Why Harry Potter couldn't defeat Voldemort discussion thread.

[Lex-kat]

Quoted form Admiral Kelly's previous thread:

Without the use of a Deus Ex Machina (or Chekov's Gun, which does not make it any less of a cop-out) Harry cannot defeat Voldemort. Let us review:

Book 1: Harry used the 'power of love' and a trick from Dumbledore to defeat Voldemort.
Book 2: Fawkes came just when things were at their worst.
Book 3: No Voldemort.
Book 4: The stupid twin Phoenix wands.
Book 5: Harry does overcome Voldemort mentally, but only 'wins' because
Book 6: No Voldemort.
Book 7: Wands act completely differently then anything ever said or done before, to the point where Harry convinces Voldemort's wand to backfire on him.

This does not include the fact he survived the Adava Kedavra twice - a spell which a wizard is suppose to be undefended against except by running out of the way.

So I ask my fellow playgrounders this question: Is there any conceivable way Harry could have beaten Voldemort in a one on one match each armed with a wand and no extraordinary circumstances of any sort such as the ones listed above?

This is a discussion thread. NOT a vs. thread. Thank you.

[Eerie]

Originally Posted by Lex-kat

So I ask my fellow playgrounders this question: Is there any conceivable way Harry could have beaten Voldemort in a one on one match each armed with a wand and no extraordinary circumstances of any sort such as the ones listed above?

No.

It is kind of the POINT of the book. "Good defeats evil", not "superior firepower defeats inferior firepower".

[Fri]

No. The only wizard in voldemort's power level is dumbledore. And even he prefer to use stealth and crafty tactics. Dumbly is the strongest good magician in the modern world. And for some reason even he can't/won't fight voldemort straight.

Harry is what? A student? There's tons of better wizard than he. Even a mid/low rank auror is better than him in magical power.

[Gaelbert]

I've always thought the whole deal about the power of love and that cliched nonsense was ridiculous. What Voldemort needed was a nice gun, a revolver. Voldy was born into the Muggle world, he could have realized that.

[DomaDoma]

Originally Posted by Eerie

No.

It is kind of the POINT of the book. "Good defeats evil", not "superior firepower defeats inferior firepower".

This. And much more succinctly than I was going to put it.

Also: Chekhov's Gun is more or less by definition less of a cop-out than a deus ex machina.

[warty goblin]

Originally Posted by Lex-kat

[b][size="4"]
So I ask my fellow playgrounders this question: Is there any conceivable way Harry could have beaten Voldemort in a one on one match each armed with a wand and no extraordinary circumstances of any sort such as the ones listed above?

Well, if I were Harry, I would go about the problem in the following ways.

1) Publically challenge Voldemort to a duel.

2) Get Hermione/Dumbledore to help me create a spell that transfigures dirt into a main battle tank.

3) Arrive at dueling grounds, evade Voldemort's spells, create main battle tank.

4) Load Cannister.

5) Aim

6) Fire

7) ???

8) Profit

Short of similar cheese I don't see how it could be done though.

[Oslecamo]

Originally Posted by coolgaelbert

I've always thought the whole deal about the power of love and that cliched nonsense was ridiculous. What Voldemort needed was a nice gun, a revolver. Voldy was born into the Muggle world, he could have realized that.

You're forgeting that when the matter is Harry potter, Voldy's brain shrinks to subatomic level.

Minion:Congratulations, my lord, you have sucessfully taken over the wizard government, leaving your path to supreme power and world domination open.

Voldemort:Yes, but first, I need to take care of Harry Potter.

Minion:My lord, please let us expendable minions take care of him.

Voldemort:No! I'll kill him with my own wand!

Minion:My lord, with all due respect, you already tried that twice and your wand backfired both times for some unknown reason. With great prejudice for your evilness Maybe you could give us a chance of killing the kid, instead of risking your own neck!

Voldemort:Nonsense! I'll be the one killing the boy who lived!

Minion:So, at least, my lord, could try to kill Potter with some other mean than avadra kedrava? Since it never seems to work on him?

Voldemort:O'rlly?(kills minion)

What really annoys me it's that it isn't a unique case. Every time Voldy tries to kill Harry with the killing curse something goes horribly wrong. He should be smart enough to try something new by the 7th book's ending.

[Texas_Ben]

Originally Posted by Fri

And for some reason even he can't/won't fight voldemort straight.

If I recall correctly, the one time voldy and dumbledore fought it out, Dumbledore more than held his own.

