Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well ?

No because Harry Potter is balls......biscuits

Maybe if it was dipped in the fires of mount doom... Otherwise I dout it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Well ?

Hell phucking no.

/thread

Originally posted by Lestov16
Hell phucking no.

/thread

Well maybe... I mean i don't recall them actually TRYING to destroy the ring in LotR, they were just like "Oh this can only be destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom" and everyone just kinda went with it. It's been a while since I've seen the first movie tho

the Dwarf guy got up in the begining of the first one and tried to hit it with his axe. He was thrown back a few feet and his axe shattered. The ring didnt even move.

Since the Sword of Griffindor takes in only what makes it stronger... If it is dipped into the Fires of Mount Doom then I can see it breaking the ring. But if it isnt then No, it can not.

Perhaps you forgot the scene in FoTR when everybody took a turn trying to break it, including Gimli who broke his own axe.

Originally posted by juggerman
Well maybe... I mean i don't recall them actually TRYING to destroy the ring in LotR, they were just like "Oh this can only be destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom" and everyone just kinda went with it. It's been a while since I've seen the first movie tho

Gimli tried to with his ax in the first film.

Those people(Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf) who made the claim where pretty knowledgeable about it. It's set lore.

Yeah i guess i forgot that part. But Gimli's axe is not magical. I'm not saying it would surely break it but i don't think you should dismiss it so easily.

Originally posted by juggerman
Yeah i guess i forgot that part. But Gimli's axe is not magical. I'm not saying it would surely break it but i don't think you should dismiss it so easily.

The wands in HP are also magical, are you saying a 1st year could destroy the ring(assuming they can cast a cutting/blasting curse).

Originally posted by Silent Master
The wands in HP are also magical, are you saying a 1st year could destroy the ring(assuming they can cast a cutting/blasting curse).

Not at all. What I'm saying is in HP the sword was able to do things wands could not, like destroying a Horcrux for example, and if you recall only extremely powerful magical items or spells could do that.

EDIT: Again i am not saying it's a sure thing but to discount it completely so easily seems foolish to me when it has proven to be hella strong.

Originally posted by juggerman
Not at all. What I'm saying is in HP the sword was able to do things wands could not, like destroying a Horcrux for example, and if you recall only extremely powerful magical items or spells could do that.

EDIT: Again i am not saying it's a sure thing but to discount it completely so easily seems foolish to me when it has proven to be hella strong.

Basilisk venom and Fiendfyre have destroyed horcruxes, in fact the entire reason that the sword was able to destroy them is because it had absorbed basilisk venom.

So the real question is, can basilisk venom destroy the ring?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Basilisk venom and Fiendfyre have destroyed horcruxes, in fact the entire reason that the sword was able to destroy them is because it had absorbed basilisk venom.

So the real question is, can basilisk venom destroy the ring?

I know that was the point in the book but was that covered in the movie?

Originally posted by juggerman
I know that was the point in the book but was that covered in the movie?

I believe that the sword absorbing only what made it stronger was mentioned, yes......but I'd have to rewatch the movies to verify.

No because they're from two different franchises.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I believe that the sword absorbing only what made it stronger was mentioned, yes......but I'd have to rewatch the movies to verify.

Ok well if that's the case i'd lean toward no. If it did it on it's own then maybe

The One Ring was forged in the fires of Mount Doom, and only there can it be destroyed.

In the Books AND the Movies it was said that the Sword of Gryphindor takes in that which is stronger. FACT!

However I do not see the current sword breaking the One Ring.

BUT if the Sword is dipped into the Fires of Mount Doom, take in the power of the Fire since that is what the Sword does, I would say it certainly could destroy it.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
BUT if the Sword is dipped into the Fires of Mount Doom, take in the power of the Fire since that is what the Sword does, I would say it certainly could destroy it.

While that sounds plausible, the whole mimicking of powers approach, could the sword survive being dipped into Mount Doom's lava in the first place?

Originally posted by Robtard
While that sounds plausible, the whole mimicking of powers approach, could the sword survive being dipped into Mount Doom's lava in the first place?
That is a very good point. However even the One Ring didnt melt right away. Now I would... Assume.. that with the Sword put into the Lava wouldnt melt right away either. And since the Sword took in the Basalisk Vemon within the few seconds Harry stabbed it and withdrew it... I would assume that just dipping it in would draw in the power and keep it from melting. The sword would not need to be IN the lava for very long beyond a few seconds.

This of course is just me taking a guess.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
That is a very good point. However even the One Ring didnt melt right away. Now I would... Assume.. that with the Sword put into the Lava wouldnt melt right away either. And since the Sword took in the Basalisk Vemon within the few seconds Harry stabbed it and withdrew it... I would assume that just dipping it in would draw in the power and keep it from melting. The sword would not need to be IN the lava for very long beyond a few seconds.

This of course is just me taking a guess. Even normal steel wouldn't melt in a few seconds in lava. So if it's just a drive by, the sword should be fine.

Originally posted by Robtard
Even normal steel wouldn't melt in a few seconds in lava. So if it's just a drive by, the sword should be fine.
Well yeah. Normal Steel wouldnt melt. But this isnt just normal Steel nor is it just a Normal river of Lava. This is Mount Doom.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMM!

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
Well yeah. Normal Steel wouldnt melt. But this isnt just normal Steel nor is it just a Normal river of Lava. This is Mount Doom.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMM!

Mount Doom's lava didn't seem especially hotter than standard lava and the One Ring only being able to be destroyed there isn't an issue of having 'X' amount of heat.

If the One Ring, which has shown itself to be far stronger than the Gryffindor sword, can be instantly turned into goo in Mount Doom's magma, I don't see how the sword will withstand an encounter.

Originally posted by Lestov16
If the One Ring, which has shown itself to be far stronger than the Gryffindor sword, can be instantly turned into goo in Mount Doom's magma, I don't see how the sword will withstand an encounter.

