Originally posted by Epicurus
No, that's a no-limits-fallacy, because we don't know for sure that HPverse magic works the same way as LoTR magic.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.
Unfortunately, no-limits-fallacy works both ways. Now what you're doing is putting a no-limits-fallacy on the durability of the Balrog. So simply because it's big and tough and can survive a lot of PHYSICAL punishment basically you assume that it's immune to whatever the wizards throw at it.
So basically, I'm accused of no-limits-fallacy because I say crucio works on anyone that can feel pain unless proven otherwise. And you're doing the same no-limits-fallacy because you're saying the Balrog can withstand anything unless proven otherwise.
Besides, I'm not asking them to prove a negative. I'm asking you guys to prove that the Balrog CAN withstand crucio. That's actually a positive rather than a negative.
You're right that Potter and LOTR magic doesn't work both ways, so we also don't know that the Balrog can withstand Potterverse magic.
Besides, movie Gandalf didn't really show that much impressive magical prowess, yet he still beat the Balrog.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately, no-limits-fallacy works both ways. Now what you're doing is putting a no-limits-fallacy on the durability of the Balrog. So simply because it's big and tough and can survive a lot of PHYSICAL punishment basically you assume that it's immune to whatever the wizards throw at it.So basically, I'm accused of no-limits-fallacy because I say crucio works on anyone that can feel pain unless proven otherwise. And you're doing the same no-limits-fallacy because you're saying the Balrog can withstand anything unless proven otherwise.
Besides, I'm not asking them to prove a negative. I'm asking you guys to prove that the Balrog CAN withstand crucio. That's actually a positive rather than a negative.
You're right that Potter and LOTR magic doesn't work both ways, so we also don't know that the Balrog can withstand Potterverse magic.
Besides, movie Gandalf didn't really show that much impressive magical prowess, yet he still beat the Balrog.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately, no-limits-fallacy works both ways. Now what you're doing is putting a no-limits-fallacy on the durability of the Balrog. So simply because it's big and tough and can survive a lot of PHYSICAL punishment basically you assume that it's immune to whatever the wizards throw at it.
No, but it is probably highly resistant to a spell that can only torture (Not kill) humans, considering it fell several kilometers while fighting Gandalf and survived just fine.
So basically, I'm accused of no-limits-fallacy because I say crucio works on anyone that can feel pain unless proven otherwise. And you're doing the same no-limits-fallacy because you're saying the Balrog can withstand anything unless proven otherwise.
No actually, no one said that the Balrog can withstand anything unless proven otherwise, you're distorting other people's arguments to make up for your own inadequacies. What people did say is that Crucio has only been proven effective on things human size and strength or less. The Balrog is bigger, stronger, more durable, and made of different stuff than the Balrog.
Besides, I'm not asking them to prove a negative. I'm asking you guys to prove that the Balrog CAN withstand crucio. That's actually a positive rather than a negative.
I don't think you understand how burden of proof works.
You claim that Crucio can work on a thirty foot tall, considerably superhuman demon of fire and shadow.
Okay. Prove it.
You're right that Potter and LOTR magic doesn't work both ways, so we also don't know that the Balrog can withstand Potterverse magic.
Most Potterverse magic is fairly hands-on, aka physical in effect. People take being hit by spells like being hit by baseball bats.
Besides, movie Gandalf didn't really show that much impressive magical prowess, yet he still beat the Balrog.
He could send forth a shockwave that sent dozens, maybe hundreds of goblins flying off their feet.
Voldemort's shockwave could only knock down a single old man.
Where is your God now?
Originally posted by NemeBro
No, but it is probably highly resistant to a spell that can only torture (Not kill) humans, considering it fell several kilometers while fighting Gandalf and survived just fine.
So in short, you are assuming that it's resistant to a spell simply because it was resistant to physical injury. Physical is not equivalent to magical.
No actually, no one said that the Balrog can withstand anything unless proven otherwise, you're distorting other people's arguments to make up for your own inadequacies. What people did say is that Crucio has only been proven effective on things human size and strength or less. The Balrog is bigger, stronger, more durable, and made of different stuff than the Balrog.
