Originally posted by juggermanI never conceded whereas you took a weekend to do so.
Yet you have. Several times now. Your credibility is shot. I can repost your concessions if you like.
You haven't backed up one claim. You seem to think debating is throwing unproven theory on top of unproven theory.
I have plenty to back it up. You have nothing. No need to apologize, I’m well aware your troll logic is maximum.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.[/B]
Link is deflecting the magic so the intent is to send it back in an offensive manner. Link also isn't a mage like Dumbledore who has displayed impressive control over magic.
You said earlier that fire is a kill attempt. You then upon realizing I showed you up exposing your ignorance that you didn't really mean it.Sword swings would kill. Not all are kill attempts. That’s called you ignoring facts and tactics in battle.
Everything backs them up. You have nothing. In battle/duels many things “could kill” and yet are not intended to kill. You’ve lost.
Yet it still shits on your Quanman sense.[/B]
Drowning and the fire from fiendfyre kills.
You are juggsaretard.
Dumbledore destroyed the bodies. I guess you didn't see this scene either. A corpse can't attack you so it isn't dead.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.
Strawman. I never said he was breathing underwater.
Well everything you’ve said so far was wrong might as well keep the trend going.[/B]
Then why bring it up. You seem to make irrelevant point after irrelevant point.
False.
So shooting a bullet is just to get someone's attention ? If they shoot it in the air but if they aim it at the person then you need to prove they didn't want to kill. You are just flat out ignorant.
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.Negative
They all fit perfectly within the events.[/B]
Positive.
Not at all.
I am not saying this is impossible but we know that was his intention. You need to prove so here hence the point. if you can't then you concede. you seem to think giving another example somehow matters here in this example.
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.[/B]
He countered in the duel against a peer. These two are at the top of their game. He was defending himself and in self defense did try to kill. I guess self preservation means cold blooded killer in the juggsaretard verse.
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.Of course you do. You made another claim now back it up.
Juggsatheory>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quanman sense.
[/B]
You haven't backed one claim yet.
Quanchi>>>>>>>juggsatheory.
You are a stranger to truth.
Don’t feel bad. The truth often hurts.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.[/B]
So now he repelled it because he knew Voldemort would counter and end the mayhem. 😂
If you think he had other goals then you need to prove it because as it is the fire would kill Voldemort. Prove Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to survive the fire.
So despite Dumbledore cancelling out fire minus a wand and showing tremendous control over fire of his own and taking control of this fire he has no control ? Do you even listen to yourself.
You acknowledged Voldemort wasn't breathing underwater so until you prove he can breathe underwater then you are just doing another terrible job of speculating. You need to prove he was just holding him until backup arrived. Prove something, troll.
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. [/B]
Voldemort's magic isn't all knowing or all extensive. He is the greatest dark wizard but he knows dick about love. Harry's mother was inferior to him in a duel but he didn't know love magic. He was aware of what magic Voldemort exceeded in. Quote anyone who said Voldemort exceeds in underwater breathing.
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”. [/B]
You made the claim so the burden is on you.
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.Nah son[/B]
Yes, son.
Dumbledore wasn't animating his physical body. Huge diff there, kiddo. LOL. I know you are this stupid.
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. [/B]
You can tell he is holding his breath. You can be a troll and pretend anything. I could care less but don't insult my fans on kmc. I never said he'd die immediately but I do think Dumbledore tried drowning him. Voldemort countered like the boss he is.
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. Prove someone went invisible in HBP. If you can't then you just brought up juggsatheory.[QUOTE]
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”. [/B]