murderer no but I think he will kill in self defense of himself and Harry. That's exactly what he tried doing. In your world killing in self defense means you turn sadistic and evil.

Classic quan starwman. Can every sword thrust be block by the same motion? Can every punch be blocked by the same hand/arm position? Your idiocy knows no limits.[/B]

Of course it has. Can kill =/= intended to kill and that has already been proven. You have no choice but to concede this point.[/B]

Of course it isn’t the UFC yet your logic would allow nothing else. “If something CAN kill and is not released willingly then we have no choice but to assume it was meant to kill. Nothing else makes any sense ever!!!!” One was trying to kill. The other not so much. You can pretend “can kill= meant to kill” all you want but it doesn’t make it so. [/B]

Prove there were other avenues.

Just calling it like it is.

And Spartacus used a sword against Varro/Crixus. Your point is still shit.
[/B]

Nah, you are butthurt and know deep down you are sounding foolish.

My point is common sense. Yours is juggsatheory.

Must have been in some thread I haven’t seen yet since all you seem to do is get destroyed here no matter who you’re up against.

Negative. You made the claim. You said he was trying to kill so you need to prove something not I. And apparently all you can come u with is “ well it could kill so it had to be his intent” and “ well they are powerful and skilled so of course they are trying to kill”. Both horrible excuses for “proof” and both easily countered when simple in battle tactics are applied. If you have nothing else I’ll accept that concession.

Negative[/B]

Had Voldemort not reacted he would have died. There I just proved it. If fire is repelled back at the caster that's an attempt on your life. If someone traps you in a water bubble and attempts to drown you and you have to break out yourself that is another kill attempt.

Yep.

Geez you’re stupid. They weren’t moving on their own. They were bewitched. Brooms are also inactive. They don’t just get up and sweep on their own but I’ll bet you’ll tell me the brooms in Fantasia were alive too. Wow you’re slow. It’s called magic genius. They were controlled by magic. Not alive

I never disputed this. Look at you tryna get wins where there are none to be had.[/B]

Are you claiming Voldemort would be unable to do something four students achieved so easily?

“He coulda pushed the fire in another direction”. “He woulda held him in the bubble until he died.” “He shoulda been going for the kill since Voldemort is more of a threat” Seems like “coulda woulda shouldas” is all you do[/B]

If he pushed the fire away from him that leads me to believe he controls which direction it goes to. I guess you don't think so and it was a gust of wind. If someone cuts off your air supply for long enough you die. That isn't speculation, rocket scientist.

Of course I did. I can repost me doing exactly that if you wish. You made the claim it is yours to prove. So far you’ve done a horrible job. All you’ve been spouting is “Can kill= tried to kill” and let’s not forget “He’s super smart and talented yet he could never have been using any kind of strategy. Killing was the only thing on his mind” Oh and my personal favorite “He is like Michael Douglas from Falling Down. He doesn’t need a reason. Things like this just happen.” Face it you have no proof.

So now pushing something away = it’s under your control? Jesus you just keep getting dumber and dumber. So if you push someone away from you they are now under your control? Pathetic. [/B]

The reason is simple, hillbilly. Voldemort is trying to kill him and his student Harry Potter. He's trying to save both of their lives. To act like that isn't a reason or common sense is both an affront to humanity and something you should be embarrassed by since I had to explain that to you.

If fire is coming at you and you gesture it away in another direction completely away from yourself and Harry I'd say you have ****ing control over it. It's called magic you idiot. Acting as if dumbledore didn't control what his magic did is troll to the tenth power.

Originally posted by juggerman
Purposely drowning somebody is sadistic no matter which way you slice it. More quanman sense for ya.

Yet it’s destroying your quanman sense at every turn.

Wow! And here I thought you couldn’t get any dumber. They were controlled by magic. How often are the corpses at the morgue controlled by dark magic? Shit they were even explained in the damn movie as dead bodies. Guess this is another part you “didn’t find important enough to pay attention to” but decided you wanted to argue it anyway huh? You must really try to put the stupidest thing you can possibly think of on here.[/B]

They are dead bodies but are no longer dead when they about. A corpse is a dead body. LOL. LOL. LOL. Corpses don't try to murder you. Self defense kill. Point proven.

A sudden gust of wind for what? WTF are you talking about?

Of course you do. You have no life. You said you met me yet we’ve only spoken online. That kinda shows you sit in front of your computer all day long and the only way you "meet" someone new is on the interweb. Pathetic doesn’t even begin to describe you.[/B]

You sound really upset. Relax. LOl at your attempts. I imagine you are cutting yourself as you type. Loser.

They must not give you breaks over at the…. wait what am I saying? Your entire day is a break. Well except when your mom makes you take out the trash but then again how else is she supposed to get you to exercise? [/B]

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't concede. You do. boom.