What people are saying is that the Balrog can somehow withstand crucio, a magical attack, despite being shown that 1.) It's vulnerable to magic and 2.) it can feel pain.
I don't think you understand how burden of proof works.You claim that Crucio can work on a thirty foot tall, considerably superhuman demon of fire and shadow.
Okay. Prove it.
If this is how proving stuff works, then it would be stupid to have movie versus forums. Or course I can't prove that crucio works on the balrog, simply because they'e from different movies.
However, if you think that a magical attack can't harm or work on the Balrog, you also have to prove that. You forget that the Balrog was killed by a single wizard.
Most Potterverse magic is fairly hands-on, aka physical in effect. People take being hit by spells like being hit by baseball bats.
Hands-on? Wow, you need to rewatch the potter movies. If anything, it's the LOTR magic that's fairly hands-on, most delivering a physical, almost telekinetic like effect. The potterverse magic on the other hand is way more diverse. Where you can control minds (imperio), immobilize and stupify your opponents, change your appearance, etc.
This single statement of yours proves how little you know about the Potter movies.
He could send forth a shockwave that sent dozens, maybe hundreds of goblins flying off their feet.Voldemort's shockwave could only knock down a single old man.
Where is your God now?
You mean those goblins that dwarves were literally just pushing out of their way? Uhuh, not quite that impressive. Especially since all it did was knock them off their feet and not even knock them out. Compare that to spells that can insta-kill, Gandalf doesn't seem that impressive.
Originally posted by FrothByte
IIRC, you can actually see it scream in pain when Gandalf hit it.
For the record, I don't know if I'd say that the Balrog wins, in fact I think it's very likely that Hogwarts smacks him down through sheer numbers and firepower, albeit at great costs, but I don't think for a second that crucio (if it's even viable here) will be a OHKO. When used by people who aren't used to it (i.e. all of Hogwarts) it isn't powerful enough to completely incapacitate a human, yet we're to believe that it will bring a giant flame-shadow demon to its knees?
Originally posted by FrothByte
You mean those goblins that dwarves were literally just pushing out of their way? Uhuh, not quite that impressive. Especially since all it did was knock them off their feet and not even knock them out. Compare that to spells that can insta-kill, Gandalf doesn't seem that impressive.
It knocked down shit loads and sent many flying a great distant and at considerable speed, it even tore apart part of the wooden structure (not shown in pic)which was fairly far away from ground zero of the blast.
Originally posted by FrothByte
So in short, you are assuming that it's resistant to a spell simply because it was resistant to physical injury. Physical is not equivalent to magical.
Yes, I am assuming that something highly resistant to physical injury is resistant to a spell that causes physical injury.
Do you even ****ing lift?
What people are saying is that the Balrog can somehow withstand crucio, a magical attack, despite being shown that 1.) It's vulnerable to magic and 2.) it can feel pain.
I don't know where this "vulnerable to magic" shit is coming from, it was vulnerable to having a supercharged with lightning elven sword rammed into it, it doesn't have some inexplicable weakness to magic per say, but magic packs more punch than brute force alone.
If this is how proving stuff works, then it would be stupid to have movie versus forums. Or course I can't prove that crucio works on the balrog, simply because they'e from different movies.
You could, if there was evidence to support it, like it being used on a dragon or something. A shame no such evidence exists.
However, if you think that a magical attack can't harm or work on the Balrog, you also have to prove that. You forget that the Balrog was killed by a single wizard.
A single wizard with the physical strength and stamina to fight it for days. Gandalf is not as flashy or versatile as HP wizards, but he could punch any of their faces out the back of their skulls. That is how he defeated the Balrog.
Hands-on? Wow, you need to rewatch the potter movies. If anything, it's the LOTR magic that's fairly hands-on, most delivering a physical, almost telekinetic like effect.
Sure, I guess the telekinesis does that.
What about the One Ring, which works through far more subtle means?
The potterverse magic on the other hand is way more diverse. Where you can control minds (imperio), immobilize and stupify your opponents, change your appearance, etc.
