• 190 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#151 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

We've responded to each other in multiple different threads on the same topic basically so I'll just combine all of my posts here so you don't have to waste time going into each different thread. It'll also hopefully keep our discussions more concise and less messy.

Also I probably won't respond for another week as I have CaV posts to write.

Post 1 (This thread)

Yet they couldn't wipe a city memory without help.

There is no evidence for this. They just couldn't do it before the whole world knew about the existence of wizards.

Not to mention this doesn't prove anything as these are entirely different spells. The memory charm as to be applied to every person indicidually compared to Fiendfyre which can wipe multiple people out at a time. Your comparison is faulty.

So....that is moot since I don't have to prove they are city level when they said they couldn't conjure magic powerful enough to wipe a whole city.

Except that's due to the nature of different kinds of magic.

No, the elder wand like I said boost his power greatly since none of those Wizards even together couldn't destroy a city.

Which you haven't substantiated.

it wasn't the whole city that was fixed in FB1 but it was a good chunk but still not they whole City. you can't even show me the whole city being damaged and destroy in one scan.

Hence why I never said the whole city wasn't damaged. Still reparing a significant portion of a city in mere minutes is incredibly impressive.

no, with the Elder wand he still loses, Dumbledore words that Voldemort even before they fought at the department of ministries is the most powerful dark wizard ever.

No shit Voldemort is the most powerful but there is no definitive proof he's massively more powerful than Grindelwald. And Dumbledore most likely wasn't factoring in amps like The Elder Wand when he made that statement. I've yet to see a compelling argument for EW amped Grindelwald losing to Voldemort.

He get stomped both times, with or without the elder wand Grindelwald can't beat Voldemort.

As I said I know he can't. I simply disagree it's a stomp and you have failed to articulate why it is beyond proving Voldemort is more powerful but not quantifying by how much he is.

Post 2 (High Tiers Vs Voldemort And Dumbledore Thread)

That is not what I meant, what I was saying was that Grindelwald went from only defeating 4 wizards before losing to being able to nearly destroy a city.

You keep on saying he lost to 4 wizards but haven't substantiated it with anything.

Not to mention this doesn't actually prove The Elder Wand is a massive amp. All you've proven is that it is an amp as we have no way of quantifying how much more powerful it made Grindelwald or whether he could destroy a city without it.

Either way...even if you wank and say it was 14 wizards still doesn't change anything. without the elder wand Grindelwald is raped by Voldemort or Dumbledore. with the Elder wand, Grindelwald get stomp by either Voldemort or Dumbledore.

Yet to be proven.

Post 3 (Grindelwald vs Voldemort Thread)

I dismissed the Top two because you didn't give me a Reason why My answer was wrong you just said "it's not" I told you why it is a rape.

My reasoning for why you were wrong was provided throughout the rest of the post.

….I explained to you why he was owned in another Post.

You didn't. All you did was say he lost badly, ignored Dumbledore's comments and made up your own fan fiction.

your argument, for the record doesn't make sense.

Coming from the guy who can't even type a grammatically cohesive sentence.

you are claiming that Dumbledore and Grindelwald are even in the past.

Which they were as of 1945.

Fantastic Beast Showcased Grindelwald power at the end when he was fighting those 20 Auroras and lost, To being able to nearly destroy a city.

This comparison again? Grindelwald was cheap shotted from behing by Newt and didn't legitimately lose. We also don't have any reason to believe that Grindelwald in FB1 couldn't destroy a city even if I accepted that he legitimately lost (which I'm not going to do).

That is a big power up, and difference in power.

We have no evidence that there was a mssive increase in power though. There is no evidence Grindelwald couldn't destroy a city beyond a circumstancial loss and no definitive proof 20 or so Aurors couldn't destroy a city.

so, Dumbledore got massively more powerful then went and destroyed Grindelwald.

He didn't destroy Grindelwald though. There is no evidence the fight was anything other than close.

Now, picture Dumbledore having the Elder wand fighting Grindelwald.

He wins sure but there is no reason to believe he stomps.

sure, doesn't change that Elder wand Gives a massive boost, and that was the point you were trying to disprove but you failed at that.

Except I haven't. You've just thrown out unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim with no evidence and arguments with more holes than swiss cheese.

…..And Voldemort can fly, Something no one in the series can do not even Dumbledore.

What does this prove exactly? Voldemort can perform the impossible just like Grindelwald which I never disagreed with. I think Voldemort wins here but I'm questioning whether the dispairty is as wide as you make it seem.

I posted this to prove Grindelwald was immensely talented which he is and that he's beyond a vast portion of the mythos.

Voldemort learned that, and only taught it to one other person Snape.

Good for him. See above.

this, is something that is actually useful in combat.

And? The point wasn't to prove Grindelwald can turn invisible mid combat but rather to substanitate that he's beyond most of the mythos and is up there with Voldemort and Dumbledore.

Also this isn't combat applicable lmao. Voldemort used it once in a battle in the air and Snape used it once to escape. Neither of the two have used it in any of their duels so its combat applicability is questionable to say the least.

Grindelwald ability to hide from his enemies sure didn't help me much since he has been captured twice.

Grindelwald being falllible like everyone else doesn't make the feat any less impressive.

0 that is how many times Voldemort has been captured.

Yeah but his physical body was destroyed once and he was killed the second time.

Oh look tehy have a perfectly even 2-2 split.

So...now you are dismissing statements but use Dumbledore statements for other things that support your case?

I'm not dismissing statements lmao. I'm pointing out that when 5 people say Dumbledfore>Voldemort and only 1 says Voldemort>Dumbledore we would logically take the group of 5 statements over the 1 singular statment.

debating doesn't work like that.

Jesus Christ. This really reaching attempt to make me look bad has failed spectacularly.

just because it doesn't fit your narrative you are not allowed to dismiss it.

I'm dismissing it on the grounds that it doesn't corroborate with other statements and the general storyline in the series as well as the themes. Literally every character in the series says Dumbledore's better and it is literally acknowledged in Harry's final speech to Voldemort that Albus was better which was literally meant to express all of the themes and concepts throughout the series. JK intended Dumbledore to be better and it makes much more sense from a thematical standpoint. Get over it.

they were just saying that because they hate or dislikes Voldemort; Dumbledore is correct here, it was later shown as well in their duel.

No it's not. Addressed above. It's also worth noting Dumbledore doesn't actually say Voldemort is outright better all he does is express uncertainty.

Voldemort counter every spell Dumbledore casted and teleported mid battle forcing Dumbledore to use outside help, and conjuring up a magic shield and Centore to protect himself.

Dumbledore animating Centaurs isn't against the rules of a battle lmao. Also as for the Fawkes thig Dumbledore could have used one of the statues that were holding on to Harry and Bella but hose not to. Not to mention Dumbledore knew Fawkes was an advantage he had. If Fawkes hadn't been there Dumbledore would have likely setup more defences.

Plus Voldemort got tagged 2 times and was nearly defeated by Dumbledore's water cocoon whereas the latter never seemed hard pressed nor was he tagged. While it was no stomp Dumbledore came off lookign slightly superior in the fight imo.

I aslo find it funny how Voldemort fanboys use a duel in a Chaper Titled "The Only One He Ever Feared" to prove Voldemort is superior despite the chapter title implying the inverse. This was very clearly meant to be Dumbledore's moment to shine. I mean do people seriously think JK thought Voldemort was better while writing this duel when it's in a chapter with a title like that?

From Dumbledore mouth to on screen shown that Voldemort was actually better than him even with him holding the Elder wand.

Yeah let's just ignore authorial intent, multiple quotes and take Dumbledore's opinion as fact why don't we?

just to remind you because I am sure you don't know this that Voldemort dueled like Dumbledore dueled. he mimicked Dumbledore style of duel.

No he didn't. Read the passage. Voldemort spams Killing Curses while Dumbledore transfigues objects and animates statues. Their duelling styles are incredibly different.

Explain to me this how is Grindelwald going to stop Voldemort from possessing him?

He's never done this to anyone. Why would this be different with Grindelwald?

I already explained why your post is wrong here up above.

No you haven't.

Greatly superior yes, if Grindelwald went from failing against 20 Wizards to be able to nearly destroy a city just by holding the elder wand and Dumbledore just walked in and beat him. yea, it established a gap huge gap.

Previously addressed.

Grindelwald didn't have the elder wand yes it would be a stomp. are you not able to understand that he went from losing to 10 to 20 wizards to being able to nearly destroy a city!?!?!?

we know that the elder Wand give him that amp because Like I said he was able to nearly destroy a city with the wand, when prior he couldn't even handle 20 wizards.

Previously addressed.

I skipped over your last post. what are you talking about? the Ministry at that time barely even had a there place fixed up at that time anyways so does it really matter what rank or what they were?

Legit most retarded thing I've ever seen. Quote required for them barely even having a Ministry cause they seemed pretty set up and established in FB.

Regardless it doesn't matter. Aurors are not and have never been random guards.

at the end of the day, they were in the Ministry and are the wizard Authorities.

But they're not elite so it's not an anti feat for Grindelwald. Not to mention Newt cheapshotted them.

he still Disarmed them regardless of the fact, and I still haven't seen you post anything these Aurors have done that separates them from random Wizard Authorities.

I literally just explained in my laast post that low tier Aurors likd Tonks can contend with high tier Death Eaters liek Bellatrix which you've not debunked. Yes this isn't a feat for those Aurors specifically but it helps establish the caliber of wizards we're dealing with. We have no reason to believe they're below Tonks and in fact seeing as they were literally sent to help defeat a city level threat I'd say they're top tier.

Also their feats include repairing the city within mere minutes and also created a large protective bubble which kept a large crowd of Muggles away from them.

Let's not forget that Ron is an Auror, I wouldn't even put Ron top 10 strongest Wizards in modern day.

Ron became an Aurors yes but the problem is there is no way to determine how proficient Ron was at his job other than using his fails as a student but that doesn't really prove anything as of course it was when he was far younger.

Snape would very much destroy those Security Guards wizards, Like I said Snape knows how to fly without a Broom only 2 people in existence can do that Both Voldemort and snape.

Yeah but that's because only Voldemort knew how to. He's the one who invented the spell to do that and then taught it to Snape. No one else knows how to do it because they've never been taught it.

Okay....if he couldn't handle one wizard behind him but defeat the ones in front of him it proves my point, That he was only doing so good because those Aurors were stupid enough to just stand right in a stationary position, firing spells and not dodging or finding cover.

Getting hit in the back by someone he thought wasn't a threat isn't a bad showing lol. As for the Aurors they couldn't dodge because they were in a tight pack and there was no cover for them.

you can't call it cheap if he is already fighting unfair odds as it is. How about you talk about how it was 10 against 1 and complain about that too.

It is a cheapshot though. While Grindelwald was fighting against unfair odds he at the very least could defend himself. When he was defeated he was hit in the back by people he considered non threats.

If those Wizards where in the same position when fighting snape he would be able to do that as well.

No he wouldn't. High tiers like Bellatrix have been challenged by one Auror. Grindelwald fought 20.

you know how funny it was when they put up that shield....right but instead of Grindelwald breaking the shield he decided to fight 10 wizards. Voldemort would have chuckled and just destroyed that Barrier casually.

With those non existent feats which Voldemort has to suggest he can.

What makes Auroras Elite If Wizards like Ron can make it as one? Ron isn't someone I would say is Elite.

He made it as one because he is actually surprisingly gifted academically. He passed all of his OWLS with good grades. Ron coming across as comical doesn't mean he couldn't have become an expert duellist especially since he's shown he's able to one shot Snatchers and the likes.

that all I feel like Replying to anyways like I said Voldemort pretty much rapes.

Someone who got challenged by Amelia Bones isn't going to rape Grindelwald.

Grindelwald has nothing to stop Voldemort from just possessing him.

Which he's never done to anyone in the series.

Avatar image for mygod101
#152 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

We've responded to each other in multiple different threads on the same topic basically so I'll just combine all of my posts here so you don't have to waste time going into each different thread. It'll also hopefully keep our discussions more concise and less messy.

Also I probably won't respond for another week as I have CaV posts to write.

Post 1 (This thread)

There is no evidence for this. They just couldn't do it before the whole world knew about the existence of wizards.

Not to mention this doesn't prove anything as these are entirely different spells. The memory charm as to be applied to every person indicidually compared to Fiendfyre which can wipe multiple people out at a time. Your comparison is faulty.

….None of that changes what I said. do you even remember what you said to me? You asked me to prove that those wizards weren't able to do magic on the level of a city. which I told you they couldn't wipe the city memory so they can't be on those level. Below, you later Admitted that the whole city wasn't even Destroy or Damage in FB1 movie....so that comment is moot you can't prove a negative my friend. So... I'll say it again, those Wizards has no feats that put them anywhere near the power boost Grindelwald got in FB2.

Except that's due to the nature of different kinds of magic.

okay....

Which you haven't substantiated.

Actually, I have. you just refuse to acknowledge them and went OT asking me to prove these Fodder Auroras weren't powerful. I give you two examples, since you dismiss the other and whatnot. Gellert Went from Barely being able to Beat 4 Auroras to being able to nearly massacre a city. that is a boost weather you want to accept it or not it factually evidence that He got massively more powerful after he gained the elder wand.

then there is the fact that Harry potter in year 6 got Wrecked and owned By snape then after he gained the elder wand he was able to over power Voldemort who could one shot 3 snape level Wizards with one spell, and who had one shotted snape casually. that is pretty relevant boost...weather you want to accept it or not this is all factual evidence that the elder wand makes you much more powerful.

Hence why I never said the whole city wasn't damaged. Still reparing a significant portion of a city in mere minutes is incredibly impressive.

okay...but you were asking me to prove that there weren't on that caliber of power which isn't needed since we established that the whole city wasn't destroy. sure, it was impressive for Aurora tier wizards.

No shit Voldemort is the most powerful but there is no definitive proof he's massively more powerful than Grindelwald. And Dumbledore most likely wasn't factoring in amps like The Elder Wand when he made that statement. I've yet to see a compelling argument for EW amped Grindelwald losing to Voldemort.