Not instantly, slappy.

One Ring sat on the lava for 22-23 seconds before it started to show signs of being affected and a little over a minute to fully melt/be destroyed.

Even so, it was a lot more durable than the sword. I'm not seeing the sword take a dip and being in ring-slicing condition afterward.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Even so, it was a lot more durable than the sword. I'm not seeing the sword take a dip and being in ring-slicing condition afterward.

I normal rod of steel would be heated up, but it would be alright if you just laid it on a bed of lava for a couple seconds.

I don't think it's crazy to assume that the Sword of Gryffindor is at least as durable as a normal steel sword.

What makes the ring more durable than a Horcrux ?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Hell phucking no.

/thread Why not ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
What makes the ring more durable than a Horcrux ?

It only being able to be destroyed one way (with the powers that created it) for one. Mount Doom. Names says it all, kid.

Originally posted by quanchi112
What makes the ring more durable than a Horcrux ?

The fact that it was forged from one of the top 5 or so most powerful beings in the LOTR Universe.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Why not ?

What feats does the sword have that show that it can damage the undamageable. We have onscreen feats of the Ring resisting blade damage, and Godric's sword has never shown itself stronger than any LoTR weapons.

Originally posted by Robtard
It only being able to be destroyed one way (with the powers that created it) for one. Mount Doom. Names says it all, kid. That's only in its native universe kid where Harry Potter characters don't exist. No limits fallacy, kiddo.

Originally posted by KingD19
The fact that it was forged from one of the top 5 or so most powerful beings in the LOTR Universe. What does this have to do with other fictional universes ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
That's only in its native universe kid where Harry Potter characters don't exist. No limits fallacy, kiddo.

"I like Harry Potter better than LoTR, so it wins!" This is your only argument. You don't know what a No Limit Fallacy is, so stop saying it.


Watch LoTR, it's stated how the One Ring can be destroyed. The film lore > what you want.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What feats does the sword have that show that it can damage the undamageable. We have onscreen feats of the Ring resisting blade damage, and Godric's sword has never shown itself stronger than any LoTR weapons. A dwarf being unable to destroy it and a weak wizard in Gandalf don't compare to Potter magic alone. Horcruxes resisted magic but the Gryffindor sword cut through them like nothing. Lotr has numbers but in terms of power they aren't close to Potter power.

Originally posted by Robtard
"I like Harry Potter better than LoTR, so it wins!" This is your only argument. You don't know what a No Limit Fallacy is, so stop saying it.


Watch LoTR, it's stated how the One Ring can be destroyed. The film lore > what you want. That only applies to Lotr characters not every other character in fiction. You don't even understand how ignorant you sound.

Originally posted by quanchi112
What does this have to do with other fictional universes ?

Beings on the level of Sauron were shifting continents and reshaping the world.

Don't try to compare the sword of Griffyndor to Sauron's power.

Originally posted by KingD19
Beings on the level of Sauron were shifting continents and reshaping the world.

Don't try to compare the sword of Griffyndor to Sauron's power. Movies you tool. Fanboys like yourself start book feating it up. Movies only.

Originally posted by quanchi112
That only applies to Lotr characters not every other character in fiction. You don't even understand how ignorant you sound.

Says who? You.

Find me something comparable in HP to Mount Doom and the set conditions and you'd have the beginnings of a valid point, chimpo. Just randomly saying HP >LoTR isn't a proper argument.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Movies you tool. Fanboys like yourself start book feating it up. Movies only.

The movies are pretty much directly lifted from the book. It wasn't shown on screen, but we know what happened leading up to the Third Age because it wouldn't be the Third Age if it hadn't happened.

You just wank HP so hard it's impossible for you to think they lose.

Originally posted by quanchi112
A dwarf being unable to destroy it and a weak wizard in Gandalf don't compare to Potter magic alone.

http://www.kayfabenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/stone-cold-what.jpg

Originally posted by quanchi112
Horcruxes resisted magic but the Gryffindor sword cut through them like nothing.

Were any of those horcruxes forged in a volcano

Originally posted by quanchi112
Lotr has numbers but in terms of power they aren't close to Potter power.

http://www.kayfabenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/stone-cold-what.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Says who? You.

Find me something comparable in HP to Mount Doom and the set conditions and you'd have the beginnings of a valid point, chimpo. Just randomly saying HP >LoTR isn't a proper argument. Your logic says nothing else save Mount Doom can destroy the ring in fiction.

Completely different. Mount Doom doesn't destroy the ring on contact.

HP magic is a lot more powerful on screen than Lotr magic. Don't get pissy with me because you're mad over it.

Originally posted by KingD19
The movies are pretty much directly lifted from the book. It wasn't shown on screen, but we know what happened leading up to the Third Age because it wouldn't be the Third Age if it hadn't happened.

You just wank HP so hard it's impossible for you to think they lose. We only argue movies here. You can't just insert book feats due to fanboyism.

You cite books and try to cheat due to fanboyism.

Ring wins.

Originally posted by Lestov16



Were any of those horcruxes forged in a volcano. What is the most powerful attack the ring resisted ? What we see the party attempt in destruction of the ring pales in comparison to Potter magic.

The horcruxes have resisted more powerful attacks than the ring on screen. That's the point.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Your logic says nothing else save Mount Doom can destroy the ring in fiction.

Completely different. Mount Doom doesn't destroy the ring on contact.

HP magic is a lot more powerful on screen than Lotr magic. Don't get pissy with me because you're mad over it.

Considering I gave a nod to Scarlet Fox in thinking of a plausible way in how the sword could here (something you should be doing), this is you just crying again.

Nope. You have no argument except a general "HP > LoTR" nonsense approach. By your same fail logic, Legolas loses to 1st year Potter.

Yup, just as I said an aimless "HP > LoTR" claim without anything directly supporting that the sword can destroy the One Ring. You need a proper argument, your no limit fallacy of "the sword destroyed a horcrux, ergo it can destroy the One Ring/anything" won't fly, chip.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Ring wins. Based on ?

