Dumbledore or Gandalf

We had a big debate during theater practice as to who would win a fair and straight fight? XD Dumbledore won 3 against Gandalf's 2 but we had 2 people who said that it would be a tie (Which is a bore and they just... yea. I am not going to say that.) So... I want to know who you think can win! Is it Professor Dumbledore or is it Gandalf the Grey/White? ^.^ Vote wisely...

 

XD DUMBLEDORE WON THAT RAP BATTLE! Seriously... he did. "You shall not past. I rap fast like Shadowfax." AAANG!

Saying that Gandalf gave the Middle Finger to death is so irrelevant.If you read the book and/or watch the movie o did your research/studies, you would understand that Gandalf was actually brought back by a mystical supreme God in called Eru (Actually known as The One in the main series. Named Eru in the side-stories called The Similliarion). However, it is in the second movie that Gandalf stated that he was brought back by someone. If he was not brought back, then he would've been dead. Just dead. If you still want to say that he stuck a middle finger at death, then Dumbledore could have done the same thing: With Horcruxes. That is a sure way to cheat death; he did not want to do that with his good nature.

Harry Potter is solely and is heavily magic-based. Lord of the Rings hardly has any magic at all. The only magic-wielders that we know is Gandalf, Sauron and Sarumon. Can the elves use magic, I highly doubt it but if so, the only magic that they know is the passive ability to live as long as they want unless they die in battle. To try to say that magic in Harry Potter when it comes to fighting is not useful when you hardly even see any magic being used in Lord of The Rings at all in battle is wrong.

Now, let us go on to Gandalf:

As I had said above, there is hardly any magic being used in the whole series. On Gandalf's strengths, he can use, he can dual-wield both weapons. With magic when he was Grey and White, he can use: Illumination, magical kinesis (Push back enemies), Call on Gwaihir, Lightning Strike, Blinding Light, Shield of the Ishtari (Only defense spell), and his most powerful spell, Destructive Blast. He can also use fire. However, on his weaknesses, most of his spells relies on his staffs. Destructive Blast relies on the weapon. Not only that, you can see him in the movies where he tends to fight at close-range. Also in the movies, he lost a fight against the Witch King and there is a spell that deactivates and destroys his staff. You don't need to know a word to destroy the weapon. You can destroy the staff with a spell or an attack like Balrog in Fellowship destroying his old staff. -__- He is lacking in attacks anyways. We never eve see him fight against Sarumon (Which would've bee cool...).

Before I get to Dumbledore, Desert, you have no proof that a gun can outbeat a wand. Depending a the wielder, the wand can always say Protego; the wielder do't even have to say the word and can still cast the spell faster. Anyways, in Harry Potter, there are countless spells at the wizards disposal. A wizard can eve create their own spells (As provided in the Half-Blooded Price with Snape). How many spells does Dumbledore know, I do not know but he can know as may as he wants. Also, he has Fawkes so in case Gandalf would try to call on a beast, Fawkes will keep that beast at bay to even the battle. As for death, it doesn't really matter. He was going to die anyways because of the ring that he was trying to destroy that had the horcrux so he actually told Snape as to how to plan out his death. Also, may we also give him props i actually being able to stand up against Voldemort and can eve be greater than his equal. He also defeated Grindlewald, his former friend. In his time, he is arguably one of the most powerful of wizards and he also has the Elder Wad during that time. He is actually capable of great intellect and even if he did not have the Elder Wand, his power would still out rival many a wizard.

May I also point out that he can make himself invisible, read minds through Occlumency.

I will continue on this later because I have practice but all of you ca see that from the information that I have given, Dumbledore is very capable of fighting against Gandalf and winning.

 

Because unlike Horcruxes, which can be made by a wizard at any time and if they will it, Eru is a god. For Gandalf, to me, that is just luck and that is just like a "I will give you a second chance to protect Middle Earth." Eru did not even have to do that. Gandalf would have just stayed dead. Besides, eve if he did survive, he did not actually "flip off" death, the person/supreme being that resurrected him actually did all of the work. Gandalf HIMSELF did not flip him off because of backup. I believe that they need to 100% cheat death all by themselves. That is how I see it. Lord Voldemort and Harry Potter are good examples.