Then...you are just having trouble accepting that Grindelwald gets stomped? okay....I told you why it is massive difference then you keep telling me to prove it and when I talk about it like below you ignore it asking me to prove a negative. Like I said Harry potter got Owned by Snape, After he gains the Elder wand he is able to defeat Voldemort who one shotted snape and one shotted 3 Snape level wizards. That is a pretty significant boost.

The only reason why this isn't a rape is because Grindelwald has the Elder wand, Which is why I said he gets stomp which is pretty fair.

Voldemort with his own powers is able to destroy huge fortress sized shield. Grindelwald with his own powers can't.

^Massive difference there buddy.

Voldemort with his own powers was able to best Dumbledore+Elder wand. Grindelwald with the elder wand got defeated even after he was allowed to gain massive power unchecked he still was wrecked in the end( I said he was Owned because had the duel been on fair terms and they were using their own powers not the Elder wand Dumbledore would have destroyed Grindelwald).

^That is a massive difference there buddy and this is a more powerful Dumbledore as well since Wizards can live up to 140-150 years of age...and Dumbledore was only 114 when he fought Voldemort and stated to be in great health and condition for his age even able to blitz younger wizards who was less then half his age.

As I said I know he can't. I simply disagree it's a stomp and you have failed to articulate why it is beyond proving Voldemort is more powerful but not quantifying by how much he is.

above post proves it buddy.

Post 2 (High Tiers Vs Voldemort And Dumbledore Thread)

You keep on saying he lost to 4 wizards but haven't substantiated it with anything.

Not to mention this doesn't actually prove The Elder Wand is a massive amp. All you've proven is that it is an amp as we have no way of quantifying how much more powerful it made Grindelwald or whether he could destroy a city without it.

No...I only said that in one post, and admitted that wasn't what I meant now you are acting as if I was saying it multiple times for some petty victory? I only said that one time, and I didn't even meant that and I even corrected myself what I actually meant to say you and I both know that so stop acting like Said that multiple times. I explained to you why the Elder wand is massive boost.

Yet to be proven.

very much proven....You can read my above post why then you will see that Voldemort is way more powerful than Grindelwald.

Post 3 (Grindelwald vs Voldemort Thread)

My reasoning for why you were wrong was provided throughout the rest of the post.

okay...I countered them.

You didn't. All you did was say he lost badly, ignored Dumbledore's comments and made up your own fan fiction.

I didn't Ignore anything of Dumbledore comments, I acknowledge that at one point you could say there around Equals. now, you are making the claim that Both Dumbledore and Grindelwald grow in power at the same rate equally, and I am asking you to prove that claim. Prove that they grow at the same rate equally or concede.

Which he's never done to anyone in the series.

So... you are saying that Voldemort never Possessed Harry potter in book 5? LMFAO...Like I said explain to me how Grindelwald is going to stop Voldemort from Possessing him.

I replied to the post that was relevant since the last once where just answering things I went over and explained earlier. Also, be a little more respectful to the members, I'm just learning how to work this forum And I don't spend my time debating much online since I have a life outside of internet. FYI I actually passed English102 which is college level with 89%. so, yes I can write a grammatically cohesive sentence.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#153 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101: Will respond by next weekend at the latest.

I have CaV posts to write and other stuff to be getting on with.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#154 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

….None of that changes what I said. do you even remember what you said to me? You asked me to prove that those wizards weren't able to do magic on the level of a city. which I told you they couldn't wipe the city memory so they can't be on those level. Below, you later Admitted that the whole city wasn't even Destroy or Damage in FB1 movie....so that comment is moot you can't prove a negative my friend. So... I'll say it again, those Wizards has no feats that put them anywhere near the power boost Grindelwald got in FB2.

The fact that they haven't acccomplished a feat on that level doesn't mean they're incapable of doing so.

The fact of the matter is memory wiping on a city wide scale is considerably harder than destroying a city with Fiendfire due to the anture of both spells. One is designed for destruction so it can cause damage on a city wide scale meanwhile the other needs to be applied to each person in the city therefore making it impossible for 20 Aurors to mindwipe the population of the city.

If we put Grindelwald in that same scenario there is basiccally a 100% guarntee he wouldn't be able to accomplish the feat.

Actually, I have. you just refuse to acknowledge them and went OT asking me to prove these Fodder Auroras weren't powerful. I give you two examples, since you dismiss the other and whatnot.

Yeah because your examples aren't valid and definitely don't prove Grindelwald can't destroy a city.

Gellert Went from Barely being able to Beat 4 Auroras to being able to nearly massacre a city. that is a boost weather you want to accept it or not it factually evidence that He got massively more powerful after he gained the elder wand.

I asked you to provide the feat where he struggled with 4 Aurors and you have yet to do so. Please substantiate your claim otherwise it doesn't stand.

then there is the fact that Harry potter in year 6 got Wrecked and owned By snape then after he gained the elder wand he was able to over power Voldemort who could one shot 3 snape level Wizards with one spell, and who had one shotted snape casually. that is pretty relevant boost...weather you want to accept it or not this is all factual evidence that the elder wand makes you much more powerful.

Jesus Christ. Harry didn't beat Voldemort lmao. Voldemort died because Harry owned The Elder Wand which Voldemort owned at the time and Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because of it. He died because he was using a wand which point blank refused to kill Harry not because Harry was more powerful.

Voldemort's curse literally bounced off Harry and reflected back in his face.

The only reason why this isn't a rape is because Grindelwald has the Elder wand, Which is why I said he gets stomp which is pretty fair.

@renchamp

The word rape is being used to describe a battle which is against the forum rules.

Also both words literally imply the same thing.

Voldemort with his own powers is able to destroy huge fortress sized shield. Grindelwald with his own powers can't.

This never happened in the books so it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. You can't use book and movie feats simaltaneously due to blatant contradiction. Choose one.

Not to mention there is no evidence Grindelwald couldn't replicate the feat.

^Massive difference there buddy.

Not really.

Voldemort with his own powers was able to best Dumbledore+Elder wand.

No evidence Voldemort won. If anything Dumbledore was winning which iirc I went over in my last post. Not to mention you still haven't established why The Elder Wand is a potent amp.

Grindelwald with the elder wand got defeated even after he was allowed to gain massive power unchecked he still was wrecked in the end( I said he was Owned because had the duel been on fair terms and they were using their own powers not the Elder wand Dumbledore would have destroyed Grindelwald).

There is no evidence Dumbledore would have stomped Grindelwald is we removed the wand other than conjecture.

^That is a massive difference there buddy and this is a more powerful Dumbledore as well since Wizards can live up to 140-150 years of age...and Dumbledore was only 114 when he fought Voldemort and stated to be in great health and condition for his age even able to blitz younger wizards who was less then half his age.

None of this proves Dumbledore was more powerful just that he had good reflexes despite his old age.

No...I only said that in one post, and admitted that wasn't what I meant now you are acting as if I was saying it multiple times for some petty victory? I only said that one time, and I didn't even meant that and I even corrected myself what I actually meant to say you and I both know that so stop acting like Said that multiple times.

You didn't correct anything. The statement still says he struggled with 4 Aurors which has never happened. You literally mentioned it again in this post.

Let me quote your words for you:

"Gellert Went from Barely being able to Beat 4 Auroras"

This never happened.

I explained to you why the Elder wand is massive boost.

You haven't proven it though. All you've done is provide a bunch of faulty reasoning.

very much proven....You can read my above post why then you will see that Voldemort is way more powerful than Grindelwald.

Despite your claims you still haven't articulated why the second most powerful Dark Wizard of all time can't give a fight to someone who struggled with Amelia Bones.

okay...I countered them.

No you didn't. All you did was provide a bunch of nonsensical conjecture.

I didn't Ignore anything of Dumbledore comments, I acknowledge that at one point you could say there around Equals. now, you are making the claim that Both Dumbledore and Grindelwald grow in power at the same rate equally, and I am asking you to prove that claim. Prove that they grow at the same rate equally or concede.

I did prove it though but I guess I'll provide it again:

-During their teenage years they were equally talented per numerous quotes.

-Grindelwald grew in power until 1927 and they were described as equals again indicating Grindelwald and Dumbledore grew in lockstep.

-As of 1945 they were once again decribed as equals reaffirming the above point.

So... you are saying that Voldemort never Possessed Harry potter in book 5? LMFAO...Like I said explain to me how Grindelwald is going to stop Voldemort from Possessing him.

Voldemort has never done this in a combative context though. Please tell me why he didn't possess Dumbledore, Kingsley, Slughorn or McGonagall. Maybe because he can't. We can simply chalk Voldemort possessing Harry down to plot as it's not narratively consistent with what he does in a duel.

He may have used possession once but we ignore it in a favour of his more consistent performance of not possesing his opponents.

I replied to the post that was relevant since the last once where just answering things I went over and explained earlier. Also, be a little more respectful to the members, I'm just learning how to work this forum And I don't spend my time debating much online since I have a life outside of internet. FYI I actually passed English102 which is college level with 89%. so, yes I can write a grammatically cohesive sentence.

You literally don't even know how capital letters work and you think what you write is cohesive. Lmao.

Just one quick example of incorrect grammar:

you are claiming that Dumbledore and Grindelwald are even in the past.

Were even in the past*. The word "are" is present tense and does not make sense in a sentence where the tense being used is past.

Avatar image for mygod101
#155 Edited by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@arkhamasylum3 said:

@mygod101:

….None of that changes what I said. do you even remember what you said to me? You asked me to prove that those wizards weren't able to do magic on the level of a city. which I told you they couldn't wipe the city memory so they can't be on those level. Below, you later Admitted that the whole city wasn't even Destroy or Damage in FB1 movie....so that comment is moot you can't prove a negative my friend. So... I'll say it again, those Wizards has no feats that put them anywhere near the power boost Grindelwald got in FB2.

The fact that they haven't acccomplished a feat on that level doesn't mean they're incapable of doing so.

The fact of the matter is memory wiping on a city wide scale is considerably harder than destroying a city with Fiendfire due to the anture of both spells. One is designed for destruction so it can cause damage on a city wide scale meanwhile the other needs to be applied to each person in the city therefore making it impossible for 20 Aurors to mindwipe the population of the city.

If we put Grindelwald in that same scenario there is basiccally a 100% guarntee he wouldn't be able to accomplish the feat.

Actually, I have. you just refuse to acknowledge them and went OT asking me to prove these Fodder Auroras weren't powerful. I give you two examples, since you dismiss the other and whatnot.

Yeah because your examples aren't valid and definitely don't prove Grindelwald can't destroy a city.

Gellert Went from Barely being able to Beat 4 Auroras to being able to nearly massacre a city. that is a boost weather you want to accept it or not it factually evidence that He got massively more powerful after he gained the elder wand.

I asked you to provide the feat where he struggled with 4 Aurors and you have yet to do so. Please substantiate your claim otherwise it doesn't stand.

then there is the fact that Harry potter in year 6 got Wrecked and owned By snape then after he gained the elder wand he was able to over power Voldemort who could one shot 3 snape level Wizards with one spell, and who had one shotted snape casually. that is pretty relevant boost...weather you want to accept it or not this is all factual evidence that the elder wand makes you much more powerful.

Jesus Christ. Harry didn't beat Voldemort lmao. Voldemort died because Harry owned The Elder Wand which Voldemort owned at the time and Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because of it. He died because he was using a wand which point blank refused to kill Harry not because Harry was more powerful.

Voldemort's curse literally bounced off Harry and reflected back in his face.

The only reason why this isn't a rape is because Grindelwald has the Elder wand, Which is why I said he gets stomp which is pretty fair.

@renchamp

The word rape is being used to describe a battle which is against the forum rules.

Also both words literally imply the same thing.

Voldemort with his own powers is able to destroy huge fortress sized shield. Grindelwald with his own powers can't.

This never happened in the books so it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. You can't use book and movie feats simaltaneously due to blatant contradiction. Choose one.

Not to mention there is no evidence Grindelwald couldn't replicate the feat.

^Massive difference there buddy.

Not really.

Voldemort with his own powers was able to best Dumbledore+Elder wand.

No evidence Voldemort won. If anything Dumbledore was winning which iirc I went over in my last post. Not to mention you still haven't established why The Elder Wand is a potent amp.

Grindelwald with the elder wand got defeated even after he was allowed to gain massive power unchecked he still was wrecked in the end( I said he was Owned because had the duel been on fair terms and they were using their own powers not the Elder wand Dumbledore would have destroyed Grindelwald).

There is no evidence Dumbledore would have stomped Grindelwald is we removed the wand other than conjecture.

^That is a massive difference there buddy and this is a more powerful Dumbledore as well since Wizards can live up to 140-150 years of age...and Dumbledore was only 114 when he fought Voldemort and stated to be in great health and condition for his age even able to blitz younger wizards who was less then half his age.

None of this proves Dumbledore was more powerful just that he had good reflexes despite his old age.

No...I only said that in one post, and admitted that wasn't what I meant now you are acting as if I was saying it multiple times for some petty victory? I only said that one time, and I didn't even meant that and I even corrected myself what I actually meant to say you and I both know that so stop acting like Said that multiple times.

You didn't correct anything. The statement still says he struggled with 4 Aurors which has never happened. You literally mentioned it again in this post.

Let me quote your words for you:

"Gellert Went from Barely being able to Beat 4 Auroras"

This never happened.

I explained to you why the Elder wand is massive boost.

You haven't proven it though. All you've done is provide a bunch of faulty reasoning.

very much proven....You can read my above post why then you will see that Voldemort is way more powerful than Grindelwald.

Despite your claims you still haven't articulated why the second most powerful Dark Wizard of all time can't give a fight to someone who struggled with Amelia Bones.

okay...I countered them.

No you didn't. All you did was provide a bunch of nonsensical conjecture.

I didn't Ignore anything of Dumbledore comments, I acknowledge that at one point you could say there around Equals. now, you are making the claim that Both Dumbledore and Grindelwald grow in power at the same rate equally, and I am asking you to prove that claim. Prove that they grow at the same rate equally or concede.

I did prove it though but I guess I'll provide it again:

-During their teenage years they were equally talented per numerous quotes.

-Grindelwald grew in power until 1927 and they were described as equals again indicating Grindelwald and Dumbledore grew in lockstep.

-As of 1945 they were once again decribed as equals reaffirming the above point.