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering I gave a nod to Scarlet Fox thinking of a plausible way in how the sword could here (something you should be doing), this is you just crying again.

Nope. You have no argument except a general "HP > LoTR" nonsense approach. By your same fail logic, Legolas loses to 1st year Potter.

Yup, just as I said an aimless "HP > LoTR" claim without anything directly supporting that the sword can destroy the One Ring. You need a proper argument. Legolas beating a first year student has to do with formidability not overall power. You don't even understand simple logic.

Sword destroyed very durable objects with greater resistance feats than ring. Cry now.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Based on ?

Unlike you, I've seen the movies.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Unlike you, I've seen the movies. Name the greatest resistance feat on screen. I honestly don't think you've seen the movie otherwise why make this claim.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Legolas beating a first year student has to do with formidability not overall power. You don't even understand simple logic.

Sword destroyed very durable objects with greater resistance feats than ring. Cry now.

LoL. A dodge. Coward.

The sword only destroyed a horcrux cos it was infused with basilisk venom, something that can destroy horcruxes specifically. You don't even know the basics of your favorite franchise.

The One Ring sat in Mount Doom's lava flow for over a minute before it was destroyed. Horcruxes can be destroyed with Fiend Fyre and AV. Dance some more, clowny, you have nothing and you know it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
What is the most powerful attack the ring resisted ? What we see the party attempt in destruction of the ring pales in comparison to Potter magic.

The only way that argument works is to say that legend was wrong and Mount Doom's magma isn't the weakest thing that can destroy it, which is utterly false. The only other way your argument works is by saying that HP magic can generate heat higher than that of Mount Doom's magma. Again, that's nonsense, even if we considered Mt. Doom's magma temperature to be equivalent to our own, even though it's possibly higher. HP magic has never generated that kind of heat. Also, I guarantee you if you threw Salazar Slytherin's locket into Mount Doom, it would be boiled. So the sword really doesn't have the feats.


EDIT, I forgot the venom thing. Damn. The sword's feats are virtually nonexistent here.


Originally posted by quanchi112
The horcruxes have resisted more powerful attacks than the ring on screen. That's the point.

Um, no. The Only thing that could destroy the ring was the magma of Mount Doom. Is there an HP attack equivalent to the temperature of magma? No.

When LOTR says that the Gryffindor sword can destroy Saurons ring then I'll believe it

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL. A dodge. Coward.

The sword only destroyed a horcrux cos it was infused with basilisk venom, something that can destroy horcruxes specifically. You don't even know the basics of your favorite franchise.

The One Ring sat in Mount Doom's lava flow for over a minute before it was destroyed. Horcruxes can be destroyed with Fiend Fyre and AV. Dance some more, clowny, you have nothing and you know it. No shit but the sword is empowered to that point so why even bring it up. Sword was still powerful enough to kill a Baslisk even prior to.

A Horcrux in a living being is obviously not as durable as an object. Anyone with common sense would know this. According to you Harry can't be hurt by spells that couldn't harm the Horcruxes.

When did Fiendfyre destroy a Horcrux ?

Originally posted by Lestov16
The only way that argument works is to say that legend was wrong and Mount Doom's magma isn't the weakest thing that can destroy it, which is utterly false. The only other way your argument works is by saying that HP magic can generate heat higher than that of Mount Doom's magma. Again, that's nonsense, even if we considered Mt. Doom's magma temperature to be equivalent to our own, even though it's possibly higher. HP magic has never generated that kind of heat. Also, I guarantee you if you threw Salazar Slytherin's locket into Mount Doom, it would be boiled. So the sword really doesn't have the feats.


EDIT, I forgot the venom thing. Damn. The sword's feats are virtually nonexistent here.




Um, no. The Only thing that could destroy the ring was the magma of Mount Doom. Is there an HP attack equivalent to the temperature of magma? No. Mount Doom is the only way in their universe which doesn't pertain to any other universe. Heat isn't the only way to destroy it IMO. What other feats of resistance does the Ring have ? Even saying a Horcrux burns doesn't prove the sword can't destroy the Ring.

Why wouldn't a Basilisk fang work or for that matter this sword ? What is greatest feat of resistance on screen .

Originally posted by quanchi112
No shit but the sword is empowered to that point so why even bring it up. Sword was still powerful enough to kill a Baslisk even prior to.

A Horcrux in a living being is obviously not as durable as an object. Anyone with common sense would know this. According to you Harry can't be hurt by spells that couldn't harm the Horcruxes.

When did Fiendfyre destroy a Horcrux ?

Don't try and pretend like you knew all along when you clearly didn't about the sword and the venom. Basilisk are scared of roosters. So stop wanking.

Another dodge. But glad you admit hat horcrux aren't as durable as the One Ring. So you've got nothing except your "HP > LoTR" blanket nonsense.

Mentioned in one of the films, iirc.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't try and pretend like you knew all along when you clearly didn't about the sword and the venom. Basilisk are scared of roosters. So stop wanking.

Another dodge. But glad you admit hat horcrux aren't as durable as the One Ring. So you've got nothing except your "HP > LoTR" blanket nonsense.

Mentioned in one of the films, iirc. Yes, I did but its hardly relevant since its a part of the swords properties, kiddo.

I didn't dodge anything. I for one think they are in the same league. Lotr verse isn't as powerful as Potterverse.

So you have no idea but it didn't destroy one on its own, ignoramus.

Basilisks are very powerful. One basilisk would dominate shit in Lotr.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, I did but its hardly relevant since its a part of the swords properties, kiddo.

I didn't dodge anything. I for one think they are in the same league. Lotr verse isn't as powerful as Potterverse.

So you have no idea but it didn't destroy one on its own, ignoramus.

Basilisks are very powerful. One basilisk would dominate shit in Lotr.