As for the other wizards/maiars, that can be a possibility but the problem is that there were no other wizards who had even participated in the war. There may be lesser wizards but from how everything has been handled and fought, it seems as though the magic in Lord of the Rings was going into extinction. Also, it is wrong to even say that the magic of Harry Potter is not useful, period. Now if it is about the wizard and how that particular wizard can handle the situation, that is understandable but knowing that there are many a spell that can take care of almost any problems is wrong.

Back to Gandalf since you are missing the point. The only magic/abilities that he can use without the staff is theh ability to call Gwaihir, use the Sword of Power with his sword, ride Shadowfax, Blinding Light (Possibly), Fire (Which can only be used in non-combat like lighting up fire crackers. XD). All the other spells rely on the staff in order to be cast. Without the staff, those great spells that he use can never be cast. Now, can he cast the spell without the staff, it is possible but we have never seen that happen and there is no evidence or information that claims that he can. Also, if he is that awesome, then we could end up seeing a second fight between him and the Witch-King but since he lost that fight against him, I do not think that he is that awesome since the Witch-King is supposedly weaker than him, yet he still was able to destroy his staff and send him flying off of his horse.

As for Dumbledore, if you can remember, Fawkes did fight before. Fawkes went on to help fight against the Basilisk in the book and the movie and in the book, Fawkes protected Dumbledore from the Killing Curse. As for the death, it is only of relevance to death and as to how the two are in the near-death stage. Nothing more.

Now onto Dumbledore since you are still missing out the point. With Grindlewald, he had the Elder Wand at that point. When Dumbledore defeated him, he became the new owner of the elder wand. Shouldn't that show you that Dumbledore can use any other wands that he want to use besides the Elder Wand since he is strong enough by himself to use without it? When he fought against Voldemort, you can see for yourself, when you read the book and/or watch the movie. He can trap Voldemort in water, turn the glass into sprinkling water, fought off against a fiery snake spell created by Voldemort, need I say more? Voldemort and Dumbledore are two of the most powerful wizards in that time and Dumbledore can hold his own. Gandalf never did fight Sarumon or Sauron... the only battle that you can only think of him that can be great would be him and the Balrog.

Now more on Dumbledore. Dumbledore has a great intellect. He is very strategic and he also had a master plan. Even after he died, his plan still worked for it to be able to help Harry to defeat Voldemort. He also believe that magic is love and to knock down the statement "Gandalf flips the middle finger at death" he stated that "There are far worse things than death", showing that he is more wise than what he appears to be. As for duels, he can make himself invisible at any time if he wishes and that is even without an invisibility cloak. He also know occlumency and legimency, allowing him to read and interprets ones thoughts. If he uses this against Gandalf, he will be able to know as to what he would try to do and know how to counter-attack. he can also use his spells without a wand. Not saying that Gandalf cannot use a spell without his staff and that he can use a sword but Dumbledore can use his hands to still keep Gandalf at bay and like I say before, Gandalf is more of a close-range fighter.

Another great feat of Dumbledore is when he can create his own spells. He is the creator of the Deluminator and he created a way to communicate through patronus' charms. Not only that, he can apparate, allowing him to avoid and dodge spells and to let him move from one place to another.

Now, as you can see, compared from all of the information that I know and found on Gandalf and compared it to Dumbledore on what I know and found on him, you can see that Dumbledore has a vast amount of knowledge, experience and skill. You can try to say that a full-blown destructive blast would annihilate him but Dumbledore can just apparate or use the Protego spell, disarm him quickly or use any other protection spells to go head on against Gandalf. Not saying that Gandalf is not good at fighting but to say that Gandalf will win in a fight against Dumbledore when you are not looking in their background, the whole picture and what they are capable will not be able to prove anything.

