Can the Sword of Gryffindor destroy Sauron's ring ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Lotr lore only relates to its native universe not other ones.

Potter magic seems more powerful than a dwarf failing to destroy the one ring. If that isn't the greatest resistance feat name one.

We go by resistance feats. Horcruxes have resisted better so logically the sword can destroy the ring just like Horcruxes.

Yet LoTR Lore > what you need to happen.

Dodged listing "better resistance feats" yet again 😂 Coward. Repeat: The One Ring's greatest feat is having to be destroyed in Mount Doom and surviving for a full minute, even though that's its weakness.

Repeat: List these "resisted better" feats. Just saying "HP is better!" won't cut it, which is what your argument alaways boils down to. Make a list or STFU already, you dodger.

Not according to the OP; it's questioning the sword's ability, that means the burden is on those backing the sword.

If you don't like it, Blame the person who made the thread.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet LoTR Lore > what you need to happen.

Great, it "seems" more powerful. Glad you think that. Repeat: The One Ring's greatest feat is having to be destroyed in Mount Doom and surviving for a full minute, even though that's its weakness.

Repeat: List these "resisted better" feats. Just saying "HP is better!" won't cut it, which is what your argument alaways boils down to. Make a list or STFU already, you dodger.

There are no feats, that is why he keeps trying to shift the burden to other people, what makes this even more pathetic is that the very OP(which he posted) puts the burden on those backing the sword.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet LoTR Lore > what you need to happen.

Dodged listing "better resistance feats" yet again 😂 Coward. Repeat: The One Ring's greatest feat is having to be destroyed in Mount Doom and surviving for a full minute, even though that's its weakness.

Repeat: List these "resisted better" feats. Just saying "HP is better!" won't cut it, which is what your argument alaways boils down to. Make a list or STFU already, you dodger.

The guy is malnourished and not durable either.

Lotr lore only deals with Lotr not Potter verse.

Harry Potter magic can't destroy it. Harry Potter magic is more powerful than a dwarfs axe.

Quan, your argument is equivalent to

You: I can make ice cream fall from the sky
Me: Prove that you can
You: Prove that I can't

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not according to the OP; it's questioning the sword's ability, that means the burden is on those backing the sword.

If you don't like it, Blame the person who made the thread.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It's both questioning the swords power and the rings resistance. You really are dense.

"Can the Sword of Gryffindor destroy Sauron's ring" it's questioning the sword's ability, that means the burden is on those backing the sword.

If you don't like it, Blame the person who started the thread.

Originally posted by Silent Master
[b]"Can the Sword of Gryffindor destroy Sauron's ring" it's questioning the sword's ability, that means the burden is on those backing the sword.

If you don't like it, Blame the person who started the thread. [/B]

"Can the Sword of Gryffindor destroy Sauron's ring" it's questioning the sword's ability, that means the burden is on those backing the sword.

If you don't like it, Blame the person who started the thread.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It was forged in Mount Doom which didn't even kill Gollum immediately. 😂

The guy is malnourished and not durable either.

Lotr lore only deals with Lotr not Potter verse.

Harry Potter magic can't destroy it. Harry Potter magic is more powerful than a dwarfs axe.

LoTR Lore > You.

And you dodged yet again. Here you go:

Originally posted by quanchi112
We go by resistance feats. Horcruxes have resisted better so logically the sword can destroy the ring just like Horcruxes.

Repeat: You made the claim, support it. List these better resistance feats or STFU already.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Quan, your argument is equivalent to

You: I can make ice cream fall from the sky
Me: Prove that you can
You: Prove that I can't

Quanchi112 debating 101.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Quan, your argument is equivalent to

You: I can make ice cream fall from the sky
Me: Prove that you can
You: Prove that I can't

Originally posted by Robtard
Quanchi112 debating 101.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoTR Lore > You.

And you dodged yet again. Here you go:

Repeat: You made the claim, support it. List these better resistance feats or STFU already.

Deathly Hallows part 1, kiddo.

Originally posted by Silent Master
[b]"Can the Sword of Gryffindor destroy Sauron's ring" it's questioning the sword's ability, that means the burden is on those backing the sword.

If you don't like it, Blame the person who started the thread. [/B]

Originally posted by quanchi112
Lotr lore only deals with Lotr characters.

Deathly Hallows part 1, kiddo.

LoTR Lore > You. Deal with it already.

Another dodge. List these "greater resistance feats" or just STFU already.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoTR Lore > You. Deal with it already.

Another dodge. List these "better resistance feats" or just STFU already.

In Deathly Hallows Part 1. No spell works or can destroy a Horcrux in an object alone.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I'm responding to Lotr lore to which you're trying to parakeet your way out of.

In Deathly Hallows Part 1. No spell works or can destroy a Horcrux in an object alone.

Nope. You're making shit up as usual.

WRONG STILL. Fiend Fire destroyed a Horcrux. Told you this before, but you cried.

"Crabbe ended up conjuring Fiendfyre destroying much of the Room and accidentally killing himself and the Horcrux". Try harder?

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. You're making shit up as usual.

WRONG STILL. Fiend Fire destroyed a Horcrux. Told you this before, but you cried.

"Crabbe ended up conjuring Fiendfyre destroying much of the Room and accidentally killing himself and the Horcrux". Try harder?

You're so ignorant you're citing book knowledge.

I can't take you seriously.

Movie is quite different, chump.

Originally posted by quanchi112
😂 😂 😂

You're so ignorant you're citing book knowledge.

I can't take you seriously.

That's a wiki page of the film and it explans the differences/changes. There's even pictures for you, dummy.

So another dodge. It's your only real defense.