Nope. Just come clean.

You did.

Prove it.

Oh, this "HP > LoTR' general fail approach again. How inventive. Yeah, you might want to reword that. You're implying basilisk suck compared to LoTR, dummy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. Just come clean.

You did.

Prove it.

Oh, this "HP > LoTR' general fail approach again. How inventive. Yeah, you might want to reword that. You're implying basilisk suck compared to LoTR, dummy. You're ridiculous. You say stupid things. It has the basilisk venom it's a clear power to take on what makes it stronger. Did you think any sword absorbs basilisk venom ? Make some sense.

Fiendfyre, Shield incineration, One shot kill magic, a basilisk which kills what makes eye contact with it, etc. In Lotr one dragon has Gandalf nervous while in Potter they are used to test young man and kept in chains.

Baslisks are powerful and would take out massive numbers in Lotr.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Name the greatest resistance feat on screen. I honestly don't think you've seen the movie otherwise why make this claim.

Claiming that i've not watched the movies is one of your dumbest arguments ever, seeing as I've had to correct you multiple times regarding things from the movies.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You're ridiculous. You say stupid things. It has the basilisk venom it's a clear power to take on what makes it stronger. Did you think any sword absorbs basilisk venom ? Make some sense.

Fiendfyre, Shield incineration, One shot kill magic, a basilisk which kills what makes eye contact with it, etc. In Lotr one dragon has Gandalf nervous while in Potter they are used to test young man and kept in chains.

Baslisks are powerful and would take out massive numbers in Lotr.

Cry some more. A strawman argument, shocking. I obviously knew the sword's absorbing powers and I obviously knew the only reason the sword destroyed a horcrux was because it had previously taken on the poison aspect. Now you're pretending you're the one that knew all along and that I didn't have to tell you.

Yup, still back to blanket "HP > LoTR" arguments. The sword destroyed a horcrux (ignoring that it had basilisk poison), ergo it can destroy the One Ring/anything. No Limit Fallacy nonsense.

A Red Herring. Not that it's necessarily true, but that has nothing to do with the Grif sword destroying the One Ring. Try harder.

Topic: Now anytime you want to stop dancing and show how the sword's powerful enough to destroy the One Ring besides your blanket "HP > LoTR" nonsense, it'll be good.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Claiming that i've not watched the movies is one of your dumbest arguments ever, seeing as I've had to correct you multiple times regarding things from the movies. Quit sidestepping the question. If you can't name one resistant feat you feel is impressive you either didn't see the movies or did and aren't going to answer due to realize they aren't impressive.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cry some more. A strawman argument, shocking. I obviously knew the sword's absorbing powers and I obviously knew the only reason the sword destroyed a horcrux was because it had previously taken on the poison aspect. Now you're pretending you're the one that knew all along and that I didn't have to tell you.

Yup, still back to blanket "HP > LoTR" arguments. The sword destroyed a horcrux (ignoring that it had basilisk poison), ergo it can destroy the One Ring/anything. No Limit Fallacy nonsense.

A Red Herring. Not that it's necessarily true, but that has nothing to do with the Grif sword destroying the One Ring. Try harder.

Topic: Now anytime you want to stop dancing and show how the sword's powerful enough to destroy the One Ring besides your blanket "HP > LoTR" nonsense, it'll be good. You're trying to take away from this sword it's properties since other swords don't have this ability. That's what makes the sword impressive you boob.

What has the one ring resisted ? Horcruxes have resisted far worse based on feats.

Give me a list of impressive things the ring has resisted.


Better resistance feats.

Potterverse is superior to Lotr. It must drive you wild. You'll abandon these threads while I won't. It's just a matter of time.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You're trying to take away from this sword it's properties since other swords don't have this ability. That's what makes the sword impressive you boob.

What has the one ring resisted ?

Horcruxes have resisted far worse based on feats.

Give me a list of impressive things the ring has resisted.

Better resistance feats.

Potterverse is superior to Lotr. It must drive you wild. You'll abandon these threads while I won't. It's just a matter of time.

Still beating that strawman, eh. What a coward.

It's said it can only be destroyed in Mount Doom, where it was created. The film lore > what you want. Sorry. Imp's even ruled here on it. Cry more now.

Oh really? Name them then. You keep saying "far worse", but refuse to make a list with examples. Make a list or STFU. (I expect another dodge)

Repeat: Now anytime you want to stop dancing and show how the sword's powerful enough to destroy the One Ring besides your blanket "HP > LoTR" nonsense, it'll be good.

Originally posted by Robtard
Still beating that strawman, eh. What a coward.

It's said it can only be destroyed in Mount Doom, where it was created. The film lore > what you want. Sorry. Imp's even ruled here on it. Cry more now.

Oh really? Name them then. You keep saying "far worse", but refuse to make a list with examples. Make a list or STFU. (I expect another dodge)

Repeat: Now anytime you want to stop dancing and show how the sword's powerful enough to destroy the One Ring besides your blanket "HP > LoTR" nonsense, it'll be good. I'm asking for you to back your case. You can't. You never can.

You first. We know Mount Doom destroys it. What is most powerful attack it resisted on film ? Was it that badass Orc killing dwarf ?

Sword has Horcrux destroying feats. What has the ring resisted which has you in awe ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I'm asking for you to back your case. You can't. You never can.

You first. We know Mount Doom destroys it. What is most powerful attack it resisted on film ? Was it that badass Orc killing dwarf ?

Sword has Horcrux destroying feats. What has the ring resisted which has you in awe ?

Nope, you're using strawman tactics. It's what you often resort to when cornered.

I knew you'd dodge, what a coward. It took Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring. The film lore > you. The forum mod > you. Top those, sucker. (I expect you'll dodge again)

Repeat: Cos it was amped with the basilisk poison, dunce.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope, you're using strawman tactics. It's what you often resort to when cornered.