 

I don't even care if the 2,000 year old wizard is equivalent to an angel. Plus, if you are saying that the Witch-King is more powerful than him, then you are saying and proving to me that a man can be more powerful than a god/ any other higher being. As for spells, I do not even care if his spells are even stronger, Dumbledore's spells are quick and easy and he can avoid getting hit. As for the Balrog, the Balrog most likely cannot even defeat a wizard from the Harry Potter universe and trying to say that Lord Voldemort cannot defeat it is more like a joke to me. All the tow of them just have to do is to just use a water spell to dose it and take away its tail and boom. Also, you cannot deny the fact that Dumbledore did a lot in his time, so much than what Gandalf did. Look and compare both of their backgrounds, see what they did and what they had accomplish.

As for occlumency and legitimency, there is nothing absurd with it. If there is, then it must be something that needs to be more studied. Yes, I believe that it can be used in the heat of battle. Plus, if Dumbledore do like what Voldemort do to harry and interfere and attempt to control him, then it would make the battle more easier. Still, Dumbledore can always just use the abilities to just anticipate as to what moves Gandalf would do next. As for Fawkes, he can be commanded by Dumbledore to go and help Harry in the Chamber of Secrets. Plus, the two can just speak to each other mentally. This is what I can assume. I don't think that words are needed physically to show that an animal can carry out a mission but the part about the free will can be true too.

As for apparation, do know that Dumbledore is not an average wizard and he can use so many spells that takes him little to no concentration so apparating out of the way wouldn't be a problem for him. Still, you and Noz want to say that Gandalf would win because he is a higher being. So? Just because you are a higher being does not mean that you would win. Would you have stronger attacks, yes but that doesn't show anything. He got his butt beat by a corrupted human and Sauron working through the Witch-King was beaten by a woman. Sauron also had his butt whooped by that one king when he was at full strength at one time. Sauron too is a higher being. If you look at Dumbledore, regardless that he is human, he didn't even lose a battle or barely even lose any battles and his sells are great. Plus, a lot of people fear and respect him and know who he truly is just by his background and what he is capable of and how he can fight. A great human wizard vs... a firecracking angel... woooow...

 

XD A gun is not going to work. Period. Well... in my mind it won't but with conditions. As for spells within the Harry Potter series (Books and movies. If you want to throw in video games, be my guest. I included the books, movies and the video games for Gandalf), there are actually more than 30 and more than half of those are actually battle spells from where I am looking at.

And here we are going right back to death... Gandalf was real strained from fighting against the Balrog so that is what he intentionally died from. Really, who would not get strained and stressed from a more than a week's worth of fighting? As for Dumbledore, he knew the cost as to what would happen if he would try to destroy a horcrux. Both wizards knew the cost and both wizards knew and wanted to risk their lives. That I can applaud for both of them. Gandalf risked his life to save his group and Dumbledore risked his life to help Harry defeat Voldemort.

As for overrall abilities, if we are going for that, Dumbledore will still win regardless. As for years, I really do not care for that. Dumbledore may ibe in his late 100's but he still knew a lot in the Wizard history.

 

Oh puh-lease. The only proof that Desert and Wayward has to back up is that

1. Gandalf is a higher being.
2. He is over 2,000 years old.
3. He has very powerful spells.
4. He can dual wield.

From the way I am reading, it seems as though you all are being in denial of what Dumbledore has over Gandalf. I am not denying everything that Gandalf can do but that doesn't mean that Gandalf can actually beat him just based off of those four. Out of all of the versions, books, movies and video games, those spells that I had mentioned came from those three. Gandalf's spells is not able to cover EVERY single compartment that the spells created and made in Harry Potter covers. Now, not saying that Gandalf's do not have some kind of advantage. I do believe that Gandalf can have some sort of advantage with a sword but like I had added on earlier, you only tend to see him fighting at close range. Gandalf is more of the power-hitter and is more versed in power, which I can understand. That is his main strength. However, as for him freeing King Theoden, you do not know if he can do that on himself if someone tries to control him. We know that he can free someone but we do not have enough evidence or proof that his spell can be worked on himself, compared to Harry Potter's version where it is shown that a wizard can use the spell to free themselves from someone trying to control them. Also, I had stated that most of his spells requires his staff in order for that spell to be active. Without the staff, the spell will not be able to be cast. The weapon is like the mediator. The weapon gives you that extra boost. There can be a couple of spells that Gandalf can use without the staff but without that weapon, it is impossible (Unless he knows a way how to cast them). As for him being 2,000 years old, I don't even care. You can learn how to draw for 5 years in a particular art class or take Baseball training and you can still suck. To me, age doesn't even matter, especially in battle.

