Voldemort vs McClane

Originally posted by quanchi112
Cite specific examples. I can do so but you cannot.

"irony"

McClane's quicker (DH1) on the draw and has fantastic aim (DH3)when he needs, ergo, Voldermort gets a face full of bullets due to those McClane feats. You can't counter this and will continue to freak out because Voldemort loses again

Originally posted by Robtard
"It blocked an arrow, so it can block any and all piercing projectiles." Bit of a no limit fallacy, wouldn't you say?

Well I certainly wouldn't go with no limit. I mean, something effing huge or something could maybe shatter it or knock him back or something.

It's tough when it comes to this stuff, because it's ****ing MAGIC. Dudes can teleport and walk through fire and teleport THROUGH fire use telekinesis without a wand or with a wand or all manner of nonsense.

But that works two ways though. I mean, I've never seen a bullet go through a magic shield. Not even in Harry Potter, but like, any movie with magical powers.

I understand and I don't think it's beyond reason to believe a magical arrow-blocking shield would also stop bullets. But it's really not my argument to prove.

Does this mean we can close the versus forum?

I mean, don't you need to prove that McClane's bullets can fire through magic? We've seen magic block projectiles aimed to kill. So let's say that's like (as lame as proof as it is) at least something of a "feat."

But John McClane hasn't ever shot a bullet through magic. Sounds like the burden of proof is on you. If you want to use that as an argument of course.

But hell, it can't be done. They call this an empase I think..

You're trying to apply a no limits fallacy. why not just admit that you can't back up your claim.

You mean me? What claim?

No Potter spell has stopped anything cold that has the velocity of a bullet.

Originally posted by Quincy
Does this mean we can close the versus forum?

I mean, don't you need to prove that McClane's bullets can fire through magic? We've seen magic block projectiles aimed to kill. So let's say that's like (as lame as proof as it is) at least something of a "feat."

But John McClane hasn't ever shot a bullet through magic. Sounds like the burden of proof [b]is on you. If you want to use that as an argument of course.

But hell, it can't be done. They call this an empase I think.. [/B]

Other way around.

Generally how it works in here when dealing with a situation like this we go with highest feats. The shield in question, it can block up to the most powerful thing it has blocked, unless there's some good reason/argument to believe it can block greater.

Otherwise we're essentially saying that the shield can block virtually anything as we've never seen the shield fail to block tank shells, superlasers and what have you not seen in Harry Potter.

Originally posted by Quincy
You mean me? What claim?

Yes you. you know very well what claim.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes you. you know very well what claim.

innocent04

Calm down, cowboy. I like your fierce-ness, it's just missplaced.

I get the no-limits fallacy thing. That makese sense as like, an argument/rule thing here. But I mean, to be fair - isn't saying McClane's bullet will obviously destroy and go through a magic shield ALSO a no-limit fallacy?

What am I missing here?

Originally posted by Quincy
innocent04

Calm down, cowboy. I like your fierce-ness, it's just missplaced.

I get the no-limits fallacy thing. That makese sense as like, an argument/rule thing here. But I mean, to be fair - isn't saying McClane's bullet will obviously destroy and go through a magic shield ALSO a no-limit fallacy?

What am I missing here?

No, because the shield has no feats to suggest that it can stop a bullet. the no limits fallacy is you trying to suggest the shield will stop a bullet despite it having no feats of doing anything similar.

Well the only feats I have is that the magical shields Voldemort can produce have stopped things like magic energy that can instantly kill you, and physical objects like arrows.

And what you're saying makes some semblance of sense, sure. But what are the feats of John Mcclane's bullets? Aren't we saying his bullet has no limits because it can "probably cut through magic?"

Originally posted by Quincy
Well the only feats I have is that the magical shields Voldemort can produce have stopped things like magic energy that can instantly kill you, and physical objects like arrows.

And what you're saying makes some semblance of sense, sure. But what are the feats of John Mcclane's bullets? Aren't we saying his bullet has no limits because it can "probably cut through magic?"