I knew you'd dodge, what a coward. It took Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring. The film lore > you. The forum mod > you. Top those, sucker. (I expect you'll dodge again)

Repeat: Cos it was amped with the basilisk poison, dunce. Do you realize what you sound like ? It's like saying hey look Mike Tyson knocked me out therefore George Foreman goes down. Why because I got crushed by Mike Tyson. That's essentially your logic in a nutshell.

Mount Doom destroys the ring but that doesn't have anything to do with what it can resist.

The sword takes in what is stronger. All swords don't thus making it quite different.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Do you realize what you sound like ? It's like saying hey look Mike Tyson knocked me out therefore George Foreman goes down. Why because I got crushed by Mike Tyson. That's essentially your logic in a nutshell.

Mount Doom destroys the ring but that doesn't have anything to do with what it can resist.

The sword takes in what is stronger. All swords don't thus making it quite different.


Strawmaning still.

Oh how you fail and dodge.

And a red herring. Anyhow: How is the sword going to destroy the One Ring? (I expect you'll dodge again)

Originally posted by Robtard
Strawmaning still.

Oh how you fail and dodge.

And a red herring. Anyhow: How is the sword going to destroy the One Ring? (I expect you'll dodge again)



Asking you questions is awesome. You can't even form a coherent argument. The typical strawman, derp, cry, or dance responses. I'm beginning to think you're someone's parakeet that can type.

By cutting into it since its destroyed Horcruxes with greater resistance feats than the Ring. Question answered; again.

Originally posted by quanchi112


Asking you questions is awesome. You can't even form a coherent argument. The typical strawman, derp, cry, or dance responses. I'm beginning to think you're someone's parakeet that can type.

By cutting into it since its destroyed Horcruxes with greater resistance feats than the Ring. Question answered; again.

Expected dance. Ignoring.

Repeat: Name them then. You keep saying "far worse/greater feats", but refuse to make a list with examples. Make a list or STFU. (I expect another dodge)

Originally posted by Robtard
Expected dance. Ignoring.

Repeat: Name them then. You keep saying "far worse/greater feats", but refuse to make a list with examples. Make a list or STFU. (I expect another dodge) I answered your question but you cannot answer mine. Wizard magic is clearly more powerful than what the ring has resisted on screen. Your shitty Mike Tyson logic shows you to be ignorant. You don't even understand what you're saying half the time.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I answered your question but you cannot answer mine. Wizard magic is clearly more powerful than what the ring has resisted on screen. Your shitty Mike Tyson logic shows you to be ignorant. You don't even understand what you're saying half the time.

LoL, the expected dodge followed by the nonsense blanket argument.

Repeat: Name them then. You keep saying "far worse/greater feats", but refuse to make a list with examples. Make a list or STFU. (I expect another dodge)

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, the expected dodge followed by the nonsense blanket argument.

Repeat: Name them then. You keep saying "far worse/greater feats", but refuse to make a list with examples. Make a list or STFU. (I expect another dodge) Just because you don't remember the film and clearly won't answer any of my questions don't expect me to cater to your demands.

You can't even tell me what the ring resisted. You don't think for yourself as most don't. You've been told numerous times how badass this ring is despite not logically assessing the situation yourself.

Ring has no impressive feats and you know it. Only a fool would use a ring destroying feat as proof of its resistance.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Just because you don't remember the film and clearly won't answer any of my questions don't expect me to cater to your demands.

You can't even tell me what the ring resisted. You don't think for yourself as most don't. You've been told numerous times how badass this ring is despite not logically assessing the situation yourself.

Ring has no impressive feats and you know it. Only a fool would use a ring destroying feat as proof of its resistance.

Still dodging.

Watch LoTR, read the pages as it's been explained or see Imp's ruling.

Expect for being nigh indestructible you mean. Basic LoTR lore.

Originally posted by Robtard
Still dodging.

Watch LoTR, read the pages as it's been explained or see Imp's ruling.

Expect for being nigh indestructible you mean. Basic LoTR lore. Typical non response. It isn't indestructible and neither are Horcruxes. It's just difficult to do so. Without resistance feats it's a no limits fallacy bs. Just start thinking for yourself and quit submitting to other men's opinions.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Typical non response. It isn't indestructible and neither are Horcruxes. It's just difficult to do so. Without resistance feats it's a no limits fallacy bs. Just start thinking for yourself and quit submitting to other men's opinions.

Reading comprehension fail or resorting to another strawman?

Let me repeat it for you:

Expect for being nigh indestructible you mean. Basic LoTR lore.

Originally posted by Robtard
Reading comprehension fail or resorting to another strawman?

Let me repeat it for you:

Expect for being nigh indestructible you mean. Basic LoTR lore. Nigh indestructible means it can be destroyed. I agree. Sog destroys it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Nigh indestructible means it can be destroyed. I agree. Sog destroys it.

By the fires of Mount Doom. The sword isn't like the fires of Mount Doom.

People seem to ignore the fact that the SoG is still a Magical Sword. Not only that but it only takes in that which makes it stronger. Not only has the SoG destroyed the undamagable in Harry Potter Universe. And since it is a MAGICAL Weapon if would survive for a few seconds if put into the lava at Mount Doom.. the same Lava used to FORGE the One Ring. With the SoG imbued with the magical fires of Mount doom I would say it would easily destroy the one ring.

I guess so but wouldn't that be Mount Doom's magma destroying the ring, rather than the force of the sword itself?

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
People seem to ignore the fact that the SoG is still a Magical Sword. Not only that but it only takes in that which makes it stronger. Not only has the SoG destroyed the undamagable in Harry Potter Universe. And since it is a MAGICAL Weapon if would survive for a few seconds if put into the lava at Mount Doom.. the same Lava used to FORGE the One Ring. With the SoG imbued with the magical fires of Mount doom I would say it would easily destroy the one ring.