And I am getting ready to shut down this "If you are some type of higher being, then you will never lose a battle" chant that you guys have made for Gandalf but since I have already proved my point with the Witch-King and others, I might as well show some examples. Let us go with Kefka from Final Fantasy VI. He became a god. WHOO HOO! He destroyed the city and he was ready to destroyed the world; he still got his butt whooped by averaged humans. Let us look at Ultimecia. A woman who took on the powers of a sorceress (Which is like having an upgrade into a higher being). She gain so much power that she almost completed Time Compression; she still got whooped by humans. Then there goes the God of War game. Zeus is an almighty god of Olympus. Kronos was just an average human at that time and he was ready to have revenge. Zeus went and lost a battle against Kronos and Kronos became the God of War. This is why I am not all that high and so convinced about the status of Gandalf about being a demi-god or an angel or some sort. At the end, you can still get beat by someone who can be better than you regardless of position, power or title.

Before I can get onto Dumbledore, let me shut the theory up about the gun. I do not care how fast that bullet within that trigger can go, if you do not have any aim, it is not going anywhere! If that gun cannot hit a target when it is standing there, let alone if the target is moving, that bullet is not going to hit bull's eye. This is true for the wand wielder and the gun wielder: No aim, no damage. If you just flap your wrists/hands around and just randomly shoot, you will just waste some bullets (Fortunately for the wizard, there is no limit in magic casting). Not only that, the target is able to move and the distance between the target and the shooter counts too. That is why I kept on saying that a wizard is able to cast a defensive spell and as to why it is easier for them to outbeat a gun wielder because of the distance. That and when wizards actually cast a spell, the spell tend to go more straight (To me it does). In other words, yes, a wizard can dodge a bullet, even if it is moving at the speed of light. Why? That bullet does not have any aim. Once the gun wielder runs out of bullets (Which is mainly and commonly 6), then they are more vulnerable from any attacks as they try to add some more ammo.

Now onto Dumbledore. I have already stated out the variety of what he can do. Now, let us take out the weapons. If you take out his wand, then he is left with just using his magic wandlessly. However, he can still use magic non-verbally and it is still possible to cast magic without a wand. Why? Whenever you use a spell without a wand, you use specific hand gestures and you can guide the spell towards your target like you would with a wand. It is common among underaged wizards who do not know how to control their magic before they come to Hogwarts and you even see the wandless stage with the goblins and the elves. With wizards, they should be able to be disciplined and powerful. Since Dumbledore is strong enough to use magic without a wand, his hands can be a wand if he want if something ever happens to his weapon. There is no denial in this. Oh yes. If we want to go into background, Dumbledore would win the Noble Peace Prize. I have already provided what he did in his life. Enough said. Just wanted to get that out. Not going back on this any more about background.

Do I need to say more? I still have a lot of evidence and examples to back me up because in all honesty, Dumbledore has more of an advantage over Gandalf than Gandalf does over Dumbledore. Gandalf is more versed in power. Dumbledore is more versed in quick attacks, largest assortment of spells, and great concentration.

 

My bad for misreading about the Witch-King part but seriously, Balrog is one who used flames. -__- You cannot deny that when you saw it at the ending of the Fellowship of The Ring. There is nothing stupid about the saying. Water can douse fire, right? There is nothing stupid about that. Use water to make the fighting easier on yourself so that you will not get burnt into a crisp.