Yet you have. Several times now. Your credibility is shot. I can repost your concessions if you like.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You have nothing to back your explanations. In fact it requires to suspend common sense and to tell logic to go eff itself. Sorry, I am logic to the maximum.

I have plenty to back it up. You have nothing. No need to apologize, I’m well aware your troll logic is maximum.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He does die. He then comes back. He died after part 1 and in part 2 when Link dies it says ganon is rezzed. That's a death, kid. I gave two examples. You're knowledge is awful.

Negative he gets defeated and comes back. But this point has been derailed enough. The original point was Link reflecting magic back at him is not Link “using” the magic himself.

Originally posted by quanchi112
His actions would have killed Voldemort. That's called a kill attempt.

Sword swings would kill. Not all are kill attempts. That’s called you ignoring facts and tactics in battle.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Dumbledore didn't spare him Voldemort countered. That's exactly what we see. You throw theories out without anything to back them. I still have that his actions would have killed Voldemort had he not countered.

Everything backs them up. You have nothing. In battle/duels many things “could kill” and yet are not intended to kill. You’ve lost.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Juggsatheory is pathetic.

Yet it still shits on your Quanman sense.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I have an action supported by what we see in the sixth film. Albus kills for Harry by means of fire.

Explain to me how he killed a corpse? Those bodies were basically dummies on strings. Moving due to magic doesn’t automatically give them life. You’re really trolling at this point.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You also claimed he tried to ko Voldemort only to then say Voldemort might be able to breathe underwater. Watch the scene and tell me honestly if you think Voldemort was breathing underwater ? The funny thing is one theory destroys the other. You're a mess.

Strawman. I never said he was breathing underwater.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Negative.

Well everything you’ve said so far was wrong might as well keep the trend going.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If someone doesn't kill anyone and then fires a gun into a person and narrowly misses their heart because they moved I don't say hey that isn't a killshot. You want to know why: because they never tried to kill anyone previous to that.

Completely different. A gunshot isn’t something that can be blocked/avoided easily by your average human. Now if say “Joe Schmo” shot a bullet at say Neo or Agent Smith it could be argued that he was just trying to get their attention/distract them. Kind of like Colossus tossing Wolverine at Magneto in X3. It legit could have killed Mags had he not stopped him. You of course would call this a “kill attempt” since it “could have killed” right? Pathetic as usual.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I go by what I see. I don't think Dumbledore is a murderer no but I think he will kill in self defense of himself and Harry. That's exactly what he tried doing. In your world killing in self defense means you turn sadistic and evil.

Negative

Originally posted by quanchi112
Pick an analogy which actually lines up with this scenario. It's hard to keep up with your multiple personalities.

They all fit perfectly within the events.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, it can. Choosing actions while in self defense can kill your opponent means in those kinds of circumstances you will kill. Dumbledore doesn't butcher people but to save lives and himself he will kill or try to.

Spartacus vs. Crixus. Everything “could kill” yet nothing was “intended to kill” by Spartacus, and he was defending himself. So again your point is meaningless.

Originally posted by quanchi112
In this situation he was defending his life in a fast paced duel amongst the scariest mage he's ever ran into. He's also trying to protect Harry from him so it's logical in self defense of himself and Harry he will kill. We see him but we also see Voldemort counter.

It’s far more logical that this smart and powerful wizard would use strategy in a duel, yet that seems to be impossible according to you. And seriously your argument is now that “the duel was too fast and too scary so he had to kill”? It getting worse every time.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't have to. You need to actually back one of your looney tunes arguments.

Of course you do. You made another claim now back it up.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Nah, you are butthurt and know deep down you are sounding foolish.

My point is common sense. Yours is juggsatheory.

Juggsatheory>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quanman sense.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Wrong. You are crying and resorting to personal attacks because you have no real points. No proof juggsatheory.

Don’t feel bad. The truth often hurts.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Had Voldemort not reacted he would have died. There I just proved it. If fire is repelled back at the caster that's an attempt on your life.

That isn’t proof since “can kill=/=intended to kill”. What else you got? Fire can be repelled back in a attempt to get the caster to end the spell. It can also be repelled in a attempt to distract the caster allowing you an opportunity to catch them off guard with an attack of your own. Both are not kill attempts even tho death can be a result and both ideas are not only completely backed up by Dumbledore’s personality and his past and future actions but are also supported by what happened immediately after. He sent it back and Voldemort “ended” the spell (which you have no proof Dumbledore could have done himself) and he took advantage of the opening and used a spell of his own. If that’s all you have I’m disappointed.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If someone traps you in a water bubble and attempts to drown you and you have to break out yourself that is another kill attempt.

But if someone holds you in a bubble and attempts to simply hold you there until back up arrives, knowing full well there is every reason to believe you wouldn’t be killed in the process (since we see underwater breathing is not rare in HP land) then it is not a kill attempt at all.