Well...I'm not gonna post and say I know everything there is to LOTR and HP, but the one ring was magical right? At least thats what I'm guessing, and yet that melted in mount doom...well the sword may have magic but if a powerful ring such as the one ring would melt in the lava of mount doom wouldn't the sword do the same? Magic or no magic? keep in mind I'm just asking a question though more rather saying you're wrong or right

Originally posted by steverules_2
Well...I'm not gonna post and say I know everything there is to LOTR and HP, but the one ring was magical right? At least thats what I'm guessing, and yet that melted in mount doom...well the sword may have magic but if a powerful ring such as the one ring would melt in the lava of mount doom wouldn't the sword do the same? Magic or no magic? keep in mind I'm just asking a question though more rather saying you're wrong or right The sword only takes in what makes it stronger while the ring doesn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
By the fires of Mount Doom. The sword isn't like the fires of Mount Doom. It doesn't have to be. You have no resistance feats to even compare it to a Horcrux let alone this sword which easily destroys them.

Most people don't think and just heartily accept the majority opinion. You're a lemming.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
People seem to ignore the fact that the SoG is still a Magical Sword. Not only that but it only takes in that which makes it stronger. Not only has the SoG destroyed the undamagable in Harry Potter Universe. And since it is a MAGICAL Weapon if would survive for a few seconds if put into the lava at Mount Doom.. the same Lava used to FORGE the One Ring. With the SoG imbued with the magical fires of Mount doom I would say it would easily destroy the one ring.

IOW, without being allowed to absorb the fires of Mt Doom, the sword cannot destroy the ring.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, without being allowed to absorb the fires of Mt Doom, the sword cannot destroy the ring. Based on what resistance feats ?

When the one ring was thrown into the lava in mount doom, it didn't instantly melt or get destroyed. It stayed there for half a minute before starting to melt. So even if the sword absorbed the powers of mt. doom, I doubt it can instantly destroy the ring, as the lava itself wasn't able to instantly destroy the ring.

If I really wanted to shatter that ring with a weapon, I would have preferred to use Mjolnir rather than the SoG.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It doesn't have to be. You have no resistance feats to even compare it to a Horcrux let alone this sword which easily destroys them.

Most people don't think and just heartily accept the majority opinion. You're a lemming.

Watch LoTR. It indeed has to be the fires of Mount Doom. Stop making stuff up. Wrong. The sword doesn't "easily destroy" a horcrux, basilisk venom does and the sword happened to be amped by it.

You don't know anything about LoTR and you barely know the basics from HP.

Because Lava doesnt melt everythign right away. Even when Golem fell into the lava I am sure he sufered a few seconds before he actually died. It was the power OF Mount Doom that was, one assumes, imbued in the lava. With that Power absorbed into the SoG then I think it would destroy the ring.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
Because Lava doesnt melt everythign right away. Even when Golem fell into the lava I am sure he sufered a few seconds before he actually died. It was the power OF Mount Doom that was, one assumes, imbued in the lava. With that Power absorbed into the SoG then I think it would destroy the ring.

Which means, the sword by itself can't destroy the ring.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Which means, the sword by itself can't destroy the ring. Based on which feats ?

Originally posted by Robtard
Watch LoTR. It indeed has to be the fires of Mount Doom. Stop making stuff up. Wrong. The sword doesn't "easily destroy" a horcrux, basilisk venom does and the sword happened to be amped by it.

You don't know anything about LoTR and you barely know the basics from HP. It has to be Mount Doom in Lotr not including the Harry Potter universe. You need to think before you say the silliest things.

The sword makes that which makes it stronger a part of itself. It's a permanent amp. This is a property of the sword, nitwit.

I know the ring doesn't have any good resistance feats. You said earlier Fiendfyre destroyed a Horcrux because you heard it. You just hate Harry Potter and know next to nothing about it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It has to be Mount Doom in Lotr not including the Harry Potter universe. You need to think before you say the silliest things.

The sword makes that which makes it stronger a part of itself. It's a permanent amp. This is a property of the sword, nitwit.

I know the ring doesn't have any good resistance feats. You said earlier Fiendfyre destroyed a Horcrux because you heard it. You just hate Harry Potter and know next to nothing about it.

And this is you just making stuff up again: "Harry Potter can beat the One Ring because I need it to". LoTR Lore > What you need.

Are you suggesting the sword is going to destroy the One Ring because of it's basilisk venom amp? Prove it. Cos last time I checked, basilisk venom wasn't Mount Doom. Prove it or STFU.

Oh clever, another "no you!" retort. Anyhow. Prove your new claim above or STFU (I expect another dodge).

Originally posted by quanchi112
It doesn't have to be. You have no resistance feats to even compare it to a Horcrux let alone this sword which easily destroys them.


But the only reason the sword even effected the Horcrux was because it was doused in Basilisk's venom. The sword itself isn't invincible and if you say it is the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by Lestov16
But the only reason the sword even effected the Horcrux was because it was doused in Basilisk's venom. The sword itself isn't invincible and if you say it is the burden of proof is on you. Who cares ? The basilisk venom is a part of the sword now. I never said it was invincible I said it destroys the ring. Name me one resistance feat which proves otherwise.

The SoG, Amped up by absorbing the Magical Properties of the Fires of Mount Doom can destroy the ring.

However without the Amp of DOOM! I can not say wether or not it would.

However if you compare a Horcrux to the One Ring you can safley say both things held a soul. Voldemorts or Sauron... x.x I think i spelled it right.

Since the SoG could destroy of Horcrux, which is an item with a soul attached to it, I could pass along that it may be able to destroy the One ring since it is basically Saurons Horcrux. Even without Mount DOOM! amp.

According to what is said in LotR, the One Ring is what gave Sauron his power. When he was defeated a peice of him attached to the Ring just like a peice of Voldemort was attached to a Horcrux. and the SoG could destroy a Horcrux which was a Magically imbued item with Voldemorts soul attached. which is basically what the One Ring was for Sauron.

not to mention the weapons the Fellowship used to try and destroy it were neither special, like Aragons sword in RotK, or Magical.