So... you are saying that Voldemort never Possessed Harry potter in book 5? LMFAO...Like I said explain to me how Grindelwald is going to stop Voldemort from Possessing him.

Voldemort has never done this in a combative context though. Please tell me why he didn't possess Dumbledore, Kingsley, Slughorn or McGonagall. Maybe because he can't. We can simply chalk Voldemort possessing Harry down to plot as it's not narratively consistent with what he does in a duel.

He may have used possession once but we ignore it in a favour of his more consistent performance of not possesing his opponents.

I replied to the post that was relevant since the last once where just answering things I went over and explained earlier. Also, be a little more respectful to the members, I'm just learning how to work this forum And I don't spend my time debating much online since I have a life outside of internet. FYI I actually passed English102 which is college level with 89%. so, yes I can write a grammatically cohesive sentence.

You literally don't even know how capital letters work and you think what you write is cohesive. Lmao.

Just one quick example of incorrect grammar:

you are claiming that Dumbledore and Grindelwald are even in the past.

Were even in the past*. The word "are" is present tense and does not make sense in a sentence where the tense being used is past.

"The fact that they haven't acccomplished a feat on that level doesn't mean they're incapable of doing so.

The fact of the matter is memory wiping on a city wide scale is considerably harder than destroying a city with Fiendfire due to the anture of both spells. One is designed for destruction so it can cause damage on a city wide scale meanwhile the other needs to be applied to each person in the city therefore making it impossible for 20 Aurors to mindwipe the population of the city.

If we put Grindelwald in that same scenario there is basiccally a 100% guarntee he wouldn't be able to accomplish the feat."

Good lord...and you were talking about my Grammar at least put the comma(s), and hyphens in the correct place ;)

nothing you said implies that doing that is impossible, only that its very complexed.

Yeah because your examples aren't valid and definitely don't prove Grindelwald can't destroy a city.

the burden of proof is on you to prove that Grindelwald without the elder wand can destroy a city. I am open to the idea if he can, if you have evidence that proves this then let me see it.

I asked you to provide the feat where he struggled with 4 Aurors and you have yet to do so. Please substantiate your claim otherwise it doesn't stand.

If you are asking me to corroborate my findings of Grindelwald struggling with 4 Aurors, then I can't show you proof of that because neither I or you can prove how much effort he put in that duel and say it is a true statement.

However, I can show you Grindelwald struggling with an ex Auror in Tina.

Jesus Christ. Harry didn't beat Voldemort lmao. Voldemort died because Harry owned The Elder Wand which Voldemort owned at the time and Voldemort couldn't kill Harry because of it. He died because he was using a wand which point blank refused to kill Harry not because Harry was more powerful.

Voldemort's curse literally bounced off Harry and reflected back in his face.

It was a combination of things that defeated Voldemort. The Elder wand for one like you said was Harry's, and the Double protection spell as well.

@renchamp

The word rape is being used to describe a battle which is against the forum rules.

Also both words literally imply the same thing

I don't see how crying about this is a rebuttal of any kind.

This never happened in the books so it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion. You can't use book and movie feats simaltaneously due to blatant contradiction. Choose one.

Not to mention there is no evidence Grindelwald couldn't replicate the feat

My God, you must have been sleeping when you typed this right? so far I counted like 7 grammar errors and punctuation errors like wtf LMFAO. Dumbledore says this about Voldemort:

Order of the Phoenix “I knew that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power."

^Right there, Dumbledore said his most powerful protective spells and charms would fail against Voldemort. You and anyone else would be foolish to think that Dumbledore couldn't just conjure up the same shield that protected Hogwarts against Voldemort, but he clearly says it wouldn't be enough. Now, if we the readers are able to infer what that means it means that Voldemort can destroy shield spells. Checkmate

Actually, there is...when Grindelwald chose to fight those 10 Aurors instead of just breaking the shield and just revealing himself like he was trying to do in the first place. Checkmate

Not really.

It is, you have yet to show me proof that Grindelwald could destroy that shield. I recited a passage from the book that blatantly says that Voldemort can destroy Dumbledore with the Elder wands most powerful and complex protective spells and charms. What have you shown me for Grindelwald...other than excuses.

No evidence Voldemort won. If anything Dumbledore was winning which iirc I went over in my last post. Not to mention you still haven't established why The Elder Wand is a potent amp.

Really? go back and read their duel again, maybe you weren't wearing your glasses when you looked at that battle. Voldemort attempts four killing curses in that battle with Dumbledore. the last killing curse Dumbledore needed the Fawkes to swoops in and swallows the curse and blows up while Dumbledore deals with the snake Voldemort conjured. that pretty much proves that Dumbledore would have been killed within the first minute of the duel if it wasn't for Outside interference. right there, the Fawkes wouldn't have come in if Dumbledore wasn't in danger of getting killed since in FB2 states Fawkes comes to the aid of a Dumbledore in a time of desperate need. so yes...that is outright lost remove the Fawkes and Dumbledore dies.

You didn't correct anything. The statement still says he struggled with 4 Aurors which has never happened. You literally mentioned it again in this post.

Let me quote your words for you:

"Gellert Went from Barely being able to Beat 4 Auroras"

This never happened.

okay, So because I didn't edit the last post that means I said it many times? can you tell me exactly how much effort Grindelwald put in his duels and say it is a 100% True statement? stop grasping at straws, we don't know how much effort he put in that duel but one thing I can say he Tina was able to hold her own with him and that can't be disputed.

You haven't proven it though. All you've done is provide a bunch of faulty reasoning.

Maybe you are just doing an appeal to emotion. how many times must I reiterate this before you accept the facts? Base generic magic with the elder wand was able to repair a wand that was stated unrepairable by Ollivander no other wand could repair it. ^That implies the elder wand is beyond any other wand. to say it doesn't make the magic any stronger than other wands is illogical when no other wand can replicate base magic of the elder wand. use your head and at least try and form a decent argument instead of just talking out of your arse.

Despite your claims you still haven't articulated why the second most powerful Dark Wizard of all time can't give a fight to someone who struggled with Amelia Bones

Okay, don't see how that is relevant when we see that Voldemort is casually able to rape people like Snape; let talk about him being able to overpower duelists like Kingsley, Minerva, and Slughorn. Two of the people I mentioned academic wise is not far off from Dumbledore level( not saying they are as powerful, only that they are peers like Slughorn is stated very good). Now, name one duelist that Grindelwald has dueled that is on Snape or Minerva's level of skill who isn't Dumbledore....don't worry I'll wait. Not only that, but during that time Voldemort was dealing with Order of the Phoenix( which was created by Dumbledore specifically to combat Voldemort and his death eaters) and Aurors, it was implied that Voldemort was winning that battle had he not attacked Harry Potter clearly shows that Voldemort was above Grindelwald when Dumbledore was actively involved in the fight against Voldemort in the first Wizard war.

No you didn't. All you did was provide a bunch of nonsensical conjecture.

that's subjective.

I did prove it though but I guess I'll provide it again:

-During their teenage years they were equally talented per numerous quotes.

-Grindelwald grew in power until 1927 and they were described as equals again indicating Grindelwald and Dumbledore grew in lockstep.

-As of 1945 they were once again decribed as equals reaffirming the above point.

Which was proven wrong when Dumbledore with no advantage defeated Grindelwald who had the elder wand wielded. It is futile to ignore that information because it clearly shows a significant gap between them.

Voldemort has never done this in a combative context though. Please tell me why he didn't possess Dumbledore, Kingsley, Slughorn or McGonagall. Maybe because he can't. We can simply chalk Voldemort possessing Harry down to plot as it's not narratively consistent with what he does in a duel.

He may have used possession once but we ignore it in a favour of his more consistent performance of not possesing his opponents.

Well, actually Voldemort possessed Ginny as well in COS, but whatever it still doesn't change the battle much at all. there isn't anything Grindelwald has that is going to help him in this duel. Voldemort knows far more magic of the dark arts than anyone, stated that Voldemort has knowledge of the most unknown and complex Dark magic which is fact. If Dumbledore needed outside help just to survive his duel With Voldemort how is Grindelwald(Who doesn't have any outside help) going to survive not getting killed by that 4 spell combo? You're essentially trying to imply that Grindelwald can do what a more experienced Dumbledore and more knowledgeable Dumbledore can't do.

You literally don't even know how capital letters work and you think what you write is cohesive. Lmao.

Just one quick example of incorrect grammar:

you are claiming that Dumbledore and Grindelwald are even in the past.

Were even in the past*. The word "are" is present tense and does not make sense in a sentence where the tense being used is past.

Actually, I do know how to. what you don't understand is that 1) my caps lock on my computer is actually messed up and jammed so the capital letter stuff happens I am just too lazy to be bothered by going back every 20seconds to correct them. 2) it's ironic you are talking about someone grammar when you can't even put your hyphens, and commas in the correct place. what is even more hilarious is that you are deviating so far off topic just because I sniped you by saying your argument doesn't make sense( BTW I'll be waiting for all this proof you have of Grindelwald being able to destroy a city) that you had to bring up something that is irrelevant to this discussion. You clearly don't even understand that in order to even make it to English101(which is an intro to college level English) you need to understand past tense, the Apostrophes, the commas, and Mechanics.

The Capitalization is a mechanics thing, all that you are talking about is beginning level English. If you want to reach that hard well look at your entire post I can say the same about you, I counted at least a dozen grammar errors and places where you didn't even add a comma to your sentences. Like I mentioned I passed English102(which is advance college level English) with a 89% so before you talk about someone else's sentence how about you fix yours and put your hyphens, and commas in the correct places their kid. You really shouldn't be talking about other peoples errors and talk about grammar when your entire post has so many errors, Mechanics error, commas not even in the right place...it is a quick way to get wrecked in a debate.

Wrecked you

Avatar image for breakofdawn
#156 Edited by BreakOfDawn (1151 posts) - - Show Bio

Dumbledore. There's no actual feats for the elder wand in a combative sense. While it most likely amps the power of the spells that the wielder casts, if the witch or wizard is more skilful (as Dumbledore is) they can overcome it. A more experienced and thus more learned Albus will be the only wizard capable of overcoming Grindelwald when he has the elder wand.

@mygod101@arkhamasylum3 Sorry, but I'm going to point out to both of you that you lose credibility when you have to belittle your opponent by pointing out their spelling and grammatical errors. No one on this website really cares if you make a few mistakes while you type, especially if you're like me and you type pretty fast and as you both clearly did throughout your posts.

Also, I'm going to jump in to say that IIRC Grindelwald could have destroyed the city in CoG, hence the barrier powered by Flamel, the Scamander brothers, etc. The fire spell he conjured had to be stopped because they thought it would spread to the city. I can't remember as it's been a couple of months since I've seen the movie, but I believe that was the gist of why they had to stop it so that it wouldn't spread any further.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#157 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for mygod101
#158 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

Dumbledore. There's no actual feats for the elder wand in a combative sense. While it most likely amps the power of the spells that the wielder casts, if the witch or wizard is more skilful (as Dumbledore is) they can overcome it. A more experienced and thus more learned Albus will be the only wizard capable of overcoming Grindelwald when he has the elder wand.

@mygod101@arkhamasylum3 Sorry, but I'm going to point out to both of you that you lose credibility when you have to belittle your opponent by pointing out their spelling and grammatical errors. No one on this website really cares if you make a few mistakes while you type, especially if you're like me and you type pretty fast and as you both clearly did throughout your posts.

Also, I'm going to jump in to say that IIRC Grindelwald could have destroyed the city in CoG, hence the barrier powered by Flamel, the Scamander brothers, etc. The fire spell he conjured had to be stopped because they thought it would spread to the city. I can't remember as it's been a couple of months since I've seen the movie, but I believe that was the gist of why they had to stop it so that it wouldn't spread any further.

I understand, but just so you know, it wasn't me who took that route. I particularly don't care about Grammar that much since this isn't school, I was merely telling him why the capitalization was all over the place because my cap lock on my keyboard is messed up.

This was a life lesson for him, not to assume because it always makes you look like an asshole plus you get clapped if your assumption was wrong. I just called out his post for being foolish nonsense from it. have you seen FB2? because if you have you can quite literally see the power boost the elder wand Gave to Grindelwald throughout the movie. he went from semi-struggling with Tina in FB1 to being able to handle Newt and his brother who is a Top tier Aurora with just a small bit of the elder wands power.

I have to disagree with you, Voldemort claps Grindelwald. even Dumbledore said that Voldemort was better than, and was even probably the best student Hogwarts has ever seen which includes himself.

Avatar image for breakofdawn
#159 Edited by BreakOfDawn (1151 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

have you seen FB2? because if you have you can quite literally see the power boost the elder wand Gave to Grindelwald throughout the movie. he went from semi-struggling with Tina in FB1 to being able to handle Newt and his brother who is a Top tier Aurora with just a small bit of the elder wands power.

He was barely paying her any attention during that fight as he was chasing after Credence. He wandlessly chucks a car at her in the same scene. He wasn't struggling with her in the slightest, and due to remaining in the persona of Mr Graves he didn't even attack her offensively beyond the car feat (which is probably the best showing of powerful wandless magic we've seen in any of the films).

Loading Video...

I have to disagree with you, Voldemort claps Grindelwald. even Dumbledore said that Voldemort was better than,and was even probably the best student Hogwarts has ever seen which includes himself.

Source for the underlined?

Avatar image for mygod101
#160 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

have you seen FB2? because if you have you can quite literally see the power boost the elder wand Gave to Grindelwald throughout the movie. he went from semi-struggling with Tina in FB1 to being able to handle Newt and his brother who is a Top tier Aurora with just a small bit of the elder wands power.

He was barely paying her any attention during that fight as he was chasing after Credence. He wandlessly chucks a car at her in the same scene. He wasn't struggling with her in the slightest, and due to remaining in the persona of Mr Graves he didn't even attack her offensively beyond the car feat (which is probably the best showing of powerful wandless magic we've seen in any of the films).

Loading Video...

I have to disagree with you, Voldemort claps Grindelwald. even Dumbledore said that Voldemort was better than,and was even probably the best student Hogwarts has ever seen which includes himself.

Source for the underlined?