Again the only way your stance works is if we ignore everything else we’ve seen in the films. Kids figured out water breathing. No one was surprised. Voldemort knows WAY more magic then these kids. Logic (not that I expect you to be familiar with this at all) dictates Voldemort would be able to survive underwater conditions. And, thanks for bringing this up BTW, Dumbledore is well aware of Voldemort’s power and knowledge as proven by the quote you cited earlier about him “stretching the limits of magic farther than anyone”.

So unless you have some legitimate reason why he wouldn’t know what 4 vastly inferior wizards figured out and/or a reason why someone of Dumbledore’s intelligence and familiarity with Voldemort’s power and knowledge would assume he would drown you have nothing showing intent to kill. Again failure.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yep.

Geez, you are desperate. Again, wrong. They were killed by Dumbledore. Brooms don't have organs and what not. It's obvious they were killed by Dumbledore. They weren't dead since dead corpses don't lunge and try to kill you. LOL.

Nah son

As much as I’d like to believe you are this stupid I just can’t. You know better. So having organs means it’s alive now? Dumbledore still had organs and “what not” when he was killed, guess that means he didn’t really die huh? Bacteria don’t have organs and “what not”, guess that means they are as void of life as brooms right? Epic Quanfail.

If someone were invisible, went to a morgue, and started moving the body to scare the people there would you honestly claim the body came back to life? Or maybe the kids from “Chronicle” lift a body up with tk and have it “dance” around, would you also argue the body came back to life? I mean they still have “organs and what not” right? The bodies moved because they were being controlled by dark magic. It’s that simple.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am claiming it's obvious from that scene that Voldemort is holding his breath. You trying to take a shot at Voldemort for this is you being dishonest. If you seriously think the scene implied he was fine and could have breathed underwater for hours you're lying.

I’m not trying to take a shot at all. I’m saying that it’s more than likely he can survive underwater. You seem to believe he would have died if he didn’t escape right away. Seems like I’m giving your boy more credit than you are. Also please quote me saying he would need to breathe underwater for “hours”.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If he pushed the fire away from him that leads me to believe he controls which direction it goes to. I guess you don't think so and it was a gust of wind. If someone cuts off your air supply for long enough you die. That isn't speculation, rocket scientist.

So now he’s just controlling the direction? Before you claimed he controlled the fire itself. So which one is it?

If someone cuts off your air supply AND you have no way of breathing you die. Voldemort had a way of breathing unless of course you want to argue he wouldn’t know what kids figured out so easily. And you just deciding Dumbledore would have held it until Voldy died IS speculation tard.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Common sense is something I wish I could give to people such as yourself.

I rebuke your god awful Quanman sense!

Originally posted by quanchi112
The reason is simple, hillbilly. Voldemort is trying to kill him and his student Harry Potter. He's trying to save both of their lives. To act like that isn't a reason or common sense is both an affront to humanity and something you should be embarrassed by since I had to explain that to you.

So Dumbledore is incapable of attempting to defend himself and others without a mindset to kill? Again your only argument is “could kill so killing was intended” which has been destroyed over and over again.

Originally posted by quanchi112
If fire is coming at you and you gesture it away in another direction completely away from yourself and Harry I'd say you have ****ing control over it. It's called magic you idiot. Acting as if dumbledore didn't control what his magic did is troll to the tenth power.

Controlling what his magic did and controlling Voldemort’s attack are two totally different things. Nice troll tactic tho. He pushed it away like a person might push away an attacker’s knife wielding arm. Doesn’t give them control over the knife tho, just shows they controlled their own hand and arm well.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Drowning someone in self defense is defending yourself. Had he showed up at Voldemort's house and did so maybe you'd have a point. Voldemort wants to kill both he and Harry yet you call him a monster for trying to kill in self defense. Hilarious.

Holding someone, whom can reasonably be expected to survive underwater, in a water bubble is not a kill attempt.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The only thing you have destroyed is your reputation and common sense.

Actually I’ve destroyed your silly arguments and your Quanman sense.

Originally posted by quanchi112
They are dead bodies but are no longer dead when they about. A corpse is a dead body. LOL. LOL. LOL.

They are still dead. They are being moved about by an outside source.

[QUOTE=14186285]Originally posted by quanchi112
[B]Corpses don't try to murder you. Self defense kill. Point proven.

And brooms don’t make you fly. They don’t use real world physics all the time in this story. Point unproven. Just like the rest of your dribble.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am mocking you. You aren't even brihgt enough to understand simple insults.

You’re not even bright enough to spell “bright” LOL!!!!! And I understand your trolling just fine boy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You sound really upset. Relax. LOl at your attempts. I imagine you are cutting yourself as you type. Loser.

I’m sure you imagine plenty of thing in your sad lonely little world.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You are defrauding your company by posting here. Post at home not on your company's time. You're a joke.

Defrauding by using the internet on my breaks? Wow you are a dumb one. I’d rather spend time with my loved ones while at home and not be draped over the computer for hours at a time like the pathetic antisocial loser you’ve proven yourself to be.