Yet in most duels, it amounts to very tangible physical effects, like Sectumsempra basically cutting you as if with a blade.
This single statement of yours proves how little you know about the Potter movies.
I am smarter and better than you.
You mean those goblins that dwarves were literally just pushing out of their way? Uhuh, not quite that impressive.
Those dwarves would knock down every wizard in Harry Potter physically. They are physically stronger than literally every wizard that isn't a half giant or some shit.
Especially since all it did was knock them off their feet and not even knock them out. Compare that to spells that can insta-kill, Gandalf doesn't seem that impressive.
Gandalf did it to dozens, maybe hundreds of them.
That is far more impressive than knocking out a single human being.
Seriously? Is this the best argument you can muster? This is ****ing sad.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Unfortunately, no-limits-fallacy works both ways. Now what you're doing is putting a no-limits-fallacy on the durability of the Balrog. So simply because it's big and tough and can survive a lot of PHYSICAL punishment basically you assume that it's immune to whatever the wizards throw at it.So basically, I'm accused of no-limits-fallacy because I say crucio works on anyone that can feel pain unless proven otherwise. And you're doing the same no-limits-fallacy because you're saying the Balrog can withstand anything unless proven otherwise.
Besides, I'm not asking them to prove a negative. I'm asking you guys to prove that the Balrog CAN withstand crucio. That's actually a positive rather than a negative.
You're right that Potter and LOTR magic doesn't work both ways, so we also don't know that the Balrog can withstand Potterverse magic.
Besides, movie Gandalf didn't really show that much impressive magical prowess, yet he still beat the Balrog.
That's because crucio has only ever been used on organic lifeforms with very low durability in the Potterverse. If it worked on something like a ghost or a dragon(whose thick hides are supposed to be resistant to most spells), then you'd have a point. The Balrog isn't made of skin tissue.
Lol, you were asking them to prove that it doesn't work on the Balrog. You can do as much of a word-play here as possible, rephrase your statements as much as you like, but end of the day it's asking them to prove a negative. That is not how debating works.
Nobody is saying that the Balrog can completely withstand Potterverse magic. As I mentioned before, they could seal it off or bfr it. Hogwarts has dozens of mages that can deal with the Balrog as a team, but saying that a one-shot with a spell we don't even will work is possible against this thing here is asinine imo.
Movie Gandalf had his highs and lows. The Gandalf that beat the Balrog was a high-end one imo.
Originally posted by Robtard
There's no need to start downplaying, that just leads to silly arguments and ruined threads.It knocked down shit loads and sent many flying a great distant and at considerable speed, it even tore apart part of the wooden structure (not shown in pic)which was fairly far away from ground zero of the blast.
Originally posted by Epicurus
No, what you're doing, equating Potterverse magic with LOTRmagic is a called a no-limits fallacy. I already gave an example of the most powerful unforgivable curse being ineffective against materials made from rock or steel.That's because crucio has only ever been used on organic lifeforms with very low durability in the Potterverse. If it worked on something like a ghost or a dragon(whose thick hides are supposed to be resistant to most spells), then you'd have a point. The Balrog isn't made of skin tissue.
Lol, you were asking them to prove that it doesn't work on the Balrog. You can do as much of a word-play here as possible, rephrase your statements as much as you like, but end of the day it's asking them to prove a negative. That is not how debating works.
Nobody is saying that the Balrog can completely withstand Potterverse magic. As I mentioned before, they could seal it off or bfr it. Hogwarts has dozens of mages that can deal with the Balrog as a team, but saying that a one-shot with a spell we don't even will work is possible against this thing here is asinine imo.
Movie Gandalf had his highs and lows. The Gandalf that beat the Balrog was a high-end one imo.
You gave an example of an inanimate object withstanding a spell. The balrog is not an inanimate object. lol.
The Gandalf that beat the balrog was Gandalf the Grey. It was only through that experience that he became Gandalf the white. But regardless of whether he's grey or white, can you give me an example of what makes you think he's so much more powerful than the Hogwartz wizards? Movie feats only please.