I am in a hurry here to leave, but real quick...if he could have defeated her so casually why resort to using a car in the first place? According to most fans, he should few tiers above her, and the way he was dealing with those other 10 wizards that clash should have never happened for as long as it did.

It was said in the COS when they talked about tom as a student Dumbledore made that claim that Voldemort was probably better.

Now, I have to leave my GFs are asking me to take them to the mall real quick be on later tonight or tomorrow.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#161 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

Good lord...and you were talking about my Grammar at least put the comma(s), and hyphens in the correct place ;)

The comma key on my keyboard doesn't work and I'm too lazy to copy past all my rebuttals into Word so I can use the Review Grammar tool to add in commas. The only times I ever bother to insert commas are when I'm writing my rebuttals in Word in the first place (like with longer posts in lengthy debates or posts in a CaV) or if I'm writing a list of things (as I feel it's more mandatory to add commas) in which case I copy a comma from another post and paste it into mine. As for hyphens I don't see where I've used them incorrectly (or forgot to use them when I should have). You on the other hand don't bother to use Capital Letters at the start of sentences half the time, forget to add in apostrophes where they should be and use the incorrect tense sometimes (see the example from your last post).

nothing you said implies that doing that is impossible, only that its very complexed.

I wasn't trying to prove it's impossible lmao just that it's incredibly hard and completely different from attempting to destroy a city thus making the anti feat for the Aurors not applicable for lowering Grindelwald's postion without The Elder Wand.

the burden of proof is on you to prove that Grindelwald without the elder wand can destroy a city. I am open to the idea if he can, if you have evidence that proves this then let me see it.

This is some incredibly dishonest debating. You're trying to prove The Elder Wand isn't a massive amp by trying to prove Grindelwald can't destroy a city without it as he struggled with a group of about 20 or so Aurors. I pointed out the flawed logic in this reasoning by saying that there is no evidence the group of Aurors can't destroy a city and in response you brought up the Aurors being incapable of mindwiping an individual and in response I pointed out that mindwiping a city is considerably harder than destroying one. Given you were the one who made the claim Grindelwald can't destroy a city without the Wand it's up to you to prove he can't not up to me to prove he can.

You're the one trying to prove The Elder Wand isn't a huge amp by saying Grindelwald can't destroy a city without it so it's up to you to prove he can't.

Does that make sense?

If you are asking me to corroborate my findings of Grindelwald struggling with 4 Aurors, then I can't show you proof of that because neither I or you can prove how much effort he put in that duel and say it is a true statement.

You can't prove it? This might as well be a concession.

However, I can show you Grindelwald struggling with an ex Auror in Tina.

He literally effortlessly blocks all of her spells and doesn't even bother to cast a single spell in response for the whole fight until the final part which triggers Prior Incantatum which per the books themselves has absolutely nothing to do with power.

Unless you're suggesting Book 4 Harry is on the same level as Voldemort.

It was a combination of things that defeated Voldemort. The Elder wand for one like you said was Harry's, and the Double protection spell as well.

You're literally invalidating your own point here. Another concession accepted.

I don't see how crying about this is a rebuttal of any kind.

I mean it's against the site rules for gosh sake and you're suggesting I just ignore it. Not to mention there wasn't a point to refute just your opinion on how the battle would go.

My God, you must have been sleeping when you typed this right? so far I counted like 7 grammar errors and punctuation errors like wtf LMFAO.

Care to point them out? As far as I'm concerned the only thing I'm not doing is inserting commas which as I already explained to you is impossible for me to do.

Dumbledore says this about Voldemort:

Order of the Phoenix “I knew that Voldemort’s knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power."

^Right there, Dumbledore said his most powerful protective spells and charms would fail against Voldemort.

Right yeah sure this proves that Dumbledore's spells might not hold up against Voldemort proving the two are close but in the end it's a fallible character opinion which is literally contradicted by their duel anyway.

You and anyone else would be foolish to think that Dumbledore couldn't just conjure up the same shield that protected Hogwarts against Voldemort, but he clearly says it wouldn't be enough. Now, if we the readers are able to infer what that means it means that Voldemort can destroy shield spells. Checkmate

Jesus Christ lmao. Dumbledore cannot create a Shield like the one in the Battle of Hogwarts and has no feats to suggest he can. Your entire argument is reliant on him being able to do so.

Actually, there is...when Grindelwald chose to fight those 10 Aurors instead of just breaking the shield and just revealing himself like he was trying to do in the first place. Checkmate

First off can you count? There were around 20 Aurors for starters and Grindelwald not being able to destroy that Shield doesn't prove anything lol.

The Shield Voldemort created was made by McGonagall, Flitwick and Slughorn all of whom are barely above an Auror and as a group could maybe take 4 Aurors at best meanwhile the Shield Grindelwald couldn't destroy was created by 20 Aurors.

Also it took Voldemort a decent portion of time to destroy the Shield something Grindelwald obviously didn't have in that scenario given he was surrounded by Aurors who would try to Jinx him the moment he even attempted to destroy the Shield.

Absolutely nothing about this comparison proves Voldemort is better (I actually do think Voldemort>Grindelwald btw but you're doing a terrible job at proving it).

It is, you have yet to show me proof that Grindelwald could destroy that shield. I recited a passage from the book that blatantly says that Voldemort can destroy Dumbledore with the Elder wands most powerful and complex protective spells and charms. What have you shown me for Grindelwald...other than excuses.

I articulated above there is no evidence Grindelwald can't destroy the Shield if given enough time. His magical power was enough to level a city so I don't see why he can't do it.

As for the Dumbledore section I pointed out that Dumbledore very clearly was powerful enough to defeat Voldemort based on their duel so any argument that Voldemort is above Grindelwald based on that is conjecture.

Really? go back and read their duel again, maybe you weren't wearing your glasses when you looked at that battle. Voldemort attempts four killing curses in that battle with Dumbledore. the last killing curse Dumbledore needed the Fawkes to swoops in and swallows the curse and blows up while Dumbledore deals with the snake Voldemort conjured. that pretty much proves that Dumbledore would have been killed within the first minute of the duel if it wasn't for Outside interference. right there, the Fawkes wouldn't have come in if Dumbledore wasn't in danger of getting killed since in FB2 states Fawkes comes to the aid of a Dumbledore in a time of desperate need. so yes...that is outright lost remove the Fawkes and Dumbledore dies.

You know I addressed all of this in the post at the top of the page right?

Let me copy paste my arguments for you:

Dumbledore animating Centaurs isn't against the rules of a battle lmao. Also as for the Fawkes thig Dumbledore could have used one of the statues that were holding on to Harry and Bella but chose not to. Not to mention Dumbledore knew Fawkes was an advantage he had. If Fawkes hadn't been there Dumbledore would have likely setup more defences.

Plus Voldemort got tagged 2 times and was nearly defeated by Dumbledore's water cocoon whereas the latter never seemed hard pressed nor was he tagged. While it was no stomp Dumbledore came off looking slightly superior in the fight imo.

I aslo find it funny how Voldemort fanboys use a duel in a Chaper Titled "The Only One He Ever Feared" to prove Voldemort is superior despite the chapter title implying the inverse. This was very clearly meant to be Dumbledore's moment to shine. I mean do people seriously think JK thought Voldemort was better while writing this duel when it's in a chapter with a title like that?

okay, So because I didn't edit the last post that means I said it many times? can you tell me exactly how much effort Grindelwald put in his duels and say it is a 100% True statement? stop grasping at straws, we don't know how much effort he put in that duel but one thing I can say he Tina was able to hold her own with him and that can't be disputed.

Previously addressed.

Maybe you are just doing an appeal to emotion. how many times must I reiterate this before you accept the facts? Base generic magic with the elder wand was able to repair a wand that was stated unrepairable by Ollivander no other wand could repair it. ^That implies the elder wand is beyond any other wand. to say it doesn't make the magic any stronger than other wands is illogical when no other wand can replicate base magic of the elder wand. use your head and at least try and form a decent argument instead of just talking out of your arse.

You know I never said The Elder Wand wasn't an amp right? This is a blatant misinterpretaation of my argument.

What I actually claimed was that The Elder Wand being a significant boost is baseless. The feat you provided proves that its magic is more potent than that of a normal wand but you haven't proven it's massively more potent. Meanwhile we have reasonable evidence it's not a potent amp otherwise it wouldn't have been beaten hundereds of times. Plus the entire thematical concept of the wand is that it does not make you invincible and it is merely a tool to be used to help others and that it's more trouble than it's worth basically meaning it's not nearly as potent an amp as made out.

What's more is its one feat (repairing Harry's wand something deemed "imposssible") is actually around the level of a 16 year old Grindelwald given he was able to conceal himself better than The Invisibility Cloak (something also impossible per the series itself) and equal Albus who could perform things with a wand never seen before per Professor Marchbanks in OOTP.

Okay, don't see how that is relevant when we see that Voldemort is casually able to rape people like Snape; let talk about him being able to overpower duelists like Kingsley, Minerva, and Slughorn. Two of the people I mentioned academic wise is not far off from Dumbledore level( not saying they are as powerful, only that they are peers like Slughorn is stated very good).

You do realise Dumbledore scales above them via his performance against Voldemort so saying they're not that far off him is a massive leap in logic. Voldemort one shotted this trio and he's either equal to or below Dumbledore in magical power.

Now, name one duelist that Grindelwald has dueled that is on Snape or Minerva's level of skill who isn't Dumbledore....don't worry I'll wait.

Maybe him fighting 20 Aurors? Regular Aurors like Tonks are able to challenge Bellatrix who scales above Minerva and Grindelwald fought 20 Aurors yet you're claiming he can't beat Minerva or Snape. Awful logic at its finest.

Not only that, but during that time Voldemort was dealing with Order of the Phoenix( which was created by Dumbledore specifically to combat Voldemort and his death eaters) and Aurors, it was implied that Voldemort was winning that battle had he not attacked Harry Potter clearly shows that Voldemort was above Grindelwald when Dumbledore was actively involved in the fight against Voldemort in the first Wizard war.

Yeah Voldemort was winning cause he took Britain by surprise and made sure he'd got spies inside the Ministry first long before attacking. Meanwhile the Aurors had been trying to arrest Grindelwald for 20 years but couldn't and Grindelwald was stated to be unstoppable during his reign. He lost because Dumbledore duelled him in the open compared to Voldemort who hid from Dumbledore and never dared to confront him. Not to mention all this does is prove Voldemort is a superior military commander not a superior duellist.

Well, actually Voldemort possessed Ginny as well in COS, but whatever it still doesn't change the battle much at all.

Not combat applicable at all. Voldemort used his horcrux to manipulate Ginny over the course of months. You're argument here is basically that Voldemort and Grindelwald will stop duelling and Voldemort will toss Grindelwald his Diary and Grindelwald mid battle is just gonna stop to read it.

there isn't anything Grindelwald has that is going to help him in this duel. Voldemort knows far more magic of the dark arts than anyone, stated that Voldemort has knowledge of the most unknown and complex Dark magic which is fact.

None of this I disagree with lol. I've literally said repeatedly that Voldemort wins I'm just arguing against him stomping is all.

If Dumbledore needed outside help just to survive his duel With Voldemort how is Grindelwald(Who doesn't have any outside help) going to survive not getting killed by that 4 spell combo? You're essentially trying to imply that Grindelwald can do what a more experienced Dumbledore and more knowledgeable Dumbledore can't do.

Once again this is a blatant misinterpretation of my argument. I said Voldemort doesn't stomp but I do agree he does win. Also all of this has been addressed previously so I'm notsure why you're bringing it up again.

Which was proven wrong when Dumbledore with no advantage defeated Grindelwald who had the elder wand wielded. It is futile to ignore that information because it clearly shows a significant gap between them.

No it doesn't. You haven't given me a single reason beyond conjecture that The Elder Wand is a significant boost.

Actually, I do know how to. what you don't understand is that 1) my caps lock on my computer is actually messed up and jammed so the capital letter stuff happens I am just too lazy to be bothered by going back every 20seconds to correct them.

Apologies I actually believe I might have mentioned this once again above in my post which I take back as I was not aware of your situation and I'm actually dealing with similair issues regarding the comma key on my keyboard. Oh well let's stop pointing out grammatical errors in each others post it gets us nowhere.

Regardless you are aware the shift key exists right?

2) it's ironic you are talking about someone grammar when you can't even put your hyphens, and commas in the correct place.

Explained previously.

what is even more hilarious is that you are deviating so far off topic just because I sniped you by saying your argument doesn't make sense( BTW I'll be waiting for all this proof you have of Grindelwald being able to destroy a city) that you had to bring up something that is irrelevant to this discussion.

I've literally gone over this though. The Elder Wand isn't a massive amp and it's up to you to prove it's not given you made the claim it was based on Grindelwald supposedly being incapable of destroying a city without The Elder Wand.

You clearly don't even understand that in order to even make it to English101(which is an intro to college level English) you need to understand past tense, the Apostrophes, the commas, and Mechanics.

All of which I understand but I can't do because of stipulations regarding the comma key on my keyboard. Also for you it's not just a capital letters thing as you literally have used the wrong tense on several occasions and have also forgotten to insert apostrophes as well.

An example of the way you typed something:

"nothing you said implies that doing that is impossible, only that its very complexed."

How it should be typed:

"Nothing you said implies that doing that is impossible, only that it's very complex."

The Capitalization is a mechanics thing, all that you are talking about is beginning level English.

The capitalization isn't the only problem though. You've literally used the incorrect tense on multiple occasions as well as not inserted apostrophes were they should be.

If you want to reach that hard well look at your entire post I can say the same about you, I counted at least a dozen grammar errors and places where you didn't even add a comma to your sentences.

Yeah the only thing you bring up is commas which isn't my fault lmao.

Like I mentioned I passed English102(which is advance college level English) with a 89% so before you talk about someone else's sentence how about you fix yours and put your hyphens, and commas in the correct places their kid.

Jesus Christ.

>Says he passed English 102 with 89%.

>Grammatical error at the end of the sentence:

"Like I mentioned I passed English102(which is advance college level English) with a 89% so before you talk about someone else's sentence how about you fix yours and put your hyphens, and commas in the correct places their kid."