@quan, You have yet to provide any proof that the sword will destroy the ring.

Originally posted by Robtard
And this is you just making stuff up again: "Harry Potter can beat the One Ring because I need it to". LoTR Lore > What you need.

Are you suggesting the sword is going to destroy the One Ring because of it's basilisk venom amp? Prove it. Cos last time I checked, basilisk venom wasn't Mount Doom. Prove it or STFU.

Oh clever, another "no you!" retort. Anyhow. Prove your new claim above or STFU (I expect another dodge). Lotr lore doesn't take into account other fictional universes. You're dense.

It's destroyed horcruxes which have greater resistance feats. I base my opinion off of facts you don't.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Lotr lore doesn't take into account other fictional universes. You're dense.

It's destroyed horcruxes which have greater resistance feats. I base my opinion off of facts you don't.

LoTR Lore > What you want. This is just a fact.

Feats you won't list and just insist "they're stronger!". You base your opinions on a severe lack of knowledge and blind fanaticism towards anything Harry Potter.

You have no proof the sword can do what Mount Doom did. Zero, slumo.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
The SoG, Amped up by absorbing the Magical Properties of the Fires of Mount Doom can destroy the ring.

However without the Amp of DOOM! I can not say wether or not it would.

However if you compare a Horcrux to the One Ring you can safley say both things held a soul. Voldemorts or Sauron... x.x I think i spelled it right.

Since the SoG could destroy of Horcrux, which is an item with a soul attached to it, I could pass along that it may be able to destroy the One ring since it is basically Saurons Horcrux. Even without Mount DOOM! amp.

According to what is said in LotR, the One Ring is what gave Sauron his power. When he was defeated a peice of him attached to the Ring just like a peice of Voldemort was attached to a Horcrux. and the SoG could destroy a Horcrux which was a Magically imbued item with Voldemorts soul attached. which is basically what the One Ring was for Sauron.

not to mention the weapons the Fellowship used to try and destroy it were neither special, like Aragons sword in RotK, or Magical.

This makes sense

Originally posted by quanchi112
Who cares ? The basilisk venom is a part of the sword now. I never said it was invincible I said it destroys the ring. Name me one resistance feat which proves otherwise.

What? Basilisk Venom only worked because it specifically targets horcruxes. It doesn't strengthen any substance it touches, especially to a level needed to destroy the ring.

Originally posted by juggerman
This makes sense
Inorite?!
Originally posted by Lestov16
What? Basilisk Venom only worked because it specifically targets horcruxes. It doesn't strengthen any substance it touches, especially to a level needed to destroy the ring.
And Basalisk Vemon does NOT specifically target Horcruxes! Its is simply a powerful agent that is ABLE to destroy Horcruxes. The SoG absorbed that power making the sword even stronger. It absorbs properties to make the blade more powerful. Like in a game where you add sockets to a sword and put in gems. It only makes it stronger. If you have a +5 strength gem in the sword and you find a +10 Strength Gem which will you keep? the +10 of course because it is stronger. Thw SoG will continue to absord traits and power from all kinds of things that make it stronger and will more then likley be the ULTIMATE WEAPON OF THE UNIVERSE... Exageration.. But the point is the same.

The point is, there is no proof that basalisk vemon would destroy the ring.

And the proof that basilisk venom can destroy the One Ring is where?

edit: SM beat me to it.

I explained it earlier. Guess that was just ignored.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
I explained it earlier. Guess that was just ignored.

Your argument was that a Horcrux and the One Ring are one and the same. When they clearly aren't. The One Ring is a powerful weapon imbued with Sauron's anger, malice and will; A Horcrux is a vessel to store a piece of a soul.

Yet Voldemort was able to project his Anger, Malice, and Will by the Horcrux. So I do not see a difference.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
Yet Voldemort was able to project his Anger, Malice, and Will by the Horcrux. So I do not see a difference.

That's a reach. I do like this new approach though. The One Ring is just a Horcrux and basilisk venom can destroy it. It's cute.

Tell me, would Potter have turned into a little Golem like creature, since he was a Horcrux?

Whats cute is you skitting around the rest of what is said. We are not talking about Baslisk Venom. We are talking about a Magically imbued sword that just happened to have absored the Strength from Basalisk Vemon. Never did anyone say the Sword has Basalisk vemon on it or dispenses it.

You and Quanchi know how I am. I will go with facts presented by each area wether I agree with you or not. Sometimes I disagree heavily with Quanchi and sometimes I agree with him. This just happens to be one of the times I agree.

A Third party could sit outside of this and say that is impossible to tell if it could or not because it is impossible to compare the power of the LotR verse against the HP Verse.

But if you simply compare everything then it makes it simpler. In LotR the One Ring is played up because it was what the story was made around. In HP the Horcruxes were Downplayed because there was more then one of them. That does not mean that one is more powerful then the other. They are both seen as and item connected to its respective villian. Both items can bring back said person. Both items are known to project thoughts and feelings through touch of an outside party. I do not see anythign else on either side. So if the SoG is able to destroy the one in HP Verse then why not the one in LotR verse?

Originally posted by Robtard
Tell me, would Potter have turned into a little Golem like creature, since he was a Horcrux?

Umbridge

The fact that the One Ring had a tendency to corrupt people doesnt make it any stronger. Not to mention the Horcrux DID change the HP gang as they had on the Necklass. And Harry had an incredible power of will. Like many in the LotR Verse some were able to resist it. Like Aragon who is just a human.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What? Basilisk Venom only worked because it specifically targets horcruxes. It doesn't strengthen any substance it touches, especially to a level needed to destroy the ring. Are you serious ? When does it state the sword brings into anything which specifically destroys Horcruxes ? Never. It takes in that which makes it Stronger.

