Voldemort vs. Sauron

Originally posted by Robtard
That Sauron was out of his body. This is the Sauron in armor.

His armor did nothing for him even when he had his body. His powers were based off his ring.

Originally posted by Robtard
So we can conclude that AK would kill spiders (dare I blanket and say regular animals?) in other film universes too 🙂

Lack of proof isn't proof. The way it works: The person who makes the claim is the one who needs to support it. You're trying the "what I say is true until someone disproves it" tactics 🙂

AK does kill. Now show proof it can kill Sauron instead of using no limit fallacies 🙂

As it stands, you've yet to back up your claims and are making baseless assertions 🙂 "AK kills Sauron because I say so" is not a proper debate. 🙂

Ak kills. That's the specific function of the spell. If you don't believe it works against him you need to prove it.

If someone claims Mindrape and there are no Mindrape resistance feats you don't say prove he can Mindrape him. The onus is on you to prove why it won't work since the ability is already proven.

🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
Which film did this happen in?

Originally posted by StealthRanger
Of course, Sauron with no body has a better destructive feat than everything in HP.

And Supra, plz stop dickriding quan, at least show some dignity will you?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zV7jTYTK6Us

Even with his ring and magical mace he has never summoned the type of power shown here

YouTube video

Originally posted by quanchi112
It kills spiders and magical wielders. Sauron wields magic and can't live without his ring.

Ak kills. That's the specific function of the spell. If you don't believe it works against him you need to prove it.

If someone claims Mindrape and there are no Mindrape resistance feats you don't say prove he can Mindrape him. The onus is on you to prove why it won't work since the ability is already proven.

🙂

A ridiculous train of thought; if it can even be called that 🙂

Again trying to shift the burden on proof. You made the claim "AK will kill Sauron"; so you need to prove it 🙂

Incorrect agian. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the claim; that is debating 101. Better go back to school 🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
A ridiculous train of thought; if it can even be called that 🙂

Again trying to shift the burden on proof. You made the claim "AK will kill Sauron"; so you need to prove it 🙂

Incorrect agian. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the claim; that is debating 101. Better go back to school 🙂

So you never saw the Desolation of Smaug?

Originally posted by Robtard
A ridiculous train of thought; if it can even be called that 🙂

Again trying to shift the burden on proof. You made the claim "AK will kill Sauron"; so you need to prove it 🙂

Incorrect agia. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the claim; that is debating 101. Better go back to school 🙂

Ak works. Proven. If you feel he can resist the burden falls onto you.

If you make a claim and prove the attack has worked then it is on you to say he can resist. You saying nuh uh isn't a rebuttal of merit.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Absurd.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zV7jTYTK6Us

So destroying a shield with no durability feats to it's name. Yeah that's cool

Originally posted by quanchi112
It kills whose who possess magic. Sauron can be killed by other means and has.

Ak works. Proven. If you feel he can resist the burden falls onto you.

If you make a claim and prove the attack has worked then it is on you to say he can resist. You saying nuh uh isn't a rebuttal of merit.

"Whose who" Are you some sort of odd owl? Anyhow, the same no limit fallacy, just slightly tweaked is still: "AK killed a wizard, so it can kill Sauron" nonsense.

Not proven. You're still making the same baseless assertions and demanding like a child that it is true until someone else proves you wrong. That is shifting the burden of proof 🙂

Except of course you've yet to prove your claim of "AK will kill Sauron.". Any time now would be good, as its been 15 pages and your same dishonest tactics get boring 🙂

Originally posted by StealthRanger
So destroying a shield with no durability feats to it's name. Yeah that's cool

I knew someone would be stupid enough to say that.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X34HPAxlyd8

1:56 in. If you touch it completely disintegrates you.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yA48zf-F9Tg

But look at Sauron. Your ignorance is enjoyable.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Whose who" Are you some sort of odd owl? Anyhow, the same no limit fallacy, just slightly tweaked is still: "AK killed a wizard, so it can kill Sauron" nonsense.

Not proven. You're still making the same baseless assertions and demanding like a child that it is true until someone else proves you wrong. That is shifting the burden of proof 🙂

Except of course you've yet to prove your claim of "AK will kill Sauron.". Any time now would be good, as its been 15 pages and your same dishonest tactics get boring 🙂

You said it can't kill him. I already proved it kills.

Ak kills. Unless you can prove he resists then he dies since I proved the ability.

Ok, so it tanks attacks with no destructive feats to their name. How very useless

And an offensive feat rather than durability. Yawn

Sauron, yeah, casually destroyed a large tower and vaporised Gandalf's staff by being near it. Voldemort's never generated that much energy

Originally posted by quanchi112
Less has killed him. He has died. This isn't someone who has shown he can resist this type of spell.

You said it can't kill him. I already proved it kills.

Ak kills. Unless you can prove he resists then he dies since I proved the ability.

Ignoring that AK won't separate him from the One Ring nor will it destroy the One Ring, which is what we see in both instances 🙂 Back by the films.

You have yet to prove your "AK will kill Sauron" claim 🙂

Back to the "my assertions are true unless someone disproves them!" tactics. That's shifting the burden of proof again 🙂

I'm going to go with Sauron because the films he's in aren't shit.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm going to go with Sauron because the films he's in aren't shit.

But what screen feats does he have besides him wielding the ring with the mace that are greater then Vold?

Voldemort just looks like some cancer patient.

Originally posted by StealthRanger
Ok, so it tanks attacks with no destructive feats to their name. How very useless

And an offensive feat rather than durability. Yawn

Sauron, yeah, casually destroyed a large tower and vaporised Gandalf's staff by being near it. Voldemort's never generated that much energy

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcHTxO-Eu90

50 some seconds in wrecking the same kinds of useless shit Sauron has. Yet you foolishly claim the shield has no durability feats. What durability feats does Sauron's structure have ?

We see Potter wizards wrecking these kinds of things and Voldemort destroying a shield that survived thousands of blasts. Gandalf had his staff destroyed by the Witch King. It was a more powerful version of Gandalf to boot. 😂

Originally posted by BackFire
Voldemort just looks like some cancer patient.

😆

Originally posted by Robtard
Ignoring that AK won't separate him from the One Ring nor will it destroy the One Ring, which is what we see in both instances 🙂 Back by the films.

You have yet to prove your "AK will kill Sauron" claim 🙂

Back to the "my assertions are true unless someone disproves them!" tactics. That's shifting the burden of proof again 🙂

You need to prove he can resist it.

I proved the Ak works. If you feel he can survive it then prove it.