That literally doesn't make sense lmao.

You really shouldn't be talking about other peoples errors and talk about grammar when your entire post has so many errors, Mechanics error, commas not even in the right place...it is a quick way to get wrecked in a debate.

In case you haven't noticed there are no commas in my posts besides in lists as the key on my keyboard literally doesn't work.

Wrecked you

The only person you destroyed while writing this monstrosity of a post was yourself.

Avatar image for breakofdawn
#162 Edited by BreakOfDawn (1151 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

I am in a hurry here to leave, but real quick...if he could have defeated her so casually why resort to using a car in the first place? According to most fans, he should few tiers above her, and the way he was dealing with those other 10 wizards that clash should have never happened for as long as it did.

Because he was stuck in priori incantatem. The same reasoning could thus be applied to Voldemort being unable to overpower Harry, since it's not a contest of power. He was also A) still masquerading as Graves and therefore couldn't exactly kill a fellow auror, and B) was barely paying attention and was clearly in a rush so didn't have the time to waste an extra couple of seconds on killing her.

It was said in the COS when they talked about tom as a student Dumbledore made that claim that Voldemort was probably better.

Will have to check but the quote isn't applicable to Gellert as he didn't go to Hogwarts so any comparison between the two based on that is redundant.

Now, I have to leave my GFs are asking me to take them to the mall real quick be on later tonight or tomorrow.

No worries.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#163 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101: The reason he needed to throw the car was because he couldn't cast another spell using his wand as he was engaged in Prior Incantatum.

Avatar image for mygod101
#164 Edited by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@arkhamasylum3:

I will reply back a bit later, I just logged in to say that I don't care about how you type or your grammar in your post this isn't school. As long as I can understand your post I am cool with however you type. You were the one who went into this Grammar stuff when I said your logic doesn't make sense. I said I passed English102 with an 89%, never implied I was a great writer just was telling you that yes, I am a very capable writer. I know past tense, the Apostrophes, the commas, and Mechanics in writing. All that is the beginning levels of English: English 020 and English 030 which are requirements needed to even get into English101. It takes years and years of practice to be considered a great writer, I just passed English102 class a few months ago so I still have years to go and so do you.

I won't bring it up anymore...I just was telling you the situation, that a lot of those errors was due cap lock being jammed.

I will reply back to your post later tonight I have to take my GFs to this mall real quick.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#165 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101 said:

@arkhamasylum3:

I will reply back a bit later, I just logged in to say that I don't care about how you type or your grammar in your post this isn't school. As long as I can understand your post I am cool with however you type. You were the one who went into this Grammar stuff when I said your logic doesn't make sense. I said I passed English102 with an 89%, never implied I was a great writer just was telling you that yes, I am a very capable writer. I know past tense, the Apostrophes, the commas, and Mechanics in writing. All that is the beginning levels of English: English 020 and English 030 which are requirements needed to even get into English101. It takes years and years of practice to be considered a great writer, I just passed English102 class a few months ago so I still have years to go and so do you.

I won't bring it up anymore...I just was telling you the situation, that a lot of those errors was due cap lock being jammed.

I will reply back to your post later tonight I have to take my GFs to this mall real quick.

Yeah sorry for bringing it up it's pointless and just distracts us from the real discussion.

Also I have other stuff to respond to so @jacensolo77 has agreed to take over for me.

Avatar image for jacensolo77
#166 Edited by JacenSolo77 (862 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101: I will indeed be taking over from Arkham for a few posts.

Avatar image for mygod101
#167 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for jacensolo77
#168 Posted by JacenSolo77 (862 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101: Voldemort wins via virtue of having OOU sources that place him as more powerful but I think they're close enough, and I personally put little stock into the EW as an amp.

Avatar image for man_of_miracles
#169 Edited by Man_of_Miracles (3380 posts) - - Show Bio

@jacensolo77: I'm sorry I still don't understand the stance that the EW is not an amp.

We literally see Harry perform a feat with it that was thought entirely impossible and he had only possessed the wand for a few minutes. (Repaired his broken wand).

So there is irrefutable canon evidence that the EW is a significant amp.

Because we don't know the circumstances of the Grindelwald vs Dumbledore fight we can't quantify the exact amount of the amp but we do know, unequivocally, that is does provide an amp.

So the fights look like this.

Dumbledore vs Grindelwald + EW amp

Result: Dumbeldore wins

Dumbledore + EW amp vs Voldemort

Result: Stalemate

That's pretty clear cut. I don't think that Grindewald is far from Voldemort provided he has the EW but I don't think he is on his level without it.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#170 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@jacensolo77: I'm sorry I still don't understand the stance that the EW is not an amp.

We literally see Harry perform a feat with it that was thought entirely impossible and he had only possessed the wand for a few minutes. (Repaired his broken wand).

So there is irrefutable canon evidence that the EW is a significant amp.

Because we don't know the circumstances of the Grindelwald vs Dumbledore fight we can't quantify the exact amount of the amp but we do know, unequivocally, that is does provide an amp.

So the fights look like this.

Dumbledore vs Grindelwald + EW amp

Result: Dumbeldore wins

Dumbledore + EW amp vs Voldemort

Result: Stalemate

That's pretty clear cut. I don't think that Grindewald is far from Voldemort provided he has the EW but I don't think he is on his level without it.

He wasn't arguing it's not an amp rather it's not a significant amp.

Avatar image for man_of_miracles
#171 Posted by Man_of_Miracles (3380 posts) - - Show Bio

@arkhamasylum3: He said that he does not place stock in it being an amp. He never specified what level of amp.

And again we have canon, unequivocal proof that it a significant amp.

Harry was able to use a simple reparo spell to fix his broken wand, something one of the best wand makers in the world considered to be impossible. That is a significant amp.

The amp is certainly significant enough to effect the outcome of a duel between two evenly matched wizards.

If nothing else it tells us that Grindelwald was never as good as Dumbledore since he wasn't able to defeat him even with the EW.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#172 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@man_of_miracles:

He said that he does not place stock in it being an amp. He never specified what level of amp.

And again we have canon, unequivocal proof that it a significant amp.

Harry was able to use a simple reparo spell to fix his broken wand, something one of the best wand makers in the world considered to be impossible. That is a significant amp.

The amp is certainly significant enough to effect the outcome of a duel between two evenly matched wizards.

If nothing else it tells us that Grindelwald was never as good as Dumbledore since he wasn't able to defeat him even with the EW.

I would write out a response to this but I've got others to respond to so please read my posts on this page of the thread. They should address it quite nicely.

Avatar image for helloman
#173 Posted by Helloman (26818 posts) - - Show Bio

He stops at 1.

Avatar image for man_of_miracles
#174 Posted by Man_of_Miracles (3380 posts) - - Show Bio

@arkhamasylum3: The other posts don't address it quite nicely. You and I have had this conversation before on another thread.

I used actual occurrences from the book and you used head canon. The same thing you are doing in this thread.

There is no refuting that the EW provides an amp. There is no refuting thay despite this amp Grindelwald lost to Dumbledore. There is not refuting that despite the EW amp Dumbledore stalemated Voldemort.

The only manner in which Grindelwald can be considered superior to Voldemort is through head canon. There is no canon support for that claim.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#175 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@man_of_miracles:

The other posts don't address it quite nicely. You and I have had this conversation before on another thread.

Where my arguments were entirely different and I acknowledged I was being retarded.

I used actual occurrences from the book and you used head canon. The same thing you are doing in this thread.

So Dumbledore's notes in Beedle the Bard and the thematical intent behind The Elder Wand are head canon now?

There is no refuting that the EW provides an amp.

You can't read. I never said otherwise I'm just questioning how potent the amp is.

There is no refuting thay despite this amp Grindelwald lost to Dumbledore.

No there isn't. Have you seen me refuting it at all on this thread?

There is not refuting that despite the EW amp Dumbledore stalemated Voldemort.

And was stated to be more powerful by like everyone in the series plus he was actually winning that fight.

The only manner in which Grindelwald can be considered superior to Voldemort is through head canon. There is no canon support for that claim.

And this proves you didn't actually read my posts in this thread despite saying you did. Here is one of my comments:

"Absolutely nothing about this comparison proves Voldemort is better (I actually do think Voldemort>Grindelwald btw but you're doing a terrible job at proving it)."

Either you can't read properly or you didn't actually read my posts.

Avatar image for jacensolo77
#176 Posted by JacenSolo77 (862 posts) - - Show Bio

@man_of_miracles:

The other posts don't address it quite nicely. You and I have had this conversation before on another thread.

Yes they do lol.

I used actual occurrences from the book and you used head canon. The same thing you are doing in this thread.

For somebody talking about the canon of the books you seem to have forgotten about the EW's thematic purpose yet have the nerve to lecture people on headcanon.

There is no refuting that the EW provides an amp.

Nobody said it didn't but the amp is not as huge as you people want it to be.

There is no refuting thay despite this amp Grindelwald lost to Dumbledore.

And yet was considered an equal to Dumbledore in 3 separate time periods and fought him to a draw without the wand, showcasing that the two grow in lockstep with each other and the EW's potency wasn't enough to close that relatively minute gap. This runs parallel with all the quotes that pertain to the wand being powerful but not infallible, and it's thematic purpose is to prove that no matter what you cannot become unbeatable.

There is not refuting that despite the EW amp Dumbledore stalemated Voldemort.

Correct though Dumbledore showed slight superiority but given we can discount the EW as a potent but ultimately not deciding amp Voldemort is at best equal to Dumbledore.

The only manner in which Grindelwald can be considered superior to Voldemort is through head canon. There is no canon support for that claim.

I'm going to question, have you actually been keeping track of this discussion where he's admitted at least 5 times Voldemort beats Grindelwald or are you simply claiming to have read his posts to make yourself look better. There's nothing wrong with any of what he posted. Just to give my stance on the matter:

EW Dumbledore>Voldemort=Base Dumbledore>EW Grindelwald>Base Grindelwald. It's not that hard to grasp that the three are relative in power even if Voldemort and Dumbledore are ultimately stronger than Grindelwald.

Avatar image for man_of_miracles
#177 Posted by Man_of_Miracles (3380 posts) - - Show Bio

@jacensolo77: So basically you took the time to 'disagree' with all my points just to come to the exact conclusion I inferred in my post.

Kind of a waste of time for you and me. Thanks though.

Avatar image for jacensolo77
#178 Posted by JacenSolo77 (862 posts) - - Show Bio

@man_of_miracles: I disagree the EW is a potent amp, but it is an amp lol. I still think base Grindelwald can give Voldemort a fight and that he doesn't get stomped but any incarnation loses.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#179 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@helloman said:

He stops at 1.

How on earth does he stop at 1?

Avatar image for mygod101
#180 Edited by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@arkhamasylum3:

I wasn't trying to prove it's impossible lmao just that it's incredibly hard and completely different from attempting to destroy a city thus making the anti feat for the Aurors not applicable for lowering Grindelwald's postion without The Elder Wand.

Okay, that sounds reasonable, So I won't use the mindwipe then.

This is some incredibly dishonest debating. You're trying to prove The Elder Wand isn't a massive amp by trying to prove Grindelwald can't destroy a city without it as he struggled with a group of about 20 or so Aurors. I pointed out the flawed logic in this reasoning by saying that there is no evidence the group of Aurors can't destroy a city and in response you brought up the Aurors being incapable of mindwiping an individual and in response I pointed out that mindwiping a city is considerably harder than destroying one. Given you were the one who made the claim Grindelwald can't destroy a city without the Wand it's up to you to prove he can't not up to me to prove he can

hold on second though...If you read your post to me #141 you replied back with a fallacy. Even right now you are using an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

You can't prove it? This might as well be a concession.

okay...I guess I might have too, but my point again can you 100% say how much effort he put in that duel without it sounding like an assumption? he challenged the Aurors then lost after downing 4 of them.

He literally effortlessly blocks all of her spells and doesn't even bother to cast a single spell in response for the whole fight until the final part which triggers Prior Incantatum which per the books themselves has absolutely nothing to do with power.

Unless you're suggesting Book 4 Harry is on the same level as Voldemort.

He blocked it pretty easily sure, but I wouldn't say he effortlessly blocked it. Voldemort was at that point just got into his body after 13 years of being nothing but a soul wandering the earth.

You're literally invalidating your own point here. Another concession accepted.

How exactly did I invalidate my own point, when I was explaining to you that the Wand Voldemort was using was not even his and that he basically could never be able to kill Harry because of the double protection love spell? Elder wand is far more powerful than any other wand but it can be beaten as Dumbledore did to Grindelwald. If you listen to How highly Dumbledore speaks about the power of Love&self-sacrifice which he stated is the strongest of all magic, mentioning that along with the Elder wand is what defeated Voldemort. expanding up on the little information you gave on Voldemorts

I mean it's against the site rules for gosh sake and you're suggesting I just ignore it. Not to mention there wasn't a point to refute just your opinion on how the battle would go.

Okay, I still say Snape could give Grindelwald without the Elder wand a good run for his money. I not saying, Snape, wins only that Grindelwald would be hard pressed in that match, while Voldemort raped snape.

The snape thing is more of opinion though, but there is some backing of this being a stomp.

Right yeah sure this proves that Dumbledore's spells might not hold up against Voldemort proving the two are close but in the end it's a fallible character opinion which is literally contradicted by their duel anyway

Dumbledore with the Elder wand is close to Voldemort. Without it, he is not.

Jesus Christ lmao. Dumbledore cannot create a Shield like the one in the Battle of Hogwarts and has no feats to suggest he can. Your entire argument is reliant on him being able to do so.

The Shield Voldemort created was made by McGonagall, Flitwick and Slughorn all of whom are barely above an Auror and as a group could maybe take 4 Aurors at best meanwhile the Shield Grindelwald couldn't destroy was created by 20 Aurors.

Also it took Voldemort a decent portion of time to destroy the Shield something Grindelwald obviously didn't have in that scenario given he was surrounded by Aurors who would try to Jinx him the moment he even attempted to destroy the Shield.

Absolutely nothing about this comparison proves Voldemort is better (I actually do think Voldemort>Grindelwald btw but you're doing a terrible job at proving it).