You're using "well, it's magic" as a no limit now.

Look at it this way, Achilles' shield blocked several arrows in "Troy", would you just assume that it could block bullets because McClane never fired his gun at Achilles' shield? You would not.

Originally posted by Quincy
Well the only feats I have is that the magical shields Voldemort can produce have stopped things like magic energy that can instantly kill you, and physical objects like arrows.

And what you're saying makes some semblance of sense, sure. But what are the feats of John Mcclane's bullets? Aren't we saying his bullet has no limits because it can "probably cut through magic?"

The only magical energy that can instantly kill people is the AK and magical shields can't stop it and are you really going to continue and argue that since the shields can stop arrows that means they can stop any amount of physical force?

If you want to argue that the shield can stop a bullet, how about you actually posts some feats.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're using "well, it's magic" as a no limit now.

Look at it this way, Achilles' shield blocked several arrows in "Troy", would you just assume that it could block bullets because McClane never fired his gun at Achilles' shield? You would not.

Well, no - Durden's shield was bronze or metal or something. You're comparing an object that exists to intangible magical energy.

I'll cop to it I have no bullet feats for Harry Potter, but you've got to admit it's a two way street, right?

I've got a guy who can use magic to block projectiles.

I've got a guy firing a gun at a guy using magic that blocks projectiles.

But the magic user has to prove why his magic would also work on bullets, but the slinger doesn't have to prove why his bullets would go through magic?

I just want somebody to admit that that's pretty fair

Originally posted by Quincy
Well, no - Durden's shield was bronze or metal or something. You're comparing an object that exists to intangible magical energy.

I'll cop to it I have no bullet feats for Harry Potter, but you've got to admit it's a two way street, right?

I've got a guy who can use magic to block projectiles.

I've got a guy firing a gun at a guy using magic that blocks projectiles.

But the magic user has to prove why his magic would also work on bullets, but the slinger doesn't have to prove why his bullets would go through magic?

I just want somebody to admit that that's pretty fair

If it was blocked an arrow, it would be tangible, therefore it stands to reason the shield has a level of tensile strength. If we're not doing a no limit of "it's magic, so it can do/stop anything."

As far as we know, it's tensile strength can stop up to an arrow.

Originally posted by Quincy
Well, no - Durden's shield was bronze or metal or something. You're comparing an object that exists to intangible magical energy.

I'll cop to it I have no bullet feats for Harry Potter, but you've got to admit it's a two way street, right?

I've got a guy who can use magic to block projectiles.

I've got a guy firing a gun at a guy using magic that blocks projectiles.

But the magic user has to prove why his magic would also work on bullets, but the slinger doesn't have to prove why his bullets would go through magic?

I just want somebody to admit that that's pretty fair

Correction, you have a guy with a shield that can stop arrows and since you just admitted that blocking arrows isn't proof that something can block bullets. I guess we are done here.

Unless of course you want to keep using a no-limits fallacy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Correction, you have a guy with a shield that can stop arrows and since you just admitted that blocking arrows isn't proof that something can block bullets. I guess we are done here.

Bud, do you really not see a difference between a Shield - which exists in real life - again I can't stress this enough that a shield is a REAL thing that exists- and magical energy?

Originally posted by Quincy
Bud, do you really not see a difference between a Shield - which exists in real life - again I can't stress this enough that a shield is a REAL thing that exists- and magical energy?

So because magic is fictional, no amount of force and get through...you might want to look up no limits fallacy.

All I'm saying is that we have to give the same treatment to both sides of the argument. Which is a very fair request.

I get it, one argument needs to show how their magical energy shield can block bullets. Makes sense - that's how a debate works.

But wouldn't the other team need to provide feats of how capable John McClane's bullets are? That's a yes or no question.

Now you and I? We are getting into this very strange side of things where you won't say whether or not your knowledge of a real thing - in this case of metallic shield - is equal to the durability of a magical energy source protecting somebody.

Like, that's all I'm looking for you to admit to - one side or the other.