[Fri]

Ah yeah. Now I remember. Can someone refresh my memory on why dumbledore never simply blast voldemort with his awesome magic power?

[CrazedGoblin]

Originally Posted by coolgaelbert

I've always thought the whole deal about the power of love and that cliched nonsense was ridiculous. What Voldemort needed was a nice gun, a revolver. Voldy was born into the Muggle world, he could have realized that.

would of made the films better atleast

[EvilDMMk3]

Originally Posted by DomaDoma

This. And much more succinctly than I was going to put it.

Also: Chekhov's Gun is more or less by definition less of a cop-out than a deus ex machina.

A Chekhov's Gun is more of less by definition not a cop-out at all.

[freerangetroll]

Originally Posted by Fri

Ah yeah. Now I remember. Can someone refresh my memory on why dumbledore never simply blast voldemort with his awesome magic power?

Somebody correct me if I am wrong because it has been a while. Basically nobody can kill Voldy (at leas permanently) while he has a Horucrux that contains a piece of him still alive or intact. So Dumbledore could have blasted at him until the cows came home with no real result.

[Plactus]

Originally Posted by Fri

Ah yeah. Now I remember. Can someone refresh my memory on why dumbledore never simply blast voldemort with his awesome magic power?

Because Harry was a Horcrux. After Thingy used Harry's blood in the resurrection spell in Goblet of Fire, he could hit Harry with the Killing Curse without killing him, but still destroying the piece of his own soul that lived inside Harry. As Thingy was the only one who could do so, Dumbledore wanted to keep him alive until he did, so Harry wouldn't have to die.

Presumably, the reason Dumbledore kept Thingy from killing Harry in Order of the Phoenix was to keep Thingy from realizing how much Dumbledore knew/guessed about him and/or to preserve the mental link between Harry and Thingy.

[Dragonprime]

Originally Posted by freerangetroll

Somebody correct me if I am wrong because it has been a while. Basically nobody can kill Voldy (at leas permanently) while he has a Horucrux that contains a piece of him still alive or intact. So Dumbledore could have blasted at him until the cows came home with no real result.

Still, almost dead and incorporeal Voldemort is a lot better than a fully powerful Voldermort. It would have at least given Dumbledore more time to get rid of the Horcruxes. And Voldemort wouldn't have been free wreak havoc.

[EvilElitest]

insanity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. Voldemort is insane
from
EE

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Evil Elitest has it down straight.

[LordVader]

No way. Picture Voldemort as the Spartans from 300; even the best Persians can't confront the Spartans head-on, so

Spoiler

they have to sneak around back and beat them through tricks.

.

Even Dumby couldn't take Voldemort head-on all the time.

[Texas_Ben]

Originally Posted by Plactus

Because Harry was a Horcrux. After Thingy used Harry's blood in the resurrection spell in Goblet of Fire, he could hit Harry with the Killing Curse without killing him, but still destroying the piece of his own soul that lived inside Harry. As Thingy was the only one who could do so, Dumbledore wanted to keep him alive until he did, so Harry wouldn't have to die.

Presumably, the reason Dumbledore kept Thingy from killing Harry in Order of the Phoenix was to keep Thingy from realizing how much Dumbledore knew/guessed about him and/or to preserve the mental link between Harry and Thingy.

I forgot about the horcruxes. Honestly I only vaguely remember what happened in book 5 and books 6 and 7 were a blur to me, due to the fact that they were bloated with a lot of stuff that did *not* need to be in there. I mean book 7 was basically "they sit in a tent" [/rant].

Anyways I'm going to have to agree with the above rather than dumbledore was incapable of beating voldy in a stand-up fight. I mean voldy is what? in his 50's? 60's? I may be misremembering but isn't Dumbledore implied to be several hundred years of age? Seems to me dumbledore would be able to have tracked down quite a bit more knowledge in his time.

[EvilElitest]

Originally Posted by Gwyn_ap_Nud

Evil Elitest has it down straight.

voldemort's motto- If it worked once, try it again......and again....and again. If it doesn't work, just keep trying, your will get it eventually
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

Hey, did they lock the previous thread?

[chiasaur11]

Originally Posted by Mr. Scaly

Hey, did they lock the previous thread?

Yeah, but with a note it was problems with the first poster, not the current form of the thread.

[kpenguin]

Originally Posted by EvilElitest

voldemort's motto- If it worked once, try it again......and again....and again. If it doesn't work, just keep trying, your will get it eventually
from
EE

Perhaps Voldemort thought that Potter was like a skull: if you keep bashing it in, it'll eventually give way and all the delicious juice will come out.