I never did ignore any of your statements. I agree about the abilities that Gandalf can have over Dumbledore and I even agree that having few spells doesn't mean that one can lose. I understood your statements but there are flaws in that. Still, you try to act as though my theories and my presumptions along with facts that I had actually found are ridiculous themselves but they are actually possible and true themselves. To me, you are trying to find ways to show that Gandalf is way more superior when he actually isn't. Both of them had their weaknesses and strengths and what they actually did and I am showing you everything. As for concentration itself, yes, concentration is concentration but what you are forgetting is how much concentration is needed and required. Does it differ? Does it varies with each person? Is it the same regardless? You seem to have forgotten that part. Concentration applies to everyone, including Gandalf himself and to correct you just a little bit, Gandalf's powers wasn't really sealed. He actually just learned some new spells when he went from Grey to the White.

Now onto mind control. No, I never did say that anyone not of the Harry Potter realm will lose their immunity/resistance against mind control. Do not try to twist my words and act like I said that. What I was saying is that we never actually see if Gandalf can actually use a spell that will help him resist. When I saw Gandalf free the king, that is more like a spell that would kick out the controller out of an ally. I do not know if that would work on himself. Same thing with the Harry Potter. We can see that the spell to resist mind control can work on the user; it all depends on the power of the two and we do not even know if it can work on freeing allies. In all honesty, Occlumency and Legitimency are more suited outside of battle really but if it is ever to be used in battle, then it is possible to make the battle harder.

Anyways, I have stated about the age because of the great, big age difference between the two. Nothing more. Plus, I believe in how much you get from your training itself that you gain wisdom and experience. ??? And you must be getting frustrated or going cuckoo. I never did say that I was going to close down the thread. I say that I was going to keep the talk about "If you are a god, then you are awesome" statement down to a close. Besides, I am voicing out my own opinion, facts on both remarkable wizards (I have nothing against Gandalf. I like him too but when it comes to battling, I have to rely on the elements from their own respective realms). Since I have brought up that statement, you saying that I never thought about the laws of the series that they came from is wrong. I always thought about the elements and laws that they came from. As for humans or mortals being able to defeat a divine being, I say that there is always a possibility. In other words, it will bring a challenge. I will go with yes. If I have to go more realistic, let me bring up another example. Goliath was a tall giant. He was a powerful Champion. As for the children, they brought up a child called David. Compared by the two, David is weak-looking and Goliath is this big brute. However, Goliath, regardless of his great skills with a sword and his power, still lost to a mere child.

And no, we are not really getting off topic so let us go back into the gun vs wand wielder theory. As for the 6, that is the least amount of bullets that I know that a person used (Or at least that is what I have seen) and I have only used a gun once (-___- And I am not talking about a water gun either). I knew that it is twelve but had to say 6 (Since that is somewhat a reasonable number to start off with. If not, oh well. I should have started off with the regular number). I still had to count aim in this but even so, I would like to state this one last thing: Why compare a gun against the fictional Harry Potter? Remember when I brought up about casting a spell non-verbally? That is how I think any person can beat a person who has a gun (Form my point of view) but that is only based on how fast they can really cast that defensive spell of theirs. If you remember seeing the wizard battles, you would see how fast ( and I mean really fast. Mrs. Weasley vs Beatrix, Sirius vs Lucious Malfoy), can cast their defensive spell. It looks like it takes about several nanoseconds to about one second to cast a defensive spell. Now try using that gun against that same statement that I have just stated. That spell can really rival the speed of that bullet... if that person is not dumb and clumsy that is.

As for the wand, I have already stated that in my last post after I had said that Gandalf's staff is like the mediator. Wands are the mediator to enhance spell power and the perfection of casting. Still, there is one statement that I will take and will make you keep your word on: Luck can decide a battle. You want to gamble, then Gandalf better make sure that he doesn't get hit by a stunning spell or that Dumbledore does not get hit by lightning or a sword. Gandalf better bet on his luck that he does not get hit by a tickling charm or that Dumbledore does not get blasted away by Gandalf's most powerful of magic.


And just to let everyone know, I AM NOT A GANDALF HATER! I love Lord of The Rings just as much as the next person but really, I did all of the studying and research my own self so I most likely am knowing what I am talking about (But maybe not the others because of word choices or how I say them).