What resistance feats does the ring have ?

Originally posted by Robtard
LoTR Lore > What you want. This is just a fact.

Feats you won't list and just insist "they're stronger!". You base your opinions on a severe lack of knowledge and blind fanaticism towards anything Harry Potter.

You have no proof the sword can do what Mount Doom did. Zero, slumo. 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.

I'm not seeing any proof that basilisk venom would destroy the ring, just baseless speculation.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm not seeing any proof that basilisk venom would destroy the ring, just baseless speculation. What resistance feats prove otherwise ? You don't even know what a Horcruxs purpose is so I doubt you even saw the films.

I'm still not seeing any proof that basilisk venom would destroy the ring, just baseless speculation.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm still not seeing any proof that basilisk venom would destroy the ring, just baseless speculation. You can't name one resistance feat. That's a concession.

Nice attempt to shift the burden, however you still haven't provided any proof that basilisk venom would destroy the ring.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
The fact that the One Ring had a tendency to corrupt people doesnt make it any stronger. Not to mention the Horcrux DID change the HP gang as they had on the Necklass. And Harry had an incredible power of will. Like many in the LotR Verse some were able to resist it. Like Aragon who is just a human.

Both Aragorn and Gandalf were afraid to hold the ring for any length of time, simply because they new they couldn't resist it's pull. Only the Bagginses were pure of heart enough to endure prolonged exposure to the ring. I'd definitely say that the ring's corruption powers are greater than the horcruxes.

Who is to say whether the one ring could even corrupt someone from another world since specific magic was created to rule Middle Earth.

For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race.


Sauron forged a master ring to dominate these specific rings which only pertain to Middle Earth.


Horcruxes corrupt anyone who wears them and isn't tied into specific magic overpowering these other rings which only deals with Middle Earth.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Both Aragorn and Gandalf were afraid to hold the ring for any length of time, simply because they new they couldn't resist it's pull. Only the Bagginses were pure of heart enough to endure prolonged exposure to the ring. I'd definitely say that the ring's corruption powers are greater than the horcruxes. This is only due to specific magic over the other rings which only pertains to Middle Earth not any other fictional universe.


Who is to say whether the one ring could even corrupt someone from another world since specific magic was created to rule Middle Earth.

For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race.


Sauron forged a master ring to dominate these specific rings which only pertain to Middle Earth.


Horcruxes corrupt anyone who wears them and isn't tied into specific magic overpowering these other rings which only deals with Middle Earth.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nice attempt to shift the burden, however you still haven't provided any proof that basilisk venom would destroy the ring. Greater resistance feats with regards to Horcruxes than the one ring aka proof.

What horcrux resistance feats are you talking about?

Originally posted by Silent Master
What horcrux resistance feats are you talking about? I won't answer another question of yours since you've avoid my questions for pages. You answer my question and I will answer yours.

IOW, you have no feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you have no feats. greater feats than the ring. But I won't answer for a troll who doesn't even know what a Horcrux does without you answering mine.

Like I said, you have no feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said, you have no feats. You have no offered no feats yourself. You don't know what a Horcrux is so you really wouldn't understand a complicated thing such as a feat.

Like I said, you have no feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said, you have no feats. Yes, I do.

If you had any feats, you would have posted them by now, as it is you're just doing your usual song & dance.

For someone who doubted that Fiendfyre destroyed a horcrux this is for you : Movie 8, the diadem hidden in the Room of Requirement, Goyle casts Fiendfyre and the Fiendfyre destroys the diadem.

Now for what actually happened in the last part of movie eight - The Sword of Gryffindor WAS NOT in the Room of Requirement. In fact, Harry lost it when the trio and the Goblin invaded Bellatrix's vault to get Hufflepuff's cup. Ron and Hermione went down to the Chamber of Secrets to gather Basilisk Venom

Originally posted by siriuswriter
For someone who doubted that Fiendfyre destroyed a horcrux this is for you : Movie 8, the diadem hidden in the Room of Requirement, Goyle casts Fiendfyre and the Fiendfyre destroys the diadem.

Now for what actually happened in the last part of movie eight - The Sword of Gryffindor WAS NOT in the Room of Requirement. In fact, Harry lost it when the trio and the Goblin invaded Bellatrix's vault to get Hufflepuff's cup. Ron and Hermione went down to the Chamber of Secrets to gather Basilisk Venom Wrong. It was destroyed prior to being tossed into the Fiendfyre. You are seriously hilarious.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you had any feats, you would have posted them by now, as it is you're just doing your usual song & dance. You first. I did ask you first. Don't be rude now, kiddo.

Like I said, If you had any feats, you would have posted them by now, as it is you're just doing your usual song & dance.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said, If you had any feats, you would have posted them by now, as it is you're just doing your usual song & dance. I asked you first. Concession accepted.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is only due to specific magic over the other rings which only pertains to Middle Earth not any other fictional universe.


Who is to say whether the one ring could even corrupt someone from another world since specific magic was created to rule Middle Earth.

For within these rings was bound the strength and will to govern each race.


Sauron forged a master ring to dominate these specific rings which only pertain to Middle Earth.


Horcruxes corrupt anyone who wears them and isn't tied into specific magic overpowering these other rings which only deals with Middle Earth.

The ring was made to corrupt the creatures of middle earth, and one of the easiest to corrupt were humans. Harry Potter and co. are humans. Now if Doby were the one wielding the sword, that might be different.

Originally posted by FrothByte
The ring was made to corrupt the creatures of middle earth, and one of the easiest to corrupt were humans. Harry Potter and co. are humans. Now if Doby were the one wielding the sword, that might be different. This ring ruled only those people who accepted the other rings. This is specific magic which only deals with Lotr.

I'm just finally dispelling these myths once and for all.

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. 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.

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

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
"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. Its questioning both in direct comparison to each other. It isn't what can the sword destroy alone. It has to do with both not generalities.

"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.