Originally posted by Robtard
Not really a good analogy. We know elves can be hurt by arrows, blades and such, so it stands to reason a bullet would harm them.So insisting that any and all spells would work on a Balrog who is utterly alien to the subjects some of the spells worked on is using a no limits fallacy.
ie we can conclude that those blast which made small craters in stone that the Death Eaters like to use would likely work on the Balrog, since it's a rock-like being that crumbled when it was destroyed.
It's actually a pretty good analogy. We know that the Balrog can be harmed and killed by magic. So I don't see why you suddenly think it's immune to Hogwartz' magic.
Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm waiting for proof on how crucio won't work. This is like saying Legolas is immune to bullets since no elven creature have ever been shown to be harmed by bullets. This is reverse thinking. It should be, until Legolas proves he is bulletproof then he is considered vulnerable. Same with the Balrog.Crucio is not a physical manifestation of pain or injury. It's magical and psychological. The Balrog CAN feel pain, and it has been proven to be vulnerable to magic since Gandalf did defeat it with magic. So why won't crucio work on it? Because it is made of rocks? That's some real shallow reasoning there.
Besides, it's not just crucio. Hogwartz can throw a whole lot of immobilization spells at it. And now people are going to tell me "prove that immobilization spells work". And I say, prove that immobilization spells don't work.
Originally posted by Epicurus
Anyways, since nobody bothered to respond to my query regarding the Basilisk, I say that with the snake they win. Without it, stalemate or the Hogwarts team bfrs it or seals it off. Apart from these few tactics, I don't see most of the Hogwarts staff actually going toe-to-toe with the thing.
Originally posted by FrothByteExactly. They have no evidence just that it is a Balrog and lying about the spell having to do with the durability of its victim.
It's actually a pretty good analogy. We know that the Balrog can be harmed and killed by magic. So I don't see why you suddenly think it's immune to Hogwartz' magic.
Originally posted by Epicurus
I get where you're coming from, but you can't ask people to prove a negative. The exact mechanism behind how the curse works was never explained in the movies(nor in the books either iirc), and seeing how it was never used on anyone beyond human-level durability, I believe the opposition is validated in their question as to whether or not the curse would incapacitate the Balrog as well.
The opposition is not valid because:
1. The Balrog was shown to be affected, hurt and eventually killed by magic
2. Crucio (and every other spell the wizards use) is magic.
To simply make an assertion that the Balrog is immune to the spell simply because "he's big and tough and scarier than humans" is irrational and derives from no concrete evidence. It would have been a somewhat valid argument if crucio has been shown not to work on someone with superior durability.
Plus, Balrog was defeated by a single mage. Here he'll be facing a whole school of them.
Originally posted by FrothByte
The opposition is not valid because:1. The Balrog was shown to be affected, hurt and eventually killed by magic
2. Crucio (and every other spell the wizards use) is magic.
To simply make an assertion that the Balrog is immune to the spell simply because "he's big and tough and scarier than humans" is irrational and derives from no concrete evidence. It would have been a somewhat valid argument if crucio has been shown not to work on someone with superior durability.
Plus, Balrog was defeated by a single mage. Here he'll be facing a whole school of them.
Actually it's not irrational at all, seeing that the curse has never been used against anything more than an organic meatbag, and the most powerful unforgivable curse(AK) is ineffective against non-living objects like metal, rocks etc.
It's just the way debating works; you never ask the opposition to prove a negative. You need to prove your claim that the spell can function against a creature with such a unique physiology like the Balrog, not the other way round.