I thought it was implied that Dumbledore was the one who put the shield around Hogwarts, and when he died the Shield went away and it took all the other teachers working together to replicate it again. Voldemort killed who many consider to be the Greatest Auror of all time Moody.

I articulated above there is no evidence Grindelwald can't destroy the Shield if given enough time. His magical power was enough to level a city so I don't see why he can't do it.

As for the Dumbledore section I pointed out that Dumbledore very clearly was powerful enough to defeat Voldemort based on their duel so any argument that Voldemort is above Grindelwald based on that is conjecture.

Can't speak on that. Voldemort nearly killed Dumbledore in that fight so not really.

You know I addressed all of this in the post at the top of the page right?

Let me copy paste my arguments for you:

Dumbledore animating Centaurs isn't against the rules of a battle lmao. Also as for the Fawkes thig Dumbledore could have used one of the statues that were holding on to Harry and Bella but chose not to. Not to mention Dumbledore knew Fawkes was an advantage he had. If Fawkes hadn't been there Dumbledore would have likely setup more defences.

Plus Voldemort got tagged 2 times and was nearly defeated by Dumbledore's water cocoon whereas the latter never seemed hard pressed nor was he tagged. While it was no stomp Dumbledore came off looking slightly superior in the fight imo.

I aslo find it funny how Voldemort fanboys use a duel in a Chaper Titled "The Only One He Ever Feared" to prove Voldemort is superior despite the chapter title implying the inverse. This was very clearly meant to be Dumbledore's moment to shine. I mean do people seriously think JK thought Voldemort was better while writing this duel when it's in a chapter with a title like that?

If you read my comments on this, I never said Dumbledore Animating a Centaurs was against the rules. What I said was Dumbledore using Fawkes was outside help. That isn't what the Fantastic beast 2 inferred to the audience. What was said: Fawkes comes to the aid of a Dumbledore in a time of desperate need.

Dumbledore was in desperate need of Fawkes in that fight, without him he would have died because he was dealing with the Snake that Voldemort transfigured to occupied Dumbledore.

I don't necessarily think Voldemort feared Dumbledore, more so he didn't feel it was necessary to get into a scrap with him if he didn't have to. He had reason to think that as well since Dumbledore has a track record of defeating powerful Wizards. On the other hand, Gellert was scared of Dumbledore to the point he didn't even step foot into Great Britain, while Voldemort started out with Great Britain first.

Also, I would like for you to cite the source where it said Voldemort was tagged twice.

You know I never said The Elder Wand wasn't an amp right? This is a blatant misinterpretaation of my argument.

What I actually claimed was that The Elder Wand being a significant boost is baseless. The feat you provided proves that its magic is more potent than that of a normal wand but you haven't proven it's massively more potent. Meanwhile we have reasonable evidence it's not a potent amp otherwise it wouldn't have been beaten hundereds of times. Plus the entire thematical concept of the wand is that it does not make you invincible and it is merely a tool to be used to help others and that it's more trouble than it's worth basically meaning it's not nearly as potent an amp as made out.

What's more is its one feat (repairing Harry's wand something deemed "imposssible") is actually around the level of a 16 year old Grindelwald given he was able to conceal himself better than The Invisibility Cloak (something also impossible per the series itself) and equal Albus who could perform things with a wand never seen before per Professor Marchbanks in OOTP.

I don't see how that correlates. Harry did this with a basic spell Hermione was using in her first year. If basic spells with that wand are potent to the point they can do what no other Wands can do it shouldn't be a stretch to say that more powerful and advanced spells would be magnified way beyond other wands magnitude.

Just so that you got a bit of an understanding here, Dumbledore Defeated Grindelwald when he was 60...I find it hard to believe that you would think he didn't get any better or gain far more knowledge and powerful after that fight since it was stated that Wizards can live up to 140-150 years of age.

You do realise Dumbledore scales above them via his performance against Voldemort so saying they're not that far off him is a massive leap in logic. Voldemort one shotted this trio and he's either equal to or below Dumbledore in magical power

We went over this in my above comments. Dumbledore needed outside interference in that battle with Voldemort, implying inferiority.

Maybe him fighting 20 Aurors? Regular Aurors like Tonks are able to challenge Bellatrix who scales above Minerva and Grindelwald fought 20 Aurors yet you're claiming he can't beat Minerva or Snape. Awful logic at its finest.

That is a logical fallacy. You're basically saying this Grindelwald participating in a duel with nearly 20 Aurors=superiority.

In that duel he didn't defeat 20 people, he defeated 4. McGonagall is implied to be about to defeat 4 Aurors pretty casually(No, I am not saying she is in the same tier as Grindelwald), I just saying your logic that you are trying to push for superiority is flawed.

Yeah Voldemort was winning cause he took Britain by surprise and made sure he'd got spies inside the Ministry first long before attacking. Meanwhile the Aurors had been trying to arrest Grindelwald for 20 years but couldn't and Grindelwald was stated to be unstoppable during his reign. He lost because Dumbledore duelled him in the open compared to Voldemort who hid from Dumbledore and never dared to confront him. Not to mention all this does is prove Voldemort is a superior military commander not a superior duelist.

That same logic can be used on Grindelwald as well. He only got as far as he did because Dumbledore didn't want to challenge him which gave Grindelwald free reign. It proves that overall Voldemort was smarter, nothing being said is anything new. All this was mentioned by Dumbledore when he first met Voldemort he said: What worried him the most about the boy was his Cruelty, Secrecy, and Domination.

You can't hold that against Voldemort because he is a brilliant political tactician well at least better than Grindelwald.

Not combat applicable at all. Voldemort used his horcrux to manipulate Ginny over the course of months. You're argument here is basically that Voldemort and Grindelwald will stop duelling and Voldemort will toss Grindelwald his Diary and Grindelwald mid battle is just gonna stop to read it.

Okay, my only counter to that was that was a 16-year-old Tom, who didn't even have all his powers. You can't compare that to a Full power Voldemort.

None of this I disagree with lol. I've literally said repeatedly that Voldemort wins I'm just arguing against him stomping is all.

I say it is a stomp because this was a Dumbledore 50+ years removed after Grindelwald and it was said he was in relatively good shape and healthy for his age and described as being able to whip out his wand faster than what a 16-year-old Harry could see. Then there is the fact that he blitz people like Kingsley who are less than half his age says a lot. when you combine that with the irrefutable fact that Dumbledore needed outside help to survive his duel with Voldemort than you understand it is a pretty big and noticeable difference in their powers.

Once again this is a blatant misinterpretation of my argument. I said Voldemort doesn't stomp but I do agree he does win. Also all of this has been addressed previously so I'm notsure why you're bringing it up again.

My above comments address why this is a stomp. A more improved, and experience Dumbledore with the elder wand needed outside help to survive that duel. There isn't any reason Grindelwald with the elder wand would do anywhere near as good in this duel when he couldn't even beat a weaker and less experienced Dumbledore. Now, to add on to that Voldemort knows far more complex and unknown magic as well.

No it doesn't. You haven't given me a single reason beyond conjecture that The Elder Wand is a significant boost.

I did, my above post, above harry using a basic repairo spell something Hermione was using in year 1 says otherwise.

the Below comments I won't reply to so we don't derail the thread.

All this was in response to your post #161

Avatar image for hypnos0929
#181 Posted by Hypnos0929 (6322 posts) - - Show Bio

Without horicruxes I don't think Voldemort can beat Grindlewald. So the headmaster

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#182 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@jacensolo77

I know I was going to ask you to refute this but I've changed my mind. I'll deal with this myself. A rebuttal shouldn't take long.

Avatar image for mygod101
#183 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

Without horicruxes I don't think Voldemort can beat Grindlewald. So the headmaster

Horcruxes did nothing to Voldemort, only made him immortal. Voldemort was above Base Dumbledore who is above Grindelwald+Elder Wand.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#184 Posted by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101:

Okay, that sounds reasonable, So I won't use the mindwipe then.

Glad we can agree on something.

:)

hold on second though...If you read your post to me #141 you replied back with a fallacy. Even right now you are using an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

Wut? Neither of these are fallacies. If anything you're the one committing a fallacy. Saying I'm appealing to ignorance would imply I'm trying to switch the burden of proof but I'm not. You were the one who made the claim The Elder Wand is a potent amp. You substantiate it

okay...I guess I might have too, but my point again can you 100% say how much effort he put in that duel without it sounding like an assumption? he challenged the Aurors then lost after downing 4 of them.

I can't prove anything as I said but neither can you. This point is irrelevant anyway as we went over the fact that there is no evidence Aurors can't destroy a city so using Grindelwald's fight with them as a means to lower non Elder Wand amped Grindelwald is pointless.

He blocked it pretty easily sure, but I wouldn't say he effortlessly blocked it.

He literally wasn't paying attention to her and you could vivisbly see the look of desperation on her face as she realised she had no hope of overwhelming Grindelwald. Seems pretty obvious he wasn't pressured. Not to mention as we went over there is no 100% fullproof way to know how much effort Grindelwald puts into his duels.

Voldemort was at that point just got into his body after 13 years of being nothing but a soul wandering the earth.

I wasn't arguing Voldemort was on par with Harry in Book 4 lmao. I was poitning out that if you were to argue Prior Incantatum was relevant you might as well be saying Book 4 Harry=Voldemort which is obviously false as he gave Harry an ass beating in their duel.

How exactly did I invalidate my own point, when I was explaining to you that the Wand Voldemort was using was not even his and that he basically could never be able to kill Harry because of the double protection love spell? Elder wand is far more powerful than any other wand but it can be beaten as Dumbledore did to Grindelwald. If you listen to How highly Dumbledore speaks about the power of Love&self-sacrifice which he stated is the strongest of all magic, mentioning that along with the Elder wand is what defeated Voldemort. expanding up on the little information you gave on Voldemorts

You invalidated your own point by further supporting mine. You said The Elder Wand was a massive amp as it allowed Harry to defeat Voldemort which I pointed out was false and you agreed it was false and even added extra context to the feat supporting my point and invalidating your own.

Okay, I still say Snape could give Grindelwald without the Elder wand a good run for his money. I not saying, Snape, wins only that Grindelwald would be hard pressed in that match, while Voldemort raped snape.

The snape thing is more of opinion though, but there is some backing of this being a stomp.

Yeah I wnet over Snape vs Grindelwald in my last post.

Dumbledore with the Elder wand is close to Voldemort. Without it, he is not.

No evidence for this other than conjecture. Dumbledore was intended to be the better wizard and it makes much more sense thematically for him to be regardless of The Elder Wand.

I thought it was implied that Dumbledore was the one who put the shield around Hogwarts, and when he died the Shield went away and it took all the other teachers working together to replicate it again.

This is not the case at all lol. There is no evidence it was Dumbledore who originally put up the shield. Also the shield wasn't removed from Dumbledore dying but rather the Death Eaters took over Hogwarts and removed it.

Voldemort killed who many consider to be the Greatest Auror of all time Moody.

Which is totally irrelevant given Moody was beat in 16 seconds by one of Voldemort's supporters. Moody doesn't exactly have a glowing track record.

Not to mention Moody was distracted by Mundungus disapparating and was not prepared for Voldemort's killing curse.

Can't speak on that. Voldemort nearly killed Dumbledore in that fight so not really.

The key word in that sentence is underlined.

If you read my comments on this, I never said Dumbledore Animating a Centaurs was against the rules.

I swear I remember you saying that. Whatever.

What I said was Dumbledore using Fawkes was outside help.

Yeah which Dumbledore fully knew he'd get. The fact is Fawkes was a means Dumbledore knew he had at his disposal and thus he didn't bother to set up more defences. Not to mention none of this or the below addresses the part where I pointed out Dumbledore had multiple statues animated that he could have used but chose not to because they were needed to protect Harry and pin Bellatrix.

That isn't what the Fantastic beast 2 inferred to the audience. What was said: Fawkes comes to the aid of a Dumbledore in a time of desperate need.

Yeah but Fawkes can only do that if he's with Dumbledore. Fawkes didn't fly all the way to London and take Voldemort's Killing Curse in a mere second. that's absurd. The much more likely conclusion is that Dumbledore brought Fawkes with him and knew Fawkes could save him if he got into a situation like that so he set up less defences as he didn't feel they were necessary.

Dumbledore was in desperate need of Fawkes in that fight, without him he would have died because he was dealing with the Snake that Voldemort transfigured to occupied Dumbledore.

Addressed above. He also had multiple statues that he could have used but chose not to and he also knew Fawkes could protect him if he ever got in trouble.

I don't necessarily think Voldemort feared Dumbledore, more so he didn't feel it was necessary to get into a scrap with him if he didn't have to.

Jesus Christ. You're going against what was written on paper and what was literally mentioned multiple times throughout the series. You knwo let's ignore statements ect because it suits are argument. Why not Voldemort fanboys?

He had reason to think that as well since Dumbledore has a track record of defeating powerful Wizards.

Or maybe because he'd known Dumbledore since before he joined Hogwarts and knew Dumbledore was better than him.

On the other hand, Gellert was scared of Dumbledore to the point he didn't even step foot into Great Britain, while Voldemort started out with Great Britain first.

Voldemort started in Great Britain because he was born there lol.

Also, I would like for you to cite the source where it said Voldemort was tagged twice.

First time he gets a fiery rope wrapped around him:

A long thin flame flew from the tip; it wrapped itself around Voldemort, shield and all. For a moment, it seemed Dumbledore had won, but then the fiery rope became a serpent, which relinquished its hold on Voldemort at once hissing furiously, to face Dumbledore.

Second time he gets stuck in a cocoon of water.

At the same moment Dumbledore brnadished his wand in one long, fluid movement - the snake, which had been an instant from sinking its fangs into him, flew high into the air and vanished in a wisp of dark smoke; and the water in the pool rose up and covered Voldemort like a cocoon of molten glass. For a few seconds Voldemort was visible only as a dark, rippling, faceless figure shimmering and indistinct upon the plinth, clearly struggling to throw off the suffocating mass - Then he was gone and the water fell with a crash back into its pool, slopping wildly over the sides, drenching the polished floor.

There done. Happy?