...

Coconut. I meant coconut.

[EvilElitest]

Originally Posted by kpenguin

Perhaps Voldemort thought that Potter was like a skull: if you keep bashing it in, it'll eventually give way and all the delicious juice will come out.

...

Coconut. I meant coconut.

yeah, certainly. We won't judge you.......nope
from
EE

[Dumbledore lives]

Voldemort figured that using the killing curse on Harry while he was undefended should have worked. It didn't. I think it should have worked, and Harry should have dies, but that's for a different time. harry is not exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch either. He dove into a freezing cold lake with almost nothing on, with a horcrux on on less. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that is stupid. Without Chekov's gun Harry would have easily lost, he's just not that great of a wizard.

[RMS Oceanic]

Voldemort is kinda like Xykon: he has a one-track mind and only respects raw magical power. When Harry's wand did the crazy golden thing to Lucius' wand, Voldemort's first reaction was "This wand isn't powerful enough" and went looking for the +5 wand, unlike considering it was maybe Harry himself that was the problem.

Yes, Harry would have lost in a straight, proper duel, but just saying Harry has enough raw power to defeat Voldemort isn't particularly interesting. Some people say Rowling is an average writer, but whatever way you slice it, she's a master plot weaver, and it's these various artifacts of Chekov that makes the story interesting.

[Ditto]

I was actually quite okay with Harry not dying each of those times (at age 1 and at the end of Book 7), since the power of love gets ONE freebie awesome spotlight moment, and the horcrux thing really did make sense. It didn't make sense why Harry became a horcrux in the first place, but given that he was... it's cool.

I also thought the way the Elder Wand worked in Harry/Thingy's final duel was brilliant and makes everyone happy by killing the bad guy without Harry being nasty (though I think Molly Weasley totally killed Bellatrix...). The big problem THERE is that through a SUDDEN and INEXPLICABLE BURST OF PLOT EXPOSITION, Harry explained the entire lore and changing of hands of the Elder Wand which Voldemort had been trying to figure out for 7 books and most of his adult and evil life. WTW is that all about?

There's no question Voldemort would pants Harry in a straight-up fight.
Dumbledore didn't fight Voldemort because he never came out and made himself available. When he did in book 5, Dumbledore fought him to a standstill... and he ran away. If Dumbledore had actually gone on the offensive, I'd say he would have won decisively.

Beyond that, Snape would be the number 3 magicker. McGonagall is the top witch, so I don't know how that would match vis-a-vis Snape, but add Kingsley in there and you have the top 5 square. Harry is a mediocre wizard (Ron equally so), and it sort of scares me that he/they rise to the top of the Auror office. Book 7 should have been called, "Harry Potter and the Needlessly Long Camping Trip, or How Hermione Wins Again" - so I'm eh on Hermione becoming a bookish lawyer gal when she should be showing off more.

[EvilElitest]

logically through, voldemort should have used that evil Fey Fire stuff in that last fight
from
EE

[Linkavitch]

Originally Posted by warty goblin

Well, if I were Harry, I would go about the problem in the following ways.

1) Publically challenge Voldemort to a duel.

2) Get Hermione/Dumbledore to help me create a spell that transfigures dirt into a main battle tank.

3) Arrive at dueling grounds, evade Voldemort's spells, create main battle tank.

4) Load Cannister.

5) Aim

6) Fire

7) ???

8) Profit

Short of similar cheese I don't see how it could be done though.

I like this explanation.

[Beholder1995]

Originally Posted by warty goblin

Well, if I were Harry, I would go about the problem in the following ways.

1) Publically challenge Voldemort to a duel.

2) Get Hermione/Dumbledore to help me create a spell that transfigures dirt into a main battle tank.

3) Arrive at dueling grounds, evade Voldemort's spells, create main battle tank.

4) Load Cannister.

5) Aim

6) Fire

7) ???

8) Profit

Short of similar cheese I don't see how it could be done though.

That... er... might work, but I doubt Voldemort would respond to being publically challenged to a duel. He just doesn't come off as the type who cares about that sort of thing.

[Rare Pink Leech]

Originally Posted by Eerie

No.

It is kind of the POINT of the book. "Good defeats evil", not "superior firepower defeats inferior firepower".

I don't think it's the "good defeats evil" that people are complaining about. It's the "good defeats evil only because good always defeats evil" that feels like a cop out, not "good defeats evil based on its merits".