I don't see how that correlates. Harry did this with a basic spell Hermione was using in her first year. If basic spells with that wand are potent to the point they can do what no other Wands can do it shouldn't be a stretch to say that more powerful and advanced spells would be magnified way beyond other wands magnitude.

Wut? All I was doing was pointing out The Elder Wand performing the impossible does not make it super powerful given Grindelwald could do that at 16.

Just so that you got a bit of an understanding here, Dumbledore Defeated Grindelwald when he was 60...I find it hard to believe that you would think he didn't get any better or gain far more knowledge and powerful after that fight since it was stated that Wizards can live up to 140-150 years of age.

No proof other than conjecture. I can easily make the claim Dumbledore's reflexes slowed significantly but there is absolutely no basis for that so I'm not going to.

That is a logical fallacy. You're basically saying this Grindelwald participating in a duel with nearly 20 Aurors=superiority.

Seeing as he took out a few of them and legitimately contended with them with The President looking shocked I'd say it puts him above tese characters by a significant margin.

In that duel he didn't defeat 20 people, he defeated 4.

How many he defeated is irrelevant. The mere fact that he contended with 20 as opposed to Bellatrix being challenged by one proves he's significantly beyond her and subsequently Minerva.

McGonagall is implied to be about to defeat 4 Aurors pretty casually(No, I am not saying she is in the same tier as Grindelwald), I just saying your logic that you are trying to push for superiority is flawed.

First off you're baselessly assuming Minerva can defeat 4. The statement from Madame Pomfrey is vaguely worded as she says "any one of them" meaning it could potentially just put Minerva above one Auror rather than four.

Not to mention even if Madame Pomfrey's statement did say Minerva could take 4 Aurors we can simply dismiss it as inaccurate given Minerva is canonically below Bellatrix and the latter can be challenged by one single Auror.

Also even if Minerva could beat 4 Aurors this doesn't place her anywhere close to Grindelwald given the latter contended with 20.

That same logic can be used on Grindelwald as well. He only got as far as he did because Dumbledore didn't want to challenge him which gave Grindelwald free reign. It proves that overall Voldemort was smarter, nothing being said is anything new. All this was mentioned by Dumbledore when he first met Voldemort he said: What worried him the most about the boy was his Cruelty, Secrecy, and Domination.

You can't hold that against Voldemort because he is a brilliant political tactician well at least better than Grindelwald.

Eh not sure whether Grindelwald is worse than Voldemort tactically but it's ultimately irrelevant to what you and I were discussing so I won't really go into a detailed response.

Okay, my only counter to that was that was a 16-year-old Tom, who didn't even have all his powers. You can't compare that to a Full power Voldemort.

Of course I can't. My argument wasn't that this is somehow an acccurate depiction of Voldemort's powers but rather that using this as a way to prove he can possess Grindelwald is faulty.

I say it is a stomp because this was a Dumbledore 50+ years removed after Grindelwald and it was said he was in relatively good shape and healthy for his age and described as being able to whip out his wand faster than what a 16-year-old Harry could see. Then there is the fact that he blitz people like Kingsley who are less than half his age says a lot. when you combine that with the irrefutable fact that Dumbledore needed outside help to survive his duel with Voldemort than you understand it is a pretty big and noticeable difference in their powers.

Feat dumping for Dumbledore doesn't prove whether he was less, more or equally as powerful as he was in 1945. As for him needing outside help I've been over that.

My above comments address why this is a stomp. A more improved, and experience Dumbledore with the elder wand needed outside help to survive that duel. There isn't any reason Grindelwald with the elder wand would do anywhere near as good in this duel when he couldn't even beat a weaker and less experienced Dumbledore. Now, to add on to that Voldemort knows far more complex and unknown magic as well.

First off Dumbledore being more knowledgeable and experienced is conjecture. Not that it matters given Dumbledore displayed nothing in his duel with Voldemort that was beyond him in 1945. It was all basic Transfiguration and Charms. As for Voldemort knowing more complex and unknown magic while that is true you haven't exactly explained why it's to a particularly massive degree.

I did, my above post, above harry using a basic repairo spell something Hermione was using in year 1 says otherwise.

the Below comments I won't reply to so we don't derail the thread.

All this was in response to your post #161

That proves The Elder Wand is an amp sure but it doesn't prove it's a significant one particulalry not for Grindelwald and Dumbledore who've been performing feats like that since they were 16.

Avatar image for mygod101
#185 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@arkhamasylum3:

Glad we can agree on something.

:)

Like I said I am a reasonable person.

Wut? Neither of these are fallacies. If anything you're the one committing a fallacy. Saying I'm appealing to ignorance would imply I'm trying to switch the burden of proof but I'm not. You were the one who made the claim The Elder Wand is a potent amp. You substantiate it

Your first post #141 was an Appeal to Possibility. My bad, this post and the #141 post are both appeals to a possibility, not appeal to ignorance. Grindelwald is no longer using his wand and is now using the elder wand. If we can't agree that Grindelwald hasn't been hinted or implied to be able to do that without the elder wand then to avoid a circular argument we should agree to disagree.

I can't prove anything as I said but neither can you. This point is irrelevant anyway as we went over the fact that there is no evidence Aurors can't destroy a city so using Grindelwald's fight with them as a means to lower non Elder Wand amped Grindelwald is pointless.

Yeah, that maybe irrelevance to the discussion at hand, but again that last part about the Aurors is an appeal to Possibility.

He literally wasn't paying attention to her and you could vivisbly see the look of desperation on her face as she realised she had no hope of overwhelming Grindelwald. Seems pretty obvious he wasn't pressured. Not to mention as we went over there is no 100% fullproof way to know how much effort Grindelwald puts into his duels.

Maybe use less exaggerated words because I wouldn't say he blocked her effortlessly. Blocking effortlessly would be a true statement if we are talking about FB2 when with the Elder wand he blocks Both newt and his brothers spells with his back turned that implies he did it effortlessly not what he did in the duel with Tina.

I wasn't arguing Voldemort was on par with Harry in Book 4 lmao. I was poitning out that if you were to argue Prior Incantatum was relevant you might as well be saying Book 4 Harry=Voldemort which is obviously false as he gave Harry an ass beating in their duel.

I understand that I was going to laugh out loud if you did those, but fair enough.

You invalidated your own point by further supporting mine. You said The Elder Wand was a massive amp as it allowed Harry to defeat Voldemort which I pointed out was false and you agreed it was false and even added extra context to the feat supporting my point and invalidating your own.

Gotcha, well I don't think it lowered the elder wand amp at all. As you pointed out, the wand wasn't even working for Voldemort so what Voldemort did with it can't really be used since he was using his own powers, to begin with.

Yeah I wnet over Snape vs Grindelwald in my last post.

what exactly did you say in that post, and can you point me to it?

No evidence for this other than conjecture. Dumbledore was intended to be the better wizard and it makes much more sense thematically for him to be regardless of The Elder Wand.

Well, based on their duel but okay. The second part of that is Bandwagon Fallacy nothing more. Dumbledore is better in terms of understanding magic than Voldemort. while Voldemort is better in magical knowledge which was stated by Dumbledore, and Voldemort himself who said: he pushed magic further than anyone ever before him.

This is not the case at all lol. There is no evidence it was Dumbledore who originally put up the shield. Also the shield wasn't removed from Dumbledore dying but rather the Death Eaters took over Hogwarts and removed it.

okay, I had thought he put up the shield.

Which is totally irrelevant given Moody was beat in 16 seconds by one of Voldemort's supporters. Moody doesn't exactly have a glowing track record.

Not to mention Moody was distracted by Mundungus disapparating and was not prepared for Voldemort's killing curse.

I don't see how that overshadows the fact that most of the Dark wizards who are in prison because of him

The key word in that sentence is underlined.

you didn't need to underline that, because I mention that in all my post when I talk about it so that people know that he nearly killed Dumbledore in that duel

I swear I remember you saying that. Whatever.

I mentioned Dumbledore animating a Centaurs but I never said that was against the rules since he used magic and created that. In a magical duel that is perfectly within the rules. What I said was Fawkes flying in to save him was against the rules, because Dumbledore didn't use magic to conjure him.

Yeah which Dumbledore fully knew he'd get. The fact is Fawkes was a means Dumbledore knew he had at his disposal and thus he didn't bother to set up more defences. Not to mention none of this or the below addresses the part where I pointed out Dumbledore had multiple statues animated that he could have used but chose not to because they were needed to protect Harry and pin Bellatrix.

You can't speak on that since we have no evidence that it would happen that way. Harry was safe and away from harm.

you are basically making an assumption. the only that that is absolute in this comment is that Dumbledore was in desperate need. to say that it was anything other than that is an assumption.

Yeah but Fawkes can only do that if he's with Dumbledore. Fawkes didn't fly all the way to London and take Voldemort's Killing Curse in a mere second. that's absurd. The much more likely conclusion is that Dumbledore brought Fawkes with him and knew Fawkes could save him if he got into a situation like that so he set up less defences as he didn't feel they were necessary

You are basically making an assumption. the only thing that is absolute in this comment is that Dumbledore was in desperate need. To say that it was anything other than that is an assumption and Headcanon.

Addressed above. He also had multiple statues that he could have used but chose not to and he also knew Fawkes could protect him if he ever got in trouble.

All We know is that Dumbledore was in desperate need, I am not saying anything more than what was said from the new movie. We don't know that he would do that we shouldn't try and anticipate what Dumbledore is thinking because we are not Dumbledore.

Jesus Christ. You're going against what was written on paper and what was literally mentioned multiple times throughout the series. You knwo let's ignore statements ect because it suits are argument. Why not Voldemort fanboys?

I am not going against what was said, I can say the same about you. What was said in FB2 was that Fawkes comes to a Dumbledore in a time of Desperate need. Instead of acknowledging that you are trying to anticipate what you think he was thinking and would do. You won't even acknowledge that Fawkes was outside help. Occam's razor says Dumbledore was in desperate need.

Or maybe because he'd known Dumbledore since before he joined Hogwarts and knew Dumbledore was better than him

Like I said Dumbledore said Tom was probably the best student Hogwarts has ever seen last I checked Dumbledore was at that school as well.

Voldemort started in Great Britain because he was born there lol.

Still gained control over it.

First time he gets a fiery rope wrapped around him:

A long thin flame flew from the tip; it wrapped itself around Voldemort, shield and all. For a moment, it seemed Dumbledore had won, but then the fiery rope became a serpent, which relinquished its hold on Voldemort at once hissing furiously, to face Dumbledore.

TopLeL... When you said he was tagged I thought you were talking about hit with an offensive spell. BTW, Voldemort instantly negated that and turned that into a fire snake. which Dumbledore was trying to stop when a Killing spell was heading his way.

Second time he gets stuck in a cocoon of water.

At the same moment Dumbledore brnadished his wand in one long, fluid movement - the snake, which had been an instant from sinking its fangs into him, flew high into the air and vanished in a wisp of dark smoke; and the water in the pool rose up and covered Voldemort like a cocoon of molten glass. For a few seconds Voldemort was visible only as a dark, rippling, faceless figure shimmering and indistinct upon the plinth, clearly struggling to throw off the suffocating mass - Then he was gone and the water fell with a crash back into its pool, slopping wildly over the sides, drenching the polished floor.

Then he teleported out of it but again, none of that actually says he was tagged by any offensive spells those. Also, in this whole conversation, everything you talked about this post implies For Dumbledore to have the upper hand against Voldemort he needs an environmental advantage+Fawkes intervention to not get killed in a fight with Voldemort.

While All Voldemort needed was just his Silver shield.

There done. Happy?

I mean sure, but none of that was what I was expecting to see.

Wut? All I was doing was pointing out The Elder Wand performing the impossible does not make it super powerful given Grindelwald could do that at 16.

I said that it was very powerful if it's base and casual magic can do what no other powerful wand and wand maker can do. that is relevant to the debate and can't be dismissed.

No proof other than conjecture. I can easily make the claim Dumbledore's reflexes slowed significantly but there is absolutely no basis for that so I'm not going to

Sure you can, but then I can also make that same Argument for Voldemort since he was a disembodied soul for 13 years and just a year after getting his body back dueled Dumbledore. so... making that claim doesn't really strengthen your argument and even then how much does that even matter when it was said Dumbledore was fast enough to blitz 16-years-old harry potter and Kingely? while Voldemort was a soul without a body for 13 years prior to their duel..

Seeing as he took out a few of them and legitimately contended with them with The President looking shocked I'd say it puts him above tese characters by a significant margin.

okay...again, he only defeated 4 of them then was downed himself by just one wizard behind him. if you look at the scene he actually saw the Swooping evil flying above him it wasn't like he was completely caught by surprise.

How many he defeated is irrelevant. The mere fact that he contended with 20 as opposed to Bellatrix being challenged by one proves he's significantly beyond her and subsequently Minerva.

Actually, it is very much relevant because the way you were wording all this a casual fan would get the idea that you are saying that he defeated those wizards. It's as if you have a hidden agenda because you are leaving out parts in the actual story. I just correct it, that he challenged nearly 20 Wizards and only downed 4 of them before being subdued.

sure...no one was implying that he wasn't Above Minerva though.

First off you're baselessly assuming Minerva can defeat 4. The statement from Madame Pomfrey is vaguely worded as she says "any one of them" meaning it could potentially just put Minerva above one Auror rather than four.

Not to mention even if Madame Pomfrey's statement did say Minerva could take 4 Aurors we can simply dismiss it as inaccurate given Minerva is canonically below Bellatrix and the latter can be challenged by one single Auror.

Also even if Minerva could beat 4 Aurors this doesn't place her anywhere close to Grindelwald given the latter contended with 20.

TopLel...my dude no one is saying that Minerva is as powerful as Grindelwald. I don't downplay, but the thing I will say is that Aurors are Fodder level to God tier Wizards. Like I mentioned they offered Aurors to harry to protect him from Voldemort and Harry laughed and acted like they were nothing and would be of no help at all. As a previous post from a member said we could argue that there where more Aurors at the ministry that Voldemort and Dumbledore were at then what Grindelwald faced.

Eh not sure whether Grindelwald is worse than Voldemort tactically but it's ultimately irrelevant to what you and I were discussing so I won't really go into a detailed response

Fair enough.

Of course I can't. My argument wasn't that this is somehow an acccurate depiction of Voldemort's powers but rather that using this as a way to prove he can possess Grindelwald is faulty

seriously that was hilarious It gave me a chuckle. So basically, you're just saying that we don't have enough evidence of him using that in combat not that he can't use it.

Okay, just to avoid a circular argument then.

Feat dumping for Dumbledore doesn't prove whether he was less, more or equally as powerful as he was in 1945. As for him needing outside help I've been over that

wait...so are you implying we neglect those feats of Dumbledore clearly in good health?

First off Dumbledore being more knowledgeable and experienced is conjecture. Not that it matters given Dumbledore displayed nothing in his duel with Voldemort that was beyond him in 1945. It was all basic Transfiguration and Charms. As for Voldemort knowing more complex and unknown magic while that is true you haven't exactly explained why it's to a particularly massive degree.

That is pretty flawed logic, because by that logic then Nickolas Flamel at age 600 is only as knowledgeable as he was when he was 60.

right before the FB2 movie came out J.K Rolling stated the Dumbledore you see in FB2 isn't the same Dumbledore we see in harry potter. he becomes the Dumbledore we know from his past experience and even calls him the white Sage. this was right before the Movie came out even said what you think you know at the end of the movie isn't the case.

That proves The Elder Wand is an amp sure but it doesn't prove it's a significant one particulalry not for Grindelwald and Dumbledore who've been performing feats like that since they were 16.

agree to disagree then. I still think Voldemort Stomps Grindelwald based on Voldemort fight with Dumbledore.

Avatar image for hypnos0929
#186 Posted by Hypnos0929 (6322 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101 said:
@hypnos0929 said:

Without horicruxes I don't think Voldemort can beat Grindlewald. So the headmaster

Horcruxes did nothing to Voldemort, only made him immortal. Voldemort was above Base Dumbledore who is above Grindelwald+Elder Wand.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you. Horcruxes, and by extension immortality, are a huge moral booster. It's been made clear that Voldemort was a very paranoid individual who did everything in his power to avoid dying. In a lot of ways Voldemort inspired the fear he felt. Without the knowledge that he can't die then he's gonna get nervous or try too many reckless moves or simply run.

It's clear that Dumbledore, Voldemort and Grindlewald are meant to be within the same range where no one can stomp the other, even Dumbledore was only a shade more skilled than Grindlewald if I remember correctly.

To make an odd analogy it's like we have two boxers. Both are skilled and strong, only difference is one can't get a concussion. That's a pretty big advantage in a fight, especially if the two boxers know this. The boxer who can be knocked out will be demoralized because his only way to win is to drag out the fight, in a way be defensive and tire the other guy out. Now if you somehow were able to give the other boxer the ability to have concussions again then you'd not only have a more equal match, but a match where one fighter has to worry about something he never has before.

Also if you think about it if we take away the horcruxes then you've got a Voldemort who was as weak as when he fought Harry.

Avatar image for mygod101
#187 Edited by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@hypnos0929 said:
@mygod101 said:
@hypnos0929 said:

Without horicruxes I don't think Voldemort can beat Grindlewald. So the headmaster

Horcruxes did nothing to Voldemort, only made him immortal. Voldemort was above Base Dumbledore who is above Grindelwald+Elder Wand.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you. Horcruxes, and by extension immortality, are a huge moral booster. It's been made clear that Voldemort was a very paranoid individual who did everything in his power to avoid dying. In a lot of ways Voldemort inspired the fear he felt. Without the knowledge that he can't die then he's gonna get nervous or try too many reckless moves or simply run.

It's clear that Dumbledore, Voldemort and Grindlewald are meant to be within the same range where no one can stomp the other, even Dumbledore was only a shade more skilled than Grindlewald if I remember correctly.

To make an odd analogy it's like we have two boxers. Both are skilled and strong, only difference is one can't get a concussion. That's a pretty big advantage in a fight, especially if the two boxers know this. The boxer who can be knocked out will be demoralized because his only way to win is to drag out the fight, in a way be defensive and tire the other guy out. Now if you somehow were able to give the other boxer the ability to have concussions again then you'd not only have a more equal match, but a match where one fighter has to worry about something he never has before.

Also if you think about it if we take away the horcruxes then you've got a Voldemort who was as weak as when he fought Harry.

LMFAO....so now we are downplaying Voldemort and pretending like him being immortal made him stronger? sure, he was paranoid about death, Dumbledore outright out of his mouth said Voldemort was the best student Hogwarts has ever seen. Dumbledore isn't going to say shit out of his ass he knows from experience. Gellert was equal to Dumbledore in the past, as it was shown he was better than him when he beat Gellert who had possession of the elder wand. your post is assumptions, you are assuming without the immortality he is just going to be crushed under pressure and run. this duel isn't a duel unless Gellert has the elder wand. since Dumbledore after beating Grindelwald was much stronger after that fight and Voldemort pretty much bested Dumbledore who was in possession of the greatest wand.

You should be ashamed of yourself and locked up, for making an idiotic post saying Voldemort is as weak as when he fought harry. Stay off the drugs.

Avatar image for hypnos0929
#188 Posted by Hypnos0929 (6322 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101 said:
@hypnos0929 said:
@mygod101 said:
@hypnos0929 said:

Without horicruxes I don't think Voldemort can beat Grindlewald. So the headmaster

Horcruxes did nothing to Voldemort, only made him immortal. Voldemort was above Base Dumbledore who is above Grindelwald+Elder Wand.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you. Horcruxes, and by extension immortality, are a huge moral booster. It's been made clear that Voldemort was a very paranoid individual who did everything in his power to avoid dying. In a lot of ways Voldemort inspired the fear he felt. Without the knowledge that he can't die then he's gonna get nervous or try too many reckless moves or simply run.

It's clear that Dumbledore, Voldemort and Grindlewald are meant to be within the same range where no one can stomp the other, even Dumbledore was only a shade more skilled than Grindlewald if I remember correctly.

To make an odd analogy it's like we have two boxers. Both are skilled and strong, only difference is one can't get a concussion. That's a pretty big advantage in a fight, especially if the two boxers know this. The boxer who can be knocked out will be demoralized because his only way to win is to drag out the fight, in a way be defensive and tire the other guy out. Now if you somehow were able to give the other boxer the ability to have concussions again then you'd not only have a more equal match, but a match where one fighter has to worry about something he never has before.

Also if you think about it if we take away the horcruxes then you've got a Voldemort who was as weak as when he fought Harry.

LMFAO....so now we are downplaying Voldemort and pretending like him being immortal made him stronger? sure, he was paranoid about death, Dumbledore outright out of his mouth said Voldemort was the best student Hogwarts has ever seen. Dumbledore isn't going to say shit out of his ass he knows from experience. Gellert was equal to Dumbledore in the past, as it was shown he was better than him when he beat Gellert who had possession of the elder wand. your post is assumptions, you are assuming without the immortality he is just going to be crushed under pressure and run. this duel isn't a duel unless Gellert has the elder wand. since Dumbledore after beating Grindelwald was much stronger after that fight and Voldemort pretty much bested Dumbledore who was in possession of the greatest wand.

You should be ashamed of yourself and locked up, for making an idiotic post saying Voldemort is as weak as when he fought harry. Stay off the drugs.

I'm really trying to be respectful here but your rudeness is annoying and unwarranted.

My post is assumption based but is still warranted with respect. A person's addittude towards a fight can change the outcome, every person knows this. Every basketball, soccer, boxing, fencing, archery, football, swimming and MMA coach will tell you that if you're having doubts you'll be more susceptible to loss. Think about why Voldemort let his underlings kill Dumbledore rather than going and killing him, it's clear he could've found a way into the school but he simply didn't go to fight. And yes I believe without his tricks and horcruxes to protect him Voldemort wouldn't fight anyone on Dumbledore's level. He's always brought a shield into a sword fight, without it he'd have nothing to protect him.

And just because Voldemort was a the best student doesn't mean he's the best fighter. Mike Tyson can read every book on earth about MMA but if he hasn't practiced once then he's never gonna beat someone like Brock Lesner. Experience is a big fighting factor and Voldemort only fought people massively weaker or those who he could catch off guard.

And in case you didn't realize the elder wand isn't a way to stomp in fights, at this current moment we don't even know how Dumbledore beat Grindlewald. All we know is a young and agile Dumbledore fought a Grindlewald who didnt even want to fight him. And before you say something... No Grindlewald didn't want to attack Dumbledore and he made it perfectly clear.

And yes, without the horcruxes Voldemort wouldn't be at full strength. I don't get why you'd assume such a dumb thing. The warlock who you clearly believe is unstoppable was beaten by Harry Potter and kids not even a third of his age. All of you Voldemort fan boys forget that horcruxes are a big game changer in the series and made Voldemort feared. If Horcruxes are not in this match then Voldemort doesn't have the massive edge that he had from before the series began to the end. If you actually look back then you'd know that Voldemort depended on his horcruxes like crutches.

Avatar image for mygod101
#189 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101 said:
@hypnos0929 said:
@mygod101 said:
@hypnos0929 said:

Without horicruxes I don't think Voldemort can beat Grindlewald. So the headmaster

Horcruxes did nothing to Voldemort, only made him immortal. Voldemort was above Base Dumbledore who is above Grindelwald+Elder Wand.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you. Horcruxes, and by extension immortality, are a huge moral booster. It's been made clear that Voldemort was a very paranoid individual who did everything in his power to avoid dying. In a lot of ways Voldemort inspired the fear he felt. Without the knowledge that he can't die then he's gonna get nervous or try too many reckless moves or simply run.

It's clear that Dumbledore, Voldemort and Grindlewald are meant to be within the same range where no one can stomp the other, even Dumbledore was only a shade more skilled than Grindlewald if I remember correctly.

To make an odd analogy it's like we have two boxers. Both are skilled and strong, only difference is one can't get a concussion. That's a pretty big advantage in a fight, especially if the two boxers know this. The boxer who can be knocked out will be demoralized because his only way to win is to drag out the fight, in a way be defensive and tire the other guy out. Now if you somehow were able to give the other boxer the ability to have concussions again then you'd not only have a more equal match, but a match where one fighter has to worry about something he never has before.

Also if you think about it if we take away the horcruxes then you've got a Voldemort who was as weak as when he fought Harry.

LMFAO....so now we are downplaying Voldemort and pretending like him being immortal made him stronger? sure, he was paranoid about death, Dumbledore outright out of his mouth said Voldemort was the best student Hogwarts has ever seen. Dumbledore isn't going to say shit out of his ass he knows from experience. Gellert was equal to Dumbledore in the past, as it was shown he was better than him when he beat Gellert who had possession of the elder wand. your post is assumptions, you are assuming without the immortality he is just going to be crushed under pressure and run. this duel isn't a duel unless Gellert has the elder wand. since Dumbledore after beating Grindelwald was much stronger after that fight and Voldemort pretty much bested Dumbledore who was in possession of the greatest wand.

You should be ashamed of yourself and locked up, for making an idiotic post saying Voldemort is as weak as when he fought harry. Stay off the drugs.

I'm really trying to be respectful here but your rudeness is annoying and unwarranted.

My post is assumption based but is still warranted with respect. A person's addittude towards a fight can change the outcome, every person knows this. Every basketball, soccer, boxing, fencing, archery, football, swimming and MMA coach will tell you that if you're having doubts you'll be more susceptible to loss. Think about why Voldemort let his underlings kill Dumbledore rather than going and killing him, it's clear he could've found a way into the school but he simply didn't go to fight. And yes I believe without his tricks and horcruxes to protect him Voldemort wouldn't fight anyone on Dumbledore's level. He's always brought a shield into a sword fight, without it he'd have nothing to protect him.

And just because Voldemort was a the best student doesn't mean he's the best fighter. Mike Tyson can read every book on earth about MMA but if he hasn't practiced once then he's never gonna beat someone like Brock Lesner. Experience is a big fighting factor and Voldemort only fought people massively weaker or those who he could catch off guard.

And in case you didn't realize the elder wand isn't a way to stomp in fights, at this current moment we don't even know how Dumbledore beat Grindlewald. All we know is a young and agile Dumbledore fought a Grindlewald who didnt even want to fight him. And before you say something... No Grindlewald didn't want to attack Dumbledore and he made it perfectly clear.

And yes, without the horcruxes Voldemort wouldn't be at full strength. I don't get why you'd assume such a dumb thing. The warlock who you clearly believe is unstoppable was beaten by Harry Potter and kids not even a third of his age. All of you Voldemort fan boys forget that horcruxes are a big game changer in the series and made Voldemort feared. If Horcruxes are not in this match then Voldemort doesn't have the massive edge that he had from before the series began to the end. If you actually look back then you'd know that Voldemort depended on his horcruxes like crutches.

He was never beaten in fair combat. Dumbledore says Voldemort is the best student, so I have no reason to disregard his comment. you are making up stuff, either show me proof where it said Voldemort is weak without his Horcruxes or concede on that comment.

Occam's Razor says Voldemort is the best.

Avatar image for hypnos0929
#190 Posted by Hypnos0929 (6322 posts) - - Show Bio

@mygod101: Voldemort was the best student yet still got beaten by Harry Potter, and he lost because his horcruxes were all destroyed.

Avatar image for arkhamasylum3
#191 Edited by ArkhamAsylum3 (2762 posts) - - Show Bio

@hypnos0929 said:

@mygod101: Voldemort was the best student yet still got beaten by Harry Potter, and he lost because his horcruxes were all destroyed.

Yeah he lost because he was using a wand which point blank refused to hurt Harry not because he was an inferior wizard. Voldemort is canonically more powerful than Grindelwald per Pottermore.

@mygod101 I'm gonna be away for a few days. I'll be back on Sunday and will most likely respond to you then.

Avatar image for mygod101
#192 Posted by MYGOD101 (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@hypnos0929: ….That had nothing to do with Voldemort powers, He lost because Harry had a double protection spell, which Voldemort could never get around as well as the Elder wand Voldemort was using was Harry's. How in the world do that response change what I said about Voldemort not losing in a fair duel? Again, Occam's Razor says Voldemort is better duelist. I seriously expected better of you than this.

@arkhamasylum3:Okay, take as much time as you need man it all good.